content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
It is known that hypersurfaces in $\CP^n$ or $\CH^n$ for which the number $g$ of distinct principal curvatures
satisfies $g \le 2$ must be members of the Takagi/Montiel lists of homogeneous Hopf hypersurfaces,
provided that $n \ge 3$. (See Theorems 4.6 and 4.7
of \cite{nrsurvey}). In particular, they must be Hopf. In this paper, we investigate the case $n=2$.
We first show in Theorem \ref{theorem1} that Hopf hypersurfaces
in $\CP^2$ or $\CH^2$ with $g\le 2$ must be in the Takagi/Montiel lists.
However, it turns out that there are also non-Hopf examples with $g \le 2$ and the rest of the paper will be devoted to studying them.
\begin{remark}
After the completion of this work we have learned of a preprint by D\'iaz-Ramos, Dom\'inguez-Vazquez and Vidal-Casti\~neira
\cite{DDV} where they classify hypersurfaces with two principal curvatures in $\CP^2$ and $\CH^2$ using the notion of
polar actions.
\end{remark}
In what follows, all manifolds are assumed connected and all manifolds and maps are assumed smooth ($C^\infty$)
unless stated otherwise.
The authors are grateful to the referee for reading the paper in great detail and making several valuable observations and suggestions which led to its improvement.
\section{Basic equations and results for hypersurfaces}
We follow the notation and terminology of \cite{nrsurvey}. $M^{2n-1}$ will be a hypersurface in a complex space form, either $\CP^n$ or $\CH^n$, of constant holomorphic sectional curvature $4c = \pm 4/r^2$. The locally defined field of unit normals is $\xi$, the structure vector field is $W = -J\xi$ and $\varphi$ is the tangential projection of the complex structure $J$. The holomorphic distribution consisting of all tangent vectors orthogonal to $W$ is denoted by $W^\perp$ and $\varphi^2 \bv = -\bv$ for all $\bv \in W^\perp$.
The shape operator $A$ of $M$ is defined by
$$
A \bv = -\widetilde\nabla_{\bv} \xi
$$
where $\widetilde\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection of the ambient space and $\bv$ is any tangent vector to $M$.
(It follows that $\varphi A X = \nabla_X W$ for any tangent vector $X$.)
The eigenvalues of $A$ are the principal curvatures and the corresponding eigenvectors and eigenspaces are said to be principal vectors and principal spaces. The function $\<A W, W\>$ is denoted by $\a$. If $W$ is a principal vector at all points of
$M$ (and so $AW = \a W$), we say that $M$ is a {\it Hopf hypersurface} and $\a$ is called the Hopf principal curvature. For a Hopf hypersurface, the Hopf principal curvature is constant. We state
the following fundamental facts (see Corollary 2.3 of \cite{nrsurvey}).
\begin{lemma}\label{fundamental}
Let $M$ be a Hopf hypersurface and let $X \in W^\perp$ be a principal vector with associated principal curvature $\lambda$.
Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$(\lambda - \frac{\a}{2}) A \varphi X = (\frac{\lambda \a}{2}+ c)\varphi X$;
\item
If $A \varphi X = \nu \varphi X$ for some scalar $\nu$, then $\lambda\nu = \frac{\lambda+\nu}{2}\a + c$;
\item
If $\nu = \l$ in (2), then $\nu^2 = \a\nu + c$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Takagi's list and Montiel's list}
There is a distinguished class of model hypersurfaces, which we list below. We use the established
nomenclature (types $A, B, C, D, E$ with subdivisions $A_0$, $A_1$, etc.) due to Takagi \cite {takagi}
and Montiel \cite{montiel}.
These lists consist precisely of the complete Hopf hypersurfaces with constant principal
curvatures in their respective ambient spaces as determined by Kimura \cite{kimura} and Berndt
\cite{Berndt}.
Equivalently, it is the list of homogeneous Hopf hypersurfaces, a fact which follows from the work of
Takagi \cite{takagi0} and Berndt \cite{Berndt}. Non-Hopf homogeneous hypersurfaces exist in $\CH^n$ but not in $\CP^n$.
{\bf Takagi's list for $\CP^n$}
\begin{itemize}
\item {($A_1$)} Geodesic spheres (which are also tubes over totally geodesic complex projective spaces $\CP^{n-1}$).
\item {($A_2$)} Tubes over totally geodesic complex projective spaces
$\CP^k , 1 \le k \le n-2$.
\item {($B$)} Tubes over complex quadrics (which are also tubes over totally geodesic real projective spaces $\R P^n$).
\item {($C$)} Tubes over the Segre embedding of $\C P^1 \times \C P^m$
where $2m+1=n$ and $n \ge 5$.
\item {($D$)} Tubes over the Pl\"ucker embedding of the complex Grassmann
manifold $G_{2, 5}$ (which occur only for $n = 9$).
\item {($E$)} Tubes over the canonical embedding of the Hermitian
symmetric space $SO(10)/U(5)$ (which occur only for $n = 15$).
\end{itemize}
Note that only types $A_1$ and $B$ can occur when $n=2$.
{\bf Montiel's list for $\CH^n$}
\begin{itemize}
\item {($A_0$)} Horospheres.
\item {($A_1$)} Geodesic spheres and tubes over totally geodesic complex
hyperbolic spaces $\CH^{n-1}$.
\item {($A_2$)} Tubes over totally geodesic complex hyperbolic spaces $\CH^k , 1 \le k \le n-2$.
\item {($B$)} Tubes over totally geodesic real hyperbolic spaces $\RH^n$.
\end{itemize}
Note that Type $A_2$ cannot occur when $n=2$.
\section {The Hopf Case}
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem1}
Let $M^3$ be a Hopf hypersurface in $\CP^2$ or $\CH^2$ with $g \le 2$ distinct principal
curvatures at each point.
Then $M$ is an open subset of a hypersurface in the lists of Takagi and Montiel.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It is well-known (see Theorem 1.5 of \cite{nrsurvey}) that umbilic hypersurfaces
cannot occur in $\CP^n$ or $\CH^n$. In fact, Hopf hypersurfaces cannot have umbilic points, since
by Lemma \ref{fundamental} the Hopf principal curvature $\a$ would have to satisfy
$\a^2 = \a^2 + c$ at such points.
Thus, when $n=2$ the multiplicity of $\a$ as a principal curvature is either 1 or 2 at each point $p\in M$, and by continuity
the multiplicity will be the same on an open set around $p$. Hence the set of points
where $\a$ has multiplicity 2, and the set of points where $\a$ has multiplicity 1
(which coincides with the set of points where the holomorphic subspace $W^\perp$ is principal),
are both open and closed in $M$. So, one set is empty and the other is all of $M$.
If $\a$ has multiplicity 2 on $M$, Lemma \ref{fundamental} shows that
$\a\nu = \a^2 + 2c$ where $\nu$ is the other principal curvature. Thus, if $\a^2 + 2c \ne 0$ then $\nu$ must be a nonzero constant,
while if $\a^2 + 2c =0$ then $\nu$ must be identically zero.
The classification of Hopf hypersurfaces with constant principal curvatures by Kimura \cite{kimura} and Berndt \cite{Berndt}
implies that $M$ is an open subset of a hypersurface in the Takagi/Montiel lists.
In fact, $M$ must be a Type $B$ hypersurface in $\CH^2$ (a tube around $\RH^2$) of radius $ru$ with $\coth u = \sqrt 3$.
The other possibility is that $\a$ has multiplicity 1 on $M$.
Then the other principal curvature satisfies $\nu^2 = \a \nu + c$ and so is constant.
Again, $M$ must be an open subset of a hypersurface in the Takagi/Montiel list, in this case Type $A_0$ (a horosphere in $\CH^2$) or Type $A_1$ (a geodesic sphere in $\CP^2$ or $\CH^2$, or a tube over a totally geodesic $\CH^1$ in $\CH^2$).
\end{proof}
\section{The non-Hopf case}\label{2pc}
Consider now a hypersurface $M$ in the ambient space $\X$ (either $\CP^2$ or $\CH^2$).
If $M$ is not Hopf, then $AW \ne \alpha W$ on a nonempty open subset of $M$, and we can construct the
{\em standard frame} $(W,X,Y)$ as follows. First, choose the unit vector field $X$
so that $A W= \alpha W + \beta X$ for a positive function $\beta$; then let $Y=\varphi X$.
Then $A$ is represented with respect to this frame by a matrix
\begin{equation}\label{shapematrix}
\begin{pmatrix} \alpha & \beta & 0 \\ \beta & \lambda & \mu \\ 0 & \mu & \nu\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda, \mu, \nu$ are also smooth functions.
\begin{prop}\label{algprop}
Let $M^3$ be a hypersurface in $\CP^2$ or $\CH^2$ and suppose that $AW \ne \alpha W$ on $M$. Then
there are $g \le 2$ distinct principal curvatures at each point if and only if
$\mu=0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{nucond}
\nu^2-(\alpha+\lambda)\nu + (\lambda\alpha - \beta^2) = 0.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since $AW \ne \alpha W$, the setup leading to \eqref{shapematrix} holds, and therefore $g \ge 2$ globally. Suppose now that
$g=2$ everywhere. We will construct the standard frame $(W,X,Y)$ in a slightly different way.
First, note that $W^\perp$ intersects the two-dimensional principal space in a one-dimensional subspace.
On any simply-connected domain in $M$, let $\widetilde Y$ be a unit principal vector field lying in $W^\perp$,
corresponding to the principal curvature $\nu$ of multiplicity 2. Let $\widetilde X = -\varphi \widetilde Y$.
Then $(W, \widetilde X, \widetilde Y)$ is a local orthonormal frame.
Since the span of $\{W, \widetilde X\}$ is $A$-invariant, $A$ is represented by a matrix
of the form \eqref{shapematrix}, with $\mu=0$. (Although $\beta$
was specified to be a positive function in \eqref{shapematrix}, this can easily be arranged by changing the sign of $Y$
if necessary.) Thus, we can drop the tildes on $X$ and $Y$.
Furthermore, $\nu$
must be an eigenvalue of the upper-left $2\times 2$ submatrix of $A$, from which the formula \eqref{nucond}
follows. The converse is trivial.
\end{proof}
Proposition \ref{algprop} implies that non-Hopf hypersurfaces with $g=2$ are part of a class of hypersurfaces
previously investigated by D\'iaz-Ramos and Dom\'inguez-Vazquez \cite{DD11} in the context of constant principal curvatures.
Namely, one defines a distribution $\H$ to be the span of $\{ W, AW, A^2 W, \ldots \}$. For each $x\in M$,
$\H_x \subset T_x M$ is the smallest subspace that contains $W_x$ and is invariant under $A$.
D\'iaz-Ramos and Dom\'inguez-Vazquez study hypersurfaces where $\H$ has constant rank 2. (This
is a generalization of the Hopf condition, under which $\H$ has constant rank one.)
Since from Proposition \ref{algprop} we have
$\mu=0$, it is clear that if $M$ is non-Hopf with $g=2$ then $\H$ has rank 2 for these hypersurfaces, but more is true:
\begin{theorem}\label{g2necess} Let $M$ be a hypersurface in $\X$ with $AW \ne \alpha W$ and
$g \le 2$ principal curvatures at each point.
Then $\H$ has rank 2, and is integrable. Furthermore, the derivatives of
components $\alpha, \beta, \lambda,$ and $\nu$ are zero along directions tangent to $\H$, and they satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{odesys}
\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{d\alpha}{ds} &= \beta(\alpha+\lambda-3\nu)\\
\dfrac{d\beta}{ds} &= \beta^2 + \lambda^2 +\nu(\alpha-2\lambda)+c\\
\dfrac{d\lambda}{ds} &= \dfrac{ (\lambda-\nu)(\lambda^2-\alpha\lambda-c)}{\beta} + \beta(2\lambda+\nu),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $d/ds$ stands for the derivative with respect to $Y$.
\end{theorem}
We will postpone the proof of this theorem until section \ref{edssect}.
Hypersurfaces in $\CP^2$ or $\CH^2$ with $\H$ of rank 2 and integrable
are discussed in section \ref{weakly}, where we prove the following existence result:
\begin{theorem}\label{constructor} Suppose $\alpha(s), \beta(s), \lambda(s), \nu(s)$ comprise a smooth solution of the underdetermined system
\eqref{odesys}, defined for $s$ in an open interval $I\subset \R$, and such that $\beta(s)$ is nonvanishing.
Then there exists a smooth immersion $\Phi:I\times \R^2\to \X$ determining a hypersurface $M$, equipped with
a standard frame $(W, X, Y)$, such that $\Phi$ maps the $\R^2$-factors onto leaves of $\H$.
The components of the shape operator are constant along these leaves and they coincide with the given solution.
Furthermore, the leaves are homogeneous and have Gauss curvature zero.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary} Suppose $\alpha(s), \beta(s), \lambda(s), \nu(s)$ satisfy the system
\eqref{odesys} and the algebraic condition \eqref{nucond}. Then the hypersurface constructed
by Theorem \ref{constructor} is a non-Hopf hypersurface with two distinct principal curvatures.
Conversely, every such hypersurface is locally of this form.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} The first statement follows immediately from Theorem \ref{constructor} and
the `if' part of Proposition \ref{algprop}. The second statement follows from the `only if'
part of the proposition and Theorem \ref{g2necess}.
\end{proof}
This last result shows that Theorems 4.6 and 4.7 of \cite{nrsurvey}, quoted at the beginning of section
\ref{intro}, do not extend to $n=2$. For, given initial values $\alpha_0, \beta_0, \lambda_0$ such that
$\beta_0\ne 0$, we can define a function
$F(\alpha,\beta,\lambda)$ on a neighborhood of this point in $\R^3$ such that $\nu=F(\alpha,\beta,\lambda)$ satisfies \eqref{nucond} identically.
Then substituting this for $\nu$ in the system \eqref{odesys} gives a determined system. Applying standard
existence theory for systems of ODE, and using our initial values at $s=0$, will yield a solution
$\alpha(s)$, $\beta(s)$, $\lambda(s)$ of \eqref{odesys} with $\nu(s) = F(\alpha(s), \beta(s), \lambda(s))$
(so that \eqref{nucond} is satisfied), and which is defined for $s$ on an open interval $I$ containing zero. Because the
system is autonomous, using the values $(\alpha(s_1), \beta(s_1), \lambda(s_1))$ for any nonzero $s_1 \in I$ as initial conditions
for the system will recover the same solution.
To summarize, there is a two-parameter family of solution trajectories $T$ for \eqref{odesys} which satisfy \eqref{nucond}
with $\beta$ non-vanishing. Each of these determines a non-Hopf hypersurface
$M_T$ with $g=2$, up to rigid motions. Conversely, given any non-Hopf hypersurface $M'$ with $g=2$ and $p_0 \in M'$,
we may use the components of the shape operator of $M'$ at $p_0$ as initial conditions to determine an $M_T$ which
is congruent to an open subset of $M'$ containing $p_0$.
\section{Moving Frames Calculations}\label{edssect}
In this section we will prove Theorem \ref{g2necess} using the techniques of moving frames
and exterior differential systems. Background material in this subject may be found in the
textbook \cite{cfb}. We begin by reviewing the geometric structure of the frame bundle that we will use.
An orthonormal frame $(e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4)$
at a point in $\X$ is defined to be unitary if $J e_1 = e_2$ and $J e_3 = e_4$.
We let $\F$ be the bundle of {\em unitary frames} on $\X$.
On $\F$ there are canonical forms $\w^i$ and connection forms $\w^i_j$ for $1\le i,j \le 4$. These have the
property that if $(e_1, e_2, e_3, e_4)$ is any local unitary frame field on $\X$ and $f$ is the corresponding local section
of $\F$, then the $f^*\w^i$ comprise the dual coframe field, and
$$\langle e_i, \widetilde\nabla_\bv e_j \rangle = \bv \intprod f^* \w^i_j$$
where $\widetilde\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection on $\X$ and $\bv$ is tangent to $M$. The connection forms satisfy $\w^i_j = -\w^j_i$, but also the {\em structure equations}
$$d\w^i = -\w^i_j \wedge \w^j, \qquad d\w^i_j = - \w^i_k \wedge \w^k_j + \Omega^i_j,$$
where $\Omega^i_j$ are the curvature 2-forms. The latter encode the curvature tensor of $\X$,
because for any local section,
$$
f^*\Omega^i_j = \tfrac12 R^i_{jk\ell} f^* (\w^k \wedge \w^\ell), \qquad R^i_{jk\ell} = \langle e_i, R(e_k,e_\ell) e_j\rangle.
$$
(The structure equations and their relation to the curvature tensor hold on the orthonormal
frame bundle of any Riemannian manifold; see \S2.6 in \cite{cfb}.)
Moreover, because $\X$ is a K\"ahler manifold and hence $J$ is parallel with
respect to $\widetilde\nabla$, we have
$$\w^3_1 = \w^4_2, \quad \w^3_2 = -\w^4_1,
$$
with similar relationships holding among the curvature 2-forms.
We will use 1-forms $\w^1, \ldots, \w^4$, $\w^2_1$, $\w^4_1$, $\w^4_2$, $\w^4_3$ as a (globally defined) coframe
on $\F$. In order to compute the exterior derivatives of these 1-forms, we will need to know the
curvature 2-forms. Using the fact that $\X$ is a space of constant holomorphic sectional curvature $c$, Theorem
1.1 in \cite{nrsurvey} implies that
\begin{align*}
\Omega^2_1 &= -c(4 \w^1 \wedge \w^2 + 2 \w^3 \wedge \w^4), &
\Omega^4_1 &= -c(\w^1 \wedge \w^4 - \w^2 \wedge \w^3), \\
\Omega^4_3 &= -c(2\w^1 \wedge \w^2 + 4\w^3 \wedge \w^4), &
\Omega^4_2 &= -c(\w^1 \wedge \w^3 + \w^2 \wedge \w^4).
\end{align*}
Our method for studying and constructing (framed) hypersurfaces will be to treat the images
of the sections $f$ as integral submanifolds of a Pfaffian exterior differential system.
Briefly, a Pfaffian system $\I$ on a manifold $B$ is a graded ideal inside the
algebra $\Omega^* B$ of differential forms on $B$, which near any point is generated algebraically
by a finite set of 1-forms and their exterior derivatives. A submanifold $N \subset B$
is an integral of $\I$ if and only if $i^* \psi=0$ for all differential forms $\psi$ in $\I$, where
$i: N \to B$ is the inclusion map. (We will often abbreviate this by saying that
$\psi = 0$ {\em along N}.)
We will next show that a frame for a hypersurface $M$, adapted as in \S4, corresponds to an integral
submanifold of a certain Pfaffian system.
Given a standard frame $(W,X,Y)$ on $M$ satisfying $AW\ne \a W$,
we can define a local section $f:M \to \F\vert_M$ by letting
\begin{equation}\label{WeXY}
e_3 = W, \quad e_4 = JW, \quad e_2 = X, \quad e_1 = -Y.
\end{equation}
Then the pullbacks of the 1-forms on $\F$ satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{pullsat}
f^* \w^4 =0, \quad f^*\begin{bmatrix}\w^4_3 \\ \w^4_2 \\ \w^4_1 \end{bmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix} \alpha & \beta & 0 \\ \beta & \lambda & -\mu \\
0 & -\mu & \nu \end{pmatrix} f^*\begin{bmatrix} \w^3 \\ \w^2 \\ \w^1 \end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha, \beta, \lambda,\mu, \nu$ are the functions on $M$ giving the components of
the shape operator \eqref{shapematrix}.
To see that these conditions are equivalent to the vanishing of certain 1-forms along a submanifold,
we need to introduce the shape operator components as extra variables. In particular,
we let $\alpha, \beta, \lambda,\mu, \nu$
be coordinates on $\R^5$, and we define following 1-forms on $\F \times \R^5$:
\begin{align*}
\theta_0 &:= \w^4\\
\theta_1 &:= \w^4_1 - \nu \w^1 + \mu \w^2\\
\theta_2 &:= \w^4_2 + \mu \w^1 - \lambda \w^2 - \beta \w^3\\
\theta_3 &:= \w^4_3 - \beta \w^2 - \alpha \w^3.
\end{align*}
(The $\w^i$ and $\w^i_j$ are pulled back from $\F$ to $\F \times \R^5$.)
Given a standard frame on $M$, the fibered product of $f$ with the graphs of $\alpha, \beta, \lambda,\mu, \nu$
gives a mapping $\widehat{f}:M \to \F\times \R^5$ whose image is a 3-dimensional integral manifold
of the Pfaffian system generated by 1-forms $\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_3$. Moreover, this submanifold
satisfies the {\em independence condition} $\widehat{f}^* (\w^1 \wedge \w^2 \wedge\w^3) \ne 0$.
Conversely, every 3-dimensional integral manifold of the differential forms $\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_3$ that satisfies the independence condition arises in exactly this way, from a standard adapted frame along a hypersurface in $\X$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{g2necess}]
Let $\U \subset \R^5$ be defined by $\beta\ne 0$, $\mu=0$ and
\begin{equation}\label{altnucond}
(\nu-\alpha)(\nu-\lambda)=\beta^2.
\end{equation}
(This is just \eqref{nucond} rewritten.)
Because $\beta\ne0$, we have $\alpha -\nu \ne 0$ at each point of $\U$, and
$\U$ is a smooth 3-dimensional submanifold of $\R^5$.
We will use $\beta$, $\nu$ and $\tau=(\nu-\alpha)/\beta$ as coordinates on $\U$, in terms of which
\begin{equation}\label{parsubs}
\alpha=\nu -\beta\tau, \qquad \lambda = \nu - \beta/\tau.
\end{equation}
Note that $\tau$ is always nonzero.
The geometric meaning of $\tau$ is that, if we write the unit $\nu$-eigenvector in
the span of $\{W,X\}$ as $\cos\phi\, W + \sin\phi\, X$, then $\tau=\tan\phi$.
Now let $M$ be a non-Hopf hypersurface with $g \le 2$ distinct principal curvatures.
In the proof of Proposition \ref{algprop} we developed a (local) standard frame on $M$ for which
the components of the shape operator satisfy $\mu=0$ and \eqref{altnucond}.
Let $f$ be the corresponding section of $\F\vert_M$.
Then the image of $\widehat{f}$ is an integral of $\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_3$ which
lies in $\F\times \U$.
Accordingly, we pull back the forms from $\F \times \R^5$ to $\F\times \U$, giving
\begin{align*}
\theta_1 &= \w^4_1 - \nu \w^1\\
\theta_2 &= \w^4_2 - ( \nu -\beta/\tau) \w^2 - \beta \w^3\\
\theta_3 &= \w^4_3 - \beta \w^2 - (\nu-\beta\tau) \w^3,
\end{align*}
and let $\I$ be the Pfaffian exterior differential system on $\F\times \U$ generated by these re-defined
1-forms.
As an algebraic ideal, $\I$ is generated by these 1-forms and their exterior derivatives. We may
simplify the latter by omitting wedge products involving the $\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_3$ as factors. For example, we compute
$$-d\theta_0 = \theta_1 \wedge \w^1 +\theta_2 \wedge \w^2 +\theta_3 \wedge \w^3,$$
so that $d\theta_0$ adds no new algebraic generators for the ideal; we express this fact by writing
$d\theta_0 \equiv 0$ mod $\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_3$. Similarly, we compute
\begin{equation}\label{twofer}
\left.
\begin{aligned}
-d\theta_1 &\equiv \pi_1 \& \w^1+ \pi_4 \& (\w^2-\tau\w^3),\\
-d\theta_2 &\equiv \pi_4 \&\w^1 + \pi_3 \& \w^2 + \pi_2 \& \w^3,\\
-d\theta_3 &\equiv -\tau\pi_4 \& \w^1 +\pi_2 \& \w^2 +\left((1+\tau^2)\pi_1 -2\tau \pi_2 -\tau^2 \pi_3\right) \& \w^3
\end{aligned}\right\} \mod \ \theta_0, \ldots, \theta_3,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{pidefs}
\begin{aligned}
\pi_1 &:= d\nu + \dfrac{3c\tau}{1+\tau^2}\w^1, \\
\pi_2 &:= d\beta + \left(\beta^2-2\beta\nu\tau +2c +\dfrac{\beta \nu}{\tau}\right)\w^1, \\
\pi_3 &:= d\left(\nu - \dfrac{\beta}\tau\right)+\left(3\beta \nu - \dfrac{\beta^2}{\tau}\right) \w^1,\\
\pi_4 &:= \dfrac{\beta}{\tau}\w^2_1 +(c-\beta\nu\tau)\w^3.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The 1-forms $\pi_1, \ldots, \pi_4$, along with $\w^1,\w^2,\w^3$ and $\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_3$,
complete a coframe on $\F\times \U$ which is adapted to $\I$ in the sense that the generator
2-forms of $\I$ are most simply expressed in terms of this coframe.
Suppose that $\Sigma$ is an integral 3-fold of $\I$ satisfying the independence condition.
Let $\Theta_1, \Theta_2, \Theta_3$ be the 2-forms on the right-hand side of \eqref{twofer},
which must vanish along $\Sigma$. The vanishing of $\Theta_1$ implies (using Cartan's Lemma) that
\begin{equation}\label{firstpie} \pi_1 = m\, \w^1 + p\,\wt^2, \qquad \pi_4 = p\, \w^1 + q\, \wt^2
\end{equation}
for some functions $m,p,q$ along $\Sigma$. (For convenience, we will let $\wt^2$ denote $\w^2 - \tau \w^3$
from now on.)
On the other hand,
$$\Theta_3 + \tau \Theta_2 = (\pi_2 + \tau \pi_3) \wedge \wt^2 + (1+\tau^2)\pi_1 \wedge \w^3,$$
and applying Cartan's Lemma to the vanishing of this 2-form yields
\begin{equation}\label{secondpie}
\pi_2 + \tau \pi_3 = s\,\wt^2 + u\, \w^3, \qquad (1+\tau^2) \pi_1 = u\, \wt^2 + v\, \w^3
\end{equation}
for some functions $s,u,v$ along $\Sigma$. Comparing \eqref{firstpie} and \eqref{secondpie}
shows that $u = p(1+\tau^2)$ and $m=v=0$; hence
$$\pi_1 = p \,\wt^2, \quad \pi_4 = p \,\w^1 + q\,\wt^2, \quad \pi_2 + \tau\pi_3 = p (1+\tau^2) \w^3 + s\, \wt^2$$
along $\Sigma$. Substituting these into the equation $\Theta_2=0$ implies that
$$\pi_3 = q\, \w^1 + t\, \wt^2 + s\, \w^3 $$
for an additional function $t$ along $\Sigma$.
Substituting these values into the definitions \eqref{pidefs} of $\pi_1$ through $\pi_4$ lets us determine
the values of the exterior derivatives
\begin{equation}\label{dnbl}
\begin{aligned}
d\nu &= - \dfrac{3 c \tau}{1+\tau^2} \w^1+ p\,\wt^2, \\
d\beta &= \left(2\beta \nu \tau - \beta^2 - \dfrac{\beta\nu}{\tau} - 2 c -\tau q\right) \w^1 + (s-\tau t) \wt^2 + (p(1+\tau^2) - \tau s) \w^3,\\
d\lambda &= d\left(\nu - \dfrac{\beta}\tau\right) = \left( \dfrac{\beta^2}{\tau} - 3\beta\nu +q\right) \w^1 + t\, \wt^2 + s\,\w^3
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
along $\Sigma$, as well as
$$\w^2_1 = \dfrac{\tau}{\beta}( p\,\w^1 + q\,\wt^2 + (\beta \nu \tau - c) \w^3).$$
Of course, the 1-forms on the right in \eqref{dnbl} must be closed along $\Sigma$. Computing the
exterior derivatives of these, modulo $\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_3$ and using the above values for $d\nu, d\beta, d\lambda$
and $\w^2_1$, gives algebraic conditions that $p,q,s,t$ must satisfy. For example, we compute that
$$ 0 = d^2 \nu \wedge \wt^2 = \dfrac{4c\tau(2\tau^2-1)}{\beta(1+\tau^2)} p\, \w^1 \wedge \w^2 \wedge \w^3$$
along $\Sigma$. The vanishing of this 3-form implies that at each point of $\Sigma$,
either $p=0$ or $\tau^2 = \tfrac12$. So, if $p\ne 0$ at some point of $\Sigma$, then
$\tau^2 = \tfrac12$ on an open set around that point. On the other hand, the equations \eqref{dnbl} give
\begin{equation}\label{deetau}
d\tau = - \left( \nu(1+\tau^2) + \dfrac{c\tau(2-\tau^2)}{\beta(1+\tau^2)}\right)\w^1 -\dfrac{\tau(p\tau-s)}{\beta}\wt^2 + \dfrac{p \tau(1+\tau^2)}{\beta}\w^3,
\end{equation}
so that if $\tau$ is constant on an open set in $\Sigma$ then $p=0$ on that
set. Thus, we conclude that $p$ vanishes identically on $\Sigma$.
With this conclusion taken into account, we have
$$ 0 = d^2\nu = \dfrac{3c(1-\tau^2)}{\beta(1+\tau^2)^2}s\, \w^1 \wedge \wt^2
+ \dfrac{3c}{\beta(1+\tau^2)}\left( (\beta\nu-q) \tau^3 - c\tau^2 +\beta^2 -\beta\nu\tau\right) \w^2 \wedge \w^3$$
along $\Sigma$. From the first term, at each point either $s=0$ or $\tau^2 = 1$, and \eqref{deetau} (with $p=0$) lets us conclude that $s=0$ whenever $\tau$ is locally constant.
Hence $s$ vanishes identically on $\Sigma$, and from the second term
$$q = \dfrac{\beta \nu \tau^3 - c\tau^2 +\beta^2 -\beta\nu\tau}{\tau^3}.$$
With these values for $p,q,s$ taken into account, we have
$$0 = d^2\tau = \dfrac{c \tau^2 (2-\tau^2)}{\beta^2(1+\tau^2)} t\,\w^1 \wedge \wt^2$$
along $\Sigma$, which implies that at each point either $t=0$ or $\tau^2 = 2$. If the latter happens on an open
set, then \eqref{deetau} implies that $\nu=0$ on that same open set; in that case, substituting $\nu=0$ and $d\tau=0$ into the
system 2-forms gives
$$\Theta_3+\tau \Theta_2 = -c(2\w^2 + \tau\w^3) \wedge \w^1,$$
so that the vanishing of these 2-forms is incompatible with the independence condition.
From this contradiction we conclude that $t=0$ identically on $\Sigma$.
Using the values deduced for $p,q,s,t$ above, we conclude
that the following 1-forms vanish along $\Sigma$:
\begin{align*}
\theta_4 &:= d\nu + \dfrac{3c\tau}{1+\tau^2}\w^1, \\
\theta_5 &:= d\beta + \left(\beta^2+\dfrac{\beta^2}{\tau^2}-\beta\nu\tau +c\right)\w^1, \\
\theta_6 &:= d\lambda+\dfrac{c\tau^2 - \beta^2(1+\tau^2) + 2\beta\nu\tau^3 + \beta\nu\tau}{\tau^3} \w^1,\\
\theta_7 &:= \dfrac{\beta}{\tau}\w^2_1 +\dfrac{c\tau^2 -\beta^2 -\beta\nu\tau^3+\beta\nu\tau}{\tau^3}\w^2
+\dfrac{\beta^2 - \beta\nu\tau}{\tau^2}\w^3.
\end{align*}
Now we can establish the assertions in the theorem. Note first that $\widehat{f}^* \w^1$ annihilates
the distribution $\H$ on $M$, so to show that $\H$ is integrable we compute
\begin{align*}d\w^1 &\equiv -\w^2_1 \wedge \w^2 - \w^4_1 \wedge \w^3 \mod \theta_0\\
&= \lambda \w^2 \wedge \w^3 - \lambda \w^2 \wedge \w^3 \mod \theta_7\\
&=0.
\end{align*}
Next, the vanishing of $\theta_4, \theta_5, \theta_6$ implies that
$\nu,\beta,\lambda$ (and hence $\alpha$) are constant along the leaves of $\H$. Since $Y=-e_1$, the vanishing
of these 1-forms also gives us the $Y$-derivatives of these variables:
\begin{equation}\label{yelp}
\begin{aligned}
Y\nu &= \dfrac{3c\tau}{1+\tau^2},\\
Y\beta &= \beta^2+\dfrac{\beta^2}{\tau^2}-\beta\nu\tau +c =\beta^2+ (\lambda-\nu)^2+\nu(\alpha-\nu)+c,\\
Y\lambda = Y(\nu-\beta/\tau)&= \dfrac{c\tau^2 - \beta^2(1+\tau^2) + 2\beta\nu\tau^3 + \beta\nu\tau}{\tau^3}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Using $\alpha = \nu-\beta\tau$ we also get
$$Y\alpha = -\beta(\nu + \beta\tau + \beta/\tau) =-\beta(3\nu-\alpha-\lambda).$$
Thus, $\alpha, \beta, \lambda$ and $\nu$ satisfy the underdetermined system of differential equations
\eqref{odesys}.
(We leave it to the interested reader to check that the right-hand side of $Y\lambda$ in \eqref{yelp} coincides
with the third equation in \eqref{odesys}, once the substitutions \eqref{parsubs} are made.)
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In the preceding proof, the possible values of the 1-forms
$\w^2_1, d\beta, d\nu, d\tau$ (as well as $\w^4, \w^4_1, \w^4_2, \w^4_3$) on
an integral submanifold $\Sigma$ satisfying the independence condition are completely determined
at each point of $\F\times \U$. In other words, $\Sigma$ must be tangent
to the rank 3 distribution on $\F\times \U$ whose tangent spaces are annihilated by
$\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_7$ at each point. Of course, 3-dimensional integral submanifolds
of such a distribution only exist at points where the Frobenius condition is satisfied.
This means we must check that the exterior derivatives of $\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_7$ are
zero modulo these same 1-forms. Fortunately, this condition holds identically, and there exists
a unique local integral submanifold $\Sigma$ through each point of $\F\times \U$. Global existence
will follow from Theorem \ref{constructor}.
\end{remark}
\section{2-Hopf Hypersurfaces}\label{weakly}
As remarked earlier, one can view the condition that $\H$ is of rank 2 as a weakening of the Hopf hypersurface condition.
By itself, this condition is too weak: for example, one can show using exterior differential systems that 3-dimensional hypersurfaces in $\X$ for which $\H$ has rank 2 are abundant, at least locally, since examples can be constructed using the Cartan-K\"ahler theory
depending on a choice of two functions of two variables. Thus, we impose the additional condition that
$\H$ is an integrable distribution. Such hypersurfaces are still quite flexible, and depend locally on a choice
of five functions of one variable; for example, there exists such a hypersurface through any given curve $\Gamma$
in $\X$, with the distribution $\H$ prescribed along $\Gamma$ (provided that the prescribed 2-plane is
neither tangent nor perpendicular to the curve at any point). Motivated by these considerations, we make the following definition:
\defn{A hypersurface in $\CP^n$ or $\CH^n$ is said to be $k$-Hopf if $\H$ is integrable and of rank $k$.}
When $k=1$, the integrability condition is vacuous and this reduces to the usual notion of a Hopf hypersurface. Also note that if $M^{2n-1}$ is
$k$-Hopf, then $1 \le k \le 2n-1$. Because of Theorem \ref{g2necess}, we are interested in the 2-Hopf condition when $n=2$.
\begin{prop}\label{flat} Let $M^3 \subset \X$ be a 2-Hopf hypersurface. Then the $\H$-leaves
within $M$ are flat.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Let $(W,X,Y)$ be a standard (local) frame on $M$, and let $f: M \to \F$ be the
associated unitary frame, as defined by \eqref{WeXY}. With respect to the $(W,X,Y)$ basis,
the shape operator has the form \eqref{shapematrix} with $\mu=0$. So,
$f^* \w^4_1 = \nu f^*\w^1$. By hypothesis, $f^*\w^1$ is integrable (i.e., its exterior derivative
is zero modulo itself), so the same is true of $f^*\w^4_1$. Because
$\w^2$ and $\w^3$ restrict to be an orthonormal coframe along an $\H$-leaf, we compute the
Gauss curvature $K$ using the equation
$$d\w^2_3 \equiv K \w^2 \wedge \w^3 \quad\mod \ \w^1.$$
(All forms here are understood to be pulled back via $f$.) Since $d\w^2_3 = -d\w^4_1 \equiv 0$ modulo $\w^1$,
then $K=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It is easy to see that the 2-Hopf condition on $M^3$ requires that $\nabla_W X = \lambda Y$. In fact, for a hypersurface such that $\H$ has rank 2, this is equivalent to integrability of $\H$.
To explain this, note that $\nabla_X W = \varphi A X= \lambda Y$. Then
$$
\langle \nabla_W X, W\rangle = - \langle X, \nabla_W W\rangle\\
= - \langle X, \varphi A W\rangle \\
= 0.
$$
Then $[X, W] = \nabla_X W - \nabla_W X = \lambda Y - \langle\nabla_W X, Y\rangle Y$. For integrability,
$\langle [X, W], Y\rangle$ must be zero. In addition, integrability implies that $\H$-components of
$\nabla_W X$ and $\nabla_W W$ (as well as those of $\nabla_X X$ and $\nabla_X W$) vanish,
which explains why the curvature tensor of each leaf must vanish.
\end{remark}
\bigskip
We now turn to the more specialized hypersurfaces of Theorem \ref{constructor}, which can
be characterized as follows:
\begin{prop}\label{charp} Let $M^3$ be as in Proposition \ref{flat}. If
$\alpha =\langle AW, W\rangle$ is constant along the $\H$-leaves, then all the other
components of the shape operator (with respect to a standard basis) are also constant along these leaves,
and satisfy the differential equations \eqref{odesys}.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
As in section \ref{edssect}, we will set up a Pfaffian exterior differential system whose solutions are
framed hypersurfaces of the type under consideration.
Here, the system will encode the conditions that $\H$ is rank 2 and integrable. If $f:M \to \F$ is a unitary
frame derived from a standard basis as in \eqref{WeXY}, then the pullbacks of the 1-forms on $\F$ satisfy
\eqref{pullsat} with $\mu=0$. So, we define 1-forms
\begin{align*}
\theta_0 &:= \w^4\\
\theta_1 &:= \w^4_1 - \nu \w^1\\
\theta_2 &:= \w^4_2 - \lambda \w^2 - \beta \w^3\\
\theta_3 &:= \w^4_3 - \beta \w^2 - \alpha \w^3,
\end{align*}
with $\alpha, \beta,\lambda,\nu$ as extra variables.
Since $\H$ is annihilated by the pullback of $\w^1$, it is integrable
if and only if $d\w^1$ is a multiple of $\w^1$.
We compute
\begin{equation}\label{dwi}
d\w^1 \equiv (\w^2_1-\lambda\w^3) \wedge \w^2 \quad \mod \theta_0, \theta_1, \theta_2, \theta_3.
\end{equation}
Thus, $\H$ is integrable
if and only if $\w^2_1 - \lambda \w^3$ equals some linear combination of $\w^1$ and $\w^2$.
This is equivalent to the vanishing of
$$\theta_4:=\w^2_1 - \rho \w^1 -\delta\w^2 -\lambda \w^3,$$
for some functions $\delta$ and $\rho$ along $M$. (As with the shape operator components, we
will introduce $\delta$ and $\rho$ as new variables.)
We compute
$$d\theta_1 \equiv (\beta\delta - \beta^2-\lambda^2 + \alpha\lambda +c) \w^2 \wedge \w^3 \quad \mod \theta_0, \ldots, \theta_4, \w^1,$$
and thus we must have
\begin{equation}\label{qval}
\delta = \dfrac{\beta^2+\lambda^2 - \alpha\lambda -c}{\beta}
\end{equation}
in order to satisfy the independence condition.
Accordingly, let $\W \subset \R^5$ be the open set with coordinates $\alpha, \beta,\lambda, \nu$ and $\rho$, with
$\beta\ne 0$, and let $\I$ be the Pfaffian system on $\F\times \W$ generated by $\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_4$ (with $\delta$ given by \eqref{qval}). Differentiating these 1-forms modulo their span gives the generator 2-forms
\begin{equation}\label{h2tableau}
\left.
\begin{aligned}
-d\theta_1 &\equiv \pi_1 \wedge \w^1, \\
-d\theta_2 &\equiv \pi_2 \wedge \w^2 + \pi_3 \wedge \w^3,\\
-d\theta_3 &\equiv \pi_3 \wedge \w^2 + \pi_4 \wedge \w^3,\\
-d\theta_4 &\equiv \pi_5 \wedge \w^1+\left( \dfrac{2\lambda-\alpha}\beta \pi_2 + \dfrac{\beta^2 -\lambda^2 +\alpha \lambda+c}{\beta^2}\pi_3 - \dfrac{\lambda}\beta \pi_4\right) \wedge \w^2
+\pi_2 \wedge \w^3.
\end{aligned}
\right\}
\mod \theta_0, \ldots, \theta_4,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
\pi_1 &= d\nu + \rho(\lambda-\nu)\w^2 + \beta\rho\, \w^3,\\
\pi_2 &= d\lambda +\left( \dfrac{ (\lambda-\nu)(\lambda^2-\alpha\lambda-c)}{\beta} + \beta(2\lambda+\nu)\right)\w^1,\\
\pi_3 &= d\beta + (\beta^2 +\lambda^2 + \nu(\alpha -2\lambda) + c)\w^1, \\
\pi_4 &= d\alpha + \beta(\alpha+\lambda-3\nu)\w^1,\\
\pi_5 &= d\rho - \rho^2\, \w^2.
\end{align*}
\begin{remark}
Integral submanifolds of $\I$ are in 1-to-1 correspondence with 2-Hopf hypersurfaces in $\X$, so it is of interest
to know how large the set of such surfaces is. The system $\I$ is not involutive. However,
it is easy to see from the 2-form generators \eqref{h2tableau} that $\pi_5 \wedge \w^1$ must vanish along
any integral manifold satisfying the independence condition.
When this 2-form is adjoined, the resulting ideal is involutive,
and Cartan's Test indicates that solutions depend on five functions of one variable.
For example, given any curve $\gamma$ in $\X$ and a 2-plane field $E$ along $\gamma$
which is transverse to the $J$-invariant subspace containing $T_p\gamma$ for every $p \in \gamma$,
there is a 2-Hopf hypersurface containing $\gamma$ with $\H = E$ along $\gamma$.
\end{remark}
The set of 2-Hopf hypersurfaces $M$ satisfying the additional hypothesis that $\alpha$ is constant
along $\H$-leaves is considerably smaller.
For, let $\Sigma$ be the integral manifold of $\I$ corresponding to such a hypersurface.
Because $\H$ is annihilated by the pullbacks to $M$ of $\w^2$ and $\w^3$, then
the constancy of $\alpha$ along the $\H$-leaves implies that $\pi_4$ must be
a multiple of $\w^1$ along $\Sigma$. On the other hand, the
vanishing of the 2-form $d\theta_3$ implies, by the Cartan Lemma, that
$\pi_4$ must be a linear combination of $\w^2$ and $\w^3$. Thus, $\pi_4=0$ and $\pi_3 \wedge \w^2=0$ along $\Sigma$.
Substituting these into $d\theta_4$ and applying the Cartan Lemma implies
that $\pi_5$ and $\pi_2$ must be linear combinations of $\w^1$ and $\w^3 + ((2\lambda-\alpha)/\beta)\,\w^2$ along $\Sigma$.
When we compare this with result of the Cartan Lemma applied to the vanishing of $d\theta_2$, we see that there are scalars
$r,t$ such that
$$\pi_2 = r(\w^3 + ((2\lambda-\alpha)/\beta)\w^2), \quad
\pi_3 = r \w^2, \quad \pi_5 = t \w^1$$
along $\Sigma$.
Because $\pi_4$ vanishes along $\Sigma$, the same is true of its exterior derivative. We compute
$$d\pi_4 \wedge \w^2 \equiv \beta(-3\pi_1+\pi_2 +\pi_4 +3\beta\rho\, \w^3) \wedge \w^1 \wedge \w^2 +(\alpha+\lambda-3\nu)\pi_3 \wedge \w^1 \wedge \w^2
\mod \theta_0, \ldots, \theta_4.$$
From the top line of \eqref{h2tableau}, we see that $\pi_1 \wedge \w^1=0$ along $\Sigma$; substituting
this and the values for $\pi_2, \pi_3, \pi_5$ along $\Sigma$ into the above 3-form, we conclude
that $r=-3\beta\rho$. Hence, the 1-form
$$\pi_2 +3\rho (\beta\w^3 + (2\lambda-\alpha)\w^2)$$
must vanish along $\Sigma$. Taking an exterior derivative of this form modulo $\theta_0, \ldots, \theta_4$,
wedging with $\w^1$,
and substituting the known values for the $\pi$'s, we conclude that $\rho=0$ identically.
Because $\pi_2$ and $\pi_3$ must vanish along $\Sigma$, and $\pi_1$ must be a multiple of $\w^1$, we respectively conclude
that $\lambda, \beta$ and $\nu$ are constant along the $\H$-leaves. Comparing the form of $\pi_2$
and $\pi_3$ with \eqref{odesys}, we can verify that $\alpha, \beta,\lambda$ satisfy the correct differential equations.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{constructor}]
Given a solution $\alpha(s), \beta(s),\lambda(s),\nu(s)$ of the system \eqref{odesys} defined on interval $I$, we define a Pfaffian system
$\J$ on $I \times \F$ which is generated (in part) by
substituting each solution component for the corresponding variable in the generator 1-forms of
the system $\I$ used in the proof of Proposition \ref{charp}
(with the values for $\delta$ and $\rho$ deduced there):
$$
\begin{aligned}
\vartheta_0 &:= \w^4\\
\vartheta_1 &:= \w^4_1 - \nu(s) \w^1\\
\vartheta_2 &:= \w^4_2 - \lambda(s) \w^2 - \beta(s) \w^3\\
\vartheta_3 &:= \w^4_3 - \beta(s) \w^2 - \alpha(s) \w^3,\\
\vartheta_4 &:= \w^2_1 - \delta(s)\w^2 - \lambda(s)\w^3,\\
\end{aligned}\qquad \delta(s):= \dfrac{\beta(s)^2+\lambda(s)^2 - \alpha(s)\lambda(s) -c}{\beta(s)}.
$$
To these, we add one more generator 1-form
$$\vartheta_5 := \w^1 + ds,$$
the vanishing of which ensures that $d/ds$ is the $Y$-derivative.
Our system $\J$ is a Frobenius system, so again we might invoke the Frobenius theorem (see, e.g., \cite{Warner}) to obtain
a unique connected maximal integral 3-fold of $\J$ through any point. Although the image of this under the
fibration $\F \to M$ would be one of the desired hypersurfaces, we would not get any information about
whether the hypersurface is complete or compact. In what follows, we give a more explicit construction.
Recall that $\X = Q/S^1$, where $Q \subset \C^3$ is the sphere $S^5(r)$ or anti-de Sitter space $H^5_1(r)$
defined by
$$\langle \bz, \bz \rangle = \epsilon r^2,$$
and $\langle\ , \rangle$ is the hermitian inner product on $\C^3$ with signature $+++$ (when
we take $\epsilon=1$ and get $\X = \CP^2$), or $-++$ (when we take $\epsilon=-1$ and get $\X = \CH^2$).
The $S^1$ action multiplies the coordinates by a unit modulus scalar, so that the
quotient map $\pi:Q \to \X$ is just the restriction of complex projectivization. The metric
on the orthogonal complement to the fibers of $\pi$ descends to the quotient $\X$,
and has constant holomorphic sectional curvature $4c$ where $c=\epsilon/r^2$.
For more detail, see \cite{nrsurvey}, pp. 235--237.
Recall from
\cite{dalembert} that we may lift the $S^1$-quotient to a quotient map $\Pi:G \to \F$, where
$G$ is the group of matrices that are unitary with respect to the inner product
(i.e., $G=U(3)$ for $\epsilon=1$ and $G=U(1,2)$ for $\epsilon=-1$).
In more detail, we define the submersion $\Pi:G\to \F$ as follows:
given an element $g\in G$ with columns $(E_0, E_1, E_2)$, $\Pi$ takes
$g$ to the unitary frame
$$e_1 = \pi_* E_1, \quad e_2 = \pi_* \ri E_1, \quad e_3 =\pi_* E_2, \quad e_4=\pi_* \ri E_2$$
at basepoint $\pi(E_0)$.
In fact, we can identify $G$ itself with the unitary frame bundle of $Q$, using $\bz = r E_0$ as the
basepoint map and $E_1, E_2$ generating the frame as above.
Then the $S^1$ action on $G$ that is equivariant with respect to this basepoint map
is simply left-multiplication by elements of the 1-parameter subgroup $\exp(\ri t I)$.
We will construct solutions to the system $\J$ by pulling the system back via $\Pi$ to $I\times G$,
constructing solutions there, and projecting back down. For this purpose we need to express the
pullbacks of 1-forms $\w^i$ and $\w^i_j$ in terms of the Maurer-Cartan forms of $G$. The latter are
complex-valued 1-forms $\psi^a_b$ defined by
$$d E_a = E_b \psi^b_a, \qquad 0 \le a,b \le 2,$$
where we regard the columns $E_a$ as vector-valued functions on $G$.
These columns satisfy
$$\langle E_0, E_0 \rangle = \epsilon,\quad \langle E_0, E_i\rangle=0,\quad \langle E_i, E_j \rangle = \delta_{ij},
\qquad 1 \le i,j \le 2,$$
so we have
$$\psi^b_a = \begin{cases}
-\epsilon\overline{\psi^a_b} & \text{if exactly one of $a,b$ is equal to zero,}\\
-\overline{\psi^a_b} & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
Then, using formulas developed in \cite{dalembert}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{pully}
\begin{aligned}
\Pi^*(\w^1 + \ri \w^2) &= \psi^1_0, & \quad \Pi^*(\ri \w^2_1) &=\psi^1_1 - \psi^0_0,\\
\Pi^*(\w^3 + \ri \w^4) &= \psi^2_0, & \Pi^*(\ri \w^4_3) &= \psi^2_2 - \psi^0_0, \\
\Pi^*(\w^3_1 + \ri\w^4_1) &= \psi^2_1. & \\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
For the sake of brevity, we will write $\eta_1 :=\Re\psi^1_0$, $\eta_2 :=\Im\psi^1_0$ and $\eta_3 = \Re\psi^2_0$ in what follows.
Let $\Jhat$ be the Frobenius system on $I\times G$ generated by the pullbacks of the 1-forms of $\J$. Using \eqref{pully},
we see that $\Jhat$ is generated by
\begin{align*}
\Pi^*\vartheta_0 &= \Im \psi^2_0,\\
\Pi^*\vartheta_1 &= \Im \psi^2_1 - \nu(s)\eta_1,\\
\Pi^*\vartheta_2 &= \Re\psi^2_1 - \lambda(s)\eta_2-\beta(s)\eta_3,\\
\Pi^*\vartheta_3 &= \Im(\psi^2_2-\psi^0_0) - \beta(s)\eta_2 - \alpha(s)\eta_3,\\
\Pi^*\vartheta_4 &= \Im(\psi^1_1-\psi^0_0) - \delta(s)\eta_2 - \lambda(s)\eta_3,\\
\Pi^*\vartheta_5 &= \eta_1 + ds.
\end{align*}
Since this system is of rank 6 on the 10-dimensional manifold $I\times G$, its
maximal integral manifolds are 4-dimensional; in particular, they are foliated by orbits of the $S^1$-action.
We specify 3-dimensional slices to this action by adding the extra 1-form
$\Im(\psi^0_0 + \psi^1_1 +\psi^2_2)$, whose exterior derivative is zero modulo the 1-forms of $\Jhat$. (In fact, this 1-form
is closed on $G$, and its integral manifolds are the cosets of the subgroup of special unitary matrices.) Let
$\Khat$ denote the resulting rank 7 Frobenius system.
We will obtain integral 3-manifolds of $\Khat$ as follows.
We will first construct a curve which is an integral of $\Khat$ but along which, in addition, $\eta_2=\eta_3=0$.
Then we will take a union of integral surfaces of $\Khat$ transverse to the curve. (The Frobenius condition
guarantees that this union is an integral 3-fold of $\Khat$.)
Fix a value $s_0 \in I$ and a point $u_0\in G$; then
the curve takes the form $(s,U(s))$ where $U(s)$ is a $G$-valued matrix satisfying the initial value problem
$$\dfrac{dU}{ds} = -U \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \epsilon & 0\\ 1 & 0 & \ri \nu(s)\\ 0 & \ri \nu(s) & 0\end{pmatrix}, \qquad U(s_0) = u_0.$$
This is a system of linear ODE, so its solution is smooth and defined for all $s\in I$.
Next, for each fixed $s\in I$ we construct an integral surface of $\Khat$ passing through $U(s)$. Along such a surface,
$\eta_2$ and $\eta_3$ are closed, so there are local coordinates $x,w$ such that $\eta_2 = dx$ and $\eta_3=dw$. Then the surface
must be given by a $G$-valued function $V$ satisfying the simultaneous initial value problems
$$\dfrac{\partial V}{\partial x} = V A(s), \qquad \dfrac{\partial V}{\partial w} = V B(s), \qquad V(0,0) = U(s),$$
where
\begin{align*} A(s) &= \begin{pmatrix} -\tfrac{\ri}3(\beta+\delta)& \epsilon\ri & 0 \\ \ri & \tfrac{\ri}3(2\delta(s)-\beta(s)) & -\lambda(s)\\
0 & \lambda(s) & \tfrac{\ri}3(2\beta(s)- \delta(s))\end{pmatrix}, \\
B(s) &= \begin{pmatrix} -\tfrac{\ri}3(\alpha+\lambda)& 0 & -\epsilon \\ 0 & \tfrac{\ri}3(2\lambda(s)-\alpha(s)) & -\beta(s)\\
1 & \beta(s) & \tfrac{\ri}3(2\alpha(s)- \lambda(s))\end{pmatrix}.
\end{align*}
It is easy to check that $A$ and $B$ satisfy the solvability condition $[A(s),B(s)]=0$.
Thus, $V$ is defined for all $x,w \in \R^2$; in fact the solution is given by
$$V = U(s) \exp( x A(s) + w B(s)),$$
and thus for a fixed $s$, $V$ sweeps out a left coset of a 2-dimensional abelian subgroup of $G$.
By varying $s$, we obtain a smooth matrix-valued function $V(s,x,w)$ such that
$(s,V(s,x,w))$ is an integral 3-fold of $\Khat$. Then we set $\Phi(s,x,w) = b\circ \Pi( V(s,x,w))$, where
$b:\F \to \X$ is the basepoint map, to obtain the desired immersion. Moreover, for fixed $s$ each
leaf $\Phi(s,x,w)$ is the orbit of a 2-dimensional abelian subgroup of $G$, acting by isometries on $\X$.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
The motivation of this paper comes from the following observation.
Let $\sigma_1$, $\sigma_2$, $\sigma_3$ be the Pauli spin matrices
$$
\sigma_1 = \pmatrix { 0 & 1 \cr 1 & 0 }, \quad
\sigma_2 = \pmatrix { 0 & -i \cr i & 0 }, \quad
\sigma_3 = \pmatrix { 1 & 0 \cr 0 & -1 }
$$
and $\sigma_0 \equiv I_2$ be the $2 \times 2$ identity matrix, then
$$
\exp\left(-\frac12 i\pi(\sigma_j-I_2)\right) \equiv \sigma_j,
\qquad j=0,1,2,3.
$$
These identities play a role in quantum theory \cite{1}.
An extension is
$$
\exp\left(-\frac12 i\pi
(\sigma_{j_1} \otimes \sigma_{j_2} \otimes \cdots \otimes \sigma_{j_n}
- I_{2^n})\right) \equiv
\sigma_{j_1} \otimes \sigma_{j_2} \otimes \cdots \otimes \sigma_{j_n},
\qquad j_k=0,1,2,3
$$
where the $2^n \times 2^n$ matrices
$\sigma_{j_1} \otimes \sigma_{j_2} \otimes \cdots \otimes \sigma_{j_n}$
are elements of the Pauli group.
Thus we ask the question: find all $n \times n$ matrices
$A$ over $\mathbb C$ and $z \in {\mathbb C}$ such that
$$
e^{z(A-I_n)} = A.
\eqno(1)
$$
Equation (1) can also be written in the form $e^{zA}=e^z A$.
The trivial solution is given by $A=I_n$ with $z$ arbitrary.
Since $\det(e^M)\equiv e^{{\rm\; tr}(M)}$ for any $n \times n$ matrix
$M$ over $\mathbb C$ we obtain
$$
\det(e^{z(A-I_n)}) = e^{{\rm\; tr}(z(A-I_n))} =
e^{z({\rm\; tr}(A)-n)} = \det(A).
$$
Since $\exp(z(\mbox{tr}(A)-n))$ is nonzero we can conclude
that $A$ must be invertible. Note that if $A$ and $B$ are
similar matrices, then $B$ satisfies (1) when $A$ satisfies (1) and
vice versa.
An important special case for a solution of equation (1) can be
given at once. Let $B$ be an $n \times n$ matrix with $B^2=I_n$.
Then
$$
\exp\left(\frac12 (2k+1)i\pi(B-I_n)\right) \equiv B\qquad\forall k\in\mathbb{Z}\,.
\eqno(2)
$$
The proof is based on the identity $(z \in {\mathbb C})$
$$
e^{zB} \equiv \cosh(z)I_n + \sinh(z)B
$$
for any $n \times n$ matrix $B$ with $B^2=I_n$. Setting $z=i\pi/2+ik\pi$ we
obtain the identity (2) utilizing that $\sin(\pi/2+k\pi)=(-1)^k$ and $\cos(\pi/2+k\pi)=0$.
No other solution exists when $B^2=I_n$.
\newline
We investigate first normal matrices and then nonnormal matrices.
Finally a number of applications are provided.
\section{Solutions for Normal Matrices}
We solve the problem under the assumption that $A$ is a normal matrix,
i.e. $AA^*=A^*A$. Let $U$ be the unitary matrix that diagonalizes $A$,
i.e.
$$
U^{-1}AU = D \equiv \mbox{diag}(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)
$$
where $\lambda_j$ are the eigenvalues of $A$. Then from
$e^{z(A-I_n)}=A$ we find
$$
U^{-1}e^{z(A-I_n)}U = U^{-1}AU \quad \Rightarrow \quad
e^{zU^{-1}(A-I_n)U} = U^{-1}AU\,.
$$
Consequently $e^{z(D-I_n)}=D$ and
$$
e^{z(\lambda_j-1)} = \lambda_j, \qquad j=1,\dots,n\,
$$
or equivalently
$$
e^{-z} = \lambda_j e^{-z\lambda_j}, \qquad j=1,\dots,n\,.
$$
Clearly $z=0$ gives $A=I_n$. However, $A=I_n$ does not
constrain $z$. In the following we restrict our discussion
to the case $z\neq 0$ and $A\neq I_n$.\\
The solution of $e^{-z}=\lambda e^{-z\lambda}$ can be given as
$$
\lambda = -\frac1{z}W(-ze^{-z})
$$
where $W$ is (any branch of) the Lambert $W$-function \cite{2,3,4}.
The Lambert $W$-function is defined by $z=W(z)\exp(W(z))$
with the properties
$$
W(0)=0, \quad W(e)=1, \quad W(-\pi/2)=i\pi/2\,.
$$
Thus for any $z\in\mathbb{C}$ we can construct a normal
matrix $A$ satisfying (1) using the Lambert $W$-function.
In particular, consider $z=-i\omega t$, where $\omega$ is the
frequency and $t$ the time. Then
$$
\lambda = \frac1{i\omega t} W(i\omega t e^{i\omega t})\,.
$$
With $\omega=\pi/2$ we have $e^{i\omega t}=i$ and hence
$\lambda=1$ since the Lambert $W$-function satisfies $W(-\pi/2)=i\pi/2$.
The Lambert $W$-function for matrices has been studied by
Higham \cite{5} and Corliss et al \cite{6}.\\
Now we consider the relationship between eigenvalues of $A$.
Since $e^{-z}=\lambda_je^{-z\lambda_j}$ for all $j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$.
If $\lambda_j=1$ then the $j$-th equation is satisfied identically.
If $\lambda_j\neq1$ then there must exist $k_j\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that
$$
z=\frac{\ln \lambda_j+2\pi k_j i}{\lambda_j-1}.
$$
Suppose there exists $\lambda_p\neq1$ with $\lambda_p\neq\lambda_j$, then we
also have
$$
z=\frac{\ln \lambda_p+2\pi k_p i}{\lambda_p-1}
$$
for some $k_p\in\mathbb{Z}$. It follows that
$$
k_p=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\left[\frac{\lambda_p-1}{\lambda_j-1}(\ln\lambda_j+2\pi k_j i)-\ln\lambda_p\right]\in\mathbb{Z}.
$$
We have the following cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $A=I_n$, $z\in\mathbb{C}$
\item $A$ has $r\neq 0$ distinct eigenvalues $\lambda_1\neq 1$, $\lambda_2\neq 1$, \ldots, $\lambda_r\neq 1$;
$$
z=(\ln \lambda_1+2\pi k i)/(\lambda_1-1)
$$
for some $k\in\mathbb{Z}$ and for all $j\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$
$$
\frac1{2\pi i}\left[\frac{\lambda_j-1}{\lambda_1-1}(\ln\lambda_1+2\pi k i)-\ln\lambda_j\right]\in\mathbb{Z}
$$
and any remaining eigenvalues are 1.
\end{enumerate}
Thus $A$ and $z$ satisfy (1) if and only if one of the above cases hold.
\section{Solutions for Nonnormal Matrices}
Note that also some nonnormal matrices $N$ can satisfy the
condition that $N^2=I_n$, so that the solution (2) holds.
Consider for example
$$
N = \pmatrix { 1 & \epsilon \cr 0 & -1 } \equiv
\sigma_3 + \pmatrix { 0 & \epsilon \cr 0 & 0 }
$$
with $\epsilon \ne 0$. Thus $N^*N \ne NN^*$.
Another example is the matrix
$$
M = \pmatrix { 1 & 0 & \epsilon \cr 0 & -1 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & -1 }
$$
with $\epsilon \neq 0$.
\newline
In general, if $A$ is a fixed $n\times n$ matrix,
let $\{I_n,A,A^2,\ldots,A^r\}$ be the largest
linearly independent set constructed from powers
of $A$ (by the Cayley-Hamilton theorem $r\leq n-1$)
then there exists $c_j(z)$ ($j=0,1,\ldots,r$) such that
$$
\sum_{j=0}^{r}c_j(z)A^j = e^{zA} = e^{z}A.
$$
Thus any solutions $z$ satisfy
$$
c_j(z)=0,\quad j=0,2,3,\ldots,n\qquad c_1(z)=e^z.
$$
The case $N^2=I_n$ above follows as a special case when $r=1$.
\newline
Similar to the normal matrices case in the previous section,
the eigenvalues of $A$ obey the relations below. However,
in these cases additional constraints on $U$ are necessary.
\newline
Assume $A$ satisfies (1), then we have the following cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $A=I_n+U$, $z\in\mathbb{C}$; for some strictly upper triangular matrix $U\neq 0$
\item $A$ has $r\neq 0$ distinct eigenvalues $\lambda_1\neq 1$, $\lambda_2\neq 1$, \ldots, $\lambda_r\neq 1$;
$$
z=(\ln \lambda_1+2\pi k i)/(\lambda_1-1)
$$
for some $k\in\mathbb{Z}$ and for all $j\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$
$$
\frac{1}{2\pi i}\left[\frac{\lambda_j-1}{\lambda_1-1}(\ln\lambda_1+2\pi k i)-\ln\lambda_j\right]\in\mathbb{Z}
$$
and any remaining eigenvalues are 1.
\end{enumerate}
Thus if $A$ and $z$ satisfy (1) then one of the above cases hold.
\section{Applications}
Let $\hat H$ be the Hamilton operator acting in a finite
dimensional Hilbert space ${\mathbb C}^n$. Thus $\hat H$ would
be an $n \times n$ hermitian matrix. The solution of the Schr\"odinger equation
is given by
$$
|\psi(t)\rangle = \exp(-i\hat Ht/\hbar)|\psi(0)\rangle\,.
$$
Thus if $\hat H=\hbar\omega K$ with $K^2=I_n$ we have
$$
\exp(-i\omega t K) = \cos(\omega t)I_n - i\sin(\omega t)K
$$
where we utilized that $\cosh(-i\omega t) \equiv \cos(\omega t)$,
$\sinh(-i\omega t)\equiv -i\sin(\omega t)$.
Thus to satisfy the equation $e^{zA}=e^zA$ we have to set
$\omega t=\pi/2$. Then we obtain
$$
\exp(-i\frac{\pi}{2} K) = e^{-i\pi/2}K
$$
with $e^{-i\pi/2}=-i$.
\newline
As an example consider the triple spin Hamilton operator
(Steeb \cite{7})
$$
\hat H = \hbar\omega (\sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_3 \otimes \sigma_2).
$$
Since
$(\sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_3 \otimes \sigma_2)^2=I_2 \otimes I_2 \otimes I_2$
we obtain
$$
e^{-i\hat Ht/\hbar} =
e^{-i\omega t(\sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_3 \otimes \sigma_2)}
= I_8 \cos(\omega t) - i\sin(\omega t)(\sigma_1
\otimes \sigma_3 \otimes \sigma_2)\,.
$$
If $\omega t=\pi/2$, then $\cos(\pi/2)=0$, $\sin(\pi/2)=1$
and we obtain
$$
\exp(-i\frac{\pi}2 (\sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_3 \otimes \sigma_2))
= -i\sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_3 \otimes \sigma_2
$$
where $e^{-i\pi/2}=-i$.
\newline
Many quantum gates (\cite{8,9,10,11}) such as the Hadamard gate
$U_H$ and the CNOT-gate
$$
U_H = \frac1{\sqrt2} \pmatrix { 1 & 1 \cr 1 & -1 }, \qquad
U_{CNOT} = \pmatrix { 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \cr 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 }
$$
and Swap gate
$$
U_{swap} = \pmatrix { 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \cr
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 }
$$
satisfy the condition that the square is the identity matrix.
\newline
If the $n \times n$ matrices $X$ and $Y$ satisfy $X^2=I_n$,
$Y^2=I_n$, then $X \otimes Y$ and $X \oplus Y$ satisfy
$(X \otimes Y)^2=I_{n^2}$ and $(X \oplus Y)^2=I_{2n}$, where
$\oplus$ denotes the direct sum.
An application would be the Pauli spin matrices, for
example $\sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2$, $\sigma_1 \oplus \sigma_2$
or $\sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_3 \otimes \sigma_2$,
$\sigma_1 \oplus \sigma_3 \oplus \sigma_2$. The elements
$\sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_2$,
$\sigma_1 \otimes \sigma_3 \otimes \sigma_2$ are elements of
the Pauli group. The $n$-qubit Pauli group ${\cal P}_n$ is defined by
$$
{\cal P}_n := \{ \, I_2, \sigma_1, \sigma_2, \sigma_3 \, \}^{ \otimes n}
\otimes \{ \, \pm 1, \pm i \, \}\,.
$$
The $n$-qubit Pauli group ${\cal P}_n$ is of order $4^{n+1}$.
\newline
\section{Conclusion}
We solved the matrix equation $\exp(zA)=\exp(z)A$ for normal
matrices. We have also shown that solutions for nonnormal
matrices exist.\\
\strut\\
{\bf Acknowledgment}\\
The authors are supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF),
South Africa. This work is based upon research supported by the National
Research Foundation. Any opinion, findings and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and therefore the
NRF do not accept any liability in regard thereto.
\strut\hfill
|
\section{Object proposal transformations}
\seclabel{altwarp}
The convolutional neural network used in this work requires a fixed-size input of $227 \times 227$ pixels.
For detection, we consider object proposals that are arbitrary image rectangles.
We evaluated two approaches for transforming object proposals into valid CNN inputs.
The first method (``tightest square with context'') encloses each object proposal inside the tightest square and then scales (isotropically) the image contained in that square to the CNN input size.
\figref{crops} column (B) shows this transformation.
A variant on this method (``tightest square without context'') excludes the image content that surrounds the original object proposal.
\figref{crops} column (C) shows this transformation.
The second method (``warp'') anisotropically scales each object proposal to the CNN input size.
\figref{crops} column (D) shows the warp transformation.
For each of these transformations, we also consider including additional image context around the original object proposal.
The amount of context padding ($p$) is defined as a border size around the original object proposal in the transformed input coordinate frame.
\figref{crops} shows $p = 0$ pixels in the top row of each example and $p = 16$ pixels in the bottom row.
In all methods, if the source rectangle extends beyond the image, the missing data is replaced with the image mean (which is then subtracted before inputing the image into the CNN).
A pilot set of experiments showed that warping with context padding ($p = 16$ pixels) outperformed the alternatives by a large margin (3-5 mAP points).
Obviously more alternatives are possible, including using replication instead of mean padding.
Exhaustive evaluation of these alternatives is left as future work.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{supp/crop/crops.pdf}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{\textbf{Different object proposal transformations.}
(A) the original object proposal at its actual scale relative to the transformed CNN inputs; (B) tightest square with context; (C) tightest square without context; (D) warp.
Within each column and example proposal, the top row corresponds to $p = 0$ pixels of context padding while the bottom row has $p = 16$ pixels of context padding.}
\figlabel{crops}
\end{figure}
\section{Positive \vs negative examples and softmax}
\seclabel{posneg}
Two design choices warrant further discussion.
The first is: Why are positive and negative examples defined differently for fine-tuning the CNN versus training the object detection SVMs?
To review the definitions briefly, for fine-tuning we map each object proposal to the ground-truth instance with which it has maximum IoU overlap (if any) and label it as a positive for the matched ground-truth class if the IoU is at least 0.5.
All other proposals are labeled ``background'' (\ie, negative examples for all classes).
For training SVMs, in contrast, we take only the ground-truth boxes as positive examples for their respective classes and label proposals with less than 0.3 IoU overlap with all instances of a class as a negative for that class.
Proposals that fall into the grey zone (more than 0.3 IoU overlap, but are not ground truth) are ignored.
Historically speaking, we arrived at these definitions because we started by training SVMs on features computed by the ImageNet pre-trained CNN, and so fine-tuning was not a consideration at that point in time.
In that setup, we found that our particular label definition for training SVMs was optimal within the set of options we evaluated (which included the setting we now use for fine-tuning).
When we started using fine-tuning, we initially used the same positive and negative example definition as we were using for SVM training.
However, we found that results were much worse than those obtained using our current definition of positives and negatives.
Our hypothesis is that this difference in how positives and negatives are defined is not fundamentally important and arises from the fact that fine-tuning data is limited.
Our current scheme introduces many ``jittered'' examples (those proposals with overlap between 0.5 and 1, but not ground truth), which expands the number of positive examples by approximately 30x.
We conjecture that this large set is needed when fine-tuning the \emph{entire} network to avoid overfitting.
However, we also note that using these jittered examples is likely suboptimal because the network is not being fine-tuned for precise localization.
This leads to the second issue: Why, after fine-tuning, train SVMs at all?
It would be cleaner to simply apply the last layer of the fine-tuned network, which is a 21-way softmax regression classifier, as the object detector.
We tried this and found that performance on VOC 2007 dropped from 54.2\% to 50.9\% mAP.
This performance drop likely arises from a combination of several factors including that the definition of positive examples used in fine-tuning does not emphasize precise localization and the softmax classifier was trained on randomly sampled negative examples rather than on the subset of ``hard negatives'' used for SVM training.
This result shows that it's possible to obtain close to the same level of performance without training SVMs after fine-tuning.
We conjecture that with some additional tweaks to fine-tuning the remaining performance gap may be closed.
If true, this would simplify and speed up R-CNN training with no loss in detection performance.
\section{Bounding-box regression}
\seclabel{bboxreg}
We use a simple bounding-box regression stage to improve localization performance.
After scoring each selective search proposal with a class-specific detection SVM, we predict a new bounding box for the detection using a class-specific bounding-box regressor.
This is similar in spirit to the bounding-box regression used in deformable part models \cite{lsvm-pami}.
The primary difference between the two approaches is that here we regress from features computed by the CNN, rather than from geometric features computed on the inferred DPM part locations.
The input to our training algorithm is a set of $N$ training pairs $\{(P^i, G^i)\}_{i = 1,\ldots,N}$, where $P^i = (P_x^i, P_y^i, P_w^i, P_h^i)$ specifies the pixel coordinates of the center of proposal $P^i$'s bounding box together with $P^i$'s width and height in pixels.
Hence forth, we drop the superscript $i$ unless it is needed.
Each ground-truth bounding box $G$ is specified in the same way: $G = (G_x, G_y, G_w, G_h)$.
Our goal is to learn a transformation that maps a proposed box $P$ to a ground-truth box $G$.
We parameterize the transformation in terms of four functions $d_x(P)$, $d_y(P)$, $d_w(P)$, and $d_h(P)$.
The first two specify a scale-invariant translation of the center of $P$'s bounding box, while the second two specify log-space translations of the width and height of $P$'s bounding box.
After learning these functions, we can transform an input proposal $P$ into a predicted ground-truth box $\hat{G}$ by applying the transformation
\begin{align}
\hat{G}_x &= P_w d_x(P) + P_x \\
\hat{G}_y &= P_h d_y(P) + P_y \\
\hat{G}_w &= P_w \exp(d_w(P)) \\
\hat{G}_h &= P_h \exp(d_h(P)).
\end{align}
Each function $d_\star(P)$ (where $\star$ is one of $x,y,h,w$) is modeled as a linear function of the \pool{5} features of proposal $P$, denoted by $\bphi_5(P)$.
(The dependence of $\bphi_5(P)$ on the image data is implicitly assumed.)
Thus we have $d_\star(P) = \bfw_\star^\trn \bphi_5(P)$, where $\bfw_\star$ is a vector of learnable model parameters.
We learn $\bfw_\star$ by optimizing the regularized least squares objective (ridge regression):
\begin{align}
\bfw_\star = \argmin_{\hat{\bfw}_\star} \sum_i^N (t^i_\star - \hat{\bfw}_\star^\trn \bphi_5(P^i))^2 + \lambda \norm{\hat{\bfw}_\star}^2.
\end{align}
The regression targets $t_\star$ for the training pair $(P, G)$ are defined as
\begin{align}
t_x &= (G_x - P_x) / P_w \\
t_y &= (G_y - P_y) / P_h \\
t_w &= \log(G_w / P_w) \\
t_h &= \log(G_h / P_h).
\end{align}
As a standard regularized least squares problem, this can be solved efficiently in closed form.
We found two subtle issues while implementing bounding-box regression.
The first is that regularization is important: we set $\lambda = 1000$ based on a validation set.
The second issue is that care must be taken when selecting which training pairs $(P,G)$ to use.
Intuitively, if $P$ is far from all ground-truth boxes, then the task of transforming $P$ to a ground-truth box $G$ does not make sense.
Using examples like $P$ would lead to a hopeless learning problem.
Therefore, we only learn from a proposal $P$ if it is \emph{nearby} at least one ground-truth box.
We implement ``nearness'' by assigning $P$ to the ground-truth box $G$ with which it has maximum IoU overlap (in case it overlaps more than one) if and only if the overlap is greater than a threshold (which we set to 0.6 using a validation set).
All unassigned proposals are discarded.
We do this once for each object class in order to learn a set of class-specific bounding-box regressors.
At test time, we score each proposal and predict its new detection window only once.
In principle, we could iterate this procedure (\ie, re-score the newly predicted bounding box, and then predict a new bounding box from it, and so on).
However, we found that iterating does not improve results.
\section{Additional feature visualizations}
\seclabel{extravis}
\figref{vis21} shows additional visualizations for 20 \pool{5} units.
For each unit, we show the 24 region proposals that maximally activate that unit out of the full set of approximately 10 million regions in all of VOC 2007 test.
We label each unit by its (y, x, channel) position in the $6 \times 6 \times 256$ dimensional \pool{5} feature map.
Within each channel, the CNN computes exactly the same function of the input region, with the (y, x) position changing only the receptive field.
\section{Per-category segmentation results}
\seclabel{segperclass}
In \tableref{voc2011valsupp} we show the per-category segmentation accuracy on VOC 2011 val for each of our six segmentation methods in addition to the O$_2$P\xspace method~\cite{o2p}. These results show which methods are strongest across each of the 20 PASCAL classes, plus the background class.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{1.2mm}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}l|c|r*{19}{c}|c@{}}
\textbf{VOC 2011 val} & bg & aero & bike & bird & boat & bottle & bus & car & cat & chair & cow & table & dog & horse & mbike & person & plant & sheep & sofa & train & tv & mean \\
\hline
O$_2$P\xspace \cite{o2p} &
\textbf{84.0} &
\textbf{69.0} & 21.7 & 47.7 & 42.2 & 42.4 & \textbf{64.7} & \textbf{65.8} & 57.4 & \textbf{12.9} & 37.4 &
20.5 & 43.7 & 35.7 & 52.7 & 51.0 & \textbf{35.8} & \textbf{51.0} & 28.4 & 59.8 & 49.7 &
46.4 \\
\hline
\textit{full} R-CNN \fc{6} &
81.3 &
56.2 & 23.9 & 42.9 & 40.7 & 38.8 & 59.2 & 56.5 & 53.2 & 11.4 & 34.6 &
16.7 & 48.1 & 37.0 & 51.4 & 46.0 & 31.5 & 44.0 & 24.3 & 53.7 & 51.1 &
43.0 \\
\textit{full} R-CNN \fc{7} &
81.0 &
52.8 & \textbf{25.1} & 43.8 & 40.5 & 42.7 & 55.4 & 57.7 & 51.3 & \phz8.7 & 32.5 &
11.5 & 48.1 & 37.0 & 50.5 & 46.4 & 30.2 & 42.1 & 21.2 & 57.7 & \textbf{56.0} &
42.5 \\
\hline
\textit{fg} R-CNN \fc{6} &
81.4 &
54.1 & 21.1 & 40.6 & 38.7 & \textbf{53.6} & 59.9 & 57.2 & 52.5 & \phz9.1 & 36.5 &
\textbf{23.6} & 46.4 & 38.1 & 53.2 & 51.3 & 32.2 & 38.7 & \textbf{29.0} & 53.0 & 47.5 &
43.7 \\
\textit{fg} R-CNN \fc{7} &
80.9 &
50.1 & 20.0 & 40.2 & 34.1 & 40.9 & 59.7 & 59.8 & 52.7 & \phz7.3 & 32.1 &
14.3 & 48.8 & 42.9 & 54.0 & 48.6 & 28.9 & 42.6 & 24.9 & 52.2 & 48.8 &
42.1 \\
\hline
\textit{full+fg} R-CNN \fc{6} &
83.1 &
60.4 & 23.2 & 48.4 & \textbf{47.3} & 52.6 & 61.6 & 60.6 & \textbf{59.1} & 10.8 & \textbf{45.8} &
20.9 & \textbf{57.7} & 43.3 & \textbf{57.4} & \textbf{52.9} & 34.7 & 48.7 & 28.1 & 60.0 & 48.6 &
\textbf{47.9} \\
\textit{full+fg} R-CNN \fc{7} &
82.3 &
56.7 & 20.6 & \textbf{49.9} & 44.2 & 43.6 & 59.3 & 61.3 & 57.8 & \phz7.7 & 38.4 &
15.1 & 53.4 & \textbf{43.7} & 50.8 & 52.0 & 34.1 & 47.8 & 24.7 & \textbf{60.1} & 55.2 &
45.7 \\
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{0.1em}
\caption{Per-category segmentation accuracy (\%) on the VOC 2011 validation set.
}
\tablelabel{voc2011valsupp}
\end{table*}
\section{Analysis of cross-dataset redundancy}
One concern when training on an auxiliary dataset is that there might be redundancy between it and the test set.
Even though the tasks of object detection and whole-image classification are substantially different, making such cross-set redundancy much less worrisome, we still conducted a thorough investigation that quantifies the extent to which PASCAL test images are contained within the ILSVRC 2012 training and validation sets.
Our findings may be useful to researchers who are interested in using ILSVRC 2012 as training data for the PASCAL image classification task.
We performed two checks for duplicate (and near-duplicate) images.
The first test is based on exact matches of flickr image IDs, which are included in the VOC 2007 test annotations (these IDs are intentionally kept secret for subsequent PASCAL test sets).
All PASCAL images, and about half of ILSVRC, were collected from flickr.com.
This check turned up 31 matches out of 4952 (0.63\%).
The second check uses GIST \cite{GIST} descriptor matching, which was shown in \cite{douze2009evaluation} to have excellent performance at near-duplicate image detection in large ($>$ 1 million) image collections.
Following \cite{douze2009evaluation}, we computed GIST descriptors on warped $32 \times 32$ pixel versions of all ILSVRC 2012 trainval and PASCAL 2007 test images.
Euclidean distance nearest-neighbor matching of GIST descriptors revealed 38 near-duplicate images (including all 31 found by flickr ID matching).
The matches tend to vary slightly in JPEG compression level and resolution, and to a lesser extent cropping.
These findings show that the overlap is small, less than 1\%.
For VOC 2012, because flickr IDs are not available, we used the GIST matching method only.
Based on GIST matches, 1.5\% of VOC 2012 test images are in ILSVRC 2012 trainval.
The slightly higher rate for VOC 2012 is likely due to the fact that the two datasets were collected closer together in time than VOC 2007 and ILSVRC 2012 were.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{1.2mm}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}lr|lr|lr|lr|lr@{}}
\textbf{class} & \textbf{AP} &
\textbf{class} & \textbf{AP} &
\textbf{class} & \textbf{AP} &
\textbf{class} & \textbf{AP} &
\textbf{class} & \textbf{AP} \\
\hline
accordion & 50.8 & centipede & 30.4 & hair spray & 13.8 & pencil box & 11.4 & snowplow & 69.2 \\
airplane & 50.0 & chain saw & 14.1 & hamburger & 34.2 & pencil sharpener & 9.0 & soap dispenser & 16.8 \\
ant & 31.8 & chair & 19.5 & hammer & 9.9 & perfume & 32.8 & soccer ball & 43.7 \\
antelope & 53.8 & chime & 24.6 & hamster & 46.0 & person & 41.7 & sofa & 16.3 \\
apple & 30.9 & cocktail shaker & 46.2 & harmonica & 12.6 & piano & 20.5 & spatula & 6.8 \\
armadillo & 54.0 & coffee maker & 21.5 & harp & 50.4 & pineapple & 22.6 & squirrel & 31.3 \\
artichoke & 45.0 & computer keyboard & 39.6 & hat with a wide brim & 40.5 & ping-pong ball & 21.0 & starfish & 45.1 \\
axe & 11.8 & computer mouse & 21.2 & head cabbage & 17.4 & pitcher & 19.2 & stethoscope & 18.3 \\
baby bed & 42.0 & corkscrew & 24.2 & helmet & 33.4 & pizza & 43.7 & stove & 8.1 \\
backpack & 2.8 & cream & 29.9 & hippopotamus & 38.0 & plastic bag & 6.4 & strainer & 9.9 \\
bagel & 37.5 & croquet ball & 30.0 & horizontal bar & 7.0 & plate rack & 15.2 & strawberry & 26.8 \\
balance beam & 32.6 & crutch & 23.7 & horse & 41.7 & pomegranate & 32.0 & stretcher & 13.2 \\
banana & 21.9 & cucumber & 22.8 & hotdog & 28.7 & popsicle & 21.2 & sunglasses & 18.8 \\
band aid & 17.4 & cup or mug & 34.0 & iPod & 59.2 & porcupine & 37.2 & swimming trunks & 9.1 \\
banjo & 55.3 & diaper & 10.1 & isopod & 19.5 & power drill & 7.9 & swine & 45.3 \\
baseball & 41.8 & digital clock & 18.5 & jellyfish & 23.7 & pretzel & 24.8 & syringe & 5.7 \\
basketball & 65.3 & dishwasher & 19.9 & koala bear & 44.3 & printer & 21.3 & table & 21.7 \\
bathing cap & 37.2 & dog & 76.8 & ladle & 3.0 & puck & 14.1 & tape player & 21.4 \\
beaker & 11.3 & domestic cat & 44.1 & ladybug & 58.4 & punching bag & 29.4 & tennis ball & 59.1 \\
bear & 62.7 & dragonfly & 27.8 & lamp & 9.1 & purse & 8.0 & tick & 42.6 \\
bee & 52.9 & drum & 19.9 & laptop & 35.4 & rabbit & 71.0 & tie & 24.6 \\
bell pepper & 38.8 & dumbbell & 14.1 & lemon & 33.3 & racket & 16.2 & tiger & 61.8 \\
bench & 12.7 & electric fan & 35.0 & lion & 51.3 & ray & 41.1 & toaster & 29.2 \\
bicycle & 41.1 & elephant & 56.4 & lipstick & 23.1 & red panda & 61.1 & traffic light & 24.7 \\
binder & 6.2 & face powder & 22.1 & lizard & 38.9 & refrigerator & 14.0 & train & 60.8 \\
bird & 70.9 & fig & 44.5 & lobster & 32.4 & remote control & 41.6 & trombone & 13.8 \\
bookshelf & 19.3 & filing cabinet & 20.6 & maillot & 31.0 & rubber eraser & 2.5 & trumpet & 14.4 \\
bow tie & 38.8 & flower pot & 20.2 & maraca & 30.1 & rugby ball & 34.5 & turtle & 59.1 \\
bow & 9.0 & flute & 4.9 & microphone & 4.0 & ruler & 11.5 & tv or monitor & 41.7 \\
bowl & 26.7 & fox & 59.3 & microwave & 40.1 & salt or pepper shaker & 24.6 & unicycle & 27.2 \\
brassiere & 31.2 & french horn & 24.2 & milk can & 33.3 & saxophone & 40.8 & vacuum & 19.5 \\
burrito & 25.7 & frog & 64.1 & miniskirt & 14.9 & scorpion & 57.3 & violin & 13.7 \\
bus & 57.5 & frying pan & 21.5 & monkey & 49.6 & screwdriver & 10.6 & volleyball & 59.7 \\
butterfly & 88.5 & giant panda & 42.5 & motorcycle & 42.2 & seal & 20.9 & waffle iron & 24.0 \\
camel & 37.6 & goldfish & 28.6 & mushroom & 31.8 & sheep & 48.9 & washer & 39.8 \\
can opener & 28.9 & golf ball & 51.3 & nail & 4.5 & ski & 9.0 & water bottle & 8.1 \\
car & 44.5 & golfcart & 47.9 & neck brace & 31.6 & skunk & 57.9 & watercraft & 40.9 \\
cart & 48.0 & guacamole & 32.3 & oboe & 27.5 & snail & 36.2 & whale & 48.6 \\
cattle & 32.3 & guitar & 33.1 & orange & 38.8 & snake & 33.8 & wine bottle & 31.2 \\
cello & 28.9 & hair dryer & 13.0 & otter & 22.2 & snowmobile & 58.8 & zebra & 49.6 \\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{Per-class average precision (\%) on the ILSVRC2013 detection test\xspace set.}
\tablelabel{classaps}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\def 0.475 {1in}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1056.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1097.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1301.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1345.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1432.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1439.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1509.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-152.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1664.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1798.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1609.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1643.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1805.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1815.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1859.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2269.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2312.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2369.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2368.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2382.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2570.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2607.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3009.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2608.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2915.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3086.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3331.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3466.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3478.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3623.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3641.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3954.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3842.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3968.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3981.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4118.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-424.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4266.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4282.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4382.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4389.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4437.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4464.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-46.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4783.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Example detections on the val$_2$\xspace set from the configuration that achieved 31.0\% mAP on val$_2$\xspace.
Each image was sampled randomly (these are \emph{not} curated).
All detections at precision greater than 0.5 are shown.
Each detection is labeled with the predicted class and the precision value of that detection from the detector's precision-recall curve.
Viewing digitally with zoom is recommended.
}
\figlabel{examples1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\def 0.475 {0.99in}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4826.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4842.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-490.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4995.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5016.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5068.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5240.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5331.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5381.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6144.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7325.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5666.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5433.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5728.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7201.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-589.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6150.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6374.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6830.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6388.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6482.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7413.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-774.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7804.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-750.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5967.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7623.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7667.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7877.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7669.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7912.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-798.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-8029.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-8080.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-8085.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-8086.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-8178.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-831.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-836.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-8426.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/dets/ilsvrc13_val2-8590.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{More randomly selected examples. See \figref{examples1} caption for details.
Viewing digitally with zoom is recommended.
}
\figlabel{examples2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\def 0.475 {1in}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1022.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1048.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1086.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1103.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1185.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1356.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-137.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1516.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1882.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1957.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2062.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-1965.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2434.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2559.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2340.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2049.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3033.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2408.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2589.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-264.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2665.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2743.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3366.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2681.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-2808.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-309.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3283.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3896.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3422.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3449.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3545.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-373.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7579.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-412.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-689.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6939.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7555.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3735.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7673.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7733.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7743.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-9901.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Curated examples. Each image was selected because we found it impressive, surprising, interesting, or amusing.
Viewing digitally with zoom is recommended.
}
\figlabel{cexamples1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\def 0.475 {0.95in}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4184.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4538.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4567.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4649.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4792.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-4963.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5040.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5108.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5242.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5262.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-3005.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5388.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5456.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5545.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5655.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5705.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5744.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5990.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5775.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-578.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5788.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5790.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-5907.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6060.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6624.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6092.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6225.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6413.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6417.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6634.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6729.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6788.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-6884.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7785.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-7984.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-8013.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-8089.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-8100.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-8158.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-8210.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-8343.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-884.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-964.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-9719.pdf}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/ilsvrc/curated_dets/ilsvrc13_val2-9845.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{More curated examples. See \figref{cexamples1} caption for details.
Viewing digitally with zoom is recommended.
}
\figlabel{cexamples2}
\end{figure*}
\input{supp_vis}
\section{Document changelog}
This document tracks the progress of R-CNN.
To help readers understand how it has changed over time, here's a brief changelog describing the revisions.
\paragraph{v1} Initial version.
\paragraph{v2} CVPR 2014 camera-ready revision. Includes substantial improvements in detection performance brought about by (1) starting fine-tuning from a higher learning rate (0.001 instead of 0.0001), (2) using context padding when preparing CNN inputs, and (3) bounding-box regression to fix localization errors.
\paragraph{v3} Results on the ILSVRC2013 detection dataset and comparison with OverFeat were integrated into several sections (primarily \secref{detection} and \secref{ilsvrc}).
\paragraph{v4} The softmax \vs SVM results in \asecref{posneg} contained an error, which has been fixed. We thank Sergio Guadarrama for helping to identify this issue.
\paragraph{v5} Added results using the new 16-layer network architecture from Simonyan and Zisserman \cite{vggverydeep} to \secref{netarch} and \tableref{voc2007oxfordnet}.
\subsection{Ablation studies}
\seclabel{ablation}
\paragraph{Performance layer-by-layer, without fine-tuning.}
To understand which layers are critical for detection performance, we analyzed results on the VOC 2007 dataset for each of the CNN's last three layers.
Layer \pool{5} was briefly described in \secref{vis}.
The final two layers are summarized below.
Layer \fc{6} is fully connected to \pool{5}. To compute features,
it multiplies a $4096 \times 9216$ weight matrix by the \pool{5} feature map
(reshaped as a 9216-dimensional vector) and then adds a vector of
biases.
This intermediate vector is component-wise half-wave rectified ($x \leftarrow \max(0, x)$).
Layer \fc{7} is the final layer of the network. It is implemented
by multiplying the features computed by \fc{6} by a $4096 \times 4096$
weight matrix, and similarly adding a vector of biases and
applying half-wave rectification.
We start by looking at results from the CNN \emph{without fine-tuning} on PASCAL, \ie all CNN parameters were pre-trained on ILSVRC 2012 only.
Analyzing performance layer-by-layer (\tableref{voc2007} rows 1-3) reveals that
features from \fc{7} generalize worse than
features from \fc{6}. This means that 29\%, or about 16.8 million,
of the CNN's parameters can be removed without degrading mAP.
More surprising is that removing \emph{both} \fc{7} and
\fc{6} produces quite good results even though \pool{5}
features are computed using \emph{only 6\%}
of the CNN's parameters. Much of the
CNN's representational power comes from its convolutional layers,
rather than from the much larger densely connected layers. This finding
suggests potential utility in computing a dense feature map,
in the sense of HOG, of an arbitrary-sized image by using only the convolutional layers
of the CNN. This representation would enable experimentation with sliding-window detectors,
including DPM, on top of \pool{5} features.
\paragraph{Performance layer-by-layer, with fine-tuning.}
We now look at results from our CNN after having fine-tuned its parameters on VOC 2007 trainval.
The improvement is striking (\tableref{voc2007} rows 4-6):
fine-tuning increases mAP by 8.0 percentage points to 54.2\%.
The boost from fine-tuning is much larger for \fc{6} and \fc{7} than for \pool{5},
which suggests that the \pool{5} features learned from ImageNet are general and that most of the improvement is gained from learning domain-specific non-linear classifiers on top of them.
\paragraph{Comparison to recent feature learning methods.}
Relatively few feature learning methods have been tried on PASCAL VOC detection.
We look at two recent approaches that build on deformable part models. For reference, we also include results for the standard HOG-based DPM \cite{release5}.
The first DPM feature learning method, DPM ST \cite{lim2013sketch},
augments HOG features with histograms of ``sketch
token'' probabilities. Intuitively, a sketch token is
a tight distribution of contours passing through the center of
an image patch.
Sketch token probabilities are computed at
each pixel by a random forest that was trained to classify
$35 \times 35$ pixel patches into one of 150 sketch tokens or background.
The second method, DPM HSC \cite{HSC}, replaces HOG with histograms of sparse codes (HSC). To compute an HSC, sparse code
activations are solved for at each pixel using a learned dictionary
of 100 $7 \times 7$ pixel (grayscale) atoms. The resulting activations are
rectified in three ways (full and both half-waves), spatially pooled,
unit $\ell_2$ normalized,
and then power transformed ($x \leftarrow \textrm{sign}(x)|x|^\alpha$).
All R-CNN variants strongly outperform the three DPM baselines (\tableref{voc2007} rows 8-10), including
the two that use feature learning. Compared to the latest version of
DPM, which uses only HOG features, our mAP is more than 20 percentage points higher: 54.2\% \vs 33.7\%---\emph{a 61\% relative improvement}.
The combination of HOG and sketch tokens
yields 2.5 mAP points over HOG alone, while HSC improves over HOG
by 4 mAP points (when compared internally
to their private DPM baselines---both use non-public implementations of DPM
that underperform the open source version \cite{release5}). These methods achieve mAPs of 29.1\% and 34.3\%, respectively.
\subsection{Network architectures}
\seclabel{netarch}
Most results in this paper use the network architecture from Krizhevsky \etal \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}.
However, we have found that the choice of architecture has a large effect on R-CNN detection performance.
In \tableref{voc2007oxfordnet} we show results on VOC 2007 test using the 16-layer deep network recently proposed by Simonyan and Zisserman \cite{vggverydeep}.
This network was one of the top performers in the recent ILSVRC 2014 classification challenge.
The network has a homogeneous structure consisting of 13 layers of $3 \times 3$ convolution kernels,
with five max pooling layers interspersed, and topped with three fully-connected layers.
We refer to this network as ``O-Net'' for OxfordNet and the baseline as ``T-Net'' for TorontoNet.
To use O-Net in R-CNN, we downloaded the publicly available pre-trained network weights for the \texttt{VGG\_ILSVRC\_16\_layers} model from the Caffe Model Zoo.\footnote{\url{https://github.com/BVLC/caffe/wiki/Model-Zoo}}
We then fine-tuned the network using the same protocol as we used for T-Net.
The only difference was to use smaller minibatches (24 examples) as required in order to fit within GPU memory.
The results in \tableref{voc2007oxfordnet} show that R-CNN with O-Net substantially outperforms R-CNN with T-Net, increasing mAP from 58.5\% to 66.0\%.
However there is a considerable drawback in terms of compute time, with the forward pass of O-Net taking roughly 7 times longer than T-Net.
\section{Conclusion}
In recent years, object detection performance had stagnated.
The best performing systems were complex ensembles combining multiple low-level image features with high-level context from object detectors and scene classifiers.
This paper presents a simple and scalable object detection algorithm that gives a 30\% relative improvement over the best previous results on PASCAL VOC 2012.
We achieved this performance through two insights.
The first is to apply high-capacity convolutional neural networks to bottom-up region proposals in order to localize and segment objects.
The second is a paradigm for training large CNNs when labeled training data is scarce. We show that it is highly effective to pre-train the network---\emph{with supervision}---for a auxiliary task with abundant data (image classification) and then to fine-tune the network for the target task where data is scarce (detection).
We conjecture that the ``supervised pre-training/domain-specific fine-tuning'' paradigm will be highly effective for a variety of data-scarce vision problems.
We conclude by noting that it is significant that we achieved these results by using a combination of classical tools from computer vision \emph{and} deep learning (bottom-up region proposals and convolutional neural networks).
Rather than opposing lines of scientific inquiry, the two are natural and inevitable partners.
\paragraph{Acknowledgments.}
This research was supported in part by DARPA Mind's Eye and MSEE
programs, by NSF awards IIS-0905647, IIS-1134072, and IIS-1212798, MURI N000014-10-1-0933, and by support from Toyota.
The GPUs used in this research were generously donated by the NVIDIA Corporation.
\section{Object detection with R-CNN}
\seclabel{detection}
Our object detection system consists of three modules.
The first generates category-independent region proposals.
These proposals define the set of candidate detections available to our detector.
The second module is a large convolutional neural network that extracts a fixed-length feature vector from each region.
The third module is a set of class-specific linear SVMs.
In this section, we present our design decisions for each module, describe their test-time usage, detail how their parameters are learned, and show detection results on PASCAL VOC 2010-12 and on ILSVRC2013.
\subsection{Module design}
\paragraph{Region proposals.}
A variety of recent papers offer methods for generating category-independent
region proposals. Examples include: objectness \cite{objectness-pami},
selective search \cite{UijlingsIJCV2013}, category-independent
object proposals \cite{endres2010category}, constrained parametric min-cuts (CPMC)
\cite{carreira2012cpmc}, multi-scale combinatorial grouping \cite{mcg2014}, and Cire{\c{s}}an \etal \cite{cirecsan2013mitosis}, who detect mitotic cells by applying a CNN to regularly-spaced square crops, which are a special case of region proposals.
While R-CNN is agnostic to the particular region proposal method, we use selective search to enable a controlled comparison with prior detection work (\eg, \cite{UijlingsIJCV2013,regionlets}).
\paragraph{Feature extraction.}
We extract a 4096-dimensional feature vector from each region proposal using the Caffe \cite{Jia13caffe} implementation of the CNN described by Krizhevsky \etal
\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}.
Features are computed by forward propagating a mean-subtracted $227 \times 227$
RGB image through five convolutional layers and two fully connected layers.
We refer readers to \cite{Jia13caffe,krizhevsky2012imagenet} for more network architecture details.
In order to compute features for a region proposal, we must first
convert the image data in that region into a form that is compatible
with the CNN (its architecture requires inputs of a fixed
$227 \times 227$ pixel size).
Of the many possible transformations of our arbitrary-shaped regions, we opt for the simplest.
Regardless of the size or aspect ratio of the candidate region, we warp all pixels in a tight bounding box around it to the required size.
Prior to warping, we dilate the tight bounding box so that at the warped size there are exactly $p$ pixels of warped image context around the original box (we use $p = 16$).
\figref{warped-samples} shows a random sampling of warped training regions.
Alternatives to warping are discussed in \asecref{altwarp}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\def 0.475 {-1.15em}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.8in]{figures/warped-samples/warped.pdf}
\vspace{-1em}
\caption{\textbf{Warped training samples} from VOC 2007 train.}
\figlabel{warped-samples}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Test-time detection}
\seclabel{runtime}
At test time, we run selective search on the test image to extract around 2000 region proposals (we use selective search's ``fast mode'' in all experiments).
We warp each proposal and forward propagate it through the CNN in order to compute features.
Then, for each class, we score each extracted feature vector using the SVM trained for that class.
Given all scored regions in an image, we apply a greedy non-maximum suppression (for each class independently) that rejects a region if it has an intersection-over-union (IoU) overlap with a higher scoring selected region larger than a learned threshold.
\paragraph{Run-time analysis.}
Two properties make detection efficient. First,
all CNN parameters are shared across all categories. Second, the
feature vectors computed by the CNN are low-dimensional when compared
to other common approaches, such as spatial pyramids with bag-of-visual-word
encodings.
The features used in the UVA detection system \cite{UijlingsIJCV2013}, for example, are two orders of magnitude larger than ours (360k \vs 4k-dimensional).
The result of such sharing is that the time spent computing region
proposals and features (13s/image on a GPU or
53s/image on a CPU) is amortized over all classes. The only
class-specific computations are dot products between features and
SVM weights and non-maximum suppression.
In practice, all dot products for an image are batched
into a single matrix-matrix product. The feature matrix is typically
$2000 \times 4096$ and the SVM weight matrix is $4096 \times
N$, where $N$ is the number of classes.
This analysis shows that R-CNN can
scale to thousands of object classes without resorting to approximate
techniques, such as hashing.
Even if there were 100k classes, the resulting
matrix multiplication takes only 10 seconds on a modern multi-core CPU.
This efficiency is not merely the result
of using region proposals and shared features. The UVA system,
due to its high-dimensional features, would be two orders
of magnitude slower while requiring
134GB of memory just to store 100k linear predictors, compared
to just 1.5GB for our lower-dimensional features.
It is also interesting to contrast R-CNN with the recent work from Dean \etal
on scalable detection using DPMs and hashing \cite{dean2013fast}. They report a mAP of around 16\% on VOC 2007 at a run-time of 5 minutes per image
when introducing 10k distractor classes. With our approach, 10k
detectors can run in about a minute on a CPU, and because
no approximations are made mAP would remain at 59\% (\secref{ablation}).
\subsection{Training}
\seclabel{training}
\paragraph{Supervised pre-training.}
We discriminatively pre-trained the CNN on a large auxiliary dataset (ILSVRC2012 classification) using \emph{image-level annotations} only (bounding-box labels are not available for this data).
Pre-training was performed using the open source Caffe CNN library \cite{Jia13caffe}.
In brief, our CNN nearly matches the performance of Krizhevsky \etal
\cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}, obtaining a top-1 error rate
2.2 percentage points higher on the ILSVRC2012 classification validation
set. This discrepancy is due to simplifications in the training process.
\paragraph{Domain-specific fine-tuning.}
To adapt our CNN to the new task (detection) and the new domain (warped proposal windows), we continue stochastic gradient descent (SGD) training of the CNN parameters using only warped region proposals.
Aside from replacing the CNN's ImageNet-specific 1000-way classification layer with a randomly initialized ($N+1$)-way classification layer (where $N$ is the number of object classes, plus 1 for background), the CNN architecture is unchanged.
For VOC, $N = 20$ and for ILSVRC2013, $N = 200$.
We treat all region proposals with $\geq 0.5$ IoU overlap with a ground-truth
box as positives for that box's class and the rest as negatives.
We start SGD at a learning rate of 0.001 (1/10th of the initial pre-training rate),
which allows fine-tuning to make progress while not clobbering the initialization.
In each SGD iteration, we uniformly sample 32 positive windows (over all classes) and 96 background windows to construct a mini-batch of size 128.
We bias the sampling towards positive windows because they are extremely rare compared to background.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{1.2mm}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}l|r*{19}{c}|c@{}}
\textbf{VOC 2010 test} & aero & bike & bird & boat & bottle & bus & car & cat & chair & cow & table & dog & horse & mbike & person & plant & sheep & sofa & train & tv & mAP \\
\hline
DPM v5 \cite{release5}$^\dagger$ & 49.2 & 53.8 & 13.1 & 15.3 & 35.5 & 53.4 & 49.7 & 27.0 & 17.2 & 28.8 & 14.7 & 17.8 & 46.4 & 51.2 & 47.7 & 10.8 & 34.2 & 20.7 & 43.8 & 38.3 & 33.4 \\
UVA \cite{UijlingsIJCV2013} & 56.2 & 42.4 & 15.3 & 12.6 & 21.8 & 49.3 & 36.8 & 46.1 & 12.9 & 32.1 & 30.0 & 36.5 & 43.5 & 52.9 & 32.9 & 15.3 & 41.1 & 31.8 & 47.0 & 44.8 & 35.1 \\
Regionlets \cite{regionlets} & 65.0 & 48.9 & 25.9 & 24.6 & 24.5 & 56.1 & 54.5 & 51.2 & 17.0 & 28.9 & 30.2 & 35.8 & 40.2 & 55.7 & 43.5 & 14.3 & 43.9 & 32.6 & 54.0 & 45.9 & 39.7 \\
SegDPM \cite{fidler2013bottom}$^\dagger$ & 61.4 & 53.4 & 25.6 & 25.2 & 35.5 & 51.7 & 50.6 & 50.8 & 19.3 & 33.8 & 26.8 & 40.4 & 48.3 & 54.4 & 47.1 & 14.8 & 38.7 & 35.0 & 52.8 & 43.1 & 40.4 \\
\hline
R-CNN & 67.1 & 64.1 & 46.7 & 32.0 & 30.5 & 56.4 & 57.2 & 65.9 & 27.0 & 47.3 & 40.9 & 66.6 & 57.8 & 65.9 & 53.6 & 26.7 & 56.5 & 38.1 & 52.8 & 50.2 & 50.2 \\
R-CNN BB & \bf{71.8} & \bf{65.8} & \bf{53.0} & \bf{36.8} & \bf{35.9} & \bf{59.7} & \bf{60.0} & \bf{69.9} & \bf{27.9} & \bf{50.6} & \bf{41.4} & \bf{70.0} & \bf{62.0} & \bf{69.0} & \bf{58.1} & \bf{29.5} & \bf{59.4} & \bf{39.3} & \bf{61.2} & \bf{52.4} & \bf{53.7} \\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{\textbf{Detection average precision (\%) on VOC 2010 test.} R-CNN is most directly comparable to UVA and Regionlets since all methods use selective search region proposals.
Bounding-box regression (BB) is described in \secref{bboxreg}.
At publication time, SegDPM was the top-performer on the PASCAL VOC leaderboard. $^\dagger$DPM and SegDPM use context rescoring not used by the other methods.}
\tablelabel{voc2010}
\end{table*}
\paragraph{Object category classifiers.}
Consider training a binary classifier to detect cars.
It's clear that an image region tightly enclosing a car should be a positive example.
Similarly, it's clear that a background region, which has nothing to do with cars, should be a negative example.
Less clear is how to label a region that partially overlaps a car.
We resolve this issue with an IoU overlap threshold, below which regions are defined as negatives.
The overlap threshold, $0.3$, was selected by a grid search over $\{0, 0.1, \ldots, 0.5\}$ on a validation set.
We found that selecting this threshold carefully is important.
Setting it to $0.5$, as in \cite{UijlingsIJCV2013}, decreased mAP by $5$ points. Similarly, setting it to $0$ decreased mAP by $4$ points.
Positive examples are defined simply to be the ground-truth bounding boxes for each class.
Once features are extracted and training labels are applied, we optimize one linear SVM per class.
Since the training data is too large to fit in memory, we adopt the standard hard negative mining method \cite{lsvm-pami,Sung94}.
Hard negative mining converges quickly and in practice mAP stops increasing after only a single pass over all images.
In \asecref{posneg} we discuss why the positive and negative examples are defined differently in fine-tuning versus SVM training.
We also discuss the trade-offs involved in training detection SVMs rather than simply using the outputs from the final softmax layer of the fine-tuned CNN.
\subsection{Results on PASCAL VOC 2010-12}
Following the PASCAL VOC best practices \cite{PASCAL-IJCV}, we validated
all design decisions and hyperparameters on the VOC 2007 dataset (\secref{ablation}).
For final results on the VOC 2010-12 datasets, we fine-tuned
the CNN on VOC 2012 train and optimized our detection SVMs on VOC 2012 trainval.
We submitted test results to the evaluation server only once for each of the two major algorithm variants (with and without bounding-box regression).
\tableref{voc2010} shows complete results on VOC 2010.
We compare our method against four strong baselines, including SegDPM \cite{fidler2013bottom}, which combines DPM detectors with the output of a semantic segmentation system \cite{o2p} and uses additional inter-detector context and image-classifier rescoring.
The most
germane comparison is to the UVA system from
Uijlings \etal \cite{UijlingsIJCV2013}, since our systems use the
same region proposal algorithm. To classify regions, their method builds a four-level
spatial pyramid and populates it with densely sampled SIFT,
Extended OpponentSIFT, and RGB-SIFT descriptors, each vector quantized with 4000-word codebooks.
Classification is performed with a histogram intersection
kernel SVM. Compared to their multi-feature, non-linear kernel SVM
approach, we achieve a large improvement in mAP, from 35.1\% to
53.7\% mAP, while also being much faster (\secref{runtime}).
Our method achieves similar performance (53.3\% mAP) on VOC 2011/12 test.
\subsection{Results on ILSVRC2013 detection}
We ran R-CNN on the 200-class ILSVRC2013 detection dataset using the same system hyperparameters that we used for PASCAL VOC.
We followed the same protocol of submitting test results to the ILSVRC2013 evaluation server only twice, once with and once without bounding-box regression.
\figref{ilsvrc13} compares R-CNN to the entries in the ILSVRC 2013 competition and to the post-competition OverFeat result \cite{overfeat}.
R-CNN achieves a mAP of 31.4\%, which is significantly ahead of the second-best result of 24.3\% from OverFeat.
To give a sense of the AP distribution over classes, box plots are also presented and a table of per-class APs follows at the end of the paper in \tableref{classaps}.
Most of the competing submissions (OverFeat, NEC-MU, UvA-Euvision, Toronto A, and UIUC-IFP) used convolutional neural networks, indicating that there is significant nuance in how CNNs can be applied to object detection, leading to greatly varying outcomes.
In \secref{ilsvrc}, we give an overview of the ILSVRC2013 detection dataset and provide details about choices that we made when running R-CNN on it.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{figures/ilsvrc/ilsvrc13.pdf}
\hspace{2em}
\includegraphics[height=2.5in]{figures/ilsvrc/ilsvrc13_boxplot.pdf}
\end{center}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{\textbf{(Left) Mean average precision on the ILSVRC2013 detection test set.}
Methods preceeded by * use outside training data (images and labels from the ILSVRC classification dataset in all cases).
\textbf{(Right) Box plots for the 200 average precision values per method.}
A box plot for the post-competition OverFeat result is not shown because per-class APs are not yet available (per-class APs for R-CNN are in \tableref{classaps} and also included in the tech report source uploaded to arXiv.org; see \texttt{R-CNN-ILSVRC2013-APs.txt}).
The red line marks the median AP, the box bottom and top are the 25th and 75th percentiles.
The whiskers extend to the min and max AP of each method.
Each AP is plotted as a green dot over the whiskers (best viewed digitally with zoom).
}
\figlabel{ilsvrc13}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Detection error analysis}
\seclabel{analysis}
We applied the excellent detection analysis tool from Hoiem \etal
\cite{hoiem2012diagnosing} in order to reveal our
method's error modes, understand how fine-tuning changes them, and
to see how our error types compare with DPM. A full summary of the
analysis tool is beyond the scope of this paper and we encourage readers to consult \cite{hoiem2012diagnosing} to
understand some finer details (such as ``normalized AP''). Since the
analysis is best absorbed in the context of the associated plots, we
present the discussion within the captions of \figref{fp-type-dist}
and \figref{obj-char}.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\def 0.475 {1.2in}
\def -0.7em {-0.7em}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/det_analysis/rcnn_fc6/plots_fp_trendarea_animals.pdf}
\hspace{-0.7em}
\includegraphics[height=0.475,clip=true,trim=1.05cm 0 0 0]{figures/det_analysis/rcnn_ft_fc7/plots_fp_trendarea_animals.pdf}
\hspace{-0.7em}
\includegraphics[height=0.475,clip=true,trim=1.05cm 0 0 0]{figures/det_analysis/rcnn_ft_fc7_bb/plots_fp_trendarea_animals.pdf}\\
\vspace{2pt}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/det_analysis/rcnn_fc6/plots_fp_trendarea_furniture.pdf}
\hspace{-0.7em}
\includegraphics[height=0.475,clip=true,trim=1.05cm 0 0 0]{figures/det_analysis/rcnn_ft_fc7/plots_fp_trendarea_furniture.pdf}
\hspace{-0.7em}
\includegraphics[height=0.475,clip=true,trim=1.05cm 0 0 0]{figures/det_analysis/rcnn_ft_fc7_bb/plots_fp_trendarea_furniture.pdf}\\
\caption{\textbf{Distribution of top-ranked false positive (FP)
types.} Each plot shows the evolving distribution of FP types as
more FPs are considered in order of decreasing score. Each FP is
categorized into 1 of 4 types: Loc---poor localization (a detection with an IoU overlap
with the correct class between 0.1 and 0.5, or a duplicate); Sim---confusion with a similar category;
Oth---confusion with a dissimilar object category; BG---a FP that fired
on background. Compared with DPM (see \cite{hoiem2012diagnosing}), significantly more of our errors
result from poor localization, rather than confusion with background
or other object classes, indicating that the CNN features are much
more discriminative than HOG. Loose localization likely results from our
use of bottom-up region proposals and the positional invariance
learned from pre-training the CNN for whole-image classification.
Column three shows how our simple bounding-box regression method fixes many localization errors.}
\figlabel{fp-type-dist}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\def 0.475 {1.275in}
\includegraphics[height=0.475]{figures/det_analysis/rcnn_fc6/plots_impact_ov50.pdf}
\hspace{0em}
\includegraphics[height=0.475,clip=true,trim=0.5cm 0 0 0]{figures/det_analysis/rcnn_ft_fc7/plots_impact_ov50.pdf}
\hspace{0em}
\includegraphics[height=0.475,clip=true,trim=0.5cm 0 0 0]{figures/det_analysis/rcnn_ft_fc7_bb/plots_impact_ov50.pdf}
\hspace{0em}
\includegraphics[height=0.475,clip=true,trim=0.5cm 0 0 0]{figures/det_analysis/dpm_v5/plots_impact_ov50.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Sensitivity to object characteristics.} Each plot shows the mean (over classes)
normalized AP (see \cite{hoiem2012diagnosing}) for the highest and lowest performing subsets within six different
object characteristics (occlusion, truncation, bounding-box area, aspect ratio, viewpoint, part visibility).
We show plots for our method (R-CNN) with and without fine-tuning (FT) and bounding-box regression (BB) as well as for DPM voc-release5.
Overall, fine-tuning does not reduce sensitivity (the difference between max and min), but does substantially improve
both the highest and lowest performing subsets for nearly all characteristics. This indicates that fine-tuning does
more than simply improve the lowest performing subsets for aspect ratio and bounding-box area, as one might
conjecture based on how we warp network inputs. Instead, fine-tuning improves robustness
for all characteristics including occlusion, truncation, viewpoint, and part visibility.}
\figlabel{obj-char}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Bounding-box regression}
\seclabel{bboxreg}
Based on the error analysis, we implemented a simple method to reduce localization errors.
Inspired by the bounding-box regression employed in DPM \cite{lsvm-pami}, we train a linear regression model to predict a new detection window given the \pool{5} features for a selective search region proposal.
Full details are given in \asecref{bboxreg}.
Results in \tableref{voc2010}, \tableref{voc2007}, and \figref{fp-type-dist} show that this simple approach fixes a large number of mislocalized detections, boosting mAP by 3 to 4 points.
\subsection{Qualitative results}
Qualitative detection results on ILSVRC2013 are presented in \figref{examples1} and \figref{examples2} at the end of the paper.
Each image was sampled randomly from the val$_2$\xspace set and all detections from all detectors with a precision greater than 0.5 are shown.
Note that these are not curated and give a realistic impression of the detectors in action.
More qualitative results are presented in \figref{cexamples1} and \figref{cexamples2}, but these have been curated.
We selected each image because it contained interesting, surprising, or amusing results.
Here, also, all detections at precision greater than 0.5 are shown.
\section{The ILSVRC2013 detection dataset}
\seclabel{ilsvrc}
In \secref{detection} we presented results on the ILSVRC2013 detection dataset.
This dataset is less homogeneous than PASCAL VOC, requiring choices about how to use it.
Since these decisions are non-trivial, we cover them in this section.
\subsection{Dataset overview}
The ILSVRC2013 detection dataset is split into three sets: train\xspace (395,918), val\xspace (20,121), and test\xspace (40,152), where the number of images in each set is in parentheses.
The val\xspace and test\xspace splits are drawn from the same image distribution.
These images are scene-like and similar in complexity (number of objects, amount of clutter, pose variability, \etc) to PASCAL VOC images.
The val\xspace and test\xspace splits are exhaustively annotated, meaning that in each image all instances from all 200 classes are labeled with bounding boxes.
The train\xspace set, in contrast, is drawn from the ILSVRC2013 \emph{classification} image distribution.
These images have more variable complexity with a skew towards images of a single centered object.
Unlike val\xspace and test\xspace, the train\xspace images (due to their large number) are not exhaustively annotated.
In any given train\xspace image, instances from the 200 classes may or may not be labeled.
In addition to these image sets, each class has an extra set of negative images.
Negative images are manually checked to validate that they do not contain any instances of their associated class.
The negative image sets were not used in this work.
More information on how ILSVRC was collected and annotated can be found in \cite{DengCHI14,HJL_AAAI12}.
The nature of these splits presents a number of choices for training R-CNN.
The train\xspace images cannot be used for hard negative mining, because annotations are not exhaustive.
Where should negative examples come from?
Also, the train\xspace images have different statistics than val\xspace and test\xspace.
Should the train\xspace images be used at all, and if so, to what extent?
While we have not thoroughly evaluated a large number of choices, we present what seemed like the most obvious path based on previous experience.
Our general strategy is to rely heavily on the val set and use some of the train\xspace images as an auxiliary source of positive examples.
To use val\xspace for both training and validation, we split it into roughly equally sized ``val$_1$\xspace'' and ``val$_2$\xspace'' sets.
Since some classes have very few examples in val\xspace (the smallest has only 31 and half have fewer than 110), it is important to produce an approximately class-balanced partition.
To do this, a large number of candidate splits were generated and the one with the smallest maximum relative class imbalance was selected.\footnote{Relative imbalance is measured as $|a - b| / (a+b)$ where $a$ and $b$ are class counts in each half of the split.}
Each candidate split was generated by clustering val\xspace images using their class counts as features, followed by a randomized local search that may improve the split balance.
The particular split used here has a maximum relative imbalance of about 11\% and a median relative imbalance of 4\%.
The val$_1$\xspace/val$_2$\xspace split and code used to produce them will be publicly available to allow other researchers to compare their methods on the val\xspace splits used in this report.
\subsection{Region proposals}
We followed the same region proposal approach that was used for detection on PASCAL.
Selective search \cite{UijlingsIJCV2013} was run in ``fast mode'' on each image in val$_1$\xspace, val$_2$\xspace, and test\xspace (but not on images in train\xspace).
One minor modification was required to deal with the fact that selective search is not scale invariant and so the number of regions produced depends on the image resolution.
ILSVRC image sizes range from very small to a few that are several mega-pixels, and so we resized each image to a fixed width (500 pixels) before running selective search.
On val\xspace, selective search resulted in an average of 2403 region proposals per image with a 91.6\% recall of all ground-truth bounding boxes (at 0.5 IoU threshold).
This recall is notably lower than in PASCAL, where it is approximately 98\%, indicating significant room for improvement in the region proposal stage.
\subsection{Training data}
For training data, we formed a set of images and boxes that includes all selective search and ground-truth boxes from val$_1$\xspace together with up to $N$ ground-truth boxes per class from train\xspace (if a class has fewer than $N$ ground-truth boxes in train\xspace, then we take all of them).
We'll call this dataset of images and boxes val$_1+$train$_N$\xspace.
In an ablation study, we show mAP on val$_2$\xspace for $N \in \{0, 500, 1000\}$ (\secref{ilsvrcablation}).
Training data is required for three procedures in R-CNN: (1) CNN fine-tuning, (2) detector SVM training, and (3) bounding-box regressor training.
CNN fine-tuning was run for 50k SGD iteration on val$_1+$train$_N$\xspace using the exact same settings as were used for PASCAL.
Fine-tuning on a single NVIDIA Tesla K20 took 13 hours using Caffe.
For SVM training, all ground-truth boxes from val$_1+$train$_N$\xspace were used as positive examples for their respective classes.
Hard negative mining was performed on a randomly selected subset of 5000 images from val$_1$\xspace.
An initial experiment indicated that mining negatives from all of val$_1$\xspace, versus a 5000 image subset (roughly half of it), resulted in only a 0.5 percentage point drop in mAP, while cutting SVM training time in half.
No negative examples were taken from train\xspace because the annotations are not exhaustive.
The extra sets of verified negative images were not used.
The bounding-box regressors were trained on val$_1$\xspace.
\begin{table*}[t]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{1.2mm}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccccccc|cc@{}}
\textbf{test set}
& val$_2$\xspace
& val$_2$\xspace
& val$_2$\xspace
& val$_2$\xspace
& val$_2$\xspace
& val$_2$\xspace
& test\xspace
& test\xspace \\
\textbf{SVM training set}
& val$_1$\xspace
& val$_1+$train$_{.5\textrm{k}}$\xspace
& val$_1+$train$_{1\textrm{k}}$\xspace
& val$_1+$train$_{1\textrm{k}}$\xspace
& val$_1+$train$_{1\textrm{k}}$\xspace
& val$_1+$train$_{1\textrm{k}}$\xspace
& val$+$train$_{1\textrm{k}}$\xspace
& val$+$train$_{1\textrm{k}}$\xspace \\
\textbf{CNN fine-tuning set}
& n/a
& n/a
& n/a
& val$_1$\xspace
& val$_1+$train$_{1\textrm{k}}$\xspace
& val$_1+$train$_{1\textrm{k}}$\xspace
& val$_1+$train$_{1\textrm{k}}$\xspace
& val$_1+$train$_{1\textrm{k}}$\xspace \\
\textbf{bbox reg set}
& n/a
& n/a
& n/a
& n/a
& n/a
& val$_1$\xspace
& n/a
& val\xspace \\
\textbf{CNN feature layer}
& \fc{6}
& \fc{6}
& \fc{6}
& \fc{7}
& \fc{7}
& \fc{7}
& \fc{7}
& \fc{7} \\
\hline
\textbf{mAP}
& 20.9
& 24.1
& 24.1
& 26.5
& 29.7
& \textbf{31.0}
& 30.2
& \textbf{31.4} \\
\textbf{median AP}
& 17.7
& 21.0
& 21.4
& 24.8
& 29.2
& \textbf{29.6}
& 29.0
& \textbf{30.3} \\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{\textbf{ILSVRC2013 ablation study} of data usage choices, fine-tuning, and bounding-box regression.}
\tablelabel{ablation}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Validation and evaluation}
Before submitting results to the evaluation server, we validated data usage choices and the effect of fine-tuning and bounding-box regression on the val$_2$\xspace set using the training data described above.
All system hyperparameters (\eg, SVM C hyperparameters, padding used in region warping, NMS thresholds, bounding-box regression hyperparameters) were fixed at the same values used for PASCAL.
Undoubtedly some of these hyperparameter choices are slightly suboptimal for ILSVRC, however the goal of this work was to produce a preliminary R-CNN result on ILSVRC without extensive dataset tuning.
After selecting the best choices on val$_2$\xspace, we submitted exactly two result files to the ILSVRC2013 evaluation server.
The first submission was without bounding-box regression and the second submission was with bounding-box regression.
For these submissions, we expanded the SVM and bounding-box regressor training sets to use val$+$train$_{1\textrm{k}}$\xspace and val\xspace, respectively.
We used the CNN that was fine-tuned on val$_1+$train$_{1\textrm{k}}$\xspace to avoid re-running fine-tuning and feature computation.
\subsection{Ablation study}
\seclabel{ilsvrcablation}
\tableref{ablation} shows an ablation study of the effects of different amounts of training data, fine-tuning, and bounding-box regression.
A first observation is that mAP on val$_2$\xspace matches mAP on test\xspace very closely.
This gives us confidence that mAP on val$_2$\xspace is a good indicator of test set performance.
The first result, 20.9\%, is what R-CNN achieves using a CNN pre-trained on the ILSVRC2012 classification dataset (no fine-tuning) and given access to the small amount of training data in val$_1$\xspace (recall that half of the classes in val$_1$\xspace have between 15 and 55 examples).
Expanding the training set to val$_1+$train$_N$\xspace improves performance to 24.1\%, with essentially no difference between $N = 500$ and $N = 1000$.
Fine-tuning the CNN using examples from just val$_1$\xspace gives a modest improvement to 26.5\%, however there is likely significant overfitting due to the small number of positive training examples.
Expanding the fine-tuning set to val$_1+$train$_{1\textrm{k}}$\xspace, which adds up to 1000 positive examples per class from the train set, helps significantly, boosting mAP to 29.7\%.
Bounding-box regression improves results to 31.0\%, which is a smaller relative gain that what was observed in PASCAL.
\subsection{Relationship to OverFeat}
There is an interesting relationship between R-CNN and OverFeat:
OverFeat can be seen (roughly) as a special case of R-CNN.
If one were to replace selective search region proposals with a multi-scale pyramid of regular square regions and change the per-class bounding-box regressors to a single bounding-box regressor, then the systems would be very similar (modulo some potentially significant differences in how they are trained: CNN detection fine-tuning, using SVMs, etc.).
It is worth noting that OverFeat has a significant speed advantage over R-CNN: it is about 9x faster, based on a figure of 2 seconds per image quoted from \cite{overfeat}.
This speed comes from the fact that OverFeat's sliding windows (\ie, region proposals) are not warped at the image level and therefore computation can be easily shared between overlapping windows.
Sharing is implemented by running the entire network in a convolutional fashion over arbitrary-sized inputs.
Speeding up R-CNN should be possible in a variety of ways and remains as future work.
\section{Introduction}
Features matter.
The last decade of progress on various visual recognition tasks has been based considerably on the use of SIFT \cite{SIFT} and HOG \cite{Dalal05}.
But if we look at performance on the canonical visual recognition task, PASCAL VOC object detection \cite{PASCAL-IJCV}, it is generally acknowledged that progress has been slow during 2010-2012, with small gains obtained by building ensemble systems and employing minor variants of successful methods.
SIFT and HOG are blockwise orientation histograms, a representation we could associate roughly with complex cells in V1, the first cortical area in the primate visual pathway.
But we also know that recognition occurs several stages downstream, which suggests that there might be hierarchical, multi-stage processes for computing features that are even more informative for visual recognition.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/overview/splash-method.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Object detection system overview.}
Our system (1) takes an input image, (2) extracts around 2000 bottom-up region proposals, (3) computes features for each proposal using a large convolutional neural network (CNN), and then (4) classifies each region using class-specific linear SVMs.
R-CNN achieves a mean average precision (mAP) of \textbf{53.7\% on PASCAL~VOC~2010}.
For comparison, \cite{UijlingsIJCV2013} reports 35.1\% mAP using the same region proposals, but with a spatial pyramid and bag-of-visual-words approach.
The popular deformable part models perform at 33.4\%.
On the 200-class \textbf{ILSVRC2013 detection dataset, R-CNN's mAP is 31.4\%}, a large improvement over OverFeat \cite{overfeat}, which had the previous best result at 24.3\%.
}
\figlabel{splash}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
Fukushima's ``neocognitron'' \cite{fukushima1980neocognitron}, a biologically-inspired hierarchical and shift-invariant model for pattern recognition, was an early attempt at just such a process.
The neocognitron, however, lacked a supervised training algorithm.
Building on Rumelhart \etal \cite{rumelhart86}, LeCun \etal \cite{lecun-89e} showed that stochastic gradient descent via backpropagation was effective for training convolutional neural networks (CNNs), a class of models that extend the neocognitron.
CNNs saw heavy use in the 1990s (\eg, \cite{lecun-98}), but then fell out of fashion, particularly in computer vision, with the rise of support vector machines.
In 2012, Krizhevsky \etal \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet} rekindled interest
in CNNs by showing substantially higher image classification accuracy on the ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC) \cite{ILSVRC12,imagenet_cvpr09}.
Their success resulted from training a large CNN on 1.2 million labeled images, together with a few twists on LeCun's CNN (\eg, $\max(x,0)$ rectifying non-linearities and ``dropout'' regularization).
The significance of the ImageNet result was vigorously debated during the ILSVRC 2012 workshop.
The central issue can be distilled to the following: To what
extent do the CNN classification results on ImageNet generalize
to object detection results on the PASCAL VOC Challenge?
We answer this question decisively by bridging the gap between image classification and object detection.
This paper is the first to show that a CNN can lead to dramatically higher object detection performance on PASCAL VOC as compared to systems based on simpler HOG-like features.
Achieving this result required solving two problems: localizing objects with a deep network and training a high-capacity model with only a small quantity of annotated detection data.
Unlike image classification, detection requires localizing (likely many) objects within an image.
One approach frames localization as a regression problem.
However, work from Szegedy \etal \cite{szegedy2013deep}, concurrent with our own,
indicates that this strategy may not fare well in practice (they report a mAP of 30.5\% on VOC 2007 compared to the 58.5\% achieved by our method).
An alternative is to build a sliding-window detector.
CNNs have been used in this way for at least two decades, typically on constrained object categories, such as faces \cite{rowley1998neural,lecun94} and pedestrians \cite{sermanetCVPR13}.
In order to maintain high spatial resolution, these CNNs typically only have two convolutional and pooling layers.
We also considered adopting a sliding-window approach.
However, units high up in our network, which has five convolutional layers, have very large receptive fields ($195 \times 195$ pixels) and strides ($32 \times 32$ pixels) in the input image, which makes precise localization within the sliding-window paradigm an open technical challenge.
Instead, we solve the CNN localization problem by operating within the ``recognition using regions'' paradigm \cite{gu2009recognition}, which has been successful for both object detection \cite{UijlingsIJCV2013} and semantic segmentation \cite{carreira2012cpmc}.
At test time, our method generates around 2000 category-independent region proposals for the input image, extracts a fixed-length feature vector from each proposal using a CNN, and then classifies each region with category-specific linear SVMs.
We use a simple technique (affine image warping) to compute a fixed-size CNN input from each region proposal, regardless of the region's shape.
\figref{splash} presents an overview of our method and highlights some of our results.
Since our system combines region proposals with CNNs, we dub the method R-CNN: Regions with CNN features.
In this updated version of this paper, we provide a head-to-head comparison of R-CNN and the recently proposed OverFeat \cite{overfeat} detection system by running R-CNN on the 200-class ILSVRC2013 detection dataset.
OverFeat uses a sliding-window CNN for detection and until now was the best performing method on ILSVRC2013 detection.
We show that R-CNN significantly outperforms OverFeat, with a mAP of 31.4\% versus 24.3\%.
A second challenge faced in detection is that labeled data is scarce and the amount currently available is insufficient for training a large CNN.
The conventional solution to this problem is to use \emph{unsupervised} pre-training, followed by supervised fine-tuning (\eg, \cite{sermanetCVPR13}).
The second major contribution of this paper is to show that \emph{supervised} pre-training on a large auxiliary dataset (ILSVRC classification), followed by domain-specific fine-tuning on a small dataset (PASCAL), is an effective paradigm for learning high-capacity CNNs when data is scarce.\footnote{In contemporaneously work, \cite{decafICML} shows that the CNN of Krizhevsky \etal, trained on ImageNet, generalizes well to a wide range of datasets and recognition tasks including scene classification, fine-grained sub-categorization, and domain adaptation.}
In our experiments, fine-tuning for detection improves mAP performance by 8 percentage points.
After fine-tuning, our system achieves a mAP of 54\% on VOC 2010 compared to 33\% for the highly-tuned, HOG-based deformable part model (DPM) \cite{lsvm-pami,release5}.
Our system is also quite efficient.
The only class-specific computations are a reasonably small matrix-vector product and greedy non-maximum suppression.
This computational property follows from features that are shared across all categories and that are also two orders of magnitude lower-dimensional than previously used region features (\cf \cite{UijlingsIJCV2013}).
One advantage of HOG-like features is their simplicity: it's easier to understand the information they carry (although \cite{vondrick2013hoggles} shows that our intuition can fail us).
Can we gain insight into the representation learned by the CNN?
Perhaps the densely connected layers, with more than 54 million parameters, are the key?
They are not.
We ``lobotomized'' the CNN and found that a surprisingly large proportion, 94\%, of its parameters can be removed with only a moderate drop in detection accuracy.
Instead, by probing units in the network we see that the convolutional layers learn a diverse set of rich features (\figref{vislittle}).
Understanding the failure modes of our approach is also critical for improving it, and so we report results from the detection analysis tool of Hoiem \etal
\cite{hoiem2012diagnosing}.
As an immediate consequence of this analysis, we demonstrate that a simple bounding-box regression method significantly reduces mislocalizations, which are the dominant error mode.
Before developing technical details, we note that because R-CNN operates on regions it is natural to extend it to the task of semantic segmentation.
With minor modifications, we also achieve competitive results on the PASCAL VOC segmentation task, with an average segmentation accuracy of 47.9\% on the VOC 2011 test set.
\section{Introduction}
Features matter.
The last decade of progress on various visual recognition tasks has been based considerably on the use of SIFT \cite{SIFT} and HOG \cite{Dalal05}.
But if we look at performance on the canonical visual recognition task, PASCAL VOC object detection \cite{PASCAL-IJCV}, it is generally acknowledged that progress has been slow during 2010-2012, with small gains obtained by building ensemble systems and employing minor variants of successful methods.
SIFT and HOG are blockwise orientation histograms, a representation we could associate roughly with complex cells in V1, the first cortical area in the primate visual pathway.
But we also know that recognition occurs several stages downstream, which suggests that there might be hierarchical, multi-stage processes for computing features that are even more informative for visual recognition.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{figures/overview/splash-method.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Object detection system overview.}
Our system (1) takes an input image, (2) extracts around 2000 bottom-up region proposals, (3) computes features for each proposal using a large convolutional neural network (CNN), and then (4) classifies each region using class-specific linear SVMs.
R-CNN achieves a mean average precision (mAP) of \textbf{53.7\% on PASCAL~VOC~2010}.
For comparison, \cite{UijlingsIJCV2013} reports 35.1\% mAP using the same region proposals, but with a spatial pyramid and bag-of-visual-words approach.
The popular deformable part models perform at 33.4\%.
On the 200-class \textbf{ILSVRC2013 detection dataset, R-CNN's mAP is 31.4\%}, a large improvement over OverFeat \cite{overfeat}, which had the previous best result at 24.3\%.
}
\figlabel{splash}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}
Fukushima's ``neocognitron'' \cite{fukushima1980neocognitron}, a biologically-inspired hierarchical and shift-invariant model for pattern recognition, was an early attempt at just such a process.
The neocognitron, however, lacked a supervised training algorithm.
Building on Rumelhart \etal \cite{rumelhart86}, LeCun \etal \cite{lecun-89e} showed that stochastic gradient descent via backpropagation was effective for training convolutional neural networks (CNNs), a class of models that extend the neocognitron.
CNNs saw heavy use in the 1990s (\eg, \cite{lecun-98}), but then fell out of fashion with the rise of support vector machines.
In 2012, Krizhevsky \etal \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet} rekindled interest
in CNNs by showing substantially higher image classification accuracy on the ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC) \cite{ILSVRC12,imagenet_cvpr09}.
Their success resulted from training a large CNN on 1.2 million labeled images, together with a few twists on LeCun's CNN (\eg, $\max(x,0)$ rectifying non-linearities and ``dropout'' regularization).
The significance of the ImageNet result was vigorously debated during the ILSVRC 2012 workshop.
The central issue can be distilled to the following: To what
extent do the CNN classification results on ImageNet generalize
to object detection results on the PASCAL VOC Challenge?
We answer this question by bridging the gap between image classification and object detection.
This paper is the first to show that a CNN can lead to dramatically higher object detection performance on PASCAL VOC as compared to systems based on simpler HOG-like features.
To achieve this result, we focused on two problems: localizing objects with a deep network and training a high-capacity model with only a small quantity of annotated detection data.
Unlike image classification, detection requires localizing (likely many) objects within an image.
One approach frames localization as a regression problem.
However, work from Szegedy \etal \cite{szegedy2013deep}, concurrent with our own,
indicates that this strategy may not fare well in practice (they report a mAP of 30.5\% on VOC 2007 compared to the 58.5\% achieved by our method).
An alternative is to build a sliding-window detector.
CNNs have been used in this way for at least two decades, typically on constrained object categories, such as faces \cite{rowley1998neural,lecun94} and pedestrians \cite{sermanetCVPR13}.
In order to maintain high spatial resolution, these CNNs typically only have two convolutional and pooling layers.
We also considered adopting a sliding-window approach.
However, units high up in our network, which has five convolutional layers, have very large receptive fields ($195 \times 195$ pixels) and strides ($32 \times 32$ pixels) in the input image, which makes precise localization within the sliding-window paradigm an open technical challenge.
Instead, we solve the CNN localization problem by operating within the ``recognition using regions'' paradigm \cite{gu2009recognition}, which has been successful for both object detection \cite{UijlingsIJCV2013} and semantic segmentation \cite{carreira2012cpmc}.
At test time, our method generates around 2000 category-independent region proposals for the input image, extracts a fixed-length feature vector from each proposal using a CNN, and then classifies each region with category-specific linear SVMs.
We use a simple technique (affine image warping) to compute a fixed-size CNN input from each region proposal, regardless of the region's shape.
\figref{splash} presents an overview of our method and highlights some of our results.
Since our system combines region proposals with CNNs, we dub the method R-CNN: Regions with CNN features.
In this updated version of this paper, we provide a head-to-head comparison of R-CNN and the recently proposed OverFeat \cite{overfeat} detection system by running R-CNN on the 200-class ILSVRC2013 detection dataset.
OverFeat uses a sliding-window CNN for detection and until now was the best performing method on ILSVRC2013 detection.
We show that R-CNN significantly outperforms OverFeat, with a mAP of 31.4\% versus 24.3\%.
A second challenge faced in detection is that labeled data is scarce and the amount currently available is insufficient for training a large CNN.
The conventional solution to this problem is to use \emph{unsupervised} pre-training, followed by supervised fine-tuning (\eg, \cite{sermanetCVPR13}).
The second principle contribution of this paper is to show that \emph{supervised} pre-training on a large auxiliary dataset (ILSVRC), followed by domain-specific fine-tuning on a small dataset (PASCAL), is an effective paradigm for learning high-capacity CNNs when data is scarce.
In our experiments, fine-tuning for detection improves mAP performance by 8 percentage points.
After fine-tuning, our system achieves a mAP of 54\% on VOC 2010 compared to 33\% for the highly-tuned, HOG-based deformable part model (DPM) \cite{lsvm-pami,release5}.
We also point readers to contemporaneous work by Donahue \etal \cite{decafICML}, who show that Krizhevsky's CNN can be used (without fine-tuning) as a blackbox feature extractor, yielding excellent performance on several recognition tasks including scene classification, fine-grained sub-categorization, and domain adaptation.
Our system is also quite efficient.
The only class-specific computations are a reasonably small matrix-vector product and greedy non-maximum suppression.
This computational property follows from features that are shared across all categories and that are also two orders of magnitude lower-dimensional than previously used region features (\cf \cite{UijlingsIJCV2013}).
Understanding the failure modes of our approach is also critical for improving it, and so we report results from the detection analysis tool of Hoiem \etal
\cite{hoiem2012diagnosing}.
As an immediate consequence of this analysis, we demonstrate that a simple bounding-box regression method significantly reduces mislocalizations, which are the dominant error mode.
Before developing technical details, we note that because R-CNN operates on regions it is natural to extend it to the task of semantic segmentation.
With minor modifications, we also achieve competitive results on the PASCAL VOC segmentation task, with an average segmentation accuracy of 47.9\% on the VOC 2011 test set.
\section{Semantic segmentation}
\seclabel{segmentation}
Region classification is a standard technique for semantic segmentation, allowing us to easily apply R-CNN to the PASCAL VOC segmentation challenge.
To facilitate a direct comparison with the current leading semantic segmentation system (called O$_2$P\xspace for ``second-order pooling'') \cite{o2p}, we work within their open source framework.
O$_2$P\xspace uses CPMC to generate 150 region proposals per image and then predicts the quality of each region, for each class, using support vector regression (SVR).
The high performance of their approach is due to the quality of the CPMC regions and the powerful second-order pooling of multiple feature types (enriched variants of SIFT and LBP).
We also note that Farabet \etal \cite{farabet-pami-13} recently demonstrated good results on several dense scene labeling datasets (not including PASCAL) using a CNN as a multi-scale per-pixel classifier.
We follow \cite{arbelaez2012semantic,o2p} and extend the PASCAL segmentation training set to include the extra annotations made available by Hariharan \etal \cite{hariharan2012inverse}.
Design decisions and hyperparameters were cross-validated on the VOC 2011 validation set. Final test results were evaluated only once.
\paragraph{CNN features for segmentation.} We evaluate three strategies for computing features on CPMC regions, all of which begin by warping the rectangular window around the region to $227 \times 227$.
The first strategy (\textit{full}) ignores the region's shape and computes CNN features directly on the warped window, exactly as we did for detection.
However, these features ignore the non-rectangular shape of the region.
Two regions might have very similar bounding boxes while having very little overlap.
Therefore, the second strategy (\textit{fg}) computes CNN features only on a region's foreground mask.
We replace the background with the mean input so that background regions are zero after mean subtraction.
The third strategy (\textit{full+fg}) simply concatenates the \textit{full} and \textit{fg} features; our experiments validate their complementarity.
\begin{table}[h!]
\centering
{\small
\begin{tabular}{@{}c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{full} R-CNN}
& \multicolumn{2}{c|}{\textit{fg} R-CNN}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\textit{full+fg} R-CNN}
\\
\hline
O$_2$P\xspace \cite{o2p}
& \fc{6} & \fc{7} & \fc{6} & \fc{7} & \fc{6} & \fc{7} \\
\hline
46.4
& 43.0
& 42.5
& 43.7
& 42.1
& \textbf{47.9}
& 45.8
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{\textbf{Segmentation mean accuracy (\%) on VOC 2011 validation.}
Column 1 presents O$_2$P\xspace;
2-7 use our CNN pre-trained on ILSVRC 2012.
}
\tablelabel{voc2011val}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Results on VOC 2011.}
\tableref{voc2011val} shows a summary of our results on the VOC 2011 validation set compared with O$_2$P\xspace.
(See \asecref{segperclass} for complete per-category results.)
Within each feature computation strategy, layer \fc{6} always outperforms \fc{7} and the following discussion refers to the \fc{6} features.
The \textit{fg} strategy slightly outperforms \textit{full}, indicating that the masked region shape provides a stronger signal, matching our intuition.
However, \textit{full+fg} achieves an average accuracy of 47.9\%, our best result by a margin of 4.2\% (also modestly outperforming O$_2$P\xspace), indicating that the context provided by the \textit{full} features is highly informative even given the \textit{fg} features.
Notably, training the 20 SVRs on our \textit{full+fg} features takes an hour on a single core, compared to 10+ hours for training on O$_2$P\xspace features.
In \tableref{voc2011test} we present results on the VOC 2011 test set, comparing our best-performing method, \fc{6} (\textit{full+fg}), against two strong baselines.
Our method achieves the highest segmentation accuracy for 11 out of 21 categories, and the highest overall segmentation accuracy of 47.9\%, averaged across categories (but likely ties with the O$_2$P\xspace result under any reasonable margin of error).
Still better performance could likely be achieved by fine-tuning.
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{1.2mm}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}l|c|r*{19}{c}|c@{}}
\textbf{VOC 2011 test} & bg & aero & bike & bird & boat & bottle & bus & car & cat & chair & cow & table & dog & horse & mbike & person & plant & sheep & sofa & train & tv & mean \\
\hline
R\&P \cite{arbelaez2012semantic} &
83.4 &
46.8 & 18.9 & 36.6 & 31.2 & 42.7 & 57.3 & 47.4 & 44.1 & \phz8.1 & 39.4 &
\bf{36.1} & 36.3 & 49.5 & 48.3 & 50.7 & 26.3 & 47.2 & 22.1 & 42.0 & 43.2 &
40.8 \\
O$_2$P\xspace \cite{o2p} &
\bf{85.4} &
\bf{69.7} & 22.3 & 45.2 & \bf{44.4} & 46.9 & 66.7 & 57.8 & 56.2 & \bf{13.5} & \bf{46.1} &
32.3 & 41.2 & \bf{59.1} & 55.3 & 51.0 & \bf{36.2} & 50.4 & \bf{27.8} & 46.9 & \bf{44.6} &
47.6 \\
\hline
\textbf{ours} (\textit{full+fg} R-CNN \fc{6}) &
84.2 &
66.9 & \bf{23.7} & \bf{58.3} & 37.4 & \bf{55.4} & \bf{73.3} & \bf{58.7} & \bf{56.5} & \phz9.7 & 45.5 &
29.5 & \bf{49.3} & 40.1 & \bf{57.8} & \bf{53.9} & 33.8 & \bf{60.7} & 22.7 & \bf{47.1} & 41.3 &
\bf{47.9} \\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{\textbf{Segmentation accuracy (\%) on VOC 2011 test.}
We compare against two strong baselines: the ``Regions and Parts'' (R\&P) method of~\cite{arbelaez2012semantic} and the second-order pooling (O$_2$P\xspace) method of~\cite{o2p}.
Without any fine-tuning, our CNN achieves top segmentation performance, outperforming R\&P and roughly matching O$_2$P\xspace.
}
\tablelabel{voc2011test}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{table*}
\section{Visualization, ablation, and modes of error}
\seclabel{experiments}
\subsection{Visualizing learned features}
\seclabel{vis}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true,trim=0 0 0.2em 0]{figures/feature-explorer/person-x2-y3-c132-p1.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true,trim=0 0 0.2em 0]{figures/feature-explorer/dots-x3-y3-c204-p1.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true,trim=0 0 0.2em 0]{figures/feature-explorer/red-x6-y3-c146-p1.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true,trim=0 0 0.2em 0]{figures/feature-explorer/text-x5-y2-c163-p1.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true,trim=0 0 0.2em 0]{figures/feature-explorer/windows-x3-y3-c161-p1.pdf}\\
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth,clip=true,trim=0 0 0.2em 0]{figures/feature-explorer/specular-x3-y3-c34-p1.pdf}
\caption{\textbf{Top regions for six \pool{5} units.}
Receptive fields and activation values are drawn in white.
Some units are aligned to concepts, such as people (row 1) or text (4).
Other units capture texture and material properties, such as dot arrays (2) and specular reflections (6).
}
\figlabel{vislittle}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{1.2mm}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}l|r*{19}{c}|c@{}}
\textbf{VOC 2007 test} & aero & bike & bird & boat & bottle & bus & car & cat & chair & cow & table & dog & horse & mbike & person & plant & sheep & sofa & train & tv & mAP \\
\hline
R-CNN \pool{5} & 51.8 & 60.2 & 36.4 & 27.8 & 23.2 & 52.8 & 60.6 & 49.2 & 18.3 & 47.8 & 44.3 & 40.8 & 56.6 & 58.7 & 42.4 & 23.4 & 46.1 & 36.7 & 51.3 & 55.7 & 44.2 \\
R-CNN \fc{6} & 59.3 & 61.8 & 43.1 & 34.0 & 25.1 & 53.1 & 60.6 & 52.8 & 21.7 & 47.8 & 42.7 & 47.8 & 52.5 & 58.5 & 44.6 & 25.6 & 48.3 & 34.0 & 53.1 & 58.0 & 46.2 \\
R-CNN \fc{7} & 57.6 & 57.9 & 38.5 & 31.8 & 23.7 & 51.2 & 58.9 & 51.4 & 20.0 & 50.5 & 40.9 & 46.0 & 51.6 & 55.9 & 43.3 & 23.3 & 48.1 & 35.3 & 51.0 & 57.4 & 44.7 \\
\hline
R-CNN FT \pool{5} & 58.2 & 63.3 & 37.9 & 27.6 & 26.1 & 54.1 & 66.9 & 51.4 & 26.7 & 55.5 & 43.4 & 43.1 & 57.7 & 59.0 & 45.8 & 28.1 & 50.8 & 40.6 & 53.1 & 56.4 & 47.3 \\
R-CNN FT \fc{6} & 63.5 & 66.0 & 47.9 & 37.7 & 29.9 & 62.5 & 70.2 & 60.2 & 32.0 & 57.9 & 47.0 & 53.5 & 60.1 & 64.2 & 52.2 & 31.3 & 55.0 & 50.0 & 57.7 & 63.0 & 53.1 \\
R-CNN FT \fc{7} & 64.2 & 69.7 & 50.0 & 41.9 & 32.0 & 62.6 & 71.0 & 60.7 & 32.7 & 58.5 & 46.5 & 56.1 & 60.6 & 66.8 & 54.2 & 31.5 & 52.8 & 48.9 & 57.9 & 64.7 & 54.2 \\
\hline
R-CNN FT \fc{7} BB & \bf{68.1} & \bf{72.8} & \bf{56.8} & \bf{43.0} & \bf{36.8} & \bf{66.3} & \bf{74.2} & \bf{67.6} & \bf{34.4} & \bf{63.5} & \bf{54.5} & \bf{61.2} & \bf{69.1} & \bf{68.6} & \bf{58.7} & \bf{33.4} & \bf{62.9} & \bf{51.1} & \bf{62.5} & \bf{64.8} & \bf{58.5} \\
\hline
\hline
DPM v5 \cite{release5} & 33.2 & 60.3 & 10.2 & 16.1 & 27.3 & 54.3 & 58.2 & 23.0 & 20.0 & 24.1 & 26.7 & 12.7 & 58.1 & 48.2 & 43.2 & 12.0 & 21.1 & 36.1 & 46.0 & 43.5 & 33.7 \\
DPM ST \cite{lim2013sketch} & 23.8 & 58.2 & 10.5 & \phz8.5 & 27.1 & 50.4 & 52.0 & \phz7.3 & 19.2 & 22.8 & 18.1 & \phz8.0 & 55.9 & 44.8 & 32.4 & 13.3 & 15.9 & 22.8 & 46.2 & 44.9 & 29.1 \\
DPM HSC \cite{HSC} & 32.2 & 58.3 & 11.5 & 16.3 & 30.6 & 49.9 & 54.8 & 23.5 & 21.5 & 27.7 & 34.0 & 13.7 & 58.1 & 51.6 & 39.9 & 12.4 & 23.5 & 34.4 & 47.4 & 45.2 & 34.3 \\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{\textbf{Detection average precision (\%) on VOC 2007 test.}
Rows 1-3 show R-CNN performance without fine-tuning.
Rows 4-6 show results for the CNN pre-trained on ILSVRC 2012
and then fine-tuned (FT) on VOC 2007 trainval.
Row 7 includes a simple bounding-box regression (BB) stage that reduces localization errors (\secref{bboxreg}).
Rows 8-10 present DPM methods as a strong baseline.
The first uses only HOG, while the next two
use different feature learning approaches to augment or replace HOG.
}
\tablelabel{voc2007}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[t!]
\centering
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{1.2mm}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}l|r*{19}{c}|c@{}}
\textbf{VOC 2007 test} & aero & bike & bird & boat & bottle & bus & car & cat & chair & cow & table & dog & horse & mbike & person & plant & sheep & sofa & train & tv & mAP \\
\hline
R-CNN T-Net& 64.2 & 69.7 & 50.0 & 41.9 & 32.0 & 62.6 & 71.0 & 60.7 & 32.7 & 58.5 & 46.5 & 56.1 & 60.6 & 66.8 & 54.2 & 31.5 & 52.8 & 48.9 & 57.9 & 64.7 & 54.2 \\
R-CNN T-Net BB & 68.1 & 72.8 & 56.8 & 43.0 & 36.8 & 66.3 & 74.2 & 67.6 & 34.4 & 63.5 & 54.5 & 61.2 & 69.1 & 68.6 & 58.7 & 33.4 & 62.9 & 51.1 & 62.5 & 64.8 & 58.5 \\
\hline
R-CNN O-Net & 71.6 & 73.5 & 58.1 & 42.2 & 39.4 & 70.7 & 76.0 & 74.5 & 38.7 & 71.0 & 56.9 & 74.5 & 67.9 & 69.6 & 59.3 & \bf{35.7} & 62.1 & 64.0 & 66.5 & \bf{71.2} & 62.2 \\
R-CNN O-Net BB & \bf{73.4} & \bf{77.0} & \bf{63.4} & \bf{45.4} & \bf{44.6} & \bf{75.1} & \bf{78.1} & \bf{79.8} & \bf{40.5} & \bf{73.7} & \bf{62.2} & \bf{79.4} & \bf{78.1} & \bf{73.1} & \bf{64.2} & 35.6 & \bf{66.8} & \bf{67.2} & \bf{70.4} & 71.1 & \bf{66.0} \\
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{\textbf{Detection average precision (\%) on VOC 2007 test for two different CNN architectures.}
The first two rows are results from \tableref{voc2007} using Krizhevsky \etal's architecture (T-Net).
Rows three and four use the recently proposed 16-layer architecture from Simonyan and Zisserman (O-Net) \cite{vggverydeep}.
}
\tablelabel{voc2007oxfordnet}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{table*}
First-layer filters can be visualized directly
and are easy to understand \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet}. They capture
oriented edges and opponent colors. Understanding the subsequent layers
is more challenging. Zeiler and Fergus present a visually attractive deconvolutional
approach in \cite{zeiler2011adaptive}. We propose a simple (and complementary) non-parametric method that directly shows what the network learned.
The idea is to single out a particular unit (feature) in the network and use it as if it were an object
detector in its own right. That is, we compute the unit's activations on a
large set of held-out region proposals (about 10 million), sort the proposals from
highest to lowest activation, perform non-maximum suppression, and then display the top-scoring regions. Our method lets the selected unit
``speak for itself'' by showing exactly which inputs it fires on. We avoid
averaging in order to see different visual modes and gain
insight into the invariances computed by the unit.
We visualize units from layer \pool{5}, which is the max-pooled output of
the network's fifth and final convolutional layer.
The \pool{5} feature map is $6 \times 6 \times 256 = 9216$-dimensional.
Ignoring boundary effects, each \pool{5} unit has a receptive field of $195
\times 195$ pixels in the original $227 \times 227$ pixel input.
A central \pool{5} unit has a nearly global view, while one near the edge has a smaller, clipped support.
Each row in \figref{vislittle} displays the top 16 activations for a \pool{5} unit from a CNN that we fine-tuned on VOC 2007 trainval.
Six of the 256 functionally unique units are visualized (\asecref{extravis} includes more).
These units were selected to show a representative sample of what the network learns.
In the second row, we see a unit that fires on dog faces and dot arrays.
The unit corresponding to the third row is a red blob detector.
There are also detectors for human faces and more abstract patterns such as text and triangular structures with windows.
The network appears to learn a representation that combines a small number of class-tuned features together with a distributed representation of shape, texture, color, and material properties.
The subsequent fully connected layer \fc{6} has the ability to model a large set of compositions of these rich features.
|
\section{Introduction
The observation of polarization of radiation emanating from atmospheres of planets, stars, stellar envelopes
and accretion discs gives additional information {\bf on} these objects. First of all, the polarization
demonstrates the {\bf existence of} various types of anisotropy in observing objects. The observed polarization helps us
to construct various models of the objects, {\bf namely} the models of non-spherical atmospheres. If we observe the
eclipsing binary, the value of observed polarization is {\bf a} variable. In all {\bf these} cases we have to know the local distribution
of polarization of emanating radiation in an atmosphere. The calculation of polarization emanating from
semi-infinite plane-parallel atmosphere is one of the basic problem in the theory of radiative transfer.
In most papers
the scattering particles (molecules, dust grains) are assumed to be small compared to the wavelength of radiation.
In this case the dipole scattering is most important. The incident radiation induces the time dependent dipole
moment, which is the source of scattered light. The induced moment depends on the structure of grain or molecule.
If the scattering particle is anisotropic, the induced dipole moment depends on the orientation of particle. Only
for isotropic particle (say, electron) the induced moment is always the same. Scattering on isotropic particle
gives rise to the maximal polarization of radiation. The ensemble of chaotically oriented anisotropic grains or
molecules gives rise to smaller polarization as compared to the case of isotropic particles. Thus, anisotropic
structure of grains or molecules depolarizes scattered radiation. In the present paper, we restrict ourselves
to dipole approximation.
Clearly, the radiative transfer in an atmosphere
having the anisotropic grains or molecules is more difficult for consideration than {\bf the} usually assumed scattering on
isotropic particles. On the other hand, the real atmospheres consist of anisotropic particles. For this reason, the
estimation of depolarizing effect in {\bf such} atmospheres is interesting and important. Below we present the solution of
standard problems of radiative transfer (see Chandrasekhar 1960) taking into account the effect of depolarization.
We consider the diffuse reflection of light beam from semi-infinite atmosphere without sources of radiation
, and the Milne problem, where the sources of radiation are located far from the surface ($\tau \gg 1$).
The solutions of these problems, according to Chandrasekhar (1960), follow from the invariance-principle and
the radiative transfer equation without source term.
The axially symmetric part of radiation is described by two intensities - $I_l(\tau,\mu,\nu)$ and $I_r(\tau,\mu,\nu)$.
Here $\tau $ is the optical depth below the surface of semi-infinite plane-parallel atmosphere,
$\mu =\cos\vartheta$ with $\vartheta$ being the angle between the outer normal ${\bf N}$ to the surface and the direction
of light propagation ${\bf n}$, $\nu$ is the frequency of light.
The intensity $I_l$ describes the light linearly polarized in the plane (${\bf nN}$), and $I_r$ has polarization
perpendicular to this plane. The total intensity $I=I_l+I_r$, and the Stokes parameter $Q=I_l-I_r$. The Stokes
parameter $U\equiv 0$. The degree of linear polarization is equal to $p=|I_l-I_r|/(I_l+I_r)$.
Circularly polarized light is described by {\bf a} separate equation. We do not consider this equation.
Introducing the (column) vector ${\bf I}$ with the components ($I_l, I_r$) we obtain the following matrix
transfer equation for multiple scattering of continuum radiation on small anisotropic particles
(see Chandrasekhar 1960; Dolginov et al. 1995):
\[
\mu \frac{d{\bf I}(\tau,\mu)}{d\tau}= {\bf I}(\tau,\mu)-
\frac{1-q}{2}\int\limits_{-1}^{1}d\mu'\,\hat P(\mu,\mu'){\bf I}(\tau,\mu'),
\]
\begin{equation}
\hat P(\mu,\mu')=\left (\begin{array}{rr} P_1, P_2\\ P_3, P_4\end{array}\right ) =
\overline{b}_1\frac{3}{4}\left(\begin{array}{rr}2(1-\mu^2)(1-\mu'^2)+\mu^2\mu'^2\,\,\,\,\,, \,\,\,\,\,\mu^2\\
\,\,\,\,\,\mu'^2\,\,\,\,\,\,\,,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, 1\end{array}\right)
+\overline{b}_2\frac{3}{2}\left (\begin{array}{rr}1 , 1 \\ 1, 1\end{array}\right).
\label{1}
\end{equation}
\noindent Here $q=N_a\sigma_a/(N_s\sigma_s+N_a\sigma_a)$ is the probability of light absorption, $N_a$ and $N_s$ are
the number densities of absorbing (the grains) and scattering particles, respectively;
$d\tau=(N_s\sigma_s+N_a\sigma_a)dz$ determines the dimensionless optical depth, $\sigma_s$ and $\sigma_a$ are the
cross sections of scattering and absorption.
The scattering cross section of small particles (dust grains, molecules) is
$\sigma_s=(8\pi/3)(\omega/c)^4(b_1+3b_2)$, where $\omega=2\pi\nu$ is cyclic frequency of light, $c$ is the speed of
light. For freely (chaotic{\bf ally}) oriented particles $\sigma_s$ is independent of the polarization of incident
electromagnetic
wave ${\bf E}(\omega)$. The values $b_1$ and $b_2$ are related to polarizability tensor $\beta_{ij}(\omega)$ of
a particle as a whole. Induced dipole moment of a particle, as whole, is equal to
$p_i(\omega)=\beta_{ij}(\omega)E_j(\omega)$. Anisotropic particle with axial symmetry is characterized by two
polarizabilities - along the symmetry axis $\beta_{\parallel}(\omega)$, and in transverse direction
$\beta_{\perp}(\omega)$. For such particles
\[
b_1=\frac{1}{9}|2\beta_{\perp}+\beta_{\parallel}|^2+\frac{1}{45}|\beta_{\parallel}-\beta_{\perp}|^2,
\]
\begin{equation}
b_2=\frac{1}{15}|\beta_{\parallel}-\beta_{\perp}|^2.
\label{2}
\end{equation}
\noindent In transfer equation we use the dimensionless parameters
\begin{equation}
\overline{b}_1=\frac{b_1}{b_1+3b_2},\,\,\, \overline{b}_2=\frac{b_2}{b_1+3b_2},\,\,\,\overline{b}_1+3\overline{b}_2=1.
\label{3}
\end{equation}
\noindent For needle like particles ($|\beta_{\parallel}|\gg |\beta_{\perp}|)$ parameters $\overline{b}_1=0.4,
\overline{b}_2=0.2$, and for plate like particles ($|\beta_{\perp}|\gg |\beta_{\parallel}|$) we have
$\overline{b}_1=0.7, \overline{b}_2=0.1$.
Parameter $\overline{b}_2$ describes the depolarization of radiation, scattered by freely oriented anisotropic
particles. The integral term in Eq.(1) (the source function ${\bf B}(\tau,\mu)=(B_l(\tau,\mu), B_r(\tau,\mu))$ for
single scattering of non-polarized radiation ($I_{l,r}=(1/2)I_0\delta(\mu-\mu_0)$) acquires the form:
\[
B_l(\mu)=\frac{3}{16}(1-q)I_0\{[2(1-\mu^2)(1-\mu_0^2)+\mu^2(1+\mu_0^2)]\overline{b}_1+4\overline{b}_2\},
\]
\begin{equation}
B_r(\mu){\bf =}\frac{3}{16}(1-q)I_0[(1+\mu_0^2 )\overline{b}_1+4\overline{b}_2].
\label{4}
\end{equation}
\noindent The degree of polarization of single scattered radiation is then given by
\begin{equation}
p(\mu,\mu_0)=\frac{B_l(\mu)-B_r(\mu)}{B_l(\mu)+B_r(\mu)}=\frac{\overline{b}_1(1-\mu^2)(1-3\mu_0^2)}
{[2(1-\mu^2)(1-\mu_0^2)+(1+\mu^2)(1+\mu_0^2)]\overline{b}_1+8\overline{b}_2}.
\label{5}
\end{equation}
\noindent The peak polarization is reached for $\mu=0$, i.e., for scattering of radiation parallel
to the surface of an atmosphere:
\begin{equation}
p_{max}=\frac{\overline{b}_1(1-3\mu_0^2)}{(3-\mu_0^2)\overline{b}_1+8\overline{b}_2}.
\label{6}
\end{equation}
\noindent When $\mu_0=1$ the scattering angle is equal to $90^{\circ}$ and the polarization degree (6) takes
the value $p_{max}=-\overline{b}_1/(\overline{b}_1+4\overline{b}_2)$. For needle like particles $p_{max}=-33.3\%$,
and for plate like particles $p_{max}=- 63.63\%$. For isotropic particles $(\overline{b}_2=0)$ one has
$p_{max}=-100\%$. The minus sign denotes that preferable oscillations of wave electric vector are perpendicular
to meridional plane $({\bf nN})$.
Note that in Chandrasekhar (1960) the parameter $\gamma$ is used. Our parameters $\overline{b}_1$ and
$\overline{b}_2$ are related to $\gamma $ according to formulas: $\overline{b}_1=(1-\gamma)/(1+2\gamma)$ and
$\overline{b}_2=\gamma/(1+2\gamma)$.
Usually the light polarization weakly influences the angular distribution of radiation, emanating from an atmosphere.
Thus, in conservative Milne's problem the ratio $J(\mu)=I(0,\mu)/I(0,0)$ takes the value 3.06, if the polarization terms
in transfer equation are taken into account. If these terms are omitted the value $J(\mu)=3.02$. For this reason,
if one is interested in the intensity of radiation, then one uses the scalar transfer equation only for
intensity $I(\tau,\mu)$. This equation in our axially symmetric case can be derived from matrix equation (1)
through the summation ($I_l+I_r$) and substituting $I_l(\tau,\mu')=I_r(\tau,\mu')=I(\tau,\mu')/2$ in the integrand of
Eq.(1). As a result, we obtain the standard equation:
\[
\mu\frac{dI(\tau\mu)}{d\tau}=I(\tau,\mu)-\frac{1-q}{2}\int\limits_{-1}^{1}d\mu'\,P(\mu,\mu')I(\tau,\mu'),
\]
\begin{equation}
P(\mu,\mu')=\left[\frac{1}{8}(3-\mu^2)(3-\mu'^2)+\mu^2\mu'^2\right]\overline{b}_1+3\overline{b}_2.
\label{7}
\end{equation}
\noindent The integrand $\hat P(\mu,\mu')$ in Eq.(7) is the sum of products of type $\varphi(\mu)\varphi(\mu')$. According to
Chandrasekhar (1960), it is possible to derive a system of non-linear integral equations for three H-functions.
These functions can be used in the derivation of the formulas for outgoing intensity of reflected radiation,
and in the Milne problem.
The phase matrix $\hat P(\mu,\mu')$ can also be presented analogous to scalar phase function
(see Lenoble 1970; Abhyankar \& Fymat 1971). In our case ($\overline{b}_2\neq 0$) the phase matrix
$\hat P(\mu,\mu')$ can be rewritten in the form:
\begin{equation}
\hat P(\mu,\mu')\equiv \hat P(\mu^2,\mu'^2)=\overline{b}_1 \hat M(\mu^2)\hat M(\mu'^2)^T
+\frac{3}{4}\overline{b}_2\hat L \hat {L}^T.
\label{8}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\hat M(\mu^2)=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}
\left (\begin{array}{ll}\mu^2\,\, ,\, (1-\mu^2)\sqrt{2}\\ \,1\,\,\,\,\,,\,0\,\end{array}\right ),\,\,\,
\hat L=\left (\begin{array}{cc}\, 1\,,\,1\,\\ \,1\,,\,1\,\end{array}\right ).
\label{9}
\end{equation}
\noindent Here the superscript T stands for matrix transpose.
In the present paper, we consider in detail two basic problems of the radiative transfer theory - the reflection of polarized
light from semi-infinite plane parallel atmosphere, and the Milne problem corresponding to the thermal sources in
very deep layers of an absorbing atmosphere.
The main features of our investigation are consideration of problems with depolarization parameter
$\overline{b}_2$, and
taking into account the true absorbtion (parameter $q$) (i.e., the existence of absorbing grains in an atmosphere.)
Firstly we consider the solution of transfer equation only for intensity $I$, and then the more complex case of
matrix equation for intensities $I_l$ and $I_r$. Recall that the depolarization parameter
$\overline{b}_2$ gives the contribution to the axially symmetric part of radiation.
A detailed consideration of problems without the parameter $\overline{b}_2$ is presented in many papers (see,
for example, Chandrasekhar 1960; Horak \& Chandrasehar 1961; Lenoble 1970; Abhyankar \& Fymat 1971).
Below we present briefly the standard general description of the problems under consideration and
then turn to particular solutions.
\subsection{The case of resonant scattering
For investigation of multiple scattering of resonant radiation one uses the matrix transfer equation of
the general form (see, for example, Hummer 1962; Ivanov et al. 1997a, 1997b; Dementyev 2008):
\begin{equation}
\mu\frac{d{\bf I}(\tau,\mu,\nu)}{d\tau}=\alpha(\nu){\bf I}(\tau,\mu,\nu)-\frac{1-q}{2}\int\limits_{-1}^{1}
d\mu'\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\nu'\,\hat P(\mu,\nu;\mu',\nu'){\bf I}(\tau,\mu',\nu'),
\label{10}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\nu$ is the frequency of light, the absorbtion factor in a resonant line is $\alpha_{resonant}(\nu)=
\alpha_0\,\varphi(\nu)$, the optical depth $d\tau =\alpha_0dz$ takes into account the mean absorbtion factor in
a line, the dimensionless factor $\alpha(\nu)=\varphi(\nu)+
\alpha_{cont}/\alpha_0$, with $\alpha_{cont}$ being the extinction factor in nearby continuum.
The normalized function $\varphi(\nu)$ describes the form of line. Often one uses the limiting
forms - Gaussian or Doppler
\begin{equation}
\varphi(\nu)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}\Delta\nu_D}\exp{\left[-\left ( \frac{\nu-\nu_0}{\Delta\nu_D}\right )^2\right]},
\label{11}
\end{equation}
\noindent and the Lorentz
\begin{equation}
\varphi(\nu)=\frac{\delta}{\pi}\,\cdot \frac{1}{(\nu-\nu_0)^2+\delta^2}.
\label{12}
\end{equation}
\noindent The function $\varphi(\nu)$ is normalized to unity, namely:
\[
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\nu\,\varphi(\nu)=1.
\]
Here $\nu_0$ is central frequency of a resonant line, $\Delta\nu_D$ is Doppler width of a line:
\[
\Delta\nu_D^2=\Delta\nu_{th}^2+\Delta\nu_{turb}^2=\frac{\nu_0^2}{c^2}(u_{th}^2+u_{turb}^2),
\]
\noindent where the thermal velocity is determined by the temperature $u_{th}^2=2k_BT/m$, and the turbulent velocity
is determined as a mean value of chaotic macroscopic motions $u_{turb}^2=\langle u^2({\bf r},t)\rangle$. The
value $\delta $ depends on widths of the atomic energy levels.
The Gaussian form of a line arises as a result of Doppler frequency shifts due to thermal and turbulent motions of
atoms and molecules. This form usually corresponds to the {\bf line core}. The Lorentz form characterize the
wings of a line which are often blanketed by line environment.
The matrix $\hat P(\mu,\nu;\mu',\nu')$ in general has very complex form (see McKenna 1985; Landi Degl'Innocenti \&
Landolfi 2004). This is the reason why one uses model of fully redistributed frequencies:
\begin{equation}
\hat P(\mu,\nu;\mu',\nu')=\varphi(\nu)\varphi(\nu')\hat P(\mu,\mu'),
\label{13}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the matrix $\hat P(\mu,\mu')$ has the form (8). This means that the scattering law in {\bf a}
spectral line formally coincides with that by scattering on anisotropic freely oriented small particles. The parameters
$\overline{b}_1$ and $\overline{b}_2$ in this case are related to the parameters
$E_1$ and $E_2$ used in Chandrasekhar (1960) as $\overline{b}_1=E_1$ and $\overline{b}_2=E_2/3$
with $E_1+E_2=1$.
It should be noted that in this case the depolarization parameter
$\overline{b}_2$ can be very large and play{\bf s} a very important role in the calculation of resonant emission
polarization.
Large depolarization of spectral lines is both the consequence of chaotic orientations and the mixture of the
dipole electron transitions with very different quantum numbers.
Thus, the estimates demonstrate that for $H\alpha $ line, consisting of 5 close components, the value
$E_2\simeq 0.3$. Note, that the Doppler broadening of close components overlap the frequency differences between
them and the line, as a whole, can be considered as a single line having the Doppler form (Varshalovich et
al. 2006; Lekht et al. 2008).
From the matrix equation (10) one can also derive the separate scalar transfer equation for intensity
$I(\tau,\mu,\nu)$:
\begin{equation}
\mu\frac{dI(\tau,\mu,\nu)}{d\tau}=\alpha(\nu)I(\tau,\mu,\nu)-\frac{1-q}{2}\int\limits_{-1}^{1}d\mu'\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^
{\infty}d\nu'\, P(\mu,\nu;\mu'\nu')I(\tau,\mu',\nu'),
\label{14}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the scalar function $P(\mu,\nu;\mu'\nu')=(P_1+P_2+P_3+P_4)/2$ is equal to the sum
of all four components of matrix $\hat P(\mu,\nu;\mu',\nu')$.
\section{Basic formulas
In this section we briefly recall the basic theoretical formulas first derived by Chandrasekhar (1960). This is done
as a matter of convenience in consideration of particular problems depending on depolarization parameter
$\overline{b}_2$ and the degree of true absorption $q$.
\subsection{The equation for scattering matrix
Let a parallel beam of light with fluxes $\pi F_l$ and $\pi F_r$ along the direction characterized
by $\cos\vartheta_0=-\mu_0$ and azimuth angle $\varphi_0$ be incident on
the surface of a semi-infinite plane-parallel atmosphere.
The intensity of the light diffusely reflected from the atmosphere can be expressed in terms of scattering
matrix:
\begin{equation}
{\bf I}(0,\mu,\varphi)=\frac{1}{4\mu}\hat S(\mu,\varphi;\mu_0,\varphi_0){\bf F}.
\label{15}
\end{equation}
The scattering matrix $\hat S(\mu,\varphi ;\mu_0,\varphi_0)$ obeys the matrix equation (the invariance principle):
\[
\left (\frac{1}{\mu}+\frac{1}{\mu_0}\right )\hat S(\mu,\varphi;\mu_0,\varphi_0)=(1-q)\left [\hat P(\mu,\varphi;-\mu_0,
\varphi_0)+\right.
\]
\[
\left.\frac{1}{4\pi}\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu''}{\mu''}\,\int\limits_0^{2\pi}d\varphi''\,\hat P(\mu,\varphi;\mu'',
\varphi'')\hat S(\mu'',\varphi'';\mu_0,\varphi_0)+\frac{1}{4\pi}\int\limits_0^1\,\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\int\limits_0^{2\pi}
d\varphi'\,\hat S(\mu,\varphi ;\mu',\varphi')\hat P(-\mu',\varphi';-\mu_0,\varphi_0)+\right.
\]
\begin{equation}
\left.\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}
\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\,\int\limits_0^{2\pi}d\varphi'\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu''}{\mu''}\,\int\limits
_0^{2\pi}d\varphi''\hat S(\mu,\varphi ;\mu',\varphi')\,\hat P(-\mu',\varphi'; \mu'',\varphi'')\, \hat S(\mu'',\varphi'';
\mu_0,\varphi_0)\right ].
\label{16}
\end{equation}
In our axially symmetric case the dependence on azimuthal angles will be absent. The integrations over $\varphi'$ and
$\varphi''$ give the values $2\pi$, and formula (16) takes a simpler form. In formula (16) we take the common
factor $(1-q)$ out of brackets, i.e. $\hat S\sim (1-q)$. Note, that in our case $\hat P(\mu,\mu')\equiv \hat
P(\mu^2,\mu'^2)$.
If the matrix $\hat P(\mu,\mu')$ has the form
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1\hat M_1(\mu^2)\hat M_1(\mu'^2)^T +\gamma_2 \hat M_2(\mu^2)\hat M_2(\mu'^2)^T,
\label{17}
\end{equation}
\noindent then the expression for $\hat S(\mu,\mu')$ takes the following form:
\begin{equation}
\hat S(\mu,\mu') =\frac{(1-q)\mu\mu'}{\mu+\mu'}\left [ \gamma_1\hat N_1(\mu)\hat N_1(\mu')^T +
\gamma_2\hat N_2(\mu)\hat N_2(\mu')^T \right],
\label{18}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\hat N_n(\mu)$ obeys the relation:
\begin{equation}
\hat N_n(\mu)=\hat M_n(\mu^2)+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\,\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\hat S(\mu,\mu')\hat M_n(\mu'^2).
\label{19}
\end{equation}
\noindent Substitution of Eq.(18) into Eq.(19) gives rise to the system of non-linear matrix equations
for matrices $\hat N_1$ and $\hat N_2$. It should be noted that the expression (18) is valid only when
$\hat M_n(\mu )=\hat M_n(\mu^2)$. In general case the expression for $\hat S(\mu,\mu')$ takes
the form:
\begin{equation}
\hat S(\mu,\mu')=\frac{(1-q)\mu\mu'}{\mu+\mu'}[\,\gamma_1\hat R_1(\mu)\hat K_1(\mu')+
\gamma_2\hat R_2(\mu)\hat K_2(\mu')].
\label{20}
\end{equation}
\noindent The matrices $\hat R_n(\mu)$ and $\hat K_n(\mu)$ obey the equations:
\[
\hat R_n(\mu)=\hat M_n(\mu)+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\hat S(\mu,\mu')\hat M_n(-\mu'),
\]
\begin{equation}
\hat K_n(\mu)=\hat M_n^T(-\mu)+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\hat M_n^T(\mu')\hat S(\mu',\mu).
\label{21}
\end{equation}
The system of non-linear matrix equations for $\hat R_n$ and $\hat K_n$ are more complex than those for
$\hat N_n$.
\subsection{Formulas for Milne's problem
The Milne problem deals with the solution of Eq.(1) when the sources of thermal radiation are placed in deep
layers of an atmosphere. The important part of this problem is the solution of the transfer equation in infinite
atmosphere.
This solution has the form ${\bf I}(\tau,\mu)={\bf g}(\mu)\exp{(k\tau )}/(1-k\mu)$. The (column) vector ${\bf g}(\mu)$
obeys the homogeneous matrix equation:
\begin{equation}
{\bf g}(\mu) = \frac{1-q}{2}\int\limits_{-1}^1 d\mu'\,\hat P(\mu,\mu')\frac{{\bf g}(\mu')}{1-k\mu'}.
\label{22}
\end{equation}
For phase matrix $\hat P(\mu^2,\mu'^2)$ and phase function $P(\mu^2,\mu'^2)$ the (column) {\bf vector} ${\bf g(\mu)}$
and the analogous scalar $g(\mu)$ depend on $\mu^2$. {\bf In this case Eq.(22) acquires more simple form:}
\[
{\bf g}(\mu^2)=(1-q)\int\limits_0^1\,d\mu'\,\hat P(\mu^2,\mu'^2)\frac{{\bf g}(\mu'^2)}{1-k^2\mu'^2}.
\]
\noindent Below we consider only such cases.
The homogeneous equation (22) has the solution, if the constant parameter $k$ obeys the characteristic equation
(zero's determinant of Eq.(22)). The most simple form of the characteristic equation is obtained for
the scalar transfer equation for intensity {\bf $I(\tau,\mu)=g(\mu)\exp{(k\tau)}/(1-k\mu)$} with the isotropic phase
function ($\overline{b}_1=0, \overline{b}_2=1/3$):
\begin{equation}
(1-q)f_0(k)=(1-q)\frac{1}{2k}\ln{\frac{1+k}{1-k}}=1.
\label{23}
\end{equation}
\noindent For the case of Rayleigh phase function ($\overline{b}_1=1,\overline{b}_2=0$) the characteristic
equation is:
\begin{equation}
1-\frac{3}{8}(1-q)(3f_0+3f_4-2f_2)+\frac{9}{8}(1-q)^2(f_0f_4-f_2^2)=0.
\label{24}
\end{equation}
\noindent Here the functions $f_n(k)$ are determined as:
\[
f_0(k)=\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu}{1-k^2\mu^2}=\frac{1}{2k}\ln{\frac{1+k}{1-k}},
\]
\[
f_2(k)=\int\limits_0^1d\mu \,\frac{\mu^2}{1-k^2\mu^2}=\frac{f_0-1}{k^2},
\]
\begin{equation}
f_4(k)=\int\limits_0^1d\mu \,\frac{\mu^4}{1-k^2\mu^2}=\frac{3f_2-1}{3k^2}.
\label{25}
\end{equation}
\noindent For Rayleigh scattering ($\overline{b}_1=1,\overline{b}_2=0$) with taking into account the
polarization terms the characteristic equation is:
\begin{equation}
1-\frac{3}{4}(1-q)(3f_0+3f_4-4f_2)+\frac{9}{8}(1-q)^2(f_0^2-f_2^2+2f_0f_4-2f_0f_2)=0.
\label{26}
\end{equation}
In Tables 1 and 2 we present the values $k(q)$ for these three cases. From these tables, we see that
the $k$ - values for isotropic
scattering are larger than those corresponding to Rayleigh phase function. The inclusion of polarization
terms gives rise to smaller values of $k$ compared to case where they are neglected. The maximum relative difference
of $\simeq 1\%$ between the $k$-values obtained from Eq.(23) and Eq.(24) occurs at $q\simeq 0.4$, while that
between Eq.(24) and Eq.(25) occurs at $q\simeq 0.2$. For small absorption ($q\ll 1$) the value of $k\simeq \sqrt{3q}$.
This approximation for $k$ is valid up to $q\simeq 0.05$, where the relative difference with the exact value
is $\simeq 2\%$.
The invariance-principles give rise to the formula (Chandrasekhar, 1960):
\begin{equation}
{\bf I}(0,\mu)=Const \left [\frac{{\bf g}(\mu)}{1-k\mu}-\frac{1}{2\mu}\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{1+k\mu'}\,
\hat S(\mu,\mu'){\bf g}(\mu')\right ].
\label{27}
\end{equation}
\noindent The value {\bf $Const$} is related with the total flux of outgoing radiation.
\section{The intensity $I(\tau,\mu)$ for an atmosphere with depolarization parameter $\overline{b}_2$
The transfer equation for $I(\tau,\mu)$ is presented in Eq.(7). The phase function has the form:
\begin{equation}
P(\mu,\mu')=\frac{1}{8}\overline{b}_1 (3-\mu^2)(3-\mu'^2)+\overline{b}_1\mu^2\,\mu'^2 +3\overline{b}_2.
\label{28}
\end{equation}
\noindent For the case of unpolarized radiation, the general formulas (18) and (19), give the following
expression for $S(\mu,\mu')$:
\begin{equation}
S(\mu,\mu')=\frac{(1-q)\mu\mu'}{\mu+\mu'}\left [\frac{1}{8}\overline{b}_1\psi(\mu)\psi(\mu')+\overline{b}_1\phi
(\mu)\phi(\mu')+3\overline{b}_2\xi(\mu)\xi(\mu')\right ],
\label{29}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the functions $\psi(\mu),\phi(\mu)$ and $\xi(\mu)$ are expressed in term $S(\mu,\mu')$:
\[
\psi(\mu)=(3-\mu^2)+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1 \frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\,(3-\mu'^2)\,S(\mu,\mu'),
\]
\[
\phi(\mu)=\mu^2 +\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1 \frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\,\mu'^2\,S(\mu,\mu'),
\]
\begin{equation}
\xi(\mu)=1+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1 \frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\,S(\mu,\mu').
\label{30}
\end{equation}
From the above equations, we see that $\xi(\mu)=[\psi(\mu)+\phi(\mu)]/3$. For convenience in the following
operations, we introduce new notations:
\begin{equation}
\psi(\mu)=4[A(\mu)+B(\mu)],\,\, \phi(\mu)=2A(\mu)-B(\mu),\,\,\xi(\mu)=2A(\mu)+B(\mu).
\label{31}
\end{equation}
The system of equations for $A(\mu)$ and $B(\mu)$ is the following:
\[
A(\mu)=\frac{1+\mu^2}{4}+\frac{3}{8}(1-q)\,\mu \int\limits_0^1 d\mu'\,\frac{1+\mu'^2}{\mu+\mu'}T(\mu,\mu'),
\]
\begin{equation}
B(\mu)=\frac{1-\mu^2}{2}+\frac{3}{4}(1-q)\,\mu \int\limits_0^1 d\mu'\,\frac{1-\mu'^2}{\mu+\mu'}T(\mu,\mu'),
\label{32}
\end{equation}
\noindent where
\begin{equation}
T(\mu,\mu')=\overline{b}_1\,(2AA'+BB')+\overline{b}_2\,(2A+B)(2A'+B')\equiv T(\mu',\mu).
\label{33}
\end{equation}
\noindent Here and in what follows, for brevity, we use the notations $A(\mu)=A, A(\mu')=A'$ etc.
In new notations the scattering function $S(\mu,\mu')$ acquires the form:
\begin{equation}
S(\mu,\mu')=\frac{3(1-q)\,\mu\,\mu'}{\mu+\mu'}\,T(\mu,\mu').
\label{34}
\end{equation}
The functions $A(\mu)$ and $B(\mu)$ terms of one $H$-function. We now briefly describe the way
to achieve this. From the system of equations (32) we obtain:
\begin{equation}
2A(\mu)+B(\mu)=1+\frac{3}{2}(1-q)\,\mu \int\limits_0^1 d\mu'\frac{T(\mu,\mu')}{\mu+\mu'}.
\label{35}
\end{equation}
\noindent Similarly we find the expression for $2A(\mu)-B(\mu)$ and using formula (35), one can obtain
the relation:
\begin{equation}
2A(\mu)\phi_A(\mu)=B(\mu)\phi_B(\mu),
\label{36}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the functions $\phi_A(\mu)$ and $\phi_B(\mu)$ are:
\[
\phi_A(\mu)=1-\mu^2+\frac{3}{2}(1-q)\mu\,\{\overline{b}_1(\mu A_0-A_1)+\overline{b}_2\,[\,\mu (2A_0+B_0)-(2A_1+B_1)]\},
\]
\begin{equation}
\phi_B(\mu)=1+\mu^2-\frac{3}{2}(1-q)\mu\,\{\overline{b}_1(\mu B_0-B_1)+\overline{b}_2\,[\,\mu (2A_0+B_0)-(2A_1+B_1)]\}.
\label{37}
\end{equation}
\noindent Here we use the notations
\begin{equation}
A_n=\int\limits_0^1 d\mu\,\mu^n\,A(\mu),\,\,\,\, B_n=\int\limits_0^1 d\mu\,\mu^n\,B(\mu).
\label{38}
\end{equation}
The expression (36) is valid if there exist the relations:
\begin{equation}
A(\mu)=\frac{1}{4}\phi_B(\mu)\,H(\mu),\,\,\,\, B(\mu)=\frac{1}{2}\phi_A(\mu)\,H(\mu).
\label{39}
\end{equation}
Introducing these relations in Eq.(35), one can obtain the following equation for H - function:
\[
\frac{1}{2}(\phi_A+\phi_B)\,H=1+\frac{3}{16}(1-q)\,\mu\,\int\limits_0^1\,\frac{d\mu'}{\mu+\mu'}\,[\,\overline{b}_1
(2\phi_A\phi'_A+\phi_B\phi'_B)+
\]
\begin{equation}
2\overline{b}_2(\phi_A+\phi_B)(\phi'_A+\phi'_B)]\,H\,H'.
\label{40}
\end{equation}
The functions $\phi_A(\mu)$ and $\phi_B(\mu)$ are polynomials of the type $\phi=a+b\mu+c\mu^2$. Hence one
can show that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\phi(\mu)}{\mu+\mu'}=\frac{\phi(-\mu')}{\mu+\mu'}+b+c(\mu-\mu').
\label{41}
\end{equation}
Substituting Eq.(41) for $\phi_A(\mu)$ and $\phi_B(\mu)$ in Eq.(40), and keeping in mind that
terms with moments $A_0, A_1, B_0$, $B_1$ and $\mu^2$ in the left side of Eq.(40) are canceled by the same terms
in the right side of this equation, one can obtain the standard formula for H - function:
\begin{equation}
H(\mu)=1+\mu\,H(\mu) \int\limits_0^1 d\mu'\frac{\Psi(\mu')}{\mu+\mu'}H(\mu'),
\label{42}
\end{equation}
\noindent where
\[
\Psi(\mu)=\frac{3}{16}(1-q)\overline{b}_1[2\phi_A(\mu)\phi_A(-\mu)+\phi_B(\mu)\phi_B(-\mu)]+
\]
\begin{equation}
\frac{3}{8}(1-q)\overline{b}_2\,[\phi_A(\mu)+\phi_B(\mu)][\phi_A(-\mu)+\phi_B(-\mu)].
\label{43}
\end{equation}
For deriving Eq.(42) we have used the relations:
\[
2A_0+B_0=1+\frac{3}{4}(1-q)\,[\,\overline{b}_1\,(2A_0^2+B_0^2)+\overline{b}_2\,(2A_0+B_0)^2\,],
\]
\begin{equation}
2A_0-B_0=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{3}{4}(1-q)\,[\,\overline{b}_1\,(2A_1^2+B_1^2)+\overline{b}_2\,(2A_1+B_1)^2\,],
\label{44}
\end{equation}
\noindent which follows from Eq.(32), if one uses the symmetry relation $T(\mu,\mu')=T(\mu',\mu)$ and the
substitution $\mu \to \mu'$ and the opposite $\mu'\to \mu$. The initial double integral over $\mu$ and $\mu'$ coincides with
that after substitutions. As a result, in the nominator of the sum of these integrals
arises the term $(\mu+\mu')$ which cancels the same term in the denominator.
The explicit form of the function $\Psi(\mu)$ is the following:
\[
\Psi(\mu)=\frac{3}{16}(1-q)\{\,3\overline{b}_1+8\overline{b}_2 - \overline{b}_1\,[\,2-(1-q)\overline{b}_1-
3(1-q)\overline{b}_2\,]\,\mu^2+
\]
\begin{equation}
3\overline{b}_1\,[\,1-(1-q)\overline{b}_1-3(1-q)\overline{b}_2\,]\,\mu^4 \}.\,\,\,\,
\label{45}
\end{equation}
\noindent This formula follows from Eq.(43) after the substitution of expressions (37) for $\phi_A(\mu)$ and
$\phi_B(\mu)$ and using the relations (44). It is of interest that we do not use the explicit values
of $A_n$ and $B_n$. It seems such situation reflects some symmetry properties of the transfer equation (7).
For $\overline{b}_1=0$ and $\overline{b}_2=1/3$ the expression (45) gives $\Psi(\mu)=(1-q)/2$. In this case
Eq.(42) coincides with the standard H -function equation for isotropic scattering. For $\overline{b}_2=0$ and
$\overline{b}_1=1$ the $\Psi(\mu)$ - function is given by
\begin{equation}
\Psi(\mu)=\frac{3}{16}(1-q)[\,3-(1+q)\mu^2 +3q\mu^4\,].
\label{46}
\end{equation}
\noindent For conservative atmosphere $(q=0)$ the expression (46) transforms into the known form, namely
$\Psi(\mu)=(3/16)(3-\mu^2)$.
Taking into account the relations (39), one can write the scattering function $S(\mu,\mu')$ in the form:
\[
S(\mu,\mu')=\frac{3(1-q)\mu\,\mu'}{8(\mu+\mu')}H(\mu)H(\mu')\times
\]
\begin{equation}
[\,\overline{b}_1(2\phi_A\phi'_A+\phi_B\phi'_B)+
2\overline{b}_2(\phi_A+\phi_B)(\phi'_A+\phi'_B)\,].
\label{47}
\end{equation}
\noindent The expression in brackets is polynomial of $\mu$ and $\mu'$.
\subsection{The Milne problem
The function $g(\mu)$ for Milne problem with depolarization parameter $\overline b_2$ takes the form
\begin{equation}
g(\mu)=\frac{3}{16}(1-q)\,\int\limits_{-1}^1\frac{d\mu'}{1-k\mu'}[\,\overline{b}_1(3-\mu^2-\mu'^2+3\mu^2\,\mu'^2)+
8\overline{b}_2\,]\,g(\mu').
\label{48}
\end{equation}
\noindent According to this equation
\begin{equation}
g(\mu)=g_0+g_2\,\mu^2.
\label{49}
\end{equation}
The homogeneous system of equations for parameters $g_0$ and $g_2$ has the form:
\[
\left \{\,1-\frac{3}{8}(1-q)[(3f_0-f_2)\overline{b}_1+8\overline{b}_2f_0]\right \}g_0-\frac{3}{8}(1-q)
[(3f_2-f_4)\overline{b}_1+8\overline{b}_2f_2\,]\,g_2=0,
\]
\begin{equation}
-\frac{3}{8}(1-q)\overline{b}_1(3f_2-f_0)\,g_0+[\,1-\frac{3}{8}(1-q)\overline{b}_1(3f_4-f_2)]\,g_2=0.
\label{50}
\end{equation}
\noindent The $f_n$ - functions are defined in Eq.(25). The characteristic equation (the zero value for determinant
of system (50)) is:
\begin{equation}
1-\frac{3}{8}(1-q)[\,\overline{b}_1\,(3f_0+3f_4-2f_2)+8\overline{b}_2\,f_0]+
\frac{9}{8}(1-q)^2\overline{b}_1\,(\overline{b}_1+3\overline{b}_2)\,(f_0f_4-f_2^2)=0.
\label{51}
\end{equation}
\noindent The solution of this algebraic equation determines the parameter $k$.
The formula (27) for the intensity of outgoing radiation takes the form:
\begin{equation}
I(0,\mu)=\frac{Const}{1-k\mu}\left [g(\mu)-\frac{3}{2}(1-q) \int\limits_0^1 d\mu'\frac{\mu'(1-k\mu)}
{(\mu+\mu')(1+k\mu')}T(\mu,\mu')\,g(\mu')\,\right ].
\label{52}
\end{equation}
\noindent Taking into account the equality
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mu'(1-k\mu)}{(\mu+\mu')(1+k\mu')}=\frac{1}{1+k\mu'}-\frac{\mu}{\mu+\mu'}
\label{53}
\end{equation}
\noindent and Eq.(35) for $(2A+B)$, the expression (52) can be presented as follows:
\[
I(0,\mu)=\frac{Const}{1-k\mu}\left \{\,[2A(\mu)+B(\mu)]\,g(\mu)+\frac{3}{2}(1-q)\,\mu\,
[\,T_1(\mu)-\mu T_0(\mu)\,]\,g_2\,- \right.
\]
\begin{equation}
\left. \frac{3}{2}(1-q)\int\limits _0^1\,d\mu'\frac{T(\mu,\mu')}{1+k\mu'}\,g(\mu')\right \},
\label{54}
\end{equation}
\noindent where we have introduced the notations:
\begin{equation}
T_n(\mu)=\int\limits_0^1\,d\mu'\,\mu'^n\,T(\mu,\mu').
\label{55}
\end{equation}
If one uses the relations of $A(\mu)$ and $B(\mu)$ with $H$ - function (see Eq.(39)), then the main
term $I(0,\mu)\sim H(\mu)/(1-k\mu)$ appears.
\section{{\bf The intensities $I_l$ and $I_r$ for an atmosphere with depolarization parameter} $\overline{b}_2$
The system of equations for $I_l(\tau,\mu)$ and $I_r(\tau,\mu)$ is described by the matrix transfer equation (1).
According to Eqs.(8) and (9), the matrix $\hat P(\mu,\mu')$ can be presented as the sum of product
of matrices $\hat M(\mu^2)$
and $\hat M^T(\mu'^2)$, and the product of $\hat L$ and $\hat L^T=\hat L$. The general theory (see, Eqs.(17) - (21))
gives the following form of scattering matrix $\hat S(\mu,\mu')$:
\begin{equation}
\hat S(\mu,\mu')\equiv \left ( \begin{array}{ll} S_1\,,\, S_2\\ S_3\,,\, S_4 \end{array}\right )=
\frac{(1-q)\mu\,\mu'}{\mu+\mu'}
\left [\,\overline{b}_1\hat N(\mu)\hat N^T(\mu')+
\frac{3}{4}\,\overline{b}_2\,\hat \phi(\mu)\hat \phi^T(\mu')\right ],
\label{56}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the matrices $\hat N(\mu)$ and $\hat \phi(\mu)$ are related to $\hat S(\mu,\mu')$ as:
\begin{equation}
\hat N(\mu)=\left (\begin{array}{ll}\,N_1\, , \,N_2\,\\\,N_3\,, \,N_4\,\end{array}\right )=
\hat M(\mu)+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\hat S(\mu,\mu')\hat M(\mu'^2),
\label{57}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\hat \phi(\mu)\equiv \left( \begin{array}{ll}\,a\,,\,a\,\\ \,b\,,\,b\,\end{array}\right )=
\hat L+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\hat S(\mu,\mu')\hat L.
\label{58}
\end{equation}
\noindent The properties $\phi_1=\phi_2=a$ and $\phi_3=\phi_4=b$ are consequences of explicit form of
matrix $\hat L$ ($L_{ik}=1$, see Eq.(9)). Eq.(58) can be written as
\[
a(\mu)=1+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\,\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}[\,S_1(\mu,\mu')+S_2(\mu,\mu')\,],
\]
\begin{equation}
b(\mu)=1+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\,\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}[\,S_3(\mu,\mu')+S_4(\mu,\mu')\,].
\label{59}
\end{equation}
\noindent It is easy to check that
\begin{equation}
a=2\left (\frac{N_1}{\sqrt{3}}+\frac{N_2}{\sqrt{6}}\right ),\,\,
b=2\left (\frac{N_3}{\sqrt{3}}+\frac{N_4}{\sqrt{6}}\right ).
\label{60}
\end{equation}
\noindent So, the matrix $\hat \phi(\mu)$ is expressed in terms of matrix $\hat N(\mu)$.
Let us introduce more convenient notations:
\[
A=\frac{N_1+N_3}{2\sqrt{3}},\,\,\,\,B=\frac{N_2+N_4}{\sqrt{6}},
\]
\begin{equation}
C=\frac{N_3-N_1}{2\sqrt{3}},\,\,\,\,D=\frac{N_4-N_2}{\sqrt{6}}.
\label{61}
\end{equation}
\noindent In these notations the scattering matrix {\bf $\hat S(\mu,\mu')$} acquires the form:
\[
\hat S(\mu,\mu')= \frac{3}{2}\frac{(1-q)\mu\,\mu'}{\mu+\mu'}\times
\]
\[
\left \{[\,\overline{b}_1\,(2AA'+BB')+\overline{b}_2\,(2A+B)(2A'+B')] \left (\begin{array}{ll}\,1\,,\,1\,\\
\,1,\,1\,\end{array}\right) + \right.
\]
\[
\left. [\,\overline{b}_1\,(2CC'+DD')+\overline{b}_2\,(2C+D)(2C'+D')] \left (\begin{array}{ll}\,\,1\,,-1\,\\
-1\,,\,\,1\,\end{array}\right)+ \right.
\]
\[
\left. [\,\overline{b}_1\,(2AC'+BD')+\overline{b}_2\,(2A+B)(2C'+D')] \left (\begin{array}{ll}\,-1\,,\,1\,\\
\,-1\,,\,1\,\end{array}\right)+ \right.
\]
\begin{equation}
\left.[\,\overline{b}_1\,(2CA'+DB')+\overline{b}_2\,(2C+D)(2A'+B')] \left (\begin{array}{ll}\,-1\,,\,-1\,\\
\,\,\,\,\,1\,,\,\,\,\,\,1\,\end{array}\right)\right \}.
\label{62}
\end{equation}
The transition to the case of scalar equation, considered in Section 3, can be made according to formula
$S(\mu,\mu')=(S_1+S_2+S_3+S_4)/2$. As a result, we recover to Eqs.(34) and (33), where the functions $A(\mu)$
and $B(\mu)$ obey the system of equations (32).
The substitution of expression (56) into Eqs.(57) and (58) gives rise to explicit form of system
of non-linear equations for
functions $A(\mu),B(\mu),C(\mu)$ and $D(\mu)$:
\[
A(\mu)=\frac{1+\mu^2}{4}+\frac{3}{8}(1-q)\mu\,\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu+\mu'}[\,(1+\mu'^2)T(\mu,\mu') +
(1-\mu'^2)R(\mu,\mu')\,],
\]
\[
B(\mu)=\frac{1-\mu^2}{2}+\frac{3}{4}(1-q)\mu\,\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu+\mu'}[\,(1-\mu'^2)T(\mu,\mu')-
(1-\mu'^2)R(\mu,\mu')\,],
\]
\[
C(\mu)=\frac{1-\mu^2}{4}+\frac{3}{8}(1-q)\mu\,\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu+\mu'}[\,(1+\mu'^2)R(\mu',\mu)+
(1-\mu'^2)U(\mu,\mu')\,],
\]
\begin{equation}
D(\mu)=-\frac{1-\mu^2}{2}+\frac{3}{4}(1-q)\mu\,\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu+\mu'}[\,(1-\mu'^2)R(\mu',\mu)-
(1-\mu'^2)U(\mu,\mu')\,].
\label{63}
\end{equation}
\noindent Here we used the notations:
\[
T(\mu,\mu')=\overline{b}_1\,(2AA'+BB')+\overline{b}_2\,(2A+B)(2A'+B')=T(\mu',\mu),
\]
\[
R(\mu,\mu')=\overline{b}_1\,(2AC'+BD')+\overline{b}_2\,(2A+B)(2C'+D'),
\]
\begin{equation}
U(\mu,\mu')=\overline{b}_1\,(2CC'+DD')+\overline{b}_2\,(2C+D)(2C'+D')=U(\mu',\mu).
\label{64}
\end{equation}
\noindent If we neglect the polarization terms ($C(\mu)=0, D(\mu)=0$), then the system (63) transforms to
the system (32) for functions $A$ and $B$.
For unpolarized incident radiation $(I_l(-\mu')=I_r(-\mu')=F_0/2)$ the degree of polarization at $\tau=0$
is (see Eq.(15)):
\begin{equation}
p(\mu,\mu')=\frac{I_l-I_r}{I_l+I_r}=-\frac{\overline{b}_1(2CA'+DB')+\overline{b}_2\,(2C+D)(2A'+B')}{T(\mu,\mu')}.
\label{65}
\end{equation}
\noindent Recall that, for brevity, we use the notations $A=A(\mu), A'=A(\mu')$ etc. For the same reason
in formula (65) we take $\mu'=\mu_0$, where $\mu_0$ characterizes the incident radiation at the surface
(see section 2). Substitution in Eq.(65)
instead of functions $A,B,C$ and $D$ the corresponding free terms in equations (63), gives rise to the expression
(5).
It is of interest that the function{\bf s} $A, B, C$ and $D$ depend on one function, which we denote as
$H_0(\mu)$. Let us briefly prove this
statement. From the system (63) one can obtain the expression:
\begin{equation}
2A+B=1+\frac{3}{2}(1-q)\mu\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu+\mu'}T(\mu,\mu').
\label{66}
\end{equation}
\noindent Deriving the difference $2A-B$ and using Eq.(66), we obtain the relation between $A$ and $B$:
\begin{equation}
2A(\mu)\phi_A(\mu)=B(\mu)\phi_B(\mu),
\label{67}
\end{equation}
\noindent where
\[
\phi_A(\mu)=1-\mu^2 -\frac{3}{2}(1-q)\mu\,[\,\overline{b}_1\,(A_1-\mu\,A_0+c_0-c_2)+\overline{b}_2\,\beta(\mu)],
\]
\[
\phi_B(\mu)=1+\mu^2+\frac{3}{2}(1-q)\mu\,[\, \overline{b}_1\,(B_1-\mu B_0+d_0-d_2)+\overline{b}_2\,\beta(\mu)],
\]
\begin{equation}
\beta(\mu)=2(A_1-\mu A_0)+(B_1-\mu B_0)+2(c_0-c_2)+d_0-d_2.
\label{68}
\end{equation}
\noindent Here we introduce the notations:
\begin{equation}
c_n(\mu)=\int\limits_0^1\,\frac{d\mu'}{\mu+\mu'}\,C(\mu')\mu'^n.
\label{69}
\end{equation}
\noindent Analogous formula is defined for $a_n(\mu), b_n(\mu)$ and $d_n(\mu)$. The relation (67) is
valid if
\begin{equation}
A(\mu)=\frac{1}{4}\phi_B(\mu)H_0(\mu),\,\,\,\, B(\mu)=\frac{1}{2}\phi_A(\mu)H_0(\mu).
\label{70}
\end{equation}
Deriving the sum $2C+D$, we obtain the relation analogous to Eq.(67):
\begin{equation}
2C(\mu)\phi_C(\mu)=D(\mu)\phi_D(\mu),
\label{71}
\end{equation}
\noindent where
\[
\phi_C(\mu)=1-\frac{3}{2}(1-q)\mu\,[\,\overline{b}_1\,a_0+\overline{b}_2\,(2a_0+b_0)],
\]
\begin{equation}
\phi_D(\mu)=-1+\frac{3}{2}(1-q)\mu\,[\,\overline{b}_1\,b_0+\overline{b}_2\,(2a_0+b_0)].
\label{72}
\end{equation}
\noindent The relation (71) implies that
\begin{equation}
C(\mu)=\frac{1}{4}\phi_D(\mu)H_1(\mu),\,\,\,\,D(\mu)=\frac{1}{2}\phi_C(\mu)H_1(\mu).
\label{73}
\end{equation}
Eq.(66) can also be written as follows:
\begin{equation}
2A(\mu)\phi_C(\mu)=1 +B(\mu)\phi_D(\mu).
\label{74}
\end{equation}
\noindent Solving the system of equations (71) and (74), one can obtain $\phi_C(\mu)$ and $\phi_D(\mu)$ as
functions of $A, B, C$ and $D$:
\[
\phi_C=\frac{D}{2(AD-BC)}\equiv\frac{2D}{H_1},
\]
\begin{equation}
\phi_D=\frac{2C}{2(AD-BC)}\equiv\frac{4C}{H_1}.
\label{75}
\end{equation}
\noindent It follows from Eqs.(75) that
\begin{equation}
H_1(\mu)=4[\,A(\mu)D(\mu)-B(\mu)C(\mu)\,].
\label{76}
\end{equation}
Derivation of $2C-D$ shows that
\begin{equation}
2C(\phi_A+\mu^2\phi_C)=1-\mu^2 +D(\phi_B+\mu^2\phi_D).
\label{77}
\end{equation}
\noindent Joint with Eq.(71) this formula gives rise to relation:
\begin{equation}
2C\phi_A=1-\mu^2+D\phi_B.
\label{78}
\end{equation}
\noindent Substitution of the equalities $\phi_A=2B/H_0$ and $\phi_B=4A/H_0$ in the above relation, and taking
into account the expression (76), gives the relation between $H_1(\mu)$ and $H_0(\mu)$:
\begin{equation}
H_1(\mu)=-(1-\mu^2)H_0(\mu).
\label{79}
\end{equation}
Thus, all the functions - $A, B, C$ and $D$ are expressed in terms of one function $H_0(\mu)$.
Recall, that in the case of scalar transfer equation (7) the substitution of the relations $A=\phi_B H/4$
and $B=\phi_A H/2$ into
Eq.(35) (this is analog of Eq.(66)) gives rise to standard nonlinear equation (42) for $H$ - function.
In the present case of polarized transfer, the functions $\phi_A$ and $\phi_B$ depend on functions
$c_0, c_2, d_0$ and $d_2$. In other words the functions
$\phi_A$ and $\phi_B$ for polarized case are not the polynomials as they were in scalar case (see
the expressions (37)).
For this reason we could not obtain the closed equation for $H_0(\mu)$. Equation (66) can serve as
the basis for iteration method to calculate the $H_0$ - function. The detail consideration of this problem will be given
in a future publication.
\subsection{ The Milne problem
The matrix integral equation for the (column) vector ${\bf g}(\mu)=(g_l, g_r)$ is presented in Eq.(22), where
the phase matrix $\hat P(\mu,\mu')$ is given in Eqs.(8) and (9). It follows from this equation that
\begin{equation}
{\bf g}(\mu)={\bf g}_0+\mu^2{\bf g}_2 = \left (\begin{array}{c}a\\b\end{array}\right )
+\mu^2\left (\begin{array}{c}c\\0\end{array}\right )\,\,\,\,.
\label{80}
\end{equation}
\noindent Homogeneous system of algebraic equations for values $a,b$ and $c$ have the form:
\[
[1-\alpha_1(2f_0-2f_2)-2\alpha_2\,f_0]\,a-2\alpha_2f_0\,b-2[\alpha_1(f_2-f_4)+\alpha_2\,f_2\,]\,c=0,
\]
\[
-(\alpha_1f_2+2\alpha_2\,f_0)\,a+(1-\alpha_1\,f_0-2\alpha_2\,f_0)\,b-(\alpha_1\,f_4+2\alpha_2\,f_2)\,c=0,
\]
\begin{equation}
-\alpha_1(3f_2-2f_0)\,a-\alpha_1\,f_0\,b+[1-\alpha_1(3\,f_4-2f_2\,)]\,c=0.
\label{81}
\end{equation}
\noindent Here, for brevity, we use the notations:
\begin{equation}
\alpha_1=\frac{3}{4}(1-q)\,\overline{b}_1,\,\,\,\, \alpha_2=\frac{3}{4}(1-q_)\,\overline{b}_2.
\label{82}
\end{equation}
The values of $f_n$ are given in Eq.(25). The characteristic equation (the zero value for determinant
$\Delta(k)$ of system (81)) allows us to calculate the value of parameter $k$.
\[
\Delta(k)=\Delta_1(k)-4\alpha_2\,f_0+6\alpha_1\,\alpha_2(f_0^2-f_2^2+2f_0f_4-2f_0f_2)=0,
\]
\begin{equation}
\Delta_1(k)=1-\alpha_1(3f_0+3f_4-4f_2)+2\alpha_1^2(f_0^2-f_2^2+2f_0f_4-2f_0f_2).
\label{83}
\end{equation}
For dipole scattering ($\overline{b}_2=0, \overline{b}_1=1$) the expression (83) transforms to Eq.(26).
For isotropic scattering ($\overline{b}_1=0, \overline{b}_2=1/3$) Eq.(83) reduces to the equation
$4\alpha_2\,f_0=1$,
which determines the parameter $k(q)$ for scalar transfer equation with isotropic phase function.
The angular distribution and the polarization of outgoing radiation ${\bf I}(0,\mu)$ is described by Eq.(27).
Taking into account the equality (53), this equation can be written as
\begin{equation}
{\bf I}(0,\mu)=\frac{Const}{1-k\mu}\left [{\bf g}(\mu)+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\,\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\hat S(\mu,\mu')
{\bf g}(\mu)-\frac{1}{2\mu}\int\limits_0^1\,\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\cdot\frac{\mu+\mu'}{1+k\mu'}\,\hat S(\mu,\mu'){\bf g}(\mu')
\right ].
\label{84}
\end{equation}
\section{Polarization of resonant radiation in a model of full frequency redistribution
In this model the transfer equation for ${\bf I}=(I_l,I_r)$ has the form:
\begin{equation}
\mu\frac{d{\bf I}(\tau,\mu,\nu)}{d\tau}=\alpha(\nu){\bf I}(\tau,\mu,\nu)-\frac{1-q}{2}\int\limits_{-1}^{1}
d\mu'\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\nu'\,\varphi(\nu)\varphi(\nu')\hat P(\mu^2,\mu'^2){\bf I}(\tau,\mu',\nu').
\label{85}
\end{equation}
\noindent Recall that the absorbtion factor of resonant radiation is $\alpha_{resonant}(\nu)=\alpha_0\varphi(\nu)$,
the quantity $\alpha(\nu)=\varphi(\nu)+\alpha_{cont}/\alpha_0$, and $d\tau=\alpha_0\,dz$.
Eq.(85) has been investigated in detail in several earlier papers (see e.g. Ivanov et al. 1997a, 1997b;
Dementyev 2008). For a more complete list of references we refer the reader to Faurobert-Scholl \& Frisch (1989)
and reviews by Nagendra (2003) and Nagendra \& Sampoorna (2009).
As opposed to these authors, our consideration is based on the invariance-principles (see Eq.(16)) which are valid
both for the continuum radiation and for resonant one.
For resonant radiation the phase matrix in Eq.(16) is replaced by $\varphi(\nu)\varphi(\nu')\hat P(\mu^2,\mu'^2)$
and in the integral terms there now appears the integration over frequencies.
In our axially symmetric case Eq.(15) transforms to
\begin{equation}
{\bf I}(0,\mu,\nu)=\frac{1}{4\mu}\hat S(\mu,\nu;\mu_0,\nu_i){\bf F}_0(\mu_0,\nu_i).
\label{86}
\end{equation}
\noindent Here $\nu_i$ is the arbitrary frequency in an incident flux ${\bf F_0}(\mu_0,\nu_i)$ of resonant radiation.
According to the invariance principle, the matrix $\hat S(\mu,\nu;\mu_0,\nu_i)$ obeys the equation:
\[
\left (\frac{\alpha(\nu)}{\mu}+\frac{\alpha(\nu_i)}{\mu_0}\right )\hat S(\mu,\nu;\mu_0,\nu_i)=(1-q)\left [
\,\varphi(\nu)\varphi(\nu_i)\hat P(\mu^2,\mu_0^2)+\right.
\]
\[
\left.\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu''}{\mu''}\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}\,d\nu''\,
\varphi(\nu)\varphi(\nu'')
\hat P(\mu^2,\mu''^2)\hat S(\mu'',\nu'';\mu_0,\nu_i)+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\,\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\int\limits_
{-\infty}^{\infty}\,d\nu'\,\hat S(\mu,\nu ;\mu',\nu')\hat P(\mu'^2,\mu_0^2)\varphi(\nu')\varphi(\nu_i)+\right.
\]
\begin{equation}
\left.\frac{1}{4}
\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}\,d\nu'\,\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu''}{\mu''}\,
\int\limits
_{-\infty}^{\infty}\,d\nu''\,\hat S(\mu,\nu ;\mu',\nu')\,\hat P(\mu'^2, \mu''^2)\, \hat S(\mu'',\nu'';
\mu_0,\nu_i)\varphi(\nu')\varphi(\nu'')\right ].
\label{87}
\end{equation}
\noindent It is convenient to take out from the matrix $\hat S(\mu,\nu;\mu_0,\nu_i)$ the product
$\varphi(\nu)\varphi(\nu_i)$:
\begin{equation}
\hat S(\mu,\nu;\mu_0,\nu_i)=\varphi(\nu)\varphi(\nu_i)\hat S_1(\mu,\nu;\mu_0,\nu_i).
\label{88}
\end{equation}
\noindent The matrix $\hat S_1(\mu,\nu;\mu_0,\nu_i)$ obeys the equation:
\[
\left (\frac{\alpha(\nu)}{\mu}+\frac{\alpha(\nu_i)}{\mu_0}\right )\hat S_1(\mu,\nu;\mu_0,\nu_i)=(1-q)\left [
\,\hat P(\mu^2,\mu_0^2)+\right.
\]
\[
\left.\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu''}{\mu''}\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}\,d\nu''\,\varphi^2(\nu'')
\hat P(\mu^2,\mu''^2)\hat S_1(\mu'',\nu'';\mu_0,\nu_i)+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\,\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\int\limits_
{-\infty}^{\infty}\,d\nu'\,\hat S_1(\mu,\nu ;\mu',\nu')\hat P(\mu'^
2,\mu_0^2)\varphi^2(\nu')+\right.
\]
\begin{equation}
\left.\frac{1}{4}
\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}\,d\nu'\,\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu''}{\mu''}\,
\int\limits
_{-\infty}^{\infty}\,d\nu''\,\hat S_1(\mu,\nu ;\mu',\nu')\,\hat P(\mu'^2, \mu''^2)\, \hat S_1(\mu'',\nu'';
\mu_0,\nu_i)\varphi^2(\nu')\varphi^2(\nu'')\right ].
\label{89}
\end{equation}
According to general theory (see Eqs.(17) - (21)) one can derive the following formula
(here and in what follows, for brevity, we take $\mu_0=\mu'$ and $\nu_i=\nu'$):
\[
\left(\frac{\alpha(\nu)}{\mu}+\frac{\alpha(\nu')}{\mu'}\right )\hat S_1(\mu,\nu;\mu'\nu')=
\]
\begin{equation}
\left [\,\overline{b}_1\,\hat N(\mu,\nu)\hat N^T(\mu',\nu')
+\frac{3}{4}\overline{b}_2\,\eta(\mu,\nu)\eta^T(\mu',\nu')\right ],
\label{90}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the matrices $\hat N(\mu,\nu)$ and $\hat \eta(\mu,\nu)$ are related to
$\hat S_1(\mu,\nu;\mu',\nu')$ as:
\[
\hat N(\mu,\nu)=\hat M(\mu^2)+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits _0^1 \frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}
d\nu'\,\hat S_1(\mu,\nu;\mu',\nu')\varphi^2(\nu')\hat M(\mu'^2),
\]
\begin{equation}
\hat \eta(\mu,\nu)=\hat L+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\nu' \hat
S_1(\mu,\nu;\mu',\nu')\varphi^2(\nu')\hat L.
\label{91}
\end{equation}
\noindent The formulas (91) are analogous to Eqs.(57) and (58) with additional factor $\varphi^2(\nu')$ and the
integration over $\nu'$. The matrix $\hat \eta$ has two independent components $\eta_1=\eta_2=a$ and $\eta_3=\eta_4=b$.
The functions $a$ and $b$ are related with components of $\hat N(\mu,\nu)$ according to Eq.(60). Using our
convenient {\bf notations} (61), we obtain the scattering matrix $\hat S$ in the form:
\begin{equation}
\hat S(\mu,\nu;\mu',\nu')=\frac{3}{2}\cdot\frac{(1-q)\mu\,\mu'}{\alpha(\nu')\mu+\alpha(\nu)\mu'}
\varphi(\nu)\varphi(\nu')\{\}.
\label{92}
\end{equation}
\noindent The brackets $\{\}$ are analogous to brackets in Eq.(62), where the functions $A, B, C$ and $D$ depend on
frequency: $A(\mu)\to A(\mu,\nu)$ etc. According to Eqs.(90) and (91), the functions $A(\mu,\nu), B(\mu,\nu), C(\mu,\nu)$
and $D(\mu,\nu)$ obey the equations (63), where in denominators instead of $(\mu+\mu')$ is to be
taken as $[\alpha(\nu')\mu+\alpha(\nu)\mu']$. Besides, the additional integration over $\nu'$ with the weight function
$\varphi^2(\nu')$ is to be taken. For example, instead of Eq.(66) the frequency dependent analog has the form:
\begin{equation}
2A(\mu,\nu)+B(\mu,\nu)=1+\frac{3}{2}(1-q)\mu\int\limits_0^1d\mu'\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\nu'
\frac{\varphi^2(\nu')}{\alpha(\nu')\mu+\alpha(\nu)\mu'}\,T(\mu,\nu;\mu',\nu'),
\label{93}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the function $T(\mu,\nu;\mu',\nu')$ generalize that in Eq.(64). It is of interest to note that
the existence of denominator $[\alpha(\nu')\mu+\alpha(\nu)\mu']$ does not allow to obtain the expression (67)
between $A(\mu,\nu)$ and $B(\mu,\nu)$. Nevertheless, the relation (71) takes place, where
\begin{equation}
a_n(\mu,\nu)=\int\limits_0^1d\mu'\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\nu'\frac{\varphi^2(\nu')\mu'^n}
{\alpha(\nu')\mu+\alpha(\nu)\mu'}\,A(\mu',\nu').
\label{94}
\end{equation}
\noindent Analogous expression is valid for function $b_n(\mu,\nu)$. Thus, the relation (72) continues to hold
good for the present case, but the relation (70) does not exist. Contrary to the case of scattering of continuum
radiation, the functions $A,B,C$ and $D$ for the case of scattering of resonant radiation cannot be expressed in
terms of the $H$-functions.
\subsection{The Milne problem for resonant radiation
The analog of Eq.(22) for resonant radiation is:
\begin{equation}
(\alpha(\nu)-k\mu){\bf g}(\mu,\nu)=\frac{1-q}{2}\int\limits_{-1}^1d\mu'\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\nu' \,
\hat P(\mu^2,\mu'^2)\varphi(\nu)\varphi(\nu'){\bf g}(\mu',\nu').
\label{95}
\end{equation}
It follows from this equation that
\begin{equation}
{\bf g}(\mu,\nu)=\frac{\varphi(\nu)}{\alpha(\nu)-k\mu}({\bf g}_0+\mu^2\,{\bf g}_2),
\label{96}
\end{equation}
\noindent where ${\bf g}_0=(a,b)$ and ${\bf g}_2=(c,0)$ are independent of $\mu$ and $\nu$. The equation for
${\bf g}_0+\mu^2{\bf g}_2$ acquires the form:
\begin{equation}
{\bf g}_0+\mu^2{\bf g}_2=(1-q)\int\limits_0^1 d\mu'\Phi(\mu',k)\hat P(\mu^2,\mu'^2)({\bf g}_0+\mu'^2{\bf g}_2).
\label{97}
\end{equation}
\noindent Here
\begin{equation}
\Phi(\mu',k)= \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\nu'\frac{\alpha(\nu')\varphi^2(\nu')}{\alpha^2(\nu')-k^2\mu'^2}.
\label{98}
\end{equation}
\noindent Introducing the quantities
\begin{equation}
\Phi_n(k)=\int\limits_0^1d\mu\,\mu^n\,\Phi(\mu,k),
\label{99}
\end{equation}
\noindent we can derive the characteristic equation in the form (83), where instead of $f_n(k)$ one has
to substitute the functions $\Phi_n(k)$. The system of algebraic equations for functions $a, b$ and $c$ coincides with the
system (81) but with the same substitution $f_n(k)\to \Phi_n(k)$.
General formula (27) in the case of resonant line acquires the form:
\[
{\bf I}(0,\mu,\nu)=\frac{Const\, \varphi(\nu)}{\alpha(\nu)-k\mu} \left [\,{\bf g}_0+\mu^2{\bf g}_2-\right.
\]
\begin{equation}
\left.\frac{1}{2\mu}\int\limits_0^1d\mu'\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\nu'\frac{[\alpha(\nu)-k\mu ]}
{\alpha(\nu')+k\mu'}\,
\hat S_1(\mu,\nu;\mu'\nu')\,\varphi^2(\nu')({\bf g}_0+\mu'^2{\bf g}_2)\right].
\label{100}
\end{equation}
Using the equality
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mu'[\alpha(\nu)-k\mu]}{[\alpha(\nu')+k\mu'][\alpha(\nu')\mu+\alpha(\nu)\mu']}=\frac{1}{\alpha(\nu')+k\mu'}-
\frac{\mu}{\alpha(\nu')\mu+\alpha(\nu)\mu'},
\label{101}
\end{equation}
\noindent Eq.(100) can be written in another form:
\[
{\bf I}(0,\mu,\nu)=\frac{Const\, \varphi(\nu)}{\alpha(\nu)-k\mu}\left [\,{\bf g}_0+\mu^2{\bf g}_2 +
\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\nu'\varphi^2(\nu')
\hat S_1(\mu,\nu;\mu',\nu')({\bf g}_0+\mu'^2{\bf g}_2)-\right.
\]
\begin{equation}
\left.\frac{1}{2\mu}\int\limits_0^1\frac{d\mu'}{\mu'}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\nu'\,
\frac{\varphi^2(\nu')([\alpha(\nu')\mu+\alpha(\nu)\mu']}{\alpha(\nu')+k\mu'}\,\hat S_1(\mu,\nu;\mu',\nu')
({\bf g}_0+\mu'^2{\bf g}_2)\right ].\,\,\,
\label{102}
\end{equation}
\section{Conclusion
Anisotropy of small grains and molecules gives rise to depolarization of light upon both single and
multiple scattering.
The existence of true absorption of light also changes essentially
the angular distribution and polarization of radiation emerging from an atmosphere. In this paper we consider
the multiple scattering of radiation on freely (chaotic) oriented small particles.
We derived the explicit formulas for intensity and linear polarization of light, reflected from semi-infinite
plane-parallel atmosphere. The standard Milne's problem is also considered. We considered radiative
transfer in both continuum and resonant lines. For both types of radiation we used the technique of
invariance principles, which lead to the system of non-linear equation for four H -functions.
We investigated the axially symmetric part of radiation. Only this part depends on depolarization
parameter $\overline{b}_2$.
It is shown that depolarization parameter does not increase the degree of polarization as compared with the
case of pure dipole scattering.
In the case of continuum all four $H$ - functions are expressed in terms of one function. In the case of resonant
radiation only two $H$ - functions, describing the polarization of light, can be expressed in terms of one function.
For Milne's problems we derived the characteristic equations to calculate unknown parameter $k$
($I\sim \exp{(k\tau)}$).
These equations depend on usual parameter $\overline{b}_1$, describing the dipole scattering, and on the depolarization
parameter. These equations contain terms proportional to $\overline{b}_1$, $\overline{b}_1^2$, $\overline{b}_2$ and
$\overline{b}_1\overline{b}_2$.
Resonant radiation has the additional effective absorption due to transitions of frequencies from the initial
value to other frequencies. It means that the parameter $k$ is not zero even for conservative atmosphere,
and the outgoing resonant radiation is more elongated than that for continuum. As a result, the polarisation
of resonant radiation is greater than that in the case of continuum radiation.
The paper is devoted to theoretical investigation of light depolarization due to anisotropy of grains ,
and also due to dipole transitions between molecular levels at resonant scattering.
Recall that
most important effects occur for radiative transfer of resonant radiation. The existence of absorption is
also taken into consideration.
\begin{table}
\caption[]{\small The roots of characteristic equations (23), (24) and (26).}
\label{Table 1}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.2cm}
\centering
\medskip
\begin{tabular}{|l|lllllllll|}
\hline
$\,\,q\,$ & $0$ & $0.001$ & $0.002$ & $0.003$ & $0.004$ & $0.005$ & $0.010$ & $0.015$ & $0.020$ \\
\hline
$Eq.(23)$ & 0 & 0.054757 & 0.077398 & 0.094754 & 0.109369 & 0.122229 & 0.172511 & 0.210856 & 0.242983 \\
$Eq.(24)$ & 0 & 0.054748 & 0.077391 & 0.094742 & 0.109350 & 0.122202 & 0.172435 & 0.210716 & 0.242768 \\
$Eq.(26)$ & 0 & 0.054743 & 0.077377 & 0.094717 & 0.109311 & 0.122148 & 0.172284 & 0.210445 & 0.242356 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption[]{\small The roots of characteristic equations (23), (24) and (26) (continue).}
\label{Table 2}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.2cm}
\centering
\medskip
\begin{tabular}{|l|lllllllll|}
\hline
$q$ & $0.03 $ & $0.04$ & $0.05 $ & $0.1 $ & $0.2$ & $0.3$ & $0.4$ & $0.5$ & $0.6$ \\
\hline
$Eq.(23)$ & 0.296381 & 0.340829 & 0.379485 & 0.525429 & 0.710412 & 0.828635 & 0.907332 & 0.957504 & 0.985624 \\
$Eq.(24)$ & 0.295991 & 0.340233 & 0.378659 & 0.523200 & 0.704828 & 0.819984 & 0.896901 & 0.947380 & 0.978166 \\
$Eq.(26)$ & 0.295255 & 0.339133 & 0.377166 & 0.519583 & 0.697604 & 0.811199 & 0.888707 & 0.941298 & 0.974750 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
This research was supported by the Program of Prezidium of RAS No21,
the Program of the Department of Physical Sciences of RAS No17, the Federal
Target Program ''Science and Scientific-Pedagogical Personnel of Innovative Russia'' XXXVII in turn
- the action 1.2.1,
and by the Grant from President of the Russian Federation ''The Basic Scientific Schools'' (NSh-1625.2012.2).
The authors are very grateful to an anonymous referee for many useful remarks.
|
\section{Introduction}
The discovery of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe dramatically changed our picture of Cosmology and has motivated precision studies of the expansion history and growth of structure in an attempt to gather more evidence. The Baryonic Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) technique and the study of weak lensing by Large Scale Structure (LSS) have emerged as very powerful techniques to constrain the properties of the ``dark-energy". Extremely ambitious observational programs are now under way to make very precise measurements of the LSS with the goal of making sub-percent measurements of the properties of the dark energy. These surveys will map vast volumes to measure the required number of modes to overcome the statistical noise intrinsic in the comparison between theoretical predictions and data, the cosmic variance.
These same modes can also be used to infer properties of the initial seeds of structure and thus constrain the physics of the early universe, when the initial fluctuations were generated. In particular after the recent results form the Planck satellite, improvements in constraints on non-Gaussianity will have to come from the study of LSS. The combination of vast amounts of new data and the interesting theoretical problems that these data can address motivates new efforts to make precise theoretical predictions for LSS.
In many respects the tool of choice to study LSS theoretically are numerical simulations. For example, understanding the LSS produced in a universe with only cold dark matter can be considered a solved problem. At least in the sense that numerical simulations can in principle be run with exquisite understanding and control of the numerics and the results used to ``observe" any statistic of choice and thus compute its theoretically predicted value.
But even without considering the physical processes related to baryons that make first principle numerical simulations currently impossible, even for dark matter only the situation is not fully satisfactory if one does not have a good analytical understanding. An example of how analytical understanding can lead to practical improvement is the reconstruction technique for the BAO~\cite{Eisenstein:2006nk}. In that case an understanding of the dynamics based on perturbations theory can be used to develop a measurement techniques that sharpens the BAO feature in the correlation function undoing at least partially the degradation caused by the non-linear dynamics. In a sense non-linearities moved information from the two point function to higher order correlations. Thus by combining those higher order moments judiciously one can tighten cosmological constraints. Of course one tests these ideas using simulations, but it is only through the analytical understanding of the dynamics that one can propose the new techniques.
As data improves however the analytical understanding required to develop these type of improved methods will be more stringent. The non-linear effects on the BAO scales are rather small and dominated by large scale motions produced by relatively linear modes so BAO reconstruction is perhaps not so demanding on our analytical understanding (although of course the fact that one is dealing with biased tracers complicates matters). But as we strive to model modes closer to the non-linear regime, for example to improve constraints on non-Gaussanity, our analytical techniques will have to pass extremely stringent tests.
Perturbation theory for LSS has a long and distinguished history dating back to the very early days of modern Cosmology {\it e.g.} \cite{Zeldovich:1969sb,Peebles:LSS}. It is extremely successful at calculating correlators at the lowest order or tree level (for a complete review of perturbation theory results see \cite{Bernardeau:2001qr}.) However results for the first nontrivial correction to tree level results, the ``loop corrections", have been less than satisfactory. These corrections are relevant for upcoming observations and they are not under theoretical control. One example of the failure of loop calculations can be found when considering the simple case of Einstein-de Sitter universes with power law initial conditions. Already the one-loop correction to the power spectrum diverges if the spectral index is not in the range $-3<n<-1$. Simulations with $n>-1$ can be done and the results are of course perfectly well defined. Thus in these cases SPT is making an infinite mistake. There are no divergencies for LCDM cosmology so the field has, with few exceptions~\cite{Scoccimarro:1996se}, ignored the issue. But these divergencies are simply the ``canary in the coal mine" pointing out that there is something fundamentally flawed in the standard approach. This flaw leads to infinite mistakes in some cosmologies and finite mistakes in LCDM.
Nevertheless even if the errors are finite we need to learn how to track them and estimate their sizes. The reason for the failure is clear. Perturbation theory cannot be used to describe the small scales. The series simply does not converge so no resummation of diagrams will fix the problem. In loop calculations, those small scales affect large scale observables as the loop integral cover all momenta. Thus the errors in the small scales pollute large scale results.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{epsilons-3.pdf}
\caption{\small Parameters measuring the amplitude of non-linear correction on a mode of wavenumber $k$. They quantify the motions created by modes longer ($\epsilon_{s<}$) and shorter ($\epsilon_{s>}$) than $k$ and the tides from larger scales ($\epsilon_{\delta <}$). }
\label{epsilons}
\end{figure}
This has led to the development of the Effective Theory of Large Scale Structure \cite{Baumann:2010tm,Carrasco:2012cv}. This framework explicitly keeps track of the effects of the small scales using a generalized fluid-like description, where the uncertainties produced by the short distance dynamics are encoded in a set of coefficients which, from the point of view of perturbation theory, are free parameters to be fitted to either simulations or observations. The fact that the Effective Field Theory (EFT) has free parameters is a virtue rather than a problem, it is for example these free coefficients that allow us to get finite results in cases where Standard Perturbation Theory (SPT) diverges using a standard renormalization procedure. But regardless of this, it allows us to consistently and systematically keep track of the uncertainties produced by the small scales dynamics that lies outside of the regime of applicability of perturbation theory.~\footnote{For other approaches using smoothing, see for example~\cite{Buchert:2005xj,Pueblas:2008uv,Pietroni:2011iz}.}. Until this paper, the EFT has been developed in Eulerian space and used to compute one and two-loop corrections to the matter power spectrum~\cite{Carrasco:2012cv,Carrasco:2013mua} and to study the divergencies that appear in power law universes~\cite{Pajer:2013jj,Carrasco:2013sva}~\footnote{In spite of the problems with SPT discussed in this paper, the computation of higher order loop effects remains an important task to improve existing predictions after adopting a controlled and systematic framework as the one we introduce. For the {state of the art} three-loop results in SPT see \cite{3loop}.}.
Irrespective of these development, in the last few years it has become apparent that for LCDM perturbation theory in Lagrangian space is significantly better than its Eulerian counterpart. This is particularly evident when studying the non-linear effects in the BAO. Extremely impressive results have been obtained using Lagrangian Perturbation Theory (LPT) both in real and redshift space and also for halos {\it eg.} \cite{Carlson:2012bu}. Furthermore even around the non-linear scale the cross correlation coefficient between the results of an N-body simulation and those of perturbation theory are remarkably better when doing LPT \cite{Tassev:2011ac}. This motivated us to write the EFT in Lagrangian space, which we will do in this paper. In fact \cite{Tassev:2012cq} studied the relation between particle trajectories in simulations and those computed in LPT and found very high correlation coefficients but also non-trivial transfer functions, pointing to the fact that LPT should be improved.
The difference between Lagrangian and Eulerian perturbation theory can be traced to the fact that there are several different parameters that control the size of non-linearities. In LCDM cosmologies, which have a nontrivial transfer function, these various effects have very different sizes. Thus it is not fully satisfactory to organize perturbation theory in powers of the power spectrum. For example, simple inspection shows that the corrections to the power spectrum at a scale $k$ produced by other modes of wavenumber $q$ depends on several different parameters. They depend on the variance of the density fluctuations produced by modes with $q<k$ ($\epsilon_{\delta <}$) and depend on the displacements produced by modes with $q>k$ ($\delta s_>$) through $\epsilon_{s>}= (k \delta s_>)^2$ ~\footnote{We have defined $\epsilon_{X>} = \int_k^\infty d^3 k /(2\pi)^3 P_X(k)$ and $\epsilon_{X<} = \int_0^k d^3 k /(2\pi)^3 P_X(k)$ where $X=(\delta, s)$ stands for either the density or the displacement, and $P_X(k)$ for its power spectrum.}. The fact that modes larger and smaller than $k$ affect the power spectrum through different parameters is what allows SPT to be non-divergent for equal time correlators power law universes in the range $-3<n<-1$. In this range both $\epsilon_{\delta <}$ and $\epsilon_{s>}$ are finite. Of course the fact that the result is finite does not guarantee that it is converging to the correct result~\footnote{The fact that perturbation theory does not have ultraviolet divergencies does not mean that it converges to the correct answer. For example S.~Weinberg explains that renormalization is necessary irrespectively of the presence of ultraviolet divergencies as early as page xxii of the preface in his Quantum Field Theory textbook~\cite{Weinberg:1995mt}.}.
The displacements produced by modes with $q<k$ ($\delta s_<$) do not affect the small scale dynamics directly but they change the final location of those small scale modes and thus can significantly affect some statistics through the parameter $\epsilon_{s<}= (k \delta s_<)^2$. In fact $\epsilon_{s<}$ is responsible the broadening of the acoustic peak that degrades the BAO technique. Figure \ref{epsilons} shows the sizes of these $\epsilon$-parameters. It is clear that to achieve a desired accuracy one needs to keep more orders in some of these parameters than in others. The biggest of the parameters are those related to displacements which are dominated by large scale modes and thus are very amenable to perturbation theory.
LPT does not expand in $\epsilon_{s<}$ which in our universe controls the largest non-linearity in the range of scales of interest for the BAO. Thus it would clearly be advantageous to develop the necessary EFT directly in Lagrangian space, as we do here.
The Lagrangian-space EFT (LEFT) we will develop is a theory of extended objects, a theory for regions of Lagrangian space of size comparable to the non-linear scale. As a result these regions can deform and have a quadrupole and higher multipole moments which modify the way they gravitate and move in an external potential.
In LEFT we will not expand in $\epsilon_{s<}$, and therefore our calculations will be performed in an expansion in $\epsilon_{s>}$ and $\epsilon_{\delta<}$, which as can be seen from Figure~\ref{epsilons} grow with $k/k_{\rm NL}$ to some power, with $k$ being the wavenumber of interest and $k_{\rm NL}$ being the wavenumber associated to the non-linear scale. As we will show in great detail in the bulk of this paper, at a given order in $k/k_{\rm NL}$, it is sufficient to consider the mass, quadrupole, octupole, etc., and how these are affected by long wavelength perturbations at linear, quadratic, and higher orders, and so on and so forth. Each of these terms have a well defined power counting in $k/k_{\rm NL}$. This means that, as we make the calculations more and more accurate, new parameters characterizing the deformation of finite-sized objects need to be included. The role of these parameters will be both to correctly encode how these multipole moments respond to external gravitational fields, but also to correct for the mistakes in the loop integrals which include wavenumbers above the non-linear scale. Implementing this procedure goes under the name of `renormalization'. The EFT power counting rules, that we have just outlined here and we will describe in detail in the bulk of the paper, will determine how many of these parameters need to be kept to achieve a desired accuracy. In fact in the Eulerian EFT for our cosmology, a three-loop calculation is required before needing to introduce more than one EFT parameter in the calculation of the matter power spectrum~\cite{Carrasco:2013mua}. As we will describe, the situation is similar in LEFT, although some subtleties will arise when the displacements due to long-wavelength modes are resummed.
This paper is organized as follows. In sec. \ref{sec:exp} we introduce the effective description of long-wavelength modes in Lagrangian space as a multipole expansion at the level of the equations of motion and explain the power counting rules of LEFT. In sec. \ref{sec:oneloop} we perform an illustrative one-loop computation for a power law universe. In sec. \ref{resum} we discuss the resummation of various terms in LEFT through exponentiation. Finally in sec. \ref{sec:action} we re-derive the dynamics in LEFT via an action formalism. Some details of the computations and further comments and examples are relegated to appendices.
\section{Effective description of long-wavelength modes in Lagrangian space\label{sec:exp}}
In this section we introduce the Lagrangian-space Effective Field Theory for Large Scale Structures. We first summarize the well known equations of motion in Lagrangian space, as a reminder to the reader and also to set up our notation, before we proceed to define the basic objects in LEFT.
\subsection{Lagrangian space dynamics}
Let us start describing the dynamics of dark matter particles interacting through a Newtonian potential in Lagrangian space. We will denote each particle's position as ${\vec z}({\vec q},t)$, with ${\vec q}$ the Lagrangian coordinates such that ${\vec z}({\vec q},0) = {\vec q}$. The variable $\vec q$ is just a label for the dark matter particle which, for simplicity, we have taken to be continuous. The equations we need to solve are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d^2 {\vec z}({\vec q},t)}{dt^2} &=& - \nabla \phi[{\vec z}({\vec q},t)]\ ,\\
\nabla^2\phi(x) &=& 4\pi G \rho(x)\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi(z)$ is the gravitational potential. In an expanding universe it is useful to switch to co-moving coordinates, namely $d{\vec r} = a(t) d{\vec z}$, $d\eta = dt/a(t)$. Then we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi &=& \phi + \tfrac{1}{2} \dot {\cal H} {\vec z}^2\ ,\\
\vec u &=& \vec v - {\cal H} {\vec z}\ ,\\
\rho &=& \bar \rho_m ( 1+ \delta)\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal H} = a H$, $\vec u$ is the peculiar velocity and $\bar\rho_m$ is the mean matter density given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{rhoq0}
\bar\rho_m(\eta)=\frac{3}{8\pi G} { H}^2 \Omega_m\ .
\end{equation}
The resulting dynamics becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d {\vec u}({\vec q},\eta)}{d \eta} +{\cal H}{\vec u}({\vec q},\eta) &=& - \vec\partial_x \Phi[\vec z({\vec q},\eta)]\ ,\\
\partial_x^2\Phi({\vec x},\eta) &=& \frac{3}{2} {\cal H}^2 \Omega_m \delta({\vec x},\eta)\ .
\end{eqnarray}
Denoting the displacement as
\begin{equation} {\vec z} = {\vec q} + {\vec s}({\vec q},\eta)\ ,
\end{equation}
and using ${\vec u} = \tfrac{d}{d\eta}{\vec s}$ we can write:
\begin{equation}
\label{boxed0}
\frac{d^2 {\vec z}({\vec q},\eta)}{d \eta^2} +{\cal H}\frac{d{\vec z}({\vec q},\eta)}{d\eta} = - \vec \partial_x \Phi[{\vec z}({\vec q},\eta)]\ .
\end{equation}
The standard map between between displacement and density is given by:
\beqa
\label{mapqx}
1+\delta({\vec x},\eta)&=& \int d^3{\vec q}~\delta^3( {\vec x} - {\vec z}({\vec q},\eta)) \nonumber \\
&=& \left[{\rm det} \left(\tfrac{\partial z^i}{\partial q^j}\right)\right]^{-1} =\left[{\rm det} \left(1+\tfrac{\partial s^i}{\partial q^j}\right)\right]^{-1},
\end{eqnarray}
where the second line is evaluated at the solution of ${\vec z}({\vec q},\eta)=\vec x$. For simplicity we assumed this equation has only one solution, otherwise the second line involves a sum over all solutions.
\subsubsection*{Equations in momentum space}
For convenience, we give explicitly the equations of motion in momentum space $\vec k$. Notice $\vec k$ is the wavenumber associated to the Fourier transform of the spatial coordinates $\vec x$, not to be confused with the wavenumber associated to the Fourier transform with respect to the Lagrangian coordinates $\vec q$. For $\vec k \neq 0$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:delta_LPT_fourier}
\delta(\vec k,\eta) &=& \int d^3q~e^{-i \vec k \cdot \vec z(\vec q,\eta)}\ ,\\
\Phi(\vec k,\eta) &=& -\frac{3}{2} \mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m~\frac{1}{k^2} \int d^3q~e^{-i \vec k \cdot \vec z(\vec q,\eta)}\ ,\\
\ddot z^i(\vec q_1,\eta) + \mathcal{H} \dot z^i(\vec q_1,\eta) &=& \frac{3}{2} \mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m \int d^3 q_2 \int_k~\frac{ik^i}{k^2} e^{i \vec k \cdot (\vec z(\vec q_1,\eta)-\vec z(\vec q_2,\eta))}\ ,\label{eom1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\int_k \equiv \int \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}$.
\subsection{Effective Field Theory in Lagrangian space}
When solving the equations of LPT perturbatively, one expands those equations assuming ${\partial s^i}/{\partial q^j}$ is small, see for example the determinant in equation \eqref{mapqx}. This ultimately sets the range of convergence of perturbation theory: the Taylor expansion around the origin cannot converge to the exact solution at a distance larger than the radius whose circle intersects the location of a singularity in the exact solution. These singularities are generically present once we include scales that have gone non-linear. For this reason, it is not a question of being able to sum more diagrams, more terms in the series: the approach cannot work on small scales and perturbation theory can only be used to describe the long wavelength dynamics.\footnote{We present here a simple example to show why perturbation theory cannot converge to the true answer beyond the non-linear scale, no matter how many diagrams are resummed. Imagine that the solution to the equations of motion~is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sol1}
\vec z(q,t)=\vec q-(\vec q-\vec z_c)\tfrac{t}{t_c}\ ,
\end{equation}
so that $\vec s(\vec q,t)=-(\vec q-\vec z_c)\tfrac{t}{t_c}$. This solution describes an in-falling continuous set of particles that starts homogeneous at $t=0$, at time $t=t_c$ is collapsed to one point $\vec z_c$, and then at subsequent times distance themselves at constant rate. The exact solution for $\delta(\vec x,t)$ reads
\begin{equation}
1+\delta(\vec x,t)=\tfrac{1}{1-t/t_c}\ ,
\end{equation} and clearly has a pole at $t=t_c$. Solving for the equations perturbatively in ${\partial} s^i/{\partial} q^j$ amounts to solving perturbatively in~$t/t_c$: $1+\delta{}^{(n)}(\vec x,t)=\sum_{i=1}^n c_i (t/t_c)^i$. Since the exact solution has a pole at $t=t_c$, the series, even as $n\to \infty$, will not converge to the true answer for $t>t_c$.
We can also find an even more striking consequence. The time reversal solution of (\ref{eq:sol1}),
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sol1n}
\vec z(q,t)=\vec q+(\vec q-\vec z_c)\tfrac{t}{t_c}\ ,\quad 1+\delta(\vec x,t)=\tfrac{1}{1+t/t_c}\ ,
\end{equation}
describes innocuous-looking out-flowing matter, and the exact solution for $\delta(\vec x,t)$ has no poles. Can in this case the perturbative series converge to the exact solution? The perturbative series is now exactly the same as the one for the in-falling solution, with the replacement $t\to-t$. If we think of $t$ as a complex parameter, the failure of convergences at $t\to t_c$ for the in-falling case, due to a pole in the exact solution, means that the series will not converge beyond a circle in the complex-$t$ plane of radius $|t|=t_c$. For negative $t$, where the series describes an out-flowing solution, this implies that the perturbative series will stop converging for~$t<t_c$, even though densities are clearly becoming smaller and smaller and the exact solution is analytic! Quite counterintuitively, since the density cannot become negative, dilution of density is seen in the perturbative series as a very nonlinear event.
All of this can be verified using the exact solution of the spherical collapse. In this case, the collapsing region is equivalent to a closed FRW universe with a scale factor $a_c$. Perturbation theory amounts to Taylor expanding $a_c$ in powers of the scale factor $a$ of the external flat FRW universe. It can be checked that the series converges for $a\leq a_{\rm collapse}$, which is the value of $a$ at which the closed universe is collapsed: $a_c=0$. This means that the perturbative series will be able to converge for all values of $\delta(\vec x,a)$ as they grow all the way to infinity. At $a=a_{\rm collapse}$ the exact solution has a singularity. However, the same perturbative series, with the replacement $a\to-a$, describes an under dense spherical region getting emptier and emptier. The perturbation series in this case will stop converge at $a=a_{\rm collapse}$. In this case, contrary to the collapsing case, $\delta(\vec x,a)$ is not yet equal to $-1$, its asymptotic value. Indeed, it can be checked that this is the case, and the perturbative series does not converge for all times beyond which $\delta(\vec x,a)\lesssim -0.7$~\cite{Sahni:1995rr}.
Given that the true universe is surely more complicated than this, this examples clearly shows that no-resummation technique can allow us to describe the non-linear scale: perturbation theory only applies to the weakly non-linear regime.}
The idea behind LEFT is simple: we ought to construct an effective theory for the long-wavelength universe, where the short-distance physics is {\it integrated out}. As such, at a scale $k_L \ll k_{\rm NL}$, we can describe all the particles below the non-linear scale as a single point-like object endowed with new parameters that describe their extendedness (other than the mass), and whose center of mass' motion is described by the (long-wavelength) coordinate $\vec z_L(\vec q,\eta)$, with $\vec q$ representing different large regions in Lagrangian space (see Fig.~\ref{figL1}). Clearly the dynamics of $\vec z_L(\vec q,\eta)$ is not described by \eqref{boxed0}, but rather we need to enlarge the possible terms in the RHS due to finite size effects. In Appendix~\ref{uvmatch} we will show that the equations in LEFT emerge from smoothing the equations in the previous section on a scale of order the non-linear scale.\footnote{Not surprisingly, in LEFT the independence of the final result on the smoothing scale translates into the scale dependence of the multipole moments associated with each cell. See section \ref{sec:reno} for a discussion on observables in LEFT.} In section \ref{sec:action} we will derive the same equations from an action approach, following related ideas developed in \cite{nrgr1,nrgr2,nrgr3,disip1,disip2} in the context of gravitational wave emission from binaries. Here we just state the equations in LEFT without derivation, although their structure should be fairly intuitive.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figL1.pdf}
\caption{\small Left panel: finite sized regions of size $R_0\sim 1/k_{\rm NL}$ in Lagrangian space. Right panel: Eulerian space. The vector $\vec z_L(\vec q,\eta)$ gives the center of mass position of each Lagrangian region. Notice that upon evolution the regions will eventually overlap. See sec. \ref{sec:reno} and appendix \ref{uvmatch} for more details.}
\label{figL1}
\end{figure}
The equation for $\vec z_L(\vec q,\eta)$ is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqmotion1}
\frac{d^2 {\vec z}_L ({\vec q},\eta)}{d\eta^2} + {\cal H} \frac{d {\vec z}_L ({\vec q},\eta)}{d\eta} &=& - \vec\partial_x \left[\Phi_L[{\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta)] + \frac{1}{2} Q^{ij}({\vec q},\eta)\partial_i\partial_j \Phi_L[{\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta)] + \cdots \right] + \vec a_S({\vec q},\eta)\ , \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Phi_L$ is the long-wavelength part of the potential, and the ellipses account for higher order multipole moments. All the short distance dynamics is encoded in the multipole moments that parametrize the shape of the region whose center of mass is ${\vec z}_L(\vec q,\eta)$ and by $\vec a_S({\vec q},\eta)$, which represents an additional source of acceleration that we are now going to describe.
The form of equation \eqref{eqmotion1} should be very intuitive. It describes the fact that finite sized particles with non-zero multipole moments move differently in a gravitational potential than point particles do. For example, they are sensitive not only to the gradient of the gravitational field, but also to the tidal tensor. Since we treat finite regions as point-like, by construction, the long potential $\Phi_L$ will be computed using a multipole expansion which is not valid when Lagrangian regions overlap. The acceleration $\vec a_S({\vec q},\eta)$ encodes therefore the part of the force that cannot be computed using the locations of the centers of mass ${\vec z}_L(\vec q,\eta)$ and their multipole moments, because it depends on the details of the distribution of mass inside the regions which becomes relevant when the regions overlap.
Because we are considering large regions in Lagrangian space which develop a non-trivial shape as a result of the structure formation process, we also need to modify the Poisson equation. The resulting equation reads (see appendix \ref{uvmatch} and sec. \ref{sec:action} for more details):
\begin{equation}
\label{equation2}
\partial^2_x \Phi_L = \frac{3}{2} {\cal H}^2 \Omega_m\left(\delta_{n,L}({\vec x},\eta) + \frac{1}{2} \partial_i\partial_j {\cal Q}^{ij}({\vec x},\eta)
- \frac{1}{6} \partial_i\partial_j \partial_k {\cal Q}^{ijk}({\vec x},\eta) + \cdots\right)
\equiv \frac{3}{2} {\cal H}^2 \Omega_m \delta_{m,L}({\vec x},\eta)\ .
\end{equation}
In the above expressions we defined the real-space {\it matter} density $\delta_{m,L}$ of the long-wavelength universe, as well as the real-space {\it number} density $\delta_{n,L}$ and real-space multipole moments:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{smooth1}
1+\delta_{n,L}({\vec x},\eta)&\equiv& \int d^3{\vec q}~\delta^3( {\vec x} - {\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta))\ , \nonumber \\
\label{calq} {\cal Q}^{i_1 \dots i_p}({\vec x},\eta) &\equiv& \int d^3 {\vec q}~ Q^{i_1\ldots i_p}({\vec q},\eta)\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta))\ .
\end{eqnarray}
To simplify the subsequent treatment, we also performed the split into irreducible representations of the rotation group:
\begin{equation}
\label{quad-lag}
Q^{ij} ({\vec q},\eta)= Q^{ij}_{\rm TF} ({\vec q},\eta)+ \tfrac{1}{3} \delta^{ij} C({\vec q},\eta),~~C({\vec q},\eta)\equiv Q^i_i({\vec q},\eta)\ ,
\end{equation}
where ${\rm TF}$ stands for trace free, and we introduced:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{smooth2}
{\cal C}({\vec x},\eta)&=&\int d^3 {\vec q}~ C({\vec q},\eta)\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta)) \ .
\end{eqnarray}
The above equations should be equally intuitive. The number density of particles in Eulerian space is obtained by summing over all the particles at location $\vec x$. The multipole moments in Eulerian space are obtained by summing over the multipole moments of each of these particles. Particles source gravity through their mass and multipoles in a standard fashion. The matter overdensity $\delta_{m,L}$ has been defined as the source of gravity, and includes both the contribution from the change in the number density and the shapes described by the multipole moments.\footnote{In the equations in LEFT there is no appearance of an arbitrary cutoff, as it should be since there is no cutoff dependence in physical quantities. Later on, in sections~\ref{sec:reno} and \ref{sec:oneloop}, we will perform an explicit calculation and explain how to extract physical quantities using LEFT. We can anticipate an important executive summary: when performing the loop integrals, we will need to introduce a cutoff $\Lambda$ that regularizes the integrals and precludes contributions from short distances that are not reliable within perturbation theory. This is what in Quantum Field Theory textbooks goes under the name of `regularization' (see for example Chapter 12 of~\cite{Weinberg:1995mt}). At this point, all the parameters in LEFT will acquire a cutoff dependence, e.g. $Q^{ij} ({\vec q},\eta)\to Q^{ij} ({\vec q},\eta,\Lambda)$, designed in such a way the result of the full calculations, that is after summing the loops and the contribution coming from the multipoles, will be cutoff independent. In this case the parameters are called `bare' and the procedure is called `renormalization'. It is an essential feature, and ultimately a consistency check, that the computations in LEFT are independent of the cutoff that regularizes the loop integrals.}
\subsubsection*{LEFT in momentum space}
For convenience, we give explicitly the equations of motion in momentum space $\vec k$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:delta_ELPT_fourier}
\delta_{m,L}(\vec k,\eta) &=& \int d^3q~{\rm exp}\left[ -i \vec k \cdot \vec z_L(\vec q,\eta) - \frac{1}{2}k^i k^j Q^c_{ij}(\vec q) + \ldots \right] \ , \label{dmkspa}\\
\Phi_L(\vec k,\eta) &=& -\frac{3}{2} \mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m~\frac{1}{k^2} \int d^3q~{\rm exp}\left[ -i \vec k \cdot \vec z_L(\vec q,\eta) - \frac{1}{2}k^i k^j Q^c_{ij}(\vec q) + \ldots \right] \ , \\ \label{eq:displacement_fourier}
\ddot z_L^i(\vec q_1,\eta) + \mathcal{H} \dot z_L^i(\vec q_1,\eta) &=& a^i_S(\vec z_L(\vec q_1,\eta)) + \frac{3}{2} \mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m \int d^3 q_2 \int_k ~\frac{ik^i}{k^2}\exp\left[i \vec k \cdot (\vec z_L(\vec q_1,\eta)-\vec z_L(\vec q_2,\eta))\right. \nonumber \\ &&\nonumber \left. \ \ \qquad\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad\qquad \qquad \qquad-\frac{1}{2}k^i k^j \big(Q^c_{ij}(\vec q_1) + Q^c_{ij}(\vec q_2)\big)+ \ldots \right].
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that by going to Fourier space, we were able to explicitly solve for the gravitational potential in terms of $\delta_{m,L}(\vec k,\eta)$. Additionally, in some of the expressions we have kept in the exponential the displacement fields. The expectation value of the exponential of a quantity can be performed as the exponential of the connected cumulants of the same quantity. For this reason, we have redefined the multipoles and kept them in the exponential. $Q^c_{i_1\ldots i_n}$ stands for connected multipoles~\footnote{The connected part of a multipole is defined in such a way that we can write:
\begin{equation}
Q_{i_1,\ldots, i_n}=\sum_{\rm part} Q^c_{\alpha} Q^c_{\beta}\ldots\ ,
\end{equation}
where `part' represents all possible ways to group the $n$ indices $i_1\ldots i_n$ in $\alpha,\;\beta,\ldots$ subsets, with the subsets being equal if they differ by a permutation of the indices. This definition is essentially recursive
\begin{equation}
Q_{i_1,\ldots, i_n}=Q_{i_1,\ldots, i_n}^c+\sum_{\rm sub-part} Q^c_{\alpha} Q^c_{\beta}\ldots \ ,
\end{equation}
where `sub-part' represents all possible way to group the $n$ indices $i_1\ldots i_n$ in such a way that each set has at most $n-1$ indices.
This definition is commonly used in $S$-matrix computations in Condensed Matter and High Energy Field Theory, see the textbook~\cite{Weinberg:1995mt}, eq.~(4.3.2), for details.
}. This exponentiation may be useful if one wants to perform resummations. We discuss this briefly in section~\ref{resum}.
\subsection{Expectation values, Response \& Noise}\label{sec:response}
As in the Eulerian EFT, the short scale dynamics that determines the multipole moments and $\vec a_S({\vec x},\eta)$ can be split into different pieces: a contribution present even in the absence of long wavelength fluctuations and a response to the long wavelength perturbations. The first piece can furthermore be split into the expectation value over short modes and a term we call intrinsic noise that accounts for the fluctuations from realization to realization. For example for $Q^{ij}$ we can write:
\begin{equation}
\label{decomp}
Q^{ij}= \langle Q^{ij} \rangle_S+ Q^{ij}_{{\cal S}} +Q^{ij}_{{\cal R}}\ .
\end{equation}
In $\langle Q^{ij}\rangle_S$ we take the expectation value over the short modes. The second term accounts for the fact that in each realization there is a random departure from the expectation value and the last term is the response to the long wavelength fluctuations. S stands for short, ${\cal S}$ for stochastic and ${\cal R}$ for response.
In this paper we work up to one-loop effects, so we just need to model the quadrupole moment and $\vec a_S({\vec x},\eta)$ at first order in the perturbations and in derivatives of the long-wavelength fields. For the quadrupole response for example we can write:
\begin{equation}
\label{responseI}
{\cal Q}^{ij}_{{\cal R}}(\vec z_L({\vec q},\eta),\eta)=\int d\eta^\prime~\left[A_1^{ij,lk}(\eta;\eta^\prime)\; \partial_l\partial_k \Phi_L(\vec z_L({\vec q},\eta^\prime))+A_2^{ij,lk}(\eta;\eta^\prime)\; \partial_l s_{L,k}({\vec q},\eta^\prime)+\ldots \right]\ ,
\end{equation}
where ${\cal Q}^{ij}$ is defined in \eqref{smooth1}, and $A_i^{ij,lk}(\eta;\eta^\prime)$ are retarded Green's function that depend on the short distance dynamics. The long modes can only affect the dynamics through terms that are allowed by rotational invariance and the equivalence principle, such as ${\partial}_i{\partial}_j\Phi_L,\; {\partial}_js^i_L$, etc.
Note that in the expression in \eqref{responseI} we did not assume locality in time as the dynamics of the short modes has a typical times scales ${\cal O}(H^{-1})$ which is the same as that of the long modes. For this reason, the response of the quadrupole to the long wavelength perturbations depends on the field values at earlier times up to a scale of order $H^{-1}$. In this paper we will be interested in the lowest order corrections in LEFT. We can then take the long-wavelength modes in \eqref{responseI} at linear level. Since at linear level perturbations evolve in a $k$-independent way, the non-locality in time can be absorbed into making the response local-in-time, but with time-dependent coefficients.\footnote{
Using the notation from section \ref{sec:oneloop}, we can show the following. Since
\begin{equation}
s^{(1)}(\vec k,\eta)\sim D(\eta)\delta_0(\vec k)\ ,
\end{equation}
we can write
\begin{equation}
Q^{ij}_{{\cal R}}({\vec q},\eta)\sim\left[\int d\eta^\prime~A_1^{ij,lk}(\eta;\eta^\prime)\; \frac{D(\eta')}{D(\eta)}\right]\partial_l\vec s_{L,k}(\vec q,\eta)\sim l^2_{ij}(\eta) \partial^i s_L^j(\vec q,\eta)\ ,
\end{equation}
where in the last step we have implicitly defined the time-dependent parameter $l_{ij}^2(\eta)$, which can be next decomposed into trace and trace-free parts, as in \eqref{eq:quadr_response}. The situation is more subtle at higher orders. See~\cite{Carrasco:2013mua} for a treatment up to two-loops in the context of the Eulerian EFT.} Furthermore, at linear order we can replace second derivatives of $\Phi_L$ with first derivatives of the displacement field. Clearly a displacement that is constant in space cannot lead to any response. We can therefore write, at the order at which we are working,
\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber \label{eq:quadr_response}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!Q_{ij}({\vec q},\eta) = l_S^2(\eta) \frac{1}{3} \delta_{ij} - \frac{1}{3} l^2_T(\eta) \delta_{ij}~\partial_k s_k(\vec q,\eta) - l_{TF}^2(\eta) \left(\frac{1}{2}(\partial_i s_j({\vec q},\eta) + \partial_j s_i({\vec q},\eta)) - \frac{1}{3} \delta_{ij} \partial_k s_k({\vec q},\eta)\right) \\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\quad\qquad\qquad +Q^{ij}_{{\cal S}}(\vec q,\eta)\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
\langle Q^{ij}\rangle_S \equiv l_S^2(\eta) \frac{1}{3} \delta_{ij}\ .
\end{equation}
Similarly, the dependence on the long wavelength fields of the acceleration induced by the potential on short scales will follow the same rules. We can therefore write
\begin{equation}
\label{ashortresp}
\vec a_{S}(\vec z_L({\vec q},\eta)) = \frac{3}{2} \mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m ~l_{\Phi_S}^2(\eta) \vec \partial_q (\vec \partial_q \cdot\vec s_L(\vec q,\eta)) +\vec a_{\cal S}(\vec q,\eta)\ .
\end{equation}
\subsection{Renormalization, Matching \& Power Counting}\label{sec:reno}
In LEFT, the true relevant parameters of perturbation theory are manifest. It is a derivative expansion of the long modes with coefficients that are proportional to square of the short mode displacements. In fact, by inspecting \eqref{eqmotion1} and \eqref{equation2}, we see that the series in the higher-derivative terms can no longer be truncated when the acceleration induced by the tidal forces of the long modes over a region of the order of the random displacements becomes comparable with the acceleration of the center of mass (i.e. $\Phi_L[{\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta)] \sim Q^{ij}(\vec q,\eta)\partial_i\partial_j \Phi_L[{\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta)] $), or the quadrupole moment of the mass distribution changes significantly the gravitational potential (i.e. $\delta_{n,L}({\vec x},\eta) \sim\partial_i\partial_j {\cal Q}^{ij}({\vec x},\eta)$). The EFT we wrote down is in Lagrangian space, and therefore $\epsilon_{s <}$ (see Fig. \ref{epsilons}) is never assumed to be small. The additional parameters in the EFT measure the quadrupole moment of the Lagrangian mass distribution, as well as the response on short scales of the gravitational potential.
The effect of the short distance physics is encapsulated by these new parameters.
They indeed correct the errors induced by using an invalid perturbative approach when $k \gtrsim k_{\rm NL}$, as it happen when we perform loop integrals, so that the final result reproduces the physical contribution of the short distance physics in a correct manner. These errors from extrapolating the perturbative treatment for $k\gtrsim k_{\rm NL}$ can be finite or infinite (i.e. proportional to positive powers of a cutoff), depending on the initial power spectrum of the fluctuations. It is therefore useful to split the parameters in the sum of a potentially-divergent counter-term, and a renormalized parameter:
\begin{equation}
l^2(\eta,\Lambda) \to l^2_{\rm c.t.}(\Lambda,\eta) + l^2_{\rm ren}(\eta),
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda$ is the cutoff in the EFT. The theory then remains finite as $\Lambda \to \infty$ after the counter-term is properly chosen. Notice that everything we need in order to be able to describe the correct evolution of long wavelength modes is a set of (time dependent) parameters. This is a manifestation of the fact that short distance physics decouples. These parameters can be obtained directly from the UV complete theory, for our case N-body simulations, or by matching to observations.
There is always an ambiguity in the splitting of a parameter between a counter-term and renormalized part, for what the $\Lambda-$independent piece is concerned. This ambiguity is usually fixed by defining some particular renormalization conditions for the observables, for example by demanding that the computed power spectrum agrees with the observed one at a given reference wavenumber. This is usually called {\it matching} procedure. For the scope of this paper, we will mainly concern with $ l^2_{\rm c.t.}(\Lambda,\eta) $, to show that all divergencies in LPT are absorbed by the counter-terms. Of course, to obtain a physical answer, one needs to add the finite contributions as well.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{figL2.pdf}
\caption{\small Left panel: a region of size $V$ in Lagrangian space containing several cells of size $R_0 \simeq k_{\rm NL}^{-1}$, each evolving with its own quadrupole moment $Q^{ij}(\vec q,\eta)$, as shown in Fig. \ref{figL1}. Right panel: The same region in Eulerian space. The physical value of the quadrupole moment of the entire region, $Q^{ij}_V$, must be independent of the sizes of the Lagrangian cells, i.e. it must be cutoff independent. Determining the value of the quadrupole and other multipoles in LEFT involves free parameters that may be obtained from data or comparison with N-body simulations.}
\label{figL2}
\end{figure}
To provide more insight let us study the following example, where in the long wavelength theory we consider a certain (large) volume $V$ in Lagrangian space, whose center of mass is given by (see Fig. \ref{figL2}))
\begin{equation}
\vec z_V = \frac{1}{V} \int_V d^3 q~\vec z_L(\vec q,\eta)\ .
\end{equation}
The intrinsic quadrupole moment of the region is
\begin{equation}
Q_{V}^{ij} = \frac{1}{V} \int_V d^3 q~(z_L^i(\vec q,\eta)-z^i_V)(z_L^j(\vec q,\eta)-z^j_V) + Q^{ij}(\vec q,\eta) \ ,
\end{equation}
where we included the intrinsic quadrupole of each region described by $\vec z_L(\vec q,\eta)$. This is expected to be a well defined, measurable, object.
By writing $\vec z_L = \vec q + \vec s_L$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{qvij}
Q_V^{ij} + z_V^i z_V^j =\frac{1}{V} \int_V d^3 q ~\left[\left(s^i_L (\vec q,\eta) s^j_L(\vec q,\eta) + Q^{ij}(\vec q,\eta)\right) + q^i s_L^j(\vec q,\eta)+ q^j s_L^i(\vec q,\eta) + q^i q^j\right]\ .
\end{equation}
By taking the expectation value on the background of the short modes (without a long-wavelength perturbation), we have
\begin{equation}
\langle Q_V^{ij} + z_V^i z_V^j \rangle_S = \frac{1}{V} \int_V d^3 q \left\langle s^i_L (\vec q,\eta) s^j_L(\vec q,\eta) + Q^{ij}(\vec q,\eta)\right\rangle_S+l_V^2{}_{ij} \ .
\end{equation}
where $l_V^2{}_{ij}=\int_V d^3 q\; q^i q^j$ is a geometric factor associated to the Lagrangian volume $V$.
This equation tells us two different points. First, the right-hand-side is finite (namely independent of the cutoff) and thus the left-hand-side must also be. Notice that the left-hand-side is expected to be well defined, as it represents the overall quadrupole of a given Lagrangian region. Secondly, its actual value can be obtained by measuring the analogous quantity in N-body simulations or observations (see~\cite{Carrasco:2012cv} for an implementation of this procedure in the context of the Eulerian EFT).
Furthermore, one can consider the following correlation function of the quadrupole of a region with a far away displacement $z_L^m(\vec q_2,\eta)$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:quad_res}
&&\left\langle z_L^m(\vec q_2,\eta ) \left( Q_V^{ij} + z_V^i z_V^j\right)\right\rangle =\\ \nonumber
&&\qquad \left\langle s_L^m(\vec q_2,\eta) \;\times\;\frac{1}{V} \int_V d^3 q \left\langle s^i_L (\vec q,\eta) s^j_L(\vec q,\eta) + Q^{ij}(\vec q,\eta)\right\rangle_{S,\vec s_L}\right\rangle\\ \nonumber
&& \quad+\left\langle s_L^m(\vec q_2,\eta) \;\times\;\frac{1}{V} \int_V d^3 q \left[q^i \left\langle s^j_L (\vec q,\eta)\right\rangle_{S,\vec s_L}+q^j \left\langle s^i_L (\vec q,\eta)\right\rangle_{S,\vec s_L}\right]\right\rangle\ .
\end{eqnarray}
The most interior expectation values on the right-hand-side is taken for short modes in the presence of a fixed background long mode. This expression will clearly contain terms proportional to the response of each quadrupole $Q^{ij}(\vec q,\eta)$ to the long wavelength fluctuations. Its unknown coefficient will be fixed by requiring, not only that \eqref{eq:quad_res} is finite, but that it also matches the analogous quantities in N-body simulations or observations. If we assume, as we will show later, that the correlation function of displacements at distance points $\langle s^i_L (\vec q_1,\eta)\; s^j_L (\vec q_2,\eta)\rangle$ has been renormalized and therefore made finite, we see that in order for the full expression to be independent of the cutoff, we must require that:
\begin{equation}
\left\langle s_L^m(\vec q_2,\eta) \left(s^i_L (\vec q,\eta) s^j_L(\vec q,\eta) + Q^{ij}(\vec q,\eta)\right)\right\rangle\ ,
\end{equation}
is also cutoff independent. Notice that now the expectation value is on both short and long fluctuations. As we will see in the next section, implementing this procedure allows us to identify the unknown coefficients $l_S^2,\, l_T^2,\, l^2_{TF}$ in \eqref{eq:quadr_response}. Notice that the quadruple of a given region is not independent of the coefficients $l_S^2,\, l_T^2,\, l^2_{TF}$. This is due to the fact that the quadrupole is the square of two long-wavelength fields evaluated at the same location. It is therefore sensitive to the short distance physics and needs to be renormalized. In the jargon of quantum field theory, the product of fields at the same point is often denoted as a {\it composite} operator. The quadrupole falls into this category.
After the theory is renormalized, the remaining step in order to make predictions is to establish how many coefficients are necessary to a given order. This goes by the name of {\it power counting}, and determines at which order each term enters. By inspection of the equations of motion, it is clear that the size of the extra terms (from the quadrupole and $\vec a_S$) relative to the leading order tree-level dynamics, is suppressed by $l_{A, {\rm ren}}^2 k^2$ (for $A=(S, T,TF,\Phi_S)$). For example, for a scaling universe with density power spectrum
\begin{equation} \Delta^2(k) \equiv \frac{k^3}{2\pi^2} P_L(k) = \left(\frac{k}{k_{\rm NL}}\right)^{n+3},
\end{equation}
they enter at order
\begin{equation}
\Delta^2_{l_{A,{\rm ren}}}(k) \propto \gamma_{A,{\rm ren}} \left(\frac{k}{k_{\rm NL}}\right)^{n+5},
\end{equation}
where we introduced the dimensionless parameter: $\gamma_A \equiv k_{\rm NL}^2l_A^2$, which is expected to be an order one number. In this power counting only the renormalized parameters enter, not the counter-terms. This contribution must be compared with the loop expansion, again after renormalization. This also has a well defined scaling in $k/k_{\rm NL}$. For $N$ loops, it is given by~\cite{Pajer:2013jj,Carrasco:2013sva}
\begin{equation}
\Delta^2_{(N)}(k) \propto \left(\frac{k}{k_{\rm NL}}\right)^{(n+3)(N+1)} \quad \to\quad \Delta^2_{(1)} \propto \left(\frac{k}{k_{\rm NL}}\right)^{2n+6}.
\end{equation}
It is straightforward to see that higher order effects, either from higher multipole moments, or from the same multipole moments evaluated at higher order in perturbation theory, scale as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:counter_contrib}
\Delta^2_{Q^{i_1\ldots i_n}, \vec a_S} (k) \propto \left(\frac{k}{k_{\rm NL}}\right)^{(n+3)N+2p},
\end{equation}
with $N$ representing the number of loops, and $p$ being related to the number of extra indices of the multipoles and of derivatives in the response of $\vec a_S$. Due to locality in real space, each additional derivative will contribute with a factor $(k/k_{\rm NL})^{2p}$.
The power counting is complete with the scaling for the stochastic piece, which one can show enters at order \cite{Baumann:2010tm,Carrasco:2012cv,Pajer:2013jj,Carrasco:2013sva}
\begin{equation}
\label{noise}
\Delta^2_{\cal S} \propto \left(\frac{k}{k_{\rm NL}}\right)^7 \ .
\end{equation}
and at order $(k/k_{\rm NL})^5$ for the velocity power spectrum~\cite{Carrasco:2013mua}.
Let us stress two points from the former expressions. Firstly, depending on the different values of $n$, different terms are more important than others. For example, for $n< -1$ the correction from $\Delta^2_{l_A}(k)$ is more important than the one-loop term, provided $\gamma_A \simeq {{\cal O} (1)}$, and both coincide for $n=-1$. Secondly, what enters in the power counting are the renormalized values for the parameters, not the (bare) potentially divergent ones. This is the case because the counter-term part is cancelled by an identical divergence in the loops. This shows that divergencies in loops do not have any particular significance: what matter is the sum of loops and counter-terms, which contributes a smaller and smaller amount as we go to higher orders. The fact that loop diagrams may be (power-law) divergent when evaluated with a cutoff in momentum space should not mislead us. Indeed, the same diagrams can be evaluated in dimensional regularization, where only logarithmic divergencies appear and the power counting is therefore simpler. We discuss dimensional regularization in appendix~\ref{app:dimreg}.
\section{Illustrative one-loop calculation}\label{sec:oneloop}
As an illustrative example in this section we show results for Einstein-de Sitter cosmologies with power law initial conditions: $P_L = A k^n$. This will allow us to see explicitly the structure of the divergences and the role of the different counter-terms in absorbing them. As stressed earlier, to obtain a final result we should add the renormalized (finite) contributions. In order to do that, the parameters of LEFT must be fit to observations or to N-body simulations. Although this is conceptually straightforward, it goes beyond the scope of this paper (see~\cite{Carrasco:2012cv,Carrasco:2013mua} where this was carried out in the context of the Eulerian EFT). Here we show that divergencies can be absorbed by counter-terms, which provides a consistency check for LEFT. For ease of notation we drop the label $\{\}_L$ on the variables, although we will always deal with long-wavelength fields defined in the EFT. Furthermore, in what follows we will work with a cutoff regulator. We discuss dimensional regularization in appendix \ref{app:dimreg}, and in particular the case $n=-1$.
\subsection{Basics}
In this section we follow the notation in \cite{Matsubara:2008wx}. We can solve iteratively in ${\partial}_i s_j$ the equations for the displacement. Working in $q$-variables Fourier space, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{vecsn}
\vec s^{(n)}(\vec k,\eta) = \frac{iD(\eta)^n}{n!} \int_{\vec p_1}\ldots \int_{\vec p_n} (2\pi)^3\delta^3\left(\vec k_t - \vec k\right)~{\vec L}^{(n)}(\vec k_1\ldots \vec k_n) \delta_0(\vec k_1)\ldots \delta_0(\vec k_n),
\end{equation}
where $\delta_0 \equiv \delta(\eta=\eta_0)$, $\vec k_t = \sum_i^n \vec k_i$, $D(\eta)$ is the growth factor (normalized to $D(\eta_0)=1$), and $\vec L^{(n)}$ is real. Up to $\vec L^{(3)}$ we have~\cite{Matsubara:2008wx}
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec L^{(1)} &=& \frac{\vec k}{k^2} \\
\vec L^{(2)} &=& \frac{3}{7} \frac{\vec k_t}{k_t^2} \left(1- \frac{(\vec k_1\cdot \vec k_2)^2}{k^2_1k^2_2}\right)\label{l2s2}\\
\label{l3s3} \vec L^{(3)} &=& \frac{5}{7} \frac{\vec k_t}{k_t^2} \left(1- \frac{(\vec k_1\cdot \vec k_2)^2}{k^2_1k^2_2}\right)
\left[ 1- \left\{\frac{(\vec k_1+\vec k_2)\cdot\vec k_3}{|\vec k_1+\vec k_2|k_3}\right\}^2\right] \nonumber \\ &-& \frac{1}{3}
\left(1- 3\frac{(\vec k_1\cdot \vec k_2)^2}{k^2_1k^2_2}+2 \frac{(\vec k_1\cdot\vec k_2)(\vec k_3\cdot\vec k_2)(\vec k_1\cdot\vec k_3)}{k_1^2k_2^2k_3^2}\right) + \vec k_t \times \vec T,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\vec T$ a transverse piece which does not contribute at one-loop~\footnote{The reason is simple, only $\vec s^{(1)} \propto \vec k$ is available to correlate with $\vec s^{(3)}$ at one-loop order, and obviously $(\vec k\times \vec T)\cdot \vec k=0$.}.
From here we can compute:
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle \vec s_i(\vec k_1) \vec s_j(\vec k_2)\rangle &=& -(2\pi)^3 \delta^3(\vec k_1+\vec k_2) C_{ij}(\vec k_1,\vec k_2)\ ,\\
\langle \vec s_i(\vec k_1) \vec s_j(\vec k_2)\vec s_l(\vec k_3)\rangle &=& +i (2\pi)^3 \delta(\vec k_1 + \vec k_2 + \vec k_3) C_{ijl}(\vec k_1,\vec k_2,\vec k_3)\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
which entails convoluted integrals with ($A \equiv A(\eta) = A_0 D(\eta)^2$)
\begin{equation}
P_L = A k^n = 2\pi^2 \frac{k^n}{k_{\rm NL}^{n+3}(\eta)}.
\end{equation}
Hence
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{ij}^{(11)}(k) &=&- \frac{k_i k_j}{k^4} P_L(k)\ , \\
C_{ij}^{(22)}(k) &=& -\frac{9}{98} \frac{k_i k_j}{k^4} Q_1(k)\ , \\
C_{ij}^{(13)}(k) &=& C_{ij}^{(31)}(k)=- \frac{5}{21} \frac{k_i k_j}{k^4} R_1(k)\ , \\ \nonumber
\int_p C_{ijl}^{(112)}(k,-p,p-k) &=& \int_p C_{ijl}^{(121)}(k,-p,p-k) = \frac{3}{14} \left( -\frac{k_i k_j k_l}{k^6} (R_1(k) + 2 R_2(k)) + \delta_{jl}\frac{k_i}{k^4} R_1(k)\right), \\
&&\\
\int_p C_{ijl}^{(211)}(k,-p,p-k) &=& \frac{3}{14} \left(- \frac{k_i k_j k_l}{k^6} (Q_1(k) + 2 Q_2(k)) + \delta_{jl}\frac{k_i}{k^4} Q_1(k)\right)\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the functions $R_{1(2)}(k), Q_{1(2)}(k)$ are defined in \cite{Matsubara:2008wx}. The terms that depend upon $Q_{1(2)}$ introduce divergences that scale
like $k^7 \Lambda^{2n-1}$ and therefore are handled by the stochastic terms (see \eqref{noise}) \cite{Baumann:2010tm,Carrasco:2012cv,Pajer:2013jj,Carrasco:2013sva}. (This divergence is not present for example for $n=-1$.) The remaining divergences, depending on $R_{1(2)}$,
\begin{equation}
R_{1(2)} (k) = P_L(k) \frac{k^3}{4\pi^2} \int_0^\infty dr P_L(kr) \tilde R_{1(2)}(r)\ ,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\tilde R_1(r \to \infty) \to \frac{16}{15},~~ \tilde R_2(r \to \infty) \to -\frac{4}{15} \label{limitr}\ ,
\end{equation}
are the ones regularized by the background expectation value and response of the quadrupole moment $Q^{ij}(\vec q,\eta)$, and $\vec a_{S,\cal R}(\vec q,\eta)$, which we discuss next.
Let us emphasize that nothing prevents us from studying the cases for which SPT gives finite results and the above integrals are finite as $\Lambda \to \infty$. However, the contribution from the UV modes must still be corrected by a counter-term despite the latter remaining finite as we remove the cutoff. An EFT is the natural path to systematically parameterize the short distance dynamics.
\subsection{Quadrupole moment \& composite operators\label{sec:quad}}
As we described in sec. \ref{sec:reno}, we require the combination
\begin{equation}
\label{compositeqij}
s_i (\vec q,\eta) s_j(\vec q,\eta) + Q_{ij}(\vec q,\eta)\ ,
\end{equation}
to be cutoff independent, both when we take the expectation value on the short modes, and also when we correlate it with a point far away. As we discussed before, this is a composite operator. We have divergencies both at the level of the expectation value
\begin{equation}\label{eq:backround_quad}
\langle s_i(\vec q,\eta) s_j(\vec q,\eta)\rangle \propto \int_p C_{ij}(p)\ ,
\end{equation}
and at the level of correlation with the displacement at a far away point. In $q$-Fourier space, by calling $\vec q = \vec q_1-\vec q_2$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:quad_response_div}
&&\langle s_l( \vec q_2,\eta) s_i(\vec q_1,\eta) s_j(\vec q_1,\eta)\rangle\quad \to \\ \nonumber
&&\qquad\left\langle s_l(\vec k,\eta) \int_p s_i(\vec p-\vec k,\eta) s_j(-\vec p,\eta)\right\rangle' = i \int_p C^{(112)}_{ijl} ( k,-p,p-k) + C^{(121)}_{ijl}( k,- p, p- k)\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the $\langle\ldots\rangle'$ means that we have removed a factor of $(2\pi)^3\delta^{(3)}(\vec k+\vec k')$ from the expectation value.
The divergence of the first kind in \eqref{compositeqij} will be renormalized by the counter-term associated to the expectation value of the quadrupole: $l_S^2 \equiv \langle Q^i_i\rangle$; while the second kind of divergence from \eqref{eq:quad_response_div} will be renormalized by the response of the quadrupole
\begin{equation}
\label{response}
Q_{ij,{\cal R}} = -\frac{1}{3} l_T^2 \delta_{ij}~\partial_k s_k - l_{TF}^2 \left(\frac{1}{2}(\partial_i s_j + \partial_j s_i) - \frac{1}{3} \delta_{ij} \partial_k s_k\right)\ .
\end{equation}
Using \eqref{eq:quadr_response} for a scaling power spectrum of the form $P_L = Ak^n$, \eqref{response} becomes:
\begin{equation}
\label{ctqij}
\langle Q_{ij,{\cal R}} s_l \rangle (k) = i P_L(k) k^2 \left( \frac{k_l}{k^4} \frac{1}{3} (l_{T}^2-l_{TF}^2) \delta_{ij} + l_{TF}^2 \frac{k_i k_j k_l}{k^6}\right).
\end{equation}
As we mentioned, the purpose of this section is to show that the divergencies from the composite operators or from the LPT loops are absorbed by the counter-terms of LEFT. For this reason, we concentrate only on the divergent part of these expressions. Using \eqref{limitr}, we obtain:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& R^{\Lambda}_1 (k) = \frac{16}{15(n+1)} P_L(k) \frac{k^3}{4\pi^2} A k^n \frac{\Lambda^{n+1}}{k^{n+1}} \equiv \frac{8}{15} k^2 P_L(k) l_\Lambda^2(\Lambda,\eta)\ , \\
&& R^{\Lambda}_2(k) = -\frac{1}{4} R^{\Lambda}_1 (k)\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we defined
\begin{eqnarray}
&& l_\Lambda^2(\Lambda,\eta) \equiv\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\int^\Lambda_0 dp\; P_L(p) = \frac{\Lambda^{n+1}}{k_{\rm NL}^{3+n}(n+1)}\ .
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that we have included a superscript $\Lambda$ to $R_{1,2}$ to stress that we are keeping only the divergent part. For illustrative purposes, and to simplify the computations, we restrict ourselves to study scaling universes, $P_L = Ak^n$, with $-1 < n<1$, for which the above are the only divergent pieces. (In appendix \ref{app:dimreg} we also study the case $n=-1$). Of course there are also finite corrections to those integrals, which we do not include in this analysis since we are only concerned about the divergent parts~\footnote{It is worth stressing once again the following. For $-3<n<-1$, the $R_{1,2}$ integrals are UV convergent. This does not mean that the new terms from LEFT should not be added. In fact, the new terms in LEFT contribute directly at a given order in $k/k_{\rm NL}$, as shown in \eqref{eq:counter_contrib}, and must be included. They represent the the influence of the short distance physics on long scales and must be systematically included.}.
Let us therefore proceed with the renormalization of the quadrupole. For the background expectation value \eqref{eq:backround_quad}, we impose:
\begin{equation}
\langle s_i (\vec q,\eta) s_j(\vec q,\eta)\rangle + l^2_S \frac{\delta_{ij}}{3} \to {\rm finite}.
\end{equation}
Since
\begin{equation}
\langle s_i (\vec q,\eta) s_j(\vec q,\eta)\rangle = \frac{1}{3} \delta_{ij} A \int^\Lambda_0 dk \frac{4\pi^2}{(2\pi)^3} k^n= \frac{1}{3} \delta_{ij} \int^\Lambda_0 dk \frac{k^n}{k_{\rm NL}^{n+3}(\eta)}=\frac{1}{3} \delta_{ij} l_\Lambda^2(\Lambda,\eta) \ ,
\end{equation}
then, splitting $l_S = l_{S,\rm ren}(\eta) + l_{S,\rm c.t.}(\Lambda,\eta)$, we require:
\begin{equation}
\label{lsct}
l_{S,\rm c.t.}^2(\Lambda,\eta) = - l_\Lambda^2(\Lambda,\eta)+ {\rm finite}\ .
\end{equation}
For the response in \eqref{eq:quad_response_div}, adding both contributions from $C^{(112)}_{ijl}$ and $C^{(121)}_{ijl}$, we obtain (again after Fourier transform)
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \left\langle s_l(\vec k,\eta) \int_p s_i(\vec p-\vec k,\eta) s_j(-\vec p,\eta)\right\rangle' = i \int_p C^{(112)}_{ijl} (k,-p,p-k) + C^{(121)}_{ijl}(k,-p,p-k) \\
&=& i \frac{3}{7} \left( \frac{k_i k_j k_l}{k^6} (R_1 + 2 R_2) - \delta_{ij}\frac{k_l}{k^4} R_1\right) \quad \substack{\longrightarrow \\ {\tiny UV}}\quad
\quad (i k^2 P_L(k) ) \frac{4}{35} l_\Lambda^2(\Lambda,\eta) \left( -\frac{k_i k_j k_l}{k^6} + 2\delta_{ij}\frac{k_l}{k^4}\right), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where in the last line we extracted the UV limit of the expression to isolate the divergences. By using \eqref{ctqij}, and splitting again into renormalized part and a counter-term, we see that in order for the composite operator (\ref{compositeqij}) to have finite correlation with far away displacements, we require
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:counter_sol}
l_{TF,{\rm c.t.}}^2(\Lambda,\eta) &\equiv& \frac{4}{35} l_\Lambda^2 (\Lambda,\eta)\label{ltfct}\ ,\\ \nonumber
l_{T,{\rm c.t.}}^2(\Lambda,\eta) &\equiv&-\frac{4}{7} l_\Lambda^2(\Lambda,\eta)\label{ltct}\ .
\end{eqnarray}
This result shows that the quadrupole moment of the long wavelength theory can be regularized by a proper choices of counter-terms. We discuss next the regularization of the displacement field. We will show that the values obtained previously are consistent with the values of the counter-terms required to regularize the two-point function of the displacement field.
\subsection{Displacement\label{sec:displacement}}
Let us now perform the renormalization of the displacement fields. It is useful to define the {\it source}~$\vec{\cal S}(\vec q,\eta)$, which will source the perturbative corrections order by order. From \eqref{eq:displacement_fourier}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{source}
\ddot s^i(\vec q_1,\eta) + \mathcal{H} \dot s^i(\vec q_1,\eta) + \frac{3}{2} \mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m \int {d^3 k \over (2 \pi)^3} {i k^i \over k^2 } \int d^3 q_2 \;e^{ i \vec k \cdot (\vec q_1 -\vec q_2)}\; i\,k^j \left(s_j(\vec q_2,\eta)-s_j(\vec q_1,\eta)\right) \equiv {\cal S}^i(\vec q_1,\eta)\ .
\end{equation}
By solving perturbatively in the fluctuations, we have that the $n$-th order solution takes the form
\begin{equation}
\vec s^{(n)}(\vec q,\eta) = \int d\eta^\prime G(\eta,\eta^\prime) \vec{\cal S}^{(n)}(\vec q,\eta^\prime)\ ,
\end{equation}
where $G(\eta,\eta')$ being the Green's function associated with the linear equation of motion. ${\cal S}^{(n)}$ is the $n$-th order source. It should be made clear that the $n$-th order source is made of displacement fields, possibly evaluated at some non-linear order, as well as the new terms from LEFT. As we see in \eqref{eq:counter_contrib}, they contribute at a given non-linear order. From here it is clear that, in order to make the correlation of the displacement finite, all we require are a finite correlation between $\vec{\cal S}$ and $\vec s$ at distant points. We focus next directly on those correlations.
Since in this paper we are limiting ourselves to the first non-trivial order, we can expand the source up to cubic order:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\cal S}^l(\vec q_1) = a^l_S(\vec q_1) + \frac{3}{2} \mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m \int {d^3 k \over (2 \pi)^3} {i k^l \over k^2 } \int d^3 q_2 \exp[ i \vec k \cdot (\vec q_1 -\vec q_2)] \times \\
&&\qquad\qquad\times \left\{ \tfrac{1}{2}(ik_i)(ik_j)\big[ s_i(\vec q_1) s_j(\vec q_1) +Q_{ij}(\vec q_1)+s_i(\vec q_2) s_j(\vec q_2)+ Q_{ij} (\vec q_2)- 2 s_i(\vec q_1) s_j(\vec q_2)\big] \right. \nonumber \\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad + \frac{1}{6}(i k_i)(i k_j) (i k_r) \left[ 3 s_r(\vec q_1) (s_i(\vec q_2) s_j(\vec q_2)+Q_{ij}(\vec q_2))- 3 s_r(\vec q_2) (s_i(\vec q_1) s_j(\vec q_1)+Q_ {ij}(\vec q_1))\right.\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad+ \left.\left. \left(s_i(\vec q_1) s_j(\vec q_1) +3 Q_{ij}(\vec q_1)\right) s_r(\vec q_1) - \left(s_i(\vec q_2) s_j(\vec q_2) +3 Q_{ij}(\vec q_2)\right) s_r(\vec q_2) \right]\right\} + \ldots \nonumber \label{forcep}
\end{eqnarray}
Here we suppressed the time-dependence of the variables for simplicity. We immediately recognize the combination $s_i(\vec q_2) s_j(\vec q_2)+Q_{ij} (q_2)$, which leads to finite results provided we choose the counter-terms as shown in the previous section. Indeed the factor of $3$ in the last two terms precisely accounts for the three different ways to correlate each $\vec s(\vec q_2)$ with a far away point $\vec s(\vec q_3)$.
There are, however, remaining terms that are potentially divergent which are not fixed by the background expectation value and response of the quadrupole moment. The first such term is easily identified as the last one in the second line of \eqref{forcep}, which reads, after correlating with $\vec s(\vec q_3)$ and transforming into Fourier space,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{newint}
&&\langle {\cal S}_l(\vec q_1) s_m(\vec q_3)\rangle \supset\nonumber \\
&&\nonumber \quad \langle \left({\cal S}_l(\vec q_1)\right)_{2} s_m(\vec q_3)\rangle'=- \frac{3}{2}\mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m \int_k {i k_l \over k^2 } (ik_i)(ik_j) \int d^3 q_2\; e^{ i \vec k \cdot (\vec q_1 -\vec q_2)}\, \langle s_i(\vec q_1) s_j(\vec q_2) s_m(\vec q_3) \rangle \nonumber \\ &&\quad \Rightarrow\quad \langle ({\cal S}_l)_{2}s_m\rangle'= -\frac{3}{2}\mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m \int_p {i p_l \over p^2 } (ip_i)(ip_j)\; i\, C_{ijm}(p,-k,k-p)\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the subscript $_{2}$ in ${\cal S}$ underlines that we are taking in ${\cal S}$ a term that is squared in the displacement fields.
This term is divergent and cannot be absorbed into the multipole moments $l_{TF}^2,\,l_{T}^2, l_S^2$, since, as discussed in sec.~\ref{sec:reno}, those counter-terms have been already fixed by the renormalization of the composite operator $s^is^j+Q^{ij}$, which is required to make the multipole moment of a given region in Lagrangian space finite.
Note indeed that the integral in \eqref{newint} is slightly different from what we found before for the renormalization of $s_i s_j$, since in this case the composite operator involves derivatives (this is shown by the factors of $p$ inside the $dp$ integral). The above term is equivalent to taking a correlation of the displacement with the following new contact operator
\begin{equation}
{\cal S}_l\supset {\cal O}_l (\vec q_1) \equiv s_j(\vec q_1) { \partial_l \partial_j \partial_k\over \partial^2} s_k(\vec q_1)\ ,
\end{equation}
as it can be easily checked by going to real space. This new contact operator needs to be regularized in order to make the displacement finite. Let us compute the divergent contribution. To the order we work here we can isolate it as follows. We first split the displacement in a gradient and a curl term as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\vec s =& \ \vec s_{\parallel} + \vec s_{\perp} \ , \\
\vec s_{\parallel}= \vec \partial \psi \ , & \ \ \vec\partial\cdot \vec s_{\perp} =0\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In this way we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
s_j(\vec q_1) { \partial_l \partial_i \partial_j \over \partial^2} s_j(\vec q_1) &= s_j(\vec q_1) \partial_l s_{j}(\vec q_1) - s_j(\vec q_1) \partial_l s_{\perp,j}(\vec q_1) \\
&= \frac{1}{2}\partial_l [ s_j(\vec q_1) s_j(\vec q_1)] - \partial_l [ s_{\perp,j}(\vec q_1) s_{\perp,j}(\vec q_1)]- s_{\parallel,j}(\vec q_1) \partial_l s_{\perp,j}(\vec q_1)\ .
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Since the divergent terms in LPT come from $C^{(121)}_{ijl}$ and $C^{(211)}_{ijl}$ to this order (it can be shown $C^{(112)}_{ijl}$ does not lead to a divergence, as expected), the curl piece of the displacement (which first enters in $\vec s^{(3)}(\vec q,\eta)$ in \eqref{vecsn}) does not contribute. Hence at one-loop the divergence from the $( \vec{\cal S})_{2}$ term in \eqref{newint} becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\langle \left({\cal S}_l\right)_{2}\;s_r\rangle' = - \frac{3}{2}\mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m \int_p^\Lambda {i p_l \over p^2 } (ip_i)(ip_j)~i~C_{ijr}(p,-k,k-p)\nonumber\\
&&\qquad \qquad\substack{\longrightarrow \\ {\tiny UV}}\quad - \frac{3}{2}\mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m~(ik^l)\int^\Lambda_p ~i ~ \tfrac{1}{2} C_{iir}(p,-k,k-p) = \frac{3}{2}\mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m k^2 P_L(k) \frac{2}{7} l_\Lambda^2(\Lambda) \frac{k^l k^r}{k^4} \nonumber \\
&&\ \qquad\qquad\qquad= \frac{3}{2}\mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m k^2 C_{lr}^{(11)}(k) \left( \frac{2}{7} l_\Lambda^2(\Lambda)\right).
\end{eqnarray}
There is another source of divergences in computing $\langle {\cal S}_l(\vec q_1) s_m(\vec q_3)\rangle$. This comes from the cubic terms in the third line of~\eqref{forcep}, when we correlate $\vec s(\vec q_3)$ with one of the $\vec s(\vec q_{1(2)})$ inside the parenthesis~\footnote{In the fourth line all the divergent terms are nicely accounted by the background expectation value of the quadrupole moment. Note there are 3 possible way to contract with a far away point.}. These `crossed' terms, for instance
\begin{equation}
\int {d^3 k \over (2 \pi)^3} {i k^l \over k^2 } \int d^3 q_2 \exp[ i \vec k \cdot (\vec q_1 -\vec q_2)](i k_i)(i k_j) ( ik_r)\langle s_m (\vec q_3) s_i (\vec q_2)\rangle \langle s_r (\vec q_1) s_j(\vec q_2)\rangle\ ,
\end{equation}
are clearly not regularized by the background expectation value of the quadrupole moment, which cancels the divergence generated when we contract
\begin{equation}
\langle s_m (\vec q_3) s_r (\vec q_1)\rangle \langle s_i (\vec q_2) s_j(\vec q_2) + Q_{ij}(\vec q_2)\rangle \to~{\rm finite}\ .
\end{equation}
Similarly the response of the quadrupole will not enter here, as it would contribute to higher order.
The remaining divergent contribution to the correlation function thus becomes
\begin{equation}
\langle ({\cal S}_l)_3\;s_m\rangle (k) = \frac{3}{2}\mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m C^{(11)}_{im}(k) \int_p^\Lambda \left[ {(p_l-k_l)(p_r-k_r)(p_i-k_i)(p_j-k_j) \over |\vec p-\vec k|^2 } - {p_l p_ip_j p_r \over p^2 } \right] C_{jr}^{(11)}(p)\ ,
\end{equation}
where the the subscript $_3$ underlines that we are taking a term in ${\cal S}$ that is cubic in the displacements.
The divergent part can be evaluated to give~\footnote{Let us give some details of the evaluation. We first write
\begin{equation}\label{eq:general_form}
\int_p^\Lambda \left[ {(p_l-k_l)(p_r-k_r)(p_i-k_i)(p_j-k_j) \over |\vec p-\vec k|^2 } - {p_l p_ip_j p_r \over p^2 } \right] C_{jr}^{(11)}(p)=l_{\Lambda^2}\left[\alpha\, k_l k_i+\beta\, k^2\delta_{ij}\right].
\end{equation}
By contracting \eqref{eq:general_form} with $\delta^{il}$, the integral simplifies remarkably and we obtain $\alpha+3\beta=\tfrac{1}{3}$. A second equation is provided by contracting \eqref{eq:general_form} with $k^l k^i$. We obtain
\begin{equation}
k^4(\alpha+\beta)=\int_p^\Lambda \frac{P_L(p)}{p^4}\left[\frac{(\vec p\cdot\vec k-k^2)(p^2-\vec k\cdot\vec p)^2}{(\vec p-\vec k)^2}-p^2 (\vec k\cdot\vec p)^2\right]\ .
\end{equation}
Since we are interested in the divergent part, we can neglect all terms that contribute to an order in $k$ higher than $k^4$ as $k\to 0$. The resulting expression is quite simple, and it can be easily handled. This leads to the second equation $\alpha+\beta=\tfrac{13}{15}$. Solving for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ we obtain \eqref{eq:div_3}.
}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:div_3}
\langle ({\cal S}_l)_3\;s_r\rangle (k)\quad \substack{\longrightarrow \\ {\tiny UV}} \quad \frac{3}{2}\mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m k^2 C^{(11)}_{lr}(k) \left(\frac{13}{15} l_\Lambda^2(\Lambda)\right) \ .
\end{equation}
The above analysis suggests we need a new counter-term. Indeed, this is represented by the term $\vec a_S$, which accounts for the response of the potential on short scales to the presence of a long-wavelength perturbation. From \eqref{ashortresp}, we have
\begin{equation}
\vec a_{S,\cal R}(\vec q,\eta) = \frac{3}{2} \mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m~l_{\Phi_S}^2(\eta) \vec \partial_q \vec \partial_q \cdot \vec s(\vec q,\eta) + \ldots\ .
\end{equation}
This new term will provide a counter-term, $l_{\Phi_S,\rm c.t.}$, which we need to judiciously choose to cancel the extra divergences. Hence, from
\begin{equation}
\langle a_{S,\cal R}^i\; s_j\rangle_{\rm c.t.}(\vec k) = \frac{3}{2} \mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m l_{\Phi_S,\rm c.t.}^2(\Lambda) (ik^i) (ik^l) C^{(11)}_{lj}(k) = -\frac{3}{2} \mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m l_{\Phi_S,\rm c.t.}^2(\Lambda) k^2 C^{(11)}_{ij}(k)\ ,
\end{equation}
we can choose
\begin{equation}
l_{\Phi_S,\rm c.t.}^2(\Lambda,\eta) = \left(\frac{13}{15}+\frac{2}{7}\right)~ l_\Lambda^2(\Lambda,\eta) = \frac{121}{105}l_\Lambda^2(\Lambda,\eta)\ ,
\end{equation}
where we reinstalled the time-dependence in the arguments for clarity sake. In this way, both
the correlation for the displacement and the quadrupole of large Lagrangian regions are made finite.
\subsection{Combined parameters}\label{sec:comb}
We have seen that all the parameters in LEFT, such as $l_S,\,l_{T},\,l_{TF},l_{\Phi_S},\ldots$ can be obtained through a detailed matching procedure, that includes for instance measuring the quadrupole moment of a region in Lagrangian space and the power spectrum of the displacement fields. However, if one is solely interested in calculating some specific correlation functions, for example the correlation function of the displacement field or of the density field, then some of these parameters will enter in different linear combinations, unless the fields are connected by a conservation law. Hence, for the correlation of the density and the displacement fields, which are not connected by a conservation law, we expect that only two parameters are necessary~\footnote{The same situation occurs in the Eulerian EFT up to two-loops~\cite{Carrasco:2013mua}. If one is interested in correlation functions of the density field, only one parameter is necessary. The same parameter enters in the computation of correlations involving the momentum field, since these two fields are connected by matter conservation. However, if one is interested also in velocity correlations, since the velocity field is a composite operator in the Eulerian EFT, it requires a different parameter \cite{Mercolli,Carrasco:2013mua}.}.
Let us obtain an equation directly for $\vec s(\vec q,\eta)$. Since at this order $\vec s_{\perp}$ can be neglected, we can actually work directly with the scalar quantity $\theta(\vec q,\eta) = \vec \partial_q\cdot \vec s(\vec q,\eta)$. We have, using \eqref{eqmotion1}, \eqref{equation2}, \eqref{eq:quadr_response} and \eqref{ashortresp},
\begin{eqnarray}
\ddot \theta(\vec q,\eta) + \mathcal{H} \dot\theta(\vec q,\eta) &=& -\partial_x^2\Phi - \frac{l_S^2}{6}\partial_x^4\Phi + \frac{3}{2} \mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m l_{\Phi_S}^2~ \partial^2_q \theta(\vec q,\eta)+\ldots\\
\partial^2_x\Phi &=& -\frac{3}{2}\mathcal{H}^2\Omega_m \left( \theta(\vec q,\eta) + \frac{1}{6} (l_S^2 + l_T^2 + 2l_{TF}^2) \partial_q^2 \theta(\vec q,\eta) +\ldots \right)\label{poisdel}\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
from which we derive
\begin{eqnarray}
\ddot \theta(\vec q,\eta) + \mathcal{H}\dot \theta(\vec q,\eta) -\frac{3}{2}\mathcal{H}^2\Omega_m \theta(\vec q,\eta) &=& \frac{3}{2}\mathcal{H}^2\Omega_m \frac{1}{6}\left( l_T^2 + 2 l_{TF}^2 +2l_S^2+ 6l_{\Phi_S}^2\right) \partial_q^2 \theta(\vec q,\eta) +\ldots \nonumber \\ \label{thetaeq}
&\equiv& \frac{3}{2}\mathcal{H}^2\Omega_m l^2_{s,\rm comb}\partial_q^2 \theta(\vec q,\eta) +\ldots\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we defined
\begin{equation}
l^2_{s,\rm comb} \equiv \frac{1}{6}\left( l_T^2 + 2 l_{TF}^2 +2l_S^2+ 6l_{\Phi_S}^2\right)\ .
\end{equation}
To arrive to these expressions we used \begin{equation} \delta_n(\vec x,\eta) = - \theta(\vec q,\eta)+ \ldots,\label{delft}\end{equation} and the ellipses include higher-order terms in the expansion between density and displacement and the relation between $\vec x$ and $\vec q$ derivatives, as well as higher dimensional operators from the new terms in LEFT.
From the one-loop result for the correlation of the displacement we know that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:31lpt}
\langle \theta^{(1)}\theta^{(3)}\rangle' = k^i k^j C^{(13)}_{ij}(k) = \frac{5}{21} R_1(k) \quad\substack{\longrightarrow \\ {\tiny UV}}\quad \frac{5}{21} R^{UV}_1(k) = \frac{8}{63} l_\Lambda^2 (k^2 P_L(k))\ ,
\end{equation}
which we can be regularized with a proper choice of the counter-term $l^{\rm c.t.}_{s, \rm comb}$. To obtain the contribution proportional to $l^{\rm c.t.}_{s, \rm comb}$, we will solve the equation in \eqref{thetaeq} using the Green's function for an Einstein-de Sitter universe,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&G(a,a')=-\frac{2}{5}\frac{1}{{\cal H}^2 a} \left[\frac{a}{a'}-\left(\frac{a}{a'}\right)^{-3/2}\right]\ ,
\\ \nonumber
&&\qquad \Rightarrow\quad\int d a^\prime G(a,a^\prime) (a^\prime)^n = \frac{a^n}{n(n+5/2)\mathcal{H}^2},~{\rm where}~~~\mathcal{H} = 2/\eta,~\Omega_m=1,~ a/a_0 = \eta^2/\eta_0^2 \ .
\end{eqnarray}
The time dependence of the counter term must match the one of~\eqref{eq:31lpt}, which is $D(a)^4$, where $D(a)$ is the growth factor. Since the counter-term is evaluated at linear order, we need
\begin{equation}
l^{\rm c.t.}_{s, \rm comb}(\Lambda,\eta) \propto l_\Lambda(\Lambda,\eta) \propto D^2(\eta) = \frac{a^2}{a_0^2}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $a_0$ is the present day scale factor, that we often set to be equal to $a_0=1$.
Then, writing $l^{\rm c.t.}_{s, \rm comb}(\Lambda,\eta) = l^{\rm c.t.}_{s, \rm comb}(\Lambda,\eta_0) a^2(\eta)/a_0^2$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\theta_{\rm c.t.}(\vec q,a) = \frac{1}{6} l^{\rm c.t.}_{s, \rm comb}(\Lambda,\eta_0){}^2 \,\frac{a^2}{a_0^2}\,\partial^2 \theta^{(1)}(\vec q,a)\ ,
\end{equation}
where we used $\theta^{(1)} \propto a(\eta)$. From here,
\begin{equation}
\langle \theta^{(1)} \theta_{\rm c.t.}\rangle =- \frac{1}{6}l^{\rm c.t.}_{s, \rm comb}(\Lambda,\eta_0){}^2\; k^2 P_L(k) \;a(\eta)^4\ .
\end{equation}
Therefore, we can cancel the divergence by taking
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lscomb}
\frac{1}{6}l^{\rm c.t.}_{s, \rm comb}(\Lambda,\eta_0){}^2 = \frac{1}{36}\left( l_T(\Lambda,\eta_0)^2 + 2 l_{TF}(\Lambda,\eta_0)^2 +2l_S(\Lambda,\eta_0)^2+ 6l_{\Phi_S}(\Lambda,\eta_0)^2\right)_{\rm c.t.} =\frac{8}{63} l_\Lambda^2\ .
\end{equation}
Notice that in the former sections \ref{sec:quad} and \ref{sec:displacement} we had already derived all the parameters $l_S,\,l_{T},\,l_{TF},l_{\Phi_S}$ that were needed to regularize not only $\vec s$, but also the quadrupole of Lagrangian regions. We can easily check that, by using the values for $l_S,\,l_{T},\,l_{TF},l_{\Phi_S}$ found in the former subsection, we find the same number for $l^{\rm c.t.}_{s, \rm comb}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{1}{36}\left( l_T(\Lambda,\eta_0)^2 + 2 l_{TF}(\Lambda,\eta_0)^2 +2l_S(\Lambda,\eta_0)^2+ 6l_{\Phi_S}(\Lambda,\eta_0)^2\right)_{\rm c.t.}= \\ \nonumber
&&\qquad \frac{1}{36}\left(-2-\frac{4}{7} + \frac{8}{35} -6\times \frac{121}{105} \right) l_\Lambda^2 =\frac{8}{63} l_\Lambda^2\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
as expected. Therefore, as long as we are interested in correlations of the displacement, we only need one parameter to make predictions at one-loop: $l_{s,\rm comb}$, which can be derived directly by matching to observations of the displacement field, or alternatively by obtaining $l_S,\,l_{T},\,l_{TF},l_{\Phi_S}$ independently, which carry additional information.
If we are furthermore interested in correlations of the matter density, $\delta_m$, which is defined through~\eqref{equation2}: $\delta_m \propto \partial_x^2\Phi$, it is clear that we encounter a new combined parameter. In fact, as it is well known, from \eqref{eq:delta_LPT_fourier}, the matter density correlation function and the power spectrum can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{densityre}
&&1+\langle\delta_{m,L}(\vec x_1,\eta_1)\,\delta_{m,L}(\vec x_2,\eta_2)\rangle = \int d^3 q~ \int_k e^{-i\vec k\cdot (\vec q - \vec r)} \left\langle e^{-i\, \vec k\cdot (\vec s(\vec q,\eta_2)-\vec s(\vec 0,\eta_1))}\right\rangle\ ,\\ \nonumber
&&\quad\Rightarrow \quad \langle\delta_{m,L}(k,\eta_1)\delta_{m,L}(k,\eta_2)\rangle'=\int d^3 q\; e^{-\vec k\cdot \vec q} \left\langle e^{-i\, \vec k\cdot (\vec s(\vec q,\eta_2)-\vec s(\vec 0,\eta_1))}\right\rangle\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\vec q = \vec q_2 - \vec q_1$ and $\vec r=|\vec x_2-\vec x_1|$. Due to the homogeneity, the average only depends on the separation. On the other hand, using \eqref{dmkspa}, in LEFT the above equation is modified to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:LEFT_corre}
&&1+\langle\delta_{m,L}(\vec x_1,\eta_1)\,\delta_{m,L}(\vec x_2,\eta_2)\rangle =\\ \nonumber
&&\qquad\qquad \int d^3 q~ \int_k e^{-i\,\vec k\cdot (\vec q - \vec r)} \left\langle e^{-i\, \vec k\cdot (\vec s_L(\vec q,\eta_2)-\vec s_L(\vec 0,\eta_1))-\frac{1}{2}k^i k^j (Q^c_{ij}(\vec q_1,\eta_1) + Q^c_{ij}(\vec q_2,\eta_2))+\ldots}\right\rangle\ , \\ \nonumber
&&\quad\Rightarrow \quad \langle\delta_{m,L}(k,\eta_1)\delta_{m,L}(k,\eta_2)\rangle'=\int d^3 q\; e^{-\vec k\cdot \vec q} \left\langle e^{-i\, \vec k\cdot (\vec s(\vec q,\eta_2)-\vec s(\vec 0,\eta_1))-\frac{1}{2}k^i k^j (Q^c_{ij}(\vec q_1,\eta_1) + Q^c_{ij}(\vec q_2,\eta_2))+\ldots}\right\rangle\, .
\end{eqnarray}
By Taylor expanding the exponential in $\vec s$, straightforward algebra shows that in the equal-time matter power spectrum the counter-terms combine as
\begin{equation}
P_{\delta_m\delta_m}(k)\supset - \frac{1}{3}l_{\delta_m,\rm comb}(\Lambda,\eta_0){}^2 k^2 P_L(k)
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
l_{\delta_m,\rm comb}(\Lambda,\eta_0){}^2 \equiv l_{s,\rm comb}(\Lambda,\eta_0){}^2 + l_S(\Lambda,\eta_0)^2 +l_T(\Lambda,\eta_0)^2+2 l_{TF}(\Lambda,\eta_0)^2\ .
\end{equation}
This could have been equally derived by inspection of \eqref{equation2}, keeping in mind that the counter-terms need to be evaluated at linear level. Using the definition of $l_{\delta_m,\rm comb}$ above one can easily show the divergences in $\langle \delta_m \delta_m\rangle$ are also regularized by our previous choices.
Notice that in the limit that all correlation functions are evaluated after the fluctuating fields and counter-terms are brought down from the exponential, there is no difference between LEFT and the Eulerian counterpart. This means that, working in this approximation, one can simply replace $l_{\delta_m,\rm comb}(\Lambda,\eta_0)$ with the analogous parameter called $c_{s,\rm comb}$
in the Eulerian EFT~\cite{Carrasco:2012cv,Carrasco:2013mua}, without the need of a new independent fit. The relation between the two is simply found by matching the form of the power spectra~\footnote{For example in the notation of ~\cite{Carrasco:2013mua}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:l_comb_delta}
l_{\delta_m,\rm comb}(\Lambda,\eta_0){}^2= 2\pi\; c_{s}^2\cdot \frac{1}{k_{\rm NL}^2}\ .
\end{equation}
Furthermore $c_{s}^2$ is sometimes referred to as $c_{\rm counter}$~. Both $c_{s}$ and $c_{\rm counter}$ are dimensionless.}.
Of course, one might wonder if one can compute the correlation functions in \eqref{eq:LEFT_corre} {\it without} Taylor expanding in $\vec s$. It is in this regime that LEFT becomes extremely useful. We discuss this next.
\section{Resummed correlation function}\label{resum}
As we mentioned above, in LPT the matter density correlation function in real space can be written as~\cite{Matsubara2}:
\begin{equation}
\label{densityre2}
1+\xi(\vec r) = \int d^3 q~ \int_ke^{-i\vec k\cdot (\vec q - \vec r)} \left\langle e^{i\, \vec k\cdot (\vec s(\vec q,\eta)-\vec s(\vec 0,\eta))}\right\rangle\ ,
\end{equation}
where we defined the equal time matter correlation function as
\begin{equation}
\xi(\vec r)=\langle\delta_{m,L}(\vec x_1,\eta_1)\,\delta_{m,L}(\vec x_2,\eta_2)\rangle\ ,
\end{equation}
with $\vec r=\vec x_2-\vec x_1$. This expression can be evaluated as follows (following the notation in \cite{Carlson:2012bu}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{kcumua}
1+\xi(\vec r) &=& \int d^3 q~ \int_k e^{-i\vec k\cdot (\vec q - \vec r)} K(\vec q,\vec k) \ , \nonumber \\
K(\vec q,\vec k)&\equiv& \langle e^{i\, \vec k \cdot \Delta \vec s}\rangle = {\rm exp}\left[\sum_n\frac{i^n}{n!} k_{i_1} \ldots k_{i_n} \langle \Delta s^{i_1} \ldots \Delta s^{i_n}\rangle_c\right]\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta \vec s \equiv \vec s(\vec q,\eta)-\vec s(\vec 0,\eta)$, and $\langle \Delta s^{i_1} \ldots \Delta s^{i_n}\rangle_c$ are the connected moments or cummulants. Given that we are interested in a one-loop calculation we only need up to the third moment. Hence, \eqref{kcumua} becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{logk}
\log K = -\frac{1}{2} A_{ij}(\vec q) k^i k^j - \frac{i}{6} W_{ijl}(\vec q) k^i k^j k^l + \ldots\ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A^{ij}(\vec q) &\equiv& \langle \Delta s^i \Delta s^j \rangle_c\ , \\
W^{ijl}(\vec q) &\equiv& \langle \Delta s^i \Delta s^j \Delta s^l \rangle_c\ .
\end{eqnarray}
These expressions involve products of fields at the same point and thus can lead to divergencies. Moreover in general they need to be renormalized even if they are finite. In LEFT, the expression for the correlation function reads:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{kcumuleft}
1+\xi_L(\vec r) &=& \int d^3 q~ \int_ke^{-i\,\vec k\cdot (\vec q - \vec r)} \left\langle e^{i\, \vec k\cdot (\vec s_L(\vec q,\eta)-\vec s_L(\vec 0,\eta))-\frac{1}{2}k^i k^j (Q^c_{ij}(\vec q_1,\eta) + Q^c_{ij}(\vec q_2,\eta))+\ldots}\right\rangle\ , \nonumber \\
&=& \int d^3 q~ \int_k e^{-i\vec k\cdot (\vec q - \vec r)} \,K_L(\vec q,\vec k)\ .
\end{eqnarray}
Keeping up to the third moment, $K_L$ reads:
\begin{equation}
\label{logkL}
\log K_L = -\frac{1}{2} A_L^{ij}(\vec q) k_i k_j - \frac{i}{6} W_L^{ijl}(\vec q) k_i k_j k_l + \ldots\ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A_L^{ij}(\vec q) &\equiv& \langle \Delta s^i \Delta s^j \rangle_c + 2 \langle Q^{ij}\rangle_S\ , \\
W_L^{ijl}(\vec q) &\equiv& \langle \Delta s^i \Delta s^j \Delta s^l \rangle_c + \Delta \langle s^i Q^{jk}_{\cal R} \rangle + \Delta \langle s^j Q^{ik}_{\cal R} \rangle + \Delta \langle s^k Q^{ij}_{\cal R} \rangle\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \Delta \langle s^i Q^{jk}_{\cal R} \rangle = \langle s^i(q) Q^{jk}_{\cal R}(0) \rangle - \langle s^i(0) Q^{jk}_{\cal R}(q) \rangle$.
By construction the one-loop order divergences that appear in these expressions have been regularized because they involve either the two point function of the displacement or correlations involving the quadrupole that we regularized using $l_{TF}^2,\,l_{T}^2, l_S^2$ in section \ref{sec:oneloop}. This is exactly why we regularized the quadrupole in an explicit way.
The correlations between composite operators involving powers of the displacement at the same point are regularized and renormalized by the multipole moments which appear in the expression for the density in LEFT. One could also take the point of view that the dynamical equations, the formula for the density, etc., are left as in LPT but each composite operator that appears needs to be properly renormalized, a fact that introduces new renormalization parameters. We think discussing LEFT as describing the dynamics of extended objects is more intuitive but both points of view are equivalent.
Formulas such as (\ref{kcumuleft}) depend on the exponential of connected moments. At least naively these formulas should not be trusted in the sense that by keeping those terms in the exponent one is keeping contributions that should be subleading relative to terms that have been dropped. In our case for example we stopped at the third moment but higher powers of these contributions coming from the exponentiation we are implicitly keeping are subleading with respect to the forth order and higher moments we are neglecting.
Two comments are in order. Of course, there is no problem in keeping subleading terms as long as they are not anomalously large, and as long as one is aware of it and properly quantifies the uncertainty in the calculation by estimating the size of the terms that have been neglected. In this case, the subleading contributions being kept would be small compared to this theoretical error bars and thus would not be trusted automatically. One may be keeping the terms for computational simplicity but only trusting the result where appropriate.
There is however a sense in which the terms being kept do add additional information and this is what we want to discuss next. This is related to the fact that there is more than one parameter that sets the relative sizes of the various terms in the perturbative series. Keeping terms in the exponential consistently sums some of the biggest corrections, and thus it provides a better estimate of the correlation function, even after appropriately estimating the errors from the terms that are being missed. Even more generally, it is justified to sum up some contributions when they are parametrical distinguished from the others. Of course, this is particularly useful when those contributions are the larger ones. This situation is most striking for non-power law initial spectra, and further enhanced in our universe by the presence of the BAO peak in the correlation function. Thus, in a sense, this discussion is outside the scope of this paper. We include it because it provided the motivation for us to develop the EFT in Lagrangian space in the first place. We will present the application of LEFT to our universe in a separate paper, where the discussion summarized here will have more concrete consequences for the results.
\subsection{Expansion parameters of perturbation theory}
The first point in the argument is to explicitly remind the reader that there are terms of various different sizes at a fixed order in SPT (See Fig. \ref{epsilons}). It is pedagogically more transparent to show the results of SPT in real space. We will follow the notation of \cite{Sherwin:2012nh}.
The standard perturbative solution for $\delta$ reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta({\bf x}) &=& \delta^{(1)}(\vec x)+ \delta^{(2)}(\vec x) + \delta^{(3)}(\vec x) + \cdots \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where up to the second order term is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{delta2}
\delta^{(2)}({\bf x})&=&d_i^{(1)} \partial_i \delta^{(1)}+ {17\over 21} \left(\delta^{(1)}\right)^2 + \frac{2}{7} K_{ij}^{(1)} K_{ij}^{(1)}\ , \nonumber \\
d_i^{(1)}({\bf x})& =& - \int {d^3 k \over (2\pi)^3} {i k_i \over k^2} \, \delta^{(1)}(\vec k)\, e^{i \vec k\cdot\vec x} \nonumber\ , \\
K_{ij}^{(1)}({\bf x})& =& \int {d^3 k \over (2\pi)^3} \left({ k_i k_j\over k^2}-{1 \over 3}\delta_{ij}\right) \delta^{(1)}(\vec k) \, e^{i \vec k\cdot\vec x}\ .
\end{eqnarray}
We are interested in understanding the effect of a long wavelength mode on a short fluctuation. We can use this equation to notice an important point: there are two types of terms in this expression which could have very different sizes. The second two terms in the expression of $\delta^{(2)}$ are down with respect to the linear field by a factor of $\delta^{(1)}$. The first term is quite different, as it involved the displacement produced by the long mode and a gradient acting on the short mode. If this first term is the dominant one, related higher order terms can be resummed easily.
The expression for $\delta^{(3)}$ is complicated and given in the appendix of \cite{Sherwin:2012nh}. The important point here is that if one neglects effects proportional to the density contrast produced by the long mode then one simply has $\delta^{(3)} = \tfrac{1}{2}\, d_i^{(1)} d_j^{(1)}\, \partial_i\partial_j \delta^{(1)} + \cdots\,$.
In other words, if we keep the terms from the displacement only, we obtain:
\begin{equation}
\label{shifted}
\delta({\bf x})=\delta^{(1)}+d_k^{(1)} \partial_k \delta^{(1)}+ {1\over 2} d_k^{(1)} d_l^{(1)} \partial_k\partial_l\delta^{(1)} + \cdots = \delta^{(1)}(\vec x + \vec{d} )\ .
\end{equation}
It is this shift that is responsible for the majority of the smearing seen in the BAO peak of the correlation function, and thus, when properly modeled, leads to remarkable agreement between model and simulation (see for example \cite{Sherwin:2012nh}). Although the analysis of the BAO feature is beyond the scope of this paper, we present a simple toy model to illustrate our point in Appendix~\ref{toymodel}.
We can connect with the previous sections of the paper by noticing that the relation between our Lagrangian displacements and the number density field is \eqref{mapqx}, that we repeat here for convenince:
\beqa
\label{mapqx2}
1+\delta({\vec x},\eta)&=& \int d^3{\vec q}~\delta^3( {\vec x} - {\vec z}({\vec q},\eta)) \nonumber \\
&=& \left[{\rm det} \left(\tfrac{\partial z^i}{\partial q^j}\right)\right]^{-1} =\left[{\rm det} \left(1+\tfrac{\partial s^i}{\partial q^j}\right)\right]^{-1},
\end{eqnarray}
where the second line is evaluated at the solution of ${\vec z}({\vec q},\eta)=\vec x$, or equivalently ${\vec q}= \vec x - \vec s(\vec q)$.
There are various non linear terms in this equation: one can expand the determinant to higher powers in ${\partial s^i}/{\partial q^j}$, one can consider higher order solutions of $\vec{s}$, terms like ${\partial s^{(2)i}}/{\partial q^j}$, and finally one has the effects from the coordinate transformation
${\partial s^i}/{\partial [q^j}(\vec x -\vec s)] = {\partial s^i}/{\partial q^j} + s^l {\partial^2 s^i}/{\partial q^j\partial q^l} + \cdots$.
These last ones are the terms we are focusing on in this section.
\subsection{Higher order terms in the displacement}
The terms that involve only higher order powers of the displacement are easy to get in general, so if these are the most relevant ones, one can include higher powers of them with full theoretical control. Let us imagine that, for some range of modes, we only care about the terms that involve the displacement they produce, rather than terms proportional to their density contrast. In this case, we are considering a gravitational potential that is approximately linear over the region of interest, as we are neglecting the second derivatives of the potential produced by those modes (which is proportional to the density). As a result of the equivalence principle, a linear potential can be removed by a coordinate transformation (see for example~\cite{Carrasco:2013sva} where this fact is used to explain why the equal-time matter power spectrum is unaffected by IR modes if $n>-3$; and \cite{Creminelli:2013mca} (see also \cite{Riotto,Peloso:2013zw,Creminelli:2013poa,Kehagias:2013rpa}) where this fact is used to obtain ``consistency conditions" for higher order correlation functions in LSS). This means that, to this level of accuracy, the modes only enter through the coordinate transformation in equation (\ref{shifted}), and not in the higher order terms such as ${\partial s^{(2)i}}/{\partial q^j}$. The coordinate transformation is automatic in Lagrangian space, the only thing we need to do is add the displacement $\vec s$ produced by the relevant modes.
If we want this approximation to be useful, it needs to be the case that the displacement is dominated by large scales, contrary to what happens for the density, which is dominated by the small scales for $n>-3$. Under these conditions, one can be in a regime in which a large part of the displacement is produced by modes that induce very small density fluctuations and tides, and thus have small dynamical effects. This is the case for our universe, an in general if $n<-1$. This also makes the displacement UV finite. Note that for power law initial conditions with $n<-1$, the displacement is IR divergent, and thus results in large corrections in unequal time correlation functions. Being able to understand and resum their contributions seems therefore crucial.
In our universe, the presence of the BAO peak in the correlation function also makes these terms even more important. In fact, if we want to compare the effect of the displacement to the density, we need to remind ourselves that, if we keep a displacement, then the term must have a derivative acting on the correlation function, as each displacement always comes with a derivative (see for example equation (\ref{delta2})). So, for example, to asses the relevance of the terms with the displacement relative to those containing higher powers of the density, we need to compare $\delta_L^2\, \xi$ with $d_L^2\, \nabla^2 \xi$, where $\delta_L$ and $d_L$ are the density contrast and displacement produced by the long mode. In our universe, because of the BAO and the shape of the power spectrum, the displacement term is much larger. The toy model in appendix~\ref{toymodel} makes this point in more detail. Thus in our universe it makes sense to try to keep more terms related to the change of coordinates.
If we neglect the density contrast produced by the long modes, they do not affect the moments of the displacement produced by the short modes. For example by treating the long modes as Gaussian variables and keeping them in the exponential, we are including correctly all the higher order terms involving only the displacement, but we are not treating consistently higher order terms involving the density contrast they produce. Thus, the only benefit of keeping terms in the exponential is that we are adding all the terms with higher powers of the displacement consistently, but we are not gaining anything from higher order terms involving more powers of the density. Those terms can be either brought down or kept in the exponential, provided we are aware that their associated higher order contributions are of the same size of terms neglected, and thus are smaller than the theoretical error bars. We are also making a mistake in the size of the displacements if we just compute them at some fixed order, say linear order. To the extent the modes that dominate the displacement are large modes, their non-linear corrections are small. But this needs to be taken into account when estimating the errors.
Let us add a final comment on the number of unknown coefficients that are needed at a given order. As we showed in section~\ref{sec:comb}, if we put all terms in the exponents in \eqref{kcumuleft} downstairs, all the unknown parameters associated to the multipoles combine so that, in the one-loop calculation of the matter power spectrum, only one unknown parameter is necessary to renormalize the theory: the $l_{\delta_m,\rm comb}$ of \eqref{eq:l_comb_delta}. If instead we were to keep the multipoles upstairs in the exponential in \eqref{kcumuleft}, then the parameters would not combine in one, and we would need several parameters to renormalize the one-loop calculation. This is a consistent conclusion. However, we have seen in this discussion, the point of keeping the terms in the exponent is to resum the contribution from the displacements due to infrared modes. The role of the counter-terms is instead to consistently include the effect of the short distance physics, for which keeping terms upstairs in the exponential is irrelevant. A mixed approach therefore emerges. For a scaling universe, one could keep in the exponent only the terms that involve the counter-terms and that have the role of cancelling the divergent parts, so that the result is cutoff independent. One could instead bring downstairs the terms that involve the finite coefficients of the multipoles. At this point the finite terms will combine into only one coefficient. For the true universe, as we will discuss explicitly in a subsequent paper, a similar approach is expected to work.
In summary: working in Lagrangian space makes adding higher order terms involving the displacement straightforward. We are only keeping terms in the exponential to sum these displacement terms. This is only useful for large modes whose dynamical effects are small. Thus the displacement needs to be dominated by the IR modes. Furthermore, it is the presence of the BAO peak that makes this even more useful, enhancing the size of the derivatives of the correlation function.
\section{Effective action approach}\label{sec:action}
In this section we will re-derive our previous results using an effective action approach. This will allow us to set up a formalism which can be readily extended to go beyond the Newtonian approximation, as well as to simply include other types of matter and interactions, such as baryons. It also allows, in principle, to quantize the system in a simple way, something that is hardly of relevance in our context. Finally, having at our disposal an action, some of the procedures for regularizing and renormalizing the correlation functions may become simpler. The formalism used in this section bears a close resemblance with the approach introduced to study gravitationally bound extended objects \cite{nrgr1,nrgr2,nrgr3,disip1,disip2}, albeit in the continuum limit and in a non-relativistic setting.
\subsection{Dark matter point particles \& Newtonian limit}
As before we consider a set of point-like dark matter particles interacting gravitationally in an FLRW background, with the universe dominated by dark matter and a cosmological constant. The action reads
\begin{equation}
\label{stot}
S_{\rm tot} =\int d^3{\vec x}d\eta\sqrt{-g}\;\left[-\frac{1}{16\pi G}R+\Lambda \right]+S_{\rm pp}^{\rm DM},
\end{equation}
with $S_{\rm pp}^{\rm DM}$ given by
\begin{equation}
S_{\rm pp}^{\rm DM}= -\sum_A m_A \int d^3{\vec x} d\eta_A ~\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec z}_A(\eta_A)) \sqrt{-g_{\mu\nu}({\vec x},\eta)\dot z^\mu_A(\eta_A) \dot z^\nu_A(\eta_A)} \ .
\end{equation}
In this expression $z^\mu_A(\eta_A)$ represents the worldline co-moving coordinates for the $A$-particle, and dots are taken with respect to $\eta$. In what follows, since we are interested in the dynamics around an FLRW background, we will set coordinates where $z^0\equiv \eta(t)$, and $\eta_A = \eta$ for all particles.
We now to take the continuum limit over the index $a$, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\sum_A m_A \to \int \tilde\rho_{in}({\vec q})\;a_{in}^3 ~d^3{\vec q}\ .
\end{equation}
$\tilde\rho_{in}({\vec q})$ represents the mass density per unit $d^3{\vec q}$ cell, at some initial time $\eta_{in}$, when the scale factor is $a(\eta_{in})=a_{in}$. By properly choosing the initial displacement ${\vec z}({\vec q},\eta_{in})$, we can always take
\begin{equation}
\label{rhoq}
\tilde\rho_{in}({\vec q})=\bar\rho_m(\eta_{in})=\left(\frac{3}{8\pi G} { H}^2 \Omega_m\right)_{\eta=\eta_{in}},
\end{equation}
namely, we can take $\tilde\rho_{in}({\vec q})$ to be equal to the homogeneous dark matter component at time $\eta_{in}$. We will take the limit of $\eta_{in} \to 0$. Hence we re-write this action as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&S_{\rm pp}^{\rm DM}= -\int d^3{\vec x} d^3{\vec q} d\eta\;\bar\rho_m(\eta_{in})\;a_{in}^3 \; \delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec z}({\vec q},\eta))\; \sqrt{-g_{\mu\nu}({\vec x},\eta)\dot z^\mu({\vec q},\eta) \dot z^\nu({\vec q},\eta)} \nonumber \\
&&\qquad=-\int d^3{\vec x} d^3{\vec q} d\eta\;\bar\rho_m(\eta)\;a(\eta)^3 \delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec z}({\vec q},\eta))\; \sqrt{-g_{\mu\nu}({\vec x},\eta)\dot z^\mu({\vec q},\eta) \dot z^\nu({\vec q},\eta)}, \label{actiondm}
\end{eqnarray}
where in the second passage we have used how the background density redshifts as $\bar\rho_m(\eta_{in})\;a^3(\eta_{in})=\bar\rho_m(\eta)\;a^3(\eta)$. The unperturbed solution is given by a static map (in co-moving coordinates) $\bar { z}^i= {q}^i$, which corresponds to the FLRW background
\begin{equation}
\bar g_{\mu \nu} dx^\mu d x^\nu = a^2(\eta)\left(-d\eta^2 + d{\vec x}^2\right).
\end{equation}
We are interested on the dynamics of the dark matter particles on scales much shorter then Hubble, where the non-relativistic approximation is well justified. Therefore consider the FLRW Newtonian gauge,
\begin{equation}
ds^2=a^2\left[-(1+2\Phi) d\eta^2+(1-2\Psi)dx^2\right]\ ,
\end{equation}
to leading order in $\Phi, \Psi$. Moreover, we will work in the Newtonian approximation: $\tfrac{1}{a(\eta)}\partial_\eta { z^i(q,\eta)}\ll 1$ and $ \partial_i \gg \partial_t \sim H$. In this limit the matter action (\ref{actiondm}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{action2}
&&S_{\rm pp}^{\rm DM}= \int d^3{\vec x} d^3{\vec q} d\eta\;\bar\rho_m(\eta)\;a^4 \; \delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec z}({\vec q},\eta))\; \left(-1+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d{z^i}({\vec q},\eta)}{d\eta}\right)^2-\Phi({\vec x},\eta)\right) \ .
\end{eqnarray}
The terms in the action that are linear in the metric fluctuations lead to the background equations, whose solutions is
\begin{equation}
H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\left[\Lambda+\bar \rho_{m}(\eta)\right]\ , \qquad \frac{d H}{dt }=-\frac{8\pi G}{3}\bar\rho_{m}(\eta).
\end{equation}
The above results suggest the following manipulations. Let us first introduce the mass density per unit $q$-cell:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde\rho({\vec z}({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x})&\equiv&\bar\rho_{m}(\eta) ~\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec z}({\vec q},\eta))\ ,\\
\delta\tilde\rho({\vec z}({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x}) &\equiv& \tilde\rho({\vec z}({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x}) -\bar\rho_{m}(\eta)\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec q})=\bar\rho_m(\eta)\left[\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec z}({\vec q},\eta))-\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec q})\right]\ .
\end{eqnarray}
We can then add and subtract to the action the term
\begin{equation}
\int d^3{\vec x}d\eta \;a(\eta)^4\, \bar\rho_{m}(\eta) \Phi({\vec x},\eta)=\int d^3{\vec x}d^3{\vec q}d\eta\; a(\eta)^4\, \bar\rho_{m}(\eta) \delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec q}) \Phi({\vec x},\eta)\ .
\end{equation}
One of them will cancel the tadpole contribution in the Einstein-Hilbert action, while the other will combine with $\rho({\vec z}({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x}) \Phi({\vec x},\eta)$ to form $\delta\rho({\vec z}({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x}) \Phi({\vec x},\eta)$. We are thus finally led to
\begin{equation}
\label{action3}
S_{\rm tot}= \int a^4 d \eta \int d^3{\vec x} d^3{\vec q} \left\{\frac{1}{2}\, \tilde\rho ({\vec z}({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x})\left[-1+\left(\frac{d{\vec z}({\vec q},\eta)}{d\eta}\right)^2\right] -\delta\tilde\rho({\vec z}({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x})\, \Phi({\vec x},\eta)\right\} + S_{EH}^{(2)}\ .
\end{equation}
The term $S_{EH}^{(2)}$ is the quadratic part of Einstein-Hilbert action. In the Newtonian limit, after solving the constraint equation that gives $\Psi= \Phi$ and plugging this back into the action, it takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{EHnewt}
S_{EH}^{(2)}=-\frac{1}{8\pi G}\int d^3x d\eta\; a^4 \frac{1}{a^2}\partial_i\Phi\partial_i\Phi \ .
\end{equation}
We have now managed to write an action directly for the fluctuations, which, as it should be, has no tadpole terms.
Varying the action as usual we obtain Einstein's equation,
\begin{equation}
\ \frac{\partial^2}{a^2}\Phi=4\pi G \int d^3{\vec q}\;\delta\tilde\rho({\vec z}({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x})\ ,
\end{equation}
which can be written as
\begin{equation}
\partial^2\Phi(x)=4\pi G a^2~\delta\rho(x)=\frac{3}{2}{\cal H}^2(\eta)\Omega_m(\eta) \delta(x)\ ,
\end{equation}
where, as usual, ${\cal H}=a H$, and where we have defined
\begin{equation}
\delta\rho(x)\equiv\int d^3{\vec q}\;\delta\tilde\rho({\vec z}({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x})\ ,\quad \delta({\vec x},\eta)=\frac{\delta\rho({\vec x},\eta)}{\bar\rho_m(\eta)}\ .
\end{equation}
On the other hand, for the equation of motion of the particle's trajectory, we have
\begin{equation}
\int d^3 x\left[ \frac{d}{d\eta}\left(a^4 \bar\rho_{m}(\eta) \delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec z}({\vec q},\eta)) \frac{d{ z^i}({\vec q},\eta)}{d\eta} \right)+ a^4 \bar\rho_{m}(\eta) \delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec z}({\vec q},\eta)) \frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial x^i}\right]=0\ ,
\end{equation}
where we used that $\partial_{\vec q}\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec q})=-\partial_{\vec x}\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec q})$, and we have integrated the $x$-derivative by parts. Performing the $d^3x$-integral, we finally obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2 {z^i}({\vec q},\eta)}{d \eta^2} +{\cal H}\frac{d{ z^i}({\vec q},\eta)}{d\eta} = -\left. \partial_i \Phi\right|_{{\vec x}={\vec z}({\vec q},\eta)}\
\end{equation}
These equations are the traditional ones obtained in the literature, now derived from an action principle. Next we construct an effective action where we separate the short and long distance modes in \eqref{stot} in a derivative expansion.
\subsection{The effective action for the long-distance universe}
In this section we construct an EFT description of the long-distance universe after integrating out the short modes. Using the symmetries of the problem we can write an effective action where the dynamics of the short distance degrees of freedom is integrated out. This action will be a generalization of \eqref{actiondm}, and takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{effact1}
S_{\rm LEFT} &=& S_{L}^{\rm DM} - \int a^3 d\eta \int d^3{\vec q} d^3{\vec x}~ \tilde\rho_L({\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x}) \left\{\frac{1}{2} {\dot z}_L^\mu \omega_\mu^{ab}(\vec x,\eta) L^{ab}({\vec q},\eta) + \tfrac{1}{2}Q^{ab}_{E}({\vec q},\eta) E_{ab}(\vec x,\eta) \right. \nonumber \\ &+& \tfrac{1}{2} J^{ab}_{B}({\vec q},\eta) B_{ab}(\vec x,\eta)+ \frac{1}{6} Q^{abc}(\vec q,\eta) \nabla_c E_{ab}(\vec x,\eta) + \frac{1}{2} J^{abc}(\vec q,\eta) \nabla_c B_{ab}(\vec x,\eta) + \ldots \nonumber\\
&+& \left. P^a({\vec q},\eta) R_{a\mu}(\vec x,\eta) {\dot z}_L^\mu(\vec q,\eta)+C({\vec q},\eta) R(\vec x,\eta) + C_V({\vec q},\eta) R_{\mu\nu}(\vec x,\eta){\dot z}_L^\mu(\vec q,\eta) {\dot z}_L^\nu(\vec q,\eta) +\ldots \right\}\ , \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
where we defined the {\it monopole} term as given by
\begin{equation}
S_L^{\rm DM} \qquad=-\int d^3{\vec x} d^3{\vec q} d\eta\;\rho_E(\vec z_L(\vec q,\eta),\vec x)\;a^3 \; \sqrt{-(\eta_{\mu\nu}+h^L_{\mu\nu}({\vec x},\eta))\dot z_L^\mu({\vec q},\eta) \dot z_L^\nu({\vec q},\eta)}.
\end{equation}
This is the same expression as in \eqref{action2} with $\vec z \to \vec z_L$, $h_{\mu\nu} \to h_{\mu\nu}^L$, and
\begin{equation}
\rho_E(\vec z_L(\vec q,\eta),\vec x) \equiv \bar\rho_m( \eta) \left[ 1 + V_S(\vec q, \vec x,\eta)\right] \delta^3 (\vec x - \vec z_L(\vec q,\eta)),
\end{equation}
where $\rho_E(\vec z_L(\vec q,\eta),\vec x)$ is the energy density associated with the extended object labelled by $\vec q$. It includes not only the contribution from the total mass of the particles but also a new term we denote $V_S(\vec q, \vec x,\eta)$. In the example studied in this paper the new term results from gravitational interactions with particles in other Lagrangian regions that overlap with the finite sized object at $\vec z_L(\vec q,\eta)$~\footnote{If we were interested in relativistic corrections, $\rho_E$ should also include contributions from the internal potential and kinetic energies of the particles. However, these pieces are not relevant at the order we are working.}. Note $V_S(\vec q,\vec x,\eta)$ depends on the distribution of matter inside the particle and that is why it carries an argument $\vec q$, but also on the internal distribution of the overlapping regions which have position $\vec x$. This term is evaluated at the center of mass of the extended object: $\vec x=\vec z_L(\vec q,\eta)$. Detailed derivations of the expression for $V_S(\vec q, \vec x,\eta)$ are presented in \ref{uvmatchone} and \ref{matching}. From the point of view of the long wavelength EFT we will need to parametrize the response of $V_S(\vec q, \vec x,\eta)$ to a long wavelength mode.
For the other terms in \eqref{effact1}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde\rho_L({\vec z}({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x})&\equiv& \bar\rho_m(\eta) ~\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta))\ ,\\
\delta\tilde\rho_L({\vec z}({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x}) &\equiv& \tilde\rho_L({\vec z}({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x}) -\bar\rho_m(\eta)\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec q})\\ &=&\bar\rho_m(\eta)\left[\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta))-\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec q})\right]\nonumber\ .
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, the ellipses account for higher order terms in derivatives and powers of $h^L_{\mu\nu}$. Here $z^\mu_L=(\eta,{\vec z}_L)$ is the position of the smoothed mass density whose dynamics we are following in the long distance universe: it represents the center-of-mass of a large fraction of the dark matter particles which make up each region where we integrate out the short distance dynamics.
In the above expression \eqref{effact1}, quantities with the $\vec q$-argument represents (extended) bodies and their moments, while quantities with the $\vec x$-arguments represent fields that they interact with. In particular, $E_{ab}, B_{ab}$ are the electric and magnetic components of the Weyl tensor in a locally flat frame parallel transported by the center-of-mass defined by $e^\mu_a$ (with $e^\mu_0 = \dot z_L^\mu$), $L_{ab}$ is the angular momentum, $R_{\mu\nu}$ is the Ricci tensor, and $\omega^{ab}_\mu$ are the Ricci rotation coefficients. The extra (higher dimensional) terms are multiplied by a set of time dependent (space-like) multipole moments which are obtained through a matching computation. This construction will become more transparent when we perform this matching explicitly later on.
In \eqref{effact1} only the long distance degrees of freedom are kept in the EFT. Notice our effective action is invariant under full diffeomorphisms.
Several assumptions went into the particular form of (\ref{effact1}), that ultimately come from the UV model that we have in mind, which we described in the previous section. In our context, we are mainly interested in the Newtonian description of dark matter particles that interact only gravitationally. This constraints the type of operators that we used in (\ref{effact1}), on top of what allowed by purely symmetry reasons. Firstly, since the UV action in \eqref{actiondm} is linear in the Newtonian potential, the effective theory must also be linear, which in principle restricts terms quadratic in $h^L_{\mu\nu}$~\footnote{Obviously the terms already present in \eqref{effact1} do induce non-linear effects, through their response functions, but nonetheless are the complete set that encodes the Newtonian limit.}. Secondly, the fact that particles interact only gravitationally also forbids the presence of multi-particle vertices, such as terms that would appear in the Lagrangian in the form of multiple $\vec q$-integrals.
If the interactions are short distance with respect to the scale of validity of the EFT, these terms reduce to contributions that include derivatives of $\vec z(\vec q,\eta)$ with respect to $\vec q$, for example
\begin{equation}
\label{contact}
\int d\eta \int d^3\vec q\; {\cal L}(\partial_{q^j}{z}^i\partial_{q^j}{z}^i,\; \partial_{q^iq^l}{z}^j\partial_{q^i q^l}{z}^j,\ldots)\ .
\end{equation}
These interactions could be straightforwardly included if one wished to describe at low energies different UV models, for example if one includes baryons. We will comment on this possibility later on~\footnote{Notice that, even though our short modes have a time-scale comparable to the one of the long modes, the effective action is still local in time. The relatively-long time-scale of short modes enters in making the response of the multipole non-local in time.
}.
If we now ignore all relativistic effects, which are sub-leading in $v/c \ll 1$, such as rotational degrees of freedom, and perform a similar expansion as in \eqref{action2}, then \eqref{effact1} becomes (see appendix~\ref{matching} for details)
\begin{eqnarray}
&& S_{\rm LEFT} = \int d \eta \int d^3{\vec x} d^3{\vec q}\;a(\eta)^4 \label{effnewt}\\ \nonumber
&& \qquad\qquad\qquad \left\{-\rho_E({\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x})+\tilde\rho_L({\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x})
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d{\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta)}{d\eta}\right)^2 -\delta\tilde\rho_L({\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x})\,\Phi_L({\vec x},\eta)\right.\\
&&\ \ \qquad \qquad \qquad - \tilde\rho_L({\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x}) \left[\frac{1}{2} Q_{\rm TF}^{ij}({\vec q},\eta) \partial_i \partial_j \Phi_L({\vec x},\eta)+\frac{1}{6} C({\vec q},\eta) \frac{\partial^2}{a^2} \Phi_L({\vec x},\eta)\right. \nonumber \\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\left.\left. \frac{1}{6} Q_{\rm TF}^{ijk}({\vec q},\eta)\partial_i \partial_j\partial_k \Phi_L({\vec x},\eta)+\cdots \right] \right\}\nonumber \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $(\partial_i \partial_j)_{\rm TF} \equiv \partial_i \partial_j -\tfrac{1}{3}\delta_{ij} \partial^2$, and where we absorbed different coefficients into a redefinition of~$C$. This is to make more simple the comparison with our previous analysis where $C= Q^i_i$.
The action for $\Phi_L$ is the same as in \eqref{EHnewt}. Although not obvious at first, the action starts quadratic in the perturbations. In the unperturbed background, namely when $\vec z = \vec q$, we will have
\begin{equation}
\bar Q^{ij} \propto \delta^{ij} \to \bar Q^{ij}_{\rm TF} = 0,
\end{equation}
and moreover the term proportional to $C \partial^2\Phi$ becomes a total derivative when its coefficient is $q$-independent.
Since $\Phi$ is a constrained variable, we can simplify our action by replacing $\Phi$ with the solution to its constraint equation to leading order:
\begin{equation} \partial^2\Phi_L = \frac{3}{2} {\cal H}^2 \Omega_m \delta_L + \ldots \ ,
\end{equation}
such that the action turns into
\begin{eqnarray}
&& S_{\rm LEFT} = \int d \eta \int d^3{\vec x} d^3{\vec q}~ a(\eta)^4 \nonumber\\
&&\ \left\{\tilde\rho_L({\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x}) \left[-1-V_S(\vec x,\vec q,\eta)+
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d{\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta)}{d\eta}\right)^2\right] - \;\delta\tilde\rho_L({\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x})\,\Phi_L({\vec x},\eta)\right. \nonumber\\
&&\quad- \tilde\rho_L({\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta),{\vec x}) \left[\frac{1}{2} Q_{\rm TF}^{ij}({\vec q},\eta) \partial_i \partial_j \Phi_L({\vec x},\eta)+\frac{1}{4} C({\vec q},\eta) \mathcal{H}^2 \Omega_m \delta_L({\vec x},\eta)\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left.\qquad\qquad \qquad\ \qquad +\left. \frac{1}{6} Q_{\rm TF}^{ijk}({\vec q},\eta)\partial_i \partial_j\partial_k \Phi_L({\vec x},\eta)+\cdots \right]\right\} \label{effnewt2}\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
up to higher order terms in derivatives and perturbations. It is straightforward to derive the equations of motion for ${\vec z}_L$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{d^2 {\vec z}_L ({\vec q},\eta)}{d\eta^2} + {\cal H} \frac{d {\vec z}_L ({\vec q},\eta)}{d\eta} =\\
&&\qquad\qquad \vec a_S(\vec q,\eta) - {\vec{\partial}}_x \left[\Phi_L(\vec x,\eta) + \frac{1}{4} \Omega_m \mathcal{H}^2 C({\vec q},\eta) \delta_L(x)+Q_{\rm TF}^{ij}({\vec q},\eta)\partial_i\partial_j \Phi_L(\vec x,\eta)+ \cdots\right]_{{\vec x=\vec z_L({\vec q},\eta)}}\nonumber,
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
\vec a_S(\vec q,\eta) \equiv -\left[\vec\partial_x V_S(\vec q,\vec x,\eta)\right]_{{\vec x=\vec z_L({\vec q},\eta)}} \ .
\end{equation}
Analogously, for the Poisson equation for the long-distance potential we have
\begin{equation}
\partial_x^2 \Phi_L = \frac{3}{2} {\cal H}^2\Omega_m \left[\delta_L({\vec x},\eta) + \frac{1}{2}\partial_i\partial_j {\cal Q}_{\rm TF}^{ij}({\vec x},\eta)
+ \frac{1}{6} \partial_i\partial_j \partial_k {\cal Q}_{\rm TF}^{ijk}({\vec x},\eta)+\cdots \right]\ ,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
{\cal Q}^{ij\ldots}_{\rm TF}({\vec x},\eta) = \int d^3{\vec q}\; Q^{ij\ldots}_{\rm TF}({\vec q},\eta)\delta^3({\vec x}-{\vec z}_L({\vec q},\eta)),~{\rm etc}.\
\end{equation}
As expected, we recover the same equations as before.
For the multipole moments, as well as the potential on short scales, we require a matching procedure: that is they either need to be fitted to observations or be extracted from the UV theory. This last approach is further described in appendix \ref{uvmatch}.
It is interesting to notice that the extra potential term $V_S$, that represents the change in the local energy induced by short distance potentials, as well as the trace of the quadrupole moment, is the main difference with respect to the action in \cite{nrgr1}. Notice also that only the trace-free parts survive in the Poisson equation, whereas scalar components do contribute to the equations of motion~\footnote{This term does not appear for example in binary systems since $\int R(x) d\tau $ in the action vanishes by the leading order equations or motion, and only a pure counter term remains \cite{nrgr1}. Here, in the continuum limit, these terms do contribute and prove to be essential for the consistency of the theory.}.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have introduced LEFT: The EFT approach to LSS in Lagrangian space. It is formulated as the theory of a continuum of extended objects that move under the effects of gravitational interactions. Since we are interested in long wavelength correlation functions, we can effectively parametrize the finite size effects with a small number of multipoles. Each of these are in turn characterized by various properties, such as their expectation values, linear response to long wavelength modes, stochastic noise, etc. However to attain a given precision in the final answer only a finite number of coefficients is necessary.
LEFT is local in space, because there is a hierarchy in space between the non-linear scale and the long-wavelength modes. However, there is no hierarchy in time between the long wavelength modes and the non-linear modes. This implies that, at the level of the equations of motion after replacing the extra terms in LEFT with their response to long-wavelength perturbations, LEFT is non-local in time, as it happens also in the Eulerian EFT~\cite{Carrasco:2013mua,Carroll:2013oxa}. However, both at the level of the equations of motion and of the action, when the extra terms are kept explicit, LEFT is represented as a series of {local} interactions in space and time. Although the non-locality in time of the response functions makes LEFT a peculiar EFT, this has minor consequences at a practical level. Since the Green's function in Fourier space is $k$-independent, in perturbation theory the non-locality in time can be re-absorbed in the redefinition of the time-dependent coefficients~\cite{Carrasco:2013mua}.
We have explicitly performed a one-loop calculation in LEFT for a pure dark matter universe with initial power spectrum characterized by a single power law. We have shown that without the additional terms provided by LEFT, some observable quantities such as the quadrupole of a given Lagrangian region, or the power spectrum of the displacement field, or the power spectrum of the dark matter overdensity, would be divergently large; and even when finite, they would be dependent on the arbitrary scale at which loops are cut off. This is physically unacceptable. We have shown instead that the additional parameters that are needed at a given order in LEFT are sufficient to make these quantities finite, and moreover cutoff independent. At one-loop there are four parameters introduced by LEFT. All of them may be independently determined once enough observable quantities are computed: for example the displacement power spectrum, the expectation value of the quadrupole moment, and the correlation quadrupole-displacement. Of course, if one is interested in only a subset of observables, then one is sensitive only to a particular linear combination of these parameters and so the number of free coefficients that are allowed to be used to match a subset of observations is less than the number of all parameters.
As we have discussed in the introduction, and in sec.~\ref{resum}, there are several expansion parameters that appear in perturbative calculations of dark matter clustering at a given wavelength: the displacement induced by longer wavelength modes $\epsilon_{s<}$, the displacement induced by short wavelength modes $\epsilon_{s>}$, and the curvature induced by longer wavelength modes $\epsilon_{\delta<}$. The previously formulated Eulerian-space EFT of large scale structures has the following disadvantage. In the Eulerian-space EFT, calculations are performed expanding in all of these parameters. Since in the true universe the parameter $\epsilon_{s<}$ is not small, calculation have been mainly focussed on IR-safe quantities where the dependence on $\epsilon_{s<}$ cancels out \cite{Carrasco:2013sva,Blas}. However, the reason why the EFT approach is ultimately introduced has to do with the impossibility of describing in a perturbative approach the short distance non-linearities. The fact that the Eulerian approach expands in $\epsilon_{s<}$ is an unfortunate accident of the Eulerian formulation: $\epsilon_{s<}$ does not represent a truly dynamical effect, and it should not therefore affect the convergence of perturbation theory. Contrary to the Eulerian EFT, LEFT does not expand in $\epsilon_{s<}$ at all. In a sense, by going from the Eulerian to the Lagrangian approach, all the $\epsilon_{s<}$ are automatically resummed. The perturbative expansion in LEFT will break down only for those $k$-modes for which the acceleration from the tidal forces of the long modes on a region of the order of the short-distance random displacements is comparable to the acceleration of the center of mass, or when the quadrupole moment of the mass distribution changes significantly the potential, i.e. $\epsilon_{\delta<}(k)\sim 1$ or $\epsilon_{s>}(k)\sim 1$.
LEFT opens up the possibility of a plethora of future directions to explore, such as computing the dark matter power spectrum and correlation functions for our universe, where the effects proportional to $\epsilon_{s<}$ become important, or applying LEFT to compute higher order correlation functions, as well as modeling biased tracers, redshift space distortions and considering the fully relativistic version of LEFT which might be important to describe the results of surveys approaching the Hubble volume in size.
Finally, one should develop the techniques to obtain the parameters of LEFT directly from multiple different statistics in N-body simulations to check for consistency and to study their dependence on the particular dark matter models (cold, warm, etc.) and the effects of baryons. We will elaborate on these topics elsewhere.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
R.A.P. was supported by NSF grant AST-0807444 and DOE grant DE-FG02-90ER40542, and by the German Science Foundation (DFG) within the Collaborative Research Center (SFB) 676 `Particles, Strings and the Early universe.' R.A.P. would like to thank Imme F. Roewer and Emiliano A. Porto for their patience and support. L. S. is supported by DOE Early Career Award DE-FG02-12ER41854 and by NSF grant PHY-1068380. M. Z. is supported in part by the National Science Foundation grants PHY- 0855425, AST-0907969, PHY-1213563 and by the David \& Lucile Packard Foundation. We thank Tobias Baldauf, Daniel Baumann, J.J.~Carrasco, Raphael Flauger, Simon Foreman, Daniel Green, Enrico Pajer, and Svetlin Tassev for useful discussions and comments on the draft.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Sec:intro}
The \textsc{Cremona} group, denoted $\mathrm{Bir}(\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{C})$, is the group of birational maps of $\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{C}$ into itself. If $n=2$ a lot of properties have been established (\emph{see} \cite{Cantat1, Deserti} for example). As far as we know the situation is much more different for $n\geq 3$ (\emph{see} \cite{Pan3, Cantat2} for example). If $\psi$ is an element of $\mathrm{Bir}(\mathbb{P}^2_\mathbb{C})$ then $\deg\psi=\deg\psi^{-1}$. It is not the case in higher dimensions; if $\psi$ belongs to $\mathrm{Bir}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ we only have the inequality $\deg\psi^{-1}\leq(\deg\psi)^2$ so one introduces the bidegree of $\psi$ as the pair $(\deg\psi,\deg\psi^{-1})$. For $n=2$, $\mathfrak{Bir}_d(\mathbb{P}^2_\mathbb{C})$ is the set of birational maps of the complex projective plane of degree $d$; for $n\geq 3$ denote by $\mathrm{Bir}_{d,d'}(\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{C})$ the set of elements of $\mathrm{Bir}(\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{C})$ of bidegree $(d,d')$, and by $\mathfrak{Bir}_d(\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{C})$ the union $\cup_{d'}\mathrm{Bir}_{d,d'}(\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{C})$.
In \cite{CerveauDeserti} the sets $\mathfrak{Bir}_2(\mathbb{P}^2_\mathbb{C})$, and $\mathfrak{Bir}_3(\mathbb{P}^2_\mathbb{C})$ are described: $\mathfrak{Bir}_2(\mathbb{P}^2_\mathbb{C})$ is smooth, and irreducible in the space of quadratic rational maps of the complex projective plane whereas $\mathfrak{Bir}_3(\mathbb{P}^2_\mathbb{C})$ is irreducible, and rationnally connected. Besides, $\mathfrak{Bir}_d(\mathbb{P}^2_\mathbb{C})$ is not irreducible as soon as $d>3$ (\emph{see}~\cite{BisiCalabriMella}). In \cite{Cremona} \textsc{Cremona} studies three types of generic elements of $\mathfrak{Bir}_2(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$. Then there were some articles on the subject, and finally a precise description of $\mathfrak{Bir}_2(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$; the left-right conjugacy is the following one
\[
\mathrm{PGL}(4;\mathbb{C})\times\mathrm{Bir}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})\times\mathrm{PGL}(4;\mathbb{C})\to\mathrm{Bir}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}),\quad\quad (A,\psi,B)\mapsto A\psi B^{-1}.
\]
\textsc{Pan}, \textsc{Ronga} and \textsc{Vust} give quadratic birational maps of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ up to left-right conjugacy, and show that there are only finitely many biclasses (\cite[Theorems 3.1.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3.1]{PanRongaVust}). In particular they show that $\mathfrak{Bir}_2(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ has three irreducible components of dimension $26$, $28$, $29$; the component of dimension $26$ (resp. $28$, resp.~$29$) corresponds to birational maps of bidegree $(2,4)$ (resp. $(2,3)$, resp. $(2,2)$). We will see that the situation is slightly different for $\mathfrak{Bir}_3(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$; in particular we cannot expect such an explicit list of biclasses because there are infinitely many of biclasses (already the dimension of the family $\mathcal{E}_2$ of the classic cubo-cubic example is $39$ that is strictly larger that $\dim(\mathrm{PGL}(4;\mathbb{C})\times\mathrm{PGL}(4;\mathbb{C}))=30$). That's why the approach is different.
\medskip
We do not have such a precise description of $\mathfrak{Bir}_d(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ for $d\geq 4$. Nevertheless we can find a very fine and classical contribution for $\mathfrak{Bir}_3(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ due to \textsc{Hudson} (\cite{Hudson}); in \S\ref{Sec:hudsontable} we reproduce Table~VI of \cite{Hudson}. \textsc{Hudson} introduces there some invariants to establish her classification. But it gives rise to many cases, and we also find examples where invariants take values that do not appear in her table. We do not know references explaining how her families fall into irreducible components of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,d}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ so we focus on this natural question.
\begin{defi}
An element $\psi$ of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,d}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is \textbf{\textit{ruled}} if the strict transform of a generic plane under~$\psi^{-1}$ is a ruled cubic surface.
\end{defi}
Denote by $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,d}$ the set of $(3,d)$ ruled maps. Let us remark that there are no ruled birational maps of bidegree $(3,d)$ with $d\geq 6$. We detail $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,d}$ in Lemma \ref{Lem:ruled}.
We describe the irreducible components of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,d}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ for $3\leq d\leq 5$. Let us recall that the inverse of an element of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is quadratic and treated in \cite{PanRongaVust}.
\begin{theoalph}\label{thmA}
Assume that $2\leq d\leq 5$. The set $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,d}$ is an irreducible component of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,d}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$.
In bidegree $(3,3)$ $($resp. $(3,4)$$)$ there is only an other irreducible component; in bidegree $(3,5)$ there are three others.
The set $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,3}$ intersects the closure of any irreducible component of $\overline{\mathrm{Bir}_{3,4}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})}$ $($the closures being taken in $\mathfrak{Bir}_3(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}))$.
\end{theoalph}
\begin{nota}\label{nota:C2}
Consider a dominant rational map $\psi$ from $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ into itself. For a generic line $\ell$, the preimage of $\ell$ by $\psi$ is a complete intersection $\Gamma_\ell$; let $\mathcal{C}_2$ be the union of the irreducible components of $\Gamma_\ell$ supported in the base locus of $\psi$. Define $\mathcal{C}_1$ by liaison from $\mathcal{C}_2$ in $\Gamma_\ell$. Remark that if $\psi$ is birational, then $\mathcal{C}_1=\psi^{-1}_*(\ell)$. Let us denote by $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_i)$ the arithmetic genus of $\mathcal{C}_i$.
\end{nota}
It is difficult to find a uniform approach to classify elements of $\mathfrak{Bir}_3(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$. Nevertheless in small genus we succeed to obtain some common detailed results; before stating them, let us introduce some notations.
Let us remark that the inequality $\deg \psi^{-1}\leq(\deg\psi)^2$ mentioned previously directly follows from
\[
(\deg \psi)^2=\deg\psi^{-1}+\deg \mathcal{C}_2.
\]
\begin{proalph}\label{propB}
Let $\psi$ be a $(3,d)$ birational map.
Assume that $\psi$ is not ruled, and $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=0$, {\it i.e. $\mathcal{C}_1$ is smooth}. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] $d\leq 6$;
\item[$\bullet$] and $\mathcal{C}_2$ is a curve of degree $9-d$, and arithmetic genus $9-2d$.
\end{itemize}
Suppose $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=1$, and $2\leq d\leq 6$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] there exists a singular point $p$ of $\mathcal{C}_1$ independent of the choice of $\mathcal{C}_1$;
\item[$\bullet$] if $d\leq 4$, all the cubic surfaces of the linear system $\Lambda_\psi$ are singular at $p$;
\item[$\bullet$] the curve $\mathcal{C}_2$ is of degree $9-d$, of arithmetic genus $10-2d$, and lies on a unique quadric $Q$; more precisely $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}=(Q,\mathcal{S}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{S}_{d-2})$ where the $\mathcal{S}_i$'s are independent cubics mo\-dulo $Q$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proalph}
We denote by $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,d,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ the subset of {\bf non-ruled} $(3,d)$ birational maps such that~$\mathcal{C}_2$ is of degree $9-d$, and arithmetic genus $\mathfrak{p}_2$. One has the following statement:
\begin{theoalph}\label{thmC}
If $\mathfrak{p}_2\in\{3,\,4\}$, then $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is non-empty, and irreducible; $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is empty as soon as $\mathfrak{p}_2\not\in\{3,\,4\}$.
If $\mathfrak{p}_2\in\{1,\,2\}$, then $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,4,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is non-empty, and irreducible; $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,4,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is empty as soon as $\mathfrak{p}_2\not\in\{1,\,2\}$.
The set $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,5,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is empty as soon as $\mathfrak{p}_2\not\in\{-1,\,0,\,1\}$ and
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] if $\mathfrak{p}_2=-1$, then $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,5,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is non-empty, and irreducible;
\item[$\bullet$] if $\mathfrak{p}_2=0$, then $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,5,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is non-empty, and has two irreducible components;
\item[$\bullet$] if $\mathfrak{p}_2=1$, then $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,5,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is non-empty, and has three irreducible components.
\end{itemize}
\end{theoalph}
\subsection*{Organization of the article} In \S \ref{Sec:defnot} we explain the particular case of ruled birational maps and set some notations. Then \S \ref{Sec:galfact} is devoted to liaison theory that plays a big role in the description of the irreducible components of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ (\emph{see} \S\ref{Sec:cubocubique}), $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,4}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ (\emph{see} \S\ref{Sec:cuboquartic}) and $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,5}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ (\emph{see} \S\ref{Sec:cuboquintic}). In the last section we give some illustrations of invariants considered by \textsc{Hudson}, especially concerning the local study of the preimage of a line. Since \textsc{Hudson}'s book is very old, let us recall her classification in the first part of the appendix.
\subsection*{Acknowledgment} The authors would like to thank J\'er\'emy \textsc{Blanc} and the referee for their helpful comments.
\section{Definitions, notations and first properties}\label{Sec:defnot}
\subsection{Definitions and notations}\label{subsec:def}
Let $\psi\colon\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}\dashrightarrow\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ be a rational map given, for some choice of coordinates, by
\[
(z_0:z_1:z_2:z_3)\dashrightarrow\big(\psi_0(z_0,z_1,z_2,z_3):\psi_1(z_0,z_1,z_2,z_3):\psi_2(z_0,z_1,z_2,z_3):\psi_3(z_0,z_1,z_2,z_3)\big)
\]
where the $\psi_i$'s are homogeneous polynomials of the same degree $d$, and without common factors. The map~$\psi$ is called a \textbf{\textit{\textsc{Cremona} transformation}} or a \textbf{\textit{birational map of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$}} if it has a rational inverse~$\psi^{-1}$. The \textbf{\textit{degree}} of $\psi$, denoted $\deg\psi$, is $d$. The pair $(\deg\psi,\deg\psi^{-1})$ is the \textbf{\textit{bidegree}} of~$\psi$, we say that~$\psi$ is a $(\deg\psi,\deg\psi^{-1})$ birational map. The \textbf{\textit{indeterminacy set}} of $\psi$ is the set of the common zeros of the $\psi_i$'s. Denote by $\mathcal{I}_\psi$ the ideal generated by the $\psi_i$'s, and by $\Lambda_\psi\subset\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}}(d)\big)$ the subspace of dimension $4$ generated by the $\psi_i$, and by $\deg\mathcal{I}_\psi$ the degree of the scheme defined by the ideal $\mathcal{I}_\psi$. The scheme whose ideal is $\mathcal{I}_\psi$ is denoted $F_\psi$. It is called \textbf{\textit{base locus}} of $\psi$. If~$\dim F_\psi=0$ than $F_\psi^1=\emptyset$, otherwise $F_\psi^1$ is the maximal subscheme of $F_\psi$ of dimension $1$ without isolated point, and without embedded point. Furthermore if $\mathcal{C}_i$ is a curve, then $\omega_{\mathcal{C}_i}$ is its dualizing sheaf.
\begin{rem}
The second condition can also be stated as follows: $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}\dashrightarrow \vert\mathcal{J}(3)\vert=\mathbb{P}^{3+k}_\mathbb{C}$ has an image of dimension $3$, and degree $k+1$.
\end{rem}
Let us give a few comments about Table~VI of \cite{Hudson}. For any subscheme $X$ of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ denote by $\mathcal{I}_X$ the ideal of $X$ in $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$. Let $\psi$ be a $(3,d)$ birational map. A point~$p$ is a \textbf{\textit{double point}} if all the cubic surfaces of $\Lambda_\psi$ are singular at~$p$. A point $p$ is a \textbf{\textit{binode}} if all the cubic surfaces of $\Lambda_\psi$ are singular at~$p$ with order $2$ approximation at~$p$ a quadratic form of rank $\leq 2$ (but this quadratic form is allowed to vary in $\Lambda_\psi$). In other words $p$ is a binode if there is a degree $1$ element $h$ of $\mathcal{I}_p$ such that all the cubics belong to $(h\cdot\mathcal{I}_p)+\mathcal{I}_p^3$. A point $p$ is a \textbf{\textit{double point of contact}} if the general element of $\Lambda_\psi$ is singular at~$p$ with order~$2$ approximation at $p$ a quadratic form generically constant on $\Lambda_\psi$. In other words $p$ is a double point of contact if all the cubics belong to $\mathcal{I}_p^3+(Q)$ with $Q$ of degree~$2$ and singular at $p$. A point~$p$ is a \textbf{\textit{point of contact}} if all the cubics belong to $\mathcal{I}_p^2+(\mathcal{S})$ where $\mathcal{S}$ is a cubic smooth at $p$. A point $p$ is a \textbf{\textit{point of osculation}} if all the cubics belong to $\mathcal{I}_p^3+(\mathcal{S})$ where $\mathcal{S}$ is a cubic smooth at $p$.
\begin{nota}
We will denote by $\mathcal{E}_i$ the $i$-th family of Table VI and by $\mathbb{C}[z_0,z_1,\ldots,z_n]_d$ the set of homogeneous polynomials of degree $d$ in the variables $z_0$, $z_1$, $\ldots$, $z_n$.
\end{nota}
\subsection{First properties}
Let us now focus on particular birational maps that cannot be dealt as the others: the ruled birational maps of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$. Recall that there are two projective models of irreducible ruled cubic surfaces ; they both have the same normalization: $\mathbb{P}^2_\mathbb{C}$ blown up at one point which can be realized as a cubic surface in $\mathbb{P}^4_\mathbb{C}$ (\emph{see} \cite[Chapter $10$, introduction of \S\, 4.4]{Dolgachev:book}, \cite[Chapter $9$, \S\, 2.1]{Dolgachev:book}).
\begin{lem}\label{Lem:ruled}
Assume that $2\leq d\leq 5$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] The set $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,d}$ is irreducible.
\item[$\bullet$] Let $\psi$ be a general element of $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,d}$, and let $\delta$ be the common line to all elements of $\big\{\mathrm{Sing}\,\mathcal{S}\,\vert\,\mathcal{S}\in\Lambda_\psi\big\}$; then
\[
\mathcal{I}_\psi=\mathcal{I}_\delta^2\cap\mathcal{I}_{\Delta_1}\cap\mathcal{I}_{\Delta_2}\cap\ldots\cap\mathcal{I}_{\Delta_{5-d}}\cap\mathcal{I}_K
\]
where $\Delta_i$ are disjoint lines that intersect $\delta$ at a unique point, and $K$ is a general reduced scheme of length $2d-4$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\psi$ be an element of $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,d}$. Recall that $F_\psi^1$ is the maximal subscheme of $F_\psi$ of dimension $1$ without isolated point, and without embedded point, \emph{i.e.} $F_\psi^1$ is a curve locally \textsc{Cohen}-\textsc{Macaulay}. Let us define $\mathcal{I}_K$ by: $\mathcal{I}_K=(\mathcal{I}_\psi:\mathcal{I}_{F_\psi^1})$.
An irreducible element $\mathcal{S}$ of $\Lambda_\psi$ is a ruled surface; it is also the projection of a ruled surface~$\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}$ of $\mathbb{P}^4_\mathbb{C}$. Recall that $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}$ is also the blow-up $\widetilde{\mathbb{P}^2_\mathbb{C}}(p)$ of $\mathbb{P}^2_\mathbb{C}$ at $p$ embedded by $\vert\mathcal{I}_p(2h)\vert$, where $h$ is the class of an hyperplane in $\mathbb{P}^2_\mathbb{C}$. Let us denote by $\pi$ the projection $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}\to\mathcal{S}$, by $H$ the class of an hyperplane of $\mathbb{P}^4_\mathbb{C}$, and by $E_p$ the exceptional divisor associated to the blow-up of $p$. Set $\widetilde{\delta}=\pi^{-1}\delta$, $\widetilde{\mathcal{C}_1}=\pi^{-1}(\mathcal{C}_1)$, and $\widetilde{F_\psi^1}=\pi^{-1}(F_\psi^1)$. One has
\[
\widetilde{\delta}=h,\qquad H=2h-E_p, \qquad f=h-E_p,\qquad \widetilde{F_\psi^1}=2\widetilde{\delta}+D
\]
where $D$ is an effective divisor.
As $\widetilde{\mathcal{C}_1}+\widetilde{F_\psi^1}=3H$, $\widetilde{\mathcal{C}_1}\cdot f=1$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{C}_1}\cdot H=d$ one gets $D\cdot f=0$, and $D\cdot H=5-d$; therefore $D=(5-d)f$. And we conclude that $\psi$ has a residual base scheme of length $2d-4$ from $\widetilde{\mathcal{C}_1}^2=2d-3$.
\bigskip
Conversely, take a general element of $\vert\mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{S}}\big((5-d)f\big)\vert$ and $2d-4$ general points on $\widetilde{S}$ of ideal~$\mathcal{I}$. We have $\mathrm{h}^0\big(\mathcal{I}(\widetilde{\mathcal{C}_1})\big)=3$, and thanks to the surjection $\mathrm{H}^0\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}}(3)\twoheadrightarrow \mathrm{H}^0\mathcal{O}_S(3)$ we get an element of~$\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,d}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{Lem:inclruled}
The following inclusions hold:
\[
\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,2}\subset\overline{\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,3}},\qquad \mathfrak{ruled}_{3,3}\subset\overline{\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,4}},\qquad \mathfrak{ruled}_{3,4}\subset\overline{\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,5}}.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof $($with the notations introduced in the proof of Lemma \ref{Lem:ruled}$)$]
Let us start with an element of $\overline{\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,5}}$ with base curve $\delta^2$ and $6$ base points $p_i$ in general position as decribed in Lemma \ref{Lem:ruled}. Then move two of the $p_i$, for instance $p_1$, $p_2$ until the line $(p_1p_2)$ intersects $\delta$. The line $(p_1p_2)$ is now automatically in the base locus of the linear system $\Lambda_\psi$, and we obtain like this a generic element of~$\mathfrak{ruled}_{3.4}$.
A similar argument allows to prove the two other inclusions.
\end{proof}
Let us recall the notion of genus of a birational map (\cite[Chapter IX]{Hudson}). The \textbf{\textit{genus}} $\mathfrak{g}_\psi$ of~$\psi\in\mathrm{Bir}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is the geometric genus of the curve $h\cap \psi^{-1}(h')$ where $h$ and $h'$ are generic hyperplanes of~$\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$. The equality $\mathfrak{g}_\psi=\mathfrak{g}_{\psi^{-1}}$ holds.
\begin{rem}
If $\psi$ is a birational map of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ of degree $1$ (resp. $2$, resp. $3$) then $\mathfrak{g}_\psi=0$ (resp. $\mathfrak{g}_\psi=0$, resp. $\mathfrak{g}_\psi\leq 1$).
\end{rem}
One can give a characterization of ruled maps of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,d}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ in terms of the genus.
\begin{pro}
Let $\psi$ be in $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,d}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$, $2\leq d\leq 5$. The genus of $\psi$ is zero if and only if $\psi$ is ruled.
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
On the one hand the base scheme of an element of~$\mathrm{Bir}_{3,d}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ has at most isolated singularities if and only if the map is not ruled; on the other hand $\mathfrak{g}_\psi=0$ if and only if for generic hyperplanes $h$, $h'$ of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ the curve $h\cap\psi^{-1}(h')$ is a singular rational cubic.
\end{proof}
\section{Liaison}\label{Sec:galfact}
According to \cite{PeskineSzpiro} we say that two curves $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ are \textbf{\textit{geometrically linked}} if
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] $\Gamma_1\cup\Gamma_2$ is a complete intersection,
\item[$\bullet$] $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ have no common component.
\end{itemize}
\smallskip
Let $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ be two curves geometrically linked. Recall that $\mathcal{I}_{\Gamma_1\cup\Gamma_2}=\mathcal{I}_{\Gamma_1}\cap\mathcal{I}_{\Gamma_2}$. According to \cite[Proposition 1.1]{PeskineSzpiro} one has $\frac{\mathcal{I}_{\Gamma_1}}{\mathcal{I}_{\Gamma_1\cup\Gamma_2}}=\mathrm{Hom}\big(\mathcal{O}_{\Gamma_2},\mathcal{O}_{\Gamma_1\cup\Gamma_2}\big)$. Since the kernel of $\mathcal{O}_{\Gamma_1\cup\Gamma_2}\longrightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\Gamma_2}$ is $\frac{\mathcal{I}_{\Gamma_1}}{\mathcal{I}_{\Gamma_1\cup\Gamma_2}}$ one gets the following fundamental statement: if $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$ are two curves geometrically linked, then
\[
0\longrightarrow \omega_{\Gamma_1}\longrightarrow\omega_{\Gamma_1\cup \Gamma_2}\longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\Gamma_2}\otimes\omega_{\Gamma_1\cup \Gamma_2}\longrightarrow 0.
\]
\medskip
\begin{lem}\label{Lem:liaison}
Let $\psi$ be a rational map of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ of degree $3$. We have
\[
\omega_{\mathcal{C}_1\cup \mathcal{C}_2}=\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_1\cup \mathcal{C}_2}(2h),
\]
where $h$ denotes an hyperplane of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$, and for $i\in\{1,\,2\}$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:blabla}
0\longrightarrow \omega_{\mathcal{C}_i}\longrightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_i\cup\mathcal{C}_{3-i}}(2h)\longrightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_{3-i}}(2h)\longrightarrow 0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:blabla2}
0\longrightarrow \mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2}(3h)\longrightarrow\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_i}(3h)\longrightarrow\omega_{\mathcal{C}_{3-i}}(h)\longrightarrow 0
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\medskip
The first exact sequence $(\ref{eq:blabla})$ directly implies the following equalities ($i\in\{1,\,2\}$)
\[
\mathrm{H}^0\big(\omega_{\mathcal{C}_i}(-h)\big)=\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_{3-i}}(h)\big),\qquad \mathrm{H}^0\big(\omega_{\mathcal{C}_i})=\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_{3-i}}(2h)\big),
\]
\[
\mathrm{h}^0\omega_{\mathcal{C}_i}(h)+2=\mathrm{h}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_{3-i}}(3h)\big),\qquad\mathrm{H}^0\big(\omega_{\mathcal{C}_i}(h)\big)=\frac{\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_{3-i}}(3h)\big)}{\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2}(3h)\big)}.
\]
\medskip
\begin{cor}\label{cor:cubics}
Let $\psi$ be a rational map of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ of degree $3$. The ideal $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_{3-i}}$ is generated by cubics if and only if $\omega_{\mathcal{C}_i}(h)$ is globally generated.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
It directly follows from the exact sequence $(\ref{eq:blabla2})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:formule}
Let $\psi$ be a rational map of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ of degree $3$. Then
\[
\deg \mathcal{C}_2-\deg\mathcal{C}_1=\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_2)-\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1).
\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Taking the restriction of (\ref{eq:blabla}) to $\mathcal{C}_i$ for $i=1$, $2$ gives
\[
\deg\omega_{\mathcal{C}_i}=2\deg\mathcal{C}_i-\deg(\mathcal{C}_1\cap\mathcal{C}_2),
\]
and hence
\[
\deg \mathcal{C}_2-\deg\mathcal{C}_1=\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_2)-\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1).
\]
\end{proof}
Furthermore when $\mathcal{C}_1$ and $\mathcal{C}_2$ have no common component, and $\omega_{\mathcal{C}_i}$ is locally free, then $\mathrm{length}\,(\mathcal{C}_1\cap\mathcal{C}_2)=\deg\omega^{\vee}_{\mathcal{C}_i}(2h)$, {\it i.e.}
\[
\sum_{p\in\mathcal{C}_1\cap\mathcal{C}_2}\text{length}(\mathcal{C}_1\cap\mathcal{C}_2)_{\{p\}}=2\deg\mathcal{C}_i-2\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_i)+2.
\]
In the preimage of a generic point of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ by $\psi$, the number of points that do not lie in the base locus is given by
\[
3\deg \mathcal{C}_1-\sum_{p\in \mathcal{C}_1\cap \mathcal{C}_2}\mathrm{length}(\mathcal{S}\cap\mathcal{C}_1)_{\{p\}}-\sum_{p\in\Theta}\mathrm{length}(\mathcal{S}\cap\mathcal{C}_1)_{\{p\}}
\]
where $\mathcal{S}\in\Lambda_\psi$ is non-zero modulo $\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2}(3h)\big)$, and where $\Theta$ denotes the set of irreducible components of dimension $0$ of the base locus $F_\psi$ of $\psi$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:bir}
Let $\psi$ be a rational map of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ of degree $3$. Let $\Theta$ denote the set of irreducible components of dimension $0$ of $F_\psi$. The map $\psi$ is birational if and only if
\[
1=3\deg \mathcal{C}_1-\sum_{p\in \mathcal{C}_1\cap \mathcal{C}_2}\mathrm{length}(\mathcal{S}\cap\mathcal{C}_1)_{\{p\}}-\sum_{p\in\Theta}\mathrm{length}(\mathcal{S}\cap\mathcal{C}_1)_{\{p\}}.
\]
\end{lem}
Remark that the computation of $\mathrm{length}(\mathcal{S}\cap\mathcal{C}_1)_{\{p\}}$ depends on the nature of the singularity of the cubic surface and on the behavior of $\mathcal{C}_2$ in that point (\emph{see} \S\ref{Sec:singcubsurf}).
\begin{lem}\label{Lem:notonaplane}
Let $\psi$ be a $(3,d)$ \textsc{Cremona} map. Assume that $d\geq 4$, then $\mathcal{C}_1$ is not contained in a plane.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for example that $d=4$; then $\mathcal{C}_1$ is contained in an irreducible cubic surface~$\mathcal{S}$. If~$\mathcal{C}_1$ is contained in a plane $\mathcal{P}$ then all the lines in $\mathcal{P}$ are quadrisecant to $\mathcal{S}$: contradiction with the irreducibility of $\mathcal{S}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{Lem:psurc2}
Let $\psi$ be a $(3,d)$ birational map, and let $p$ be a point on $\mathcal{C}_1$. Assume that the degree of the tangent cone of $\mathcal{C}_1$ at $p$ is strictly less than $4$. If any $\mathcal{S}$ in $\Lambda_\psi$ is singular at $p$, then $p$ belongs to $\mathcal{C}_2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If any $\mathcal{S}$ in $\Lambda_\psi$ is singular at $p$, then the degree of the tangent cone of the complete intersection $\mathcal{C}_1\cap\mathcal{C}_2$ at $p$ is at least $4$ so $p$ has to belong to $\mathcal{C}_2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{Lem:indpt}
Let $\psi$ be a non-ruled $(3,d)$ birational map, and let $\mathcal{C}_1$ be a general element of $\Lambda_\psi$. The support of $\mathrm{Sing}\,\mathcal{C}_1$ is independent of the choice of $\mathcal{C}_1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let us show that there is a singular point independent of the choice of $\mathcal{C}_1$. Let us consider an element $\mathcal{S}$ of $\Lambda_\psi$ with finite singular locus. Let $\pi\colon\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}\to\mathcal{S}$ be a minimal desingularization of~$\mathcal{S}$, and let $\widetilde{\mathcal{C}_1}$ be the strict transform of $\mathcal{C}_1$. The elements of~$\Lambda_\psi$ give a linear system in $\vert\mathcal{O}_\mathcal{\widetilde{S}}(\widetilde{\mathcal{C}_1})\vert$ whose base locus denoted $\Omega$ is finite. According to \textsc{Bertini}'s theorem applied on $\widetilde{\mathcal{S}}$ one has the inclusion $\mathrm{Sing}\,\mathcal{C}_1\subset\pi(\Omega)\cup\mathrm{Sing}\,\mathcal{S}$. The first assertion thus follows from the fact that $\Omega\cup\mathrm{Sing}\,\mathcal{S}$ is finite.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{Thm:genre1}
Let $\psi$ be a $(3,d)$ birational map, $2\leq d\leq 6$, that is not ruled. Assume that $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=~1$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] there exists a singular point $p$ of $\mathcal{C}_1$ independent of the choice of $\mathcal{C}_1$;
\item[$\bullet$] if $d\leq 4$, all the cubic surfaces of the linear system $\Lambda_\psi$ are singular at $p$;
\item[$\bullet$] the curve $\mathcal{C}_2$ is of degree $9-d$, of arithmetic genus $10-2d$, and lies on a unique quadric~$Q$; more precisely $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}=(Q,\mathcal{S}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{S}_{d-2})$ where the $\mathcal{S}_i$'s are independent cubics modulo $Q$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
As soon as $d=5$ the second assertion is not true. Indeed for $d=5$ we obtain two families: one for which all the elements of $\Lambda_\psi$ are singular, and another one for which it is not the case~(\S\ref{Sec:cuboquintic}).
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
The first assertion directly follows from Lemma \ref{Lem:indpt}.\smallskip
Since $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=1$, the curve $\mathcal{C}_2$ lies on a unique quadric $\mathcal{Q}$. The arithmetic genus of $\mathcal{C}_2$ is obtained from $\deg\mathcal{C}_2-\deg\mathcal{C}_1=\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_2)-\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)$ (Corollary \ref{cor:formule}). \smallskip
As $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=1$, $\omega_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)$ has no base point, and $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}$ is generated by cubics (Corollary \ref{cor:cubics}). The number of cubics containing $\mathcal{C}_2$ independent modulo the multiple of $Q$ is $d-2$: the liaison sequence (Lemma \ref{Lem:liaison}) becomes
\[
0\longrightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)\longrightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2}(3h)\longrightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_2}(3h)\longrightarrow 0
\]
one gets that
\[
\mathrm{h}^0\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_2}(3h)=\mathrm{h}^0\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_1\cup \mathcal{C}_2}(3h)-\mathrm{h}^0\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)=18-d.
\]
This implies that
\[
\mathrm{h}^0\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}(3h)=20-\mathrm{h}^0\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_2}(3h)=d+2.
\]
If we put away the four multiples of $Q$ one obtains $d+2-4=d-2$ cubics, and finally $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}=(Q,\mathcal{S}_1,\ldots,\mathcal{S}_{d-2})$.
\end{proof}
Corollary \ref{cor:formule} and Theorem \ref{Thm:genre1} imply Proposition \ref{propB}.
\begin{pro}\label{Pro:compirr}
For $2\leq d\leq 5$ the set $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,d}$ is an irreducible component of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,d}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$.
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
Let us use the notations introduced in Lemma \ref{Lem:ruled}. Note that $F_\psi^1\subset\mathcal{C}_2$. If $\psi\in\mathrm{Bir}_{3,d}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is not ruled then at a generic point $p\in F_\psi^1$ there exists an element of $\Lambda_\psi$ smooth at $p$. Hence $F_\psi^1$ is locally complete intersection at $p$ and $\deg F_\psi^1=\deg\mathcal{C}_ 2$. In particular $\deg\mathcal{I}_\psi=9-d$.\smallskip
Consider now an element $\psi$ in $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,d}$. There is a line $\ell$ such that $\ell\subset\mathrm{Sing}\,\mathcal{S}$ for any $\mathcal{S}\in\Lambda_\psi$; the set~$F_\psi^1$ has an irreducible component whose ideal is $\mathcal{I}_\ell^2$ and $F_\psi^1$ is not locally complete intersection. This multiple structure has to be contained in $\mathcal{C}_2$ but since $\mathcal{C}_2$ is locally complete intersection the inequality $\deg\mathcal{C}_2>\deg F_\psi^1$ holds; it can be rewritten $\deg \mathcal{I}_\psi<9-d$.\smallskip
The number $\deg\mathcal{I}_\psi$ cannot decrease by specialization so we cannot specialize a non-ruled birational map into a ruled one while staying in the same bidegree\footnote{As we will see in Proposition \ref{Pro:inter} this statement is not true if we do not specify ''while staying in the same degree''.}.\smallskip
Elements of $\Lambda_\psi$ when $\psi$ is a ruled birational map have no isolated singularities whereas general elements of $\Lambda_\psi$ when $\psi$ is a non-ruled birational map have at most isolated singularities, it is impossible to specialize a ruled birational map into a non-ruled one.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Let $\psi$ be a $(3,\cdot)$ birational map of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$; if the general element of $\Lambda_\psi$ is smooth or if the singularities of a general element of $\Lambda_\psi$ are isolated, then $\deg F_\psi^1=\deg\mathcal{C}_2$.
\end{cor}
\section{$(3,3)$-\textsc{Cremona} transformations}\label{Sec:cubocubique}
\subsection{Some known results}
\subsubsection{}
In the literature one can find different points of view concerning the classification of $(3,3)$ birational maps. For example \textsc{Hudson} introduced many invariants related to singularities of fa\-milies of surfaces and gave four families described in \S\ref{Sec:hudsontable}; nevertheless we do not understand why the family $\mathcal{E}_{3.5}$ defined below does not appear. \textsc{Pan} chose an other point of view and regrouped $(3,3)$ birational maps into three families. A $(3,3)$ birational map $\psi$ of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ is called \textbf{\textit{determinantal}} if there exists a $4\times 3$ matrix~$M$ with linear entries such that $\psi$ is given by the four $3\times 3$ minors of the matrix $M$; the inverse~$\psi^{-1}$ is also determinantal. Let us denote by $\mathbf{T}_{3,3}^{\mathbf{D}}$ the set of determinantal maps. A $(3,3)$ \textsc{Cremona} transformation is a \textbf{\textit{\textsc{de Jonqui\`eres}}} one if and only if the strict transform of a general line under $\psi^{-1}$ is a singular plane rational cubic curve whose singular point is fixed. For such a map there is always a quadric contracted onto a point, the corresponding fixed point for~$\psi^{-1}$ which is also a \textsc{de Jonqui\`eres} transformation. The \textsc{de Jonqui\`eres} transformations form the set $\mathbf{T}_{3,3}^{\mathbf{J}}$. \textsc{Pan} established the following (\cite[Theorem 1.2]{Pan}):
\[
\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})=\mathbf{T}_{3,3}^{\mathbf{D}}\cup\mathbf{T}_{3,3}^{\mathbf{J}}\cup\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,3};
\]
in other words an element of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is a determinantal map, or a \textsc{de Jonqui\`eres} map, or a ruled map.
\begin{rem}
One has $\mathbf{T}_{3,3}^{\mathbf{D}}=\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3,3}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ and $\mathbf{T}_{3,3}^{\mathbf{J}}=\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3,4}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$; hence $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is irreducible for $\mathfrak{p}_2\in\{3,4\}$ (\emph{see} \cite{Pan}).
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
The birational involution $(z_0z_1^2:z_0^2z_1:z_0^2z_2:z_1^2z_3)$ is determinantal, the matrix being
\[
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
z_0 & z_3 & 0\\
-z_1 & 0 & z_2\\
0 & 0 & -z_1\\
0 & -z_0 & 0
\end{array}
\right],
\]
and also ruled: all the partial derivatives of the components of the map vanish on $z_0=z_1=0$. The \textsc{Cremona} transformation $(z_0^3:z_0^2z_1:z_0^2z_2:z_1^2z_3)$ is a \textsc{de Jonqui\`eres} and a ruled one.
One has (\cite{Pan2})
\[
\mathbf{T}_{3,3}^{\mathbf{D}}\cap\mathbf{T}_{3,3}^{\mathbf{J}}=\emptyset,\quad\quad
\mathbf{T}_{3,3}^{\mathbf{D}}\cap\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,3}\not=\emptyset,\quad\quad
\mathbf{T}_{3,3}^{\mathbf{J}}\cap\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,3}\not=\emptyset.
\]
\end{rem}
We deal with the natural description of the irreducible components of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3}$ which does not coincide with \textsc{Pan}'s point of view since one of his family is contained in the closure of another one.
\subsection{Irreducible components of the set of $(3,3)$ birational maps}
\subsubsection{General description of $(3,3)$ birational maps}
One already describes an irreducible component of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$, the one that contains $(3,3)$ ruled birational maps (Proposition \ref{Pro:compirr}). Hence let us consider the case where the linear system $\Lambda_\psi$ associated to $\psi\in\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ contains a cubic surface without double line.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $\mathcal{C}_1$ is smooth then it is a twisted cubic, we are in family $\mathcal{E}_2$ of Table VI (\emph{see} \S\ref{Sec:hudsontable}). In that case~$\psi$ is determinantal; more precisely a $(3,3)$ birational map is determinantal if and only if its base locus scheme is an arithme\-tically \textsc{Cohen}-\textsc{Macaulay} curve of degree~$6$ and (arithmetic) genus $3$ (\emph{see} \cite[Proposition~1]{AvritzerGonzalezSprinbergPan}).
\medskip
\item Otherwise $\omega_{\mathcal{C}_1}=\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_1}$, and $\psi$ belongs to the irreducible family $\mathbf{T}_{3,3}^{\mathbf{J}}$ of \textsc{Jonqui\`eres} maps ($\mathcal{E}_3$ in terms of \textsc{Hudson}'s classification). The curve $\mathcal{C}_2$ lies on a quadric described by the quadratic form $Q$. According to Theorem \ref{Thm:genre1} the ideal of $\mathcal{C}_2$ is $(Q,\mathcal{S})$, and there exists a point~$p$ such that $p\in Q$, and $p$ is a singular point of $\mathcal{S}$. Furthermore $\mathcal{I}_\psi=\mathcal{I}_pQ+(\mathcal{S})$. Reciprocally such a triplet $(p,Q,\mathcal{S})$ induces a birational map.
The family $\mathbf{T}_{3,3}^{\mathbf{J}}$ is stratified as follows by \textsc{Hudson} (all the cases belong to $\overline{\mathcal{E}_3}$):
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] {\sl Description of $\mathcal{E}_3$}. The general element of $\mathcal{I}_pQ+(\mathcal{S})$ has an ordinary quadratic singula\-rity at $p$ (configuration $(2,2)$ of \texttt{Table} $1$ (\emph{see} \S\ref{Sec:singcubsurf})), and the generic cubic is singular at~$p$ with a quadratic form of rank $3$.
\item[$\bullet$] {\sl Description of $\mathcal{E}_{3.5}$}. The point $p$ lies on $Q$ ($p$ is a smooth point or not) and the generic cubic is singular at $p$ with a quadratic form of rank $2$. In other words $p$ is a binode and this happens when one of the two biplanes is contained in $\mathrm{T}_pQ$, it corresponds to the configuration $(2,3)'$ of \texttt{Table} $1$ (\emph{see} \S\ref{Sec:singcubsurf}).
The generic cubic is singular at $p$ with a quadratic form of rank $2$; this case does not appear in Table VI (\emph{see} \S\ref{Sec:hudsontable}). Let us denote by~$\mathcal{E}_{3.5}$ the set of the associated $(3,3)$ birational maps. The curve $\mathcal{C}_2$ has degree~$6$ and a triple point (in $Q$).
\item[$\bullet$] {\sl Description of $\mathcal{E}_4$}.
The point $p$ is a double point of contact, it corresponds to configuration $(2,4)$ of \texttt{Table}~$1$ (\emph{see} \S\ref{Sec:singcubsurf}).
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\begin{pro}\label{Pro:incidence}
One has
\[
\dim \mathcal{E}_2=39, \quad\dim\mathcal{E}_3=38, \quad\dim\mathcal{E}_{3.5}=35, \quad\dim\mathcal{E}_4=35, \quad \dim\mathcal{E}_5=31,
\]
and
\[
\overline{\mathcal{E}_3}=\mathbf{T}_{3,3}^{\mathbf{J}}, \quad\mathring{\mathcal{E}_{3.5}}\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_3},\quad\mathring{\mathcal{E}_4}\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_3},\quad\mathring{\mathcal{E}_4}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{3.5}},\quad\mathring{\mathcal{E}_{3.5}}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_4}.
\]
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
Let us justify the equality $\dim\mathcal{E}_3=38$. We have to choose a quadric $Q$ and a point $p$ on~$Q$, this gives $9+2=11$. Then we take a cubic surface singular at $p$ that yields to $19-4=15$; since we look at this surface modulo $pQ$ one gets $15-3=12$ so
\[
\dim\mathcal{E}_3=11+12+15=38.
\]
Let us deal with $\dim\mathcal{E}_4$. We take a singular quadric $Q$ this gives $8$. Then we take a cubic singular at $p$, modulo $pQ$ and this yields to $19-4-3=12$, and finally one obtains $12+8+15=35$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Irreducible components}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:comp33}
The set $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,3}$ is an irreducible component of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$, and there is only one another irreducible component in $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$. More precisely the set of the Jonqui\`eres maps $\overline{\mathcal{E}_3}$ is contained in the closure of determinantal ones $\overline{\mathcal{E}_2}$ whereas $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,3}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_2}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider the matrix $A$ given by
\[
\left[
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 0\\
-z_1 & -z_2 & 0\\
z_0 & 0 & -z_2\\
0 & z_0 & z_1
\end{array}
\right]
\]
and let $A_i$ denote the matrix $A$ minus the $(i+1)$-th line.
If $i>0$, the $2\times 2$ minors of $A_i$ are divisible by $z_{i-1}$.
Consider the $3\times 4$ matrix $B$ given by $\big[b_{ij}\big]_{1\leq i\leq 4,\,1\leq j\leq 3}$
with $b_{ij}\in\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}}(1)\big)$; as previously,~$B_i$ is the matrix $B$ minus the $(i+1)$-th line. Denote by $\Delta^{j,k}$ the determinant of the matrix $A_0$ minus the $j$-th line and the $k$-th column. The $\Delta^{j,k}$ generate $\mathbb{C}[z_0,z_1,z_2]_2$.
One has
\[
\det(A_0+tB_0)=t\cdot S\quad [t^2]
\]
where
\[
S=(b_{21}+b_{43})\Delta^{1,1}-(b_{31}-b_{42})\Delta^{2,1}+(b_{33}-b_{22})\Delta^{1,2}+b_{23}\Delta^{1,3}+b_{32}\Delta^{2,2}+b_{41}\Delta^{3,1}
\]
is a generic cubic of the ideal $(z_0,z_1,z_2)^2$. For $i>0$
\[
\det(A_i+tB_i)=\det A_i+t\cdot(z_{i+1}Q)(-1)^{i+1}=t\cdot(z_{i+1}Q)(-1)^{i+1}\quad [t^2]
\]
where $Q=b_{1,1}z_2-b_{1,2}z_1+b_{1,3}z_0$ is the equation of a generic quadric that contains $(0,0,0,1)$.
So the map
\[
\left[\frac{\det(A_0+tB_0)}{t}:\frac{\det(A_1+tB_1)}{t}:\frac{\det(A_2+tB_2)}{t}:\frac{\det(A_3+tB_3)}{t}\right]
\]
allows to go from $\mathcal{E}_2$ to a general element of $\overline{\mathcal{E}_3}$.
\bigskip
Furthermore $\overline{\mathcal{E}_3}$ and $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,3}$ are different components (Proposition \ref{Pro:compirr}).
\end{proof}
\section{$(3,4)$-\textsc{Cremona} transformations}\label{Sec:cuboquartic}
\subsection{General description of $(3,4)$ birational maps}\label{Subsec:cuboquartic}
The ruled maps $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,4}$ give rise to an irreducible component (Proposition \ref{Pro:compirr}). Let us now focus on the case where the linear system $\Lambda_\psi$ associated to $\psi\in\mathrm{Bir}_{3,4}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ contains a cubic surface without double line.
\medskip
\begin{itemize}
\item First case: $\mathcal{C}_1$ is smooth. From $\mathrm{h}^0\omega_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)=3$ one gets that $\mathcal{C}_2$ lies on five cubics. Since $\mathrm{h}^0\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_2}(2h)=~0$ the curve $\mathcal{C}_1$ lies on a quadric, and $\mathrm{h}^0\omega_{\mathcal{C}_2}=1$ thus $\omega_{\mathcal{C}_2}=\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_2}$. This configuration corresponds to $\mathcal{E}_6$.
\medskip
\item Second case: $\mathcal{C}_1$ is a singular curve of degree $4$ not contained in a plane (\emph{see} Lemma~\ref{Lem:notonaplane}) so $\omega_{\mathcal{C}_1}=\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_1}$. The curve $\mathcal{C}_1$ lies on two quadrics and $\mathcal{C}_2$ on six cubics ($\mathrm{h}^0\omega_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)=4$). Let~$p$ be the singular point of $\mathcal{C}_1$; all elements of $\Lambda_\psi$ are singular at $p$ (Theorem~\ref{Thm:genre1}), and~$p$ belongs to~$\mathcal{C}_2$ (Lemma \ref{Lem:psurc2}). The curve $\mathcal{C}_2$ lies on a unique quadric $\mathcal{Q}$ (Theorem \ref{Thm:genre1}), is linked to a line~$\ell$ in a $(2,3)$ complete intersection $Q\cap \mathcal{S}_1$ (with $\deg Q=2$ and $\deg \mathcal{S}_1=3$), and $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}=(Q,\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2)$ with $\deg\mathcal{S}_2=3$ (Theorem \ref{Thm:genre1}).
Since $\mathcal{C}_1$ is of degree $4$ and arithmetic genus $1$, one has $\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)\big)=\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}}(1)\big)$. Let us consider $L=\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2}(3h)\big)\subset\Lambda_\psi$ and the map
\[
\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)\big)\longrightarrow\frac{\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}(3h)\big)}{L},\qquad h\mapsto Qh;
\]
it is injective. Indeed $\dim(\mathcal{C}_1\cap Q)=0$ thus modulo $Q$ the cubics defining $\mathcal{C}_1$ are independent. Therefore $\Lambda_\psi$ is contained in $(Q\mathcal{I}_p,\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2)$. For $p'\in\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}\smallsetminus Q$ one has
\[
\mathrm{H}^0\big((Q\mathcal{I}_p,\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2)\cap\mathcal{I}_{p'})(3)\big)=\Lambda_\phi
\]
for some birational map $\phi$, and $\psi$ belongs to the closure of the set defined by all such maps~$\phi$.
\smallskip
Reciprocally let $Q$ be a quadric, $p$ be a point on $Q$, $\mathcal{S}_1$ be a cubic singular at $p$ and that contains a line $\ell$ of $Q$. If $\mathcal{C}_2$ is the residual of $\ell$ in $(Q,\mathcal{S}_1)$, then there exists $\mathcal{S}_2$ singular at $p$ such that $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}=(Q,\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2)$. Set
\[
\Lambda=\mathrm{H}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_{p_1}\cap(Q\mathcal{I}_p,\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2)(3)\big).
\]
Let $L$ be a $2$-dimensional general element of $\Lambda$; the general linked curve to $\mathcal{C}_2$ in $L$, denoted~$\mathcal{C}_{1,L}$, is of degree $4$, is singular at $p$, lies on two quadrics; furthermore the linear system induced by $\Lambda$ on $\mathcal{C}_{1,L}$ has the two following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item its base locus contains $p$ and $p_1$,
\item it is birational.
\end{itemize}
In other words, $\Lambda=\Lambda_\psi$ for a $(3,4)$-birational map $\psi$.
\bigskip
Let us give some explicit examples, the generic one and the degeneracies considered by \textsc{Hudson}:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] {\sl Description of $\mathcal{E}_7$.} The quadric $Q$ is smooth at $p$, and the rank of $Q$ is maximal. Hence the point $p$ is an ordinary quadratic singularity of the generic element of $\Lambda_\psi$, we are in the configuration $(2,2)$ of \texttt{Table} $1$ (\emph{see} \S\ref{Sec:singcubsurf}).
\item[$\bullet$] {\sl Description of $\mathcal{E}_{7.5}$.} In that case, $p$ is a binode, $Q$ is smooth at $p$ and one of the two biplanes is contained in $T_pQ$; we are in the configuration $(2,3)'$ of \texttt{Table} $1$ (\emph{see}~\S\ref{Sec:singcubsurf}). The set of such maps is denoted~$\mathcal{E}_{7.5}$, this case does not appear in Table~VI but should appear.
\item[$\bullet$] {\sl Description of $\mathcal{E}_8$.} The second way to obtain a binode is the following one: $Q$ is an irreducible cone with vertex $p$. This corresponds to the configuration $(2,3)$ of \texttt{Table}~$1$ (\emph{see} \S\ref{Sec:singcubsurf}).
\item[$\bullet$] {\sl Description of $\mathcal{E}_9$.} The rank of $Q$ is $2$, and the point $p$ is a double point of contact; we are in the configuration $(2,4)$ of \texttt{Table} $1$ (\emph{see} \S\ref{Sec:singcubsurf}).
\item[$\bullet$] {\sl Description of $\mathcal{E}_{10}$.} The general element of $\Lambda_\psi$ has a double point of contact and a binode (configurations $(2,4)$ and $(1,4)$ of \texttt{Table} $1$, \emph{see} \S\ref{Sec:singcubsurf}). \textsc{Hudson} details this case carefully (\cite[Chap. XV]{Hudson}).
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\begin{pro}
One has the following properties:
\[
\dim\mathcal{E}_6=38,\qquad\mathcal{E}_{7.5}\cup\mathcal{E}_8\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_7}
\]
and
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] a generic element of $\mathcal{E}_{7.5}$ is not a specialization of a generic element of $\mathcal{E}_8$;
\item[$\bullet$] a generic element of $\mathcal{E}_8$ is not a specialization of a generic element of $\mathcal{E}_{7.5}$;
\item[$\bullet$] a generic element of $\mathcal{E}_9$ is a specialization of a generic element of $\mathcal{E}_8$.
\end{itemize}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
The arguments to establish $\dim\mathcal{E}_6=38$ are similar to those used in the proof of Proposition~\ref{Pro:incidence}.
Let us justify that a generic element of $\mathcal{E}_{7.5}$ is not a specialization of a generic element of $\mathcal{E}_8$ (we take the notations of \S\ref{Subsec:cuboquartic}): as we see when $\psi\in\mathcal{E}_8$ the quadric $Q$ is always singular whereas it is not the case when $\psi\in\mathcal{E}_{7.5}$. Conversely if $\psi$ belongs to $\mathcal{E}_{7.5}$ then $\mathcal{C}_2$ is reducible but if $\psi$ belongs to $\mathcal{E}_8$ the curve $\mathcal{C}_2$ can be irreducible and reduced; hence a generic element of $\mathcal{E}_8$ is not a specialization of a generic element of $\mathcal{E}_{7.5}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{thm:comp34}
The set $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,4}$ is an irreducible component of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,4}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$. There is only one another irreducible component in $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,4}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
According to Proposition \ref{Pro:compirr} the set $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,4}$ is an irreducible component of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,4}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$.
Any element $\psi$ of $\mathcal{E}_7\cup\mathcal{E}_{7.5}\cup\mathcal{E}_8\cup\mathcal{E}_9\cup\mathcal{E}_{10}$ satisfies the following property:
\[
\Lambda_\psi=\mathrm{H}^0\big(((Q\mathcal{I}_p,\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2)\cap \mathcal{I}_{p_1})(3)\big)
\]
where $p$ belongs to $Q$, $p_1$ is an ordinary base point, and
\[
Q=\det\left[\begin{array}{cc}
L_0 & L_1\\
L_2 & L_3
\end{array}
\right],\quad \mathcal{S}_1=L_0Q_1+L_1Q_2,\quad \mathcal{S}_2=L_2Q_1+L_3Q_2
\]
with $L_i\in\mathbb{C}[z_0,z_1,z_2,z_3]_1$, $Q_i\in\mathbb{C}[z_0,z_1,z_2]_2$. So $\mathcal{E}_7$, $\mathcal{E}_{7.5}$, $\mathcal{E}_8$ $\mathcal{E}_9$ and $\mathcal{E}_{10}$ belong to the same irreducible component $\mathscr{E}$.
\medskip
It remains to show that $\mathscr{E}=\overline{\mathcal{E}_6}$: let us consider
\[
J=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right], \quad
N=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -z_2 & z_3 & L_0\\
z_2 & 0 & L_1 & L_2\\
-z_3 & -L_1 & 0 & L_3\\
-L_0 & -L_2 & -L_3 & 0
\end{array}\right],\quad
v=\left[\begin{array}{c}
z_2\\
z_1\\
z_0\\
tz_3 \end{array}\right]
\]
with $L_i$ linear forms and
\[
M_t=\left[\begin{array}{c}
Jv\\
Nv
\end{array}\right]=
\left[\begin{array}{cccc}
tz_3 & z_0 & -z_1 & -z_2\\
tz_3L_0+Q & q_1 & q_2 & q_3
\end{array}\right]
\]
with
\begin{align*}
&Q=z_0z_3-z_1z_2,&& q_1=z_2^2+z_0L_1+tz_3L_2,\\
&q_2=-z_2z_3-z_1L_1+tz_3L_3,&& q_3=-z_2L_0-z_1L_2-z_0L_3.
\end{align*}
For generic $L_i$'s and $t\not=0$ the $2\times 2$ minors of $M_t$ generate the ideal of a generic elliptic quintic curve as in $\mathcal{E}_6$. For $M_0$ the $2\times 2$ minors become $Qz_0$, $Qz_1$, $Qz_2$, $\mathcal{S}_1$, $\mathcal{S}_2$, and $\mathcal{S}_3$ with
\[
\mathcal{S}_1=-z_2Q,\qquad\mathcal{S}_2=-z_1q_3+z_2q_2,\qquad\mathcal{S}_3=z_0q_3+z_2q_1.
\]
Therefore the ideal $\mathcal{M}_2$ generated by these minors is
\[
(Qz_0,Qz_1,Qz_2,\mathcal{S}_2,\mathcal{S}_3).
\]
Denote by $\ell$ the line defined by $\mathcal{I}_\ell=(z_1,z_3)$. According to
\[
z_3\mathcal{S}_3=-z_2\mathcal{S}_2+Q(q_3+L_1z_2)\quad\&\quad z_1\mathcal{S}_3=-z_0\mathcal{S}_2-z_2^2Q
\]
$\mathcal{M}_2$ is the ideal of the residual of $\ell$ in the complete intersection of ideals $(Q,\mathcal{S}_2)$.
It only remains to prove that one can obtain the generic element of $\overline{\mathcal{E}_7}$ with a good choice of the $L_i$'s; in other words it remains to prove that $\mathcal{S}_2$ is generic among the cubics singular at $p$ that contain $\ell$. Modulo $Q$ one can assume that $q_3=-z_3a+b$, with $a$ (resp. $b$) an element of $\mathbb{C}[z_1,z_2]_1$ (resp. $\mathbb{C}[z_0,z_1,z_2]_2$). Then
\[
\mathcal{S}_2=-z_3\big(z_1a+z_2^2\big)+z_1\big(b-z_2L_1\big);
\]
in conclusion $\mathcal{S}_2=z_3A+z_2B$ for generic $A$ and $B$ in $\mathbb{C}[z_0,z_1,z_2]_2$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Relations between $\overline{\mathrm{Bir}_{3,3}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})}$ and $\overline{\mathrm{Bir}_{3,4}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})}$}
One can now state the following result:
\begin{pro}\label{Pro:inter}
The set $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,3}$ intersects the closure of any irreducible component of\, $\overline{\mathrm{Bir}_{3,4}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})}$.
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
According to Lemma \ref{Lem:inclruled} it is sufficient to prove that $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,3}$ intersects the closure of $(3,4)$ birational maps that are non-ruled.
Let us consider an element $\psi$ of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,4}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ whose $\mathcal{C}_2$ is the union of the lines of ideals
\[
\mathcal{I}_\delta=(z_0,z_1^2), \quad(z_0-\varepsilon z_2,z_1), \quad \mathcal{I}_{\ell_1}=(z_0,z_3), \quad \mathcal{I}_{\ell_2}=(z_1,z_2).
\]
Denote by $\mathcal{J}_\varepsilon=(z_0,z_1^2)\cap(z_0-\varepsilon z_2,z_1)\cap(z_0,z_3)\cap(z_1,z_2)$. One can check that
\[
\mathcal{J}_\varepsilon=(z_0z_1,z_0^2z_2+\varepsilon z_0z_2^2,z_1^2z_3).
\]
Set $\mathcal{I}_\varepsilon=z_0z_1(z_0,z_1,z_2)+(z_0^2z_2+\varepsilon z_0z_2^2,z_1^2z_3)$. For a general $p_2$ the map $\psi_\varepsilon$ defined by $\Lambda_{\psi_\varepsilon}=\mathrm{H}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_\varepsilon\cap \mathcal{I}_{p_2})(3)\big)$ is birational; furthermore
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] $\psi_\varepsilon\in\mathrm{Bir}_{3,4}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})\smallsetminus\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,4}$ for $\varepsilon\not=0$;
\item[$\bullet$] $\psi_0\in\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,3}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proof}
As in the case of $(3,3)$ birational maps one has the following statement:
\begin{thm}
If $\mathfrak{p}_2\in\{1,\,2\}$, then $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,4,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is non-empty and irreducible.
\end{thm}
\section{$(3,5)$-\textsc{Cremona} transformations}\label{Sec:cuboquintic}
\subsection{General description of $(3,5)$ birational maps}
We already find an irreducible component of the set of $(3,5)$ birational maps: $\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,5}$ (Proposition \ref{Pro:compirr}). Let us now consider a $(3,5)$-\textsc{Cremona} transformation $\psi$ such that $\Lambda_\psi$ contains a cubic surface without double line.
\subsubsection{Case: $\mathcal{C}_1$ smooth}\label{subsubsec:C1smooth} In that situation $\deg \omega_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)=3$ so according to (\ref{eq:blabla2}) the map $\psi$ has two ordinary base points. The curve $\mathcal{C}_2$ has genus $-1$ and does not lie on a quadric; $\mathcal{C}_2$ is the disjoint union of a twisted cubic and a line, that is~$\psi$ belongs to~$\mathcal{E}_{12}$. Indeed suppose that $\psi\not\in\overline{\mathcal{E}_{12}}$, then~$\mathcal{C}_2$ is the union of two smooth conics $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ that do not intersect. Any $\Gamma_i$ is contained in a plane $\mathcal{P}_i$. Denote by $\ell$ the intersection $\mathcal{P}_1\cap\mathcal{P}_2$. As $\#\big(\ell\cap(\Gamma_1\cup\Gamma_2)\big)=4$, all the cubic surfaces that contain $\Gamma_1\cup\Gamma_2$ contain $\ell$. So $\ell\subset \mathcal{C}_2$: contradiction.
\subsubsection{Case: $\mathcal{C}_1$ not smooth}\label{subsubsec:C1notsmooth} So $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)\geq 1$, and
\[
\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_2)=\deg \mathcal{C}_2-\deg \mathcal{C}_1+\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=-1+\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)\geq 0.
\]
Since $\mathcal{C}_1$ is not in a plane, $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)\leq 2$. Therefore we only have to distinguish the eventualities~$\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=~1$ and $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=2$. Before looking at any of these eventualities let us introduce the set
\[
\mathscr{C}=\big\{\text{irreducible curves of $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ of degree $5$ and geometric genus $0$}\big\}
\]
\smallskip
$\bullet$ Assume first that $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=1$. Then $\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_1}=\omega_{\mathcal{C}_1}$. We will denote by $\pi\colon\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}\to\mathcal{C}_1$ the norma\-lization of $\mathcal{C}_1$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$a_1)$] Suppose first that all the elements of $\Lambda_\psi$ are singular at $p\in\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$. Denote by $L$ the $2$-dimensional vector space $\Lambda_\psi\cap\mathrm{H}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_p^2\cap\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_1})(3h)\big)$ defining $\mathcal{C}_1$ and $\mathcal{C}_2$. By the liaison sequence (\ref{eq:blabla2}) of Lemma~\ref{Lem:liaison} $\frac{\Lambda_\psi}{L}$ gives a vector subspace $u$ of $\mathrm{H}^0\big(\omega_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)\big)=\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)\big)$ of dimension $2$. It induces a projection from $\mathcal{C}_1$ to $\vert u^\vee\vert$ that coincides with the restriction of~$\psi$ to $\mathcal{C}_1$; hence this projection has degree $1$. Moreover, via the identification $\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)\big)=\mathrm{H}^0\big(\pi^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)\big)$, $u$ is included in the set $V_1$ of sections of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}}(5)$ whose base locus contains $\pi^{-1}(p)$; there are two other ordinary base points.
We would like to show that $\mathcal{C}_2$ moves in an irreducible family. We will do this by deforming $\psi$ (and $\mathcal{C}_2$) while $\mathcal{C}_1$ is fixed. So, $p\in\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ being fixed, let us consider
\[
\mathcal{R}_{p,1}=\big\{\mathcal{C}\in\mathscr{C}\,\vert\,\{p\}=\mathrm{Sing}\,\mathcal{C},\,\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C})=1\big\};
\]
the set $\mathcal{R}_{p,1}$ is an irreducible one. Remark that $\mathrm{h}^0\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}(3h)=\deg\mathcal{C}+\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C})-1=5$ and $\mathrm{h}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_p^2\cap\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}})(3h))\big)=5-1=4$ because $\mathcal{C}$ has a double point at $p$ for all $\mathcal{C}$ in $\mathcal{R}_{p,1}$.
Let us denote by $F_1$ the set of $(\mathcal{C},L,u)\in\mathcal{R}_{1,p}\times\mathrm{H}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_p^2\cap\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}})(3h)\big)\times V_1$ defined by
\begin{itemize}
\item $L\subset\mathrm{H}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_p^2\cap\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}})(3h)\big)$ of dimension $2$ such that the residual of $\mathcal{C}$ in the complete intersection defined by $L$ has no common component with $\mathcal{C}$, and $\mathcal{C}$ is geometrically linked to a curve denoted by $\mathcal{C}_{2,L}$,
\smallskip
\item $u\subset V_1$ of dimension $2$ such that $\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}\dashrightarrow\vert u^\vee\vert$ has degree $1$.
\end{itemize}
The set $F_1$ is irreducible since the choice of $\mathcal{C}$ is irreducible, and thus the choices of $L$ and~$u$ too.
If $(\mathcal{C},L,u)$ belongs to $F_1$, let us set
\[
h_L\colon\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_{2,L}}(3h)\big)\to\mathrm{H}^0\big(\omega_{\mathcal{C}}(h)\big)
\]
(recall that $\frac{\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_{2,L}}(3h)\big)}{L}\simeq\mathrm{H}^0\big(\omega_{\mathcal{C}}(h)\big)$). Consider the map
\[
\kappa_1\colon F_1\to \mathbb{G}\big(4;\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}}(3)\big)\big),\qquad(\mathcal{C},L,u) \mapsto h_L^{-1}(u).
\]
By construction of $F_1$ if $\psi$ is birational, if all elements of $\Lambda_\psi$ are singular at $p$, and $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=1$, then $\Lambda_\psi$ is in the image of $\kappa_1$.
\begin{lem}
The general element of $\mathrm{im}\,\kappa_1$ coincides with $\Lambda_\psi$ for some birational map $\psi$ of $\mathcal{E}_{14}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
As $F_1$ is irreducible it is enough to show that $h_L^{-1}(u)$ is a birational system when $(\mathcal{C},L,u)$ is general in $F_1$. In that situation $\mathcal{C}_{2,L}$ is a curve of degree $4$, arithmetic genus $0$, singular at $p$, lying on a smooth quadric. Therefore $\mathcal{C}_{2,L}$ is reducible; more precisely it is the union of a twisted cubic and a line of this smooth quadric. All the elements of $h_L^{-1}(u)$ are cubic surfaces singular at $p$ because $\mathcal{C}_{2,L}$ has a double point at $p$, and the residual pencil $u\subset\mathrm{H}^0\big(\omega_{\mathcal{C}}(h)\big)$ vanishes at $p$ by definition of $F_1$. From definition of $u$, $h_L^{-1}(u)$ has two ordinary base points $p_1$ and $p_2$. Hence let $\mathcal{C}_1$ be the residual of $\mathcal{C}_{2,L}$ in the intersection of two general cubics of $h_L^{-1}(u)$. Then $\mathcal{C}_1$ is singular at $p$, $\psi_{\mathcal{C},L,u}$ has degree $5$ on $\mathcal{C}_1$, sends~$\mathcal{C}_1$ onto a line, is birational, and its base locus contains $p$, $p_1$, $p_2$.
\end{proof}
Let us remark that the previous irreducibility result asserts that the following example (belonging to family $\mathcal{E}_{18}$) that is not on a smooth quadric is nevertheless a deformation of elements of $\mathcal{E}_{14}$.
\begin{eg}
Let $\mathcal{C}_2$ be the union of a line doubled on a smooth quadric with two other lines, such that all these lines contain a same point $p$. Set
\[
Q=z_0z_3-z_1z_2,\qquad \mathcal{I}_p=(z_0,z_1,z_2);
\]
then $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}=((z_2,z_0)^2 +(Q)) \cap (z_1,z_2) \cap (z_0-z_2,z_1-z_2)$. Now chose a double point of contact (note that the tangent cone must contain the tangent cone of $\mathcal{C}_2$):
\[
\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{dpc}}= (z_2^2z_3-z_0z_1z_3)+(z_0,z_1,z_2)^3,
\]
and let $p_1$ and $p_2$ be two general points. Define $\mathcal{I}_{\psi}$ by $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2} \cap \mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{dpc}} \cap\mathcal{I}_{p_1} \cap \mathcal{I}_{p_2}$. So $I_{\psi}$ is the intersections of $I_{p_1}\cap I_{p_2}$ with
\begin{small}
\[
\hspace*{1cm}\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2} \cap
\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{dpc}} = \big(z_1z_2^2-z_2^3,\,z_0z_2^2-z_2^3,\,z_1^2z_2-z_2^3-z_0z_1z_3+z_2^2z_3,\,z_0z_1z_2-z_2^3,\,z_0^2z_2-z_2^3,\,z_0^2z_1-z_2^3\big).\]
\end{small}
The tangent cone of $\mathcal{C}_2$ at $p$ has degree $4$ but the tangent cone of $\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2$ at $p$ has degree~$6$, so $\mathcal{C}_1$ belongs to $\mathcal{R}_{p,1}$.
\end{eg}
\item[$b_1)$] Suppose now that $\Lambda_\psi$ contains a smooth element at $p$. Then $p$ is a point of contact, all the cubic surfaces are tangent at $p$; $\mathcal{C}_2\subset Q$ is linked to a curve of degree $2$ and genus $-1$. In that case we have no restriction on the curves of genus $0$ and degree $4$ contrary to the previous case. Hence in general $Q$ is smooth, and $\mathcal{C}_2$ is a smooth rational curve on $Q$. Set $Q=z_0z_3-z_1z_2$, $\mathcal{I}_{\ell_1}=(z_0,z_1)$, and $\mathcal{I}_{\ell_2}=(z_2,z_3)$; one has
\[
\mathcal{J}=\mathcal{I}_{\ell_1\cup\ell_2}=(z_0z_2,z_0z_3,z_1z_2,z_1z_3).
\]
Let $\mathcal{S}_0$ be the element of $\mathcal{J}$ given by
\[
az_0z_2+bz_0z_3+cz_1z_3\qquad a,\, b,\, c\in\mathbb{C}[z_0,z_1,z_2,z_3]_1;
\]
one has $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}=((\mathcal{S}_0,Q):\mathcal{J})=(Q,\mathcal{S}_0,\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2)$ with
\[
\mathcal{S}_1=z_0^2a+z_0z_1b+z_1^2c, \quad \mathcal{S}_2=z_2^2a+z_2z_3b+z_3^2c.
\]
The dimension of $\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}(3h)\big)$ is $7$; indeed one has the following seven cubics:
\[
\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}=\langle Qz_0,\, Qz_1,\, Qz_2,\, Qz_3, \,\mathcal{S}_0,\, \mathcal{S}_1,\, \mathcal{S}_2\rangle.
\]
The map $\psi$ has no base point. Indeed $u=\frac{\Lambda_\psi}{\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2}(3)\big)}$ is contained in the sections of~$\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}}(5)$ whose base locus contains $2\pi^{-1}(p)$; we thus already have an isomorphism between $\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}$ and $\vert u^\vee\vert$. The map~$\psi$ belongs to $\overline{\mathcal{E}_{23}}$.
\end{enumerate}
$\bullet$ Suppose that $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=2$. Then $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_2)=1$, $\mathcal{C}_1$ lies on a quadric and $\mathrm{h}^0\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(3)=6$. We will still denote by $\pi\colon\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}\to\mathcal{C}_1$ the normalization of $\mathcal{C}_1$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$a_2)$] Assume first that $\mathcal{C}_1$ has a triple point $p$. The curve $\mathcal{C}_1$ is linked to a line by a complete intersection $(Q,\mathcal{S}_0)$ where $Q$ (resp. $\mathcal{S}_0$) is a cone (resp. a cubic) singular at $p$. We can write the normalization $\pi$ as follows $(\alpha^2A,\alpha\beta A,\beta^2A,B)$ with $A\in\mathbb{C}[\alpha,\beta]_3$, $B\in\mathbb{C}[\alpha,\beta]_5$, and $A$, $B$ without common factors. Then $Q=z_1^2-z_0z_2$, and $\mathrm{H}^0\big(\omega_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)\big)$ can be identified with $\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_\ell(2)\big)$, where $\mathcal{I}_\ell=(z_0,z_1)$. So $\mathrm{H}^0\big(\omega_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)\big)$ is the $6$-dimensional subspace~$W$ of $\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}}(6)\big)$ spanned by $(\alpha,\beta)\cdot(\alpha^2A,\alpha\beta A,\beta^2A,B)$. Let us consider the subspace $V_A=W\cap(A)$ of $W$. Let $L$ be the $2$-dimensional vector space $\Lambda_\psi\cap\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_1}(3h)\big)$. Then $\frac{\Lambda_\psi}{L}$ gives a $2$-dimensional vector subspace $u$ of $V_A$. The restriction of~$\psi$ to $\mathcal{C}_1$ gives a birational map $\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}\dashrightarrow\vert u^\vee\vert$ induced by $u\subset V_A\subset\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}}(6)\big)$. Furthermore~$\psi$ has two ordinary base points. We would like to show that in that case $\mathcal{C}_2$ moves in an irreducible family whose general element is the complete intersection of two quadrics. We thus fix a point $p\in\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$ and introduce the irreducible set
\[
\mathcal{R}_{p,2}=\big\{\mathcal{C}\in\mathscr{C}\,\vert\, \{p\}=\mathrm{Sing}\,\mathcal{C},\,\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C})=2\big\}.
\]
We define the set $F_2$ as the $(\mathcal{C},L,u)\in\mathcal{R}_{p,2}\times\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}(3h)\big)\times V_A$ given by
\begin{itemize}
\item $L\subset\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}(3h)\big)$ of dimension $2$ such that the residual of $\mathcal{C}$ in the complete intersection defined by $L$ has no common component with $\mathcal{C}$, and $\mathcal{C}$ is geometrically linked to a curve denoted by $\mathcal{C}_{2,L}$,
\smallskip
\item $u\subset V_A$ of dimension $2$ such that $\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}\dashrightarrow \vert u^{\vee}\vert$ is birational and whose base locus contains $\pi^{-1}(p)$.
\end{itemize}
Let us consider the map
\[
\kappa_2\colon F_2\to \mathbb{G}\big(4;\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}}(3)\big)\big),\qquad(\mathcal{C},L,u) \mapsto h_L^{-1}(u).
\]
If $\psi$ is birational, if $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=2$, and $\mathcal{C}_1$ has a triple point then $\psi$ belongs to $\mathrm{im}\,\kappa_2$.
\begin{lem}
The general element of $\mathrm{im}\,\kappa_2$ coincides with $\Lambda_\psi$ for some birational map $\psi$ of $\mathcal{E}_{13}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
As $F_2$ is irreducible one can consider a general element of $F_2$, and then $\mathcal{C}_{2,L}$ is a curve of degree $4$, genus $1$ and is the complete intersection of two smooth quadrics. The map $\psi$ has two ordinary base points $p_1$, $p_2$, and belongs to $\mathcal{E}_{13}$. More precisely $\Lambda_\psi=\mathrm{H}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_{2,L}}\cdot\mathcal{I}_p\cap \mathcal{I}_{p_1}\cap\mathcal{I}_{p_2})(3)\big)$.
\end{proof}
Note that this irreducibility result asserts that the following example, where $\mathcal{C}_2$ is not a complete intersection of two quadrics is nevertheless a deformation of elements of $\mathcal{E}_{13}$.
\begin{eg}
Let $\mathcal{C}_2$ be the union of a plane cubic $\mathcal{C}_3$ singular at $p$ and a line $\ell$ containing~$p$ but not in the plane spanned by $\mathcal{C}_3$. For instance take $\mathcal{I}_p=(z_0,z_1,z_2)$, $\mathcal{I}_\ell=(z_1,z_2)$, $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_3}=(z_1-z_0,(z_1-z_2)z_1z_3+z_0^3+z_1^3+z_2^3)$. Let $\mathcal{I}_{\textrm{dpc}}$ be a double point of contact at $p$. (As we have already chose $\mathcal{C}_2$, we must take a quadric cone containing the tangent cone to $\mathcal{C}_2$). For instance one can take: $I_{\textrm{dpc}}=(z_1^2-z_0z_2)+\mathcal{I}_p^3$, and let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{J}=\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}\cap \mathcal{I}_{\textrm{dpc}}&=&\big(z_0z_2^2-z_1z_2^2,z_0z_1z_2-z_1^2z_2,\,z_0^2 z_2-z_1^2z_2,\,2 z_1^3+z_2^3+z_1^2z_3-z_0z_2z_3,\\
& &\hspace{0.5cm}2 z_0z_1^2+z_2^3+z_1^2z_3-z_0z_2z_3,\,2z_0^2z_1+z_2^3+z_1^2z_3-z_0z_2z_3\big)
\end{eqnarray*}
chose two general points $p_1$ and $p_2$ and define by $\mathcal{I}_\psi$ the ideal generated by the $4$ cubics of $\mathcal{J}\cap \mathcal{I}_{p_1} \cap \mathcal{I}_{p_2}$. The tangent cone of $\mathcal{C}_2$ at $p$ has degree $3$, the tangent cone of $\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2$ at $p$ has degree $6$ (because $p$ is a double point of contact); hence $\mathcal{C}_1$ has also a triple point at $p$, and belongs to $\mathcal{R}_{p,2}$.
\end{eg}
\smallskip
\item[$b_2)$] Suppose now that $\mathcal{C}_1$ hasn't a triple point; $\mathcal{C}_1$ has thus two distinct double points. Fix two distinct points $p$ and $q$ in $\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}$, and set
\[
\mathcal{R}_{p,q,2}=\big\{\mathcal{C}\in\mathscr{C}\,\vert\, \{p,\, q\}= \mathrm{Sing}\,\mathcal{C},\, \mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C})=2\big\}.
\]
Let $V_3$ (resp. $V_4$) be the sections of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}}(7)$ whose base locus contains $\pi^{-1}(p)$ and $\pi^{-1}(q)$ (resp. $\pi^{-1}(p)$ and $2\pi^{-1}(q)$). The set $\mathcal{R}_{p,q,2}$ is irreducible. Remark that for all $\mathcal{C}$ in $\mathcal{R}_{p,q,2}$ one has
\[
\mathrm{h}^0\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}(3h)=6,\qquad\mathrm{h}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}\cap\mathcal{I}_p^2)(3h)\big)=5,\qquad\mathrm{h}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}\cap\mathcal{I}_p^2\cap\mathcal{I}_q^2)(3h)\big)=4.
\]
\begin{rem}
One cannot have two distinct points of contact. Assume by contradiction that there are two distinct points of contact $p$ and $q$. Denote by $\pi\colon\widetilde{\mathcal{C}_1}\to\mathcal{C}_1$ the normalization of $\mathcal{C}_1$. One would have $\pi^*\omega_{\mathcal{C}_1}(h)=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}}(7)$ but the linear system induced by $\psi$ would contain in the base locus $2\pi^{-1}(p)+2\pi^{-1}(q)$ which is of length $8$: contradiction with the fact that $\psi(\mathcal{C}_1)$ is a line.
\end{rem}
So one has the following alternative:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$b_2)$\,i)] Either all the cubics of $\Lambda_\psi$ are singular at $p$ and $q$. One can then define the set $F_3$ of $(\mathcal{C},L,u)\in\mathcal{R}_{p,q,2}\times\mathrm{H}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}\cap\mathcal{I}_p^2\cap\mathcal{I}_q^2)(3h)\big)\times V_3$ given by
\begin{itemize}
\item $L\subset\mathrm{H}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}\cap\mathcal{I}_p^2\cap\mathcal{I}_q^2)(3h)\big)$ of dimension $2$ such that the residual of $\mathcal{C}$ in the complete intersection defined by $L$ has no common component with $\mathcal{C}$;
\smallskip
\item $u\subset V_3$ of dimension $2$ such that $\mathcal{C}\dashrightarrow\vert u^{\vee}\vert$ has degree $1$.
\end{itemize}
Let us consider the map
\[
\kappa_3\colon F_3\to \mathbb{G}\big(4;\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}}(3)\big)\big),\qquad(\mathcal{C},L,u) \mapsto h_L^{-1}(u).
\]
If $\psi$ is birational, if $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=2$, if $\mathcal{C}_1$ has two distinct double points at $p$ and $q$ and if all the cubics of $\Lambda_\psi$ are singular at $p$ and $q$, then $\Lambda_\psi$ belongs to $\mathrm{im}\,\kappa_3$.
\begin{lem}
The general element of $\mathrm{im}\,\kappa_3$ coincides with $\Lambda_\psi$ for some birational map~$\psi$ of $\mathcal{E}_{19}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
As $F_3$ is irreducible one can consider a general element $(\mathcal{C},L,u)$ of $F_3$ and then $\mathcal{C}_{2,L}$ is a curve of degree $4$ and genus $1$, is singular at $p$ and $q$, lies on a smooth quadric, and is reducible: $\mathcal{C}_{2,L}$ is the union of a twisted cubic $\Gamma$ and the line $\ell=(pq)$. Moreover all the elements of $h_L^{-1}(u)$ are singular at $p$ and $q$ (by definition of $V_3$ and by the fact that $\mathcal{C}_{2,L}$ is singular at $p$ and $q$).
\end{proof}
In this situation as all the cubic surfaces are singular at $p$ and $q$,
\[
h_L^{-1}(u)=\mathrm{H}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_\Gamma\cdot\mathcal{I}_\ell\cap\mathcal{I}_{p_1}\cap\mathcal{I}_{p_2})(3)\big)
\]
where $p_1$, $p_2$ are two ordinary base points; $\psi$ belongs to $\mathcal{E}_{19}$.
\item[$b_2)$\,ii)] Or one of the cubic of $\Lambda_\psi$ is smooth at (for instance) $q$.
Let us introduce the set $F_4$ of pairs $(\mathcal{C},L)\in\mathcal{R}_{p,q,2}\times\mathrm{H}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}\cap\mathcal{I}_p^2)(3h)\big)$ satisfying: $L\subset\mathrm{H}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}}\cap\mathcal{I}_p^2)(3h)\big)$ of dimension $2$ such that the residual of $\mathcal{C}$ in the complete intersection defined by $L$ has no common component with $\mathcal{C}$.
Let us consider the map
\[
\kappa_4\colon F_4\to \mathbb{G}\big(4;\mathrm{H}^0\big(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C}}(3)\big)\big),\qquad(\mathcal{C},L) \mapsto h_L^{-1}(V_4);
\]
note that $\dim V_4=2$.
If $\psi$ is birational, if $\mathfrak{p}_a(\mathcal{C}_1)=2$, $\mathcal{C}_1$ hasn't a triple point and one of the cubic of $\Lambda_\psi$ is smooth at (for instance) $q$, then $\Lambda_\psi$ belongs to $\mathrm{im}\,\kappa_4$.
\begin{lem}
The general element of $\mathrm{im}\,\kappa_4$ coincides with $\Lambda_\psi$ for some birational map~$\psi$ of $\mathcal{E}_{24}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
As $F_4$ is irreducible one can consider a general element of $F_4$, and then $\mathcal{C}_{2,L}$ is a curve of degree $4$, genus $1$, singular at $p$, and is the complete intersection of two quadrics. The map $\psi$ has no base point and belongs to $\mathcal{E}_{24}$.
\end{proof}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Irreducible components}
The following statement, and Theorems \ref{thm:comp33} and \ref{thm:comp34} imply Theorem \ref{thmA}.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:comp35}
One has the inclusions: $\mathcal{E}_{14}\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{12}}$, $\mathcal{E}_{24}\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{23}}$, and $\mathcal{E}_{19}\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{12}}$.
The set $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,5}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ has four irreducible components: $\mathcal{E}_{12}$, $\mathcal{E}_{13}$, $\mathcal{E}_{23}$, and $\mathcal{E}_{27}=\mathfrak{ruled}_{3,5}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let us first prove that $\mathcal{E}_{14}\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{12}}$. If $\psi$ belongs to $\mathcal{E}_{12}$, or to $\mathcal{E}_{14}$ the curve $\mathcal{C}_2$ is the union of a line $\ell$ and a twisted cubic $\Gamma$ such that $\mathrm{length}\,(\ell\cap\Gamma)\leq 1$. Let $\mathcal{I}_\ell$ (resp. $\mathcal{I}_\Gamma$) be the ideal of $\ell$ (resp.~$\Gamma$). We have $\mathcal{I}_\psi\subset\mathcal{I}_\ell\cap\mathcal{I}_\Gamma$. If $\psi$ belongs to $\mathcal{E}_{12}$, then $\ell\cap\Gamma=\emptyset$, and $\mathcal{I}_\ell\cap\mathcal{I}_\Gamma=\mathcal{I}_\ell\cdot\mathcal{I}_\Gamma$. And if~$\psi$ is in~$\mathcal{E}_{14}$, then all the cubics are singular at $p=\ell\cap\Gamma$ so $\mathcal{I}_\psi$ is again in $\mathcal{I}_\ell\cdot\mathcal{I}_\Gamma$.
\smallskip
Prove now that $\mathcal{E}_{24}\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{23}}$. Consider a general element $\psi$ of $\mathcal{E}_{24}$; the curve $\mathcal{C}_2$ is the complete intersection of a quadric $Q'=az_2+bz_0+cz_1$ passing through the double point $p$ and a cone $Q_0=z_1z_2-z_0^2$. Furthermore all the cubics of $\mathcal{I}_\psi$ are singular at $p$, and $\mathcal{I}_\psi\subset\mathcal{J}'_0=(Q_0,z_0Q',z_1Q',z_2Q')$. Let $\mathfrak{ct}_q$ be the ideal of the point of contact $q$; one has $\mathfrak{ct}_q=\mathcal{I}_q^2+(H_q)$ where $H_q$ is a plane passing through $q$. Denote by $\mathcal{I}_0$ the intersection of $\mathcal{J}'_0$ and $\mathfrak{ct}_q$. Set
\begin{align*}
& Z_0=z_0+tz_3,&& Z_1=z_1, && Z_2=z_2, && Z_3=z_0-tz_3,
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
& Q_t=Z_1Z_2-Z_0Z_3, && \mathcal{S}_0=aZ_0Z_2+bZ_0Z_3+cZ_1Z_3,\\
& \mathcal{S}_1=aZ_0^2+bZ_0Z_1+cZ_1^2, && \mathcal{S}_2=aZ_2^2+bZ_2Z_3+cZ_3^2.
\end{align*}
Hence $\mathcal{J}_t=(Q_t,\mathcal{S}_0,\mathcal{S}_1,\mathcal{S}_2)$ is the ideal of a rational quartic if $t\not=0$ (\emph{cf.} the equations in \S \ref{subsubsec:C1smooth} $b_1)$). The ideal $\mathcal{I}_t=\mathcal{J}_t\cap\mathfrak{ct}_q$ is the ideal $\mathcal{I}_\psi$ of $\psi\in\mathcal{E}_{23}$. Remark that if $t=0$, then
\[
\mathcal{J}_0=(Q_0,z_0Q',az_0^2+bz_0z_1+cz_1^2,az_2^2+bz_0z_2+cz_0^2)
\]
but $az_0^2+bz_0z_1+cz_1^2=z_1Q'$ modulo $Q$, and $az_2^2+bz_0z_2+cz_0^2=z_2Q'$ modulo $Q$, that is $\mathcal{J}'_0=\mathcal{J}_0$. Therefore $\mathcal{I}_t$ tends to $\mathcal{I}_0$ as $t$ tends to $0$.
\smallskip
The inclusion $\mathcal{E}_{19}\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{12}}$ follows from $\Lambda_\psi=\mathrm{H}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_\ell\cdot\mathcal{I}_\Gamma\cap\mathcal{I}_{p_1}\cap\mathcal{I}_{p_2})(3)\big)$ found in $b_2)$\,i).
\smallskip
Note that $\mathcal{E}_{12}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{13}}$ (resp. $\mathcal{E}_{12}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{23}}$): if $\psi$ is in $\mathcal{E}_{12}$ then the associated $\mathcal{C}_2$ does not lie on a quadric whereas if $\psi$ belongs to $\mathcal{E}_{13}$ (resp. $\mathcal{E}_{23}$) then $\mathcal{C}_2$ lies on two quadrics (resp. one quadric). Conversely $\mathcal{E}_{13} \not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{12}}$ (resp. $\mathcal{E}_{23}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{12}}$): if $\psi$ is an element of $\mathcal{E}_{13}$ (resp. $\mathcal{E}_{23}$), then $\mathcal{C}_2$ is smooth and irreducible whereas the associated $\mathcal{C}_2$ of a general element of $\mathcal{E}_{12}$ is the disjoint union of a twisted cubic and a line.
\smallskip
Let us now justify that $\mathcal{E}_{23}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{13}}$: the linear system of an element of $\mathcal{E}_{23}$ has a smooth surface whereas the linear system of an element of $\mathcal{E}_{13}$ does not. Conversely $\mathcal{E}_{13}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{23}}$; indeed $\mathrm{h}^0\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}(3h)=6$ for a birational map of $\mathcal{E}_{13}$ and $\mathrm{h}^0\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}(3h)=7$ for a birational map of $\mathcal{E}_{23}$.
\end{proof}
In bidegree $(3,5)$ the description of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,5,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is very different from those of smaller bidegrees. Let us now prove Theorem \ref{thmC}.
\begin{thm}
The set $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,5,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is empty as soon as $\mathfrak{p}_2\not\in\{-1,\,0,\,1\}$ and
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\bullet$] if $\mathfrak{p}_2=-1$, then $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,5,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is non-empty, and irreducible;
\item[$\bullet$] if $\mathfrak{p}_2=0$, then $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,5,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is non-empty, and has two irreducible components: one formed by the birational maps of $\mathcal{E}_{14}$, and the other one by the elements of $\mathcal{E}_{23}$;
\item[$\bullet$] if $\mathfrak{p}_2=1$, then $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,5,\mathfrak{p}_2}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ is non-empty, and has three irreducible components: one formed by the birational maps of $\mathcal{E}_{13}$, a second one formed by the birational maps of $\mathcal{E}_{19}$, and a third one by the elements of $\mathcal{E}_{24}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
$\bullet$ Assume $\mathfrak{p}_2=-1$. In that case only one family appears : $\mathcal{E}_{12}$ (\emph{see} \S\,\ref{subsubsec:C1smooth}), and accor\-ding to Theorem \ref{thm:comp35} the family $\mathcal{E}_{12}$ is already an irreducible component of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,5}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$ so an irreducible component of $\mathrm{Bir}_{3,5,-1}(\mathbb{P}^3_\mathbb{C})$.
\medskip
$\bullet$ Suppose $\mathfrak{p}_2=0$. We found two families : $\mathcal{E}_{14}$ (case $a_1$) of \S\,\ref{subsubsec:C1smooth}), and $\mathcal{E}_{23}$ (case $b_1$) of \S\,\ref{subsubsec:C1notsmooth}). Note that for $\psi$ general in $\mathcal{E}_{23}$ $\Lambda_\psi$ contains smooth cubics whereas all cubics of $\Lambda_\psi$ are singular as soon as $\psi$ belongs to $\mathcal{E}_{14}$. Hence $\mathcal{E}_{23}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{14}}$.
Take a general element of $\mathcal{E}_{14}$; it hasn't a base scheme of dimension $0$, connected and of length $\geq 3$ whereas elements of $\overline{\mathcal{E}_{23}}$ have. Therefore $\mathcal{E}_{14}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{23}}$.
\medskip
$\bullet$ Assume last that $\mathfrak{p}_2=1$. Our study gives three families: $\mathcal{E}_{13}$, $\mathcal{E}_{19}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{24}$ (cases $a_2$), $b_2$)i) and $b_2$)ii) of \S\,\ref{subsubsec:C1notsmooth}). The general element of $\mathcal{E}_{19}$ has two double points whereas a general element of~$\mathcal{E}_{13}$ (resp. $\mathcal{E}_{24}$) has only one; thus $\mathcal{E}_{19}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{13}}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{19}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{24}}$.
Take a general element in $\mathcal{E}_{13}$; its base locus is a smooth curve. On the contrary if $\psi$ belongs to~$\mathcal{E}_{19}$ (resp. $\mathcal{E}_{24}$), then the base locus of $\psi$ is a singular curve. Thus $\mathcal{E}_{13}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{19}}$ (resp. $\mathcal{E}_{13}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{24}}$).
If $\psi$ is a general element of $\mathcal{E}_{24}$ its base locus is an irreducible curve that is not the case if~$\psi~\in~\mathcal{E}_{19}$ so $\mathcal{E}_{24}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{19}}$.
Let us now consider a general element of $\mathcal{E}_{24}$, the tangent plane at all cubic surfaces at the point of contact doesn't contain the double point $p$; hence if we denote by $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ the quadrics containing $\mathcal{C}_2$ there doesn't exist a plane $h$ passing through $p$ such that $(hQ_1,hQ_2)\subset\Lambda_\psi$. But if we take $\psi$ in $\mathcal{E}_{13}$ then $\Lambda_\psi=\mathrm{H}^0\big((\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}\cdot\mathcal{I}_p\cap\mathcal{I}_{p_1}\cap\mathcal{I}_{p_2})(3)\big)$ with $p_1$, $p_2$ two ordinary base points, and~$p$ the triple point lying on $\mathcal{C}_1$. If $h$ is the plane passing through $p$, $p_1$ and $p_2$, if $\mathcal{I}_{\mathcal{C}_2}=(Q_1,Q_2)$, then $(hQ_1,hQ_2)\subset\Lambda_\psi$. Thus $\mathcal{E}_{24}\not\subset\overline{\mathcal{E}_{13}}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Relations with \textsc{Hudson}'s invariants}\label{Sec:singcubsurf}
To prove the birationality of a linear system of cubics, the local properties of $\mathcal{C}_1$ and $\mathcal{C}_2$ are required. For instance to apply Lemma \ref{lem:bir} one needs to understand the support of $\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2$ and the local intersection of $\mathcal{C}_1$ with a general element of $\Lambda_\psi$ at any point of $\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2$. So in the following table we make a schematic picture of the tangent cone of $\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2$ at one of its singular point in the different cases considered by \textsc{Hudson}. Let us note that the degree of the tangent cone of $\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2$ at a point of $\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2$ varies from $1$ to $6$. In particular if the linear system has a double point (resp. a double point of contact), then it is a complete intersection of two quadric cones (resp. of one quadric cone and one cubic cone). We draw pictures only when the quadric cone is irreducible. If the linear system has a binode, the tangent cone of $\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2$ has degree $5$; more precisely for a binode at $p=(z_0,z_1,z_2)$ whose fixed plane is $z_0$, {\it i.e.} $\mathcal{I}_\psi\subset\mathcal{I}_p\cdot(z_0)$, then the ideal of the tangent cone of $\mathcal{C}_1\cup\mathcal{C}_2$ at $p$ is $(z_0z_1,z_0z_2,P)$ where $P$ denotes an element of $\mathbb{C}[z_1,z_2]_4$. In our pictures the marked plane of the binode is vertical.
\smallskip
Convention. If the point is black (resp. white) then $\mathcal{C}_2$ does not pass (resp. passes through) through the point. For all cases mentioned in the paper we precise $(\widetilde{d}_1,\widetilde{d}_2)$ where $\widetilde{d}_i$ is the degree of the tangent cone of~$\mathcal{C}_i$ at $p$.
\smallskip
Let us mention that this table in which we propose local illustrations could help the reader to visualize the different examples but the proofs are not based on it.
\begin{landscape}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ | c | c | c | c | c | c | c |}
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{ |c| }{D.p. of contact} \\
\hline
\begin{pspicture}(-1,-1)(1,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](-0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.18,-0.30)\psdots[dotstyle=*](-0.15,0.35)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0.5)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,-0.5)\psellipse(0,0)(0.25,0.5)\end{pspicture}& \begin{pspicture}(-1,-1)(1,1)\psdots[dotstyle=o](-0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.18,-0.30)\psdots[dotstyle=*](-0.15,0.35)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0.5)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,-0.5)\psellipse(0,0)(0.25,0.5)\end{pspicture} & \begin{pspicture}(-1,-1)(1,1)\psdots[dotstyle=o](-0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.18,-0.30)\psdots[dotstyle=*](-0.15,0.35)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0.5)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,-0.5)\psellipse(0,0)(0.25,0.5)\end{pspicture} & \begin{pspicture}(-1,-1)(1,1)\psdots[dotstyle=o](-0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.18,-0.30)\psdots[dotstyle=o](-0.15,0.35)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0.5)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,-0.5)\psellipse(0,0)(0.25,0.5)\end{pspicture} & \begin{pspicture}(-1,-1)(1,1)\psdots[dotstyle=o](-0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.18,-0.30)\psdots[dotstyle=o](-0.15,0.35)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0.5)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,-0.5)\psellipse(0,0)(0.25,0.5)\end{pspicture}& \begin{pspicture}(-1,-1)(1,1)\psdots[dotstyle=o](-0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.18,-0.30)\psdots[dotstyle=o](-0.15,0.35)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0,0.5)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,-0.5)\psellipse(0,0)(0.25,0.5)\end{pspicture}& \begin{pspicture}(-1,-1)(1,1)\psdots[dotstyle=o](-0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.18,-0.30)\psdots[dotstyle=o](-0.15,0.35)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0,0.5)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0,-0.5)\psellipse(0,0)(0.25,0.5)\end{pspicture} \\
& & & & $(2,4)$ & & \\
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{ |c| }{binode} \\
\hline
\begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0)(0,0.25)(0,0.5)(0,0.75)(0.25,0.75)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0)(0,0.25)(0,0.5)(0,0.75)
\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.25,0.75)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.25,0.75)(0,0.25)(0,0.5)(0,0.75)
\psdots[dotstyle=o](0,0)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0.25)(0,0.5)(0,0.75)
\psdots[dotstyle=o](0,0)(0.25,0.75)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.25,0.75)(0,0.5)(0,0.75)
\psdots[dotstyle=o](0,0)(0,0.25)\end{pspicture} & &\\
& & & & & &\\
\hline
\begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0.5)(0,0.75)
\psdots[dotstyle=o](0,0)(0,0.25)(0.25,0.75)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.25,0.75)(0,0.75)
\psdots[dotstyle=o](0,0)(0,0.25)(0,0.5)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0)
\psdots[dotstyle=o](0,0.25)(0,0.5)(0.25,0.75)(0,0.75)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.25,0.75)
\psdots[dotstyle=o](0,0)(0,0.25)(0,0.5)(0,0.75)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0,0)(0,0.25)(0,0.5)(0,0.75)(0.25,0.75)\end{pspicture} & & \\
$(2,3)$ & $(2,3)'$ & & $(1,4)$ & & & \\
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{ |c| }{D.p.'s} \\
\hline
\begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0)(0.5,0)(0,0.5)(0.5,0.5)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0)(0.5,0)(0,0.5)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.5,0.5)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0)(0.5,0)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0,0.5)(0.5,0.5)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0,0)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.5,0)(0,0.5)(0.5,0.5)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0,0)(0.5,0)(0,0.5)(0.5,0.5)\end{pspicture} & & \\
& & $(2,2)$ & & & & \\
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{ |c| }{pt of osculation} \\
\hline
\begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.25,0)(0.25,0.25)(0.25,0.5)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.25,0)(0.25,0.25)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.25,0.5)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.25,0.25)(0.25,0.5)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.25,0)(0.25,0.25)(0.25,0.5)\end{pspicture}& & & \\
\hline
\multicolumn{7}{ |c| }{pt of contact} \\
\hline
\begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.25,0)(0.25,0.25)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=*](0.25,0)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.25,0.25)\end{pspicture}
& \begin{pspicture}(-0.25,-0.25)(0.75,1)\psdots[dotstyle=o](0.25,0)(0.25,0.25)\end{pspicture}
&
& & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\text{\texttt{Table} $1$}
\end{center}
\end{landscape}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec1}
The Skyrme model \cite{skyrme} is a model of atomic nuclei in which the baryon number is identified with a topological invariant, and nuclei appear as topological solitons called skyrmions. This model appears as an effective description of QCD in the limit of a large number of colours \cite{witten}. Despite possessing only a small number of parameters, the model successfully captures many properties of nuclei, including their spectra of excited states \cite{bmsw}.
A key feature of the Skyrme model is the topological energy bound \cite{faddeev76}. This states that the energy $E$ of any configuration with baryon number $B$ is greater than a positive constant $C$ times $|B|$, thereby encapsulating the idea that masses of nuclei are roughly proportional to their baryon numbers.
Topological energy bounds provide insight into binding energies. If the scaling law $E=C|B|$ is satisfied exactly by minimal-energy solitons then binding energies are zero, since solitons with baryon number $B$ can break up into solitons of lower charge at no energetic cost. Similarly, if soliton energies $E_B$ are only slightly larger than $C|B|$ then the binding energies are small, since the difference $E_{B_1}+E_{B_2}-E_{B_1+B_2}$ can be no greater than $\sum_{n=1}^2(E_{B_n}-C|B_n|)$. Thus one way to obtain realistically small binding energies is to design a model with a topological energy bound which is almost, but not quite, saturated. This idea is at the heart of various extensions \cite{sutcliffe,as-gw} of the Skyrme model proposed in the last few years.
Another recent development in the Skyrme model has been the inclusion of a pion mass term. Including this term has led to more realistic spatial energy distributions \cite{bs}, and has also revealed a link with the alpha-particle model of nuclei \cite{bms}. Studies \cite{bmsw,bks} of excited states based on semiclassical quantisation indicate that the optimum value for the bare pion mass is somewhat larger than the physically observed pion mass; it is presumed that this bare mass would be renormalised to a lower value in a full quantisation of the model.
In this note a topological energy bound will be presented for the Skyrme model with pion mass term. This bound depends on the value of the pion mass and is stronger than the standard bound \cite{faddeev76} whenever the pion mass is non-zero. Moreover, comparison with numerical data indicates that skyrmions with massive pions come closer to saturating their lower bound than those with massless pions. In fact, in a particular limit the new bound is exactly saturated. All of this suggests that the pion mass term favours low binding energies.
The same types of arguments used to derive this new bound can also be applied to a variant of the Skyrme model introduced by Faddeev \cite{faddeev}. Again, a new mass-dependent bound can be derived which improves on the standard bound \cite{vk} whenever the mass term is non-zero. As a by-product, topological energy bounds are obtained for the variants of the Faddeev-Skyrme model proposed by Nicole \cite{nicole} and Aratyn-Ferreira-Zimerman \cite{afz}. Applied to the Skyrme model on a compact domain, our arguments yield a topological energy bound which scales as $B^{4/3}$ (a bound for the Faddeev-Skyrme model on a compact domain has previously been obtained in \cite{ss}).
The new bound for the Skyrme model will be derived and analysed in sections \ref{sec2} and \ref{sec3}, and the bound for Faddeev's model and its variants will be derived in section \ref{sec4}. Some conclusions will be drawn in section \ref{sec5}.
\section{The extreme Skyrme model}
\label{sec2}
\subsection{A lower bound}
The matter content of the Skyrme model is a map $\phi:M\to\Sigma$, where $(M,g)$ and $(\Sigma,h)$ are both three-dimensional Riemannian manifolds. In typical applications to nuclear physics one takes $M={\mathbb{R}}^3$ and $\Sigma=S^3\cong {\rm SU}(2)$. The strain tensor for $\phi$ is by definition $D_i^j = g^{jk} \partial_i\phi^\alpha\partial_k\phi^\beta h_{\alpha\beta}$. Skyrme's energy functional is \cite{manton}
\begin{equation}
\label{Skyrme energy 1}
E = \int_M \big[ \alpha_2\mathrm{Tr}\, D + \alpha_4\sfrac12((\mathrm{Tr}\, D)^2-\mathrm{Tr}\,(D^2)) + \alpha_0 V(\phi)\big]\mathrm{dV}_g ,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_0,\alpha_2,\alpha_4$ are non-negative real parameters, $V$ is a non-negative real function on $\Sigma$, and $\mathrm{dV}_g=\sqrt{g}{\rm d}^3x$ is the Riemannian volume form on $M$. The eigenvalues of $D$ are non-negative and will be denoted $\lambda_1^2,\lambda_2^2,\lambda_3^2$, and the first two terms in the energy density can be reexpressed as $\mathrm{Tr}\, D=\sum_i\lambda_i^2$ and $\sfrac12((\mathrm{Tr}\, D)^2-\mathrm{Tr}\,(D^2))=\sum_{i<j}\lambda_i^2\lambda_j^2$.
If both $M$ and $\Sigma$ are compact without boundary, the map $\phi$ has a topological invariant $B\in\mathbb{Z}$, known as the degree or the topological charge. The degree may be computed using the formula,
\begin{equation}
\label{degree formula}
\int_M\phi^\ast\Omega = B\int_\Sigma\Omega,
\end{equation}
in which $\Omega$ is any volume form on $\Sigma$. If $M$ is not compact, the degree is still well-defined provided that the condition that $\phi$ is constant on the boundary of $M$ is imposed. For example, if $M= {\mathbb{R}}^3$ and $\Sigma={\rm SU}(2)$ it is required that $\phi(\mathbf{x})$ tends to the identity matrix as $r\to\infty$, and the integer $B$ is identified with the baryon number in this case.
Faddeev derived a lower bound on the first two terms in the energy functional \cite{faddeev76}:
\begin{equation}
\label{Faddeev LB}
E \geq 6\sqrt{\alpha_2\alpha_4}\,Vol(\Sigma)\,|B|.
\end{equation}
Below, a bound will be derived on the second and third terms in the energy functional; this will be combined with Faddeev's bound in the section that follows. Accordingly, we set $\alpha_2=0$ and without loss of generality assume that $\alpha_4=\alpha_0=1$; then the energy is
\begin{equation}
E = \int_M \left[ \lambda_1^2\lambda_2^2 + \lambda_1^2\lambda_3^2 + \lambda_2^2\lambda_3^2 + V(\phi) \right]\mathrm{dV}_g.
\end{equation}
The main tool in the derivation of the bound is the inequality of the arithmetic and geometric means: if $w_a$ are $n$ positive real numbers that sum to 1 and $x_a$ are $n$ non-negative real numbers, then
\begin{equation}
\label{AMGM}
\sum_{a=1}^n w_a x_a \geq \prod_{a=1}^n x_a^{w_a}
\end{equation}
with equality if and only if $x_1=x_2=\ldots=x_n$. We also make use of H\"older's inequality,
\begin{equation}
\label{Holder}
\left(\int_{M}|f_1|^p\mathrm{dV}_g\right)^{\frac1p} \left(\int_{M}|f_2|^q\mathrm{dV}_g\right)^{\frac1q} \geq \int_M |f_1f_2| \mathrm{dV}_g,
\end{equation}
valid whenever $1/p+1/q=1$ and $f_1,f_2$ are functions such that the left hand side is finite. Equality holds in this expression if and only if one of the functions $f_i$ is equal to a constant times the other.
The first application of the inequality \eqref{AMGM} yields
\begin{equation}
\label{ES1}
E\geq 4\left( \frac13\int_M \left[\lambda_1^2\lambda_2^2 + \lambda_1^2\lambda_3^2 + \lambda_2^2\lambda_3^2\right]\mathrm{dV}_g\right)^{3/4}
\left( \int_M V(\phi) \mathrm{dV}_g \right)^{1/4}.
\end{equation}
Here the two weights $w_a$ have been chosen to be $\sfrac14$ and $\sfrac34$ so that the expression on the right is scale invariant when $M={\mathbb{R}}^3$. If the weights had not been so chosen the right hand side would be unstable to scalings, and in particular not bounded from below by any positive number.
The next step uses the inequality \eqref{AMGM} again to deduce that
\begin{equation}
\label{ES2}
\frac13 (\lambda_1^2\lambda_2^2 + \lambda_1^2\lambda_3^2 + \lambda_2^2\lambda_3^2) \geq |\lambda_1\lambda_2\lambda_3|^{4/3}.
\end{equation}
From H\"older's inequality it follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{ES3}
4\left( \int_M |\lambda_1\lambda_2\lambda_3|^{4/3} \mathrm{dV}_g \right)^{3/4} \left( \int_M V(\phi) \mathrm{dV}_g\right)^{1/4}
\geq 4 \int_M V^{1/4}|\lambda_1\lambda_2\lambda_3|\mathrm{dV}_g.
\end{equation}
The quantity on the right of this expression is greater than or equal to the integral over ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ of $\phi^\ast(V^{1/4}\mathrm{dV}_h)$, as follows from the identity $\det D^2\det g=\det(\partial\phi^\alpha/\partial x^i)^2\det h$. Thus by equation \eqref{degree formula} the following bound holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{extreme Skyrme bound}
E \geq 4 |B| \int_\Sigma V^{1/4}\mathrm{dV}_h.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Saturating the bound}
It is instructive to consider whether the bound \eqref{extreme Skyrme bound} can be saturated. The first inequality \eqref{ES1} in the derivation is saturated if and only if
\begin{equation}
\label{ES4}
\int_M \left[\lambda_1^2\lambda_2^2 + \lambda_1^2\lambda_3^2 + \lambda_2^2\lambda_3^2\right] \mathrm{dV}_g = 3\int_M V(\phi) \mathrm{dV}_g.
\end{equation}
It is noteworthy that when $M={\mathbb{R}}^3$ this equation is precisely the condition that $\phi$ is stable to Derrick scalings $\phi(x)\mapsto \phi(\lambda x)$, so this condition is satisfied by any (finite-energy) solution of the field equations.
The second inequality \eqref{ES4} holds if and only if $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\lambda_3$. This condition is equivalent to the statement that $\phi^\ast h = \lambda^2 g$ for some real function $\lambda=\lambda_i$, and in particular is true when $\phi$ is a conformal map. The third inequality \eqref{ES3} holds if and only if $V(\phi(x)) = C\lambda^4(x)$ for some positive real constant $C$. From equation \eqref{ES4} it is clear that $C=1$. Therefore the bound \eqref{extreme Skyrme bound} is saturated if and only if $\phi$ is a map such that
\begin{equation}
\label{ES saturation}
\phi^\ast h = \sqrt{V\circ\phi}\, g.
\end{equation}
There are certainly maps which satisfy equation \eqref{ES saturation}. For example, let $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}^3\to S^3$ be the inverse stereographic projection,
\begin{equation}
\phi(x^1,x^2,x^3) = \left( \frac{1-|{\bf x}|^2}{1+|{\bf x}|^2}, \frac{2x^1}{1+|{\bf x}|^2}, \frac{2x^2}{1+|{\bf x}|^2}, \frac{2x^3}{1+|{\bf x}|^2} \right).
\end{equation}
This map is a conformal, and the pull-back of the metric on the sphere is $\phi^\ast h = \left(2/(1+|{\bf x}|^2)\right)^2{\rm d} x^i{\rm d} x^i$.
Thus equation \eqref{ES saturation} is satisfied by this map for the particular choice of potential,
\begin{equation}
\label{ES potential}
V(\phi^0,\phi^1,\phi^2,\phi^3) = (1+\phi^0)^4.
\end{equation}
The energy of this map is equal to its lower bound \eqref{extreme Skyrme bound}, and takes the numerical value $E=8\pi^2$. In contrast, Faddeev's bound \eqref{Faddeev LB} for the standard Skyrme model is saturated only by isometries, and thus can never be attained by maps from ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ to $S^3$.
For the particular choice of potential \eqref{ES potential} the bound \eqref{extreme Skyrme bound} can be saturated only when $|B|=0$ or 1. Thus the energy of any skyrmion of topological charge $B>1$ is greater than $B$ times the energy of the 1-skyrmion. In the standard Skyrme model with potential $V=1+\phi^0$ the energies of $B$-skyrmions are significantly less than $B$ times the energy of the 1-skyrmion. The behaviour or real nuclei lies somewhere between these two extremes, with the mass of a nucleus with baryon number $B$ being only slightly less than $B$ times the proton mass. Thus one might hope that physically realistic binding energies could be achieved in the Skyrme model by a judicious choice of potential function.
\subsection{The Skyrme model on a compact manifold}
When $M$ has finite volume and $|B|$ is large the bound \eqref{extreme Skyrme bound} is not the strongest possible: a stronger bound can be obtained from the Skyrme term alone. Accordingly, let us assume that $\alpha_2=\alpha_0=0$ and $\alpha_4=1$, and write
\begin{equation}
E = \int_M \left( \lambda_1^2\lambda_2^2 + \lambda_1^2\lambda_3^2 + \lambda_2^2\lambda_3^2 \right)\mathrm{dV}_g.
\end{equation}
H\"older's inequality imples that
\begin{equation}
\left( \int_M |\lambda_1\lambda_2\lambda_3|^{\sfrac43} \mathrm{dV}_g\right)^{\sfrac34}
\left( \int_M \mathrm{dV}_g\right)^{\sfrac14}
\geq \int_M |\lambda_1\lambda_2\lambda_3| \mathrm{dV}_g.
\end{equation}
The quantity on the right of this inequality is greater than or equal to the integral over $M$ of the pull-back of the volume form on $\Sigma$. Thus by equation \eqref{degree formula} the quantity on the right is greater than or equal to $B$ times the volume of $\Sigma$. In view of the inequality \eqref{ES2} the bound
\begin{equation}
\label{FV lower bound}
E \geq 3|B|^{\sfrac43}\frac{ {\rm Vol}(\Sigma)^{\sfrac43} }{ {\rm Vol}(M)^{\sfrac13} }
\end{equation}
is obtained. This inequality is saturated if and only if $\phi$ is an isometry up to scale, that is, $\phi^\ast h = C g$ for some constant $C$. Clearly the lower bound \eqref{FV lower bound} still applies (with an additional factor of $\alpha_4$) to the more general energy functional \eqref{Skyrme energy 1}. Since this bound is proportional to $|B|^{4/3}$ rather than $|B|$, it exceeds Faddeev's bound and the bound \eqref{extreme Skyrme bound} for large enough $|B|$.
Skyrme models on compact manifolds $M$ (such as the three-torus) are used as models of nuclear matter at high density \cite{cjjvj,ks}. The bound \eqref{FV lower bound} should have some relevance there; indeed, the special case $B=1$ of this bound was previously derived by Manton \cite{manton} in this context.
\section{The standard Skyrme model}
\label{sec3}
In the present section the bound \eqref{extreme Skyrme bound} will be combined with Faddeev's bound to yield a lower bound which is stronger than either. Attention will now be restricted to the case $M={\mathbb{R}}^3$ and $\Sigma={\rm SU}(2)\cong S^3$; accordingly, the Skyrme field will be an SU(2)-valued function $U({\bf x})$. In standard units, Skyrme's energy functional is
\begin{equation}
E = \frac{F_\pi^2}{8} E_2 + \frac{1}{2e^2} E_4 + \frac{m_\pi^2F_\pi^2}{8}E_0,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
E_2 &= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} -\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}\,(R_iR_i) \,{\rm d}^3x, \\
E_4 &= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} - \frac{1}{16}\mathrm{Tr}\,([R_i,R_j][R_i,R_j]) \,{\rm d}^3 x, \\
E_0 &= \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\mathrm{Tr}\,(1-U) \,{\rm d}^3x,
\end{align}
and $R_i=\partial_i UU^{-1}$. Faddeev's lower bound \eqref{Faddeev LB} is
\begin{equation}
\label{Faddeev}
\alpha_2E_2+\alpha_4E_4 \geq 12\pi^2 \alpha_2^{1/2}\alpha_4^{1/2}|B|,
\end{equation}
and the lower bound \eqref{extreme Skyrme bound} is
\begin{equation}
\label{me}
\alpha_0E_0+\alpha_4E_4\geq 16\pi I \alpha_0^{1/4}\alpha_4^{3/4} |B|,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
I = \int_0^\pi (2(1-\cos\theta))^{\sfrac14}\sin^2\theta{\rm d}\theta\approx 1.807.
\end{equation}
The idea pursued in this section is to split the energy functional into two pieces and apply the two bounds \eqref{Faddeev} and \eqref{me} simultaneously. Thus let $t\in[0,1]$ be a parameter and write
\begin{align}
E &= \left( \frac{F_\pi^2}{8} E_2 + \frac{1-t}{2e^2} E_4 \right) + \left( \frac{m_\pi^2F_\pi^2}{8}E_0 + \frac{t}{2e^2}E_4\right) \\
& \geq 12\pi^2 \frac{F_\pi}{4e}(1-t)^{1/2}|B| + 16\pi I\left(\frac{m_\pi F_\pi}{8e^3}\right)^\sfrac12 t^{3/4} |B| \\
\label{SS1}
& = \frac{12\pi^2 F_\pi |B|}{4e} \left( (1-t)^{1/2} + \frac{2}{3}\sqrt{\frac{\mu}{2}} t^{3/4} \right),
\end{align}
where in the last line the dimensionless parameter
\begin{equation}
\mu = \frac{16 I^2m_\pi}{\pi^2 F_\pi e}
\end{equation}
has been introduced for notational convenience. The lower bound \eqref{SS1} is a function of $t$ that attains its maximum when $t = \mu/(1 + \sqrt{1+\mu^2})$. Thus the strongest lower bound attainable by the above method is
\begin{equation}
\label{SS lower bound}
E \geq 12\pi^2 |B|\, \frac{F_\pi}{4e} \left(1+\frac{1}{3}\frac{\mu^2}{1+\sqrt{1+\mu^2}} \right)\left(\frac{2}{1+\sqrt{1+\mu^2}}\right)^{\sfrac12}.
\end{equation}
When $\mu=0$ this is just Faddeev's bound \eqref{Faddeev}, while in the limit $\mu\to\infty$ this is the lower bound \eqref{me}. For all intermediate values of $\mu$ the bound is stronger than either. Currently in applications to nuclear physics the most popular choice of parameters has $m:=2m_\pi/eF_\pi= 1$ \cite{bmsw,bks}. With this value, the combined bound \eqref{SS lower bound} is 16\% above Faddeev's bound and 52\% above the lower bound \eqref{me}.
It is informative to compare the bound \eqref{SS lower bound} with skyrmion energies quoted in the literature. In \cite{bms} skyrmions are constructed numerically in the model with $m=1$ with topological charges in the range $4\leq B\leq 32$. The energies are between 28\% and 30\% above Faddeev's bound, and hence between 10\% and 12\% above the bound \eqref{SS lower bound}. In \cite{bs} it was noted that Skyrme energies scale like $\sqrt{m_\pi}$ as $m_\pi\to\infty$ with $e$ and $F_\pi$ fixed; the bound \eqref{SS lower bound} exhibits similar scaling behaviour.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics{figure.pdf}
\caption{Energy of a 1-skyrmion as a function of $\alpha$. $E_{min}$ is the lower bound \eqref{SS lower bound}.}
\label{fig}
\end{figure}
Numerical simulations indicate that the minimal energy charge 1 skyrmion is spherically symmetric. We have compared the energy of the spherically-symmetric 1-skyrmion with the lower bound for a large range of values of $m$ using the following standard procedure. First, a spherically-symmetric hedgehog ansatz is made for the Skyrme field:
\begin{equation}
U(\mathbf{x}) = \exp({\rm i} f(r) \sigma_j x^j/r).
\end{equation}
The boundary conditions $f(0)=\pi$, $f(r)\to 0$ as $r\to\infty$ are imposed on the real function $f$ so that the topological charge of $U$ is 1. The units of length and energy are chosen so that Skyrme's energy is $(1-\alpha) E_2 + E_4 + \alpha E_0$. Doing so gives the skyrmion a roughly constant size and energy as $\alpha$ is varied, so that the same numerical grid can be used for all values of $\alpha$. With these units, $m=\sqrt{\alpha}/(1-\alpha)$ and $\mu=8I^2m/\pi^2$. Substitution of the ansatz into the energy functional yields
\begin{multline}
E = 4\pi \int_0^\infty \bigg[ (1-\alpha)\left((f')^2+2\frac{\sin^2f}{r^2}\right) \\
+ \frac{\sin^2f}{r^2}\left(2(f')^2+\frac{\sin^2f}{r^2}\right) + 2\alpha(1-\cos f) \bigg] r^2{\rm d} r.
\end{multline}
A discretised version of this energy with first order derivatives was minimised using an annealing method. The number of gridpoints and the stepsize were chosen so that doubling either did not significantly alter the energies. The resulting energies are plotted as a function of $\alpha$ in figure \ref{fig}. The excess of the soliton energy above its lower bound decreases from 23\% at $m=0$ to 11\% at $m=\infty$; apart from a slight rise near $m=0$, the decrease is monotonic. This supports the hypothesis that increasing the size of the potential term reduces binding energies.
\section{The Faddeev-Skyrme model}
\label{sec4}
In this section the ideas developed above will be applied to another model that supports soliton solutions, namely the Faddeev-Skyrme model \cite{faddeev}. The field content of Faddeev's model is a map $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}^3\to S^2$.
The map $\phi$ will be written $(\phi^1({\bf x}),\phi^2({\bf x}),\phi^3({\bf x}))$ such that $\vec{\phi}\cdot\vec{\phi}=1$, and the strain tensor is $D_i^j=\partial_i\phi^a\partial^j\phi^a$. The energy functional is
\begin{equation}
E = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left[ \alpha_2\mathrm{Tr}\, D + \frac{\alpha_4}{2}((\mathrm{Tr}\, D)^2-\mathrm{Tr}\,(D^2)) + \alpha_0V(\phi)\right]{\rm d}^3 x ,
\label{SF energy}
\end{equation}
with $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_2$ and $\alpha_4$ non-negative real parameters and $V$ a non-negative real function on $S^2$. Maps $\phi$ which tends to a constant as $r\to\infty$ can be extended to maps from $S^3$ to $S^2$ and therefore possess a topological invariant $Q\in\pi_3(S^2)\cong\mathbb{Z}$, the Hopf degree. Vakulenko and Kapitanski obtained a lower bound \cite{vk} on $E$ in terms of the Hopf invariant:
\begin{equation}
\label{VK bound}
E\geq 3^{3/8}16\pi^2 \sqrt{\alpha_2\alpha_4} |Q|^{3/4}
\end{equation}
(see also \cite{ly}). It is known that the power $\sfrac34$ of $|Q|$ is optimal \cite{ly}, but it has been conjectured that the coefficient $3^{3/8}16\pi^2$ can be significantly improved \cite{ward}.
\subsection{The bound}
Clearly the Vakulenko-Kapitanski bound makes no reference to the third term $V(\phi)$ in the energy density. Here a bound will be obtained on the second and third terms, which will subsequently be combined with the Vakulenko-Kapitanski bound. Thus to begin suppose that $\alpha_2=0$ and $\alpha_4=\alpha_0=1$. Since the target of $\phi$ is two-dimensional, the strain tensor $D$ has only two non-zero eigenvalues, denoted $\lambda_1^2$ and $\lambda_2^2$, and $\sfrac12((\mathrm{Tr}\, D)^2-\mathrm{Tr}\,(D^2))=\lambda_1^2\lambda_2^2$. The first steps in the derivation of a lower bound mirrors those in the Skyrme model:
\begin{align}
E &\geq 4\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\frac{1}{3}\lambda_1^2\lambda_2^2{\rm d}^3x\right)^{\frac34} \left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}V{\rm d}^3x\right)^{\frac14} \\
&\geq \frac{4}{3^{3/4}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}V^{1/4}|\lambda_1\lambda_2|^{3/2}{\rm d}^3x \\
\label{AFZ energy}
&= \frac{4}{3^{3/4}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}(\mathbf{B}.\mathbf{B})^{\sfrac34}{\rm d}^3x.
\end{align}
In the last equality of this sequence, the integrand has been reexpressed in terms of
\begin{equation}
\label{def B}
B^i=\sfrac12\epsilon^{ijk}V^{1/6}\vec\phi.\partial_j\vec\phi\times\partial_k\vec\phi.
\end{equation}
This $\mathbf{B}$ is the unique vector field such that $i_{\bf B}{\rm d}^3x = \phi^\ast \Omega$, where $\Omega$ is the standard area form on $S^2$ multiplied by $V^{1/6}$ and $i$ denotes the inner derivative. This vector field is identically divergenceless.
The next part of the derivation relies on the following formula for the Hopf invariant:
\begin{equation}
\label{Hopf degree}
Q = \frac{1}{\left(\int_{S^2}\Omega\right)^2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3\times{\mathbb{R}}^3} \frac{\mathbf{B}(x)\times\mathbf{B}(y).(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})}{4\pi|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}|^3}{\rm d}^3x{\rm d}^3 y.
\end{equation}
This formula can be deduced by at least two different methods. The first method begins with Whitehead's formula for the Hopf invariant as a Chern-Simons (or helicity) integral:
\begin{equation}
Q = \frac{1}{\left(\int_{S^2}\Omega\right)^2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \mathbf{A}(x).\mathbf{B}(x){\rm d}^3x,
\end{equation}
in which $\mathbf{A}$ is a vector potential satisfying $\nabla\times\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{B}$. A well-known Green's function formula for the gauge potential in Coulomb gauge ($\nabla.\mathbf{A}=0$) is
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{A}(x) = \frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \mathbf{B}(y)\times \frac{\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}}{|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}|^3} {\rm d}^3y.
\end{equation}
Substitution of this expression into Whitehead's formula yields equation \eqref{Hopf degree}. This proof relies on the assumption that $\mathbf{B}$ decays fast enough as $r\to \infty$ for the Green's function formula to be valid (and for the gauge potential $\mathbf{A}$ to extend to $S^3$). A second derivation of equation \eqref{Hopf degree} is based on an interpretation as an average linking number, and appears in the appendix.
Freedman and He have shown \cite{fh}, using the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality, that the integral appearing in \eqref{AFZ energy} is bounded from below by the integral \eqref{Hopf degree} representing the Hopf degree:
\begin{multline}
\label{Freedman He}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}|\mathbf{B}(x)|^{3/2}{\rm d}^3x
\geq C \left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3\times{\mathbb{R}}^3} \frac{\mathbf{B}(x)\times\mathbf{B}(y).(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})}{4\pi|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}|^3}{\rm d}^3x{\rm d}^3 y\right)^{3/4} \\ \mbox{ where } C = \left(\frac{16}{\pi}\right)^{\frac14}.
\end{multline}
Combined with the inequalities preceding \eqref{AFZ energy}, this yields the bound
\begin{equation}
\label{EF lower bound}
E \geq \frac{8}{(27\pi)^{1/4}} \left(\int_{S^2}\Omega\right)^{\frac32} |Q|^{3/4}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Comparison with numerical data}
The question now arises as to how close the bound \eqref{EF lower bound} comes to being saturated. A numerical study of minimisers of the energy functional \eqref{SF energy} was carried out in \cite{foster}, with the particular choice $V=2(1-\phi_3)$ of potential function. The lower bound \eqref{EF lower bound} for the model with $(\alpha_0,\alpha_2,\alpha_4)=(1,0,1)$ is $E/|Q|^{3/4}\geq2^83^{3/4}\pi^{5/4}7^{-3/2}\approx132$. The smallest value of $E/|Q|^{3/4}$ obtained in this case was $0.82\times 32\pi^2\sqrt{2}\approx 366$, which is roughly 2.78 times the lower bound. This is of similar magnitude to the excess of minimisers of the energy with $\alpha_0=0$ above the Vakulenko-Kapitanski bound.
If all three coefficients $\alpha_0$, $\alpha_2$ and $\alpha_4$ are non-zero the lower bound \eqref{EF lower bound} may be used in combination with the Vakulenko-Kapitanski bound \eqref{VK bound}. The particular combinations of terms contributing to the combined bound can be optimised to obtain the strongest possible bound following the method presented in section \ref{sec3}. Omitting the details, the final result is
\begin{equation}
\label{SF lower bound}
E \geq 3^{3/8}16\pi^2 \sqrt{\alpha_2\alpha_4}\, |Q|^{3/4}
\left(1+\frac{1}{3}\frac{\mu^2}{1+\sqrt{1+\mu^2}} \right)\left(\frac{2}{1+\sqrt{1+\mu^2}}\right)^{\sfrac12},
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\mu = \frac{2^7 3^{11/4}}{7^{3}\pi^{3/2}} \sqrt{\frac{\alpha_4\alpha_0}{\alpha_2^2}}.
\end{equation}
The minimal energies in the $Q=1$ sector obtained in \cite{foster} are listed in table \ref{table}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
$m=\sqrt{\alpha_4\alpha_0/\alpha_2^2}$ & $E/E_{min}$ \\
\hline
0 & 2.32 \\
1 & 2.51 \\
2 & 2.67 \\
4 & 2.71 \\
5 & 2.72 \\
$\infty$ & 2.91 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table}
\caption{Energies of 1-solitons in the Faddeev-Skyrme model; $E_{min}$ is the lower bound of eq.\ \eqref{SF lower bound}}
\end{table}
\subsection{Alternative energy functionals}
Aratyn, Ferreira and Zimerman introduced \cite{afz} the following variant of the Skyrme-Faddeev energy:
\begin{equation}
E_{AFZ} = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\left( \sfrac{1}{2} \partial_i\vec\phi\times\partial_j\vec\phi\,.\,\partial_i\vec\phi\times\partial_j\vec\phi\right)^{\frac34} {\rm d}^3 x.
\end{equation}
The integrand in this expression is equal to $|\mathbf{B}|^{3/2}$, where now $B^i=\sfrac12\epsilon^{ijk}\vec\phi.\partial_j\vec\phi\times\partial_k\vec\phi$. Thus Freedman and He's inequality \eqref{Freedman He} leads directly to a lower bound $E_{AFZ}\geq 16\pi^{5/4}|Q|^{3/4}$. Minima of $E_{AFZ}$ have been studied both numerically \cite{gillard} and analytically \cite{afz}; the smallest known value of $E/|Q|^{3/4}$ is given by an analytic solution and is equal to $16\pi^2$. This exceeds the lower bound by a factor of $\pi^{3/4}\approx2.36$.
Nicole studied \cite{nicole} the energy functional,
\begin{equation}
E_N = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \left( \partial_i\vec\phi. \partial_i\vec\phi \right)^{\frac32}{\rm d}^3 x.
\end{equation}
A straightforward application of the inequality \eqref{AMGM} shows that $E_N\geq 2^{3/2}E_{AFZ}$, and hence that $E_N\geq 32\sqrt{2}\pi^{5/4}|Q|^{3/4}$. In a comprehensive numerical study \cite{gs} the lowest value of $E_N/|Q|^{3/4}$ was attained by an analytical configuration with $Q=1$; the energy of this configuration is $32\sqrt{2}\pi^2$, which once again is $\pi^{3/4}$ times the lower bound.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec5}
In this note a new pion mass-dependent lower bound \eqref{SS lower bound} on the Skyrme energy functional has been derived. As the pion mass increases this bound becomes more effective, in the sense that the ratios $E/E_{min}$ between soliton energies and their lower bound decrease towards 1. With a particular choice of potential \eqref{ES potential} and in the absence of an $E_2$ term in the energy, the bound can be saturated exactly.
These results suggest that a Skyrme model with realistically low binding energies might be obtained by judiciously choosing a potential function based on \eqref{ES potential}. A full investigation of this idea would involve fully three-dimensional simulations of the field equations, which are beyond the scope of the current investigation.
A new bound \eqref{SF lower bound} for the Faddeev-Skyrme model with potential term has also been derived, based on an inequality \eqref{Freedman He} which is in effect a lower bound on the AFZ energy. Unlike in the Skyrme model, solitons in this model do not come close to saturating the lower bound. The root of this difficulty seems to be the inequality \eqref{Freedman He}, which is apparently far from optimal. The lowest-energy solitons in the AFZ model exceed this lower bound by a factor of $\pi^{3/4}$, suggesting that the best value for $C$ in \eqref{Freedman He} is in fact $\sqrt{4\pi}$. If this were true it would be possible to prove a stronger lower bound for the Faddeev-Skyrme model, even in the case of vanishing potential: indeed, elementary applications of the inequalities \eqref{AMGM}, \eqref{Holder} and \eqref{Freedman He} result in the bound $E_2+E_4\geq (8\pi)^{3/2}C|Q|^{3/4}$. When $C=\sqrt{4\pi}$ this exceeds the bound \eqref{VK bound}, and in fact coincides with the bound conjectured by Ward \cite{ward}.
The methods used to derive both of these bounds could more widely. In a forthcoming publication \cite{aw} an energy bound will be derived for a more general Skyrme model that includes higher-derivative terms.
\bigskip\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgements}
I wish to thank Martin Speight for discussions, and D.\ Foster, M.\ Gillard, P.\ Sutcliffe and C.\ Adam for suggesting improvements to a draft of this paper. I am grateful to the authors of \cite{aw} for sharing their results.
\section*{Appendix: The Hopf degree}
In this appendix an alternative derivation of equation \eqref{Hopf degree} will be supplied. Recall that if the preimages of two points $u,v\in S^2$ under $\phi$ are differentiable curves in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ parametrised as $\vec\gamma_u(s)$ and $\vec\gamma_v(t)$, then the Hopf invariant is equal to their linking number. This may be calculated using Gauss' formula:
\begin{equation}
Lk(\phi^{-1}(u),\phi^{-1}(v))
= \frac{1}{4\pi} \int \frac{\dot\gamma_u(s)\times\dot\gamma_v(t).(\mathbf{\gamma}_u(s)-\mathbf{\gamma}_v(t))}{|\mathbf{\gamma}_u(s)-\mathbf{\gamma}_v(t)|^3}{\rm d} s{\rm d} t.
\end{equation}
For fixed differentiable $\phi$, denote by $D$ the set in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ on which ${\rm d}\phi\neq0$, and let $U$ denote the set of points $u\in S^2$ such that $\phi^{-1}(u)\subset D$. Then $B=0$ outside of $D$, and the sets $S^2\setminus U$ and $D\setminus\phi^{-1}(U)$ have measure 0. The preimage of any point $u\in U$ is a differentiable curve. We suppose that these curves can be parametrised as $\gamma_u(s)$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{def gamma}
\dot\gamma_u^i(s)=B^i(\gamma_u(s))
\end{equation}
and such that $\gamma$ is a differentiable bijection from a subset $V\subset U\times {\mathbb{R}}$ to $\phi^{-1}(U)$.
It follows immediately from the definitions \eqref{def gamma} of $\gamma$ and \eqref{def B} of $\mathbf{B}$ that the pull-back of the volume form ${\rm d}^3 x$ under $\gamma$ is equal to ${\rm d} s \wedge\Omega$. Therefore, up to sets of measure zero,
\begin{align}
&\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3\times{\mathbb{R}}^3} \frac{\mathbf{B}(x)\times\mathbf{B}(y).(\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y})}{4\pi|\mathbf{x}-\mathbf{y}|^3}{\rm d}^3x{\rm d}^3 y \\
&= \int_{V\times V} \frac{\dot\gamma_u(s)\times\dot\gamma_v(t).(\mathbf{\gamma}_u(s)-\mathbf{\gamma}_v(t))}{|\mathbf{\gamma}_u(s)-\mathbf{\gamma}_v(t)|^3}{\rm d} s\,\Omega(u)\,{\rm d} t\,\Omega(v) \\
&= \int_{U\times U} Lk(\phi^{-1}(u)\phi^{-1}(v) \,\Omega(u)\wedge\Omega(v) \\
&= Q \left(\int_{S^2}\Omega\right)^2.
\end{align}
This proves equation \eqref{Hopf degree} under the assumptions on $\phi$ outlined above. Most of these assumptions can be relaxed. For topological reasons it may not be possible to define the ``inverse'' $\gamma$ of $\phi$ globally on $U$. However, $\gamma$ can be defined on local patches in $U$, and the argument goes through with integrals over $U$ replaced by a sum of integrals over these patches. It may also happen that for some $u\in U$ the inverse image $\phi^{-1}(u)$ consists of a collection of closed curves rather than a single curve. In this situation one could divide $U$ into regions $U^{(n)}$ in which $\phi^{-1}(u)$ has $n$ components, and then apply the change of variables separately on each of these regions.
\bibliographystyle{latexeu}
|
\section{Introduction}\indent
This paper is concerned with the persistence of compact support in solutions to
a recently derived cross-coupled Camassa-Holm (CCCH) equation
\cite{CHIP}, which is given by \begin{subequations}\label{sysa}
\begin{align}
m_t+2v_xm+vm_x&=0 \label{CH1} \\
n_t+2u_xn+un_x&=0, \label{CH2},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $m=u-u_{xx}$ and $n=v-v_{xx}$. This system generalises the
celebrated Camassa-Holm (CH) equation \cite{Cam}, since for $u=v$
the system \eqref{sys} reduces to two copies of the CH equation
$$ m_t+2u_xm+um_x=0. $$
The CH equation models a variety of phenomena, including the
propagation of unidirectional shallow water waves over a flat bed
\cite{Cam,DGH,HoIv,John,Iv1}. The CH equation possesses a very
rich structure, being an integrable infinite-dimensional
Hamiltonian system with a bi-Hamiltonian structure and an infinity
of conservation laws \cite{Cam,ConGerIv,Iv2}. It also has a
geometric interpretation as a re-expression of the geodesic flow
on the diffeomorphism group of the circle \cite{HoMaRa1998}. One
of the most interesting features of the CH equation, perhaps, is
the rich variety of solutions it admits. Some solutions exist
globally, whereas others exist only for a finite length of time,
modelling wave breaking \cite{ConMcK,ConEschActa}.
The CCCH equation can be derived from a variational principle as a
n Euler-Lagrange system of equations for the Lagrangian
$$
l(u,v) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} \left(uv + u_xv_x \right) \text{ d}x.
$$ Alternatively it can be formulated as a two-component system of Euler-Poincar\'e (EP)
equations in one dimension on $\mathbb{R}$ as follows, $$
{\partial_t}m= -\, {\rm ad}^*_{\delta h/\delta m} m =
-\,(vm)_{x}-mv_x \quad\hbox{with}\quad v := \frac{\delta h}{\delta
m} = K*n ,
$$
$$
{\partial_t}n= -\, {\rm ad}^*_{\delta h/\delta n} n =
-\,(un)_{x}-nu_x \quad\hbox{with}\quad u := \frac{\delta h}{\delta
n} = K*m ,
$$ with $K(x,y)=\frac12 e^{-|x-y|}$ being the Green function of the Helmholtz operator, and
$h$ being the Hamiltonian \begin{eqnarray*} h(n,m) =
\int_{\mathbb{R}} n\,K*m \text{ d}x = \!\!\int_{\mathbb{R}}
m\,K*n \text{ d}x.
\end{eqnarray*}
This Hamiltonian system has {\bf two}-component singular momentum
map \cite{HoMa2004}
$$m(x,t)=\sum_{a=1}^{M}m_{a}(t)\,\delta(x-q_{a}(t)), \qquad
n(x,t)=\sum_{b=1}^{N}n_{b}(t)\,\delta(x-r_{b}(t)).$$
The $M=N=1$ case is very simple for analysis \cite{CHIP}. If the
initial conditions are $m_1(0)>0$ and $n_1(0)>0$ then one observes
the so-called {\it waltzing} motion. It could be noted that for
half of the waltzing period (half cycle) the two types of peakons
exchange momentum amplitudes - see Fig. 1. The explicit solutions
as well as other examples with waltzing peakons and compactons are
given in \cite{CHIP}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics*[width=0.8\textwidth]{peakon_orbits.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{peakon_orbits} Plot showing velocity fields of a
peakon-peakon pair with $m_1(0)=10$, $n_1(0)=1$ (solid lines). The
dotted path indicates the subsequent path of the two peaks in the
frame travelling at the particles mean velocity. For these initial
conditions the total period for one orbit of the cycle is $T=3.6$.
Also shown is the form of the two peakons at subsequent times
$t=0.45+1.8n$, $n\in \mathbb{Z}$. }
\end{figure}
The aim of this study is to analyse the persistence of compact
support for solutions of the system \eqref{sys}. In particular, we
will examine whether the solution $m,n$, and in turn $u,v$, of
\eqref{CH1}-\eqref{CH2}, which initially have compact support,
will continue to do so as they evolve. Solutions of the system
which have compact support can be viewed as localized
disturbances, and whether a ``disturbance'' which is initially
localized propagates with a finite, or infinite speed, is a matter
of great interest. We will see that some solutions will remain
compactly supported at all future times of their existence, while
others solution display an infinite speed of propagation and
instantly lose their compact support. These results have analogues
in the CH case, which is simply the CH equation
\cite{Con1,HenJNMP,HenDCD}.
\section{Preliminaries}
We may re-express equation \eqref{sysa} in terms of
$u$ and $v$ as follows
\begin{subequations}\label{sys}
\begin{align}
u_t-u_{xxt}+2v_xu-2v_xu_{xx}+vu_x-vu_{xxx}&=0, \label{CH1a} \\
v_t-v_{xxt}+2u_xv-2u_xv_{xx}+uv_x-uv_{xxx}&=0. \label{CH2a}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
From this form of the equations one observes that there are no
terms with self-interaction (e.g. $u u_x$, $u_x u_{xx}$,
$uu_{xxx}$ etc.) which justifies the name 'cross-coupled'.
If $p(x)=\frac{1}{2}e^{-|x|},\ x\in\mathbb R$, then
$(1-\partial_x^2)^{-1}f=p\ast f$ for all $f\in L^2(\mathbb R)$ and
so $p \ast m=u$, $p \ast n=v$, where $\ast$ denotes convolution in
the spatial variable. Indeed,
\begin{equation}
u(x)=\frac 12e^{-x}\int_{-\infty}^x e^ym(y)\,dy + \frac 12
e^x\int_x^{\infty}e^{-y}m(y)\,dy. \label{udecomp} \end{equation}
\begin{equation}
u_x(x)=-\frac 12e^{-x}\int_{-\infty}^x e^ym(y)\,dy + \frac 12
e^x\int_x^{\infty}e^{-y}m(y)\,dy. \label{uxdecomp} \end{equation}
In other words, if we denote by $I_1(x)$ and $I_2(x)$ the
integrals appearing in the first and the second term of
(\ref{udecomp}), we have
\begin{equation}
u=I_1+I_2, \qquad u_x=-I_1+I_2. \label{uANDuxdecomp}
\end{equation}
Applying the convolution operator to equation \eqref{sys} we can
re-express it in the form of a conservation law \begin{equation}
\label{CH1'} (u+v)_t+\partial_x\left(uv+ p \ast \left(2uv+u_xv_x
\right)\right)=0,\quad x\in \mathbb R,\ t\geq0,
\end{equation} Thus $L=u+v$ is a density of the conserved momentum $\int(m+n)dx $.
The representation (\ref{CH1'}) agrees with the CH reduction when
$u=v$, cf. \cite{HenJNMP}.
The Hamiltonian $$H=\int(uv+u_xv_x)dx $$ (in terms of $u$ and $v$)
is of course another conserved quantity, the 'energy' of the
system, see more details in \cite{CHIP}.
One can directly observe that (\ref{sys}) can be complexified in a
natural way if the variables $u$, $v$ are assumed complex, while
the independent variables $x$, $t$ are still real. Such a
complexified system is remarkable with the fact that it admits the
obvious reduction $u=\bar{v}$ which leads to a single scalar
complex equation:
\begin{equation}\label{complex}
u_t-u_{xxt}+2\bar{u}_xu-2\bar{u}_xu_{xx}+\bar{u}u_x-\bar{u}
u_{xxx}=0.
\end{equation}
This is a geodesic equation for a complex $H^1$ metric, given by
the Hamiltonian $H=\frac12\int(|u|^2+|u_x|^2)dx$.
Of course, if one reverts to real dependent variables according to
$u=r+is$ then (\ref{complex}) leads to the coupled system
\begin{subequations}\label{sys rs}
\begin{align}
r_t-r_{xxt}+2(rr_x+ss_x)-2(r_xr_{xx}+s_xs_{xx})-(rr_{xxx}+ss_{xxx})&=0, \label{CHr} \\
s_t-s_{xxt}+r_xs-rs_x
-2(r_xs_{xx}-s_xr_{xx})-(rs_{xxx}-sr_{xxx})&=0. \label{CHs}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Unless it is explicitly specified that the variables $(u,v)$ are
complex, we assume that they are real.
\section{Results}
In the following we let $T=T(u_0,v_0)>0$ denote the
maximal existence time of the solutions $u(x,t),v(x,t)$ to the
system \eqref{sys} with the given initial data $u_0(x)$ and
$v_0(x)$.
\subsection{Persistence of compact support for the momenta}
For the following, the flow prescribed by the system
\eqref{sysa}
is given by the two families of diffeomorphisms {$\left\{
\varphi(\cdot,t) \right\}_{t\in[0,T)}$}, {$\left\{ \xi(\cdot,t)
\right\}_{t\in[0,T)}$}
as follows:
\begin{align}\label{diff}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\varphi_t(x,t)=v(\varphi(x,t),t), \\
\varphi(x,0)=x,
\end{array}\right.
\qquad
\begin{array}{l}
\xi_t(x,t)=u(\xi(x,t),t),\\ \xi(x,0)=x.
\end{array}
\end{align}
Solving \eqref{diff}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{incr}
\varphi_x(x,t)=e^{\int_0^t v_x(\varphi(x,s),s)ds},\ \xi_x(x,t)=e^{\int_0^t u_x(\xi(x,s),s)ds}>0,
\end{equation}
hence $\varphi(\cdot,t),\xi(\cdot,t)$ are increasing functions.
\begin{lemma}
\label{positivity} Assume that $u_0$ and $v_0$ are such that
$m_0=u_0-u_{0,xx}$ and $n_0=v_0-v_{0,xx}$ are nonnegative
(nonpositive) for $x\in \mathbb R$. Then $m(x,t)$ and $n(x,t)$
remain nonnegative (nonpositive) for all $t\in[0,T)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows from \eqref{sysa} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d\phantom{t}}{dt}m(\varphi(x,t),t)\varphi_x^2(x,t)=m_t\varphi_x^2+m_x\varphi_t\varphi_x^2+2m\varphi_x\varphi_{xt}
\\ =(m_t+2v_xm+vm_x)\varphi_x^2=0,
\end{eqnarray*}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d\phantom{t}}{dt}n(\xi(x,t),t)\xi_x^2(x,t)=n_t\xi_x^2+n_x\xi_t\xi_x^2+2m\xi_x\xi_{xt}
\\ =(n_t+2u_xn+un_x)\xi_x^2=0.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore
\begin{equation}\label{int}
m(\varphi(x,t),t)\varphi_x^2(x,t)=m_0(x), \quad
n(\xi(x,t),t)\xi_x^2(x,t)=n_0(x).
\end{equation}
Now, since $m_0(x),n_0(x)$ are nonnegative (nonpositive) then
$m(x,t)$ and $n(x,t)$ remain nonnegative (nonpositive) for all
$t\in[0,T)$. \qed
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{mcompact} Assume that $u_0$ is such that $m_0=u_0-u_{0,xx}$
has compact support, contained in the interval
$[\alpha_{m_0},\beta_{m_0}]$ say, then for any $t\in[0,T)$, the
function $x \mapsto m(x,t) $ has compact support contained in the
interval $[\varphi(\alpha_{m_0},t),\varphi(\beta_{m_0},t)]$ for
all $t\in[0,T)$. Similarly, if $n_0=v_0-v_{0,xx}$ has compact
support, then the function $x \mapsto n(x,t) $ is compactly
supported for all $t\in[0,T)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From (\ref{int}) and from the assumption that $m_0(x)$ is
supported in the compact interval $[\alpha_{m_0},\beta_{m_0}]$,
it follows directly
that $m(\cdot,t)$ are compactly supported, with support
contained in the interval
$[\varphi(\alpha_{m_0},t),\varphi(\beta_{m_0},t)]$, for all
$t\in[0,T)$. Similar reasoning applies to $n_0$. \qed
\end{proof}
Relation (\ref{int}) represents the conservation of momentum in
the physical variables cf. discussion in \cite{CHIP}.
\subsection{On the evolution of $(u,v)$}
In this subsection we are going to examine the general behaviour of
the solution $(u,v)$ of \eqref{sys} which is initially compactly supported. The
following Theorem provides us with some information about the
asymptotic behavior of the solution as it evolves over time - in
general, the solution has an exponential decay as $|x|\rightarrow
\infty$ for all future times $t\in[0,T)$.
\begin{theorem} \label{asymptotics}
Let $(u,v)$ be a nontrivial solution of \eqref{sys},
with maximal time of existence $T>0$, and which is initially
compactly supported on an interval $\mathcal
I_0=[\alpha_{u_0},\beta_{u_0}]\times[\alpha_{v_0},\beta_{v_0}]$.
Then we have
\begin{align}
u(x,t)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac 12 E^u_+(t)e^{-x} & \mbox{ for } x> \xi(\beta_{u_0},t), \\
\frac 12 E^u_-(t)e^{x} & \mbox{ for } x<\xi(\alpha_{u_0},t),
\end{array}
\right.,
\\
v(x,t)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac 12 E^v_+(t)e^{-x} & \mbox{ for } x> \varphi(\beta_{v_0},t), \\
\frac 12 E^v_-(t)e^{x} & \mbox{ for } x<\varphi(\alpha{v_0},t),
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
where $\alpha,\beta$ are defined in \eqref{alphabet} below,
and $E^u_-,E^u_+,E^v_-,E^v_+$ are continuous functions, with
$E^u_+(0)=E^v_+(0)=E^u_-(0)=E^v_-(0)=0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Firstly, if $(u_0,v_0)$ is initially supported on the compact interval $\mathcal I_0=[\alpha_{u_0},\beta_{u_0}]\times[\alpha_{v_0},\beta_{v_0}]$ then so too is $m_0$, and from the proof Lemma~\ref{mcompact} it follows that $\left(m(\cdot,t),n(\cdot,t)\right)$ is compactly supported, with its support contained in the interval $\mathcal I_t=[\xi(\alpha,t),\xi(\beta,t)]\times[\varphi(\alpha,t),\varphi(\beta,t)]$ for fixed $t\in[0,T)$. Here
\begin{equation}\label{alphabet}
\alpha=\min\{\alpha_{u_0},\alpha_{v_0}\},\ \beta=\max\{\beta_{u_0},\beta_{v_0}\}.
\end{equation}
We use the relation $u=p\ast m$ to write
\[
u(x)=\frac 12 e^{-x}\int_{-\infty}^x e^ym(y)\,dy + \frac 12 e^x\int_x^{\infty}e^{-y}m(y)\,dy,
\]
and then we define our functions
\begin{equation}\label{EuDef}
E^u_+(t)=\int_{\xi(\alpha,t)}^{\xi(\beta,t)}e^ym(y,t) \,dy \quad
\mbox{ and }
E^u_-(t)=\int_{\xi(\alpha,t)}^{\xi(\beta,t)}e^{-y}m(y,t)dy.
\end{equation}
We have
\begin{equation}\label{uEpm}\begin{array}{ll}
u(x,t)= \frac{1}{2}e^{-x}E^u_+(t), \quad & x> \xi(\beta,t), \\
u(x,t)= \frac{1}{2}e^{x}E^u_-(t), \quad & x<\xi(\alpha,t),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and therefore from differentiating \eqref{uEpm} directly we get
\begin{equation*}\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{2}e^{-x}E^u_+(t)=u(x,t)=-u_x(x,t)=u_{xx}(x,t), \quad & x> \xi(\beta,t), \\
\frac{1}{2}e^{x}E^u_-(t)=u(x,t)=u_x(x,t)=u_{xx}(x,t),\quad & x<\xi(\alpha,t).
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
Since $u(\cdot,0)$ is supported in the interval $[\alpha,\beta]$,
we have $E^u_+(0)=E^u_-(0)=0$, as we can see by taking
integration by parts where the boundary terms vanish. \qed
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
If in addition $m_0(x)$ and $n_0(x)$ are everywhere nonnegative
(nonpositive), then the solution $(u,v)$ (if nontrivial) loses its
compactness immediately.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} Indeed, in order for an nontrivial solution to stay
compact one needs $E^u_{\pm}(t)\equiv 0$, $E^v_{\pm}(t)\equiv 0$
for all $t\in [0,T]$. However from Lemma \ref{positivity} it
follows that $m(x,t)$ and $n(x,t)$ remain everywhere nonnegative
(nonpositive) and thus the quantities $E^u_{\pm}(t)$,
$E^v_{\pm}(t)$ defined e.g. in (\ref{EuDef}) are positive
(negative) for all $t\in (0,T]$ in the case of a nontrivial
solution. \qed
\end{proof}
From (\ref{CH1'}) we know that $L=u+v $ is a density of a
conserved quantity and as such it deserves a special attention.
From Theorem \ref{asymptotics} one can find the asymptotics of $L$
as $x\to \pm \infty$ as $$L \to \frac{1}{2}E_{\pm}(t)e^{-|x|} $$
where $E_{\pm}\equiv E^u_{\pm}+E^v_{\pm}$. Since the nature of the
solution that we expect is several coupled 'waltzing' waves, i.e.
the maximum elevations of $u(x,t)$ and $v(x,t)$ increase and
decrease with time in the waltzing process. In other words the
functions $E^u_{\pm}(t)$ and $E^v_{\pm}(t)$ are in general
non-monotonic functions of $t$. However in some cases a monotonic
property holds for the conserved density $L$:
\begin{theorem}\label{Epm}
If $(u,v)$ is an initially compactly supported solution and in
addition $m_0(x)$ and $n_0(x)$ are everywhere nonnegative
(nonpositive), then the quantity $E_{+}(t)$ is a monotonically
increasing function and $E_{-}(t)$ is a monotonically decreasing
function.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Indeed, from Lemma \ref{positivity} it
follows that $m(x,t)$ and $n(x,t)$ remain everywhere nonnegative
(nonpositive) and from the explicit form of the inverse Helmholtz
operator $u(x,t)$ and $v(x,t)$ remain everywhere nonnegative
(nonpositive). Since $m(\cdot,t)$ is supported in the interval
$[\xi(\alpha,t),\xi(\beta,t)]$, for each fixed $t$, the derivative
is given by
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\mathrm dE^u_+(t)}{\mathrm dt} =
\int_{\xi(\alpha,t)}^{\xi(\beta,t)} e^y m_t(y,t)\mathrm dy=
\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^y m_t(y,t)\mathrm dy.
\end{equation*}
Similarly, if we define
\[
E^v_+(t)=\int_{\varphi(\alpha,t)}^{\varphi(\beta,t)}e^ym(y,t) \,
dy \quad \mbox{ and }
E^v_-(t)=\int_{\varphi(\alpha,t)}^{\varphi(\beta,t)}e^{-y}m(y,t)dy,
\] then $E^v_+(0)=E^v_-(0)=0$, and
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\mathrm dE^v_+(t)}{\mathrm dt} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty e^y
n_t(y,t)\mathrm dy.
\end{equation*}
From \ref{CH2} and integration by parts we have
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
& \frac{\mathrm dE_+(t)}{\mathrm dt}
=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^y(m_t(y,t)+n_t(y,t))\,dx \nonumber \\
\nonumber
&=-\int_\mathbb R e^x \left(2v_x(u-u_{xx})+v(u-u_{xx})_x+2u_x(v-v_{xx})+u(v-v_{xx})_x\right)\,dx \nonumber\\
&= \int_{-\infty}^\infty e^y \left(2uv+u_{x}v_x\right)\,dy,\ \quad
t\in[0,T), \nonumber \\
\end{align} \label{IbyParts} \end{subequations}
where all boundary terms after integration by parts vanish, since
the functions {$m(\cdot,t)$}, {$n(\cdot,t)$} have compact support
and {$u(\cdot,t)$}, {$v(\cdot,t)$} decay exponentially at $\pm
\infty$, for all $t\in[0,T)$. Using (\ref{uANDuxdecomp}) for
$u=I_1^u+I_2^u$, $u_x=-I_1^u+I_2^u$, $v=I_1^v+I_2^v$,
$v_x=-I_1^v+I_2^v$, and noticing that all integrals
$I_{1,2}^{u,v}$ are all nonnegative (nonpositive), we have that
$$2uv+u_{x}v_x=3I_1^uI_1^v+I_2^uI_1^v+I_1^uI_2^v+3I_2^uI_2^v$$
and thus \begin{equation} \frac{\mathrm
dE_+(t)}{\mathrm dt}>0.\label{e1} \end{equation} Similarly, we
have
\begin{align}\nonumber \frac{\mathrm dE_-(t)}{\mathrm dt} =
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-y}(m_t(y,t)+n_t(y,t))\,dx \\
\label{e2} = -\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-y}
\left(2uv+u_{x}v_x\right)\,dy<0,\ \ t\in[0,T) \end{align} for
analogous reasons as before. \qed
\end{proof}
\subsection{Evolution in the case $u=\bar{ v}$ when initially compactly supported}
Some analytical results can be established in the case $u=\bar{
v}$, for example one can prove immediately the analogue of Theorem
\ref{Epm}:
\begin{theorem}
If $u=\bar{ v}$ is initially compactly supported, then $E_-=(E^u_-
+ E^v_-)(t)$ is a decreasing function, with $E_-(0)=0$, and
$E_+(t)$ is increasing, with $E_+(0)=0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Follows the lines of the proof of Theorem \ref{Epm}.
In this case $2uv+u_xv_x=2|u|^2+|u_x|^2 \ge 0$ and for nontrivial
solutions this expresion is at least somewhere positive. \qed
\end{proof}
The following Lemma is proved by making extensive use of relation
\eqref{udecomp}.
\begin{lemma}\cite{HenJNMP}\label{equivalence}
Let $(u,v)$ be a solution of system \eqref{sys}, and suppose $u$ is such that
$m=u-u_{xx}$ has compact support. Then, for each fixed time
$0<t<T$, $u$ has compact support if and only if
\begin{equation}\int_\mathbb Re^xm(x)\,dx=\int_\mathbb
Re^{-x}m(x)\,dx=0. \label{zeroint} \end{equation} The equivalent
relation holds for the functions $v$ and $n$. \end{lemma}
We now establish a relation which is satisfied by solutions of
\eqref{sys} whose support remains compact throughout their
evolution. This relation will have profound implications for
solutions $(u,v)$ of \eqref{sys} which have a direct relation to
each other, as we see in Corollary \eqref{c1}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{unotcompact} Let us assume that the functions $u_0,v_0$
have compact support, and let $T>0$ be the maximal existence time
of the solutions $u(x,t),v(x,t)$ which are generated by this
initial data. If, for every $t\in[0,T)$, the function $x\mapsto
\left(u(x,t),v(x,t)\right)$ has compact support, then
\begin{equation} \label{relunot}\int_\mathbb R e^{x} \left(2uv+u_{x}v_x\right)\,dx=\int_\mathbb R e^{-x} \left(2uv+u_{x}v_x\right)\,dx=0 \ \ \mbox{ for } t\in[0,T). \end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By the assumptions of this theorem, Lemma~\ref{equivalence}
applies. Using \eqref{sys} and differentiating the left hand side
of \eqref{zeroint} with respect to $t$ we get
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dt}\int_\mathbb R e^x \left(m+n\right)\,dx = -\int_\mathbb R e^x
\left(2v_xm+vm_x+2u_xn+un_x\right)\,dx \\
=\int_\mathbb R e^x \left(2uv+u_{x}v_x\right)\,dx=0,
\end{align*}
similarly to the proof of Theorem \ref{Epm}. The final equality
follows from the fact that identity \eqref{zeroint} holds for all
$t\in[0,T)$, by Lemma \ref{equivalence}.
Similarly, we get
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}\int_\mathbb R e^{-x}
\left(m+n\right)\,dx=-\int_\mathbb R e^{-x}
\left(2uv+u_{x}v_x\right)\,dx=0.
\end{equation}
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{r1}\int_\mathbb R e^{x} \left(2uv+u_{x}v_x\right)\,dx=\int_\mathbb R e^{-x} \left(2uv+u_{x}v_x\right)\,dx=0 \quad t\in[0,T). \end{equation}
The expression under the integral on the right hand side of this
relation must be identically zero by \eqref{zeroint}. This
completes the proof. \qed
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{c1}
Let us suppose that $u(x,t)=\bar{ v}(x,t)$. Then the only
solution $(u,v)$ of \eqref{sys} which is compactly supported over
a positive time interval is the trivial solution $u\equiv v\equiv
0$. That is to say, any non-trivial solution $(u,v)$ of
\eqref{sys} which is initially compactly supported instantaneously
loses this property, and so has an infinite propagation speed.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The statement follows directly from relations in \eqref{r1}. \qed
\end{proof}
\subsection{Global solutions for nonnegative $m_0,n_0$}
From (\ref{udecomp}) and (\ref{uxdecomp}) it follows that
\begin{equation} u(x,t)+u_x(x,t)= e^x\int_x^{\infty}e^{-y}m(y,t)\,dy. \label{uplusuxdecomp}
\end{equation}
Thus the nonnegativity of $m(x,t)$, $n(x,t)$, ensures $ u_x
(x,t)\ge -u(x,t)$ and similarly $v_x(x,t)\ge -v(x,t)$, preventing
blowup in finite time, because the solution $(u,v)$ is uniformly
bounded as long as it exists.
Blowup however might be possible if $m(x,0)$, $n(x,0)$ take both
positive and negative values.
\section{Conclusions}
In the presented study we analysed the behavior of the solutions
of the CCCH system when $m,n$ are initially compactly supported
and (i) initially $u,v$ everywhere nonpositive/nonnegative (ii)
$u=\bar{v}$. In both cases the result is that the compactness
property is lost immediately, i.e. for any time $t>0$.
Asymptotically the solutions decay exponentially to zero, such
that $u+v$ decays to zero monotonically. The exponential decay is
already observed in the case of the peakon solutions, where $m,n$
are supported only at finite number of points.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We are grateful to our friend and colleague James Percival for
providing us the figure. The work of RII is supported by the
Science Foundation Ireland (SFI), under Grant No. 09/RFP/MTH2144.
The work by DDH was partially supported by Advanced Grant 267382 FCCA from the European Research Council.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Submodularity is a pervasive and important property
in the areas of combinatorial optimization, economics, operations
research, and game theory. In recent years, submodularity's use
in machine learning has begun to proliferate as well. A set function
$f: 2^V \to \mathbb R$ over a finite set $V = \{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$ is
\emph{submodular} if for all subsets $S, T \subseteq V$, it holds that
$f(S) + f(T) \geq f(S \cup T) + f(S \cap T)$. Given a set $S \subseteq
V$, we define the \emph{gain} of an element $j \notin S$ in the
context $S$ as $f(j | S) \triangleq f(S \cup j) - f(S)$. A function $f$ is
submodular if it satisfies \emph{diminishing marginal returns},
namely $f(j | S) \geq f(j | T)$ for all $S \subseteq T, j \notin T$,
and is \emph{monotone} if $f(j | S) \geq 0$ for all $j \notin S, S
\subseteq V$.
\arxiv{The search for optimal algorithms for submodular optimization
has seen substantial progress~\cite{fujishige2005submodular,
iwata2008submodular, feldman2012optimal} in recent years, but is still an ongoing
endeavor. The first polynomial-time algorithm used the ellipsoid
method \cite{grotschel1981ellipsoid,grotschel1984geometric}, and
several combinatorial algorithms followed
\cite{iwata2001combinatorial, iwata2002fully, fleischer2003push,
iwata2003faster, iwata2009simple, orlin2009faster}.
For a detailed summary,
see~\cite{iwata2008submodular}.
Unlike submodular minimization, submodular maximization is NP
hard. However, maximization problems admit constant-factor
approximations~\cite{nemhauser1978, sviridenko2004note, janvondrak,
feldman2012optimal}, often even in the constrained case
\cite{sviridenko2004note, lee2009non, matroidimproved,
chekuri2011submodular, feldman2011unified, vondrakcontinuousgreedy}.
}
While submodularity, like convexity, occurs naturally in a wide variety of
problems, recent studies have shown that in the general case, many
submodular problems of interest are very hard: the problems of
learning a submodular function or of submodular minimization
under constraints do not even admit constant or logarithmic
approximation factors in polynomial time
\cite{balcanlearning,goel2009optimal,goemans2009approximating,iwata2009submodular,svitkina2008submodular}.
These rather pessimistic results however stand in sharp contrast to empirical observations, which suggest
that these lower bounds are
specific to rather contrived classes of functions, whereas
much better results can be achieved in many practically relevant cases.
Given the increasing importance of submodular
functions in machine learning, these observations beg the question of
qualifying and quantifying properties that make sub-classes of
submodular functions more amenable to learning and
optimization. Indeed, limited prior work has shown improved
results for constrained minimization and learning of
sub-classes of submodular functions, including symmetric
functions \cite{balcanlearning,sotoG10}, concave functions
\cite{goel2009optimal,kohliOJ13,nikolova2010approximation},
\emph{label cost} or covering functions
\cite{hassinMS07,zhang2011approximation}.
In this paper, we take additional steps towards addressing
the above problems and show how the generic notion of the
\emph{curvature} -- the deviation from modularity-- of a submodular function determines both upper and
lower bounds on approximation factors for many learning and
constrained optimization problems. In particular, our quantification tightens
the generic, function-independent bounds in \cite{goemans2009approximating,balcanlearning,svitkina2008submodular,goel2009optimal,iwata2009submodular} for many practically relevant functions.
Previously, the concept of
curvature has been used to tighten bounds for submodular maximization
problems~\cite{conforti1984submodular, vondrak2010submodularity}. Hence, our results complete a unifying picture of the effect of curvature on submodular problems. By
quantifying the influence of curvature on other problems, we improve previous bounds in
\cite{goemans2009approximating,balcanlearning,svitkina2008submodular,goel2009optimal,iwata2009submodular}
for many functions used in applications. Curvature, moreover, does
not rely on a specific functional form but generically
only on the marginal gains. It allows a smooth transition between the `easy' functions and the `really hard' subclasses of submodular functions.\looseness-1
\section{Problem statements, definitions and background}
\label{sec:probl-stat-defin}
Before stating our main results, we provide some necessary definitions and
introduce a new
concept, the \emph{curve normalized} version of a submodular
function.
Throughout this paper, we assume that the submodular function $f$ is
defined on a ground set $V$ of $n$ elements, that it is
nonnegative and $f(\emptyset) = 0$. We also use normalized
\emph{modular} (or additive) functions $w: 2^V \to \mathbb{R}$ which
are those that can be written as a sum of weights, $w(S) = \sum_{i
\in S}w(i)$.
We are
concerned with the following three problems:
\begin{problem}{(Approximation \cite{goemans2009approximating})}\label{prob1}
Given a submodular function $f$ in form of a value oracle, find an
approximation $\hat{f}$ (within polynomial time and representable
within polynomial space), such that for all $X \subseteq V$, it
holds that $\hat{f}(X) \leq f(X) \leq \alpha_1(n) \hat{f}(X)$ for a
polynomial $\alpha_1(n)$.
\end{problem}
\begin{problem}{(PMAC-Learning \cite{balcanlearning})}\label{prob2}
Given i.i.d\ training samples $\{(X_i,f(X_i)\}_{i=1}^m$ from a distribution $\mathcal D$, learn an approximation $\hat{f}(X)$ that is, with probability $1-\delta$, within a multiplicative factor of $\alpha_2(n)$ from $f$.
\arxiv{PMAC learning is defined like PAC learning with the added relaxation that the function is, with high probability, approximated within a factor of $\alpha_2(n)$.}
\end{problem}
\begin{problem}{(Constrained optimization \cite{svitkina2008submodular,goel2009optimal,iwata2009submodular, jegelka2011-inference-gen-graph-cuts})}\label{prob:min}
Minimize a submodular function $f$ over a family $\mathcal
C$ of feasible sets, i.e., $\min_{X \in \mathcal C}f(X)$.
\end{problem}
In its general form, the approximation problem was first studied by
\citet{goemans2009approximating}, who approximate any
monotone submodular function to within a factor of $O(\sqrt{n}\log
n)$, with a lower bound of $\alpha_1(n) = \Omega(\sqrt{n}/\log
n)$. Building on this result,
\citet{balcanlearning} show how to PMAC-learn a monotone submodular function
within a factor of $\alpha_2(n) = O(\sqrt{n})$, and prove
a lower bound of $\Omega(n^{1/3})$ for the learning
problem. Subsequent work extends these results to sub-additive
and fractionally sub-additive functions~\arxivalt{\cite{balcan2011learning,badanidiyuru2012sketching}}{\cite{balcan2011learning}}. Better learning results are
possible for the subclass of \emph{submodular shells}
\cite{lin2012learning} and Fourier sparse set functions
\cite{stobbe12learning}. \arxiv{Very recently Devanur \textit{et al}~\cite{devanur2013approximation} investigated a related problem of approximating one class of submodular functions with another and they show how many non-monotone submodular functions can be approximated with simple directed graph cuts within a factor of $n^2/4$ which is tight. They also consider problems of approximating symmetric submodular functions and other subclasses of submodular functions.
}Both Problems 1 and 2 have numerous
applications in algorithmic game theory and
economics~\cite{balcanlearning, goemans2009approximating} as well as
machine learning~\cite{balcanlearning,lin2011-class-submod-sum,
lin2012learning,stobbe12learning,jegelka2010online}. \arxiv{For example, applications like bundle pricing, predicting prices of objects or growth rates etc. often have diminishing returns and a natural problem is to estimate these functions~\cite{balcanlearning}. Similarly in machine learning, a number of problems involving sensor placement, summarization and others~\cite{lin2011-class-submod-sum, rkiyeruai2012} can be modeled through submodular functions. Often in these scenarios we would want to explicitly approximate or learn the true objective. For example in the case of document summarization, we are given the ROUGE scores. Since this function is submodular~\cite{lin2011-class-submod-sum}, a natural application is to learn these functions for summarization tasks.}\looseness-1
Constrained submodular minimization arises in applications
such as power assignment or transportation problems \arxivalt{
\cite{krause2005near,krause06near,wan02networks,rkiyersemiframework2013}
}{\cite{krause2005near, wan02networks, rkiyersemiframework2013}}. In machine learning, it
occurs, for instance, in the form of MAP inference in high-order
graphical models
\cite{\arxiv{delong2012minimizing,vicente2008graph,}jegelka2011-nonsubmod-vision} or in
size-constrained corpus extraction \cite{lin11}. Recent results
show that almost all constraints make it hard to solve the
minimization even within a constant factor
\cite{svitkina2008submodular,goel2009approximability,jegelka2011-inference-gen-graph-cuts}.
Here, we will focus
on the constraint of imposing a lower bound on the cardinality,
and on combinatorial constraints where $\mathcal{C}$
is the set of all $s$-$t$ paths, $s$-$t$ cuts, spanning trees, or
perfect matchings in a graph.
\arxiv{\subsection{Curvature of a Submodular function}}
A central concept in this work is the total \emph{curvature} $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$ of a submodular function
$f$ and the curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}(S)$ with respect to a set $S \subseteq V$, defined as~\cite{conforti1984submodular, vondrak2010submodularity}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:1}
\ensuremath{\kappa_f} = 1 - \min_{j \in V}\frac{f(j\mid V\setminus j)}{f(j)},\qquad\quad \ensuremath{\kappa_f}(S)
= 1 - \min_{j \in S} \frac{f(j | S \backslash j)}{f(j)}.
\end{align}
Without loss of generality, assume that $f(j) > 0$ for all $j \in V$.\arxiv{ This follows since, if there exists an element $j \in V$ such that $f(j) = 0$, we can safely remove element $j$ from the ground set, since for every set $X$, $f(j | X)$ = 0 (from submodularity), and including or excluding $j$ does not make any difference to the cost function.}
\arxivalt{
We also define two alternate notions of curvature. Define $\hat{\kappa_f}(S)$ and $\tilde{\kappa_f}(S)$ as,
\begin{align}
\hat{\kappa_f}(S) = 1 - \frac{\sum_{j \in S} f(j | S \backslash j)}{\sum_{j \in S} f(j)}, \tilde{\kappa_f}(S) = 1 - \min_{T \subseteq V} \frac{f(T | S) + \sum_{j \in S \cup T} f(j | S \cup T \backslash j)}{f(T)}
\end{align}
These different forms of curvature are closely related.
\begin{proposition}
For any monotone submodular function and set $S \subseteq V$,
\begin{align}
\hat{\kappa_f}(S) \leq \kappa_f(S) \leq \tilde{\kappa_f}(S) \leq \kappa_f
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to see that $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}(S) \leq \ensuremath{\kappa_f}(V) = \ensuremath{\kappa_f}$, by the fact that $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}(S)$ is a monotone-decreasing set function. To show that $\kappa_f(S) \leq \tilde{\kappa_f}(S)$, note that,
\begin{align}
\tilde{\kappa_f}(S) &= \min_{T \subseteq V} \frac{f(T | S) + \sum_{j \in S \cup T} f(j | S \cup T \backslash j)}{f(T)} \nonumber \\
&\geq \min_{T \subseteq V: |T| = 1} \frac{f(T | S) + \sum_{j \in S \cup T} f(j | S \cup T \backslash j)}{f(T)} \nonumber \\
&\geq \min\{\min_{j \in S} \frac{f(j | S \backslash j)}{f(j)}, \min_{j \notin S} \frac{f(j | S)}{f(j)}\} \nonumber \\
&\geq \min_{j \in S} \frac{f(j | S \backslash j)}{f(j)} \nonumber \\
&\geq 1 - \kappa_f(S)
\end{align}
We finally prove that $\hat{\kappa_f}(S) \leq \kappa_f(S)$.
Note that,
\begin{align*}
1 - \kappa_f(S) &= \min_{j \in S} \frac{f(j | S \backslash j)}{f(j)}\\
&\leq \frac{f(j | S \backslash j)}{f(j)}, \forall j \in S
\end{align*}
Also notice that,
\begin{align*}
1 - \hat{\kappa_f}(S) &= \frac{\sum_{j \in S} f(j | S \backslash j)}{\sum_{j \in S} f(j)}\\
&\geq \frac{\sum_{j \in S} (1 - \kappa_f(S)) f(j)}{\sum_{j \in S} f(j)} \\
&\geq 1 - \kappa_f(S)
\end{align*}
Hence, $\hat{\kappa_f}(S) \leq \kappa_f(S)$.
\end{proof}
Hence $\hat{\kappa_f}(S)$ is the tightest notion of curvature. In this paper, we shall see these different notions of curvature coming up in different bounds.
}{It is easy to see that $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}(S) \leq \ensuremath{\kappa_f}(V) = \ensuremath{\kappa_f}$, and hence $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}(S)$ is a tighter notion of curvature.} A modular function has curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} = 0$, and a matroid rank
function has maximal curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} = 1$. Intuitively, $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$
measures how far away $f$ is from being \emph{modular}.
Conceptually,
curvature is distinct from the recently
proposed \emph{submodularity ratio} \cite{das2011submodular} that
measures how far a function is from being \emph{submodular}.
Curvature has served to
tighten bounds for submodular maximization problems, e.g., from
$(1-1/e)$ to $\frac{1}{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}(1 - e^{-\ensuremath{\kappa_f}})$ for monotone submodular
maximization subject to a cardinality constraint
\cite{conforti1984submodular} or matroid constraints
\cite{vondrak2010submodularity}, and these results are tight. \arxiv{In fact, \cite{vondrak2010submodularity} showed that this result for submodular maximization holds for the tighter version of curvature $\tilde{\kappa_f}(S^*)$, where $S^*$ is the optimal solution. In other words, the bound for the greedy algorithm of \cite{vondrak2010submodularity} can be tightened to $\frac{1}{\tilde{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}(S^*)}(1 - e^{-\tilde{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}(S^*)})$.
}For
submodular minimization, learning, and approximation,
however, the role of curvature has not yet been addressed (an
exception are the upper bounds in \cite{rkiyersemiframework2013} for
minimization). In the following sections, we complete the picture of how curvature affects the complexity of submodular maximization and minimization, approximation, and learning.
The above-cited lower bounds for Problems \ref{prob1}--\ref{prob:min} were established with functions of maximal curvature
($\ensuremath{\kappa_f}=1$) which, as we will see, is the worst case.
By contrast,
many practically interesting functions have smaller curvature, and
our analysis will provide an explanation for the good empirical results observed with such functions
\cite{rkiyersemiframework2013,lin2011-class-submod-sum,jegelkathesis}. An
example for functions with $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} < 1$ is the class of concave
over modular functions that have been used in speech\STR{Is this ``speeech''?} processing
\cite{lin2011-class-submod-sum} and computer
vision~\cite{jegelka2011-nonsubmod-vision}. This class comprises, for
instance, functions of the form $f(X) = \sum_{i = 1}^k (w_i(X))^a$, for some $a \in [0,
1]$ and a nonnegative weight vectors $w_i$. Such functions may be defined over clusters $C_i \subseteq V$, in which case the weights $w_i(j)$ are nonzero only if $j \in C_i$~\cite{lin2011-class-submod-sum,jegelka2011-nonsubmod-vision, rkiyeruai2012}.
\arxiv{A related quantity distinct from curvature that has been
introduced in the machine learning community is the
\emph{submodularity ratio}~\cite{das2011submodular}:
\begin{align}
\gamma_{U,k}(f)
= \min_{L \subseteq U, S : |S| \leq k, S \cap L = \emptyset}
\frac{ \sum_{x \in S} f(x|L) }{f(S|L)}
\end{align}
This parameter shows the decay of approximation bounds when an
algorithm for submodular maximization is applied to non-submodular
functions. The submodularity ratio measures how ``close'' $f$ is to
submodularity, and helps characterize theoretical bounds for functions
which are approximately submodular. Curvature, by contrast,
measures how close a submodular function to being modular.}
\arxiv{\subsection{The Curve-normalized{} Polymatroid function}
\label{hardnessframework}}
\notarxiv{\paragraph{Curvature-dependent analysis.}}
To analyze Problems~\ref{prob1} -- \ref{prob:min},
we introduce the concept of a
\emph{curve-normalized{}}
polymatroid\footnote{A polymatroid function is a monotone increasing,
nonnegative, submodular function satisfying $f(\emptyset) = 0$.}.
Specifically, we define
the $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$-\emph{curve-normalized{}} version of $f$ as
\begin{align}
\label{eq:defineg}
f^{\kappa}(X) =
\frac{
f(X) - {(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})} \sum_{j \in X} f(j)
}{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}
\end{align}
If $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}=0$, then we set $f^\kappa \equiv 0$.
We call $f^{\kappa}$ the curve-normalized{} version of $f$ because its curvature is
$\curvf{f^\kappa} = 1$. The function $f^\kappa$ allows us to decompose a submodular
function $f$ into a ``difficult'' polymatroid function and an ``easy''
modular part as $f(X) = f_\text{difficult}(X) +
m_\text{easy}(X)$ where $f_\text{difficult}(X) = \kappa_f f^\kappa(X)$
and $m_\text{easy}(X) = (1-\kappa_f)\sum_{j \in X} f(j)$. Moreover, we may modulate the curvature of
given any function $g$ with $\curvf{g} = 1$, by constructing a function
$f(X) \triangleq c g(X) + (1- c) |X|$ with curvature $\curvf{f} = c$ but
otherwise the same polymatroidal structure as $g$.
Our curvature-based decomposition is different from decompositions such as that into a \emph{totally normalized} function and a modular function \cite{cun82}. Indeed, the curve-normalized{} function has some specific properties that will be useful later on
\notarxiv{(proved in~\cite{nips2013extendedvcurv})}:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:simplefacts}
If $f$ is monotone submodular with $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} > 0$, then
\arxivalt
\begin{align}
f(X) \leq \sum_{j \in X} f(j),\,\,\ f(X)
\geq (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j).
\end{align}}{$f(X) \leq \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$ and $f(X) \geq (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$.}
\end{lemma}
\arxiv{\begin{proof}
The inequalities follow from
submodularity and monotonicity of $f$. The first part follows from the subadditivity of $f$. The second inequality follows since $f(X) \geq \sum_{j \in X} f(j | V \backslash j) \geq (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$, since $\forall j \in X, f(j | V \backslash j) \geq (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) f(j)$ by definition of $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$.
\end{proof}}
\begin{lemma}
If $f$ is monotone submodular, then
$f^{\kappa}(X)$ in Eqn.~\eqref{eq:defineg}
is a monotone non-negative submodular function. Furthermore, $f^{\kappa}(X) \leq \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$.
\end{lemma}
\arxiv{
\begin{proof}
Submodularity of $f^{\kappa}$ is evident from the definition. To show the monotonicity, it suffices to show that $f(X) - {(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})} \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$ is monotone non-decreasing
and non-negative submodular. To show it is non-decreasing, notice that $\forall j \notin X, f(j | V \backslash j) -
(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) f(j) \geq 0$, since $(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) f(j) \leq f(j | V \backslash j)$ by the definition of $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$.
Non-negativity follows from monotonicity and the fact that $f^{\kappa}(\emptyset) = 0$.
To show the second part,
notice that $\frac{f(X) - (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)}{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}} \leq \frac{\sum_{j \in X} f(j) - (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)}{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}} = \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$.
\end{proof}}
\arxiv{\subsection{A framework for curvature-dependent lower bounds.}
\label{hardnessframework}}
The function $f^\kappa$ will be our tool for analyzing the hardness of submodular problems.
Previous information-theoretic lower bounds for
Problems~\ref{prob1}--\ref{prob:min}
\cite{goel2009approximability,goemans2009approximating,iwata2009submodular,svitkina2008submodular}
are \emph{independent} of curvature and use functions with
$\ensuremath{\kappa_f} = 1$. These curvature-independent bounds are proven by
constructing two essentially indistinguishable matroid rank functions
$h$ and $f^R$, one of which depends on a random set $R \subseteq
V$. One then argues that any algorithm would need to make a
super-polynomial number of queries to the functions for being able to
distinguish $h$ and $f^R$ with high enough probability. The lower
bound will be the ratio $\max_{X \in \mathcal{C}} h(X) / f^R(X)$. We
extend this proof technique to functions with a fixed given curvature.
To this end, we define the functions
\begin{equation}
f_{\kappa}^R(X) = \ensuremath{\kappa_f} f^R(X) + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) |X| \quad \text{ and }\quad h_{\kappa}(X) = \ensuremath{\kappa_f} h(X) + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) |X|.\label{eq:hidingfuncs}
\end{equation}
Both of these functions have curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$. This
construction enables us to explicitly introduce the effect of
curvature into information-theoretic bounds for all monotone
submodular functions.
\paragraph{Main results.} The curve normalization \eqref{eq:defineg} leads to refined upper bounds for Problems~\ref{prob1}--\ref{prob:min}, while the curvature modulation~\eqref{eq:hidingfuncs} provides matching lower bounds. The following are some of our main results:
for approximating submodular functions (Problem~\ref{prob1}), we
replace the known bound
of $\alpha_1(n) = O(\sqrt{n} \log n)$ \cite{goemans2009approximating} by
an improved curvature-dependent $O(\frac{\sqrt{n}
\log n}{1 + (\sqrt{n} \log n - 1) (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$. We complement this
with a lower bound of $\tilde{\Omega}(\frac{\sqrt{n}}{1 + (\sqrt{n} -
1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$. For learning submodular functions
(Problem~\ref{prob2}), we refine the known bound of $\alpha_2(n) =
O(\sqrt{n})$ \cite{balcanlearning} in the PMAC setting to a curvature
dependent bound of $O(\frac{\sqrt{n}}{1 + (\sqrt{n} - 1)
(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$, with a lower bound of
$\tilde{\Omega}(\frac{n^{1/3}}{1 + (n^{1/3} - 1) (1 -
\ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$. Finally, Table~\ref{tab:results} summarizes our
curvature-dependent approximation bounds for constrained minimization
(Problem~\ref{prob:min}). These bounds refine many of the results in
\cite{goel2009approximability, svitkina2008submodular,
iwata2009submodular,jegelka2011-inference-gen-graph-cuts}. In
general, our new curvature-dependent upper and lower bounds refine
known theoretical results whenever $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} < 1$, in many cases
replacing known polynomial bounds by a curvature-dependent constant
factor $1/(1 - \kappa_f)$. Besides making these bounds precise, the decomposition and the curve-normalized{} version
\eqref{eq:defineg}
are the basis for constructing tight algorithms that (up to logarithmic
factors) achieve the lower bounds.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Constraint & Modular approx. (MUB) & Ellipsoid approx. (EA) & Lower bound
\\ \hline
Card. LB & $\frac{k}{1+(k-1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ & $O(\frac{\sqrt{n} \log n}{1 + (\sqrt{n} \log n - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$
& $\tilde{\Omega}(\frac{n^{1/2})}{1 + (n^{1/2} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$
\\
Spanning Tree & $\frac{n}{1+(n - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ & $O(\frac{\sqrt{m} \log m}{1 + (\sqrt{m}\log m - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$
& $\tilde{\Omega}(\frac{n}{1 + (n - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$
\\
Matchings & $\frac{n}{2+(n - 2)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ & $O(\frac{\sqrt{m} \log m}{1 + (\sqrt{m} \log m - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$
& $\tilde{\Omega}(\frac{n}{1 + (n - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$
\\
\arxiv{ Edge Cover & $\frac{n}{1+(\frac{n}{2} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ & $O(\frac{\sqrt{m} \log m}{1 + (\sqrt{m} \log m - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$
& $\tilde{\Omega}(\frac{n}{1 + (0.5 n - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$
\\ }
s-t path & $\frac{n}{1 + (n-1)(1- \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ & $O(\frac{\sqrt{m}\log m}{1 + (\sqrt{m}\log m - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$
& $\tilde{\Omega}(\frac{n^{2/3}}{1 + (n^{2/3} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$
\\
s-t cut & $\frac{m}{1 + (m-1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ & $O(\frac{\sqrt{m} \log m}{1 + (\log m \sqrt{m} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$
& $\tilde{\Omega}(\frac{\sqrt{n}}{1 + (\sqrt{n} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$
\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of our results for constrained minimization (Problem~\ref{prob:min}).}
\label{tab:results}
\end{table}
\section{Approximating submodular functions everywhere}
\label{learnimproved}
We first address improved bounds for the problem of approximating a monotone submodular function everywhere.
Previous work established
$\alpha$-approximations $g$ to a submodular function $f$ satisfying $g(S) \leq f(S) \leq \alpha g(S)$ for all $S \subseteq V$ \cite{goemans2009approximating}.
We begin with a theorem showing how any algorithm computing such an approximation may be used to obtain a curvature-specific, improved approximation. Note that the curvature of a monotone submodular function can be obtained within $2n+1$ queries to $f$.
The key idea of Theorem~\ref{thm:f_and_g} is to only approximate the curved part of $f$, and to retain the modular part exactly.\notarxiv{ The full proof is in~\cite{nips2013extendedvcurv}.}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:f_and_g}
Given a polymatroid function $f$ with $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} < 1$, let $f^{\kappa}$ be its curve-normalized{} version defined in Equation~\eqref{eq:defineg}, and let $\hat{f}^{\kappa}$ be a submodular function satisfying $\hat{f}^{\kappa}(X) \leq f^{\kappa}(X) \leq \alpha(n) \hat{f}^{\kappa}(X)$,
for some $X \subseteq V$.
Then the function $\hat{f}(X) \triangleq \ensuremath{\kappa_f} \hat{f^{\kappa}}(X) + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$ satisfies
\begin{align} \label{maineq}
\hat{f}(X) \leq f(X) \leq \frac{\alpha(n)}{1 + (\alpha(n) - 1) (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})} \hat{f}(X) \leq \frac{\hat{f}(X)}{1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}}.
\end{align}
\arxiv{The above inequalities hold, even if we use an upper bound $\bar{\kappa_f}$ instead of the actual curvature $\kappa_f$.}
\end{theorem}
\arxiv{
\begin{proof}
The first inequality follows directly from definitions.
To show the second inequality, note that
$\hat{f^{\kappa}}(X) \geq \frac{f^{\kappa}(X)}{\alpha(n)}$, and therefore
\begin{align}
\frac{f(X)}{\ensuremath{\kappa_f} \hat{f^{\kappa}}(X) + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)}&= \frac{\ensuremath{\kappa_f} f^{\kappa}(X) + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)}{\ensuremath{\kappa_f} \hat{f^{\kappa}}(X) + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)} \\
&\leq \frac{\ensuremath{\kappa_f} f^{\kappa}(X) + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)}{\ensuremath{\kappa_f} \frac{f^{\kappa}}{\alpha(n)} + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)} \\
&= \alpha(n) \frac{\ensuremath{\kappa_f} f^{\kappa}(X) + (1- \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)}{\ensuremath{\kappa_f} f^{\kappa}+ (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \alpha(n) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)} \\
&= \frac{\alpha(n)}{1 + \frac{(\alpha(n) - 1) (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)}{\ensuremath{\kappa_f} f^{\kappa}(X) + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)}} \\
&\leq \frac{\alpha(n)}{1 + (\alpha(n)-1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}
\end{align}
The last inequality follows since $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} f^{\kappa}(X) + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j) \leq \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$. The other inequalities in Eqn.~\eqref{maineq} follow directly from the definitions.
It is also easy to see that all the above inequalities will hold using an upper bound $\bar{\kappa_f} > \kappa_f$ instead of $\kappa_f$ in the definition of the curve-normalized function. The bound in that case would be,
\begin{align}
\hat{f}(X) \leq f(X) \leq \frac{\alpha(n)}{1 + (\alpha(n) - 1) (1 - \bar{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}})} \hat{f}(X) \leq \frac{\hat{f}(X)}{1 - \bar{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}}
\end{align}
where, $\hat{f}(X) = \bar{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}} \hat{f^{\bar{\kappa}}}(X) + (1 - \bar{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$, $\hat{f^{\bar{\kappa}}}$ is an approximation of $f^{\bar{\kappa}}$ satisfying $\hat{f^{\bar{\kappa}}}(X) \leq f^{\kappa}(X) \leq \alpha(n) \hat{f^{\kappa}}(X)$ and,
\begin{align}
f^{\bar{\kappa}}(X) = \frac{f(X) - {(1 - \bar{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}})} \sum_{j \in X} f(j)}{\bar{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}}
\end{align}
\end{proof}}
Theorem~\ref{thm:f_and_g} may be directly applied to tighten recent results on approximating submodular functions everywhere.
An algorithm by \citet{goemans2009approximating} computes an approximation to a polymatroid function $f$ in polynomial time by approximating the submodular polyhedron via an ellipsoid. This approximation (which we call the ellipsoidal approximation) satisfies $\alpha(n) = O(\sqrt{n}\log{n})$, and
has the form $\sqrt{w^f(X)}$ for a certain weight vector $w^f$.
\arxivalt{
\begin{theorem}[\cite{goemans2009approximating}]
For any polymatroid rank function $f$, one can compute a weight vector $w^f$ and correspondingly an approximation $\sqrt{w^f(X)}$ via a polynomial number of oracle queries such that $\sqrt{w^f(X)} \leq f(X) \leq O(\sqrt{n}\log{n}) \sqrt{w^f(X)}$.
\end{theorem}
The weights $w^f$ are computed via an ellipsoidal approximation of the submodular polyhedron~\cite{goemans2009approximating}.
}
}
Corollary~\ref{cor:learn} states that a tighter approximation is possible for functions with $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} < 1$.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:learn}
Let $f$ be a polymatroid function with $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} < 1$, and
let $\sqrt{w^{f^{\kappa}}(X)}$ be the ellipsoidal approximation to the $\kappa$-curve-normalized{} version $f^{\kappa}(X)$ of $f$. Then
the function $f^{ea}(X) = \ensuremath{\kappa_f} \sqrt{w^{f^{\kappa}}(X)} + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})\sum_{j \in X} f(j)$
satisfies
\begin{align}
\label{eqn:eabound}
f^{ea}(X) \leq f(X)
\leq O\left(\frac{\sqrt{n} \log{n}}{1 + (\sqrt{n} \log{n} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}\right) f^{ea}(X).
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
If $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}=0$, then the approximation is exact. This is not surprising
since a modular function can be inferred exactly within $O(n)$ oracle
calls.\arxiv{
\begin{proof}
To compute $f^{ea}$, construct the function $f^{\kappa}$ as in Equation~\eqref{eq:defineg}, and apply the algorithm in \cite{goemans2009approximating} to construct the approximation $\sqrt{w^{f^{\kappa}}(X)}$ such that
$\sqrt{w^{f^{\kappa}}(X)} \leq f^{\kappa}(X) \leq O(\sqrt{n} \log n) \sqrt{w^{f^{\kappa}}(X)}$. Note that $\sqrt{w^{f^{\kappa}}(X)}$ is an approximation of $f^{\kappa}$ and not $f$. Then define $f^{ea}(X) \triangleq \ensuremath{\kappa_f}(X) f^{ea}(X) + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$
\end{proof}
}
The following lower bound\notarxiv{ (proved in \cite{nips2013extendedvcurv})} shows that Corollary~\ref{cor:learn} is tight up to logarithmic factors. It refines the lower bound in \cite{goemans2009approximating} to include $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$.
\begin{theorem}\label{learnhardness}
Given a submodular function $f$ with curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$, there does not exist a (possibly randomized) polynomial-time algorithm that computes an approximation to $f$ within a factor of $\frac{n^{1/2-\epsilon}}{1 + (n^{1/2-\epsilon}-1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$, for any $\epsilon > 0$.
\end{theorem}
\arxiv{\begin{proof}
The information-theoretic proof uses a construction and argumentation similar to that in \cite{goemans2009approximating,svitkina2008submodular}, but perturbs the functions to have the desired curvature.
In the following let $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} = \kappa$.
Define two monotone submodular functions $h^{\kappa}(X) = \kappa \min\{|X|, \alpha\} + (1 - \kappa) |X|$ and $f_{\kappa}^R(X) = \kappa \min\{\beta + |X \cap \bar{R}|, |X \cap R|, \alpha\} + (1 - \kappa)|X|$, where $R \subseteq V$ is
a random set of
cardinality $\alpha$. Let $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be an integer such that $\alpha = x\sqrt{n}/5$ and $\beta = x^2/5$ for an $x^2 = \omega(\log n)$. Both $h^{\kappa}$ and $f_{\kappa}^R$ have curvature equal to $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} = \kappa$.
Using a Chernoff bound, one can then show that any algorithm that uses a polynomial number of queries can distinguish $h^{\kappa}$ and $f_{\kappa}^R$ with probability only $n^{-\omega(1)}$, and therefore cannot reliably distinguish the functions with a polynomial number of queries~\cite{svitkina2008submodular}.
Therefore, any such algorithm will, with high probability, approximate $h^{\kappa}$ and $f_{\kappa}^R$ by the same function $\hat{f}$. Since the approximation must hold for both functions, the approximation factor must satisfy $h^{\kappa}(R) \leq \gamma \hat{f}(R) \leq \gamma f_{\kappa}^R(R)$, and is therefore lower bounded by $h^{\kappa}(R)/f_{\kappa}^R(R)$. Given an arbitrary $\epsilon>0$, set
$x^2 = n^{2\epsilon} = \omega(\log n)$.
Then
\begin{align}
\frac{h^{\kappa}(R)}{f_{\kappa}^R(R)} &= \frac{\alpha}{(1 - \kappa) \alpha + \kappa \beta} \\
&= \frac{n^{1/2+\epsilon}}{(1 - \kappa) n^{1/2+\epsilon} + \kappa n^{2\epsilon}} \\
&= \frac{n^{1/2-\epsilon}}{1 + (n^{1/2-\epsilon}-1)(1 - \kappa)}.
\end{align}
Assume there was an algorithm that generates an approximation $\hat{f}'$ with approximation factor $\gamma' < \gamma$. This would imply that $h^{\kappa}(R) / f_{\kappa}^R(R) < \gamma'$, but this contradicts the above derivation.
\end{proof}}
The simplest alternative approximation to $f$ one might conceive is
the modular function $\hat{f}^m(X) \triangleq \sum_{j \in X}f(j)$ which
can easily be computed by querying the $n$ values $f(j)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{modapproxlemma}
Given a monotone submodular function $f$, it holds that\notarxiv{\footnote{In \cite{nips2013extendedvcurv}, we show this result with a stronger notion of curvature: $\hat{\kappa_f}(X) = 1 - \frac{\sum_{j \in X} f(j | X \backslash j)}{\sum_{j \in X} f(j)}$.}}
\begin{align}\label{modapproxeqn}
f(X) \leq
\hat{f}^m(X) =
\sum_{j \in X} f(j) \leq \frac{|X|}{1 + (|X| - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}(X))} f(X)
\end{align}
\arxiv{
Moreover, it also holds that,
\begin{align}\label{modapproxeqnstronger}
f(X) \leq
\hat{f}^m(X) =
\sum_{j \in X} f(j) \leq \frac{|X|}{1 + (|X| - 1)(1 - \hat{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}(X))} f(X)
\end{align}
}
\end{lemma}
\arxiv{
\begin{proof}
We first show the result for $\hat{\kappa_f}(X)$, and since it is a stronger notion of curvature, the bound will hold for $\kappa_f(X)$ as well.
We shall use the following facts, which follow from the definitions of submodularity and curvature.
\begin{align}
&\mbox{Fact 1: }(1 - \hat{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}(X))\sum_{j \in X} f(j) = \sum_{j \in X} f(j | X \backslash j), \\
&\mbox{Fact 2: }f(X) - f(k) \geq \sum_{j \in X \backslash k} f(j | X \backslash j), \forall k \in X.
\end{align}
Sum the expressions from Fact 2, $\forall k \in X$, use Fact 1, and we obtain the following series of inequalities,
\begin{align*}
|X| f(X) - \sum_{k \in X} f(k) &\geq \sum_{k \in X} \sum_{j \in X \backslash k} f(j | X \backslash j) \\
&\geq \sum_{k \in X} \sum_{j \in X} f(j | X \backslash j) - \sum_{k \in X} f(j | X \backslash k) \\
&\geq (|X| - 1) \sum_{j \in X \backslash k} f(j | X \backslash j) \\
&\geq (|X| - 1)(1 - \hat{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}(X)) \sum_{k \in X} f(k)
\end{align*}
Hence we obtain that,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k \in X} f(k) \leq \frac{|X|}{1 + (|X|- 1)(1 - \hat{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}(X))} f(X)
\end{align*}
From the fact that $1 - \hat{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}(X) \geq 1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}(X)$, it immediately follows that,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k \in X} f(k) \leq \frac{|X|}{1 + (|X|- 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}(X))} f(X)
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
}The form of Lemma~\ref{modapproxlemma} is slightly different from
Corollary~\ref{cor:learn}. However, there is a straightforward correspondence:
given $\hat{f}$ such that $\hat{f}(X)
\leq f(X) \leq \alpha^{\prime}(n) \hat{f}(X)$, by defining
$\hat{f^{\prime}}(X) = \alpha^{\prime}(n) \hat{f}(X)$, we get that
$f(X) \leq \hat{f^{\prime}}(X) \leq \alpha^{\prime}(n)
f(X)$.
\JTR{The sentence above doesn't seem
to work as the sandwich bound since it is not of the form that $\hat
f'(X)$ is bounded by two factors involving $f(X)$. I.e., the two
forms of bound are either: $f$ is sandwiched between two
approximations both involving $f_\text{approx}$ as in
Eqn.\eqref{eqn:eabound} or that $f_\text{approx}$ is sandwiched by
two items involving $f$ as in Eqn.\eqref{modapproxeqn}. What you've
got is the upper bound on $\hat f'$ involves $\hat f'$ and the lower
bound involves $f$. }\RTJ{Sorry that was a typo above. What I meant and which is also true, is the corrected version above. thanks!} Lemma~\ref{modapproxlemma} for the modular
approximation is complementary to
Corollary~\ref{cor:learn}: First, the modular approximation is better
whenever $|X| \leq \sqrt{n}$. \JTR{maybe that's only because the EA
is so bad for average case.}\RTJ{Possibly.} Second, the bound in
Lemma~\ref{modapproxlemma} depends on the curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}(X)$ with
respect to the set $X$, which is stronger than $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$. Third,
$\hat{f}^m$ is extremely simple to compute. For sets of larger
cardinality, however, the ellipsoidal approximation of
Corollary~\ref{cor:learn} provides a better approximation, in fact,
the best possible one (Theorem~\ref{learnhardness}).\JTR{add cite.}\RTJ{done} In a similar manner,
Lemma~\ref{modapproxlemma} is tight for any modular approximation to a
submodular function:
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:lb_linear}
For any $\kappa > 0$, there exists a monotone submodular function $f$ with curvature $\kappa$ such that no modular upper bound on $f$\arxiv{,$\hat{f}(X) = \sum_{j \in X}w(j) \geq f(X), \forall X \subseteq V$,} can approximate $f(X)$ to a factor better than $\frac{|X|}{1 + (|X| - 1)(1 - \kappa_f)}$.
\JTR{clarify this lemma, since the bound here is $X$ dependent, so say
that it depends on the particular size of the argument, etc.}\RTJ{I think the above should clarify it.}\STR{Why not just replace $|X|$ by $n$?}
\end{lemma}
\arxiv{\begin{proof} Let
$f^{\kappa}(X) = \kappa \min\{|X|, 1\} + (1 - \kappa)|X|$. Then $f^{\kappa}(X) = \kappa + (1 - \kappa)|X| = 1 + (1 - \kappa)(|X| - 1)$ for all $\emptyset \subset X \subseteq V$. Since $\hat{f}^m$ is an upper bound, it must satisfy $\hat{f}(j) = w(j) \geq 1$ for all $j \in V$. Therefore, $\hat{f}^m(X) = |X|, X \neq \emptyset$.
\end{proof}}
The improved curvature dependent bounds immediately imply better bounds for the class of concave over modular functions used in
\cite{lin2011-class-submod-sum,jegelka2011-nonsubmod-vision, rkiyeruai2012}.
\begin{corollary}\label{concvmodres}
Given weight vectors $w_1, \cdots, w_k \geq 0$, and a submodular function $f(X) = \sum_{i = 1}^k \lambda_i [w_i(X)]^a, \lambda_i \geq 0$, for $a \in (0, 1)$, it holds that $f(X) \leq \sum_{j \in X} f(j) \leq |X|^{1-a} f(X)$
\end{corollary}
\arxiv{
\begin{proof}
We first show this result independent of curvature, and then show how the curvature dependent bound also implies this improved bound. First define $f(X) = [w(X)]^a$, for $a \in (0, 1]$ and $w \geq 0$. since $x^a$ is a concave function for $a \in (0, 1]$, we have from Jensen's inequality that, given $x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n \geq 0$,
\begin{align*}
\frac{\sum_{i = 1}^n x_i^a}{n} \leq \left ( \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^n x_i }{n} \right )^a
\end{align*}
Notice that, when $f(X) = [w(X)]^a$, we have that $f(i) = w(i)^a$. Hence $\sum_{j \in X} f(i) = \sum_{i \in X} w(i)^a$. Hence from the inequality above, it directly holds that,
\begin{align*}
\frac{\sum_{i \in X} w(i)^a}{|X|} \leq \frac{[\sum_{i \in X} w(i)]^a }{|X|^a}
\end{align*}
and hence, $\sum_{j \in X} f(j) \leq |X|^{1 - a} f(X)$. This inequality also holds for a sum of concave over modular functions, since for each $w_i \geq 0$, we have
\begin{align}\label{jeneqcv}
\sum_{j \in X} w_i(j)^a \leq |X|^{1 - a} w_i(X)^a.
\end{align}
Moreover, when $f(X) = \sum_{i = 1}^k \lambda_i [w_i(X)]^a$, the modular upper bound $\sum_{j \in X} f(j) = \sum_{j \in X} \sum_{i = 1}^k \lambda_i [w_i(j)]^a$. Summing up eqn.~\eqref{jeneqcv} for all $i$, we have that,
\begin{align}\label{jeneqcv}
\sum_{i = 1}^k \sum_{j \in X} \lambda_i w_i(j)^a \leq |X|^{1 - a} \sum_{i = 1}^k \lambda_i w_i(X)^a.
\end{align}
\end{proof}
We next show that this result can also be seen from the curvature of the function.
\begin{lemma}
Given weight vectors $w_1, \cdots, w_k \geq 0$, and a submodular function $f(X) = \sum_{i = 1}^k \lambda_i [w_i(X)]^a, \lambda_i \geq 0$, for $a \in (0, 1]$, it holds that,
\begin{align}
\hat{\kappa_f}(X) \leq 1 - \frac{a}{|X|^{1-a}}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Again, let $f(X) = [w(X)]^a$, for $w \geq 0$ and $a \in (0, 1]$. Then,
\begin{align*}
f(j | X \backslash j) &= f(X) - f(X \backslash j) \\
&= [w(X)]^a - [w(X) - w(j)]^a \\
&\geq \frac{a w(j)}{w(X)^{1-a}}
\end{align*}
The last inequality again holds due to concavity of $g(x) = x^a$. In particular, for a concave function, $g(y) - g(x) \leq g^{\prime}(x) (y - x)$, where $g^{\prime}$ is the derivative of $g$. Hence $g(x) \geq g(y) + g^{\prime}(x) (x - y)$. Substitute $y = w(X) - w(j), x = w(X)$ and $g(x) = x^a$, and we get the above expression.
Hence we have,
\begin{align*}
1 - \hat{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}(X) &= \frac{\sum_{j \in X} f(j | X \backslash j)}{\sum_{j \in X} f(j)} \\
&\geq \frac{ a \sum_{j \in X} w(j) w(X)^{a-1}}{\sum_{j \in X} w(j)^a} \\
&\geq \frac{a w(X)^a}{\sum_{j \in X} w(j)^a} \\
&\geq \frac{a}{|X|^{1-a}}
\end{align*}
The last inequality follows from the previous Lemma.
\end{proof}
Hence from the curvature dependent bound, we obtain a slightly weaker bound, which still gives a $O(|X|^{1 - a})$ bound for the modular upper bound.
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j \in X} f(j) &\leq \frac{1}{1 - \hat{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}(X)} f(X) \\
&\leq \frac{|X|^{1 - a}}{a} f(X) \\
&\leq O(|X|^{1 - a}) f(X)
\end{align*}
}
In particular, when $a = 1/2$, the modular upper bound approximates the sum of square-root over modular functions by a factor of $\sqrt{|X|}$.
\section{Learning Submodular functions}
We next address the problem of learning submodular functions in a
PMAC setting \cite{balcanlearning}.
The PMAC (Probably Mostly Approximately Correct) framework is an
extension of the PAC framework~\cite{valiant1984theory} to allow
multiplicative errors in the function values from a fixed but unknown
distribution $\mathcal D$ over $2^V$. We are given training
samples $\{(X_i, f(X_i)\}_{i=1}^m$ drawn i.i.d.\ from
$\mathcal D$. The algorithm may take time
polynomial in $n$, $1/\epsilon$, $1/\delta$ to compute a (polynomially-representable) function $\hat{f}$ that is a good approximation to $f$
with respect to $\mathcal D$. Formally, $\hat{f}$ must satisfy that
\begin{align}
\mathrm{Pr}_{X_1, X_2, \cdots, X_m \sim \mathcal D}\left[\mathrm{Pr}_{X \in \mathcal D}[ \hat{f}(X) \leq f(X) \leq \alpha(n) \hat{f}(X)] \geq 1 - \epsilon \right] \geq 1 - \delta
\end{align}
for some approximation factor $\alpha(n)$.
\citet{balcanlearning} propose an algorithm that PMAC-learns any
monotone, nonnegative submodular function within a factor $\alpha(n) =
\sqrt{n+1}$ by reducing the problem to that of learning a binary
classifier.
If we assume that we have an upper bound on the curvature $\kappa_f$, or that we can estimate it \footnote{note that $\kappa_f$ can be estimated from a set of $2n+1$ samples $\{(j,f(j))\}_{j \in V}$, $\{(V,f(V))\}$, and $\{(V \backslash j, f(V \backslash j)\}_{j \in V}$ included in the training samples}, and have access to the value of the singletons $f(j), j \in V$, then we can obtain better learning results with non-maximal curvature:
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:pmac}
\STR{Formulating this as $f$ having a known upper bound on the curvature instead of having exactly known curvature -- does that still go through?}\RTS{The proof will go through if we have an upper bound on the curvature. We still need the singletons though)}
Let $f$ be a monotone submodular function for which we know an upper bound on its curvature and the singleton weights $f(j)$ for all $j \in V$.
For every $\epsilon, \delta > 0$ there is an algorithm that uses a polynomial number of training examples, runs in time polynomial in $(n, 1/\epsilon, 1/\delta)$ and PMAC-learns $f$ within a factor of $\frac{\sqrt{n+1}}{1 + (\sqrt{n+1} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$.
If $\mathcal D$ is a product distribution, then there exists an algorithm that PMAC-learns $f$ within a factor of $O(\frac{\log \frac{1}{\epsilon}}{1 + (\log \frac{1}{\epsilon} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$.
\end{lemma}
The algorithm of Lemma~\ref{thm:pmac} uses the reduction of \citet{balcanlearning} to learn the $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$-curve-normalized{} version $f^{\kappa}$ of $f$.
From the learned function
$\hat{f^{\kappa}}(X)$, we construct the final estimate $\hat{f}(X) \triangleq \ensuremath{\kappa_f} \hat{f^{\kappa}}(X) + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$. Theorem~\ref{thm:f_and_g} implies
Lemma~\ref{thm:pmac} for this $\hat{f}(X)$.
\arxiv{\begin{proof}
The proof of this theorem directly follows from the results in~\cite{balcanlearning} and those from section~\ref{learnimproved}. The idea is that, we use the PMAC setting and algorithm from~\cite{balcanlearning}.
We use the same construction as section~\ref{learnimproved}, and construct the function $f^{\kappa}(X)$ which is the curve-normalized{} version of $f$. Let $\hat{f^{\kappa}}(X)$ be the function learn from $f^{\kappa}$ using the algorithm from~\cite{balcanlearning}. Then define $\hat{f}(X) = (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})\hat{f^{\kappa}}(X) + \ensuremath{\kappa_f} \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$ and an analysis similar to that in section~\ref{learnimproved} conveys that the function $\hat{f}$ is within a factor of $\frac{\sqrt{n+1}}{1 + (\sqrt{n+1} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$. Note that moreover, whenever the bound $\hat{f^{\kappa}}(X) \leq f^{\kappa}(X) \leq \sqrt{n+1} \hat{f^{\kappa}}(X)$, the above curvature dependent bound will also hold. Hence the curvature dependent bound holds with high probability on a large measure of sets.
The case for product distributions also follows from very similar lines and the results from~\cite{balcanlearning}.
\end{proof}}
\arxiv{Lemma~\ref{thm:pmac} is tight as we show below.} \notarxiv{Moreover,
no polynomial-time algorithm can be guaranteed to PMAC-learn $f$
within a factor of $\frac{n^{1/3- \epsilon^{\prime}} }{1 + (n^{1/3 - \epsilon^{\prime}} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$, for any $\epsilon^{\prime} > 0$~\cite{nips2013extendedvcurv}.}
\arxiv{\begin{lemma}
Given a class of submodular functions with curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$, there does not exist a polynomial-time algorithm (which possibly even has information about $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$) that is guaranteed to PMAC-learn $f$ for every $\epsilon, \delta > 0$ within a factor of $\frac{n^{1/3- \epsilon^{\prime}} }{1 + (n^{1/3 - \epsilon^{\prime}} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$, for any $\epsilon^{\prime} > 0$.
\end{lemma}}
\arxiv{\begin{proof}
Again, we use the same matroid functions used in~\cite{balcanlearning}. Notice that the construction of~\cite{balcanlearning}, provides a family of matroids and a collection of sets $\mathcal B$, with $|A| = n^{1/3}$, such that $f(A) = |A|, A \in \mathcal B$ and $f(A) = \beta = \omega(\log n), A \notin \mathcal B$. Again set $\beta = n^{\epsilon^{\prime}}$, and using a analysis and construction similar to the hardness proof of section~\ref{learnimproved} and Theorem 9 from~\cite{balcanlearning} conveys that the lower bound for this problem is $\tilde{\Omega}(\frac{n^{1/3} }{1 + (n^{1/3} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$
\end{proof}}
We end this section by showing how we can learn with a construction analogous to that in Lemma~\ref{modapproxlemma}.
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:pmac2}
If $f$ is a monotone submodular function with known curvature (or a known upper bound) $\hat{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}(X), \forall X \subseteq V$, then for every $\epsilon, \delta > 0$ there is an algorithm that uses a polynomial number of training examples, runs in time polynomial in $(n, 1/\epsilon, 1/\delta)$ and PMAC learns $f(X)$ within a factor of $1 + \frac{|X|}{1 + (|X| - 1)(1 - \hat{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}(X))}$.
\end{lemma}
\arxivalt{Before proving this result, we compare}{Compare} this result to Lemma~\ref{thm:pmac}.
Lemma~\ref{thm:pmac2} leads to better bounds for small sets, whereas Lemma~\ref{thm:pmac} provides a better general bound.
Moreover, in contrast to Lemma~\ref{thm:pmac}, here we only need an upper bound on the curvature and do not need to know the singleton weights $\{f(j), j \in V\}$. Note also that, while $\kappa_f$ itself is an upper bound of $\hat{\kappa_f}(X)$, often one does have an upper bound on $\hat{\kappa_f}(X)$ if one knows the function class of $f$ (for example, say concave over modular). In particular, an immediate corollary is that the class of concave over modular functions $f(X) = \sum_{i = 1}^k \lambda_i [w_i(X)]^a, \lambda_i \geq 0$, for $a \in (0, 1)$ can be learnt within a factor of $\min\{\sqrt{n+1}, 1 + |X|^{1-a}\}$.
\arxiv{\begin{proof}
To prove this result, we adapt Algorithm 2 in~\cite{balcanlearning} to curvature and modular approximations. Following their arguments,
we reduce the problem of learning a submodular function to that of learning a linear seperator,
while separately handling the subset of instances where $f$ is zero.
\STR{Rewriting this because I do not understand it. Also, $\mathcal{D}$ is the \emph{distribution} and not the training sample.} We detail the parts where our proof deviates from \citep{balcanlearning}.
We divide $2^V$ into the support set $\mathcal{S} = \{X \subseteq V \mid f(X) > 0\}$ of $f$ and its complement $\mathcal{Z} = \{X \subseteq V \mid f(X) = 0\}$.
Using samples from $\mathcal{D}'$, we generate new, binary labeled samples from a distribution $\mathcal{D}'$ on $\{0,1\}^n \times \mathcal{R}$ that will be used to learn the linear separator.
These samples differ slightly from those in \cite{balcanlearning}. Let
\begin{align}
\alpha(X) = \frac{|X|}{1 + (|X| - 1)(1 - \hat{\kappa_f}(X))}.
\end{align}
To sample from $\mathcal{D}'$, we repeatedly sample from $\mathcal{D}$ until we obtain a set $X \in \mathcal{S}$. For each such $X$, we flip a fair coin and, with equal probability, generate a sample point from $\mathcal{D}'$ as
\begin{align}
x = (1_X, f(X)) &\text{ and label } y=+1 \quad \text{ if heads}\\
x = (1_X, (\alpha(X)+1)f(X)) &\text{ and label } y=-1 \quad \text{ if tails.}
\end{align}
We observe that the generated positive and negative sample are linearly separable with the separator $u = (w, -1)$, where $w(j)=0$ if $f(j)=0$, and $w(j) = f(j) + \delta$ if $f(j)>0$, with $\delta$ such that $0 < \delta < \min_{j \in \mathcal S} f(X_j)/n$:
\begin{align}
u^\top (1_X, f(X)) &= \sum_{j \in X} f(j) + \delta |X| - f(X) > 0\\
u^\top (1_X, (\alpha(X)+1)f(X)) &= \sum_{j \in X} f(j) + \delta |X| - (\alpha(X)+1)f(X) < 0
\end{align}
for all $X \subseteq V$. The second inequality holds since $\sum_{j \in X} f(j) \leq \alpha(X) f(X)$ and $\delta |X| \leq \delta n < f(X)$. (For points in $\mathcal{Z}$, we have that $u^\top(1_X, f(X)) = 0$.)
The final algorithm generates a sample from $\mathcal{D}'$ for each sample $X \in \mathcal{S}$ from $\mathcal{D}$. For each $X \in \mathcal{Z}$, it adds the constraint that $w(j) = 0$ for all $j \in X$.
We then find a linear separator $u = (w,-z)$ and output the function $\hat{f}(X) \triangleq w(X)/z$. This is possible by the above arguments.
This function satisfies the approximation constraints for the set $\mathcal{Y}$ of all training points $X \in \mathcal{S}$ for which both generated samples are labeled correctly: the correct labelings $w(X) - z f(X) > 0$ and $w(X) - z(\alpha(X) + 1) f(X) < 0$ imply that
\begin{align}
f(X) \leq \hat{f(X)} = \frac{w(X)}{z} \leq (\alpha(X) + 1) f(X).
\end{align}
Similarly, the constraints on $w$ imply that the same holds for any subset of the union of the training samples in $\mathcal{Z}$.
It remains to show that for sufficiently many, i.e., $\ell = \frac{16n}{\epsilon}\log(\frac{n}{\delta\epsilon})$ samples, the sets $\mathcal{S}\setminus\mathcal{Y}$ and $\mathcal{Z}\setminus \bigcup_{X_i \in \mathcal{Z}, i \leq \ell}X_i$ have small (at most $1-2\epsilon$) measure. This follows from Claim 5 in \citep{balcanlearning}.
\end{proof}
}
\section{Constrained submodular minimization}\label{consminsec}
Next, we apply our results to the minimization of submodular functions under constraints. Most algorithms for constrained minimization use one of two strategies: they apply a convex relaxation~\cite{iwata2009submodular,jegelka2011-inference-gen-graph-cuts}, or they optimize a surrogate function $\hat{f}$ that should approximate $f$ well~\cite{goel2009approximability,goemans2009approximating,jegelka2011-inference-gen-graph-cuts}. We follow the second strategy and propose a new, widely applicable curvature-dependent choice for surrogate functions. A suitable selection of $\hat{f}$ will ensure theoretically optimal results. Throughout this section, we refer to the optimal solution as $X^* \in \argmin_{X \in \mathcal{C}}f(X)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{approxguarantee}
Given a submodular function $f$, let $\hat{f}_1$ be an approximation of $f$ such that $\hat{f}_1(X) \leq f(X) \leq \alpha(n) \hat{f}_1(X)$, for all $X \subseteq V$.
Then any minimizer
$\widehat{X}_1 \in \argmin_{X \in \mathcal C} \hat{f}(X)$ of $\hat{f}$ satisfies $f(\widehat{X}) \leq \alpha(n) f(X^*)$. Likewise, if an approximation of $f$ is such that $f(X) \leq \hat{f}_2(X) \leq \alpha(X) f(X)$ for a set-specific factor $\alpha(X)$,
then its minimizer $\tilde{X}_2 \in \argmin_{X \in \mathcal C} \hat{f}_2(X)$ satisfies $f(\widehat{X}_2) \leq \alpha(X^*) f(X^*)$. If only $\beta$-approximations\footnote{A $\beta$-approximation algorithm for minimizing a function $g$ finds set $X: g(X) \leq \beta \min_{X \in \mathcal C} g(X)$} are possible for minimizing $\hat{f}_1$ or $\hat{f}_2$ over $\mathcal C$, then the final bounds are $\beta \alpha(n)$ and $\beta \alpha(X^*)$ respectively.
\end{lemma}
\arxiv{\begin{proof}
We prove the first part and the second part similarly follows. Given that,
\begin{align}
\hat{f}(X) \leq f(X) \leq \alpha(n) \hat{f}(X)
\end{align}
Then, if $\hat{X}$ is the optimal solution for minimizing $\hat{f}$ over $\mathcal C$. We then have that,
\begin{align}
f(\hat{X}) \leq \alpha(n) \hat{f}(\hat{X}) \leq \alpha(n) \hat{f}(X^*) \leq \alpha(n) f(X^*)
\end{align}
where $X^*$ is the optimal solution of $f$.
\end{proof}}
For Lemma~\ref{approxguarantee} to be practically useful, it is essential that $\hat{f}_1$ and $\hat{f}_2$ be efficiently optimizable over $\mathcal C$. We discuss two general curvature-dependent approximations that work for a large class of combinatorial constraints. In particular, we use Theorem~\ref{thm:f_and_g}: we decompose $f$ into $f^{\kappa}$ and a modular part $f^m$, and then approximate $f^\kappa$ while retaining $f^m$, i.e., $\hat{f} = \hat{f}^\kappa + f^m$.
\STR{We are approximating only the curv-normalized part, right? i.e., what is $\hat{f}^\kappa$ here?? I tried to change that.}
The first approach uses a simple modular upper bound (MUB) and the second relies on the Ellipsoidal approximation (EA) we used in Section~\ref{learnimproved}.
\textbf{MUB:} The simplest approximation to a submodular function is the modular approximation $\hat{f}^m(X) \triangleq \sum_{j \in X}f(j) \geq f(X)$. Since here, $\hat{f}^\kappa$ happens to be equivalent to $f^m$, we obtain the overall approximation $\hat{f} = \hat{f}^m$.
Lemmas~\ref{approxguarantee} and~\ref{modapproxlemma} directly imply a set-dependent approximation factor for $\hat{f}^m$:
\begin{corollary}\label{SAAcorr}
Let $\widehat{X} \in \mathcal{C}$ be a $\beta$-approximate solution for minimizing $\sum_{j \in X} f(j)$ over $\mathcal C$, i.e. $\sum_{j \in \widehat{X}} f(j) \leq \beta \min_{X \in \mathcal C} \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$. Then
\begin{align}
f(\hat{X}) \leq \frac{\beta |X^*|}{1 + (|X^*| - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}(X^*))}f(X^*).
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
Corollary~\ref{SAAcorr} has also been shown in~\cite{rkiyersemiframework2013}.
\arxiv{Thanks to Lemma~\ref{modapproxlemma} and the second part of Lemma~\ref{approxguarantee}, however, we can provide a much simpler proof.}
Similar to the algorithms in \cite{rkiyersemiframework2013, rkiyersubmodBregman2012, iyermirrordescent}, MUB can be extended to an iterative algorithm yielding performance gains in practice.
In particular, Corollary~\ref{SAAcorr} implies improved approximation bounds for practically relevant concave over modular functions, such as those used in \cite{jegelka2011-nonsubmod-vision}.
For instance, for $f(X) = \sum_{i=1}^k\sqrt{\sum_{j \in X}w_i(j)}$, we obtain a worst-case approximation bound of $\sqrt{|X^*|} \leq \sqrt{n}$. This is significantly better than the worst case factor of $|X^*|$ for general submodular functions.
\textbf{EA: }Instead of employing a modular upper bound, we can approximate $f^{\kappa}$ using the
construction by \citet{goemans2009approximating}, as in Corollary~\ref{cor:learn}.
In that case, $\hat{f}(X) = \kappa_f\sqrt{w^{f^\kappa}(X)} + (1-\ensuremath{\kappa_f})f^m(X)$ has a special form: a weighted sum of a concave function and a modular function. Minimizing such a function over constraints $\mathcal{C}$ is harder than minimizing a merely modular function, but with the algorithm in \citep{nikolova2010approximation} we obtain an FPTAS\footnote{The FPTAS will yield a $\beta=(1+\epsilon)$-approximation through an algorithm polynomial in $\frac{1}{\epsilon}$.} for minimizing $\hat{f}$ over $\mathcal{C}$ whenever we can minimize a nonnegative linear function over $\mathcal{C}$.
\begin{corollary}\label{EAcorr}
For a submodular function with curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} < 1$,
algorithm EA will return a solution $\widehat{X}$ that satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:4}
f(\widehat{X}) \leq O\left(\frac{\sqrt{n} \log n}{(\sqrt{n} \log n - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) + 1)}\right) f(X^*).
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\arxiv{\begin{proof}
We use the important result from~\cite{nikolova2010approximation} where they show that any function of the form $\lambda_1 \sqrt{m_1(X)} + \lambda_2 m_2(X)$ where $\lambda_1 \geq 0, \lambda_2 \geq 0$ and $m_1$ and $m_2$ are positive modular functions, has a FPTAS, provided a modular function can easily be optimized over $\mathcal C$. Notice that our function is exactly of that form. Hence $\hat{f}(X)$ can be approximately optimized over $\mathcal C$. This bound then translates into the approximation guarantee using Corollary~\ref{cor:learn} and the first part of Lemma~\ref{approxguarantee}.
\end{proof}}
Next, we apply the results of this section to specific optimization problems, for which we show (mostly tight) curvature-dependent upper and lower bounds. \notarxiv{ We just state our main results; a more extensive discussion along with the proofs can be found in~\cite{nips2013extendedvcurv}.}
\textbf{Cardinality lower bounds (SLB). }
A simple constraint is a lower bound on the cardinality of the solution, i.e., $\mathcal C = \{X \subseteq V: |X| \geq k\}$.
\citet{svitkina2008submodular} prove that for monotone submodular functions of arbitrary curvature, it is impossible to find a polynomial-time algorithm with an approximation factor better than $\sqrt{n/ \log{n}}$. They show an algorithm which matches this approximation factor.
\arxivalt{\begin{observation}\label{card}
For the SLB problem, Algorithm EA and MUB are guaranteed to be no worse than factors of $O(\frac{\sqrt{n} \log n}{1 + (\sqrt{n} \log n - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$ and $\frac{k}{1 + (k-1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ respectively.
\end{observation}
The guarantee for MUB follows directly from Corollary~\ref{SAAcorr}, by observing that $|X^*| = k$.
We also show a similar asymptotic hardness result, which is quite
close to the bounds in observation~\ref{card}.}{Corollaries~\ref{SAAcorr} and \ref{EAcorr} immediately imply \emph{curvature-dependent} approximation bounds of $\frac{k}{1 + (k-1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ and $O(\frac{\sqrt{n} \log n}{1 + (\sqrt{n} \log n - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$.}
These bounds are improvements over the results of \cite{svitkina2008submodular} whenever $\kappa_f < 1$. Here, MUB is preferable to EA whenever $k$ is small. \arxivalt{The following theorem shows that the bound for EA is tight up to poly-log factors.\looseness-1
\begin{theorem}
For $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} < 1$ and any $\epsilon > 0$, there exists submodular functions with curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$ such that no poly-time algorithm achieves an approx. factor of $\frac{n^{1/2 - \epsilon}}{1 + (n^{1/2 - \epsilon} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ for the SLB problem.\looseness-1
\end{theorem}}{Moreover, the bound of EA is tight up to poly-log factors, in that no polynomial time algorithm can achieve a general approximation factor better than $\frac{n^{1/2 - \epsilon}}{1 + (n^{1/2 - \epsilon} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ for any $\epsilon > 0$.
}
\arxiv{\begin{proof}
The proof of this theorem is analogous to that of theorem~\ref{learnhardness}. Define two monotone submodular functions $h_{\kappa}(X) = \ensuremath{\kappa_f}\min\{|X|, \alpha\} + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})|X|$ and $f^R_{\kappa}(X) = \ensuremath{\kappa_f}\min\{\beta + |X| \cap \bar{R}|, |X|, \alpha\} + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) |X|$, where $R \subseteq V$ is
a random set of
cardinality $\alpha$. Let $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be an integer such that $\alpha = x\sqrt{n}/5$ and $\beta = x^2/5$ for an $x^2 = \omega(\log n)$. Also we assume that $k = \alpha$ in this case. Both $h_{\kappa}$ and $f^R_{\kappa}$ have curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$. Given an arbitrary $\epsilon>0$, set
$x^2 = n^{2\epsilon} = \omega(\log n)$.
Then the ratio between $f^R_{\kappa}$ and $g^{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}$ is $\frac{n^{1/2-\epsilon}}{1 + (n^{1/2-\epsilon}-1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$. Clearly then if any algorithm can achieve better than this bound, it can distinguish between $f_R$ and $g$ which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
}
In the following problems, our ground set $V$ consists of the set of edges in a graph $\mathcal{G} = (\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$ with two distinct nodes $s, t \in V$ and $n = |\mathcal{V}|$, $m = |\mathcal{E}|$. The submodular function is $f: 2^{\mathcal{E}} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.
\textbf{Shortest submodular s-t path (SSP).}
Here, we aim to find an s-t path $X$ of minimum (submodular) length $f(X)$.
\citet{goel2009approximability} show a $O(n^{2/3})$-approximation with matching curvature-independent lower bound $\Omega(n^{2/3})$. By Corollary~\ref{SAAcorr}, the curvature-dependent worst-case bound for MUB is $\frac{n}{1 + (n-1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ since any minimal s-t path has at most $n$ edges. Similarly, the factor for EA is $O(\frac{\sqrt{m}\log m}{1 + (\sqrt{m}\log m - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})})$. The bound of EA will be tighter for sparse graphs while MUB provides better results for dense ones.
\arxivalt{We can also show the following curvature-dependent lower bound:
\begin{theorem}
Given a submodular function with a curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} > 0$ and any $\epsilon > 0$, no polynomial-time algorithm achieves an approximation factor better than $\frac{n^{2/3 - \epsilon}}{1 + (n^{2/3 - \epsilon} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ for the SSP problem.\looseness-1
\end{theorem}}{Our curvature-dependent lower bound for SSP is
$\frac{n^{2/3 - \epsilon}}{1 + (n^{2/3 - \epsilon} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$, for any $\epsilon > 0$, which reduces to the result in \citep{goel2009approximability} for $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}=1$.}
\arxiv{
\begin{proof}
The proof of this follows in very similar lines to the earlier lower bounds using our construction and the matroid constructions in~\cite{goel2009approximability}. The main idea is to use their multilevel graph, but define adjusted versions of their cost functions. In particular, define $h(X) = \ensuremath{\kappa_f}\min\{|X|, \alpha\} + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})|X|$ and $f_R(X) = \ensuremath{\kappa_f}\min\{\beta + |X| \cap \bar{R}|, |X|, \alpha\} + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) |X|$. In this context $R$ is a randomly chosen s-t path of length $n^{2/3}$ and $\alpha = n^{2/3}$. Similarly the value of $\beta = n^{\epsilon}$. The Chernoff bounds then show that the two functions above are indistinguishable (with high probability) and hence the ratio of the two functions $h$ and $f_R$ then provides the hardness result.
\end{proof}}
\textbf{Minimum submodular s-t cut (SSC): }
This problem, also known as the cooperative cut problem~\cite{jegelka2011-inference-gen-graph-cuts,jegelka2011-nonsubmod-vision}, asks to minimize a monotone submodular function $f$ such that the solution $X \subseteq \mathcal{E}$ is a set of edges whose removal disconnects $s$ from $t$ in $\mathcal{G}$. \arxivalt{Using curvature refines the lower bound in \cite{jegelka2011-inference-gen-graph-cuts}:
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:lowerbound_cut}
No polynomial-time algorithm can achieve an approximation factor better than
$\frac{n^{1/2 - \epsilon}}{1 + (n^{1/2 - \epsilon} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$, for any $\epsilon > 0$,
for the SSC problem with a submodular function of curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$.\looseness-1
\end{theorem}}{Using curvature refines the We can also show a lower bound of \cite{jegelka2011-inference-gen-graph-cuts} to $\frac{n^{1/2 - \epsilon}}{1 + (n^{1/2 - \epsilon} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$, for any $\epsilon > 0$.}
\arxiv{
\begin{proof}
This proof follows along the lines of the results shown above. It uses the construction from~\cite{jegelka2011-inference-gen-graph-cuts}.
\end{proof}
}
Corollary~\ref{SAAcorr} implies an approximation factor of $O(\frac{\sqrt{m} \log m}{(\sqrt{m} \log m - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) + 1})$ for EA and a factor of $\frac{m}{1 + (m-1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ for MUB, where $m=|\mathcal{E}|$ is the number of edges in the graph. \arxivalt{By Theorem~\ref{thm:lowerbound_cut},}{Hence} the factor for EA is tight for sparse graphs.
Specifically for cut problems, there is yet another useful surrogate function that is exact on local neighborhoods. \citet{jegelka2011-inference-gen-graph-cuts} demonstrate how this approximation may be optimized via a generalized maximum flow algorithm that maximizes a \emph{polymatroidal network flow} \cite{lawler82}. This algorithm still applies to the combination $\hat{f} = \ensuremath{\kappa_f} \hat{f}^{\kappa} + (1-\ensuremath{\kappa_f})f^m$, where we only approximate $f^\kappa$. We refer to this approximation as Polymatroidal Network Approximation (PNA).
\begin{corollary}
Algorithm PNA achieves a worst-case approximation factor of $\frac{n}{2 + (n-2)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ for the cooperative cut problem.
\end{corollary}
For dense graphs, this factor is theoretically tighter than that of the EA approximation.
\arxiv{\begin{proof}
We use the polymatroidal network flow construction from~\cite{jegelka2011-inference-gen-graph-cuts}, where the approximation $\hat{f}$ is defined via a partition of the ground set, and is separable over groups of edges. This approximation can be solved efficiently via generalized flows in polynomial time~\cite{jegelka2010online, jegelka2011-inference-gen-graph-cuts}. Moreover adding a modular term (for the modulation) does not increase the complexity of the problem.
This approximation satisfies $f^{\kappa}(X) \leq \hat{f^{\kappa}}(X) \leq \frac{n}{2} f^{\kappa}(X)$ for all cuts $X \in \mathcal{C}$
We then convert this expression in the form of Theorem~\ref{thm:f_and_g} as $\frac{2\hat{f^{\kappa}}(X)}{n} \leq f^{\kappa}(X) \leq \hat{f^{\kappa}}(X)$. Then define $\hat{f}(X) \triangleq \ensuremath{\kappa_f} \frac{2\hat{f^{\kappa}(X)}}{n} + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) \sum_{j \in X} f(j)$, and using theorem~\ref{thm:f_and_g}, it implies that:
\begin{align}
\hat{f}(X) \leq f(X) \leq \frac{n}{2 + (n - 2)(1- \ensuremath{\kappa_f})} f(X)
\end{align}
Then let $\hat{X}$ be the minimizer of $\hat{f}(X)$ over $\mathcal C$ (using the generalized flows~\cite{jegelka2011-inference-gen-graph-cuts}). It then follows that (let $\alpha = \frac{n}{2 + (n - 2)(1- \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$): $f(\hat{X}) \leq \alpha \hat{f}(\hat{X}) \leq \alpha \hat{f}(X^*) \leq f(X^*)$ where $X^*$ is the optimal solution of $f$ over $\mathcal C$.
\end{proof}}
\textbf{Minimum submodular spanning tree (SST). }
Here, $\mathcal{C}$ is the family of all spanning trees in a given graph $\mathcal{G}$.
Such constraints occur for example in power assignment problems~\cite{wan02networks}. \citet{goel2009approximability} show a curvature-independent optimal approximation factor of $O(n)$ for this problem.
\arxiv{\begin{observation}
For the minimum submodular spanning tree problem, algorithm MUB achieves an approximation guarantee, which is no worse than $\frac{n - r}{1 + (n - r -1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$, where $r$ is the number of connected components of $\mathcal{G}$.
\end{observation}}
\arxiv{\begin{proof}
This result follows directly from Corollary~\ref{SAAcorr} and the fact that $|X^*| = n-r$.
\end{proof} }
\notarxiv{Corollary~\ref{SAAcorr} refines this bound to $\frac{n}{1 + (n -1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$ when using MUB; Corollary~\ref{EAcorr} implies a slightly worse bound for EA.}
\arxiv{In this case, Algorithm EA in fact provides slightly worse guarantees. Moreover the bound for MUB is optimal:
\begin{theorem}
For the class of submodular functions with curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} < 1$, no poly-time algorithm can achieve an approximation factor of
$\frac{n^{1-3\epsilon}}{1 + ( n^{1-3\epsilon} - 1)(1- \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) + \delta \ensuremath{\kappa_f}}$ for the SST problem for any $\epsilon, \delta > 0$.
\end{theorem}}\notarxiv{We also show that the bound of MUB is tight: no polynomial-time algorithm can guarantee a factor better than $\frac{n^{1-\epsilon}}{1 + ( n^{1-\epsilon} - 1)(1- \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) + \delta \ensuremath{\kappa_f}}$, for any $\epsilon, \delta > 0$.}
\arxiv{\begin{proof}
In this case, we use the construction of~\cite{goel2009approximability}, and define $f_{\kappa}^R(X) = \ensuremath{\kappa_f} \min\{ |X \cap \bar{R}| + min\{|X \cap R|, \beta\}, \alpha\} + (1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) |X|$, and $g^{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}(X) = \ensuremath{\kappa_f} min\{|X|, \alpha\} + (1- \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) |X|$, where $\alpha = n^{ 1 + \epsilon}$, $\beta = n^{3\epsilon}(1 + \delta)$ and $|R| = \alpha$. For the formal graph construction, see~\cite{goel2009approximability}. Then with high probability $R$ is connected in the graph~\cite{goel2009approximability}. Since $f_R$ and $g$ are indistinguishable with high probability, so are $f_{\kappa}^R$ and $g^{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}$. Then notice that the minimum value of $f_{\kappa}^R$ and $g^{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}$ are $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}\beta + (1- \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) n$ and $n$ respectively, and it is clear that the ratio between them is better than $\frac{n^{1-3\epsilon}}{1 + (n^{1-3\epsilon} - 1)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) + \delta \ensuremath{\kappa_f}}$. Hence if any algorithm performs better than this, it will be able to distinguish $f_R$ and $g$ with high probability, which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Ana analogous analysis applies to
combinatorial constraints like Steiner trees~\cite{goel2009approximability}.
}
\textbf{Minimum submodular perfect matching (SPM): }
Here, we aim to find a perfect matching in a graph that minimizes a monotone submodular function.
Corollary~\ref{SAAcorr} implies that an MUB approximation will achieve an approximation factor of at most $\frac{n}{2 + (n-2)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$.
\arxiv{This bound is also tight:\looseness-1
\begin{theorem}
Given a submodular function with a curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} > 0$ and any $\epsilon > 0$, no polynomial-time algorithm achieves an approximation factor better than
$\frac{n^{1 -3\epsilon}}{2 + (n^{1 -3\epsilon} - 2)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) + 2\delta \ensuremath{\kappa_f}}$ for the SPM problem.\looseness-1
\end{theorem}}\notarxiv{Similar to the spanning tree case, the bound of MUB is also tight~\cite{nips2013extendedvcurv}.}
\arxiv{\begin{proof}
We use the same submodular functions as the spanning tree case, and it can be shown~\cite{goel2009approximability} that with high probability the set $R$ contains a perfect matching and the two functions are indistinguishable. Taking the ratio of $g^{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}$ and $f_R^{\ensuremath{\kappa_f}}$, provides the above result.
\end{proof}}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\hspace{-10pt}
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{wc_eps2.pdf}\hspace{-10pt}
~
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{wc_kappa2.pdf} \hspace{-10pt}
~
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{wc_ima.pdf}\hspace{-10pt}
~
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{wc_imakappa.pdf} \hspace{-10pt}
\caption{Minimization of $g_\kappa$\arxiv{ (Equation~\ref{eq:5})} for cardinality lower bound constraints. (a) fixed $\kappa=0$, $\alpha = n^{1/2 + \epsilon}, \beta = n^{2\epsilon}$ for varying $\epsilon$; (b) fixed $\epsilon = 0.1$, but varying $\kappa$; (c) different choices of $\alpha$ for $\beta = 1$; (d) varying $\kappa$ with $\alpha = n/2, \beta = 1$. Dashed lines: MUB, dotted lines: EA, solid lines: theoretical bound. The results of EA are not visible in some instances since it obtains a factor of $1$.}
\label{fig:consmin}
\end{figure}
\arxiv{\paragraph{\textbf{Minimum submodular edge cover:}}
The minimum submodular edge cover involves finding an edge cover (subset of edges covering all vertices), with minimum submodular cost. This problem has been investigated in~\cite{iwata2009submodular}, and they show that this problem is $O(n)$ hard. Algorithm MUB provides an approximation guarantee which is no worse than $\frac{2n}{2 + (n-2)(1- \ensuremath{\kappa_f})}$.
We can show a almost matching hardness lower bound for this problem.
\begin{theorem}
Given a submodular function, with curvature coefficient $\ensuremath{\kappa_f}$ and any $\epsilon, \delta > 0$, there cannot exist a polynomial-time approximation algorithm, which achieves an approximation better than $\frac{n^{1 -3\epsilon}}{2 + ( n^{1 -3\epsilon} - 2)(1 - \ensuremath{\kappa_f}) + 2\delta \ensuremath{\kappa_f}}$ for the minimum submodular edge cover problem.
\end{theorem}
\arxiv{\begin{proof}
We can use the construction of~\cite{iwata2009submodular} to show this. However a simple observation shows that a perfect matching is also an edge cover, and hence the hardness of edge cover has to be at least as much as the hardness of perfect matchings.
\end{proof}}}
\subsection{Experiments} We end this section by empirically demonstrating the performance of MUB and EA and their precise dependence on curvature. We focus on
cardinality lower bound constraints, $\mathcal{C} = \{X \subseteq V: |X| \geq \alpha\}$
\JTR{above this was defined in terms of $k$ not $\alpha$. Fix.}\RTJ{Yes, but here $k = \alpha$. This is the notation used in the hardness function so probably we should keep it. I am with changing it also though.}
and
the ``worst-case'' class of functions that has been used throughout this paper to prove lower bounds,
\arxivalt{\begin{align}\label{eq:hardfct}
f^R(X) = \min\{|X \cap \bar{R}| + \beta, |X|, \alpha\},
\end{align}}{$f^R(X) = \min\{|X \cap \bar{R}| + \beta, |X|, \alpha\}$ }
where $\bar{R} = V \backslash R$ and $R \subseteq V$ is random set such that $|R| = \alpha$. We adjust $\alpha = n^{1/2 + \epsilon}$ and $\beta = n^{2 \epsilon}$ by a parameter $\epsilon$. The smaller $\epsilon$ is, the harder the problem.
\arxivalt{The function (\ref{eq:hardfct})}{This function} has curvature $\ensuremath{\kappa_f} = 1$. To obtain a function with specific curvature $\kappa$, we define
\arxivalt{\begin{align}
\label{eq:5}
f^R_\kappa(X) = \kappa f(X) + (1-\kappa)|X|.
\end{align}}{$f^R_\kappa(X) = \kappa f(X) + (1-\kappa)|X|$ as in Equation~\eqref{eq:hidingfuncs}.}
In all our experiments, we take the average over $20$ random draws of $R$. We first set $\kappa=1$
and vary $\epsilon$. Figure~\ref{fig:consmin}(a) shows the empirical approximation factors obtained using EA and MUB, and the theoretical bound. The empirical factors follow the theoretical results very closely. Empirically, we also see that the problem becomes harder as $\epsilon$ decreases.
Next we fix $\epsilon = 0.1$ and vary the curvature $\kappa$ in $f^R_\kappa$. Figure~\ref{fig:consmin}(b) illustrates that the theoretical and empirical approximation factors improve significantly as $\kappa$ decreases. Hence, much better approximations than the previous theoretical lower bounds are possible if $\kappa$ is not too large. This observation can be very important in practice. Here, too, the empirical upper bounds follow the theoretical bounds very closely.
Figures~\ref{fig:consmin}(c) and (d) show results for larger $\alpha$ and $\beta=1$. In Figure~\ref{fig:consmin}(c), as $\alpha$ increases, the empirical factors improve. In particular, as predicted by the theoretical bounds, EA outperforms MUB for large $\alpha$ and, for $\alpha \geq n^{2/3}$, EA finds the optimal solution. In addition, Figures~\ref{fig:consmin}(b) and (d) illustrate the theoretical and empirical effect of curvature: as $n$ grows, the bounds saturate and approximate a constant $1/(1-\kappa)$ -- they do not grow polynomially in $n$.
Overall, we see that the empirical results quite closely follow our theoretical results, and that, as the theory suggests, curvature significantly affects the approximation factors.
\section{Conclusion and Discussion}
In this paper, we study the effect of curvature on the problems of approximating, learning and minimizing submodular functions under constraints.
We prove tightened, curvature-dependent upper bounds
with almost matching lower bounds. These results complement known results for submodular maximization~\cite{conforti1984submodular,vondrak2010submodularity}. \arxiv{Moreover, in~\cite{nipssubcons2013}, we also consider the role of curvature in submodular optimization problems over a class of \emph{submodular} constraints.}
Given that the functional form and effect of the submodularity ratio proposed in \cite{das2011submodular} is similar to that of curvature, an interesting extension is the question of whether there is a single unifying quantity for both of these terms. Another open question is whether a quantity similar to curvature can be defined for subadditive functions, thus refining the results in \arxivalt{\cite{balcan2011learning,badanidiyuru2012sketching}}{\cite{balcan2011learning}} for learning subadditive functions. Finally it also seems that the techniques in this paper could be used to provide improved curvature-dependent regret bounds for constrained online submodular minimization~\cite{jegelka2010online}.
{\bf Acknowledgments:} Special thanks to Kai Wei for pointing out that
Corollary~\ref{concvmodres} holds and for other discussions, to Bethany
Herwaldt for reviewing an early draft of this manuscript, and to the
anonymous reviewers. This material is based upon work supported by
the National Science Foundation under Grant No. (IIS-1162606), a
Google and a Microsoft award, and by the Intel Science and Technology
Center for Pervasive Computing. Stefanie Jegelka's work is supported
by the Office of Naval Research under contract/grant number
N00014-11-1-0688, and gifts from Amazon Web Services, Google, SAP,
Blue Goji, Cisco, Clearstory Data, Cloudera, Ericsson, Facebook,
General Electric, Hortonworks, Intel, Microsoft, NetApp, Oracle,
Samsung, Splunk, VMware and Yahoo!.
\notarxiv{\small}
\bibliographystyle{abbrvnat}
|
\section{Introduction}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\subsection{}
On a complex manifold, the classical Riemann-Hilbert correspondence establishes an equivalence between the triangulated category of regular holonomic $\sheaffont{D}$-modules and that of constructible sheaves (see~\cite{Kas84}).
Here $\sheaffont{D}$ denotes the sheaf of differential operators.
In particular, flat meromorphic connections with regular singularities correspond to local systems on the complementary of the singular locus (see~\cite{Del70}).
\subsection{}
The problem of extending the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence to cover the case of holonomic $\sheaffont{D}$-modules with irregular singularities has been open for 30 years. Some results in this direction have appeared in the literature.
In the one-dimensional case, classical results of Levelt-Turittin and Hukuhara-Turittin describe the formal structure and the asymptotic expansion on sectors of flat meromorphic connections which are not necessarily regular.
Using these descriptions, Deligne and Malgrange established a Riemann-Hilbert correspondence on a complex curve for holonomic $\sheaffont{D}$-modules with a fixed set of singular points (see~\cite{DMR07}). See also the work of Babbitt-Varadarajan~\cite{BB89}.
Recently, Mochizuki~\cite{Moc09,Moc11}
and Kedlaya~\cite{Ked10,Ked11} extended the results of Levelt-Turittin and Hukuhara-Turittin to higher dimensions. Namely, they proved that
any flat meromorphic connection becomes ``good'' after
blowing-ups. Sabbah~\cite{Sab13}
obtained an analogue of the construction by Deligne and Malgrange
on a complex manifold for ``good'' flat meromorphic connections
with a fixed singular locus.
\subsection{}
In this paper, we prove a Riemann-Hilbert correspondence for holonomic $\sheaffont{D}$-modules on a complex manifold.
The construction of our target category is based
on the theory of ind-sheaves by Kashiwara-Schapira~\cite{KS01}
and influenced by the work of Tamarkin~\cite{Tam08}.
The description of the structure of flat meromorphic connections by
Mochizuki and Kedlaya is one of the key ingredients of our proof.
Let us explain our results in greater detail.
\subsection{}
Let $X$ be a complex manifold.
As we have already mentioned, the Riemann-Hilbert correspondence of~\cite{Kas84} establishes an equivalence
between the triangulated category $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{rh}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$
of regular holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-modules and
the triangulated category $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{{\C\text-\mathrm{c}}}(\C_X)$
of $\mathbb{C}$-constructible sheaves on $X$.
More precisely, there are functors
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:introRHclass}
\xymatrix@C=10ex{
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{rh}}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \ar@<.5ex>[r]^-{\mathcal{DR}_X}
& \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{{\C\text-\mathrm{c}}}(\C_X) \ar@<.5ex>[l]^-{\Psi_X}
}
\end{equation}
quasi-inverse to each other.
Here, $\mathcal{DR}_X(\sheaffont{L}) \mathbin{:=} \Omega_X \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \sheaffont{L}$ is the holomorphic de Rham complex with $\Omega_X$ the sheaf of holomorphic differential forms of highest degree,
and $\Psi_X(L) \mathbin{:=} \thom(\mathrm{D}_X L,\O_X)[d_X]$ is the complex of holomorphic functions tempered along the dual $\mathrm{D}_X L$ of $L$.
In particular, a regular holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module $\sheaffont{L}$ can be reconstructed from $\mathcal{DR}_X(\sheaffont{L})$.
Let $\sheaffont{M}$ be an irregular holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module, and consider the regular holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module $\sheaffont{M}_{\operatorname{reg}} \mathbin{:=} \Psi_X(\mathcal{DR}_X(\sheaffont{M}))$. Since $\mathcal{DR}_X(\sheaffont{M}) \simeq \mathcal{DR}_X(\sheaffont{M}_{\operatorname{reg}})$, it follows that $\sheaffont{M}$ cannot be reconstructed from $\mathcal{DR}_X(\sheaffont{M})$.
\subsection{}
The theory of ind-sheaves, that is, of ind-objects in the category of sheaves with compact support, was initiated and developed by Kashiwara-Schapira~\cite{KS01}. In such a framework, one can consider the complex $\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X$ of tempered holomorphic functions, which is an object of the derived category of ind-sheaves $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_X)$.
This is related to the functor $\Psi_X$ in \eqref{eq:introRHclass}, since one has $\rhom(F,\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X) \simeq \thom(F,\O_X)$ for any $\mathbb{R}$-constructible sheaf $F$.
Set $\Omega^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_X = \Omega_X\ltens[\O_X]\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X$.
For a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module $\sheaffont{M}$, the tempered de Rham complex $\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\sheaffont{M}) \mathbin{:=} \Omega^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_X\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X]\sheaffont{M}$ has been introduced and studied in \cite{KS03} and studied further in~\cite{Mor07,Mor10}.
This complex retains some information on the irregularity of $\sheaffont{M}$.
For example, let $\varphi\in\O_X(*Y)$ be a meromorphic function with poles at a hypersurface $Y$, and denote by $\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{X\setminus Y|X}$ the exponential $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module generated by $e^\varphi$ (see Definition~\ref{def:expY}).
Then one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:drtintro}
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{X\setminus Y|X}) \simeq \rihom(\C_{X\setminus Y}, \indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty]\C_{\{x\in X\setminus Y\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax -\Re \varphi(x) < a\}})[\dim X],
\end{equation}
where $\ihom$ denotes the inner-hom functor of ind-sheaves and $\C_{X\setminus Y}$ denotes the extension by zero to $X$ of the constant sheaf on $X\setminus Y$.
Since $\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{X\setminus Y|X}) \simeq \mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\sheaffont{E}^{2\varphi}_{X\setminus Y|X})$, one cannot reconstruct $\sheaffont{M}$ from $\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\sheaffont{M})$.
\subsection{}
Denote by $\tau\in\mathbb{C}\subset \mathbb{P}$ the affine variable in the complex projective line $\mathbb{P}$.
In this paper, we will show that $\sheaffont{M}$ can be reconstructed from the tempered de Rham complex $\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_{X\times \mathbb{P}}(\sheaffont{M} \detens \sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})$, an object of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{X\times\mathbb{P}})$.
In the case where $X$ is a complex curve, we outlined a proof of this fact in \cite{DK12}.
The proof in the general case follows from the arguments in the present paper.
However, in this paper we take as target category a modification of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{X\times\mathbb{P}})$. As we now explain, this is related to a construction by Tamarkin~\cite{Tam08} (see also Guillermou-Schapira~\cite{GS12} for an exposition and some complementary results).
\subsection{}\label{sse:introTamSheaf}
On a real analytic manifold $M$, the microlocal theory of sheaves by Kashiwara-Schapira~\cite{KS90} associates to an object of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\C_M)$ its microsupport, a closed conic involutive subset of the cotangent bundle $T^*M$.
In his study of symplectic topology, Tamarkin~\cite{Tam08} uses the techniques of~\cite{KS90} in order to treat involutive subsets of $T^*M$ which are not necessarily conic. To this end, he adds a real variable $t\in\mathbb{R}$ and, denoting by $(t;t^*)\in T^*\mathbb{R}$ the associated symplectic coordinates, considers the quotient category $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\C_{M\times\mathbb{R}})/\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*\leq 0\}}$ by the
category $\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*\leq 0\}}$ consisting of
objects microsupported on $\{t^*\leq 0\}$.
An important observation in \cite{Tam08} is that there are equivalences
\eq
&&{}^\bot\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*\leq 0\}} \simeq \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\C_{M\times\mathbb{R}})/\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*\leq 0\}} \simeq\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*\leq 0\}}^\bot
\label{eq:CC}
\eneq
between the quotient category and the left and right orthogonal categories.
Moreover, such categories can be described without using the notion of microsupport. For example, $\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*\leq 0\}}$ is the full subcategory of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\C_{M\times\mathbb{R}})$ of objects whose convolution with $\C_{\{t \geq 0\}}$ vanishes.
\subsection{}\label{sse:introTam}
Back to our complex manifold $X$,
recall that we aim to reconstruct a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module $\sheaffont{M}$
from the tempered de Rham complex $\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_{X\times \mathbb{P}}(\sheaffont{M} \detens \sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})$. As we explain in \S\ref{sse:introMoch} below, a special important case is when $\sheaffont{M} = \sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{X\setminus Y|X}$ for $\varphi\in\O_X(*Y)$.
Then, \eqref{eq:drtintro} implies that the tempered de Rham complex is
described in terms of the ind-sheaf
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:introt-phi}
\indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty]\C_{\{(x,\tau)\in (X\setminus Y)\times\mathbb{C}\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax t-\Re \varphi(x) < a\}}.
\end{equation}
Here $t=\Re\tau$ is the real part of the affine coordinate $\tau$ of
the complex projective line $\mathbb{P}$.
We are thus led to replace the target category $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{X\times\mathbb{P}})$ with
what we call the category of enhanced ind-sheaves
and denote by $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$.
This is a quotient category of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{X\times\mathsf{P}})$, where $\mathsf{P}$ is the real projective line.
Let us describe the category $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ in greater detail.
\subsection{}
As a preliminary step, we introduce the notion of bordered space.
A bordered space is a pair $(M,\check M)$ of a topological space $\check M$ and an open subset $M\subset\check M$, and we associate the triangulated category $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{(M,\check M)}) \mathbin{:=} \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{\check M})/\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{\check M\setminus M})$ to it.
There is a natural fully faithful embedding
\[
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\C_M) \subset \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{(M,\check M)}) .
\]
The main example for us is the bordered space $\mathbb{R}_\infty \mathbin{:=} (\mathbb{R},\mathsf{P})$.
This notion appears naturally when we deal with ind-sheaves such
as \eqref{eq:introt-phi}.
For example, for $\varphi=0$ such an ind-sheaf becomes trivial when restricted to $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{X\times\mathbb{R}})$, but is a non trivial object of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$.
\subsection{}\label{sse:TDC}
We define the category $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ of enhanced ind-sheaves by
\[
\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X = \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})/\{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax K\simeq\opb\pi L \text{ for some } L\in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_X) \}.
\]
Here $\pi\colon X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty\to X$ is the projection.
This is related with Tamarkin's construction as follows. We set
\[
\BECp[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X \mathbin{:=} \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})/\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*\leq 0\}},
\]
where $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*\leq 0\}}$ is the full subcategory of objects whose convolution with $\C_{\{t\geq 0\}}$ vanishes.
As in \eqref{eq:CC}, we have
\[
{}^\bot\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*\leq 0\}} \simeq \BECp[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X \simeq \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*\leq 0\}}^\bot.
\]
Replacing $\C_{\{t\geq 0\}}$ with $\C_{\{t\leq 0\}}$ one obtains the category $\BECm[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$. It turns out that
\[
\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X \simeq \BECp[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X \dsum \BECm[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X.
\]
This is the target category of our Riemann-Hilbert correspondence.
It is a triangulated tensor category whose tensor product is given
by the convolution $\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}$ in the $t$ variable.
\subsection{}
Set $\C_X^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{:=} \indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty]\C_{\{t\geq a\}}$.
We say that an object $K$ of $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ is stable if $K\simeq \C_X^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K$.
There is a natural fully faithful embedding of the category of
ind-sheaves into the category of stable enhanced ind-sheaves
\[
e\colon\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_X) \To \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X, \quad F\mapsto \C_X^\mathsf{E} \tens\opb\pi F.
\]
Denote by $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\C_{X\times\mathsf{P}})$ the full subcategory of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\C_{X\times\mathsf{P}})$ whose objects have $\mathbb{R}$-constructible cohomology groups.
We say that an object $K$ of $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible if,
for any relatively compact subanalytic open subset $U\subset X$,
there exists $F\in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\C_{X\times\mathsf{P}})$ such that
\[
\opb\pi\C_U \tens K \simeq \C_X^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F.
\]
Note that such a $K$ is a stable object, and that $\mathbb{R}$-constructibility is a local property on $X$.
We denote by $\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ the full subcategory of
$\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ consisting of $\mathbb{R}$-constructible objects.
\subsection{}\label{sse:introOT}
We can now state our Riemann-Hilbert correspondence.
The objects of $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ which play a role analogous to the objects $\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X$ and $\Omega^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_X$ of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_X)$ are
\[
\O^\enh_X \mathbin{:=} \epb i\rhom[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}](\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^\tau,\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times\mathbb{P}})[2],
\quad \Omega^\enh_X \mathbin{:=} \Omega_X \ltens[\O_X] \O^\enh_X.
\]
where $i\colon X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty\to X\times\mathbb{P}$ is the embedding.
It turns out that $\O^\enh_X$ and $\Omega^\enh_X$ are stable objects endowed with a natural $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module structure.
\smallskip
Denote by $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ the full
subcategory of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ consisting of
objects with holonomic cohomologies.
We define the enhanced de Rham functor
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X\colon\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)\To \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X,\quad \sheaffont{M}\mapsto \Omega^\enh_X \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \sheaffont{M}
\]
and the reconstruction functor
\[
\Psi_X^\mathsf{E}\colon\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X\To\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X),\quad K\mapsto \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathrm{D}^\enh_X K,\O^\enh_X)[d_X],
\]
where $\mathcal{H}om^\enh$ is the hom-functor between enhanced ind-sheaves,
with values in sheaves on $X$, and $\mathrm{D}^\enh_X$ is a natural duality functor of $\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$.
Our main result can be stated as follows.
\begin{theorem*}
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item The functor $\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X$ is fully faithful and takes values in $\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$.
\item there is an isomorphism
$$\sheaffont{M}\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto}\Psi_X^\mathsf{E}\bigl(\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})\bigr)$$
functorial in $\sheaffont{M}\in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$.
In particular, one can reconstruct $\sheaffont{M}$ from $\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem*}
We prove the compatibility of $\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X$ with duality. We also prove compatibility with the classical Riemann-Hilbert correspondence \eqref{eq:introRHclass}.
More precisely, there is a quasi-commutative diagram:
\[
\xymatrix@C=8ex{
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{rh}}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \ar[r]^{\mathcal{DR}_X} \ar[d]
& \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\C\text-\mathrm{c}}(\C_X) \ar[r]^{\Psi_X} \ar[d]^e
& \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{rh}}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \ar[d] \\
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \ar[r]^{\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X}
& \BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X \ar[r]^{\Psi_X^\mathsf{E}}
& \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X) .
}
\]
\subsection{}\label{sse:introMoch}
A key ingredient in our proofs is the following (see Lemma~\ref{lem:redux}).
Let $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ be a statement concerning a complex manifold $X$ and a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module $\sheaffont{M}$.
For example,
\[
P_X(\sheaffont{M})= \text{``$\sheaffont{M} \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \Psi_X^\mathsf{E}(\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M}))$''}.
\]
In order to prove $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$,
the results of Mochizuki~\cite{Moc09,Moc11} and
Kedlaya~\cite{Ked10,Ked11} allow one, heuristically speaking, to reduce to the case
when $\sheaffont{M} = \sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{X\setminus Y|X}$ for $\varphi\in\O_X(*Y)$.
\subsection{}
Recall that irregular holonomic modules are subjected to the Stokes phenomenon. In \S\ref{sse:Stokes} we describe
with an example how the Stokes data are encoded topologically in our construction.
\subsection{}
The contents of this paper are as follows.
Section~\ref{se:notations} fixes notations regarding sheaves, ind-sheaves and $\sheaffont{D}$-modules. References are made to \cite{KS90,KS01,Kas03}. We also state some complementary results which are of use in later sections.
In Section~\ref{se:bordered}, we introduce the notion of bordered space and of ind-sheaves on it, and develop the formalism of operations in this context.
We also discuss a natural $t$-structure in the triangulated category of ind-sheaves on a bordered space.
In Section~\ref{se:enhcdind}, we introduce the category $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]M$ of enhanced ind-sheaves, mentioned in \S\ref{sse:TDC}, and develop the formalism of operations in this framework. We also introduce the notion of $\mathbb{R}$-constructible objects in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]M$.
Section~\ref{se:tempered} recalls from \cite{KS96,KS01} the construction and main properties of the ind-sheaves of tempered distributions $\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M$ on a real analytic manifold $M$, and of tempered holomorphic functions $\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X$ on a complex manifold $X$. As explained above, this is a fundamental ingredient of our construction.
In Section~\ref{se:expo}, we prove the isomorphism \eqref{eq:drtintro}. The fundamental example where $X=\mathbb{C}\owns z$ and $\varphi(z)=1/z$
has been already treated in \cite{KS03}.
Mochizuki and Kedlaya's results
on the structure of flat meromorphic connections are recalled in Section~\ref{se:normal}. There, we give a precise formulation of the heuristic argument mentioned in \S\ref{sse:introMoch}.
Section~\ref{se:enhanced} introduces and studies the enhancement $\O^\enh_X$ of $\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X$ mentioned in \S\ref{sse:introOT}, along with the enhancement $\Db^\enh_M$ of $\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M$.
Our main results, mentioned in \S\ref{sse:introOT}, are stated and proved in Section~\ref{se:RH}.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Pierre Schapira, who taught us that the ind-sheaf $\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X$ of tempered holomorphic functions is an appropriate language for the study of irregular holonomic $\sheaffont{D}$-modules.
We also thank Takuro Mochizuki for his explanations on the structure of irregular holonomic $\sheaffont{D}$-modules.
The first author acknowledges the kind hospitality at RIMS,
Kyoto University, during the preparation of this paper.
Finally, we wish to thank the anonymous referee for his/her careful
reading of our manuscript and his/her suggestions to simplify the proof of
Proposition~\ref{pro:summand}.
\numberwithin{equation}{subsection}
\section{Notations and complements}\label{se:notations}
We fix here some notations regarding sheaves, ind-sheaves and $\sheaffont{D}$-modules, and state some complementary results that we will need in later sections.
Our notations follow those in \cite{KS90,KS01,Kas03}, to which we refer for further detail.
\medskip
Let us say that a topological space is \emph{good} if it is Hausdorff, locally compact, countable at infinity and has finite flabby dimension.
In this paper, we take a field $\mathbf{k}$ as base ring. However, after minor modifications, one can take any regular ring as base ring.
For a category $\sheaffont{C}$, we denote by $\sheaffont{C}^\mathrm{op}$
the opposite category of $\sheaffont{C}$.
For a ring $A$, we denote by $A^\mathrm{op}$ the opposite ring of $A$.
\subsection{Sheaves}
Let $M$ be a good topological space.
Denote by $\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ the abelian category of sheaves of $\mathbf{k}$-vector spaces on $M$, and by $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ its bounded derived category.
For a locally closed subset $S\subset M$, denote by $\mathbf{k}_S$ the
extension by zero to $M$ of the constant sheaf on $S$.
For $f\colon M\to N$ a morphism of good topological spaces,
denote by $\tens$, $\rhom$, $\opb f$, $\roim f$, $\reim f$, $\epb f$ the six
Grothendieck operations for sheaves.
Denote by $\etens$ the exterior product.
We define the duality functor $\mathrm{D}_M$ of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ by
\[
\mathrm{D}_M F = \rhom(F,\omega_M) \quad\text{for $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$,}
\]
where $\omega_M$ denotes the dualizing complex. If $M$ is a $C^0$-manifold of dimension $d_M$, one has $\omega_M \simeq \ori_M[d_M]$, where $\ori_M$ denotes the orientation sheaf.
\subsection{Ind-sheaves}
The theory of ind-sheaves has been introduced and developed in~\cite{KS01}.
\smallskip
Let $\sheaffont{C}$ be a category and denote by $\sheaffont{C}^\wedge$ the category of contravariant functors from $\sheaffont{C}$ to the category of sets. Consider the Yoneda embedding $h\colon \sheaffont{C} \to \sheaffont{C}^\wedge$, $X\mapsto\Hom[\sheaffont{C}](\ast,X)$.
The category $\sheaffont{C}^\wedge$ admits small inductive limits. Since $h$ does not commute with inductive limits, one denotes by $\indlim$ instead of $\varinjlim$ the inductive limits taken in $\sheaffont{C}^\wedge$.
An ind-object in $\sheaffont{C}$ is an object of $\sheaffont{C}^\wedge$ isomorphic to
$\indlim[i\in I] X(i)$ for some functor $X\colon I\to\sheaffont{C}$ with a small filtrant category $I$.
Denote by $\operatorname{Ind}(\sheaffont{C})$ the full subcategory of $\sheaffont{C}^\wedge$ consisting of ind-objects in $\sheaffont{C}^\wedge$.
\medskip
Let $M$ be a good topological space. The category of ind-sheaves on $M$ is the category $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_M) \mathbin{:=} \operatorname{Ind}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M))$ of ind-objects in the category $\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M)$ of sheaves with
compact support.
Denote by $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$ the bounded derived category of $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_M)$.
There is a natural exact embedding $\iota_M\colon\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_M) \to \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ given by $F\mapsto\indlim (\mathbf{k}_U \tens F)$, for $U$ running over the relatively compact open subsets of $M$.
The functor $\iota_M$ has an exact left adjoint
$\alpha_M\colon\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_M) \to \mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ given by $\alpha_M(\indlim
F_i) = \ilim F_i$. The functor $\alpha_M$ has an exact fully faithful left adjoint $\beta_M\colon\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_M) \to \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_M)$.
For example, if $Z\subset M$ is a closed subset, one has
\[
\beta_M \mathbf{k}_Z \simeq \indlim[U]\mathbf{k}_{\overline U}\,,
\]
where $U$ ranges over the family of open subsets of $M$ containing $Z$.
For $f\colon M\to N$ a morphism of good topological spaces, denote by $\tens$,
$\rihom$, $\opb f$, $\roim f$, $\reeim f$, $\epb f$ the six Grothendieck
operations for ind-sheaves.
Denote by $\etens$ the exterior product.
Since ind-sheaves form a stack, they have a sheaf-valued hom-functor $\hom$. One has $\rhom \simeq \alpha_M\rihom$.
\smallskip
We will need the following proposition to calculate $\rihom$.
For $a\leq b$ in $\mathbb{Z}$, denote by $\mathsf{C}^{[a,b]}(\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_M))$ the category of complexes of sheaves $F^\bullet$ such that $F^k=0$ unless $a\leq k \leq b$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:Prolim}
Let $f\colon M\to N$ be a morphism of good topological spaces.
Let $G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$ and let $\{F^\bullet_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}}$ be an inductive system in $\mathsf{C}^{[a,b]}(\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_M))$ for some $a\leq b$ in $\mathbb{Z}$.
Assume that the pro-object
\[
\prolim[n] \roim f \rihom(F^\bullet_n,G) \in \operatorname{Pro}(\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_N))
\]
is represented by an object of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_N)$.
Then
\[
\roim f \rihom(\indlim[n] F^\bullet_n,G) \simeq
\prolim[n] \roim f \rihom(F^\bullet_n,G).
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Set $S^\bullet_n = \bigoplus_{k\leq n}F^\bullet_k$ and denote by $\tilde F^\bullet_n$ the mapping cone of the morphism $S^\bullet_{n-1} \to S^\bullet_n$.
Note that the morphism $\tilde F^\bullet_n \to F^\bullet_n$ induced by the projection $S^\bullet_n\to F^\bullet_n$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
Consider the morphism $S^\bullet_n \to S^\bullet_n \dsum F^\bullet_{n+1} = S^\bullet_{n+1}$ obtained by $\id_{S^\bullet_n}$ and $S^\bullet_n\to F^\bullet_n\to F^\bullet_{n+1}$. This induces a morphism $\tilde F^k_n \to \tilde F^k_{n+1}$ which has a cosection for any $k$ and $n$. Hence, replacing $F^\bullet_n$ with $\tilde F^\bullet_n$, we may assume from the beginning that the morphism $F^k_n \to F^k_{n+1}$ has a cosection for any $k$ and $n$.
We may also assume that $G^\bullet$ is a complex of quasi-injective sheaves, i.e.\ that the functor $\Hom(\ast, G^n)$ is exact in $\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ for any $n\in\mathbb{Z}$.
In order to prove that the morphism
\[
\roim f \rihom(\indlim[n] F^\bullet_n,G^\bullet) \To[u]
\prolim[n] \roim f \rihom(F^\bullet_n,G^\bullet)
\]
is an isomorphism, it is enough to show that $\RHom(H,u)$ is a quasi-isomorphism for any $H\in\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_N)$.
Set $E^\bullet_n = \Hom(F^\bullet_n\tens\opb f H, G^\bullet)$.
Then
\begin{align*}
\varprojlim\limits_n E^\bullet_n &\simeq
\RHom(H,\roim f \rihom(\indlim[n] F^\bullet_n,G^\bullet)), \\
\prolim[n] H^k(E^\bullet_n) &\simeq
H^k \RHom(H, \prolim[n]\roim f\rihom(F^\bullet_n, G^\bullet)).
\end{align*}
Hence we have to show that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Hkprolim}
H^k(\varprojlim\limits_n E^\bullet_n) \to \prolim[n] H^k(E^\bullet_n) \simeq \varprojlim\limits_n H^k(E^\bullet_n)
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism for any $k$.
Since $E^\bullet_{n+1} \to E^\bullet_n$ is an epimorphism and
$\{H^k(E^\bullet_n)\}_n$ satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition, we conclude that \eqref{eq:Hkprolim} is an isomorphism.
\end{proof}
Let us recall the results of \cite[\S15.4]{KS06}. These provide useful tools to reduce proofs of many results in the framework of ind-sheaves to analogous results in sheaf theory.
Recall that $\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M)$ denotes the category of sheaves with compact support. Then $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M))$ is equivalent to the full triangulated subcategory of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ consisting of objects with compact support.
\begin{proposition}[{cf.~\cite[\S15.4]{KS06}}]
\label{pro:J}
There exists a canonical functor
\[
J_M\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M) \To \operatorname{Ind}\bigl(\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M))\bigr)\]
which satisfies the following properties:
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
For $F\in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M))$, and $K\in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$,
we have
$$\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)](F,K)
\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \Hom[{\operatorname{Ind}(\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M)))}]
\bigl( J_M(F),J_M(K)\bigr).$$
\label{J:def}
\item
The functor $J_M$ is conservative, i.e.~a morphism $u$ in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$ is an isomorphism as soon as $J_M(u)$ is an isomorphism.
\label{J:cons}
\item
$J_M(F) \simeq F$ for any $F\in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M))$.
\item
$J_M(\indlim F_i) \simeq \ilim J_M(F_i)$ for any filtrant inductive system $\{F_i\}$ in $\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_M)$. Here, $\ilim$ denotes the inductive limit in the category $\operatorname{Ind}(\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M)))$.
\label{J:ind}
\item
$J_M$ commutes with $\tens$ and $J_M\rihom(F,G) \simeq \rhom(F,J_M(G))$ for $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ and $G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$.
Here, $\rhom(F,\ast)$ denotes the endofunctor of $\operatorname{Ind}(\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M)))$ induced by the endofunctor $\rhom(F,\ast)$ of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M))$.
\label{J:tens}
\item
$H^n J_M(F) \simeq H^n F$ for any $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$.
Here, $H^n$ on the right hand side is the cohomology functor $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M) \to \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_M)$, and $H^n$ on the left hand side
is the functor $\operatorname{Ind}(\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M))) \to \operatorname{Ind}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M)) = \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ induced by the cohomology functor
$\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M)) \to \mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M)$.
\item
Let $f\colon M\to N$ be a continuous map. Then
\be[{\rm(a)}]
\item
$J_N \circ \reeim f \simeq \reim f \circ J_M$.
\item\label{J:opbepb}
$J_M \circ \opb f \simeq \opb f \circ J_N$ and
$J_M\circ \epb f \simeq\epb f \circ J_N$.
Here, for $u=\opb f,\epb f$, we denote by the same letter the composition
\[
\operatorname{Ind}(\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_N))) \To[u] \operatorname{Ind}(\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)) \To
\operatorname{Ind}(\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M))).
\]
\end{enumerate}
The last arrow is given by $\indlim[i] F_i\mapsto \indlim[i,U] (F_i)_U$,
where $U$ ranges over the relatively compact open subsets of $M$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
Note that $J_N \circ \roim f \simeq \roim f \circ J_M$ \emph{does not} hold in general.
\medskip
As an example of application of Proposition~\ref{pro:J}, one has the following result.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:tensindlim}
Let $G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$, $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$ and $\{F_i\}$ a filtrant inductive system in $\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_M)$. If $\supp G$ is compact, then
\[
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)](G,K\tens\indlim[i] F_i) \simeq
\ilim[i]\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)](G,K\tens F_i).
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
One has
$J_M(K\tens\indlim[i] F_i)\simeq \ilim[i] J_M(K\tens F_i)$
by Proposition~\ref{pro:J} \eqref{J:ind} and \eqref{J:tens}.
Then the assertion follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:J} \eqref{J:def}.
\end{proof}
Here is another application of Proposition~\ref{pro:J}.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:opbepb}
Let $f\colon M\to N$ be a continuous map of good topological spaces and $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_N)$.
Let $U$ be an open subset of $M$ and $\{V_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}}$ an increasing sequence of open subsets of $N$. Assume that
\[
U\cap \overline{\opb f(V_n)} \subset \opb f(V_{n+1})
\quad\text{for any $n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$.}
\]
Then, setting $L=\indlim[n]\mathbf{k}_{V_n}$, there is an isomorphism
\[
\mathbf{k}_U \tens \epb f K \tens \opb f L \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathbf{k}_U \tens \epb f (K\tens L).
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since the question is local on $M$, we may assume that $U$ is relatively compact.
By the assumption,
$U\cap\supp(\epb f (K\tens\mathbf{k}_{V_{n}})) \subset \opb f(V_{n+1})$. Thus we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_U \tens \epb f (K\tens\mathbf{k}_{V_n})
&\isofrom \mathbf{k}_U \tens \epb f (K\tens\mathbf{k}_{V_n}) \tens \opb f \mathbf{k}_{V_{n+1}}, \\
&\To \mathbf{k}_U \tens \epb f K \tens \opb f \mathbf{k}_{V_{n+1}}.
\end{align*}
By applying $J_M$ and taking the inductive limit with respect to $n$ in $\operatorname{Ind}(\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M)))$, we obtain a morphism
\[
\varinjlim\limits_n J_M(\mathbf{k}_U \tens \epb f (K\tens\mathbf{k}_{V_n}))
\To
\varinjlim\limits_n J_M(\mathbf{k}_U \tens \epb f K \tens \opb f \mathbf{k}_{V_n}).
\]
By Proposition~\ref{pro:J}~\eqref{J:ind}, \eqref{J:tens} and \eqref{J:opbepb},
this gives a morphism
\[
J_M(\mathbf{k}_U \tens \epb f (K\tens L)) \To J_M(\mathbf{k}_U \tens \epb f K \tens \opb f L).
\]
We can easily see that this is an inverse to the natural morphism
\[
J_M(\mathbf{k}_U \tens \epb f K \tens \opb f L) \To J_M(\mathbf{k}_U \tens \epb f (K\tens L)).
\]
Hence, the statement follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:J}~\eqref{J:cons}.
\end{proof}
We will use the following lemma only in Remark~\ref{rem:vanish}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:Indlim}
Let $M$ be a good topological space and
$\{F^\bullet_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}}$ an inductive system in $\mathsf{C}^{[a,b]}(\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_M))$ for some $a\leq b$ in $\mathbb{Z}$.
Then
\[
\rihom(\indlim[n] F^\bullet_n, \omega_M) \isofrom
\rihom(\varinjlim\limits_{n} F^\bullet_n, \omega_M).
\]
Here, $\varinjlim\limits_{n} F^\bullet_n$ is the inductive limit of $\{F^\bullet_n\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}}$ in $\mathsf{C}^{[a,b]}(\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_M))$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By d\'evissage, we may assume that the morphism $F^k_n \to F^k_{n+1}$ has a cosection for each $k$ and $n$, as in the proof of Proposition~\ref{pro:Prolim}, and that all the sheaves $F^k_n$ are soft sheaves.
Then, for any $G\in\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M)$,
\begin{align*}
\RHom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)]&(G,\rihom(\indlim[n] F^\bullet_n, \omega_M)) \\
&\simeq
\RHom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)](G\tens \indlim[n] F^\bullet_n, \omega_M) \\
&\simeq
\RHom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k})](\derr\varGamma_c(M; G\tens \indlim[n] F^\bullet_n), \mathbf{k}).
\end{align*}
Since $G\tens F^k_n$ are soft sheaves (see \cite[Lemma 3.1.2]{KS90}),
\[
\derr\varGamma_c(M; G\tens \indlim[n] F^\bullet_n)
\simeq
\indlim[n] \varGamma_c(M; G\tens F^\bullet_n).
\]
Hence
\[
\RHom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k})](\derr\varGamma_c(M; G\tens \indlim[n] F^\bullet_n), \mathbf{k})
\simeq \mathsf{R}\pi\prolim[n]\varGamma_c(M; G\tens F^\bullet_n)^*,
\]
where $\pi\colon\operatorname{Pro(\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}))} \to \mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k})$ is the functor of taking the projective limit (see \cite[Corollary 13.3.16]{KS06}).
Since $\varGamma_c(M; G\tens F^\bullet_n)^*$ satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition,
one has
\[
\mathsf{R}^i\pi\prolim[n]\varGamma_c(M; G\tens F^\bullet_n)^* \simeq0
\quad\text{for any $i\neq 0$.}
\]
Hence
\begin{align*}
\mathsf{R}\pi\prolim[n]\varGamma_c(M; G\tens F^\bullet_n)^*
&\simeq \varprojlim\limits_{n}\varGamma_c(M; G\tens F^\bullet_n)^* \\
&\simeq (\varinjlim\limits_{n}\varGamma_c(M; G\tens F^\bullet_n))^* \\
&\simeq \varGamma_c(M; G\tens \varinjlim\limits_{n}F^\bullet_n)^* \\
&\simeq \RHom(G,\rihom(\varinjlim\limits_{n}F^\bullet_n,\omega_M)).
\end{align*}
This implies that
\[
\RHom(G,\rihom(\varinjlim\limits_{n}F^\bullet_n,\omega_M))
\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto}
\RHom(G,\rihom(\indlim[n]F^\bullet_n,\omega_M))
\]
for any $G\in\mathrm{Mod}_c(\mathbf{k}_M)$, and hence we obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{$\mathbb{R}$-constructible sheaves}
The notion of subanalytic subset and of $\mathbb{R}$-constructible sheaf, usually defined on real analytic manifolds, naturally extend to subanalytic spaces (cf.~\cite[Exercise IX.2]{KS90}).
\begin{definition}
A \emph{subanalytic space} $(M,\sheaffont{S}_M)$ is an $\mathbb{R}$-ringed space which is locally isomorphic to $(Z,\sheaffont{S}_Z)$, where $Z$ is a closed subanalytic subset
of a real analytic manifold, and $\sheaffont{S}_Z$ is the sheaf of $\mathbb{R}$-algebras of real valued subanalytic continuous functions. In this paper, we assume that subanalytic spaces are good topological spaces.
One naturally defines the category of subanalytic spaces. The morphisms are morphisms of $\mathbb{R}$-ringed spaces.
\end{definition}
Let $M$ be a subanalytic space. One says that an object of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible if all of its cohomologies are $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
Denote by $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ the full subcategory of $\mathbb{R}$-constructible objects of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$. The category $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ is triangulated and is closed under $\tens$, $\rhom$ and the duality functor $\mathrm{D}_M$.
The following two propositions are classical results (see e.g.~\cite[Propositions 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 8.4.9]{KS90}).
\begin{proposition}
Let $M$ be a subanalytic space and $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$. Then the natural morphism
\[
F \to \mathrm{D}_M\mathrm{D}_M F
\]
is an isomorphism.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:Rcdtens}
Let $M$ be a subanalytic space and $N$ a good topological space. Let $p_1\colon M\times N\to M$ and $p_2\colon M\times N\to N$ be the projections. Then for any $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ and $G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_N)$ the natural morphism
\[
\opb{p_1}\mathrm{D}_M F \tens \opb{p_2} G \To \rhom(\opb{p_1}F,\epb{p_2} G)
\]
is an isomorphism.
\end{proposition}
Hence, by applying Corollary~\ref{cor:tensindlim}, we obtain the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:const}
Let $M$, $N$, $p_1$ and $p_2$ be as in {\rm Proposition~\ref{pro:Rcdtens}}.
Let $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ and $G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_N)$.
Then there are isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\epb{p_2}\mathbf{k}_N\tens\opb{p_2}G &\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \epb{p_2}G, \\
\opb{p_1}\mathrm{D}_M F \tens \opb{p_2}G &\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \rihom(\opb{p_1}F,\epb{p_2} G).
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:exthom}
Let $M$ be a subanalytic space and $N$ a good topological space.
Let $F_1,F_2\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ and $G_1,G_2\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_N)$.
Then the canonical morphism
\[
\rhom(F_1,F_2) \etens \rihom(G_1,G_2)
\To \rihom(F_1 \etens G_1, F_2\etens G_2)
\]
is an isomorphism.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let $p_1\colon M\times N\to M$ and $p_2\colon M\times N\to N$ be the projections.
We have
\[
\opb{p_1} F_2\tens \opb{p_2}G_2 \simeq \rihom(\opb{p_1} \mathrm{D}_M F_2, \epb{p_2}G_2).
\]
Hence
\begin{align*}
\rihom&(\opb{p_1} F_1 \tens \opb{p_2}G_1, \opb{p_1} F_2\tens \opb{p_2}G_2) \\
&\simeq \rihom(\opb{p_1} F_1 \tens \opb{p_2}G_1 \tens \opb{p_1} \mathrm{D}_M F_2, \epb{p_2}G_2) \\
&\simeq\rihom(\opb{p_1} (F_1 \tens \mathrm{D}_M F_2) , \rihom(\opb{p_2}G_1, \epb{p_2}G_2)) \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \rihom(\opb{p_1} \mathrm{D}_M\rhom(F_1, F_2) , \epb{p_2}\rihom(G_1,G_2)) \\
&\simeq \opb{p_1}\rhom(F_1, F_2) \tens \opb{p_2}\rihom(G_1,G_2).
\end{align*}
Here, in $(*)$ we have used
\[
F_1 \tens \mathrm{D}_M F_2 \simeq \mathrm{D}_M\rhom(F_1, F_2),
\]
which follows from
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{D}_M(F_1 \tens \mathrm{D}_M F_2)
&= \rhom(F_1 \tens \mathrm{D}_M F_2,\omega_M) \\
&\simeq \rhom(F_1 , \rhom(\mathrm{D}_M F_2,\omega_M)) \\
&\simeq \rhom(F_1 , F_2) .
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Subanalytic ind-sheaves}
Let $M$ be a subanalytic space.
An ind-sheaf on $M$ is called subanalytic if it is isomorphic to a small filtrant ind-limit of $\mathbb{R}$-constructible sheaves. Let us denote by $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}_{\operatorname{suban}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$
the category of subanalytic ind-sheaves. Note that it is stable by kernels, cokernels and extensions in $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_M)$.
An object of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$ is called subanalytic if all of its cohomologies are subanalytic.
Denote by $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\operatorname{suban}}(\ind\field_M)$ the full subcategory of subanalytic objects in
$\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$. It is a triangulated category.%
\footnote{\,In \cite{KS01}, subanalytic ind-sheaves are called ind-$\mathbb{R}$-constructible sheaves, and $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}_{\operatorname{suban}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ and $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\operatorname{suban}}(\ind\field_M)$ are denoted by $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ and $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}}(\ind\field_M)$, respectively.}
Let $\operatorname{Op}_{M_\mathrm{sa}}$ be the category of relatively compact subanalytic open subsets of $M$, whose morphisms are inclusions.
\begin{definition}[cf.~\cite{KS96,KS01}]
A \emph{subanalytic sheaf} $F$ is a functor $\operatorname{Op}_{M_\mathrm{sa}}^\mathrm{op}\to\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k})$ which satisfies
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
$F(\emptyset) = 0$,
\item
For $U,V\in\operatorname{Op}_{M_\mathrm{sa}}$, the sequence
\[
0 \To F(U\cup V) \To[r_1] F(U) \dsum F(V) \To[r_2] F(U\cap V)
\]
is exact. Here $r_1$ is given by the restriction maps and $r_2$ is given by the restriction $F(U) \to F(U\cap V)$ and the opposite of the restriction $F(V) \to F(U\cap V)$.
\end{enumerate}
Denote by $\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_{M_\mathrm{sa}})$ the category of subanalytic sheaves.
\end{definition}
The following result is proved in \cite{KS01}.
\begin{proposition}
The category $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}_{\operatorname{suban}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ of subanalytic ind-sheaves and the category $\mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_{M_\mathrm{sa}})$ of subanalytic sheaves are equivalent by the functor associating with $F\in\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}_{\operatorname{suban}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$ the subanalytic sheaf
\[
\operatorname{Op}_{M_\mathrm{sa}} \owns U \longmapsto \Hom[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_M)](\mathbf{k}_U,F).
\]
\end{proposition}
In particular, we have
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:suban0}
Let $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\operatorname{suban}}(\ind\field_M)$.
Then $K \simeq 0$ if and only if
\[
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)](\mathbf{k}_U[n],K) \simeq 0
\]
for any $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ and any relatively compact subanalytic open subset $U\subset M$.
\end{proposition}
We will need the following result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:vanrelsuban}
Let $M$ be a subanalytic space and $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\operatorname{suban}}(\ind\field_{M\times [0,1]})$.
Then $K \simeq 0$ if and only if $\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times[0,1]})](\mathbf{k}_U[n],K) \simeq 0$ for any $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ and any relatively compact subanalytic open subset $U\subset M\times [0,1]$ such that each fiber of $U\to M$ is either empty or connected.
\end{lemma}
This follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:suban0} and the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:relsuban}
Any relatively compact subanalytic open subset of $M\times[0,1]$ is a finite union of subanalytic open sets $U$ such that each fiber of $U\to M$ is either empty or connected.
\end{lemma}
For a similar statement, see \cite[Lemma~3.6]{KS96}.
\subsection{$\sheaffont{D}$-modules}
Let $X$ be a complex manifold.
We denote by $d_X$ its (complex) dimension.
Denote by $\O_X$ and $\sheaffont{D}_X$ the sheaves of algebras of holomorphic functions and of
differential operators, respectively. Denote by $\Omega_X$ the invertible sheaf of
differential forms of top degree.
Denote by $\mathrm{Mod}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ the category of left $\sheaffont{D}_X$-modules, and by $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ its bounded derived category.
For $f\colon X\to Y$ a morphism of complex manifolds, denote by $\dtens$,
$\dopb f$, $\doim f$ the operations for $\sheaffont{D}$-modules.
Denote by $\detens$ the exterior product.
Let us denote by
\eq
\mathrm{r}\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X^\mathrm{op})\label{def:r}
\eneq
the equivalence of categories given by the functor $\sheaffont{M}^\mathrm{r} = \Omega_X\ltens[\O_X]\sheaffont{M}$.
Consider the dual of $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ given by
\[
\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{M} = \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_X](\sheaffont{M},\sheaffont{D}_X\tens[\O_X]\Omega_X^{\otimes-1})[d_X],
\]
where the shift is chosen so that $\mathbb{D}_X\O_X\simeq\O_X$.
Denote by $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{coh}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{q\text-good}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ and $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{good}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ the full
subcategories of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ whose objects have coherent, quasi-good and good cohomologies, respectively.
Here, a $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module $\sheaffont{M}$ is called \emph{quasi-good} if, for any relatively compact open subset $U\subset X$, $\sheaffont{M}\vert_U$
is the sum of a filtrant family of
coherent $(\O_X\vert_U)$-submodules.
A $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module $\sheaffont{M}$ is called \emph{good} if it is quasi-good and coherent.
Recall that to a coherent $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module $\sheaffont{M}$ one associates its characteristic variety $\chv(\sheaffont{M})$, a closed conic involutive subset of the cotangent bundle $T^*X$. If $\chv(\sheaffont{M})$ is Lagrangian, $\sheaffont{M}$ is called holonomic. For the notion of regular holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module, refer e.g.\ to \cite[\S5.2]{Kas03}.
Denote by $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{hol}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ and $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{{\mathrm{rh}}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ the full
subcategories of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ whose objects have holonomic and regular
holonomic cohomologies, respectively.
Note that $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{coh}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{q\text-good}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{good}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{hol}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ and $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{{\mathrm{rh}}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ are triangulated categories.
If $Y\subset X$ is a closed hypersurface, denote by $\O_X(*Y)$ the sheaf of meromorphic functions with poles at $Y$. It is a regular holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module. For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, set
\[
\sheaffont{M}(*Y) = \sheaffont{M} \dtens \O_X(*Y).
\]
If $Y$ is a closed submanifold of $X$, denoting by $i\colon Y\to X$ the inclusion morphism, one sets
\eq
&&\sheaffont{B}_Y = \doim i\O_Y.
\label{eq:B}
\eneq
Then $\sheaffont{B}_Y$ is concentrated in degree zero, and is a regular holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module.
For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{coh}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, denote by $\ss(\sheaffont{M})\subset X$ its singular support, that is the set
of points where $\chv(\sheaffont{M}) \mathbin{:=} \bigcup\limits\nolimits_{i\in\mathbb{Z}} \chv(H^i\sheaffont{M})$ is not contained in the zero-section of $T^*X$.
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Theorem~4.33]{Kas03}}]
\label{pro:Dadj}
Let $f\colon X\to Y$ be a morphism of complex manifolds. Let $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{good}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ and $\sheaffont{N}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_Y)$. If $\supp(\sheaffont{M})$ is proper over $Y$, then $\doim f\sheaffont{M} \in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{good}(\sheaffont{D}_Y)$ and there is an isomorphism
\[
\roim f\rhom[\sheaffont{D}_X](\sheaffont{M},\dopb f\sheaffont{N})[d_X] \simeq
\rhom[\sheaffont{D}_Y](\doim f\sheaffont{M},\sheaffont{N})[d_Y].
\]
In particular,
\[
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)](\sheaffont{M},\dopb f\sheaffont{N}[d_X]) \simeq
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_Y)](\doim f\sheaffont{M},\sheaffont{N}[d_Y]).
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Theorem~4.40]{Kas03}}]
\label{pro:Dadj2}
If $f\colon X\to Y$ is a smooth morphism of complex manifolds, then for $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ and $\sheaffont{N}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{coh}(\sheaffont{D}_Y)$ we have
\[
\roim f\rhom[\sheaffont{D}_X](\dopb f\sheaffont{N},\sheaffont{M})[d_X] \simeq
\rhom[\sheaffont{D}_Y](\sheaffont{N},\doim f\sheaffont{M})[d_Y].
\]
In particular,
\[
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)](\dopb f\sheaffont{N},\sheaffont{M}[d_X]) \simeq
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_Y)](\sheaffont{N},\doim f\sheaffont{M}[d_Y]).
\]
\end{proposition}
A \emph{transversal Cartesian diagram} is a commutative diagram
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:transCart}
\begin{myarray}{c}\xymatrix@C=8ex{
X' \ar[r]^{f'} \ar[d]^{g'} & Y' \ar[d]^{g} \\
X \ar[r]^{f}\ar@{}[ur]|-\square & Y
}\end{myarray}
\end{equation}
with $X'\simeq X\times_Y Y'$ and such that the map of tangent spaces
\[
T_{g'(x)}X \dsum T_{f'(x)}Y' \to T_{f(g'(x))}Y
\]
is surjective for any $x\in X'$.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:transCart}
Consider the transversal Cartesian diagram \eqref{eq:transCart}.
Then, for any $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{good}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ such that $\supp(\sheaffont{M})$ is proper over $Y$,
\[
\dopb g \doim f \sheaffont{M} \simeq \doim {f'}\dopbv{g^{\prime\mspace{2mu}*}}\sheaffont{M}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\section{Bordered spaces}\label{se:bordered}
Let $\check M$ be a good topological space, and $M\subset \check M$ an open subset.
For usual sheaves, the restriction functor $F\mapsto F|_M$ induces an equivalence
\[
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{\check M}) / \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{\check M\setminus M})
\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto}
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M).
\]
This is no longer true for ind-sheaves, as seen by the following example.
\begin{example*}
Let $\check M=\mathbb{R}$ and $M = \ooint{0,1}$. Consider the ind-sheaf on $\check M$
\[
\beta_{\check M}\mathbf{k}_{\{0\}} = \indlim[U\owns 0]\mathbf{k}_{\overline U},
\]
where $U$ ranges over the family of open neighborhoods of $0\in\check M$.
Then $\beta_{\check M}\mathbf{k}_{\{0\}}|_M \simeq 0$, but $\beta_{\check M}\mathbf{k}_{\{0\}}\notin\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M\setminus M})$.
\end{example*}
Therefore, in the framework of ind-sheaves one should consider the quotient category $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M}) / \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M\setminus M})$ attached to the pair $(M,\check M)$. We will call such a pair a \emph{bordered space}.
In this section, we define the category of bordered spaces, develop the formalism of external operations, and define the natural $t$-structure on the derived category of ind-sheaves on a bordered space.
\subsection{Quotient categories}
Let $\sheaffont{D}$ be a triangulated category and $\sheaffont{N}\subset\sheaffont{D}$ a full triangulated subcategory. The quotient category $\sheaffont{D}/\sheaffont{N}$ is defined as the localization $\sheaffont{D}_\Sigma$ of $\sheaffont{D}$ with respect to the multiplicative system $\Sigma$ of morphisms $u$ fitting into a distinguished triangle
\[
X\To[u]Y\To Z\To[+1]
\]
with $Z\in\sheaffont{N}$.
The right orthogonal $\sheaffont{N}^\bot$ and the left orthogonal ${}^\bot\sheaffont{N}$ are the full subcategories of $\sheaffont{D}$
\begin{align*}
\sheaffont{N}^\bot & = \{X\in\sheaffont{D}\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \Hom[\sheaffont{D}](Y,X) \simeq 0\text{ for any }Y\in\sheaffont{N} \}, \\
{}^\bot\sheaffont{N} & = \{X\in\sheaffont{D}\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \Hom[\sheaffont{D}](X,Y) \simeq 0\text{ for any }Y\in\sheaffont{N} \}.
\end{align*}
The following result is elementary (cf.~\cite[Exercise 10.15]{KS06}).
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:D/N}
Assume that
\eqn
&\text{if $X,Y\in\sheaffont{D}$, $Z\in\sheaffont{N}$ and
$Z\simeq X\oplus Y$, then one has $X\in \sheaffont{N}$.}
\eneqn
Then the following conditions are equivalent:
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item the composition $\sheaffont{N}^\bot \to \sheaffont{D} \to \sheaffont{D}/\sheaffont{N}$ is an equivalence of categories,
\item the embedding $\sheaffont{N}\to\sheaffont{D}$ has a right adjoint,
\item the quotient functor $\sheaffont{D}\to\sheaffont{D}/\sheaffont{N}$ has a right adjoint,
\item for any $X\in\sheaffont{D}$ there is a distinguished triangle $X'\to X\to X''\to[+1]$ with $X'\in\sheaffont{N}$ and $X''\in\sheaffont{N}^\bot$.
\end{enumerate}
Similar results hold for the left orthogonal.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Bordered spaces}
Let $M\subset \check M$ and $N\subset \check N$ be open embeddings of good topological spaces.
For a continuous map $f\colon M\to N$,
denote by $\Gamma_f$ its graph in $M\times N$, and by $\overline\Gamma_f$ the closure of $\Gamma_f$ in $\check M\times\check N$.
\begin{definition}
The category of \emph{bordered spaces} is the category whose objects are pairs $(M,\check M)$ with $M\subset \check M$ an open embedding of good topological spaces.
Morphisms $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ are continuous maps $f\colon M\to N$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Hbord}
\overline\Gamma_f \to \check M \text{ is proper}.
\end{equation}
The composition of $(L,\check L) \to[g] (M,\check M) \to[f] (N,\check N)$ is given by $f\circ g\colon L\to N$ (see Lemma~\ref{lem:bordcom} below), and the identity $\id_{(M,\check M)}$ is given by $\id_{M}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
The properness assumption \eqref{eq:Hbord} is used in
Lemma~\ref{lem:bcomp} below
to prove the functoriality of external operations. It is satisfied in particular if either $M=\check M$ or $\check N$ is compact.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:bordcom}
Let $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ and $g\colon (L,\check L) \to (M,\check M)$ be morphisms of bordered spaces. Then the composition $f\circ g$ is a morphism of bordered spaces.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\overline\Gamma_g \times_{\check M} \overline \Gamma_f \to \overline\Gamma_g \times_{\check M} \check M \to \check L$ is proper.
Hence $\overline\Gamma_g \times_{\check M} \overline \Gamma_f \to \check L \times \check N$ is proper. In particular, $\Im(\overline\Gamma_g \times_{\check M} \overline \Gamma_f \to \check L \times \check N)$ is a closed subset of $\check L \times \check N$. Since it contains $\Gamma_{f\circ g}$, it also contains $\overline\Gamma_{f\circ g}$.
Since $\overline\Gamma_{f\circ g} \times_{\check L\times\check N} (\overline\Gamma_g \times_{\check M} \overline \Gamma_f) \to \check L$ is proper, $\overline\Gamma_{f\circ g} \to \check L$ is proper.
\end{proof}
Note that the category of bordered spaces has
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item a final object $({\{\mathrm{pt}\}},{\{\mathrm{pt}\}})$,
\item fiber products.
\end{enumerate}
In fact, the fiber product of $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (L,\check L)$ and $g\colon (N,\check N)\to(L,\check L)$ is represented by $(M\times_L N, \overline\Gamma_f \times_{\check L} \overline\Gamma_g)$.
\smallskip
Regarding a space $M$ as the bordered space $(M,M)$, one gets a fully faithful embedding of the category of good topological spaces into that of bordered spaces.
\begin{remark}
For any bordered space $(M,\check M)$, using the identifications $M=(M,M)$ and $\check M = (\check M,\check M)$, there are natural morphisms
\[
M \To (M,\check M) \To \check M.
\]
Note however that $\id_M$ does not necessarily induce a morphism $(M,\check M) \to M$ of bordered spaces.
\end{remark}
If a continuous map $f\cl M\to N$ extends to a continuous map $\check f\cl \check M\to\check N$,
then $f$ induces a morphism of bordered spaces
$(M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$. However the converse is not true.
If $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ is a morphism of bordered spaces, the map $f\colon M\to N$ does not extend to a continuous map $\check f\colon\check M\to\check N$, in general.
However, the next lemma shows how one can always reduce to this case.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:fborddecomp}
Any morphism of bordered spaces $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ decomposes as
\[
(M,\check M) \isofrom[q_1] (\Gamma_f,\overline\Gamma_f) \xrightarrow[\;q_2\;]{} (N,\check N),
\]
where the first arrow is an isomorphism and the maps $q_1\colon \Gamma_f \to M$ and $q_2\colon \Gamma_f \to N$ extend to maps $\check q_1\colon \overline\Gamma_f \to \check M$ and $\check q_2\colon \overline\Gamma_f \to \check N$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{definition}
The derived category of ind-sheaves on a bordered space $(M,\check M)$ is the quotient category
\[
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \mathbin{:=} \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M}) / \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M\setminus M}),
\]
where $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M\setminus M})$ is identified with its essential image in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})$ by the fully faithful functor $\reeim i \simeq \roim i$, for $i\colon \check M\setminus M\to \check M$ the closed embedding.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
In the framework of subanalytic sheaves, an analogue of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$ is the derived category of sheaves on some site considered in Definitions 6.1.1~(iv) and 7.1.1 of \cite{KS01}.
\end{remark}
Since the functor $\reeim i \simeq \roim i$ has both a right and a left adjoint, it follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:D/N} that there are equivalences
\[
{}^\bot \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M\setminus M}) \simeq \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \simeq \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M\setminus M})^\bot.
\]
Let us describe these equivalences more explicitly.
\begin{lemma}
For $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})$, one has
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_M \tens \rihom(\mathbf{k}_M, F) &\isofrom \mathbf{k}_M \tens F, \\
\rihom(\mathbf{k}_M, \mathbf{k}_M \tens F) &\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \rihom(\mathbf{k}_M, F).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:bord}
Let $(M,\check M)$ be a bordered space.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
One has
\begin{align*}
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M\setminus M})
&= \{F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax F \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathbf{k}_{\check M\setminus M} \tens F \}\\
&= \{F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \mathbf{k}_M \tens F \simeq 0 \}\\
&= \{F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\check M\setminus M}, F) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} F \} \\
&= \{F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \rihom(\mathbf{k}_M, F) \simeq 0 \} .
\end{align*}
\item
One has
\begin{align*}
{}^\bot \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M\setminus M})
&= \{F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \mathbf{k}_M \tens F \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} F \}\\
&= \{F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \mathbf{k}_{\check M\setminus M} \tens F \simeq 0 \},
\end{align*}
and there is an equivalence
\[
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} {}^\bot \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M\setminus M}), \quad F\mapsto \mathbf{k}_M \tens F,
\]
with quasi-inverse induced by the quotient functor.
\item
One has
\begin{align*}
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M\setminus M})^\bot
&= \{F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax F \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \rihom(\mathbf{k}_M, F) \} \\
&= \{F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\check M\setminus M}, F) \simeq 0 \},
\end{align*}
and there is an equivalence
\[
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M\setminus M})^\bot, \quad F \mapsto \rihom(\mathbf{k}_M, F),
\]
with quasi-inverse induced by the quotient functor.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:bord}
For $F,G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})$ one has
\begin{align*}
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})](F,G)
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})](\mathbf{k}_M\tens F,G) \\
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})](F,\rihom(\mathbf{k}_M,G)) \\
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})](\mathbf{k}_M\tens F,\mathbf{k}_M\tens G) \\
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})](\rihom(\mathbf{k}_M,F),\rihom(\mathbf{k}_M,G)).
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
There is a quasi-commutative diagram of natural functors
\[
\xymatrix@C=10ex{
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{\check M}) \ar@{^(->}[r]^-{\iota_{\check M}} \ar[d] & \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M}) \ar[d] \\
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M) \ar@{^(->}[r]^-{\iota_{(M,\check M)}} & \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}),
}
\]
where the left vertical arrow is the functor of restriction to $M$, the right vertical arrow is the quotient functor, and the bottom arrow is the composition
\[
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M) \simeq \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{\check M})/\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{\check M\setminus M}) \To \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) .
\]
\begin{notation}
\label{not:fieldNbN}
We sometimes write $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{(M,\check M)})$ for $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$, when considered as a full subcategory of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$ by $\iota_{(M,\check M)}$.
\end{notation}
\subsection{Operations}
Let us discuss internal and external operations in the category of bordered spaces.
\begin{definition}
The functors $\tens$ and $\rihom$ in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})$ induce well defined functors
\begin{align*}
\tens\; &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \times \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}), \\
\rihom\, &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})^\mathrm{op} \times \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}).
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
For $F_1,F_2\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$ one has
\[
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})](\mathbf{k}_M, \rihom(F_1,F_2)) \simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})](F_1,F_2).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:adjbord}
For $F_1,F_2,F_3\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$ one has
\begin{align*}
\rihom(F_1\tens F_2,F_3) &\simeq \rihom(F_1,\rihom(F_2,F_3)), \\
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})](F_1\tens F_2,F_3) &\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})](F_1,\rihom(F_2,F_3)).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
Let $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ be a morphism of bordered spaces, and recall that $\Gamma_f$ denotes the graph of the associated map $f\colon M \to N$.
Since $\Gamma_f$ is closed in $M\times N$, it is locally closed in $\check M\times \check N$. One can then consider
the sheaf $\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f}$ on $\check M\times \check N$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:fbordered}
Let $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ be a morphism of bordered spaces.
For $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})$ and $G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check N})$, we set
\begin{align*}
\reeim f F &= \reeimv{q_{2\mspace{2mu}!!}}(\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f}\tens\opb{q_1}F), &
\roim f F &= \roimv{q_{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f},\epb{q_1}F), \\
\opb f G &= \reeimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}!!}}(\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f}\tens\opb{q_2}G), &
\epb f G &= \roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f},\epb{q_2}G),
\end{align*}
where $q_1\colon\check M\times\check N\to\check M$ and $q_2\colon\check M\times\check N\to\check N$ are the projections.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
Considering a continuous map $f\colon M\to N$ as a morphism of bordered spaces with $\check M=M$ and $\check N=N$, the above functors are isomorphic to the usual external operations for ind-sheaves.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:coper}
The above definition induces well-defined functors
\begin{align*}
\reeim f &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \To {}^\bot\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check N\setminus N}) \simeq \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)}), \\
\roim f &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \To \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check N\setminus N})^\bot \simeq \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)}), \\
\opb f &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)}) \To {}^\bot\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M\setminus M}) \simeq \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}), \\
\epb f &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)}) \To \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M\setminus M})^\bot \simeq \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the arguments are similar for all functors, let us only discuss $\roim f$. Let $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})$.
\smallskip\noindent(i)
Assume that $F\simeq\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\check M\setminus M},F)$. Since $\Gamma_f\cap\opb{q_1}(\check M\setminus M) = \emptyset$, we have
\begin{align*}
\roim f F
&\simeq\roimv{q_{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f},\epb{q_1}F) \\
&\simeq \roimv{q_{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom\bigl(\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f},\epb{q_1}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\check M\setminus M},F)\bigr) \\
&\simeq \roimv{q_{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f}\tens\opb{q_1}\mathbf{k}_{\check M\setminus M},\epb{q_1}F) \\
&\simeq \roimv{q_{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f\cap\opb{q_1}(\check M\setminus M)},\epb{q_1}F) \simeq 0.
\end{align*}
This shows that the functor $\roim f\colon\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})\to\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check N})$ factors through $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$.
\smallskip\noindent(ii)
Since $\opb{q_2}(\check N\setminus N) \cap \Gamma_f = \emptyset$, we have
\begin{align*}
\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\check N\setminus N},\roim f F)
&\simeq\rihom\bigl(\mathbf{k}_{\check N\setminus N},\roimv{q_{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f},\epb{q_1}F)\bigr) \\
&\simeq \roimv{q_{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\opb{q_2}\mathbf{k}_{\check N\setminus N} \tens \mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f},\epb{q_1}F) \\
&\simeq \roimv{q_{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\opb{q_2}(\check N\setminus N) \cap \Gamma_f},\epb{q_1}F) \simeq 0.
\end{align*}
This shows that $\roim f F \in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check N\setminus N})^\bot$.
\end{proof}
The following lemma is easy to prove.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:jM}
Let $j_M\colon(M,\check M)\to \check M$ be the morphism given by the open embedding $M\subset \check M$. Then
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
The functors
\[
\opb{j_M} \simeq \epb{j_M} \colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M}) \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})
\]
are isomorphic to the quotient functor.
\item
For $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})$ one has the isomorphisms in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})$
\[
\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}\opb{j_M} F \simeq \mathbf{k}_M \tens F, \quad
\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}\epb{j_M} F \simeq \rihom(\mathbf{k}_M, F).
\]
\item
The functors $\tens$ and $\rihom$ commute with $\opb{j_M} \simeq \epb{j_M}$.
\item
The functor $\tens$ commutes with $\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}$ and
the functor $\rihom$ commutes with $\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}$.
More precisely, for $F_1,F_2\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$ one has
\begin{align*}
\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}(F_1 \tens F_2)
&\simeq \reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}F_1 \tens \reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}F_2 \\
&\simeq \reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}F_1 \tens \roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}F_2, \\
\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(F_1,F_2)
&\simeq \rihom(\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}F_1,\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}F_2) \\
&\simeq \rihom(\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}F_1,\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}F_2) \\
&\simeq \rihom(\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}F_1,\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}F_2).
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{convention}
In the sequel, to avoid confusion, we distinguish between the objects of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})$ and the objects of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$. In other words,
if $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check M})$, we avoid to denote by $F$ its image in the quotient category $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$, and write instead $\opb{j_M}F$ or $\epb{j_M}F$.
\end{convention}
Let us now show that the external operations for bordered spaces satisfy similar properties to the external operations for usual spaces.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:badj}
Let $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ be a morphism of bordered spaces.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
The functor $\reeim f$ is left adjoint to $\epb f$.
\item
The functor $\opb f$ is left adjoint to $\roim f$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:bcomp}
Let $g\colon (L,\check L) \to (M,\check M)$ and $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ be morphisms of bordered spaces. One has
\[
\reeim{(f\circ g)} \simeq \reeim f \circ \reeim g, \qquad
\roim{(f\circ g)} \simeq \roim f \circ \roim g
\]
and
\[
\opb{(f\circ g)} \simeq \opb g \circ \opb f, \qquad
\epb{(f\circ g)} \simeq \epb g \circ \epb f.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the proofs are similar, we treat only the first isomorphism.
For $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check L})$, one has
\[
\reeim{(f\circ g)}\opb{j_L} F \simeq \opb{j_N} \reeimv{q_{2\mspace{2mu}!!}}(\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_{f\circ g}}\tens\opb{q_1}F),
\]
where $q_1$ and $q_2$ are the projections from $\check L\times\check N$ to the corresponding factors. Using the projection formula, one easily checks the isomorphism
\[
\reeim f \reeim g \opb{j_L} F \simeq
\opb{j_N} \reeimv{q_{2\mspace{2mu}!!}}((\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_g}\circ\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f})\tens\opb{q_1}F),
\]
where
\[
\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_g}\circ\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f} \mathbin{:=} \reeimv{q_{13\mspace{2mu}!!}}(\opb{q_{12}} \mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_g} \tens \opb{q_{23}}\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f}),
\]
and $q_{12}$, $q_{23}$ and $q_{13}$ denote the projections from $\check L\times\check M\times\check N$ to the corresponding factors.
For example, $q_{13}(x,y,z) = (x,z)$.
Hence, writing explicitly the embedding functor $\iota$ of sheaves into ind-sheaves, it is enough to show
\[
\iota_{\check L\times\check M}\,\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_g} \mathbin{\circ} \iota_{\check M\times\check N}\,\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f} \simeq \iota_{\check L\times\check N}\,\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_{f\circ g}}.
\]
Recalling that $\iota$ commutes with tensor product, ordinary inverse image, and ordinary direct image, we have
\begin{align*}
\notag
\iota_{\check L\times\check M}\,\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_g} \mathbin{\circ} \iota_{\check M\times\check N}\,\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f}
&\mathbin{:=} \reeimv{q_{13\mspace{2mu}!!}}(\opb{q_{12}}\iota_{\check L\times\check M}\,\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_g} \tens \opb{q_{23}}\iota_{\check M\times\check N}\,\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f}) \\
&\simeq \reeimv{q_{13\mspace{2mu}!!}}\iota_{\check L\times\check M\times\check N}(\opb{q_{12}}\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_g} \tens \opb{q_{23}}\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f}) \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \roimv{q_{13\mspace{2mu}*}}\iota_{\check L\times\check M\times\check N}(\opb{q_{12}}\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_g} \tens \opb{q_{23}}\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f}) \\
&\simeq \iota_{\check L\times\check N}\,\roimv{q_{13\mspace{2mu}*}}(\opb{q_{12}}\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_g} \tens \opb{q_{23}}\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f}) \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \iota_{\check L\times\check N}\,\reimv{q_{13\mspace{2mu}!}}(\opb{q_{12}}\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_g} \tens \opb{q_{23}}\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f})\\
&\simeq \iota_{\check L\times\check N}\,\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_{f\circ g}}.
\end{align*}
Here, in $(*)$, we used the fact that
$\supp(\opb{q_{12}}\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_g} \tens \opb{q_{23}}\mathbf{k}_{\Gamma_f}) \subset \overline\Gamma_g \times_{\check M} \overline\Gamma_f$ is proper over $\check L\times\check N$,
which follows from the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:bordcom}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
If $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ is an isomorphism of bordered spaces, then $\roim f \simeq \reeim f$ and $\opb f \simeq \epb f$. Moreover, $\roim f$ and $\opb f$ are quasi-inverse to each other.
\end{corollary}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:f=jfj}
Let $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ be the morphism of bordered spaces associated with a continuous map $\check f\colon \check M\to \check N$ such that $\check f(M) \subset N$. Then
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
For $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$ there are isomorphisms in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)})$
\[
\reeim f F \simeq \opb{j_N}\reeim{\check f}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}F,\quad
\roim f F \simeq \opb{j_N}\roim{\check f}\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}F.
\]
\item
For $G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)})$ there are isomorphisms in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$
\begin{align*}
\opb f G &\simeq \opb{j_M}\opb{\check f}\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}}G \simeq \opb{j_M}\opb{\check f}\roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}G,\\
\epb f G &\simeq \opb{j_M}\epb{\check f}\roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}G \simeq \opb{j_M}\epb{\check f}\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}}G.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have a commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
(M,\check M) \ar[r]^-{j_M} \ar[d]^f & \check M \ar[d]^{\check f} \\
(N,\check N) \ar[r]^-{j_N} & \check N.
}
\]
Hence Lemma~\ref{lem:bcomp} implies
\[
\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}}\reeim f F \simeq \reeim{\check f}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}} F.
\]
Then, by Lemma~\ref{lem:jM} we have
\[
\reeim f F \simeq \opb{j_N}\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}}\reeim f F \simeq \opb{j_N}\reeim{\check f}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}} F .
\]
We can similarly obtain the other statements, except
\begin{align*}
\opb{j_M}\opb{\check f}\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}}G &\simeq \opb{j_M}\opb{\check f}\roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}G,\\
\opb{j_M}\epb{\check f}\roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}G &\simeq \opb{j_M}\epb{\check f}\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}}G.
\end{align*}
Since the proofs are similar, let us check only the last isomorphism.
For $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\check N})$, we have
\begin{align*}
\rihom(\mathbf{k}_M, \epb{\check f}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_N,K))
&\simeq \rihom(\mathbf{k}_M, \rihom(\opb{\check f}\mathbf{k}_N,\epb{\check f}K)) \\
&\simeq \rihom(\mathbf{k}_M \tens \opb{\check f}\mathbf{k}_N,\epb{\check f}K) \\
&\simeq \rihom(\mathbf{k}_M,\epb{\check f}K).
\end{align*}
Hence, applying this for $K = \reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}}G, \roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}G$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\opb{j_M}\epb{\check f}\roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}G
&\simeq \opb{j_M}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_M,\epb{\check f}\roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}G ) \\
&\simeq \opb{j_M}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_M,\epb{\check f}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_N,\roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}G) ) \\
&\simeq \opb{j_M}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_M,\epb{\check f}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_N,\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}}G) ) \\
&\simeq \opb{j_M}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_M,\epb{\check f}\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}}G ) \\
&\simeq \opb{j_M}\epb{\check f}\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}}G .
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:bproj}
Let $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ be a morphism of bordered spaces.
For $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$ and $G,G_1,G_2\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)})$, one has isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\reeim f(\opb f G \tens F) & \simeq G \tens \reeim f F, \\
\opb f (G_1\tens G_2) &\simeq \opb f G_1 \tens \opb f G_2, \\
\rihom(G,\roim f F) & \simeq \roim f \rihom(\opb f G,F), \\
\rihom(\reeim f F, G) & \simeq \roim f \rihom(F, \epb f G), \\
\epb f \rihom(G_1,G_2) & \simeq \rihom(\opb f G_1, \epb f G_2),
\end{align*}
and a morphism
\[
\opb f \rihom(G_1,G_2) \to \rihom(\opb f G_1,\opb f G_2).
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:fborddecomp}, replacing $(M,\check M)$ with $(\Gamma_f,\overline\Gamma_f)$, we may assume that there is a commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=8ex{
(M,\check M) \ar@{^(->}[r]^-{j_M} \ar[d]^f & \check M \ar[d]^{\check f} \\
(N,\check N) \ar@{^(->}[r]^-{j_N} & \check N.
}
\]
Then, by Lemmas~\ref{lem:f=jfj} and \ref{lem:jM} one has
\begin{align*}
\reeim f(\opb f G \tens F)
&\simeq \opb{j_N}\reeim{\check f}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}(\opb{j_M}\opb{\check f}\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}} G \tens F) \\
&\simeq \opb{j_N}\reeim{\check f}(\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}\opb{j_M}\opb{\check f}\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}} G \tens \reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}} F) \\
&\simeq \opb{j_N}\reeim{\check f}(\opb{\check f}\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}} G \tens \mathbf{k}_M \tens \reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}} F) \\
&\simeq \opb{j_N}\reeim{\check f}(\opb {\check f}\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}} G \tens \reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}} F) \\
&\simeq \opb{j_N}(\reeimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}!!}} G \tens \reeim{\check f}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}} F) \\
&\simeq G \tens \opb{j_N}\reeim{\check f}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}} F \\
&\simeq G \tens \reeim f F.
\end{align*}
This proves the first isomorphism in the statement. The other isomorphisms can be proved along the same lines.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:bcart}
Consider a Cartesian diagram in the category of bordered spaces
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix@C=8ex{
(M',\check M') \ar[r]^{f'} \ar[d]^{g'} & (N',\check N') \ar[d]^{g} \\
(M,\check M) \ar[r]^{f}\ar@{}[ur]|-\square & (N,\check N).
}
\end{equation*}
Then there are isomorphisms of functors $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M',\check M')}) \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)})$
\[
\opb g\reeim f \simeq \reeim {f'} g^{\prime-1}, \qquad
\epb g\roim f \simeq \roim f' g^{\prime!}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By a similar argument as in the proof of the Proposition~\ref{pro:bproj}, the statement can be reduced to the corresponding statement for a Cartesian diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=7ex@R=4ex{
\check M' \ar[r]^{\check f'} \ar[d]^{\check g'} & \check N' \ar[d]^{\check g} \\
\check M \ar[r]_{\check f}\ar@{}[ur]|-\square & \check N.
}
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}\label{def:proper}
We say that a morphism of bordered spaces $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ is \emph{proper} if the following two conditions hold:
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item $f\colon M \to N$ is proper,
\item the projection $\overline\Gamma_f \to \check N$ is proper.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:proper}
A morphism $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ is proper if and only if the following two conditions hold:
\be[{\rm(a)}]
\item $\overline\Gamma_f \times_{\check N} N \subset \Gamma_f$.
\item the projection $\overline\Gamma_f \to \check N$ is proper.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume (a) and (b). Then $M \simeq \overline\Gamma_f \times_{\check N} N \to N$ is proper. Hence $f$ is proper.
Conversely, assume that $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ is proper.
Since the composite $f\colon M\to \overline\Gamma_f \times_{\check N} N\to N$ is proper,
it follows that $M\to \overline\Gamma_f \times_{\check N} N$ is proper. Hence
$\Gamma_f$ is a closed subset of $\overline\Gamma_f \times_{\check N} N$. It follows that
\[
\overline\Gamma_f \cap (\overline\Gamma_f \times_{\check N} N) = \Gamma_f.
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
Assume that $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ is proper. Then $\reeim f \simeq \roim f$ as functors $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)})$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider the projections
$\check M \from[\,\;p_1\,\;] \overline\Gamma_f \To[p_2] \check N$.
For $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$,
we have the isomorphisms (cf.\ Lemma~\ref{lem:fborddecomp})
\begin{align*}
\reeim f F &\simeq \opb{j_N}\reeimv{p_{2\mspace{2mu}!!}}\opb{p_1}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}F, \\
\roim f F &\simeq \opb{j_N}\roimv{p_{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\epb{p_1}\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}} F \\
&\simeq \opb{j_N}\reeimv{p_{2\mspace{2mu}!!}}\epb{p_1}\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}} F,
\end{align*}
where the last isomorphism follows from Definition~\ref{def:proper}~(ii).
Hence, it is enough to prove that
\[
\mathbf{k}_N \tens \reeimv{p_{2\mspace{2mu}!!}}L \simeq 0,
\]
where $L$ enters the distinguished triangle
\[
L \To \opb{p_1}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}} F \To \epb{p_1}\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}} F \To[+1].
\]
Since $\opb{p_1}M\to M$ is an isomorphism, one has
\[
\mathbf{k}_{\opb{p_1}M} \tens \epb{p_1}\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}} F \simeq
\mathbf{k}_{\opb{p_1}M} \tens \opb{p_1} \roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}F\simeq
\opb{p_1} \reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}F.
\]
Hence $\mathbf{k}_{\opb{p_1}M} \tens L \simeq 0$. Then one has
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_N \tens \reeimv{p_{2\mspace{2mu}!!}} L
&\simeq \reeimv{p_{2\mspace{2mu}!!}}(\mathbf{k}_{\opb{p_2}N} \tens L) \\
&\simeq \reeimv{p_{2\mspace{2mu}!!}}(\mathbf{k}_{\opb{p_2}N} \tens \mathbf{k}_{\opb{p_1}M} \tens L)
\simeq 0,
\end{align*}
where the second isomorphism follows from the inclusion $\opb{p_2}N \subset \opb{p_1}M$ due to Lemma~\ref{lem:proper}~(a).
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
Let $f\colon M \to N$ be a continuous map of good spaces. We say that $f$ is \emph{topologically submersive} if, for any point $x\in M$, there exist an open neighborhood $U$ of $x$ and a commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=6ex{
\db{U} \ar[r]^{f|_U} \ar@{^(->}[d]^{i} & N \\
S\times N \ar[ur]_{q_2},
}
\]
where $S$ is a subanalytic space, $q_2$ is the projection, and $i$ is an open embedding.
\end{definition}
The following proposition follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:const} and Corollary~\ref{cor:exthom}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:topsub}
Let $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ be a morphism of bordered spaces. Assume that $f\colon M\to N$ is topologically submersive. Then, for any $L,G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)})$ there are isomorphisms in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$
\begin{align*}
\opb f\rihom(L,G)
&\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \rihom(\opb f L,\opb f G), \\
\epb f\mathbf{k}_N\tens\opb f G
&\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \epb f G.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:epbetens}
For $k=1,2$, let $f_k\colon(M_k,\check M_k)\to(N_k,\check N_k)$ be a morphism of bordered spaces and $L_k\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(N_k,\check N_k)})$. Set $f=f_1\times f_2$. Then there is a canonical morphism
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:epbetens}
\epb{f_1}L_1 \etens \epb{f_2}L_2
\to \epb f ( L_1\etens L_2).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
There are morphisms
\[
\reeim f(\epb{f_1} L_1 \etens \epb{f_2} L_2) \simeq \reeimv{f_{1\mspace{2mu}!!}}\epb{f_1} L_1 \etens \reeimv{f_{2\mspace{2mu}!!}}\epb{f_2}L_2 \to L_1\etens L_2,
\]
and the desired morphism follows by adjunction.
\end{proof}
Note that the morphism \eqref{eq:epbetens} is not an isomorphism in general.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:coperM}
For a bordered space $(M,\check M)$, consider the natural functor
\[
\iota_{(M,\check M)}\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M) \hookrightarrow \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}).
\]
Then, for $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ a morphism of bordered spaces, one has
\begin{align*}
\iota_{(M,\check M)}\circ\opb f &\simeq \opb f \circ\iota_{(N,\check N)}, &
\iota_{(M,\check M)}\circ\epb f &\simeq \epb f \circ\iota_{(N,\check N)}, \\
\roim f \circ \iota_{(M,\check M)} &\simeq \iota_{(N,\check N)} \circ \roim f.
\end{align*}
Moreover, if the projection $\overline\Gamma_f\to\check N$ is proper, then
\[
\reeim f \circ \iota_{(M,\check M)} \simeq \iota_{(N,\check N)} \circ \reim f.
\]
\end{remark}
\subsection{$t$-structure}\label{subse:t-str}
Let $(M,\check M)$ be a bordered space and let $j\colon (M,\check M) \to \check M$ be the natural morphism.
\begin{notation}
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
Let $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}_M(\mathbf{k}_{\check M})$ be the full subcategory of $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_{\check M})$ consisting of ind-sheaves $F$ on $\check M$ such that $\mathbf{k}_M\tens F \simeq F$.
\item
Let $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_{(M,\check M)})$ be the quotient category $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_{\check M})/\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_{\check M\setminus M})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{notation}
Note that $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}_M(\mathbf{k}_{\check M})$ is an abelian category.
\begin{lemma}
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
The composition $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}_M(\mathbf{k}_{\check M}) \to \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_{\check M}) \to \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_{(M,\check M)})$ is an equivalence of categories.
\item
There is an equivalence $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}_M(\mathbf{k}_{\check M}))\simeq \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Let us denote by $(\mathsf{D}^{\leq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}), \mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}))$ the $t$-structure of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})$ induced by the canonical $t$-structure of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}_M(\mathbf{k}_{\check M}))$.
By the definition, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathsf{D}^{\leq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})
&= \{ F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax H^n(\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}F)=0 \text{ for }n>0 \}, \\
\mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})
&= \{ F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax H^n(\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}F)=0 \text{ for }n<0 \}.
\end{align*}
The following two propositions are easily obtained.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:t-str0}
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
The functor $\tens$ is exact, i.e.\ it induces functors
\begin{align*}
\tens &\colon \mathsf{D}^{\leq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})\times \mathsf{D}^{\leq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \to \mathsf{D}^{\leq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}), \\
\tens &\colon \mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})\times\mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \to \mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}).
\end{align*}
\item
The functor $\rihom$ is left exact, i.e.\ it induces a functor
\[
\rihom \colon \mathsf{D}^{\leq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})^\mathrm{op} \times \mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \to \mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}).
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:t-str}
Let $f\colon(M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ be a morphism of bordered spaces.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
$\reeim f$ and $\roim f$ are left exact, i.e.\ they induce functors
\[
\reeim f,\roim f \colon \mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \to \mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)}).
\]
\item
$\opb f$ is exact, i.e.\ it induces functors
\begin{align*}
\opb f &\colon \mathsf{D}^{\leq 0}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)}) \to \mathsf{D}^{\leq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}), \\
\opb f &\colon \mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)}) \to \mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}).
\end{align*}
\item
Let $d\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ and assume that $\opb f(y)\subset M$ has soft-dimension $\leq d$ for any $y\in N$. Then
\be[{\rm(a)}]
\item
$\reeim f(\ast)[d]$ is right exact, i.e.\ $\reeim f$ induces a functor
\[
\reeim f \colon \mathsf{D}^{\leq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \to \mathsf{D}^{\leq d}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)}).
\]
\item
$\epb f(\ast)[-d]$ is left exact, i.e.\ $\epb f$ induces a functor
\[
\epb f \colon \mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{(N,\check N)}) \to \mathsf{D}^{\geq -d}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}).
\]
\end{enumerate}\ee
\end{proposition}
We denote by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Hn}
H^n \colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \to \mathsf{D}^0(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})
\end{equation}
the cohomology functor, where we set
\[
\mathsf{D}^0(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})=\mathsf{D}^{\leq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \cap \mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)}) \simeq \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_{(M,\check M)}).
\]
\section{Enhanced ind-sheaves}\label{se:enhcdind}
In this section we start by adapting Tamarkin's construction to the ind-sheaf framework, introducing the category of enhanced ind-sheaves $\BEC M$. This is a quotient category of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, where we consider the bordered space $\mathbb{R}_\infty = (\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\sqcup\{+\infty,-\infty\})$ instead of the real line $\mathbb{R}$. We show that $\BEC M$ has a structure of tensor category by convolution.
We then go on to discuss internal and external operations for enhanced ind-sheaves. In $\BEC M$ we also introduce the notions of stable object
and of $\mathbb{R}$-constructible object.
\subsection{Convolution}\label{sse:bordconv}
Consider the 2-point compactification of the real line
$\overline\mathbb{R} \mathbin{:=} \mathbb{R}\sqcup\{+\infty,-\infty\}$. Denote by $\mathsf{P}=\mathbb{R}\sqcup\{\infty\}$ the real projective line. Then $\overline\mathbb{R}$ has a structure of subanalytic space such that the natural map $\overline\mathbb{R}\to\mathsf{P}$ is a subanalytic map.
\begin{notation}
\label{not:Rinfty}
Instead of the real line, we will consider the bordered space
\[
\mathbb{R}_\infty \mathbin{:=} (\mathbb{R},\overline\mathbb{R}).
\]
\end{notation}
Note that $\mathbb{R}_\infty$ is isomorphic to $(\mathbb{R},\mathsf{P})$ as a bordered space.
Consider the morphisms of bordered spaces
\eq
&&\begin{myarray}{rl}
a &\colon \mathbb{R}_\infty \to \mathbb{R}_\infty, \\[1ex]
\mu,\sigma,q_1,q_2 &\colon \mathbb{R}_\infty^2 \to \mathbb{R}_\infty,
\end{myarray}
\label{eq:muq1q2}
\eneq
where $a(t) = -t$, $\mu(t_1,t_2) = t_1+t_2$, $\sigma(t_1,t_2) = t_2 - t_1$ and $q_1,q_2$ are the natural projections.
For a good topological space $M$, we will use the same notations for the associated morphisms
\begin{align*}
a &\colon M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \to M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty, \\
\mu,\sigma,q_1,q_2 &\colon M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty^2 \to M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty.
\end{align*}
Consider also the natural morphisms
\begin{align*}
\xymatrix@C=.5em{
M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[rr]^j \ar[dr]_\pi && M\times\overline\mathbb{R} \ar[dl]^{\overline\pi} \\
&M.
}
\end{align*}
When we want to emphasize $M$, we write $\pi_M$, $\overline\pi_M$, $j_M$, $\mu_M$, etc., instead of $\pi$, $\overline\pi$, $j$, $\mu$, etc.
\begin{definition}
The functors
\begin{align*}
\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \times \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}), \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+ &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})^\mathrm{op} \times \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})
\end{align*}
are defined by
\begin{align*}
K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2 &= \reeim \mu (\opb{q_1} K_1 \tens \opb{q_2} K_2), \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2)&= \roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}} \rihom(\opb{q_2} K_1, \epb\mu K_2).
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
As in Remark~\ref{rem:coperM}, let
\[
\iota_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty} \colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}) \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})
\]
be the natural functor. Then, for $F_1,F_2\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}})$ we have
\begin{align*}
\iota_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}(F_1)\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \iota_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}(F_2) &\simeq \iota_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}(\reim\mu(\opb{q_1} F_1\tens\opb{q_2} F_2)), \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\iota_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}(F_1), \iota_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}(F_2)) &\simeq \iota_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}(\roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}} \rhom(\opb{q_2} F_2, \epb\mu F_1)).
\end{align*}
\end{remark}
The following lemma is obvious.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:musigma}
Let $K_1,K_2\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$. Then one has
\begin{align*}
K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2 &\simeq K_2\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_1 \\
&\simeq \reeimv{q_{2\mspace{2mu}!!}} (\opb{q_1} K_1 \tens \opb\sigma K_2) \\
&\simeq \reeimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}!!}} (\opb{q_2}\opb a K_1 \tens \opb \mu K_2), \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2)
&\simeq \roim \mu \rihom(\opb{q_2}\opb a K_1, \epb{q_1}K_2) \\
&\simeq \roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}} \rihom(\opb \sigma K_1, \epb{q_2} K_2).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:ctenscihom}
For $K_1,K_2,K_3\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ one has
\begin{align*}
(K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_3 &\simeq
K_1 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} (K_2 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_3), \\
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})](K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2,K_3)
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})](K_1,{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_2,K_3)), \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2,K_3) &\simeq
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_2,K_3)).
\end{align*}
In particular, for $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, the functor $K\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\ast$ is left adjoint to ${\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K,\ast)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i)
Consider the morphisms of bordered spaces
\[
q'_1,q'_2,q'_3,\mu'\colon M\times\mathbb{R}^3_\infty\to M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty
\]
where $q'_1,q'_2,q'_3$ are induced by the projections $\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}$ and $\mu'$ is induced by $\mathbb{R}^3\owns(t_1,t_2,t_3)\mapsto t_1+t_2+t_3\in\mathbb{R}$. Then one can easily prove that both $(K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_3$ and $K_1 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} (K_2 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_3)$ are isomorphic to
\[
\reeim{\mu'}(\opbv{q^{\prime\mspace{2mu}-1}_1}K_1\tens\opbv{q^{\prime\mspace{2mu}-1}_2}K_2\tens\opbv{q^{\prime\mspace{2mu}-1}_3}K_3).
\]
\smallskip\noindent (ii)
Writing $\Hom$ instead of $\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})]$, one has
\begin{align*}
\Hom(K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2,K_3)
&= \Hom(\reeim\mu(\opb{q_1}K_1\tens\opb{q_2}K_2),K_3) \\
&\simeq \Hom(\opb{q_1}K_1\tens\opb{q_2}K_2,\epb\mu K_3) \\
&\simeq \Hom(\opb{q_1}K_1,\rihom(\opb{q_2}K_2,\epb\mu K_3)) \\
&\simeq \Hom(K_1,\roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\opb{q_2}K_2,\epb\mu K_3)) \\
&= \Hom(K_1,{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_2,K_3)).
\end{align*}
\smallskip\noindent (iii)
Writing again $\Hom$ instead of $\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})]$, one has for any $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\begin{align*}
\Hom(K, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2,K_3))
&\simeq \Hom(K \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} (K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2) ,K_3) \\
&\simeq \Hom((K \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_1)\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2 ,K_3) \\
&\simeq \Hom(K \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_1, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+ (K_2 ,K_3)) \\
&\simeq \Hom\bigl( K, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+ (K_1, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+ (K_2 ,K_3))\bigr).
\end{align*}
Hence, by Yoneda, one obtains
\[
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2,K_3) \simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+ (K_1, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+ (K_2 ,K_3)).
\]
\end{proof}
\subsection{Idempotent objects}
We set
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} &= \mathbf{k}_{\{(x,t)\in M\times\overline\mathbb{R}\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax t\in\mathbb{R},\ t \geq 0\}}, \\
\mathbf{k}_{\{t = 0\}} &= \mathbf{k}_{\{(x,t)\in M\times\overline\mathbb{R}\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax t = 0 \}},
\end{align*}
and we use similar notation for $\mathbf{k}_{\{t> 0\}}$, $\mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}$ and $\mathbf{k}_{\{t< 0\}}$.
These are sheaves on $M\times\overline\mathbb{R}$ whose stalk vanishes at points of $M\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{R})$.
We also regard them as objects of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$.
\begin{lemma}
For $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ there are isomorphisms
\[
\mathbf{k}_{\{t= 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \simeq K \simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t= 0\}}, K).
\]
More generally, for $a\in\mathbb{R}$, we have
\[
\mathbf{k}_{\{t= a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \simeq \roimv{\mu_{a\mspace{2mu}*}} K \simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t= -a\}}, K),
\]
where $\mu_a\colon M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty\to M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty$ is the morphism induced by the translation $t\mapsto t+a$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{corollary}
The category $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ has a structure of commutative tensor category with $\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}$ as tensor product bifunctor and $\mathbf{k}_{\{t= 0\}}$ as unit object.
\end{corollary}
There are distinguished triangles in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:dtpm0}
\begin{cases}
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \To \mathbf{k}_{\{t = 0\}} \To \mathbf{k}_{\{t> 0\}}[1] \To[+1], \\
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \To \mathbf{k}_{\{t< 0\}}[1] \To \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}[1] \To[+1], \\
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}} \To \mathbf{k}_{\{t= 0\}} \To \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}[1] \To[+1].
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
The following lemma is easily verified.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:nilpo}
There are isomorphisms in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} &\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, &
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{\{t > 0\}}[1] &\simeq 0,\\
\mathbf{k}_{\{t> 0\}}[1] \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{\{t> 0\}}[1] &\isofrom \mathbf{k}_{\{t > 0\}}[1], &
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}[1] &\simeq 0,\\
\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}[1] \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}[1] &\isofrom \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}[1], &
\mathbf{k}_{\{t > 0\}}[1] \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}[1] &\isofrom \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}[1],\\
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{\{t \leq 0\}} &\simeq 0,&
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{\{t < 0\}}[1] &\isofrom \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}},\\
\mathbf{k}_{\{t > 0\}}[1] \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{\{t < 0\}}[1] &\simeq \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}[1].
\end{align*}
Hence, the objects $\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}$, $\mathbf{k}_{\{t > 0\}}[1]$, $\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}$ and $\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}[1]$ are idempotents in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$.
\end{lemma}
Recall that an idempotent in a tensor category is a pair $(P,\xi)$ of an object $P$ and an isomorphism $\xi\colon P\tens P\to P$ such that $\xi\tens P = P \tens \xi$ as morphisms $P\tens P\tens P\to P\tens P$ (cf.~\cite[Lemma 4.1.2]{KS06}). Note that in each distinguished triangle $P'\to P\to P''\to[+1]$ in \eqref{eq:dtpm0}, $P$, $P'$, $P''$ are idempotents and $P'\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} P''\simeq 0$, $P\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} P'\simeq P'$, $P\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} P''\simeq P''$.
\begin{corollary}
Let $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$. Then
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} K
&\iff \mathbf{k}_{\{t> 0\}}[1] \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \simeq 0 \\
&\iff \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \simeq 0 \text{ and } \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}[1] \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \simeq 0 .
\end{align*}
Moreover,
\[
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \simeq 0 \iff \mathbf{k}_{\{t> 0\}}[1] \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \isofrom K.
\]
Similar results hold when replacing the functor $\ast\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K$ with the functor ${\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\ast,K)$.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Properties of convolution}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:cihomrihompi}
For $K_1,K_2\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ and $L\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$ one has
\begin{align*}
\opb\pi L \tens (K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2) & \simeq (\opb\pi L \tens K_1)\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2, \\
\rihom(\opb\pi L, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2)) & \simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\opb\pi L \tens K_1,K_2) \\
& \simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,\rihom(\opb\pi L, K_2)).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the proofs are similar, let us only discuss the second isomorphism.
Since $\pi\circ q_1 = \pi\circ q_2$, one has
\begin{align*}
\rihom(\opb\pi L, &{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2)) \\
&= \rihom(\opb\pi L, \roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\opb{q_2} K_1,\epb\mu K_2)) \\
&\simeq \roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\opb{q_1}\opb\pi L, \rihom(\opb{q_2} K_1,\epb\mu K_2)) \\
&\simeq \roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\opb{q_2}\opb\pi L, \rihom(\opb{q_2} K_1,\epb\mu K_2)) \\
&\simeq \roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\opb{q_2}(\opb\pi L \tens K_1),\epb\mu K_2) \\
& = {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\opb\pi L \tens K_1,K_2).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:cihomKt0}
For $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ and $L\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$ one has
\begin{align*}
\opb\pi L \tens K & \simeq (\opb\pi L \tens \mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}})\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K, \\
\rihom(\opb\pi L, K) & \simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\opb\pi L \tens \mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}},K), \\
\opb a \rihom(K,\epb\pi L) &\simeq
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K,\opb\pi L \tens \mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}}).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first two isomorphisms follow from Lemma~\ref{lem:cihomrihompi} for $K_1=\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}}$ and $K_2=K$. Let us prove the third isomorphism.
Let $\delta^a\colon M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty\to M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty^2$ be the morphism induced by the anti-diagonal map $\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}^2$, $t\mapsto(-t,t)$, and $i_0\colon M\to M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty$ the morphism induced by the inclusion $x\mapsto(x,0)$. Note that $\pi\circ i_0 =\id_M$, $\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}} \simeq \roimv{i_{0\mspace{2mu}*}}\mathbf{k}_M$, and there is a Cartesian diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[r]^{\delta^a} \ar[d]^\pi & M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty^2 \ar[d]^\mu \\
M \ar[r]^-{i_0} \ar@{}[ur]|-\square & M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty.
}
\]
Then we have
\begin{align*}
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K,\opb\pi L \tens \mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}})
&\simeq
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K, \roimv{i_{0\mspace{2mu}*}} L) \\
&=
\roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\opb{q_2} K, \epb\mu\roimv{i_{0\mspace{2mu}*}} L) .
\end{align*}
On the other hand, $\epb\mu\roimv{i_{0\mspace{2mu}*}} L \simeq \roim \delta^a \epb\pi L$, and hence
\begin{align*}
\roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\opb{q_2} K, &\epb\mu\roimv{i_{0\mspace{2mu}*}} L) \\
&\simeq \roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\opb{q_2} K, \roim\delta^a\epb\pi L) \\
&\simeq \roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}\roim\delta^a\rihom(\opbv{\delta^{a\mspace{2mu}-1}}\opb{q_2} K, \epb\pi L).
\end{align*}
Then the result follows from $q_1\circ \delta^a = a$ and $q_2\circ \delta^a = \id$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:piihomctens}
For $K_1,K_2,K_3\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ one has
\[
\roim\pi\rihom(K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2,K_3) \simeq
\roim\pi\rihom(K_1,{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_2,K_3)).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to part (ii) in the proof of Proposition~\ref{pro:ctenscihom}, using Lemma~\ref{lem:cihomrihompi}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:tenspipi}
For $K_1,K_2\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ there are isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\reeim\pi(K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2) &\simeq \reeim\pi K_1 \tens \reeim\pi K_2, \\
\roim\pi{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2) &\simeq \rihom(\reeim\pi K_1,\roim\pi K_2).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\pi\circ\mu = \pi\circ q_1$ and that there is a Cartesian diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
M\times\mathbb{R}^2_\infty \ar[r]^{q_1} \ar[d]^{q_2} & M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[d]^\pi \\
M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[r]^{\pi} \ar@{}[ur]|-\square & M.
}
\]
Then one has
\begin{align*}
\reeim\pi(K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2)
& = \reeim\pi\reeim\mu(\opb{q_1}K_1 \tens \opb{q_2}K_2) \\
&\simeq \reeim\pi\reeimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}!!}}(\opb{q_1}K_1 \tens \opb{q_2}K_2) \\
&\simeq \reeim\pi(K_1 \tens \reeimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}!!}}\opb{q_2}K_2) \\
&\simeq \reeim\pi(K_1 \tens \opb\pi\reeim\pi K_2) \\
&\simeq \reeim\pi K_1 \tens \reeim\pi K_2.
\end{align*}
The proof of the second isomorphism is similar.
\end{proof}
Since $\reeim\pi\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \simeq 0$, we have the following result.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:pieeim}
For any $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, one has
\begin{align*}
&\reeim\pi(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) \simeq 0, \\
&\roim\pi{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} , K) \simeq 0.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:piRinfty}
For $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ and $L\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$ one has
\begin{align*}
(\opb\pi L) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K & \simeq \opb\pi(L\tens\reeim\pi K), \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\opb\pi L, K) & \simeq \epb\pi\rihom(L,\roim\pi K), \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K, \epb\pi L) & \simeq \epb\pi\rihom(\reeim\pi K, L).
\end{align*}
\
In particular, we have
\eqn
(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \opb\pi L&\simeq& 0,\\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}, \opb\pi L)&\simeq&0.
\eneqn
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Since the proofs are similar, let us only consider the second isomorphism.
Note that $\pi\circ q_2 = \pi\circ \mu$, and that there is a Cartesian diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
M\times\mathbb{R}^2_\infty \ar[r]^{\mu} \ar[d]^{q_1} & M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[d]^\pi \\
M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[r]^{\pi} \ar@{}[ur]|-\square & M.
}
\]
Then one has
\begin{align*}
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\opb\pi L, K)
& = \roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}} \rihom(\opb{q_2}\opb\pi L,\epb\mu K) \\
& \simeq \roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}} \rihom(\opb\mu\opb\pi L,\epb\mu K) \\
& \simeq \roimv{q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}} \epb\mu\rihom(\opb\pi L,K) \\
& \simeq \epb\pi\roim\pi\rihom(\opb\pi L,K) \\
& \simeq \epb\pi\rihom(L,\roim\pi K).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
By the above lemma, noticing that $\opb\pi\mathbf{k}_M \simeq \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}$, we deduce
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:pipi}
For $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ one has
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K &\simeq \opb\pi\reeim\pi K, \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}, K) &\simeq \epb\pi\roim\pi K.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
Let us give an alternative description of the functors $\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}$ and ${\sheaffont{I} hom}^+$.
\begin{notation}
\label{not:sfS}
Denote by $\mathsf S$ the closure of $\{(t_1,t_2,t_3)\in\mathbb{R}^3\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax t_1+t_2+t_3=0 \}$ in $\overline\mathbb{R}^3$. Consider the maps $\tilde q_1,\tilde q_2,\tilde\mu\colon\mathsf S\to \overline\mathbb{R}$ given by $\tilde q_1(t_1,t_2,t_3) = t_1$, $\tilde q_2(t_1,t_2,t_3) = t_2$, $\tilde\mu(t_1,t_2,t_3) = -t_3 = t_1+t_2$, and denote by the same letters the corresponding maps $M\times \mathsf S\to M\times \overline\mathbb{R}$. This is visualized in the following picture, which shows how the three variables behave at infinity:
\begin{center}
{\small
\begin{tikzpicture}[x=1.8cm,y=1.8cm]
\draw[thick,fill= gray!30!white,shift={(0,.5)}] (0,1) -- node[above]{$t_2=-\infty$} node[below]{$t_3=+\infty$} %
(1,1) -- node[above,sloped]{$t_1=+\infty$} node[below,sloped]{$t_2=-\infty$} %
(2,2) -- node[above,sloped]{$t_1=+\infty$} node[below,sloped]{$t_3=-\infty$} %
(2,3) -- node[above,sloped]{$t_2=+\infty,\ t_3=-\infty$}%
(1,3) -- node[above,sloped]{$t_1=-\infty$} node[below,sloped]{$t_2=+\infty$}%
(0,2) -- cycle ;
\draw[shift={(0,.5)}] (0,1) -- node[above,sloped,text width=4em]{$t_1=-\infty$\\$t_3=+\infty$} %
(0,2);
\draw[thick] (0,0) node[below]{$-\infty$} node{$\bullet$} -- (1,0) node[below]{$+\infty$} node{$\bullet$};
\draw[thick,shift={(.25,.25)}] (2,0) node[below]{$-\infty$} node{$\bullet$} -- (3,1) node[right]{$+\infty$} node{$\bullet$};
\draw[thick,shift={(.5,.5)}] (3,2) node[right]{$-\infty$} node{$\bullet$} -- (3,3) node[right]{$+\infty$} node{$\bullet$};
\draw[->,shift={(.25,.5)}] (2.25,2.5) -- node[above]{$\tilde q_2$} (2.75,2.5);
\draw[->,shift={(.25,.25)}] (1.75,1.25) -- node[above right]{$\tilde\mu$} (2.25,0.75);
\draw[->,shift={(0,.25)}] (0.5,0.75) -- node[right]{$\tilde q_1$} (0.5,0.25);
\draw (1,2.5) node{$\mathsf{S}$} ;
\end{tikzpicture}
}
\end{center}
\end{notation}
There are commutative diagrams
\[
\vcenter{\vbox{
\xymatrix@C=9ex{
M\times\mathbb{R}^2_\infty \ar[d]_u \ar[r]^k & M\times\mathsf S \ar[d]^{\tilde u} \\
M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[r]^{j_M} & M\times\overline\mathbb{R}
}}}
\quad\text{for }u=q_1,q_2,\mu,
\]
where $k$ is the morphism associated with the embedding $\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathsf S$
given by $(t_1,t_2)\mapsto(t_1,t_2,-t_1-t_2)$.
One has
\[
\opb{\tilde\mu}(\{t\neq -\infty\}) \cap \opb{\tilde q_1}(\{t=-\infty\}) \subset \opb{\tilde q_2}(\{t=+\infty\}).
\]
One also has
\begin{align}
\label{eq:q1q2R}
\opb{\tilde q_1}(M\times\mathbb{R}) \cap \opb{\tilde q_2}(M\times\mathbb{R}) &=
\opb{\tilde q_1}(M\times\mathbb{R}) \cap \opb{\tilde \mu}(M\times\mathbb{R}) \\
\notag
&= k(M\times\mathbb{R}^2).
\end{align}
We identify $M\times\mathbb{R}^2$ with an open subset of $M\times\mathsf S$ by $k$.
Then $M\times\mathbb{R}^2_\infty$ is isomorphic to $M\times(\mathbb{R}^2,\mathsf S)$ as a bordered space.
For $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathsf S})$, one has
\[
\reeim k\opb k F \simeq \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}^2} \tens F,
\quad
\roim k \epb k F \simeq \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}^2}, F).
\]
The following lemma is immediate.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:ctenstilde}
Let $K_1,K_2\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$. With the above notations, one has isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2
&\simeq \opb{j_M}\reeim{\tilde\mu}(\opb{\tilde q_1}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}K_1 \tens \opb{\tilde q_2}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}K_2) \\
&\simeq \opb{j_M}\reeimv{\tilde q_{1\mspace{2mu}!!}}(\opb{\tilde q_2}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}\opb a K_1 \tens \opb{\tilde\mu}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}K_2), \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2)
&\simeq \opb{j_M}\roimv{\tilde q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\opb{\tilde q_2}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}K_1, \epb{\tilde\mu}\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}K_2) \\
&\simeq \opb{j_M}\roim{\tilde\mu}\rihom(\opb{\tilde q_2}\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}\opb a K_1, \epb{\tilde q_1}\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}K_2).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
Let us now state a result which will be fundamental in the next section.
Set for short
\[
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\neq \pm\infty\}} = \mathbf{k}_{\{(x,t)\in M\times\overline\mathbb{R}\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax t\neq \pm\infty\}} \in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}}).
\]
Recall that $\overline\pi\colon M\times\overline\mathbb{R} \to M$ denotes the projection.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:tenshomstar}
For $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ there is a distinguished triangle
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tenshomstarDT}
\opb\pi L \To \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \To {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K) \To[+1],
\end{equation}
where the object $L\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$ is given by
\begin{align*}
L & = \roim{\overline\pi}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\neq-\infty\}} \tens \roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}} K) \\
&\simeq \reeim\pi{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K) \\
&\simeq \roim\pi(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K).
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Consider the Cartesian diagram,
\[
\xymatrix@C=8ex{
M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty\times\overline\mathbb{R} \ar[r]^-{\overline q_1} \ar[d]^{\overline q_2} & M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[d]^\pi \\
M\times\overline\mathbb{R} \ar[r]^{\overline\pi} \ar@{}[ur]|-\square & M.
}
\]
Remark that $\epb{\overline q_2}F \simeq \opb{\overline q_2}F[1]$ for any $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}})$.
Let $(t_1,t_2) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \subset\overline\mathbb{R}^2$ be the coordinates.
In the sequel we will denote by $\{t_2\leq t_1\}$, $\{t_2< t_1\}$, etc., the subsets of $M\times\mathbb{R}^2$ described by these inequalities.
Set
\[
\widetilde K = \roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}K \in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}}).
\]
One has the isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K
&\underset{(1)}\simeq \reeimv{\overline q_{1\mspace{2mu}!!}}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_2\leq t_1\}} \tens \opb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K) \\
&\simeq \roimv{\overline q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}^2} \tens \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_2 < t_1\}},\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}^2}) \tens \epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K[-1]) \\
&\underset{(2)}\simeq \roimv{\overline q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}} (\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}^2} \tens \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_2 < t_1\}}[1],\epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K)) ,
\end{align*}
where $(1)$ follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:musigma} and $(2)$ from Proposition~\ref{pro:const}.
Similarly, one has the isomorphism
\[
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K)
\simeq \roimv{\overline q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_1 \leq t_2\}}, \epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K).
\]
Now, we claim that there are the isomorphisms in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty\times\overline\mathbb{R}})$
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:tempA}
\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}^2} \tens \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_2 < t_1\}}[1],\epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K) \\
\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto}
\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\{-\infty\})} \tens
\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_2 < t_1\}}[1],\epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K)
\end{multline}
and
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:tempB}
\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_1 \leq t_2\}}, \epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K) \\
\isofrom
\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\{-\infty\})} \tens \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_1 \leq t_2\}}, \epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K).
\end{multline}
We shall give a proof later. Admitting the above isomorphisms for the moment, let us complete the proof.
We have
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K
&\simeq \roimv{\overline q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}} (\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\{-\infty\})} \tens \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_2 < t_1\}}[1],\epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K)), \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K)
&\simeq \roimv{\overline q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}} (\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\{-\infty\})} \tens\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_1 \leq t_2\}}, \epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K)).
\end{align*}
{}From the distinguished triangle
\[
\mathbf{k}_{\{t_1 \leq t_2\}} \To \mathbf{k}_{\{t_2 < t_1\}}[1] \To \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}^2}[1] \To[+1],
\]
we deduce a distinguished triangle
\[
\tilde L \To \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \To {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K) \To[+1],
\]
where
\[
\tilde L = \roimv{\overline q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\{-\infty\})} \tens \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}^2}[1], \epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K)).
\]
One has the isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}^2}, \epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K)
&\simeq \rihom(\opb{\overline q_2}\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}, \epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K) \\
&\simeq \epb{\overline q_2}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}, \widetilde K) \\
&\simeq \epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K.
\end{align*}
Hence,
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\{-\infty\})} \tens {} \rihom&(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}^2}[1], \epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K) \\
&\simeq \opb{\overline q_2}\mathbf{k}_{\{t\neq-\infty\}} \tens \epb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K[-1] \\
&\simeq \opb{\overline q_2}\mathbf{k}_{\{t\neq-\infty\}} \tens \opb{\overline q_2}\widetilde K \\
&\simeq \opb{\overline q_2}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\neq-\infty\}} \tens \widetilde K) \\
&\simeq \epb{\overline q_2}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\neq-\infty\}} \tens \widetilde K)[-1].
\end{align*}
It follows that
\begin{align*}
\tilde L
&\simeq \roimv{\overline q_{1\mspace{2mu}*}}\epb{\overline q_2}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\neq-\infty\}} \tens \widetilde K)[-1] \\
&\simeq \epb\pi\roim{\overline\pi}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\neq-\infty\}} \tens \widetilde K)[-1] \\
&\simeq \opb\pi\roim{\overline\pi}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\neq-\infty\}} \tens \widetilde K) .
\end{align*}
We have thus proved \eqref{eq:tenshomstarDT} with
\[
L = \roim{\overline\pi}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\neq-\infty\}} \tens \roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}} K).
\]
Applying $\reeim\pi$ to \eqref{eq:tenshomstarDT}, we get a distinguished triangle
\[
\reeim\pi\opb\pi L \To \reeim\pi(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) \To \reeim\pi{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K) \To[+1].
\]
Corollary~\ref{cor:pieeim} gives $\reeim\pi(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) \simeq 0$.
Noticing that $L\simeq\reeim\pi\opb\pi L[1]$, we get
\[
L \simeq \reeim\pi{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K).
\]
Similarly, applying $\roim\pi$ to \eqref{eq:tenshomstarDT}, we get
\[
L \simeq \roim\pi(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K).
\]
It remains to prove \eqref{eq:tempA} and \eqref{eq:tempB}.
It is enough to show that for any $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}^2})$ one has
\begin{align}
\label{eq:tempC}
& \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}\times\{+\infty\}} \tens
\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_2 < t_1\}},F) \simeq 0, \\
\label{eq:tempD}
& \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}\times\{-\infty\}} \tens \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_1 \leq t_2\}}, F) \simeq 0.
\end{align}
As in Notation~\ref{not:sfS}, let $\mathsf S$ be the closure of $\{(t_1,t_2,t_3)\in\mathbb{R}^3\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax t_1+t_2+t_3 = 0 \}$ in $\overline\mathbb{R}^3$. Consider the map $\tilde p\colon\mathsf S\to\overline\mathbb{R}^2$ given by $\tilde p(t_1,t_2,t_3) = (t_1,t_2)$. Then $\opb {\tilde p}(\mathbb{R}^2) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto}\mathbb{R}^2$.
We shall denote by the same letter the induced map $\tilde p\colon M\times \mathsf S\to M\times \overline\mathbb{R}^2$.
Since $\reeim {\tilde p}(\mathbf{k}_{\opb {\tilde p}(\{t_2 < t_1\})}) \simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t_2 < t_1\}}$ and $\reeim {\tilde p}(\mathbf{k}_{\opb {\tilde p}(\{t_1 \leq t_2\})})
\simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t_1 \leq t_2\}}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_2 < t_1\}},F)
&\simeq \roim {\tilde p} \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\opb {\tilde p} (\{t_2 < t_1\})},\epb {\tilde p} F), \\
\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_1 \leq t_2\}}, F)
&\simeq \roim {\tilde p}\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\opb {\tilde p}(\{t_1 \leq t_2\})}, \epb {\tilde p} F) .
\end{align*}
Then \eqref{eq:tempC} follows from
\begin{multline*}
\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}\times\{+\infty\}} \tens
\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t_2 < t_1\}},F) \\
\simeq
\roim {\tilde p}(\mathbf{k}_{\opb {\tilde p}(M\times\mathbb{R}\times\{+\infty\})} \tens
\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\opb {\tilde p}(\{t_2 < t_1\})},\epb {\tilde p} F))
\end{multline*}
and
\[
\overline{\opb {\tilde p}(\{t_2 < t_1\})} \cap \opb {\tilde p}(M\times\mathbb{R}\times\{+\infty\}) = \emptyset.
\]
Similarly, \eqref{eq:tempD} follows from
\[
\overline{\opb {\tilde p}(\{t_1 \leq t_2\})} \cap \opb {\tilde p}(M\times\mathbb{R}\times\{-\infty\}) = \emptyset.
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:kkK}
For $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, there are isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K)
&\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K),\\
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K)
&\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K, \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}, \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K)
&\simeq 0 ,\\
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K)
&\simeq 0.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:piRinfty}, for any $L\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$ one has
\[
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, \epb\pi L) \simeq 0,
\quad
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \opb\pi L \simeq 0.
\]
Recalling also Lemma~\ref{lem:nilpo}, the isomorphisms in the statement follow by applying the functors
${\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{\pm t\geq 0\}}, \ast)$ and $\mathbf{k}_{\{\pm t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \ast$ to the distinguished triangle \eqref{eq:tenshomstarDT}.
\end{proof}
\begin{notation}
\label{not:psi}
For $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, consider the functors
\[
\psi_{M,\pm\infty}(K) = \opb{i_{M,\pm\infty}}\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}K,
\]
where $i_{M,\pm\infty}\colon M \to M\times\overline\mathbb{R}$ denotes the embedding $x\mapsto (x,\pm\infty)$.
\end{notation}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:psi}
For $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, one has the isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\psi_{M,-\infty}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) &\simeq 0, \\
\psi_{M,+\infty}\,{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K) &\simeq 0, \\
\psi_{M,+\infty}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) &\simeq L, \\
\psi_{M,-\infty}\,{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K)
&\simeq L[1],
\end{align*}
where $L$ is the object defined in {\rm Proposition~\ref{pro:tenshomstar}}.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i) Since the proofs of the first and second isomorphisms in the statement are similar, let us only check that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:psi0}
\psi_{M,-\infty}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) \simeq 0.
\end{equation}
Set $K'=\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K$.
Since $\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K\simeq K'$,
Proposition~\ref{pro:tenshomstar} implies
\[
\roim{\overline\pi}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\neq-\infty\}} \tens \roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}} K') \simeq \roim\pi K'.
\]
Since $\roim\pi K' \simeq \roim{\overline\pi}\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}} K'$, we get
\[
\roim{\overline\pi}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t=-\infty\}} \tens \roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}} K') \simeq 0.
\]
One concludes since the above complex is isomorphic to $\psi_{M,-\infty}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) $.
\smallskip\noindent(ii)
Since the proofs of the third and fourth isomorphisms in the statement are similar, let us only check that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:psiL}
\psi_{M,-\infty}\,{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K)
\simeq L[1].
\end{equation}
Applying $\psi_{M,-\infty}$ to the distinguished triangle \eqref{eq:tenshomstarDT}, we obtain
\[
\psi_{M,-\infty}\,{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K) \simeq \psi_{M,-\infty}(\opb\pi L[1]).
\]
Here we used \eqref{eq:psi0}. Then \eqref{eq:psiL} follows from $\psi_{M,-\infty}(\opb\pi L) \simeq L$.
\end{proof}
Let us state an easy lemma which will be of use later.
Consider the projections
\[
M \from[{\ \pi_M\ }] M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \To[s_M] \mathbb{R}_\infty.
\]
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:tildef}
Let $\tilde f\colon M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \to N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty$ be the morphism of bordered spaces induced by a continuous map $f\colon M \to N$ of good topological spaces.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
For $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ and $G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, there are isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\reeim{\tilde f} (\opb{s_M}G \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K)
&\simeq \opb{s_N}G \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \reeim{\tilde f} K, \\
\roim{\tilde f} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\opb{s_M}G, K)
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\opb{s_N}G, \roim{\tilde f} K).
\end{align*}
\item
For $L\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ and $G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, there are isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\opb{\tilde f} (\opb{s_N}G \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L)
&\simeq \opb{s_M}G \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \opb{\tilde f} L, \\
\epb{\tilde f} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\opb{s_N}G, L)
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\opb{s_M}G, \epb{\tilde f} L).
\end{align*}
\item
One has
\begin{align*}
\reeim{\tilde f} \circ \opb{\pi_M} &\simeq \opb{\pi_N} \circ \reeim f, &
\opb{\tilde f} \circ \opb{\pi_N} &\simeq \opb{\pi_M} \circ \opb f, \\
\roim{\tilde f} \circ \epb{\pi_M} &\simeq \epb{\pi_N} \circ \roim f, &
\epb{\tilde f} \circ \epb{\pi_N} &\simeq \epb{\pi_M} \circ \epb f.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Enhanced ind-sheaves}
\begin{definition}
\label{def:DerT}
Consider the full subcategories of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*\leq 0\}}
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \simeq 0\} \\
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K) \simeq 0\}, \\
\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*\geq 0\}}
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \simeq 0\} \\
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}, K) \simeq 0\}, \\
\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^* = 0\}}
&= \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^* \leq 0\}} \cap \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^* \geq 0\}} \\
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax (\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq0\}}) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \simeq 0 \} \\
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq0\}}, K) \simeq 0 \},
\end{align*}
where the equalities hold by Corollary~\ref{cor:kkK}.
Consider also the corresponding quotient categories
\begin{align*}
\BECpm M
&= \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{\pm t^*\geq 0\}}/\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*= 0\}} , \\
\BEC M
&= \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})/\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^* = 0\}} .
\end{align*}
We call $\BEC M$ the triangulated category of {\em enhanced ind-sheaves}.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
There are equivalences of triangulated categories
\begin{align*}
\BECpm M &\simeq \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})/\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{\pm t^*\leq 0\}}, \\
\BEC M &\simeq \BECp M \dsum \BECm M.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
This follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:tam} below.
The next lemma easily follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:pipi} and
the last distinguished triangle in \eqref{eq:dtpm0}.
\begin{lemma}
One has
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^* = 0\}}
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \opb\pi\roim\pi K \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} K\}
= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax K \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \epb\pi\reeim\pi K\} \\
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax K \simeq \opb\pi L\text{ for some }L\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M) \}\\
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax K \simeq \epb\pi L\text{ for some }L\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M) \} \\
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax K \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}[1]\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \} \\
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax K \isofrom {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}[1], K) \}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
Let us describe the categories $\BECpm M$ and $\BEC M$ using Proposition~\ref{pro:D/N}.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:tam}
\begin{enumerate}
\item [{\rm(i-a)}]
The left orthogonal to $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{\pm t^*\leq 0\}}$ is given by
\begin{align*}
{}^\bot\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{\pm t^*\leq 0\}}
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \mathbf{k}_{\{\pm t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} K\} \\
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \mathbf{k}_{\{\pm t> 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \simeq 0\},
\end{align*}
and there is an equivalence
\[
\BECpm M \to {}^\bot\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{\pm t^*\leq 0\}}, \quad
K\mapsto \mathbf{k}_{\{\pm t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K,
\]
with quasi-inverse given by the quotient functor.
Note that
\[
{}^\bot\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{\pm t^*\leq 0\}} \subset \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{\mp t^*\leq 0\}}.
\]
\item [{\rm(i-b)}]
The right orthogonal to $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{\pm t^*\leq 0\}}$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{\pm t^*\leq 0\}}^\bot
&= \{K' \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax K' \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{\pm t\geq 0\}}, K')\} \\
&= \{K' \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{\pm t> 0\}}, K') \simeq 0\},
\end{align*}
and there is an equivalence
\[
\BECpm M \to \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{\pm t^*\leq 0\}}^\bot, \quad
K\mapsto{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{\pm t\geq 0\}}, K),
\]
with quasi-inverse given by the quotient functor.
Note that
\[
\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{\pm t^*\leq 0\}}^\bot \subset \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{\mp t^*\leq 0\}}.
\]
\item [{\rm(ii-a)}]
The left orthogonal to $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^* = 0\}}$ is given by
\begin{align*}
{}^\bot\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^* = 0\}}
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax (\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} K\} \\
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \simeq 0 \} \\
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \reeim\pi K \simeq 0\} ,
\end{align*}
and there is an equivalence
\[
\BEC M \to {}^\bot\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^* = 0\}}, \quad
K\mapsto (\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K,
\]
with quasi-inverse given by the quotient functor.
\item [{\rm(ii-b)}]
The right orthogonal to $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^* = 0\}}$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}^\bot_{\{t^* = 0\}}
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}, K) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} K\} \\
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}, K) \simeq 0 \} \\
&= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \roim\pi K \simeq 0\} ,
\end{align*}
and there is an equivalence
\[
\BEC M \to \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^* = 0\}}^\bot, \quad
K\mapsto {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}, K),
\]
with quasi-inverse given by the quotient functor.
\item[{\rm(iii)}]
One has
\begin{align*}
{}^\bot\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^* \geq 0\}} \dsum {}^\bot\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^* \leq 0\}} &\simeq {}^\bot\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^* = 0\}}, \\
\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}^\bot_{\{t^* \geq 0\}} \dsum \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}^\bot_{\{t^* \leq 0\}} &\simeq \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}^\bot_{\{t^* = 0\}}.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof is easy. Let us only note that the equality
\[
\{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \simeq 0 \} \\
= \{K \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \reeim\pi K \simeq 0\}
\]
follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:pipi}.
\end{proof}
The functors
\eq&&\hspace*{3ex}\begin{myarray}{rcl}
(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \ast&\cl&
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})\To \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}), \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}, \ast)
&\cl&\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})\To \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})
\end{myarray}\label{eq:LERE}
\eneq
factor through $\BEC M$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:piRinfty}.
\begin{notation}
\label{not:Tlr}
Denote by
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{L^\enh} &\colon \BEC M \To {}^\bot\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*= 0\}} \subset \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}), \\
\operatorname{R^\enh} &\colon \BEC M \To \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*= 0\}}^\bot \subset \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})
\end{align*}
the functors induced by \eqref{eq:LERE}.
\end{notation}
Note that the functors $\operatorname{L^\enh}$ and $\operatorname{R^\enh}$ are the left and right adjoint of the quotient functor $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \to \BEC M$.
We have a morphism of functors $\operatorname{L^\enh} \to \operatorname{R^\enh}$.
\begin{lemma}
Let $F_1,F_2\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$.
Let $K_1$, $K_2$ be the objects of $\BEC M$ corresponding to $F_1$, $F_2$
by the quotient functor.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
There are isomorphisms in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\begin{align*}
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\operatorname{L^\enh} K_1, \operatorname{L^\enh} K_2)
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\operatorname{L^\enh} K_1, F_2) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F_1, \operatorname{R^\enh} K_2).
\end{align*}
\item
There are isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\Hom[\BEC M](K_1, K_2)
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})](\operatorname{L^\enh} K_1, F_2) \\
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})](F_1, \operatorname{R^\enh} K_2).
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Operations}\label{sse:hom}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:piRinfty} the compositions of functors
\begin{align}
\label{eq:ctenstilde}
& \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \times \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \To[\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}] \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \To \BEC M, \\
\label{eq:cihomtilde}
& \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})^\mathrm{op} \times \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \To[{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+] \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \To \BEC M,
\end{align}
factor through $\BEC M \times \BEC M$ and ${\BEC M}^\mathrm{op} \times \BEC M$, respectively.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:Tctens}
We denote by
\begin{align*}
\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} &\colon \BEC M \times \BEC M \To \BEC M, \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+ &\colon {\BEC M}^\mathrm{op} \times \BEC M \To \BEC M,
\end{align*}
the functors induced by \eqref{eq:ctenstilde} and \eqref{eq:cihomtilde}, respectively.
\end{definition}
Note that, for any $K\in\BEC M$, the composition
\[
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \To K\To{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} , K)
\]
is an isomorphism in $\BEC M$ by Proposition~\ref{pro:tenshomstar}.
\begin{definition}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:cihomKt0} one gets functors
\begin{align*}
{\opb\pi\ast}\tens{\ast} &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M) \times \BEC M \To \BEC M, \\
\rihom(\opb\pi{\ast},{\ast}) &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)^\mathrm{op} \times \BEC M
\To \BEC M, \\
\rihom({\ast},\epb\pi{\ast}) &\colon \BEC M{}^\mathrm{op} \times \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)
\To \BEC M.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
The composition
\[
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})\times \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \To[\otimes] \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \to \BEC M
\]
\emph{does not} factor through $\BEC M\times\BEC M$,
and the composition
\[
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})^\mathrm{op} \times \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \To[\rihom] \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \to \BEC M
\]
\emph{does not} factor through ${\BEC M}^\mathrm{op}\times\BEC M$.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
For $K_1,K_2,K_3\in\BEC M$ there is an isomorphism
\[
\Hom[\BEC M](K_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2,K_3) \simeq \Hom[\BEC M](K_1,{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_2,K_3)),
\]
i.e., for $K\in\BEC M$,
$K\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\ast$ is a left adjoint of ${\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K,\ast)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:Thommorph}
For $K_0,K_1,K_2\in\BEC M$ there are natural morphisms in $\BEC M$
\begin{align*}
& K_0 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_0,K_1) \to K_1, \\
& {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_0,K_1) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2) \to {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_0,K_2), \\
& K_0 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2) \to {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_0\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2), \\
& {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2) \to {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_0\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_1, K_0\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2), \\
& {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2) \to {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+({\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_0,K_1),{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_0,K_2)), \\
& K_0 \to {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+({\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_0,K_1),K_1).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first morphism is the image of the identity by the isomorphism
\begin{multline*}
\Hom[\BEC M]({\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_0,K_1),{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_0,K_1)) \\
\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \Hom[\BEC M](K_0\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_0,K_1),K_1).
\end{multline*}
\noindent The second morphism follows from
\eqn
&&K_0 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_0,K_1) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2) \\
&&\hspace*{15ex}\to K_1 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2)
\To K_2.
\eneqn
\noindent The third morphism is the image by the isomorphism
\begin{multline*}
\Hom[\BEC M](K_0 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_1 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2), K_0\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2) \\
\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto}
\Hom[\BEC M](K_0 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2),{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_0\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2))
\end{multline*}
of the morphism
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:KKiK}
K_0 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_1 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1,K_2) \to K_0\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2
\end{equation}
induced by the first morphism in the statement.
\noindent The fourth morphism is obtained from \eqref{eq:KKiK}.
\noindent The fifth morphism is obtained from the second one.
\noindent The last morphism follows from the first one.
\end{proof}
Let $f\colon M \to N$ be a continuous map of good topological spaces.
Denote by $\tilde f\colon M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \to N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty$ the associated morphism. Then, by Lemma~\ref{lem:tildef}~(iii), the compositions of functors
\begin{align}
\label{eq:oimftilde}
& \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \To[\reeim{\tilde f},\; \roim{\tilde f}] \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \To \BEC N, \\
\label{eq:opbftilde}
& \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \To[\opb{\tilde f},\; \epb{\tilde f}] \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \To \BEC M
\end{align}
factor through $\BEC M$ and $\BEC N$, respectively.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:fT}
We denote by
\begin{align*}
\Eeeim f,\; \Eoim f &\colon \BEC M \to \BEC N, \\
\Eopb f,\; \Eepb f &\colon \BEC N \to \BEC M,
\end{align*}
the functors induced by \eqref{eq:oimftilde} and \eqref{eq:opbftilde}, respectively.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
For $K\in\BEC M$ and $L\in\BEC N$, set
\[
K \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} L = \Eopb p_1 K \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_2 L \in \BEC{M\times N},
\]
where $p_1$ and $p_2$ denote the projections from $M\times N$ to $M$ and $N$, respectively.
\end{definition}
Using Notation~\ref{not:Tlr}, for $K\in\BEC M$ and $L\in\BEC N$ one has
isomorphisms in $\BEC M$ or $\BEC N$:
\begin{align*}
\Eeeim f K &\simeq \reeim{\tilde f}\operatorname{L^\enh} K \simeq \reeim{\tilde f}\operatorname{R^\enh} K, \\
\Eoim f K &\simeq \roim{\tilde f}\operatorname{L^\enh} K \simeq \roim{\tilde f}\operatorname{R^\enh} K, \\
\Eopb f L &\simeq \opb{\tilde f}\operatorname{L^\enh} L \simeq \opb{\tilde f}\operatorname{R^\enh} L, \\
\Eepb f L &\simeq \epb{\tilde f}\operatorname{L^\enh} L \simeq \epb{\tilde f}\operatorname{R^\enh} L.
\end{align*}
Let us now show that the above operations satisfy
similar properties to the external operations for ind-sheaves.
The following two propositions immediately follow from their counterpart in Lemmas~\ref{lem:badj} and \ref{lem:bcomp}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:Tadj}
Let $f\colon M \to N$ be a continuous map of good topological spaces.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
The functor $\Eeeim f$ is left adjoint to $\Eepb f$.
\item
The functor $\Eopb f$ is left adjoint to $\Eoim f$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:Tcomp}
Given two continuous maps of good topological spaces $L \To[g] M \To[f] N$, one has
\[
\Eeeim{(f\circ g)} \simeq \Eeeim f \circ \Eeeim g, \qquad
\Eoim{(f\circ g)} \simeq \Eoim f \circ \Eoim g
\]
and
\[
\Eopb{(f\circ g)} \simeq \Eopb g \circ \Eopb f, \qquad
\Eepb{(f\circ g)} \simeq \Eepb g \circ \Eepb f.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:Tproj}
Let $f\colon M \to N$ be a continuous map of good topological spaces.
For $K\in\BEC M$ and $L,L_1,L_2\in\BEC N$, one has isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\Eeeim f(\Eopb f L \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) & \simeq L \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eeeim f K, \\
\Eopb f (L_1\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L_2) &\simeq \Eopb f L_1 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb f L_2, \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(L,\Eoim f K) & \simeq \Eoim f\; {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb f L,K), \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eeeim f K, L) & \simeq \Eoim f\; {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K, \Eepb f L), \\
\Eepb f {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(L_1,L_2) & \simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb f L_1, \Eepb f L_2),
\end{align*}
and a morphism
\[
\Eopb f {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(L_1,L_2) \to {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb f L_1,\Eopb f L_2).
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i)
Since the proofs of the five isomorphisms in the statement are similar, let us only deal with the fourth one.
Consider the morphisms
\begin{align*}
q_{M1},q_{M2},\mu_M &\colon M\times\mathbb{R}^2_\infty \to M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty, \\
q_{N1},q_{N2},\mu_N &\colon N\times\mathbb{R}^2_\infty \to N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty
\end{align*}
induced by \eqref{eq:muq1q2}.
Consider the Cartesian diagrams
\[
\vcenter{\vbox{
\xymatrix{
M\times\mathbb{R}^2_\infty \ar[r]^{f'} \ar[d]^u & N\times\mathbb{R}^2_\infty \ar[d]^v \\
M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[r]^{{\tilde f}} \ar@{}[ur]|-\square & N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty
}}}
\ \text{for $(u,v) = (q_{M1},q_{N1})$, $(q_{M2},q_{N2})$, $(\mu_M,\mu_N)$.}
\]
Then one has
\begin{align*}
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eeeim f K, L)
& \simeq \roimv{q_{N1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\opb{q_{N2}}\reeim{\tilde f}\operatorname{L^\enh} K, \epb{\mu_N}\operatorname{R^\enh} L) \\
& \simeq \roimv{q_{N1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\reeim {f'}\opb{q_{M2}}\operatorname{L^\enh} K, \epb{\mu_N}\operatorname{R^\enh} L) \\
& \simeq \roimv{q_{N1\mspace{2mu}*}}\roim f'\rihom(\opb{q_{M2}}\operatorname{L^\enh} K, \epbv{f^{\prime\mspace{2mu}!}}\epb{\mu_N}\operatorname{R^\enh} L) \\
& \simeq \roim{\tilde f}\roimv{q_{M1\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom(\opb{q_{M2}}\operatorname{L^\enh} K, \epb{\mu_M}\epb{\tilde f}\operatorname{R^\enh} L) \\
& \simeq \Eoim f {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K, \Eepb f L).
\end{align*}
\smallskip\noindent(ii)
The last morphism in the statement is obtained by adjunction from
\begin{align*}
\Eopb f L_1 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb f {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(L_1,L_2)
&\simeq \Eopb f (L_1 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(L_1,L_2)) \\
&\to \Eopb f L_2.
\end{align*}
Here, the last morphism follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:Thommorph}.
\end{proof}
The next proposition follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:bcart}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:Tcart}
Consider a Cartesian diagram of good topological spaces
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix@C=8ex{
M' \ar[r]^{f'} \ar[d]^{g'} & N' \ar[d]^{g} \\
M \ar[r]^{f}\ar@{}[ur]|-\square & N.
}
\end{equation*}
Then there are isomorphisms of functors $\BEC M \to \BEC{N'}$
\[
\Eopb g\Eeeim f \simeq \Eeeim f' \Eopbv{g^{\prime\mspace{2mu}-1}}, \qquad
\Eepb g\Eoim f \simeq \Eoim f' \Eepbv{g^{\prime\mspace{2mu}!}}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:ihomE}
Let $F_1,F_2\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$.
Let $K_1$, $K_2$ be the objects of $\BEC M$ corresponding to $F_1$, $F_2$
by the quotient functor. Then one has
\begin{align*}
\roim\pi\rihom(\operatorname{L^\enh} K_1,\operatorname{R^\enh} K_2) &\simeq
\roim\pi\rihom(\operatorname{L^\enh} K_1,F_2)\\
&\simeq \roim\pi\rihom(F_1,\operatorname{R^\enh} K_2).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first isomorphism follows from
\[
\roim\pi\rihom(\operatorname{L^\enh} K_1,\epb\pi L)
\simeq \rihom(\reeim\pi\operatorname{L^\enh} K_1,L) \simeq 0,
\]
and the second isomorphism follows from
\[
\roim\pi\rihom(\opb\pi L,\operatorname{R^\enh} K_2) \simeq \rihom(L,\roim\pi \operatorname{R^\enh} K_2) \simeq 0.
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}\label{def:HomT}
We define the hom-functor
\[
\mathcal{H}om^\enh\colon {\BEC M}^\mathrm{op} \times \BEC M \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)
\]
as follows
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(K_1,K_2)
&= \alpha_M\,\roim\pi\rihom(\operatorname{L^\enh} K_1,\operatorname{L^\enh} K_2) \\
&\simeq \alpha_M\,\roim\pi\rihom(\operatorname{L^\enh} K_1,\operatorname{R^\enh} K_2) \\
&\simeq \alpha_M\,\roim\pi\rihom(\operatorname{R^\enh} K_1,\operatorname{R^\enh} K_2) \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \alpha_M\roim{\overline\pi}\rihom(\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}\operatorname{L^\enh} K_1,\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}} \operatorname{R^\enh} K_2) \\
&\simeq \roim{\overline\pi}\rhom(\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}\operatorname{L^\enh} K_1,\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}} \operatorname{R^\enh} K_2).
\end{align*}
Here, $(*)$ follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:jM}~(iv) and in the last isomorphism we used the fact that $\alpha$ commutes with $\roim{\overline\pi}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
For $K_1,K_2\in\BEC M$, one has
\begin{align*}
\Hom[\BEC M](K_1,K_2)
&\simeq H^0\derr\varGamma(M; \mathcal{H}om^\enh(K_1,K_2)) \\
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)](\mathbf{k}_M, \mathcal{H}om^\enh(K_1,K_2)) .
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:homT}
For $K_1,K_2,K_3\in\BEC M$, one has
\[
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(K_1 \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2,K_3) \simeq
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(K_1, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+ (K_2,K_3)).
\]
In particular,
\[
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(K_1,K_2) \simeq
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}}, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+ (K_1,K_2)).
\]
\end{lemma}
Let $i_0 \colon M \to M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty$ be the embedding $x \mapsto (x,0)$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:ai0}
For $K\in\BEC M$ and $L\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$, one has
\[
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathbf{k}_{\{t = 0\}} \tens \opb\pi L,K) \simeq
\alpha_M\rihom(L, \epb{i_0} \operatorname{R^\enh} K).
\]
\end{lemma}
Note that $\alpha$ does not commute with $\epb{i_0}$.
\begin{proof}
There is the chain of isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathbf{k}_{\{t = 0\}} \tens \opb\pi L,K)
&\simeq \alpha_M\,\roim\pi\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t= 0\}} \tens \opb\pi L, \operatorname{R^\enh} K) \\
&\simeq \alpha_M\,\roim\pi\rihom(\opb\pi L, \rihom (\mathbf{k}_{\{t= 0\}}, \operatorname{R^\enh} K)) \\
&\simeq \alpha_M\rihom(L,\roim\pi\roimv{i_{0\mspace{2mu}*}}\epb{i_0} \operatorname{R^\enh} K) \\
&\simeq \alpha_M\rihom(L,\epb{i_0} \operatorname{R^\enh} K).
\end{align*}
Here the first isomorphism follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:ihomE}.
\end{proof}
The following lemma follows from the fact that $\alpha$ commutes with $\roim f$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{homepb}
For $f\colon M\to N$ a morphism of good topological spaces, $K\in\BEC M$ and $L\in\BEC N$, one has
\begin{align*}
\roim f \mathcal{H}om^\enh(K,\Eepb f L) &\simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\Eeeim f K, L), \\
\roim f \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\Eopb f L, K) &\simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh(L, \Eoim f K).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
For $K_1,K_2\in\BEC M$ and $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$, the isomorphism
\[
\rhom(F,\mathcal{H}om^\enh(K_1,K_2))
\simeq
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\opb\pi F \tens K_1, K_2)
\]
\emph{does not} hold in general.
\item
Let $f\colon M\to N$ be a morphism of good topological spaces and $L_1,L_2\in\BEC N$.
Since $\alpha$ and $\epb f$ do not commute in general, the isomorphism $\epb f\mathcal{H}om^\enh(L_1,L_2) \simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\Eopb f L_1,\Eepb f L_2)$ does not hold in general.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\subsection{$t$-structure of $\BEC M$}
In this subsection,
we will give a $t$-structure on $\BEC M$.
Recall the t-structure on $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
defined in \S\;\ref{subse:t-str}.
\begin{definition}\label{def:tstrTDC}
We set
\begin{align*}
\Bec[\leq0]{M} &= \{ K\in\BEC M\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \operatorname{L^\enh} K\in \mathsf{D}^{\leq 0}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \}, \\
\Bec[\geq0] M&= \{ K\in\BEC M\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \operatorname{L^\enh} K\in \mathsf{D}^{\geq 0}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \}.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
The pair $({\Bec[{\leq 0}] M}, \Bec [{\geq 0}]M)$ is a $t$-structure on $\BEC M$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to show that for $K\in\BEC M$ there are isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \tau^{\leq 0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K &\simeq \tau^{\leq 0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K, \\
(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \tau^{.0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K &\simeq \tau^{>0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K.
\end{align*}
In other words, we have to prove
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:taubot}
\tau^{\leq 0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K,\ \tau^{> 0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K \in {}^\bot\sheaffont{C}_{\{t^*=0\}}.
\end{equation}
Hence it is enough to show
\eq
&&\reeim{\pi}\tau^{\leq 0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K\simeq \reeim{\pi}\tau^{>0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K\simeq0.
\label{eq:vandir}
\eneq
We have a distinguished triangle
$$
\reeim{\pi}\tau^{\leq 0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K\to\reeim{\pi}\operatorname{L^\enh} K\to \reeim{\pi}\tau^{>0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K\tone.$$
Since the middle term vanishes we have
$$\reeim{\pi}\tau^{>0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K\simeq \reeim{\pi}\tau^{\leq 0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K[1].$$
By Proposition~\ref{pro:t-str} (iii) (a), we have
$$
\text{$\reeim{\pi}\tau^{>0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K\in \mathsf{D}^{>0}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
and $\reeim{\pi}\tau^{\leq 0}\operatorname{L^\enh} K[1]\in \mathsf{D}^{\le0}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$.}$$
Hence we obtain \eqref{eq:vandir}.
\end{proof}
Let $\tau^{\leq n}$, $\tau^{\geq n}$ and $H^n$ be the truncation functors and the cohomology functor for this $t$-structure. Then we have the quasi-commutative diagrams
\[
\vcenter{\vbox{
\xymatrix@C=6ex{
\BEC M \ar[r]^u \ar[d]^{\operatorname{L^\enh}} & \BEC M \ar[d]^{\operatorname{L^\enh}} \ar[r]^\id & \BEC M \\
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \ar[r]^u & \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}) \ar[ur]_Q
}}}
\text{for $u = \tau^{\leq 0}$, $\tau^{\geq 0}$,$H^n$,}
\]
where $Q$ is the quotient functor.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:geqaexact}
For $a\in\mathbb{R}$, the functors
\[
\mathbf{k}_{\{t=a\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\ast,
\quad\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\ast,\quad \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq a\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\ast
\]
are exact endofunctors of $\BEC M$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The functor
$\mathbf{k}_{\{t= a\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\ast \simeq \roimv{\mu_{a\mspace{2mu}*}}(\ast)$ is an exact functor, where $\mu_a\colon M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty\to M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty$ is the morphism induced by the translation $t\mapsto t+a$.
For $K\in\BEC M$, there are isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq a\}}) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K
&\simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t =a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} (\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq 0\}}) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \\
&\simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t =a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K.
\end{align*}
It follows that $(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq a\}}) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \ast$ is an exact functor. Hence so are $\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\ast$ and $\mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq a\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\ast$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Stable objects}
\begin{notation}
\label{not:gg}
Consider the objects of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\[
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}} \mathbin{:=} \indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty] \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}},\qquad
\mathbf{k}_{\{t<\ast\}} \mathbin{:=} \indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty] \mathbf{k}_{\{t< a\}}.
\]
\end{notation}
We have a distinguished triangle in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\eq\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}\To \mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}}
\To \mathbf{k}_{\{t<\ast\}} [1]\To[+1].\eneq
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:gggeqK}
For $K\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ and $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ one has
\begin{align*}
\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}H^n(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) &\simeq \indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty] \reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}} H^n(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K), \\
H^n(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) &\simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} H^n(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K).
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i) The first isomorphism follows from
Proposition 5.2.6~(i) of \cite{KS01}.
\smallskip\noindent(ii)
Let us prove the second isomorphism.
Lemma~\ref{lem:geqaexact} implies
\begin{align*}
H^n(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K)
&\simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} H^n(K).
\end{align*}
Taking the ind-limit with respect to $a\rightarrow+\infty$, we obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
We have the isomorphisms in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\begin{align}
&\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}} \simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}}, \\
&\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq -a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}} \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}} \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}}
\end{align}
for any $a\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$.
\begin{notation}
\label{not:Tam}
Denote by $\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M$ the object of $\BEC M$ associated with $\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$.
More generally, for $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$, set
\[
F^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{:=} \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \tens \opb\pi F \in \BEC M.
\]
\end{notation}
Note that one has
\[
\operatorname{L^\enh} \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\operatorname{R^\enh} \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t<\ast\}}[1].
\]
\begin{lemma}
The functor
$\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\ast$
is an exact endofunctor of $\BEC M$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{pro:gggeqK}, for $K\in\BEC M$ one has
\[
H^n(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) \simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} H^n(K).
\]
Hence $\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\ast$ is an exact functor.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:equivTam}
Let $K\in\BEC M$.
Then the following conditions are equivalent.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
$K \isofrom \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K$ for any $a\geq 0$,
\item
${\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}}, K) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K) \isofrom K$ for any $a\geq 0$,
\item
$K \isofrom \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K$,
\item
${\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}, K) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, K) \isofrom K$,
\item
$K \simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L$ for some $L\in\BEC M$,
\item
$K \simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}, L)$ for some $L\in\BEC M$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The less obvious implications (i)$\implies$(iii) and (ii)$\implies$(iv) follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:tensindlim} and Proposition~\ref{pro:Prolim}.
Note also that ${\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}}, K) \simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq -a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K$ for any $a\in\mathbb{R}$. Hence, for example, (iii)$\implies$(ii) is given by
\begin{align*}
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}}, K)
&\simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq -a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \\
&\simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq -a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \\
&\simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K \simeq K.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}
A stable object is an object of $\BECp M$ that satisfies the equivalent conditions of Proposition~\ref{pro:equivTam}.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
The notion of stable object is related to the notion of torsion object from \cite{Tam08} (compare \cite[\S5]{GS12} and Proposition~\ref{pro:pro:HomStab} below).
\end{remark}
Note that, for $K\in\BEC M$, one has isomorphisms in $\BEC M$
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}, K) &\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E},K), \\
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}, \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) &\simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K.
\end{align*}
\begin{corollary}
For $K_1,K_2\in\BEC M$ there is an isomorphism in $\BEC M$
\[
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_1, \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2)
\simeq
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K_1, \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K_2).
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:pro:HomStab}
Let $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ and $K\in\BEC M$.
Assume that $\overline\pi(\supp(\reimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!}}F))$ is compact. Then there are isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\Hom[\BEC M]&(\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F, \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) \\
&\simeq \varinjlim_{a\rightarrow+\infty} \Hom[\BEC M](F, \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) \\
&\simeq \varinjlim_{a\rightarrow+\infty} \Hom[\BEC M](\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq - a\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F, K).
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i)
We have
\begin{align*}
\Hom[\BEC M]&(\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F, \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) \\
&\simeq \Hom[\BEC M](\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M, \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K)) \\
&\simeq \Hom[\BEC M](\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F, \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) \\
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}})](\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F), \roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \operatorname{L^\enh} K)) \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \varinjlim_{a\rightarrow+\infty} \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}})](\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F), \roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \operatorname{L^\enh} K)) \\
&\simeq \varinjlim_{a\rightarrow+\infty} \Hom[\BEC M](F, \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K).
\end{align*}
Here $(*)$ follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:tensindlim}.
\smallskip\noindent(ii)
The other isomorphism follows from
\[
\Hom[\BEC M](\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq -a\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F, K)
\simeq
\Hom[\BEC M](F, \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K).
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:kTamtens}
For $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ and $K\in\BEC M$, there is an isomorphism in $\BEC M$
\[
\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,K)
\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto}
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us first show that, for $L\in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, the morphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ggeqcihom}
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,L)
\To
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L)
\end{equation}
is an isomorphism.
For any $a\in\mathbb{R}$, there are isomorphisms in $\BEC M$
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,L)
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq -a\}}, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,L)) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq -a\}},L)) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F, \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L).
\end{align*}
Hence we have an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\[
\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,L)
\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F, \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L).
\]
In order to see that \eqref{eq:ggeqcihom} is an isomorphism, we shall use Proposition~\ref{pro:J}.
We have
\begin{align*}
J_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}}\;\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}&(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,L)) \\
&\simeq \varinjlim_{a\rightarrow+\infty}J_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}}\;\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}\bigl(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,L)\bigr) \\
&\simeq \varinjlim_{a\rightarrow+\infty}J_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}}\;\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}\bigl(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L)\bigr) \\
&\simeq J_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}}\;\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}\bigl(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L)\bigr).
\end{align*}
By Proposition~\ref{pro:J}, it follows that \eqref{eq:ggeqcihom} is an isomorphism.
It remains to notice that for $K\in\BEC M$ we have isomorphisms in $\BEC M$
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,K)
&\simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+\bigl(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K)\bigr) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+\bigl( F, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}},\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K)\bigr) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F, \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) .
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:pifieldT}
For $K\in\BEC M$ and $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$, we have
\[
\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \rihom(\opb\pi F, K) \simeq
\rihom(\opb\pi F, \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K).
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
This easily follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:kTamtens} and the isomorphism
\[
\rihom(\opb\pi F,K) \simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\opb\pi F \tens \mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}},K),
\]
due to Lemma~\ref{lem:cihomKt0}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:kTarihom}
Let $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ and $G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$. Then there is an isomorphism in $\BEC M$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:epbpiopbpi}
\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\opb a \rihom(F,\epb\pi G) \simeq
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \tens\opb\pi G).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Recall that, by Lemma~\ref{lem:cihomKt0}, one has
\[
\opb a \rihom(F,\epb\pi G) \simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}} \tens\opb\pi G).
\]
Hence, Lemma~\ref{lem:kTamtens} implies
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\opb a \rihom(F,\epb\pi G)
&\simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}} \tens\opb\pi G) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}} \tens\opb\pi G)) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F,\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \tens\opb\pi G).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:vanish}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:Indlim}, one has
\[
\rihom(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} ,\epb\pi\omega_M)
\simeq \opb{j_M} \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg 0\}}, \omega_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}})
\simeq 0.
\]
Moreover, one has
\[
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} ,\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\tens\opb\pi \omega_M)
\simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\tens\opb\pi \omega_M.
\]
Hence \eqref{eq:epbpiopbpi} does not hold for $F=\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}$ and $G=\omega_M$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:stableops}
Let $f\colon M\to N$ be a continuous map of good topological spaces.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
For $K\in\BEC M$ one has
\[
\Eeeim f(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) \simeq \mathbf{k}_N^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eeeim f K.
\]
\item
For $L\in\BEC N$ one has
\begin{align*}
\Eopb f(\mathbf{k}_N^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L) &\simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb f L, \\
\Eepb f(\mathbf{k}_N^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L) &\simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb f L.
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\Eeeim f(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K) &\simeq \mathbf{k}_N^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eeeim f K, \\
\Eopb f(\mathbf{k}_N^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L) &\simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb f L
\end{align*}
follow from Proposition~\ref{pro:Tproj} and $\Eopb f \mathbf{k}_N^\mathsf{E} \simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}$. Let us prove
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:TepbStable}
\Eepb f(\mathbf{k}_N^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L) \simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb f L.
\end{equation}
If $L\in\BECm N$, then both sides of \eqref{eq:TepbStable} vanish. We may then assume $L\in\BECp N$, i.e.\ $L\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto}{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}},L)$.
Set $\widetilde L = \roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}\operatorname{R^\enh} L$, so that
\[
\widetilde L \simeq \roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}},\opb{j_N}\widetilde L).
\]
Let $\overline f\colon M\times\overline\mathbb{R}\to N\times\overline\mathbb{R}$ be the map induced by $f$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:tildef}, we have
\[
\epb{\overline f}\widetilde L \simeq \roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}},\opb{j_M}\epb{\overline f}\widetilde L).
\]
Then, Lemma~\ref{lem:psi} implies
\[
\mathbf{k}_{\{t=+\infty\}} \tens \widetilde L \simeq 0, \quad
\mathbf{k}_{\{t=+\infty\}} \tens \epb{\overline f}\widetilde L \simeq 0.
\]
Set
\begin{align*}
C_M &= \indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty]\mathbf{k}_{M\times\{-\infty\leq t<a\}}[1], \\
C_N &= \indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty]\mathbf{k}_{N\times\{-\infty\leq t<a\}}[1],
\end{align*}
so that
\[
C_M \simeq \roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}\operatorname{R^\enh}(\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M),
\quad
C_N \simeq \roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}\operatorname{R^\enh}(\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_N).
\]
Using Notation~\ref{not:sfS}, consider the maps
\begin{align*}
\tilde q_{1M}, \tilde q_{2M}, \tilde\mu_M &\colon M\times\mathsf S \To M\times \overline\mathbb{R}, \\
\tilde q_{1N}, \tilde q_{2N}, \tilde\mu_N &\colon N\times\mathsf S \To N\times \overline\mathbb{R}, \\
f' &\colon M\times\mathsf S\To N\times\mathsf S,
\end{align*}
where $f'$ is the map induced by $f$.
Then, by Lemma~\ref{lem:ctenstilde}, $\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb f L$ is represented by the object of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}})$
\[
\roimv{\tilde\mu_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}^2} \tens \opb{\tilde q_{1M}} C_M \tens \opb{\tilde q_{2M}} \epb{\overline f}\widetilde L).
\]
Since
\begin{align*}
& \mathbf{k}_{\opb{\tilde q_{1M}}(M\times\{+\infty\})} \tens \opb{\tilde q_{1M}} C_M \simeq 0, \\
& \mathbf{k}_{\opb{\tilde q_{2M}}(M\times\{+\infty\})} \tens \opb{\tilde q_{2M}} \epb{\overline f}\widetilde L \simeq 0, \\
&\opb{\tilde \mu_M}(M\times\mathbb{R}) \cap M \times (\mathsf S \setminus \mathbb{R}^2)
\subset \opb{\tilde q_{1M}}(\{t=+\infty\}) \cup \opb{\tilde q_{2M}}(\{t=+\infty\}),
\end{align*}
we obtain
\begin{multline*}
\mathbf{k}_{\opb{\tilde \mu_M}(M\times\mathbb{R})} \tens \mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}^2} \tens \opb{\tilde q_{1M}} C_M \tens \opb{\tilde q_{2M}} \epb{\overline f}\widetilde L \\
\simeq
\mathbf{k}_{\opb{\tilde \mu_M}(M\times\mathbb{R})} \tens \opb{\tilde q_{1M}} C_M \tens \opb{\tilde q_{2M}} \epb{\overline f}\widetilde L.
\end{multline*}
Moreover, one has
\[
\mathbf{k}_{\opb{\tilde \mu_M}(M\times\mathbb{R})} \tens \opb{\tilde q_{2M}} \epb{\overline f}\widetilde L \simeq \mathbf{k}_{\opb{\tilde \mu_M}(M\times\mathbb{R})} \tens \epb{\tilde q_{2M}} \epb{\overline f}\widetilde L[-1],
\]
since $\tilde q_{2M}$ is topologically submersive and $\epb{\tilde q_{2M}}\mathbf{k}_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}} \simeq \mathbf{k}_{\opb{\tilde\mu}(M\times\mathbb{R})\cup\opb{\tilde q_{1M}}(M\times\mathbb{R})}[1]$.
Hence we conclude that $\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb f L$ is represented by
\[
\roimv{\tilde\mu_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}(\opb{\tilde q_{1M}} C_M \tens \epb{\tilde q_{2M}} \epb{\overline f}\widetilde L[-1]).
\]
On the other hand, by the same reasoning, $\mathbf{k}_N^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L$ is represented by the object of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{N\times\overline\mathbb{R}})$
\[
\roimv{\tilde\mu_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}(\opb{\tilde q_{1N}} C_N \tens \epb{\tilde q_{2N}} \widetilde L[-1]).
\]
Hence $\Eepb f(\mathbf{k}_N^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L)$ is represented by the object of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}})$
\[
\epb{\overline f}\roimv{\tilde\mu_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}(\opb{\tilde q_{1N}} C_N \tens \epb{\tilde q_{2N}} \widetilde L[-1]) \simeq \roimv{\tilde\mu_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}\epbv{f^{\prime\mspace{2mu}!}}(\opb{\tilde q_{1N}} C_N \tens \epb{\tilde q_{2N}} \widetilde L[-1]).
\]
Finally, Proposition~\ref{pro:opbepb} implies that
\begin{align*}
\epbv{f^{\prime\mspace{2mu}!}}(\opb{\tilde q_{1N}} C_N \tens \epb{\tilde q_{2N}} \widetilde L[-1])
&\simeq \opbv{f^{\prime\mspace{2mu}-1}}\opb{\tilde q_{1N}} C_N \tens \epbv{f^{\prime\mspace{2mu}!}}\epb{\tilde q_{2N}} \widetilde L[-1] \\
&\simeq \opb{\tilde q_{1M}} C_M \tens \epb{\tilde q_{2M}}\epb{\overline f} \widetilde L[-1].
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:embed}
The functor $e(F) = \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\tens\opb\pi F$ gives a fully faithful embedding
\[
e\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M) \To \BEC M.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For $F,G\in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)$ one has
\begin{align*}
\Hom[\BEC M]&(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\tens\opb\pi F, \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\tens\opb\pi G) \\
&\simeq\Hom[\BEC M](\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}}\tens\opb\pi F), \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\tens\opb\pi G) \\
&\simeq\Hom[\BEC M](\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}}\tens\opb\pi F, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}, \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\tens\opb\pi G)) \\
&\simeq\Hom[\BEC M](\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}}\tens\opb\pi F, \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\tens\opb\pi G).
\end{align*}
Since
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{L^\enh}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}}\tens\opb\pi F) &\simeq (\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq0\}})\tens\opb\pi F, \\
\operatorname{L^\enh}(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\tens\opb\pi G) &\simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}}\tens\opb\pi G,
\end{align*}
one further has
\begin{align*}
\Hom[\BEC M]&(\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}}\tens\opb\pi F, \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\tens\opb\pi G) \\
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})]((\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq0\}} \dsum \mathbf{k}_{\{t\leq0\}})\tens\opb\pi F, \mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}}\tens\opb\pi G) \\
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})](\opb\pi F, \mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}}\tens\opb\pi G) \\
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)](F, \roim\pi (\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}}\tens\opb\pi G)) \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_M)](F, G).
\end{align*}
Here, in $(*)$, we used the fact that
\begin{align*}
\roim\pi (\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}}\tens\opb\pi G)
&\simeq \roim{\overline\pi}\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}} (\mathbf{k}_{\{t\gg0\}}\tens\opb\pi G) \\
&\simeq \roim{\overline\pi} (\indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty]\mathbf{k}_{\{a\leq t \leq+\infty\}}\tens\opb{\overline\pi} G),
\end{align*}
and $\roim{\overline\pi}\indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty]\mathbf{k}_{\{a\leq t \leq+\infty\}} \simeq \mathbf{k}_M$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Duality}
\begin{definition}
We define the duality functor
\[
\mathrm{D}^\enh_M\colon\BEC M\to {\BEC M}^\mathrm{op}, \qquad K \mapsto {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K,\omega^\mathsf{E}_M),
\]
where we recall that $\omega^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{:=} \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \tens \opb\pi\omega_M$.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
Let $f\colon M\to N$ be a continuous map of good topological spaces and $K\in\BEC M$. Then one has an isomorphism in $\BEC N$
\[
\mathrm{D}^\enh_N \Eeeim f K \simeq \Eoim f \mathrm{D}^\enh_M K.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:Tproj} and $\Eepb f \omega^\mathsf{E}_N \simeq \omega^\mathsf{E}_M$, which is a consequence of Proposition~\ref{pro:stableops}~(ii).
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:Tduala}
For $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, one has
\[
\mathrm{D}^\enh_M(\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F) \simeq \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \opb a \mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} F.
\]
Here $a$ is the involution of $M\times\mathbb{R}$ defined by $a(x,t) = (x,-t)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{D}^\enh_M(\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F)
&= {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F,\omega_M^\mathsf{E}) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M,\omega_M^\mathsf{E})) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F, \omega_M^\mathsf{E}) \\
&= {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(F, \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \tens \opb\pi\omega_M) \\
&\simeq \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \opb a \rhom (F,\epb\pi\omega_M).
\end{align*}
Here, the last isomorphism follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:kTarihom}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:Tduala}
For $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{M})$, one has
\[
\mathrm{D}^\enh_M(\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \tens \opb\pi F) \simeq \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \tens \opb\pi \mathrm{D}_M F.
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{D}^\enh_M(\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \tens \opb\pi F)
&\simeq \mathrm{D}^\enh_M(\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} (\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}} \tens \opb\pi F)) \\
&\simeq \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \opb a \mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}(\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}} \tens \opb\pi F) \\
&\simeq \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} (\mathbf{k}_{\{t=0\}} \tens \opb\pi \mathrm{D}_M F) \\
&\simeq \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \tens \opb\pi \mathrm{D}_M F.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{$\mathbb{R}$-constructible objects}
In this subsection, we assume that $M$ is a subanalytic space.
Recall the natural morphism
\[
j_M\colon M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \To M\times\overline\mathbb{R},
\]
and the category $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ from Notation~\ref{not:fieldNbN}.
\begin{definition}
We denote by $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ the full subcategory of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ whose objects $F$ are such that $\reimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!}}F$ is an $\mathbb{R}$-constructible object of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}})$.
We regard $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ as a full subcategory of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$.
\end{definition}
Note that $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ is stable by the functors $\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}$, ${\sheaffont{I} hom}^+$ and $\tens$, $\rihom$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:TRc}
We say that an object $K\in\BEC M$ is \emph{$\mathbb{R}$-constructible} if for any relatively compact subanalytic open subset $U\subset M$ there exists an isomorphism
\[
\opb\pi\mathbf{k}_U \tens K \simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F \quad\text{for some } F\in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}).
\]
Denote by $\BECRc M$ the full subcategory of $\BEC M$ whose objects are $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
\end{definition}
Note in particular that $\mathbb{R}$-constructible objects of $\BEC M$ are stable objects.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:Rcthick}
Let $K'\To[\varphi] K\To K''\To[+1]$ be a distinguished triangle in $\BEC M$.
If $K'$ and $K$ are $\mathbb{R}$-constructible, so is $K''$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that $K' = \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F'$ and $K = \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F$ for $F,F'\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$. By replacing $F'$ with $\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F'$, we may also assume that $F' \simeq \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F'$. We may assume further that $\overline\pi(\supp(\reimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!}}F'))$ is compact.
Then, by Proposition~\ref{pro:pro:HomStab},
\[
\Hom[\BEC M](K',K)
\simeq \ilim[a\rightarrow+\infty] \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})](F', \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F) .
\]
Hence there exist $a\in\mathbb{R}$ and a morphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\[
\varphi'\colon F' \to \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F
\]
such that $\varphi\colon K'\to K$ is equal to
\[
K' = \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F'
\To[\varphi'] \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} (\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F)
\simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F = K.
\]
Completing $\varphi'$ in a distinguished triangle $F'\To[\varphi'] \mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq a\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F\To F''\To[+1]$, we have
$F''\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ and $K'' \simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F''$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The category $\BECRc M$ is a triangulated category.
\end{corollary}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:H^nRc}
Let $K\in\BEC M$. Then $K$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible if and only if $H^n K$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible for any $n\in\mathbb{Z}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, we have
\[
H^n(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F) \simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} H^n(\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F)
\]
by Proposition~\ref{pro:gggeqK}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:summand}
Let $K_1,K_2\in\BEC M$. If $K_1\dsum K_2$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible, then $K_1$ and $K_2$ are $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $f\colon K_1\dsum K_2\to K_1\dsum K_2$ be the morphism
given by $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0&0\\0&\id_{K_2}\end{smallmatrix}\right)$.
Then we have a distinguished triangle
$$K_1\dsum K_2\To[f] K_1\dsum K_2\to K_1\dsum K_1[1]\tone.$$
Hence, Proposition~\ref{pro:Rcthick} implies that
$K_1\dsum K_1[1]$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
It is therefore enough to show that
\eq
&&\hspace*{5ex}\text{$K\in\BEC M$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible
if $K\dsum K[1]$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.}
\label{cond:rcons}
\eneq
We may assume $H^n(K)=0$ unless $a\le n\le b$.
Let us show \eqref{cond:rcons} by induction on $b-a$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:H^nRc}, $H^a(K)\simeq H^{a-1}(K\dsum K[1])$
is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
Hence $H^a(K)[-a]\dsum H^a(K)[-a+1]$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
There is a distinguished triangle
$$H^a(K)[-a]\dsum H^a(K)[-a+1]\To K\dsum K[1]
\To \tau^{>a}K\dsum (\tau^{>a}K)[1]\tone,$$
where $\tau^{>a}$ is the truncation functor with respect to the t-structure of
$\BEC M$.
Hence, $\tau^{>a}K\dsum (\tau^{>a}K)[1]$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible
by Proposition~\ref{pro:Rcthick}.
By the induction hypothesis, $\tau^{>a}K$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
Then, by the distinguished triangle
$$H^a(K)[-a]\To K \To \tau^{>a}K\tone,$$
we conclude that $K$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Rcfilt}
Let $K\in\BEC M$. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
$K\in\BECRc M$,
\item
there exist a locally finite family $\{Z_i\}_{i\in I}$ of locally closed subanalytic subsets of $M$ and $F_i\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ such that
$M = \bigcup\limits\nolimits_{i\in I} Z_i$ and
\[
\opb\pi\mathbf{k}_{Z_i} \tens K \simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F_i \quad\text{for all }i\in I,
\]
\item
there exist a filtration $\emptyset = M_{-1}\subset M_0\subset\cdots\subset M_r = M$ and objects $F_k\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ for $0\leq k\leq r$ such that $M_k$ is a closed subanalytic subset of $M$ and
\[
\opb\pi\mathbf{k}_{M_k\setminus M_{k-1}} \tens K \simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F_k.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(i)$\implies$(ii) is obvious.
\smallskip\noindent(ii)$\implies$(iii)
There exists a filtration $\{M_k\}$ such that each connected component of $M_k\setminus M_{k-1}$ is contained in some $Z_i$.
\smallskip\noindent(iii)$\implies$(i)
follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:Rcthick}.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
$\mathbb{R}$-constructibility of $K\in\BEC M$ is a local property on $M$.
\end{corollary}
The following lemma is not used in this paper, but it might help the reader to understand the category $\BECRc M$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:Tstrat}
The complex $K\in\BEC M$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible if and only if there exist
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
a locally finite family $\{Z_i\}_{i\in I}$ of locally closed subanalytic subsets of $M$,
\item
finite sets $A_i$, for $i\in I$,
\item
continuous subanalytic functions $\varphi_{i,a}\colon Z_i \to \mathbb{R}$ and $\psi_{i,a}\colon Z_i \to \mathbb{R}\cup{\{+\infty\}}$ for $i\in I$ and $a\in A_i$, such that $\varphi_{i,a}(x)<\psi_{i,a}(x)$ for all $x\in Z_i$
{\rm(}here a function is called subanalytic if its graph is subanalytic in $M\times\overline\mathbb{R}${\rm)},
\item
integers $m_{i,a}\in\mathbb{Z}$ for $i\in I$ and $a\in A_i$,
\end{enumerate}
such that $M=\bigsqcup\limits_{i\in I}Z_i$ and there are
isomorphisms for any $i\in I$
\[
\opb\pi\mathbf{k}_{Z_i} \tens K \simeq \bigoplus_{a\in A_i} \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{W_{i,a}} [m_{i,a}] ,
\]
where we set
\[
W_{i,a} = \{(x,t)\in Z_i\times\mathbb{R}\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \varphi_{i,a}(x) \leq t < \psi_{i,a}(x) \}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We may assume $K = \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F$ for $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ such that $F\simeq\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F$.
Since $F$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible,
there exist a partition $M=\bigsqcup\limits_{i\in I} Z_i$, integers $r_i\in\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ ($i\in I$), and continuous subanalytic functions $\xi_{i,a}\colon Z_i \to \ol \mathbb{R}$ ($i\in I$, $0\leq a \leq r_i$), such that $-\infty = \xi_{i,0}(x) <\cdots <\xi_{i,r_i}(x)=+\infty$ for any $x\in Z_i$, and such that $F|_{Z_i\times\mathbb{R}}$ is locally constant on $\{(x,t)\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax x\in Z_i,\ t=\xi_{i,a}(x)\}$ (for $0 < a < r_i$) and on
$Z_i\times\mathbb{R}\setminus\bigcup\limits_{a=1}^{r_i-1}\{t=\xi_{i,a}(x)\}$.
We may further assume that $Z_i$ is contractible. Then $\opb\pi\mathbf{k}_{Z_i} \tens F$ is a finite direct sum of shifts of sheaves of the form
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
$\mathbf{k}_{\{\xi_{i,a}(x)<t<\xi_{i,b}(x)\}}$ for $0\leq a<b\leq r_i$,
\item
$\mathbf{k}_{\{\xi_{i,a}(x)\leq t<\xi_{i,b}(x)\}}$ for $0 < a<b\leq r_i$,
\item
$\mathbf{k}_{\{\xi_{i,a}(x)<t\leq \xi_{i,b}(x)\}}$ for $0\leq a<b< r_i$,
\item
$\mathbf{k}_{\{\xi_{i,a}(x)\leq t\leq \xi_{i,b}(x)\}}$ for $0< a\leq b < r_i$.
\end{enumerate}
Since we assumed $F\simeq\mathbf{k}_{\{t\geq 0\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F$, any direct summand of $\opb\pi\mathbf{k}_{Z_i} \tens F$ satisfies the same condition. Hence only the case (ii) survives.
\end{proof}
\begin{notation}
For $K\in\BEC M$, we set
\[
\supp^\mathsf{E}(K) = \overline\pi(\supp(\reeimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}!!}}\operatorname{L^\enh} K)) \subset M.
\]
\end{notation}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:RcTfunctorial}
Let $f\colon M\to N$ be a continuous subanalytic morphism of subanalytic spaces.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
The functors $\Eopb f$ and $\Eepb f$ send $\BECRc N$ to $\BECRc M$.
\item
Let $K\in\BECRc M$ be such that $\supp^\mathsf{E}(K)$ is proper over $N$. Then $\Eeeim f K \simeq \Eoim f K \in \BECRc N$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i)
Note that $\Eopb f$ and $\Eepb f$ send $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ to $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$.
Then the statement follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:stableops}.
\smallskip\noindent(ii)
We may assume that $K=\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F$ for $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ such that $\overline{\pi\supp(F)}$ is compact.
Then $\Eeeim f F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, and the statement follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:stableops}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
If $K\in\BECRc M$, then $\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K\in\BECRc M$ and the natural morphism
\[
K \To \mathrm{D}^\enh_M \mathrm{D}^\enh_M K
\]
is an isomorphism.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The natural morphism is constructed using Lemma~\ref{lem:Thommorph}.
We may assume $K = \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F$ for $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$.
Then
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K
&\simeq \mathrm{D}^\enh_M(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F) \\
&\simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \opb a \mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} F
\end{align*}
by Proposition~\ref{pro:Tduala}.
Since $\mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} F$ belongs to $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$,
it follows that $\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
Moreover, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{D}^\enh_M\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K
&\simeq \mathrm{D}^\enh_M(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \opb a\mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} F) \\
&\simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} \mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} F \\
&\simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F \simeq K.
\end{align*}
Hence $K\to\mathrm{D}^\enh_M\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K$ is an isomorphism.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:homdual}
Let $K,K'\in\BECRc M$. Then both $K\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K'$ and ${\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K,K')$ are $\mathbb{R}$-constructible, and one has isomorphisms
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
$\mathrm{D}^\enh_M(K\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K') \simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+( K,\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K')$,
\item $\mathrm{D}^\enh_M{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K,K') \simeq K \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathrm{D}^\enh_M K'$,
\item ${\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K,K')\simeq{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathrm{D}^\enh_MK',\mathrm{D}^\enh_MK)$,
\vs{.5ex}
\item $\mathcal{H}om^\enh(K,K')\simeq\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathrm{D}^\enh_MK',\mathrm{D}^\enh_MK)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let us first show that $K\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K'$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible if both $K$ and $K'$ are so. It is not restrictive to assume $K \simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F$ and $K' \simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F'$ for $F,F'\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$.
Then $K\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K' \simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} (F\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F')$, and hence $K\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K'$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
The first isomorphism in the statement is immediate.
Hence ${\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K,K') \simeq \mathrm{D}^\enh_M(K\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathrm{D}^\enh_M K')$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
The second isomorphism follows from this isomorphism by applying the functor $\mathrm{D}^\enh_M$.
The third isomorphism follows from (i).
The fourth isomorphism follows from
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(K,K')&\simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh\bigl(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E},{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K,K')\bigr)\\
&\simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh\bigl(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E},{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathrm{D}^\enh_MK',\mathrm{D}^\enh_MK)\bigr)\\
&\simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathrm{D}^\enh_MK',\mathrm{D}^\enh_MK).
\end{align*}
\QED
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:eopbTdual}
Let $f\colon M\to N$ be a continuous subanalytic morphism. For $L\in\BECRc N$ there are isomorphisms
\[
\Eepb f (\mathrm{D}^\enh_N L) \simeq \mathrm{D}^\enh_M (\Eopb f L), \quad
\Eopb f (\mathrm{D}^\enh_N L) \simeq \mathrm{D}^\enh_M(\Eepb f L).
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i) There are isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\Eepb f (\mathrm{D}^\enh_N L)
&= \Eepb f {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(L,\omega^\mathsf{E}_N) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb f L, \Eepb f \omega^\mathsf{E}_N) \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb f L, \omega^\mathsf{E}_M) \\
&= \mathrm{D}^\enh_M(\Eopb f L).
\end{align*}
Here $(*)$ follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:stableops}~(ii).
\smallskip\noindent(ii) By (i), there are isomorphisms
\[
\mathrm{D}^\enh_M (\Eopb f \mathrm{D}^\enh_N L) \simeq \Eepb f\mathrm{D}^\enh_N \mathrm{D}^\enh_N L \simeq \Eepb f L.
\]
Further applying $\mathrm{D}^\enh_M$, we get $\Eopb f (\mathrm{D}^\enh_N L) \simeq \mathrm{D}^\enh_M(\Eepb f L)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:DKeL}
Let $M$ be a subanalytic space, $N$ a good topological space, and $K\in\BECRc M$, $L\in\BEC N$.
Then one has an isomorphism in $\BEC{M\times N}$
\[
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1K,\mathbf{k}_{M\times N}^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb p_2L) \simeq
\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} L,
\]
where $p_1$ and $p_2$ denote the projections from $M\times N$ to $M$ and $N$, respectively.
\end{proposition}
In order to prove the above proposition, we need some preliminary results.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:mu!mu*}
Let $M$ be a subanalytic space, $N$ a good topological space, and consider
the morphism
\[
\mu\colon M\times N\times\mathbb{R}^2_\infty \to M\times N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty
\]
induced by $(t_1,t_2) \mapsto t_1+t_2$.
Then, for any $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ and $G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, there exists a distinguished triangle in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{M\times N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\[
\reeim\mu(F\etens G) \to
\roim\mu(F\etens G) \to
\opb{\pi_{M\times N}}(L_+ \dsum L_-) \to[+1],
\]
where
\begin{align*}
L_\pm &= \psi_{M,\pm\infty}(F) \etens \psi_{N,\mp\infty}(G)
\end{align*}
{\rm(}see {\rm Notation~\ref{not:psi})}.
Here, we identify $M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty\times N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty$ with $M\times N\times\mathbb{R}^2_\infty$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Set $X=M\times N$.
With Notation~\ref{not:sfS}, consider the diagram
\[
X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty\To[j_X]X\times\overline\mathbb{R} \from[\;\;\tilde\mu\;\;] X\times\mathsf S \To[\tilde p] X\times\overline\mathbb{R}^2,
\]
where $\tilde p$ is induced by $(\tilde q_1,\tilde q_2)$. Set
\[
\widetilde F = \roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}F \in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\overline\mathbb{R}}),
\quad
\widetilde G = \roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}G \in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{N\times\overline\mathbb{R}}).
\]
Then we have
\begin{align*}
\reeim\mu(F\etens G) &\simeq
\opb{j_X}\roim{\tilde\mu}(\mathbf{k}_{X\times\mathbb{R}^2}\tens\opb{\tilde p}(\widetilde F \etens \widetilde G)), \\
\roim\mu(F\etens G) &\simeq
\opb{j_X}\roim{\tilde\mu}(\rihom(\mathbf{k}_{X\times\mathbb{R}^2}, \opb{\tilde p}(\widetilde F \etens \widetilde G))).
\end{align*}
In Sublemma~\ref{subl:mumu} below, we will prove the isomorphism
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:mumutempA}
\opb{\tilde\mu}\mathbf{k}_{X\times\mathbb{R}} \tens \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{X\times\mathbb{R}^2}, \opb{\tilde p}(\widetilde F \etens \widetilde G)) \\
\simeq \opb{\tilde\mu}\mathbf{k}_{X\times\mathbb{R}} \tens \opb{\tilde p}(\widetilde F \etens \widetilde G).
\end{multline}
Admitting \eqref{eq:mumutempA},
we have
$$\roim\mu(F\etens G) \simeq
\opb{j_X}\roim{\tilde\mu}\opb{\tilde p}(\widetilde F \etens \widetilde G).$$
Hence, we obtain a distinguished triangle
\[
\reeim\mu(F\etens G) \to
\roim\mu(F\etens G) \to
\opb{j_X}\roim{\tilde\mu}(\mathbf{k}_{X\times(\mathsf S\setminus\mathbb{R}^2)}\tens\opb{\tilde p}(\widetilde F \etens \widetilde G)) \to[+1].
\]
We have
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:mumutempB}
\opb{\tilde\mu}(X\times\mathbb{R}) \cap (X\times(\mathsf S\setminus\mathbb{R}^2)) \\
= \opb{\tilde\mu}(X\times\mathbb{R}) \cap \opb{\tilde p}(X\times\{(+\infty,-\infty), (-\infty,+\infty)\}).
\end{multline}
Moreover, we have
\[
\mathbf{k}_{X\times\{(+\infty,-\infty), (-\infty,+\infty)\}} \tens (\widetilde F \etens \widetilde G) \simeq \roimv{i_{+\mspace{2mu}*}}L_+ \dsum \roimv{i_{-\mspace{2mu}*}}L_-,
\]
where $i_\pm\colon X\to X\times\overline\mathbb{R}^2$ is the inclusion $x \mapsto (x,\pm\infty,\mp\infty)$.
Hence we obtain
\begin{multline}
\label{eq:mumutempC}
\mathbf{k}_{X\times\mathbb{R}} \tens \roim{\tilde\mu}(\mathbf{k}_{X\times(\mathsf S\setminus\mathbb{R}^2)}\tens\opb{\tilde p}(\widetilde F \etens \widetilde G)) \\
\simeq \roim{\tilde\mu}(\mathbf{k}_{\opb{\tilde\mu}(X\times\mathbb{R})}\tens\opb{\tilde p}(\roimv{i_{+\mspace{2mu}*}}L_+ \dsum \roimv{i_{-\mspace{2mu}*}}L_-)).
\end{multline}
By the commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
\opb{\tilde\mu}(X\times\mathbb{R}) \cap \opb{\tilde p}(X\times\{(\pm\infty,\mp\infty)\})
\ar[r]^-{\tilde p} \ar[d]^-{\tilde\mu}_-\bwr & X\times\{(\pm\infty,\mp\infty)\} \\
X\times\mathbb{R} \ar[r]^{\pi_X} & X \ar[u]_-\bwr^-{i_\pm},
}
\]
the right hand side of \eqref{eq:mumutempC} is isomorphic to $\opb{\pi_{M\times N}}(L_+ \dsum L_-)$. Hence we obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
\begin{sublemma}
\label{subl:mumu}
With the same notations as in the proof of {\rm\/ Proposition~\ref{pro:mu!mu*}}, we have
\[
\opb{\tilde\mu}\mathbf{k}_{X\times\mathbb{R}} \tens \rihom(\mathbf{k}_{X\times(\mathsf S\setminus\mathbb{R}^2)}, \opb{\tilde p}(\widetilde F \etens \widetilde G)) \simeq 0,
\]
where $\widetilde F = \roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}F$ and $\widetilde G = \roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}}G$.
\end{sublemma}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{pro:J}, we may assume $G\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ without loss of generality. Set
\[
\Psi_{M,N}(F,G) = \rhom(\mathbf{k}_{X\times(\mathsf S\setminus\mathbb{R}^2)}, \opb{\tilde p}(\widetilde F \etens \widetilde G)) \in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{X\times\mathsf S}).
\]
By \eqref{eq:mumutempB}, it is enough to show
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sublmumu}
\mathbf{k}_{\opb{\tilde\mu}(X\times\mathbb{R}) \cap \opb{\tilde p}(X\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{R})^2)} \tens \Psi_{M,N}(F,G) \simeq 0.
\end{equation}
\smallskip\noindent(i)
We shall first show \eqref{eq:sublmumu} when $M={\{\mathrm{pt}\}}$, so that
$F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\cor_{\mathbb{R}_\infty})$. Note that $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\cor_{\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ is the smallest triangulated category which is stable by taking direct summands and contains $\mathbf{k}_\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbf{k}_{[a,b]}$ for $-\infty<a\leq b<+\infty$. Hence we may assume $F=\mathbf{k}_\mathbb{R}$ or $F=\mathbf{k}_{[a,b]}$.
\smallskip\noindent(i-1)
If $F=\mathbf{k}_{[a,b]}$, then
\[
\supp(\widetilde F \etens \widetilde G) \cap (X\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{R})^2) =\emptyset,
\]
so that \eqref{eq:sublmumu} is obvious.
\smallskip\noindent(i-2)
If $F=\mathbf{k}_\mathbb{R}$, then
\[
\Psi_{M,N}(F,G) = \rhom(\mathbf{k}_{X\times(\mathsf S\setminus\mathbb{R}^2)}, \opb{\tilde p}\opb{\overline p_2} \widetilde G),
\]
where $\ol p_2\cl X\times\ol\mathbb{R}^2\to N\times \ol\mathbb{R}$ is the projection.
Since
\[
\opb{\tilde\mu}(X\times\mathbb{R}) \cap (X\times(\mathsf S\setminus\mathbb{R}^2)) =
\opb{\tilde\mu}(X\times\mathbb{R}) \cap \opb{\tilde p}\opb{\overline p_2}(N\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{R})),
\]
we have
\begin{align*}
&\mathbf{k}_{\opb{\tilde\mu}(X\times\mathbb{R}) \cap \opb{\tilde p}(X\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{R})^2)} \tens \Psi_{M,N}(F,G) \\
&\quad\simeq \mathbf{k}_{\opb{\tilde\mu}(X\times\mathbb{R}) \cap \opb{\tilde p}(X\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{R})^2)} \tens \rhom(\mathbf{k}_{\opb{\tilde p}\opb{\overline p_2}(N\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{R}))}, \opb{\tilde p}\opb{\overline p_2} \widetilde G) \\
&\quad\underset{(*)}\simeq \mathbf{k}_{\opb{\tilde\mu}(X\times\mathbb{R}) \cap \opb{\tilde p}(X\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{R})^2)} \tens \opb{\tilde p}\opb{\overline p_2} \rhom(\mathbf{k}_{N\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{R})}, \roimv{j_{N\mspace{2mu}*}} G) \\
&\quad\simeq 0,
\end{align*}
where (*) is due to Proposition~\ref{pro:topsub}, since $\overline p_2\, \tilde p$ is topologically submersive.
\smallskip\noindent(ii)
Let us now prove \eqref{eq:sublmumu} in the general case.
We shall show that
\[
\Psi_{M,N}(F,G)_{(x_0,y_0,z_0)} \simeq 0
\]
for any $(x_0,y_0,z_0)\in M\times N\times\mathsf S$ such that
\[
(x_0,y_0,z_0) \in \opb{\tilde\mu}(X\times\mathbb{R}) \cap \opb p(X\times(\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathbb{R})^2).
\]
For any $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, one has
\[
H^k\Psi_{M,N}(F,G)_{(x_0,y_0,z_0)} \simeq
\ilim[U,V] H^k(\overline U \times V; \Psi_{M,N}(F,G)),
\]
where $U\subset M$ ranges over the family of relatively compact subanalytic open neighborhoods of $x_0\in M$, and $V$ ranges over the family of open neighborhoods of $(y_0,z_0)\in N\times\mathsf S$.
Let $r\colon M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty\to\mathbb{R}_\infty$ be the projection, and set
\[
\Phi_{U}(F) \mathbin{:=} \roim r(F\tens\mathbf{k}_{\overline U\times\mathbb{R}}) \in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{\mathbb{R}_\infty}).
\]
Then
\eqn
H^k(\overline U \times V; \Psi_{M,N}(F,G))
&\simeq& H^k\bigl(\ol U\times (V\cap (N\times \mathbb{R}^2)); F\etens G\bigr)\\
&\simeq& H^k\bigl( V\cap (N\times \mathbb{R}^2); \Phi_{U}(F)\etens G\bigr)\\
&\simeq&H^k(V; \Psi_{{\{\mathrm{pt}\}},N}(\Phi_{U}(F),G)).
\eneqn
Hence, taking the limit on $U$ and $V$, we obtain
\[
H^k\Psi_{M,N}(F,G)_{(x_0,y_0,z_0)} \simeq \ilim[U] H^k\Psi_{{\{\mathrm{pt}\}},N}(\Phi_{U}(F),G)_{(y_0,z_0)},
\]
which vanishes by (i).
\end{proof}
As a consequence of Proposition~\ref{pro:mu!mu*} we get
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:mu!mu*}
Let $M$ be a subanalytic space and $N$ a good topological space.
For $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\ind\field_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ and
$L\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$,
the morphism
\[
\reeim\mu(F\etens L) \To
\roim\mu( F\etens L)
\]
is an isomorphism in $\BEC{M\times N}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
The above result is not true in general if we drop the assumption that $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$. For example, if $M=N={\{\mathrm{pt}\}}$ and
$F=L= K=\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathbf{k}_{\{n\}} \in \mathrm{Mod}(\mathbf{k}_{\mathbb{R}_\infty})$, one has
\begin{align*}
\reeim\mu( F\etens L) &\simeq \mathbf{k}^{\oplus\mathbb{Z}} \tens K, \\
\roim\mu(F\etens L) &\simeq \mathbf{k}^{\mathbb{Z}} \tens K.
\end{align*}
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:cihomaD}
Let $M$ be a subanalytic space, $N$ a good topological space.
Let $p_1\colon M\times N\to M$ and $p_2\colon M\times N\to N$ be the natural projections.
Then, for $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$ and $L\in\BEC N$ there is an isomorphism in $\BEC{M\times N}$
\[
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1F,\Eepb p_2L) \simeq
\opb a \mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}F \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} L.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Set $G=\operatorname{R^\enh} L\in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$. Consider the morphisms
\begin{align*}
r_1&\colon M\times N\times\mathbb{R}^2_\infty \to M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty, \\
r_2&\colon M\times N\times\mathbb{R}^2_\infty \to N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty, \\
\mu&\colon M\times N\times\mathbb{R}^2_\infty \to M\times N\times\mathbb{R}_\infty
\end{align*}
induced by $(t_1,t_2)\mapsto t_1$, $(t_1,t_2)\mapsto t_2$ and $(t_1,t_2)\mapsto t_1+t_2$, respectively. Then
\begin{align*}
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1F,\Eepb p_2 L)
&\simeq \roim{\mu}\rihom(\opb{r_1}\opb a F, \epb{r_2}G), \\
\opb a \mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}}F \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} L
&\simeq \reeim{\mu}(\opb{r_1}\opb a\mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} F \tens \opb{r_2} G).
\end{align*}
By Proposition~\ref{pro:const},
\[
\rihom(\opb{r_1}\opb a F, \epb{r_2} G) \simeq
\opb{r_1}\opb a\mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} F \tens \opb{r_2} G,
\]
and Corollary~\ref{cor:mu!mu*} implies that
\[
\reeim{\mu}(\opb{r_1}\opb a\mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} F \tens \opb{r_2}G) \to
\roim{\mu}(\opb{r_1}\opb a\mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} F \tens \opb{r_2} G)
\]
is an isomorphism in $\BEC{M\times N}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{pro:DKeL}]
Let $p_1\colon M\times N\to M$ and $p_2\colon M\times N\to N$ be the natural projections. We have
\[
\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} L = \Eopb p_1\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_2L.
\]
Hence we have a sequence of morphisms
\begin{align*}
\Eopb p_1K \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} (\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} L)
&\simeq \Eopb p_1K \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_1\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_2L \\
&\to \Eopb p_1\omega^\mathsf{E}_M \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_2L \\
&= \Eopb p_1(\mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_M \tens \opb{\pi_M}\omega_M) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_2L \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_{M\times N} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} (\opb{\pi_{M\times N}}\opb{p_1}\omega_M \tens \Eopb p_2L) \\
&\simeq \mathbf{k}^\mathsf{E}_{M\times N} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb p_2L,
\end{align*}
where $(*)$ follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:cihomrihompi}.
Hence we obtain a morphism
\[
\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} L \to {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1K,\mathbf{k}_{M\times N}^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb p_2L).
\]
We shall show that it is an isomorphism for $K\in\BECRc M$.
We may assume $K\simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F$ for $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\mathbf{k}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$. Then
\begin{align*}
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1K,&\mathbf{k}_{M\times N}^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb p_2L) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_1 F,\mathbf{k}_{M\times N}^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb p_2L) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1 F, {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\mathbf{k}_{M\times N}^\mathsf{E},\mathbf{k}_{M\times N}^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb p_2L)) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1 F, \mathbf{k}_{M\times N}^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb p_2L) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1 F, \Eepb p_2(\mathbf{k}_N^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L)).
\end{align*}
Here, the last isomorphism follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:stableops}~(ii).
By Proposition~\ref{pro:cihomaD}, one has
\begin{align*}
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1 F, \Eepb p_2(\mathbf{k}_N^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L))
&\simeq \Eopb p_1\opb a \mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} F \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_2(\mathbf{k}_N^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} L) \\
&\simeq \Eopb p_1\opb a \mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} F \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbf{k}_{M\times N}^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_2L \\
&\simeq \Eopb p_1(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \opb a \mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} F) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_2L.
\end{align*}
By Proposition~\ref{pro:Tduala}, one finally has
\begin{align*}
\Eopb p_1(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \opb a \mathrm{D}_{M\times\mathbb{R}} F) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_2L
&\simeq \Eopb p_1\mathrm{D}^\enh_M(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} F) \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_2L \\
&\simeq \Eopb p_1\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_2L.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:exteriodual}
\label{pro:Detens}
Let $M$ and $N$ be subanalytic spaces. For $K\in\BECRc M$ and $L\in\BECRc N$ we have
\[
\mathrm{D}^\enh_{M\times N}(K\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} L) \simeq \mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \mathrm{D}^\enh_N L.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $p_1$ and $p_2$ be the projections from $M\times N$ to $M$ and $N$, respectively. Then we have
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{D}^\enh_{M\times N}(K\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} L)
&= {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1 K \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eopb p_2 L, \omega^\mathsf{E}_{M\times N}) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1 K , {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+ (\Eopb p_2 L, \omega^\mathsf{E}_{M\times N})) \\
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1 K , \mathrm{D}^\enh_{M\times N} (\Eopb p_2 L)) .
\end{align*}
Since $\mathrm{D}^\enh_{M\times N} (\Eopb p_2 L) \simeq \Eepb p_2\mathrm{D}^\enh_N L$
by Proposition~\ref{pro:eopbTdual}, one has
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{D}^\enh_{M\times N}(K\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} L)
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1 K , \Eepb p_2\mathrm{D}^\enh_N L) \\
&\simeq \mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \mathrm{D}^\enh_N L
\end{align*}
by Proposition~\ref{pro:DKeL}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:inversedual}
For $k=1,2$ let $f_k\colon M_k\to N_k$
be a morphism of subanalytic spaces and $L_k\in\BECRc{N_k}$.
Set $f=f_1\times f_2\colon M_1\times M_2\to N_1\times N_2$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
\Eopb f(L_1\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} L_2) &\simeq \Eopb f_1 L_1 \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \Eopb f_2 L_2, \\
\Eepb f(L_1\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} L_2) &\simeq \Eepb f_1 L_1 \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \Eepb f_2 L_2.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first isomorphism is immediate from Proposition~\ref{pro:Tproj}.
Let us show the second isomorphism. By the first isomorphism, we have
\begin{align*}
\Eopb f(\mathrm{D}^\enh_{N_1} L_1\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \mathrm{D}^\enh_{N_2} L_2)
&\simeq \Eopb f_1 \mathrm{D}^\enh_{N_1} L_1 \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \Eopb f_2 \mathrm{D}^\enh_{N_2} L_2 \\
&\simeq \mathrm{D}^\enh_{M_1} \Eepb f_1 L_1 \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \mathrm{D}^\enh_{M_2} \Eepb f_2 L_2,
\end{align*}
where the last isomorphism follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:eopbTdual}.
Applying $\mathrm{D}^\enh_{M_1\times M_2}$, and using Proposition~\ref{pro:Detens}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{D}^\enh_{M_1\times M_2} (\Eopb f(\mathrm{D}^\enh_{N_1} L_1\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \mathrm{D}^\enh_{N_2} L_2) )
&\simeq \Eepb f \mathrm{D}^\enh_{N_1\times N_2}(\mathrm{D}^\enh_{N_1} L_1\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \mathrm{D}^\enh_{N_2} L_2) \\
&\simeq \Eepb f(L_1\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} L_2)
\end{align*}
and
\[
\mathrm{D}^\enh_{M_1\times M_2} (\mathrm{D}^\enh_{M_1} \Eepb f_1 L_1 \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \mathrm{D}^\enh_{M_2} \Eepb f_2 L_2) \simeq \Eepb f_1 L_1 \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \Eepb f_2 L_2.
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{homText}
For $K\in\BECRc M$ and $K'\in\BEC M$, one has
\begin{align*}
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K,\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K') &\simeq \Eepb\delta(\mathrm{D}^\enh K \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K'), \\
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(K,\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K')
&\simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E},\Eepb\delta(\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K')) \\
&\simeq \opb\delta\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathbf{k}_\Delta^\mathsf{E},\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K'),
\end{align*}
where $\delta\colon\Delta\to M\times M$ denotes the diagonal embedding.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i)
Let $p_1,p_2\colon M\times M\to M$ be the projections.
By Proposition~\ref{pro:stableops}~(ii), one has
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K'
&\simeq \mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb\delta \Eepb p_2 K' \\
&\simeq \Eepb\delta(\mathbf{k}_{M\times M}^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb p_2 K').
\end{align*}
Then one has
\begin{align*}
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(K,\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} K')
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb\delta \Eopb p_1 K,\Eepb\delta(\mathbf{k}_{M\times M}^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \Eepb p_2 K')) \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \Eepb\delta{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\Eopb p_1 K,\mathbf{k}_{M\times M}^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\Eepb p_2 K') \\
&\underset{(**)}\simeq \Eepb\delta(\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K'),
\end{align*}
where $(*)$ follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:Tproj} and $(**)$ from Proposition~\ref{pro:DKeL}.
\smallskip\noindent(ii)
The second isomorphism follows from (i) and Lemma~\ref{lem:homT}.
\smallskip\noindent(iii)
The third isomorphism follows by applying $\opb\delta$ to
\[
\roim\delta\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E},\Eepb\delta(\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K'))
\simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\Eeeim\delta\mathbf{k}_M^\mathsf{E},\mathrm{D}^\enh_M K \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K').
\]
\end{proof}
\subsection{Ring action}
Let $S$ be a good topological space, and $\sheaffont{A}$ a sheaf of $\mathbf{k}$-algebras on $S$.
Recall from \cite{KS01} that the category of $\sheaffont{A}$-modules in the category of ind-sheaves is defined by\footnote{The category $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\sheaffont{A})$ is denoted by $\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\beta\sheaffont{A})$ in \cite{KS01}.}
\begin{align*}
\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\sheaffont{A})& = \left\{(F,\varphi)\;\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax\;
\parbox{47ex}{$F\in\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_S)$,\\
$\varphi\colon\sheaffont{A}\to\shEnd(F)$
is a $\mathbf{k}$-algebras homomorphism}\right\}.
\end{align*}
Here, $\shEnd(F)$ is the sheaf of $\mathbf{k}$-algebras given by $U\mapsto\Endo[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\mathbf{k}_U)](F|_U)$.
\begin{definition}
Let $f\colon (M,\check M) \to S$ be a morphism of bordered spaces, and $\sheaffont{A}$ a sheaf of $\mathbf{k}$-algebras on $S$.
Recall that $f$ is decomposed as $(M,\check M) \isofrom (\Gamma_f,\overline\Gamma_f) \to S$.
We set
\[
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{A}_{(M,\check M)}) = \derd^{\mathrm{b}}\bigl(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\opb{p_2}\sheaffont{A})\bigr)
/\derd^{\mathrm{b}}\bigl(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}((\opb{p_2}\sheaffont{A})_{\overline\Gamma_f\setminus\Gamma_f})\bigr),
\]
where $p_2\colon\overline\Gamma_f\to S$ is the projection.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
If $f$ is induced by a map $\check f\colon \check M \to S$, then one has an equivalence
\[
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{A}_{(M,\check M)}) \simeq \derd^{\mathrm{b}}\bigl(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\opb{\check f}\sheaffont{A}\bigr)/
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}\bigl(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}((\opb{\check f}\sheaffont{A})_{\check M\setminus M})\bigr).
\]
\end{remark}
Let us set
\[
\sheaffont{A}_{(M,\check M)} = \opb{p_2}\sheaffont{A},
\]
where $p_2\colon\overline\Gamma_f\to S$.
It is a sheaf of $\mathbf{k}$-algebras on $\overline\Gamma_f$.
One can define the functors\footnote{For $M=\check M=S$, the functors $\ltens[\sheaffont{A}]$ and $\rhom[\sheaffont{A}]$ are denoted by $\beta(\ast)\ltens[\beta\sheaffont{A}]\ast$ and $\rihom[\beta\sheaffont{A}](\beta(\ast),\ast)$, respectively, in \cite{KS01}.}
\begin{align*}
\rihom &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\ind\field_{(M,\check M)})^\mathrm{op} \times \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{A}_{(M,\check M)}) \To \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{A}_{(M,\check M)}), \\
\ltens[\sheaffont{A}] &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{A}_{(M,\check M)}^\mathrm{op}) \times \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{A}_{(M,\check M)}) \To \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\mathbf{k}_{(M,\check M)}), \\
\rhom[\sheaffont{A}] &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{A}_{(M,\check M)})^\mathrm{op} \times \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{A}_{(M,\check M)}) \To \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\mathbf{k}_{(M,\check M)}).
\end{align*}
\begin{lemma}
Let $F\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_{(M,\check M)}) \simeq \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathbf{k}_M)$, $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{A}_{(M,\check M)})$, $\sheaffont{N}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{A}_{(M,\check M)}^\mathrm{op})$ and $\sheaffont{K}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{A}_{(M,\check M)})$. Then there are isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\rihom(F,\sheaffont{N}\ltens[\sheaffont{A}]\sheaffont{K}) &\simeq \sheaffont{N}\ltens[\sheaffont{A}]\rihom(F,\sheaffont{K}), \\
\rihom(F,\rhom[\sheaffont{A}](\sheaffont{M},\sheaffont{K})) &\simeq \rhom[\sheaffont{A}](\sheaffont{M},\rihom(F,\sheaffont{K})) \\
&\simeq \rhom[\sheaffont{A}](F\tens\sheaffont{M},\sheaffont{K}).
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\medskip
Recall that $\pi\colon M \times \mathbb{R}_\infty \to M$ denotes the projection.
\begin{definition}
For $\sheaffont{A}$ a sheaf of $\mathbf{k}$-algebras on $M$, we set
\[
\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{A}]{} = \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{A}_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})/\{K\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \opb\pi\roim\pi K \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} K\}.
\]
\end{definition}
We have a forgetful functor
\[
\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{A}]{} \to \BEC M.
\]
\begin{remark}
The results on $\BEC M$ can be extended to this context with $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{A}]{}$.
\end{remark}
\section{Review of tempered functions}\label{se:tempered}
We recall here some constructions of \cite{KS96,KS01}.
In particular, we recall the ind-sheaf $\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X$ of tempered holomorphic functions on a complex analytic manifold $X$, which plays a fundamental role in this paper. We end this section by adapting the notion of bordered space to the framework of analytic spaces.
\subsection{Real setting}
Let $M$ be a real analytic manifold and let $U\subset M$ be an open subset.
One says that a function $\varphi\colon U \to \mathbb{C}$ has polynomial growth
at $x_\circ\in M\setminus U$ if there exist a
sufficiently small compact neighborhood $K$ of $x_\circ$ and constants
$C>0$, $r\in\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:poly}
|\varphi(x)| \leq
C \, \mathrm{dist}(K\setminus U,x)^{-r} \quad \text{for any }
x\in K \cap U.
\end{equation}
(Here ``$\mathrm{dist}$'' denotes the Euclidean distance with respect to a local
coordinate system.)
One says that a smooth function $\varphi \in \sheaffont{C}^{\infty}_M(U)$ is tempered at $x_0\in M\setminus U$ if all of its derivatives have polynomial growth at $x_0$.
Denote by $\sheaffont{D}b_M$ the sheaf of Schwartz's distributions on $M$.
\begin{definition}[{\cite[Definition 7.2.5]{KS01}}]
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
For a subanalytic open subset $U\subset M$, we define $\sheaffont{C}^{\infty,\tmp}_M(U)$ as the set of $C^\infty$-functions defined on $U$ which are tempered at every point of $M\setminus U$. Then $\sheaffont{C}^{\infty,\tmp}_M$ is a subanalytic sheaf.
\item
For a subanalytic open subset $U\subset M$,
we define the sheaf of $\C$-algebras $\sheaffont{C}_{U|M}^{\infty,\textrm{temp}} \mathbin{:=} \hom(\C_U,\sheaffont{C}^{\infty,\tmp}_M)$.
\item
The subanalytic sheaf of tempered distributions on $M$ is defined by
\begin{align*}
\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M(V) &\mathbin{:=} \sheaffont{D}b_M(M) / \varGamma_{M\setminus V}(M; \sheaffont{D}b_M) \\
&\simeq \Im(\sheaffont{D}b_M(M)\to\sheaffont{D}b_M(V))
\end{align*}
for any subanalytic open subset $V\subset M$.
We still denote by $\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M$ the corresponding subanalytic ind-sheaf.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
There is a morphism $\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M\to\sheaffont{D}b_M$ of ind-sheaves.
For any open subset $V\subset M$ we have
\[
\sheaffont{C}_{U|M}^{\infty,\textrm{temp}}(V) = \{\varphi\in\sheaffont{C}^{\infty}_M(V\cap U) \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \varphi \text{ is tempered at any point of }V\setminus U\}.
\]
One has the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
For any $\mathbb{R}$-constructible sheaf $F$,
\[
H^k\rihom(F,\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M) = 0\quad\text{for any }k\neq0.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any $\mathbb{R}$-constructible sheaf $G$ and any $k\neq 0$, one has
\[
H^k\RHom(G,\rihom(F,\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M)) \simeq H^k\RHom(G\tens F,\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M) \simeq 0,
\]
where the last isomorphism follows from \cite[Proposition 7.2.6 (i)]{KS01}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:CDtoD}
Let $U\subset M$ be a subanalytic open subset.
The product $\sheaffont{C}^{\infty}_M \tens \sheaffont{D}b_M \to \sheaffont{D}b_M$ induces a $\C_M$-algebra homomorphism
\[
\sheaffont{C}_{U|M}^{\infty,\textrm{temp}} \to \shEnd(\ihom(\C_U,\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M)).
\]
In other words, $\ihom(\C_U,\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M) \in \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\sheaffont{C}_{U|M}^{\infty,\textrm{temp}})$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $V\subset M$ be a relatively compact subanalytic open subset.
By~\cite[Lemma 3.3]{Kas84},
the product induces a natural morphism
\[
\sheaffont{C}^{\infty,\tmp}_M(U\cap V) \tens \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M(U\cap V) \to \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M(U\cap V).
\]
\end{proof}
For a closed subset $Z\subset M$, denote by $\sheaffont{I}^\infty_{M,Z} \subset \sheaffont{C}^\infty_{M}$ the subsheaf of functions which vanish on $Z$ up to infinite order.
Recall the Whitney functor of \cite{KS96}
\[
\ast\mathbin{\mathop{\otimes}\limits^{{}_{\mathrm{w}}}} \sheaffont{C}^\infty_M \colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\R\text-\mathrm{c}}(\C_M) \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\C_M).
\]
It is characterized by setting $\C_U\mathbin{\mathop{\otimes}\limits^{{}_{\mathrm{w}}}} \sheaffont{C}^\infty_{M} \mathbin{:=} \sheaffont{I}^\infty_{M,M\setminus U}$ for any subanalytic open subset $U\subset M$.
One says that a function $\varphi\in\sheaffont{C}^\infty_{M}(U)$ is rapidly decreasing
at $x_\circ\in M\setminus U$ if there exists a
sufficiently small compact neighborhood $K$ of $x_\circ$ such that for any $r\in\mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ and $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^n$ there is a constant
$C>0$ with
\[
|\partial_x^\alpha\varphi(x)| \leq C\,\mathrm{dist}(K\setminus U,x)^r \quad \text{for any }
x\in K \cap U.
\]
(Here ``$\mathrm{dist}$'' and $\partial^\alpha$ are taken with respect to a local
coordinate system.)
One says that $\varphi\in\sheaffont{C}^\infty_{M}(U)$ is rapidly decreasing at the boundary of $U$ if it is rapidly decreasing at each point of the boundary of $U$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:W}
A section of $\sheaffont{C}^\infty_{M}(U)$ extends to a global section of $\C_U\mathbin{\mathop{\otimes}\limits^{{}_{\mathrm{w}}}} \sheaffont{C}^\infty_{M}$ if and only if it is rapidly decreasing at the boundary of $U$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Complex setting}
Let $X$ be a complex analytic manifold.
Denote by $X_\mathbb{R}$ the real analytic manifold underlying $X$. It is identified with the diagonal of $X\times\overline X$, where $\overline X$ is the conjugate complex manifold of $X$.
Recall that $(\overline X)_\mathbb{R} = X_\mathbb{R}$ and that sections of $\O_{\overline X}$ are the complex conjugates of sections of $\O_X$.
Recall that, by Dolbeault resolution, one has
\[
\O_X \simeq \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_{\overline X}](\O_{\overline X}, \sheaffont{D}b_{X_\mathbb{R}}).
\]
\begin{definition}[{\cite[\S7.3]{KS01}}]
One sets
\begin{align*}
\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X &= \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_{\overline X}](\O_{\overline X}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}}) \in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}_X), \\
\Omega^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_X &= \Omega_X \tens[\O_X] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X \in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}_X^\mathrm{op}).
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
The canonical morphism $\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}} \to \sheaffont{D}b_{X_\mathbb{R}}$ induces a canonical morphism $\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X\to\O_X$ in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}_X)$. Note that $\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X\in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\operatorname{suban}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_X)$. It is not concentrated in degree zero, in general.
\begin{notation}
The classical de Rham and solution functors are
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{DR}_X &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\C_X), &
\sheaffont{M} &\mapsto \Omega_X \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \sheaffont{M}, \\
\mathcal Sol_X &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)^\mathrm{op} \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\C_X), &
\sheaffont{M} &\mapsto \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_X] (\sheaffont{M},\O_X),
\end{align*}
and the tempered de Rham and solution functors are
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_X), &
\sheaffont{M} &\mapsto \Omega^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_X \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \sheaffont{M}, \\
\mathcal Sol^{\mspace{2.5mu}\tmp}_X &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)^\mathrm{op} \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_X), &
\sheaffont{M} &\mapsto \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_X] (\sheaffont{M},\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X).
\end{align*}
\end{notation}
One has
\[
\mathcal Sol_X \simeq \alpha_X\mathcal Sol^{\mspace{2.5mu}\tmp}_X,
\quad
\mathcal{DR}_X \simeq \alpha_X\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X.
\]
Recall that, by \cite[Lemma~7.4.11]{KS01}, for $\sheaffont{L}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{rh}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ one has
\[
\mathcal Sol^{\mspace{2.5mu}\tmp}_X(\sheaffont{L}) \simeq \mathcal Sol_X(\sheaffont{L}),
\quad
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\sheaffont{L}) \simeq \mathcal{DR}_X(\sheaffont{L}).
\]
For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{coh}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, one has
\[
\mathcal Sol^{\mspace{2.5mu}\tmp}_X(\sheaffont{M}) \simeq \mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{M})[-d_X].
\]
Note that
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\O_X) \simeq \mathcal{DR}_X(\O_X) \simeq \C_X[d_X].
\]
Let us recall some functorial properties of the tempered de Rham and solution functors.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Theorems 7.4.1, 7.4.6 and 7.4.12]{KS01}}]
\label{thm:ifunct}
Let $f\colon X\to Y$ be a complex analytic map.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
There is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\opb f\sheaffont{D}_Y)$
\[
\epb f \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_Y[d_Y] \simeq \sheaffont{D}_{Y\leftarrow X} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X [d_X].
\]
\item
For any $\sheaffont{N}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_Y)$ there is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_X)$
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\dopb f\sheaffont{N}) [d_X] \simeq
\epb f \mathcal{DR}^\tmp_Y(\sheaffont{N}) [d_Y].
\]
\item
Let $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{good}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, and assume that $\supp\sheaffont{M}$ is proper over $Y$. Then there is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_Y)$
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_Y(\doim f\sheaffont{M}) \simeq
\reeim f\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\sheaffont{M}) .
\]
\item
Let $\sheaffont{L}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{rh}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$.
Then there is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}_X)$
\[
\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X \ltens[\O_X] \sheaffont{L} \simeq
\rihom(\mathcal Sol_X(\sheaffont{L}),\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X).
\]
In particular, for a closed hypersurface $Y\subset X$, one has
\[
\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X \ltens[\O_X] \O_X(*Y) \simeq \rihom(\C_{X\setminus Y},\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X).
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Back to the real setting}
\begin{proposition}[{\cite[Theorem 5.10]{KS96}}]
\label{pro:DbtOt}
Let $X$ be a complexification of a real analytic manifold $M$,
and denote by $i\colon M \to X$ the embedding. Then
\[
\epb i \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X[d_X] \simeq \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M \tens \ori_M.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:fDbt}
Let $f\colon M \to N$ be a morphism of real analytic manifolds. Then
\[
\epb f\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_N \simeq \sheaffont{D}_{N\leftarrow M} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_M] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M,
\]
where $\sheaffont{D}_{N\leftarrow M} = \sheaffont{D}_{Y\leftarrow X}|_M\tens \ori_M \tens \opb f \ori_N$ for a complexification $X\to Y$ of $f$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=7ex{
M \ar[r]^{f} \ar[d]^{i_M} & N \ar[d]^{i_N} \\
X \ar[r]^{\tilde f} & Y.
}
\]
Then one has the isomorphisms
\begin{align*}
\sheaffont{D}_{N\leftarrow M} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_M] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \opb{i_M}\sheaffont{D}_{Y\leftarrow X} \ltens[\opb{i_M}\sheaffont{D}_X] \epb{i_M}\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X\tens\opb f\ori_N[d_M] \\
&\simeq \epb{i_M}(\sheaffont{D}_{Y\leftarrow X} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X)\tens\opb f\ori_N[d_M] \\
&\underset{(**)}\simeq \epb{i_M}\epb{\tilde f}\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_Y \tens\opb f\ori_N[d_N] \\
&\simeq \epb f\epb{i_N}\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_Y \tens\opb f\ori_N[d_N] \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \epb f\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_N,
\end{align*}
where $(*)$'s follow from Proposition~\ref{pro:DbtOt}, and $(**)$ follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:ifunct}~(i).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Real analytic bordered spaces}
\begin{definition}
The category of \emph{real analytic bordered spaces} is the category whose objects are pairs $(M,\check M)$ where $\check M$ is a real analytic manifold and $M\subset \check M$ is an open subanalytic subset.
Morphisms $f\colon (M,\check M) \to (N,\check N)$ are real analytic maps $f\colon M\to N$ such that
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
$\Gamma_f$ is a subanalytic subset of $\check M\times\check N$, and
\item
$\overline\Gamma_f\to\check M$ is proper.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Hence a morphism of real analytic bordered spaces is a morphism of bordered spaces.
\begin{lemma}
Let $f\colon(M,\check M)\to(N,\check N)$ be a morphism of real analytic bordered spaces.
Then $f$ is an isomorphism if the following conditions are satisfied
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item $f\colon M\to N$ is an isomorphism of real analytic manifolds,
\item $\overline\Gamma_f\to\check N$ is proper.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
Recall that $j_M\colon(M,\check M)\to\check M$ and $j_N\colon(N,\check N)\to\check N$ denote the natural morphisms.
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:Dbtbordered}
Let $f\colon(M,\check M)\to(N,\check N)$ be an isomorphism of real analytic bordered spaces. Then there is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{(M,\check M)})$
\[
\opb{j_M}\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\check M} \simeq \opb f\opb{j_N}\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\check N}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We shall regard $\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}\opb{j_M}\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\check M}$ and $\roimv{j_{M\mspace{2mu}*}}\opb f\opb{j_N}\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\check N}$ as subanalytic sheaves on $\check M$. Hence it is enough to show that
\[
\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\check M}(\opb f(V)) \simeq \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\check N}(V)
\]
for any relatively compact subanalytic open subset $V$ of $\check N$ contained in $N$.
By \cite[Theorem 6.1]{KS96}, the topological dual of the above isomorphism is given by
\[
\varGamma(\check M;\C_{\opb f(V)}\mathbin{\mathop{\otimes}\limits^{{}_{\mathrm{w}}}} \sheaffont{C}^\infty_{\check M}) \simeq
\varGamma(\check N;\C_{V}\mathbin{\mathop{\otimes}\limits^{{}_{\mathrm{w}}}} \sheaffont{C}^\infty_{\check N}).
\]
Hence, by Lemma~\ref{lem:W}, the proposition follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:repdec} below.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:repdec}
With the same notations as in the above proposition, let $V$ be a relatively compact subanalytic open subset of $\check N$ contained in $N$, and let $u\in\sheaffont{C}^\infty_{\check N}(V)$. Then $u$ is rapidly decreasing at the boundary of $V$ if and only if $f^*(u)\in \sheaffont{C}^\infty_{\check M}(\opb f(V))$ is rapidly decreasing at the boundary of $\opb f(V)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Denote by $q_1\colon\overline\Gamma_f\to\check M$ and $q_2\colon\overline\Gamma_f\to\check N$ the projections.
Note that, since $f$ is an isomorphism of real analytic bordered spaces, one has
\[
\Gamma_f = \overline\Gamma_f\times_{\check M}M = \overline\Gamma_f\times_{\check N}N.
\]
Assume that $u$ is rapidly decreasing at the boundary of $V$. For $x_\circ\in\partial(\opb f(V))$ let us choose a sufficiently small open neighborhood $W$ of $x_0$ and local coordinates $(x_1,\dots,x_n)$.
Since $\opb{q_1}(x_\circ)$ is compact, shrinking $W$ if necessary, there exist finitely many relatively compact subanalytic open subsets $\{V_i\}$ and $\{V_i'\}$ of $\check N$ such that
\be[{\rm(a)}]
\item
$\overline{V_i'} \subset V_i$,
\item
$\opb{q_1}(W) \subset \bigcup\limits_i(W\times V_i')$,
\item
there exist local coordinates $(y_1^i,\dots,y_n^i)$ on $V_i$.
\end{enumerate}
Then $f(\opb f(V)\cap W) \subset \bigcup\limits_i V_i'$.
It follows that the derivatives $\partial_x^\alpha f^*(u)$ are linear combinations of derivatives $\partial_{y^i}^\beta u$ with coefficients given by products of terms of the form $\partial_x^\gamma y_k^i$.
Since $\partial_{y^i}^\beta u$ are rapidly decreasing and $\partial_x^\gamma y_k^i$ have polynomial growth, it follows that $f^*(u)|_{\opb f(V\cap V_i')}$ is rapidly decreasing at $x_\circ$ for any $i$. Hence $f^*(u) \in \sheaffont{C}^\infty_{\check M}(\opb f V)$ is rapidly decreasing at $x_\circ$.
\end{proof}
\section{Exponential \texorpdfstring{$\sheaffont{D}$}{D}-modules}\label{se:expo}
Let $X$ be a complex analytic manifold. According to the results of
Mochizuki~\cite{Moc09,Moc11} and Kedlaya~\cite{Ked10,Ked11}
(see \S\ref{sse:normal} below), a fundamental model for irregular holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-modules is the exponential $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module associated with a meromorphic connection $d+d\varphi$
for a meromorphic function $\varphi\in\O_X(*Y)$
with poles on a hypersurface $Y$.
In this section we describe the tempered de Rham complex of such exponential $\sheaffont{D}_X$-modules.
\subsection{Exponential $\sheaffont{D}$-modules}
Let $X$ be a complex analytic manifold.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:expY}
Let $Y\subset X$ be a complex analytic hypersurface. Set $U=X\setminus Y$.
For $\varphi\in\O_X(*Y)$, set
\begin{align*}
\sheaffont{D}_X e^\varphi &= \sheaffont{D}_X/\{P\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax Pe^\varphi=0 \text{ on } U\}, \\
\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X}&=\sheaffont{D}_X e^\varphi(*Y).
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
Hence $\sheaffont{D}_X e^\varphi\subset\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X}$.
Note that $\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X}$ is a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module which satisfies
\[
\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X} \simeq \sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X}(*Y), \qquad \ss(\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X}) = Y.
\]
Note that the map $\O_X(*Y)\to[\cdot e^\varphi]\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X}$ induces an isomorphism as $\O_X$-modules.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:YEphi}
For $\varphi\in\O_X(*Y)$ one has
\[
(\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X})(*Y) \simeq \sheaffont{E}^{-\varphi}_{U|X} .
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The morphism $\sheaffont{D}_X e^{-\varphi}(*Y) \dtens \sheaffont{D}_X e^\varphi(*Y) \to \O_X (*Y)$ induces a morphism $\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X} \to \sheaffont{E}^{-\varphi}_{U|X}$. Since it is an isomorphism outside of $Y$, the statement follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The isomorphism $\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X} \simeq \sheaffont{E}^{-\varphi}_{U|X}$ does not hold in general. For example, let $X=\mathbb{C}^2\owns(u,v)$, $Y=\{v=0\}$ and $\varphi(u,v) = u^2/v^2$. Then $\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X} \simeq \sheaffont{D}_X v^{-2} e^\varphi$ and there is an epimorphism
$$\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X} \twoheadrightarrow \sheaffont{B}_{\{(0,0)\}}\simeq\sheaffont{D}_X/(\sheaffont{D}_Xu+\sheaffont{D}_Xv).$$
Hence $\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X}$ contains $\sheaffont{B}_{\{(0,0)\}}$ as a submodule.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Tempered de Rham}
Our aim in this subsection is to describe the tempered de Rham complex of an exponential $\sheaffont{D}$-module.
Let $X$, $Y$, $U$ and $\varphi$ be as in
Definition~\ref{def:expY}.
For $c\in\mathbb{R}$, set for short
\[
\{\Re \varphi < c\} = \{x\in U\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \Re \varphi(x) < c\} \subset X.
\]
\begin{notation}
\label{not:<?}
We set
\begin{align*}
\C_{\{\Re \varphi <\ast\}} &\mathbin{:=} \indlim[c\rightarrow+\infty]\C_{\{\Re \varphi < c\}} \in \mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\C_X), \\
E^\varphi_{U|X} &\mathbin{:=} \rihom(\C_U,\C_{\{\Re \varphi <\ast\}}) \in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_X).
\end{align*}
\end{notation}
For example, denoting by $z \in \mathbb{C} \subset \mathbb{P}$ the affine coordinate of the complex projective line, one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:HjEt}
H^j E^z_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}} \simeq
\begin{cases}
\C_{\{\Re z <\ast\}} &\text{for }j=0, \\
\C_{\{\infty\}} &\text{for }j=1, \\
0 &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:Solphi}
Let $Y\subset X$ be a closed complex analytic hypersurface, and set $U=X\setminus Y$.
For $\varphi\in\O_X(*Y)$, there is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_X)$
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\sheaffont{E}^{-\varphi}_{U|X}) \simeq E^\varphi_{U|X}[d_X].
\]
\end{proposition}
The fundamental case where $X=\mathbb{C}$ and $\varphi(z)=1/z$ was considered in \cite[Proposition~7.3]{KS03}.
In order to prove the above proposition, we need some preliminary results.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:IhomU}
With the above notations, one has
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\sheaffont{E}^{-\varphi}_{U|X}) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \rihom(\C_U,\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\sheaffont{E}^{-\varphi}_{U|X})).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
One has
\begin{align*}
\Omega^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_X \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \sheaffont{E}^{-\varphi}_{U|X} &\simeq
\Omega^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_X \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] (\sheaffont{E}^{-\varphi}_{U|X} \dtens \O_X(*Y)) \\
&\simeq (\O_X(*Y) \ltens[\O_X] \Omega^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_X) \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \sheaffont{E}^{-\varphi}_{U|X} \\
&\simeq \rihom(\C_U, \Omega^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_X \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \sheaffont{E}^{-\varphi}_{U|X}).
\end{align*}
The last isomorphism follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:ifunct}~(iv).
\end{proof}
Let $M$ be a real analytic manifold, and $i\colon M\to X$ a complexification of $M$.
For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, let us set
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_M(\sheaffont{M}) &= \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp,\vee}_M \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \sheaffont{M} \\
&\simeq \epb i \mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\sheaffont{M})[d_X] \in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_M),
\end{align*}
where $\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp,\vee}_M = \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M \tens \ori_M \tens[\opb i \O_X] \opb i \Omega_X \simeq \epb i \Omega^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_X[d_X]$ is the subanalytic ind-sheaf of tempered distribution densities.
Note that, considering the complexification $X_\mathbb{R}\subset X\times\overline X$, one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:drXXR}
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\sheaffont{M}) \simeq \mathcal{DR}^\tmp_{X_\mathbb{R}}(\sheaffont{M}\detens\O_{\overline X})[-d_X].
\end{equation}
Let $\mathsf{P}$ be the real projective line and denote by $x$ the coordinate on $\mathbb{R}=\mathsf{P}\setminus\{\infty\}$.
Note that the object of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_\mathsf{P})$
\begin{align*}
\rihom(\C_\mathbb{R} , \C_{\{x <\ast\}})
&\simeq \ihom(\C_\mathbb{R} , \C_{\{x <\ast\}}) \\
&\simeq \indlim[c\rightarrow+\infty]\C_{\{x<c\}\cup\{\infty\}}
\end{align*}
is concentrated in degree zero.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Rt}
Let $\mathsf{P}$ be the real projective line.
Denote by $x$ the coordinate on $\mathbb{R}=\mathsf{P}\setminus\{\infty\}$ and by $z$ the coordinate on $\mathbb{C}=\mathbb{P}\setminus\{\infty\}$.
Then there is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_\mathsf{P})$
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_\mathsf{P}(\sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}) \simeq
\ihom(\C_\mathbb{R} , \C_{\{x <\ast\}})[1].
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
One has
\begin{align*}
\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp,\vee}_\mathsf{P} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}] \sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}
&\simeq \ihom(\C_\mathbb{R},\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp,\vee}_\mathsf{P}) \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}] \sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}} \\
&\simeq (\sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}) ^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}] \ihom(\C_\mathbb{R},\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_\mathsf{P}) \\
&\simeq \bigl( \ihom(\C_\mathbb{R},\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_\mathsf{P}) \to[\partial_x-1] \ihom(\C_\mathbb{R}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_\mathsf{P}) \bigr) \mathbin{{=}{:}} \sheaffont{S},
\end{align*}
where the complex $\sheaffont{S}$ is in degree $-1$ and $0$.
Here, the first isomorphism follows from the real analogue of Lemma~\ref{lem:IhomU}, $\mathrm{r}$ is the functor in \eqref{def:r}
and the last isomorphism follows from
$\sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}} \simeq \sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}/\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}(\partial_z+1)$
and $(\sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}) ^\mathrm{r}\simeq\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}/(\partial_z-1)\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}$.
Hence, we have to prove the isomorphisms of subanalytic sheaves
\[
H^{-1}\sheaffont{S} \simeq \ihom(\C_\mathbb{R} , \C_{\{x <\ast\}}), \qquad H^0\sheaffont{S} \simeq 0.
\]
Let $U\subset \mathsf{P}$ be an open subanalytic subset, so that $U\cap\mathbb{R}$ is a finite union of open intervals.
The first isomorphism follows from the fact that $e^x\in\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_\mathsf{P}(U\cap\mathbb{R})$ if and only
if $U\cap\mathbb{R} \subset \{ x<c \}$ for some $c$.
To show that $H^0\sheaffont{S} \simeq 0$ it is enough to consider the commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix{
\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_\mathsf{P}(\mathbb{R}) \ar@{->>}[r]^{\partial_x-1} \ar[d] & \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_\mathsf{P}(\mathbb{R}) \ar@{->>}[d] \\
\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_\mathsf{P}(U\cap\mathbb{R}) \ar[r]^{\partial_x-1} & \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_\mathsf{P}(U\cap\mathbb{R})
}
\]
and notice that the vertical arrow, as well as the top horizontal arrow, is surjective.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[{cf.~\cite[Proposition~7.3]{KS03}}]
\label{lem:t}
Let $\mathbb{P}$ be the complex projective line and
denote by $z$ the coordinate on $\mathbb{C}=\mathbb{P}\setminus\{\infty\}$.
There is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_\mathbb{P})$
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_\mathbb{P}(\sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}) \simeq
E^z_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}[1].
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the real analytic bordered spaces $(\mathbb{C}_\mathbb{R},\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{R})$ and $(\mathbb{R}^2,\mathsf{P}^2)$.
Then the morphism $f\colon (\mathbb{R}^2,\mathsf{P}^2) \to (\mathbb{C}_\mathbb{R},\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{R})$ given by $(x,y) \mapsto x+\sqrt{-1}y$ is an isomorphism of real analytic bordered spaces.
Consider the morphisms
\[
\xymatrix{
\mathsf{P}^2 & (\mathbb{R}^2,\mathsf{P}^2) \ar[l]_-{k} \ar[r]^-f & (\mathbb{C}_\mathbb{R},\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{R}) \ar[r]^-j & \mathbb{P}_\mathbb{R} .
}
\]
By Proposition~\ref{pro:Dbtbordered},
\[
\opb f \opb j \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{R}} \simeq \opb k\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathsf{P}^2}.
\]
By \eqref{eq:drXXR} and Lemma~\ref{lem:IhomU},
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_\mathbb{P}(\sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}) \simeq
\roim j\opb j((\sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}} \detens \O_{\overline\mathbb{P}})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}\times\overline\mathbb{P}}] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{R}})[-1].
\]
Note that $\opb j((\sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}} \detens \O_{\overline\mathbb{P}})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}\times\overline\mathbb{P}}] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{R}})$ is represented by the complex
\[
\opb j\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{R}} \To[(\partial_z-1,\;\partial_{\,\overline z})]
(\opb j\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{R}})^2 \To[(-\partial_{\,\overline z},\;\partial_z-1)]
\opb j\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{R}}.
\]
Applying $\opb f$, we get the complex
\[
\opb k\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathsf{P}^2} \To[(\partial_x-1,\;\partial_y-\sqrt{-1})]
(\opb k\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathsf{P}^2})^2 \To[(-\partial_y+\sqrt{-1},\;\partial_x-1)]
\opb k\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathsf{P}^2}.
\]
This last complex represents $\opb k((\sheaffont{E}^{-u}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}} \detens \sheaffont{E}^{-\sqrt{-1}v}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}^2}] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathsf{P}^2})$,
where $(u,v)\in\mathbb{C}^2$ is a complexification of $(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^2$.
We have thus proved
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_\mathbb{P}(\sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}) \simeq \roim j\roim f\opb k((\sheaffont{E}^{-u}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}} \detens \sheaffont{E}^{-\sqrt{-1}v}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}^2}] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathsf{P}^2})[-1].
\]
By Proposition~\ref{pro:CDtoD}, the function $e^{-\sqrt{-1}y}\in\sheaffont{C}^{\infty,\tmp}_{\mathsf{P}^2}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ induces an automorphism
of $\opb k\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathsf{P}^2}$. This automorphism interchanges the actions of $\partial_y$ and of $\partial_y-\sqrt{-1}$.
Hence, for a $\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}$-module $\sheaffont{M}$, it induces an isomorphism
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:eiy}
\opb k ((\sheaffont{M} \detens \sheaffont{E}^{-\sqrt{-1}v}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}^2}] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathsf{P}^2})
\simeq \opb k( (\sheaffont{M} \detens \O_\mathbb{P})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}^2}] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathsf{P}^2}).
\end{equation}
We then have, denoting by $p_1$ the first projection $\mathsf{P}^2\to\mathsf{P}$,
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_\mathbb{P}(\sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}})
&\simeq \roim j\roim f\opb k((\sheaffont{E}^{-u}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}} \detens \O_\mathbb{P})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}^2}] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathsf{P}^2}) [-1]\\
&\simeq \roim j\roim f\opb k((\sheaffont{E}^{-u}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}] \sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}\from[p_1]\mathbb{P}^2} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}^2}] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathsf{P}^2})[-1] \\
&\underset{(1)}\simeq \roim j\roim f\opb k((\sheaffont{E}^{-u}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}]
\epb{p_1} \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\mathsf{P}})[-1] \\
&\simeq \roim j\roim f\opb k\opb{p_1}\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_\mathsf{P}(\sheaffont{E}^{-u}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}) \\
&\underset{(2)}\simeq \roim j\roim f\opb k\opb{p_1}\C_{\{x <\ast\}}[1] \\
&\simeq \roim j\opb j \C_{\{\Re z <\ast\}}[1] ,
\end{align*}
where $(1)$ follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:fDbt} and $(2)$ follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:Rt}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:s/t}
Denote by $(u,v)$ the coordinates of $\mathbb{C}^2$.
There is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{\mathbb{C}^2})$
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_{\mathbb{C}^2}(\sheaffont{E}^{-u/v}_{\{v\neq0\}|\mathbb{C}^2}) \simeq
E^{u/v}_{\{v\neq0\}|\mathbb{C}^2}[2].
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $z$
denotes the coordinate on $\mathbb{C}=\mathbb{P}\setminus\{\infty\}$.
Denote by $\widetilde\mathbb{C}^2$ the blow-up of the origin in $\mathbb{C}^2$.
Recall that $\widetilde \mathbb{C}^2 \subset \mathbb{C}^2 \times \mathbb{P}$ is the surface of equation $uz_0 = vz_1$, where $(z_0:z_1)\in\mathbb{P}$
are homogeneous coordinates with $z=z_1/z_0$.
Consider the maps
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{
\mathbb{C}^2 & \widetilde \mathbb{C}^2 \ar[l]_p \ar[r]^q & \mathbb{P}
}
\end{equation*}
induced by the projections from $\mathbb{C}^2 \times \mathbb{P}$.
Since $\opb q(\infty) \subset \opb p(\{v=0\})$, one has
\begin{align}
\label{eq:pUqC}&\begin{myarray}{l}
p^{-1}(\{v\neq 0\}) \subset q^{-1}(\mathbb{C}), \\[1ex]
\sheaffont{E}^{-u/v}_{\{v\neq0\}|\mathbb{C}^2} \simeq \O_{\mathbb{C}^2}(*\{v=0\})
\dtens\doim p\dopb q \sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}.
\end{myarray}\end{align}
It follows
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_{\mathbb{C}^2}(\sheaffont{E}^{-u/v}_{\{v\neq0\}|\mathbb{C}^2} )
&\simeq \mathcal{DR}^\tmp_{\mathbb{C}^2} \bigl(\O_{\mathbb{C}^2}(*\{v=0\})\dtens\doim p\dopb q \sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}\bigr) \\
&\simeq \rihom (\C_{\{v\neq 0\}}, \mathcal{DR}^\tmp_{\mathbb{C}^2}(\doim p\dopb q \sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}})),
\end{align*}
where the last isomorphism follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:ifunct}~(iv).
Note that
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_{\mathbb{C}^2}(\doim p\dopb q \sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}})
&\simeq \roim p \epb q(\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_\mathbb{P}(\sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}})) [-1]\\
&\simeq \roim p \epb q\rihom(\C_\mathbb{C},\C_{\{\Re z <\ast\}})\\
&\simeq \roim p\rihom(\opb q\C_\mathbb{C},\epb q\C_{\{\Re z <\ast\}}) \\
&\simeq \roim p\rihom(\opb q\C_\mathbb{C},\opb q\C_{\{\Re z <\ast\}}) [2].
\end{align*}
Here,
the first isomorphism follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:ifunct}~(ii) and (iii),
the second isomorphism follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:t}, and
the last isomorphism follows from the fact that $q$ is smooth with fiber $\mathbb{C}$.
Hence
\begin{align*}
\rihom (\C_{\{v\neq 0\}}, & \mathcal{DR}^\tmp_{\mathbb{C}^2}(\doim p\dopb q \sheaffont{E}^{-z}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}})) \\
&\simeq \rihom (\C_{\{v\neq 0\}}, \roim p\rihom(\opb q\C_\mathbb{C},\opb q\C_{\{\Re z <\ast\}}))[2] \\
& \simeq \roim p \rihom (\opb p \C_{\{v\neq 0\}} \tens \opb q\C_\mathbb{C},\opb q\C_{\{\Re z <\ast\}})[2] \\
& \underset{(1)}\simeq \roim p \rihom (\opb p \C_{\{v\neq 0\}},\opb q\C_{\{\Re z <\ast\}})[2] \\
& \simeq \roim p \rihom (\opb p \C_{\{v\neq 0\}},\opb p \C_{\{v\neq 0\}}\tens\opb q\C_{\{\Re z <\ast\}})[2] \\
& \underset{(2)}\simeq \roim p \rihom (\opb p \C_{\{v\neq 0\}},\opb p \C_{\{\Re(u/v) <\ast\}})[2] \\
& \underset{(3)}\simeq \roim p\rihom (\opb p\C_{\{v\neq 0\}},\epb p \C_{\{\Re(u/v) <\ast\}})[2] \\
& \simeq \rihom (\C_{\{v\neq 0\}}, \C_{\{\Re(u/v) <\ast\}})[2] .
\end{align*}
Here,
$(1)$ follows from \eqref{eq:pUqC},
$(2)$ follows from the equality
\[
q^{-1}(\{\Re z<c\})\cap p^{-1}(\{v\neq 0\}) = p^{-1}(\{\Re(u/v) < c\})
\ \text{ for $c\in\mathbb{R}$,}
\]
and $(3)$ follows from the fact that $p$ is an isomorphism over $\{v\neq 0\}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of~Proposition~\ref{pro:Solphi}]
As in the previous lemma, denote by $(u,v)$ the coordinates in $\mathbb{C}^2$.
Write $\varphi=a/b$ for $a,b\in\O_X$ such that $Y=\opb b(0)$, and consider the map
\[
f = (a,b) \colon X\to \mathbb{C}^2.
\]
Since $f^{-1}(\{v=0\}) = b^{-1}(0) = Y$, one has
\begin{align}
\label{eq:UU'}
&f^{-1}(\{v\neq 0\}) = U, \\
\label{eq:EYY'}
&\sheaffont{E}^{\varphi}_{U|X} \simeq \dopb f\sheaffont{E}^{u/v}_{\{v\neq 0\}|\mathbb{C}^2}.
\end{align}
Note that
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X(\dopb f\sheaffont{E}^{-u/v}_{\{v\neq0\}|\mathbb{C}^2})
&\simeq \epb f (\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_{\mathbb{C}^2}( \sheaffont{E}^{-u/v}_{\{v\neq0\}|\mathbb{C}^2}))[2-d_X] \\
&\simeq \epb f\rihom(\C_{\{v\neq 0\}},\C_{\{\Re(u/v) <\ast\}})[4-d_X],
\end{align*}
where the first isomorphism follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:ifunct}~(ii), and the second isomorphism follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:s/t}.
Hence
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_X (\sheaffont{E}^{-\varphi}_{U|X})
& \simeq \epb f\rihom(\C_{\{v\neq 0\}},\C_{\{\Re(u/v) <\ast\}})[4-d_X] \\
& \simeq \rihom(\opb f\C_{\{v\neq 0\}}, \epb f\C_{\{\Re(u/v) <\ast\}})[4-d_X] \\
& \underset{(1)}\simeq \rihom(\C_U, \epb f\C_{\{\Re(u/v) <\ast\}})[4-d_X] \\
& \underset{(2)}\simeq \rihom(\C_U, \opb f\C_{\{\Re(u/v) <\ast\}})[d_X] \\
& \simeq \rihom(\C_U, \C_{\{\Re \varphi <\ast\}})[d_X],
\end{align*}
where $(1)$ follows from \eqref{eq:UU'}, and
$(2)$ follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:opbepb}.
\end{proof}
\section{Normal form of holonomic \texorpdfstring{$\sheaffont{D}$}{D}-modules}\label{se:normal}
On a complex curve, the classical results of Levelt-Turittin and of Hukuhara-Turittin describe the formal structure of a flat meromorphic connection and its asymptotic expansion on sectors.
Analogous statements in higher dimension have recently been obtained
by Mochizuki~\cite{Moc09,Moc11}
and Kedlaya~\cite{Ked10,Ked11}, after preliminary results and conjectures by Sabbah~\cite{Sab00}.
In this section we recall these statements in the language of $\sheaffont{D}$-modules, and establish some lemmas that will be used later.
In particular, Lemma~\ref{lem:redux} below will be a key ingredient in our proof of the irregular Riemann-Hilbert correspondence.
\subsection{Real blow-up}\label{se:realblow}
Let $X$ be a complex manifold and $D\subset X$ a smooth closed hypersurface.
The total real blow-up
\[
\varpi_{\operatorname{tot}}\colon \widetilde X_D^{\operatorname{tot}} \to X
\]
of $X$ along $D$ is the real analytic map of real analytic manifolds
locally defined as follows.
We take coordinates $(z,w)\in\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C}^{n-1}$ on $X$ such that $D=\{z=0\}$. Then one has
\[
\widetilde X_D^{\operatorname{tot}} = \{(t,\zeta,w)\in \mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C}^{n-1} \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax |\zeta|=1 \}
\]
and
\[
\varpi_{\operatorname{tot}}\colon \widetilde X_D^{\operatorname{tot}} \to X, \quad (t,\zeta,w) \mapsto (t\zeta,w).
\]
Note that $\varpi_{\operatorname{tot}}$ is an unramified 2-sheeted covering over $X\setminus D$, so that we may write
\[
\opb{\varpi_{\operatorname{tot}}}(X\setminus D) = (X\setminus D) \times\{+,-\}.
\]
Consider the subsets locally defined by
\begin{align*}
\widetilde X_D^{> 0} &= \{(t,\zeta,w)\in \widetilde X_D^{\operatorname{tot}} \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax t > 0 \}
= (X\setminus D) \times\{+\}, \\
\widetilde X_D &= \{(t,\zeta,w)\in \widetilde X_D^{\operatorname{tot}} \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax t\geq 0 \} = \overline{\widetilde X_D^{> 0}}, \\
\widetilde X_D^{0} &= \{(t,\zeta,w)\in \widetilde X_D^{\operatorname{tot}} \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax t = 0 \} = \widetilde X_D \setminus \widetilde X_D^{> 0}.
\end{align*}
We call the subanalytic space $\widetilde X_D$
the \emph{real blow-up} of $X$ along $D$, and we denote by
\[
\varpi\colon\widetilde X_D \to X
\]
the map induced by $\varpi_{\operatorname{tot}}$.
Note that $\varpi$ induces an isomorphism
\[
\varpi\colon\widetilde X_D^{> 0} \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} X\setminus D,
\]
and one has
\[
\widetilde X_D^{0} = \opb\varpi(D) = S_D X,
\]
where $S_D X = (T_D X\setminus D)/\mathbb{R}_{>0}$
denotes the normal sphere bundle to $D$ in $X$.
\medskip
Let now $D\subset X$ be a normal crossing divisor, and write (locally)
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:DD1Dr}
D = D_1 \cup \cdots \cup D_r,
\end{equation}
where $D_k\subset X$ are smooth hypersurfaces of $X$.
The total real blow-up
\[
\varpi_{\operatorname{tot}}\colon \widetilde X_D^{\operatorname{tot}} \to X
\]
of $X$ along $D$ is defined by
\[
\widetilde X_D^{\operatorname{tot}} = \widetilde X_{D_1}^{\operatorname{tot}} \times_X \cdots \times_X \widetilde X_{D_r}^{\operatorname{tot}}.
\]
Note that $\varpi_{\operatorname{tot}}$ is an unramified $2^r$-sheeted covering over $X\setminus D$, so that we may write
\[
\opb{\varpi_{\operatorname{tot}}}(X\setminus D) = (X\setminus D) \times\{+,-\}^r.
\]
Set
\begin{align*}
\widetilde X_D^{> 0} &= \widetilde X_{D_1}^{> 0} \times_X \cdots \times_X \widetilde X_{D_r}^{> 0} = (X\setminus D) \times\{(+,\dots,+)\}, \\
\widetilde X_D &= \overline{\widetilde X_D^{> 0}}, \\
\widetilde X_D^{0} &= \widetilde X_D \setminus \widetilde X_D^{> 0}.
\end{align*}
We call the subanalytic space $\widetilde X_D$
the \emph{real blow-up} of $X$ along $D$, and we denote by
\[
\varpi\colon\widetilde X_D \to X
\]
the proper map induced by $\varpi_{\operatorname{tot}}$.
Note that $\varpi$ induces an isomorphism
\[
\varpi\colon\widetilde X_D^{> 0} \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} X\setminus D.
\]
\begin{remark}
The spaces $\widetilde X_D$, $\widetilde X_D^{> 0}$ and $\widetilde X_D^{0}$ are determined canonically.
On the contrary, the space $\widetilde X_D^{\operatorname{tot}}$ is not canonical.
For example,
writing $D = D_2 \cup \cdots \cup D_r$ near a point $x\in D\setminus D_1$,
$\varpi_{\operatorname{tot}}$ becomes a $2^{r-1}$-sheeted covering over $X\setminus D$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Sheaves of functions on the real blow-up}\label{sse:blowfun}
Let $X$ be a complex manifold and $D\subset X$
a normal crossing divisor.
Set for short $\widetilde X = \widetilde X_D$.
\begin{notation}
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
Set $\sheaffont{C}_{\widetilde X}^{\infty,\textrm{temp}} = \opb i\sheaffont{C}_{\widetilde X^{> 0}|\widetilde X^{{\operatorname{tot}}}}^{\infty,\textrm{temp}}$, where $i\colon \widetilde X \to \widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}$ is the closed embedding. In other words, $\sheaffont{C}_{\widetilde X}^{\infty,\textrm{temp}}$ is the sheaf of $\mathbb{C}$-algebras on $\widetilde X$ defined by
\[
\widetilde X \underset{\text{open}}\supset V \mapsto \{u\in\sheaffont{C}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}}^\infty(V\cap\widetilde X^{> 0}) \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax u \text{ is tempered at any point of }V\cap \widetilde X^0\}.
\]
\item
Let $\sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X}$ be the sheaf of rings on $\widetilde X$ defined by
\[
\widetilde X \underset{\text{open}}\supset V \mapsto \{u\in\sheaffont{C}_{\widetilde X}^{\infty,\textrm{temp}}(V) \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax u \text{ is holomorphic on }V\cap \widetilde X^{>0}\}.
\]
\item
Set $\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A} = \sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X} \tens[\opb\varpi\O_X] \opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X$.
\item
Denote by $\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^{\sheaffont{C}^{\infty,\textrm{temp}}}$ the ring of differential operators with $C^{\infty,\textrm{temp}}_{\widetilde X}$ coefficients.
\end{enumerate}
\end{notation}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:A*D}
One has
\[
\sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X} \simeq \opb\varpi\O_X(*D) \tens[\opb\varpi\O_X] \sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X}\,.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:A*D}, there is an action of $\opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X$ on $\sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X}$. Hence $\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A}$ has a natural algebra structure. Note also that there are natural $\C$-algebra morphisms
\begin{align*}
& \opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X \to \sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A}, \\
& \sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A} \tens[\mathbb{C}] \opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_{\overline X} \to
\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^{\sheaffont{C}^{\infty,\textrm{temp}}}.
\end{align*}
\end{remark}
\begin{notation}
Consider the ind-sheaf on $\widetilde X$
\[
\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X} \mathbin{:=} \opb i\ihom(\C_{\widetilde X^{> 0}}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}}),
\]
where $i\colon \widetilde X \to \widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}$ is the closed embedding.
\end{notation}
Note that one has
$$\opb i\ihom(\C_{\widetilde X^{> 0}}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}})
\simeq\rihom(\C_{\widetilde X^{> 0}}, \epb i\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}}),$$
where $\C_{\widetilde X^{> 0}}$ on the left hand side denotes
a sheaf on $\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}$ and on the right hand side
a sheaf on $\widetilde X$.
\begin{lemma}
The ind-sheaf $\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X}$ has a structure of $\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^{\sheaffont{C}^{\infty,\textrm{temp}}}$-module. In particular, it has a structure of $(\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A} \tens[\C] \opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_{\overline X})$-module.
\end{lemma}
This immediately follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:CDtoD}.
\begin{notation}
We set
\[
\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X} =
\rhom[\opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_{\overline X}](\opb\varpi\O_{\overline X}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X})
\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A}),
\]
the Dolbeault complex with coefficients in $\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X}$.
\end{notation}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:forOt}
There is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X)$
\[
\operatorname{for}(\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X}) \simeq
\epb\varpi\rihom(\C_{X\setminus D},\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X),
\]
where $\operatorname{for}\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A}) \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X)$ is the forgetful functor.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
It is enough to prove the isomorphism
\[
\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X} \simeq \epb\varpi\rihom(\C_{X\setminus D},\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_X).
\]
Consider a complexification of morphisms of real analytic manifolds
\[
\vcenter{\vbox{
\xymatrix{
\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}} \ar[r] & X_\mathbb{R} \\
\widetilde X^0 \ar[u] \ar[ur],
}}}
\mbox{\large$\hookrightarrow$}
\vcenter{\vbox{
\xymatrix{
\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C} \ar[r] & X_\mathbb{C} \\
\widetilde X^0_\mathbb{C}\,. \ar[u] \ar[ur]
}}}
\]
Then $\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X}$ is a module over
\[
\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}}(*\widetilde X^0_\mathbb{C}) \mathbin{:=}
\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}} \tens[\O_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}}] \O_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}}(*\widetilde X^0_\mathbb{C}).
\]
Hence
\begin{align*}
\epb\varpi\rihom(\C_{X\setminus D},\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_X)
&\simeq \rihom(\C_{\widetilde X^{>0}}, \epb\varpi\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_X) \\
&\simeq \rihom(\C_{\widetilde X^{>0}}, \sheaffont{D}_{X_\mathbb{C} \leftarrow \widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}}] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X}) \\
&\simeq \sheaffont{D}_{X_\mathbb{C} \leftarrow \widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}}] \rihom(\C_{\widetilde X^{>0}}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X}) \\
&\simeq \sheaffont{D}_{X_\mathbb{C} \leftarrow \widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}}] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X} \\
&\simeq \sheaffont{D}_{X_\mathbb{C} \leftarrow \widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}}] \sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}}(*\widetilde X^0_\mathbb{C}) \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}}(*\widetilde X^0_\mathbb{C})]
\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X},
\end{align*}
where the second isomorphism follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:fDbt}.
To conclude, note that
\[
\sheaffont{D}_{X_\mathbb{C} \leftarrow \widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}}] \sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}}(*\widetilde X^0_\mathbb{C}) \simeq
\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}_\mathbb{C}}(*\widetilde X^0_\mathbb{C}).
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The importance of Theorem~\ref{thm:forOt} is in showing that $\epb\varpi\rihom(\C_{X\setminus D},\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X)$ has a structure of $\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A}\,$-module.
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:varpiOt}
There is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}_X)$
\[
\roim\varpi\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X} \simeq
\rihom(\C_{X\setminus D}, \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X).
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By the above theorem, we have
\begin{align*}
\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X}
&\simeq \epb\varpi\rihom(\C_{X\setminus D},\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X) \\
&\simeq \rihom(\opb\varpi\C_{X\setminus D},\epb\varpi\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X).
\end{align*}
Hence
\begin{align*}
\roim\varpi\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X}
&\simeq \roim\varpi\rihom(\opb\varpi\C_{X\setminus D},\epb\varpi\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X) \\
&\simeq \rihom(\reeim\varpi\opb\varpi\C_{X\setminus D},\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X) \\
&\simeq \rihom(\C_{X\setminus D},\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{pro:AOt}
One has
\[
\sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X} \simeq \alpha_{\widetilde X}\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By the definition of $\sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X}$, using \cite[Theorem 10.5]{KS96} one has
\[
\sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X} \simeq H^0 \alpha_{\widetilde X}\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X}.
\]
Let $U$ be a relatively compact subanalytic open subset of $\widetilde X^{\operatorname{tot}}$ and set $V=\varpi(U\cap \widetilde X^{>0})$. Then we have
\begin{align*}
\derr\varGamma(U;\alpha_{\widetilde X}\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X})
&\simeq \RHom(\C_{U\cap \widetilde X^{>0}}, \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X}) \\
&\simeq \RHom(\C_V, \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X),
\end{align*}
where the last isomorphism follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:varpiOt}.
Hence the vanishing of the higher cohomology groups of the complex $\alpha_{\widetilde X}\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X}$ follows from the fact that, if $V$ is a relatively compact subanalytic convex open subset of $\mathbb{C}^n$, then,
\[
H^k\RHom(\C_V,\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\mathbb{C}^n}) = 0 \quad \text{for $k\neq 0$}.
\]
This last fact follows e.g.\ from \cite[Theorem 5.10]{DS96}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Normal forms}\label{sse:normal}
Let $X$ be a complex manifold and $D\subset X$ a normal crossing divisor.
Let $(z_1,\dots,z_n)$ be a system of local coordinates
of $X$ such that $D=\{z_1\cdots z_r=0\}$.
\begin{notation}
For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, set
\[
\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A} = \sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A} \ltens[\opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X] \opb\varpi\sheaffont{M}.
\]
\end{notation}
\begin{lemma}
If $\sheaffont{M}$ is a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module such that $\ss(\sheaffont{M})\subset D$ and $\sheaffont{M}\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto}\sheaffont{M}(*D)$,
then one has
\begin{equation}
\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A} \simeq \sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A} \tens[\opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X] \opb\varpi\sheaffont{M}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This follows from
\begin{align*}
\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A} \ltens[\opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X] \opb\varpi\sheaffont{M}
&\simeq
(\sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X} \ltens[\opb\varpi\O_X] \opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X) \ltens[\opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X] \opb\varpi\sheaffont{M} \\
&\simeq \sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X} \ltens[\opb\varpi\O_X] \opb\varpi\sheaffont{M}
\end{align*}
by noticing that $\sheaffont{M}$ is flat over $\O_X$.
\end{proof}
It is well known that if $\sheaffont{M}$ is a regular holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module such that $\sheaffont{M} \simeq \sheaffont{M}(*D)$ and $\ss(\sheaffont{M}) \subset D$, then $\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}$ is isomorphic to a finite direct sum of copies of $(\O_X)^\sheaffont{A}$, locally on $\widetilde X^0$.
(Note that $z_k^\lambda(\log z_k)^m$ is a section of $\sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X}$, locally on $\widetilde X^0$, for $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}$, $k=1,\dots,r$ and $m\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$.)
\begin{definition}
\label{def:normal}
We say that a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module $\sheaffont{M}$ has \emph{a normal form} along $D$ if
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
$\sheaffont{M} \simeq \sheaffont{M}(*D)$,
\item
$\ss(\sheaffont{M}) \subset D$,
\item
for any $x\in \widetilde X^0$, there exist an open neighborhood $U\subset X$ of $\varpi(x)$ and finitely many $\varphi_i\in\varGamma(U;\O_X(*D))$
such that
\[
(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A})|_V \simeq
\left.\left( \mathop{\scalebox{0.8}{$\displaystyle\bigoplus$}}\limits\nolimits_i (\sheaffont{E}_{U\setminus D|U}^{\varphi_i})^\sheaffont{A} \right)\right|_V
\]
for some neighborhood $V\subset\opb\varpi(U)$ of $x$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
A ramification of $X$ along $D$ on a neighborhood $U$ of $x\in D$ is a finite map
\[
p \colon X' \to U
\]
of the form $p(z) = (z_1^{m_1},\dots,z_r^{m_r},z_{r+1},\dots,z_n)$ for some $(m_1,\dots,m_r)\in(\mathbb{Z}_{>0})^r$.
Here $(z_1,\dots,z_n)$ is a
local coordinate system such that $D=\{z_1\cdots z_r=0\}$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:quasi-normal}
We say that a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module $\sheaffont{M}$ has \emph{a quasi-normal form} along $D$ if it satisfies (i) and (ii) in Definition~\ref{def:normal}, and if for any $x\in D$ there exists a ramification $p\colon X'\to U$ on a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ such that $\dopb p (\sheaffont{M}|_U)$ has a normal form along $\opb p (D\cap U)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
With the above notations, $\dopb p(\sheaffont{M}|_U)$ and $\doim p\dopb p(\sheaffont{M}|_U)$ are concentrated in degree zero, and
$\sheaffont{M}|_U$ is a direct summand of $\doim p\dopb p (\sheaffont{M}|_U)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}[see \cite{Maj84,Sab00,Moc09,Moc11,Ked10,Ked11}]
\label{thm:normal}
Let $X$ be a complex manifold, $\sheaffont{M}$ a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module and $x\in X$.
Then there exist an open neighborhood $U$ of $x$, a closed analytic hypersurface $Y\subset U$, a complex manifold $X'$ and a projective morphism $f\colon X'\to U$ such that
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item $\ss(\sheaffont{M})\cap U\subset Y$,
\item $D\mathbin{:=}\opb f(Y)$ is a
normal crossing divisor of $X'$,
\item $f$ induces an isomorphism $X'\setminus D \to U \setminus Y$,
\item $(\dopb f \sheaffont{M})(*D)$ has a quasi-normal form along $D$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
Remark that, under assumption (iii), $(\dopb f \sheaffont{M})(*D)$ is concentrated in degree zero.
\medskip
The above fundamental result provides the following tool to prove statements concerning holonomic objects.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:redux}
Let $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ be a statement concerning a complex manifold $X$ and a holonomic object $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$. Consider the following conditions.
\be[{\rm(a)}]
\item
Let $X=\bigcup\limits\nolimits_{i\in I}U_i$ be an open covering. Then $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is true if and only if $P_{U_i}(\sheaffont{M}|_{U_i})$ is true for any $i\in I$.
\item
If $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is true, then $P_X(\sheaffont{M}[n])$ is true for any $n\in\mathbb{Z}$.
\item
Let $\sheaffont{M}'\to\sheaffont{M}\to\sheaffont{M}''\to[+1]$ be a distinguished triangle in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$. If $P_X(\sheaffont{M}')$ and $P_X(\sheaffont{M}'')$ are true, then $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is true.
\item
Let $\sheaffont{M}$ and $\sheaffont{M}'$ be holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-modules.
If $P_X(\sheaffont{M}\dsum\sheaffont{M}')$ is true, then $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is true.
\item Let $f\colon X\to Y$ be a projective morphism and $\sheaffont{M}$ a good holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module. If $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is true, then $P_Y(\doim f\sheaffont{M})$ is true.
\item If $\sheaffont{M}$ is a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module with a normal form along a normal crossing divisor of $X$, then $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is true.
\end{enumerate}
If conditions {\rm (a)--(f)} are satisfied,
then $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is true for any complex manifold $X$ and any $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $X$ be a complex manifold and $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$. Let us show that $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is true.
\smallskip\noindent (i)
Let $a\leq b$ be integers such that $\sheaffont{M}\in\mathsf{D}^{[a,b]}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$.
Then one says that $\sheaffont{M}$ has amplitude $\leq b-a$.
By applying (b) and (c) to the distinguished triangle
\[
\tau^{\leq a}\sheaffont{M} \To \sheaffont{M} \To \tau^{>a}\sheaffont{M} \To[+1]
\]
and arguing by induction on the amplitude of $\sheaffont{M}$, we may assume that $\sheaffont{M}$ is concentrated in degree zero. In other words, we may assume that $\sheaffont{M}$ is a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module.
Since the question is local on $X$ by (a), we may further assume that $\sheaffont{M}$ is good.
\smallskip\noindent (ii)
Assume that $\sheaffont{M}$ is a good holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module with a quasi-normal form along a normal crossing divisor $D\subset X$.
Locally, there exists a ramification $p\colon X'\to X$ as in Definition~\ref{def:quasi-normal}, such that $\dopb p\sheaffont{M}$ has a normal form. Then, $P_{X'}(\dopb p\sheaffont{M})$ is true by (f). Hence
$P_X(\doim p\dopb p \sheaffont{M})$ is true by (e). Since $\sheaffont{M}$ is a direct summand of $\doim p\dopb p \sheaffont{M}$, it follows from (d) that $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is true.
\smallskip\noindent (iii)
Let $\sheaffont{M}$ be a good holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module. We will argue by induction on $\dim X$ and by induction on the dimension of $Y \mathbin{:=} \supp\sheaffont{M}$.
\smallskip\noindent (iii-1)
Assume first $Y=X$. Then, locally on $X$, there exist a closed hypersurface $Z\subset X$ and a projective morphism $f\colon X'\to X$ such that $D \mathbin{:=} \opb f Z$ is a normal crossing divisor of $X'$, $f$ induces an isomorphism $X'\setminus D\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} X\setminus Z$, and $(\dopb f \sheaffont{M})(*D)$ has a quasi-normal form. Hence $P_{X'}(\dopb f \sheaffont{M}(*D))$ is true by (ii).
Since $\dopb f \sheaffont{M}(*D)$ is good and $\sheaffont{M}(*Z) \simeq \doim f \dopb f\sheaffont{M}(*D)$, $P_X(\sheaffont{M}(*Z))$ is true by (e).
Let us consider a distinguished triangle
\[
\sheaffont{M}\To\sheaffont{M}(*Z)\To\sheaffont{N}\To[+1].
\]
Then $\dim\supp\sheaffont{N} < \dim Y$, and hence $P_X(\sheaffont{N})$ is true by the induction hypothesis. Therefore $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is true by (b) and (c).
\smallskip\noindent (iii-2)
Assume now that $Y\neq X$. Let $Y_{\operatorname{sing}}$ be its singular locus, and let $f\colon Y'\to X$ be a projective morphism such that $Y'$ is a complex manifold, $f(Y')= Y$, $Z'\mathbin{:=}\opb f Y_{\operatorname{sing}}$ is a closed hypersurface of $Y'$, and $f$ induces an isomorphism $Y'\setminus Z'\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} Y\setminus Y_{\operatorname{sing}}$.
Then $\sheaffont{N} \mathbin{:=} \dopb f\sheaffont{M}(*Z')[d_{Y'}-d_X]$ is a good holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_{Y'}$-module.
Since $\dim Y'<\dim X$, $P_{Y'}(\sheaffont{N})$ is true by the induction hypothesis on $\dim X$.
Hence $P_X(\doim f\sheaffont{N})$ is also true by (e).
Consider a distinguished triangle
\[
\sheaffont{M} \To \doim f\sheaffont{N} \To \sheaffont{L} \To[+1].
\]
Since $\supp\sheaffont{L} \subset Y_{\operatorname{sing}}$, the induction hypothesis on $\dim Y$ implies that $P_X(\sheaffont{L})$ is true. Hence $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is also true by (b) and (c).
\end{proof}
\section{Enhanced tempered functions}\label{se:enhanced}
We define in this section the enhanced ind-sheaves of tempered distributions and of tempered holomorphic functions.
\subsection{Enhanced tempered distributions}
Denote by $\mathsf{P}$ and $\mathbb{P}$ the real and complex projective line, respectively.
Let $t\in\mathbb{R}\subset\mathsf{P}$ and $\tau\in\mathbb{C}\subset\mathbb{P}$ be the affine coordinates, with $t=\tau|_\mathbb{R}$.
Let $M$ be a real analytic manifold, and consider the natural morphism of bordered spaces
\[
j\colon M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \to M\times\mathsf{P} .
\]
\begin{definition}
\label{def:DbT}
Set
\[
\Db^\Tmp_M =
\epb j \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}](\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^\tau,\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{M\times\mathsf{P}})[1] \in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty}),
\]
and denote by $\Db^\enh_M$ the associated object of $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$.
\end{definition}
Here the shift has been chosen
so that Propositions \ref{pro:OTetens} and \ref{prop:regireg} below
hold.
Note that, by an argument similar to that in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:Rt}, one has
\[
H^k(\Db^\Tmp_M) = 0 \quad\text{for }k\neq-1.
\]
\begin{remark}
There are monomorphisms
$$\C_{\{t<\ast\}} \tens \opb\pi\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M
\monoto H^{-1}(\Db^\Tmp_M)\monoto \opb\pi\sheaffont{D}b_M.$$
The first one is induced by $v(x)\mapsto e^tv(x)$,
and the second is induced by $u(x,t)\mapsto e^{-t}u(x,t)$.
They are not isomorphisms (if $\dim M\ge 1$).
In fact, for $M=\mathbb{R}$ and $U=\{(x,t)\in M\times\mathbb{R}\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax x>0,\ t<-1/x\}$,
one has
$e^te^{1/x} \in \Hom(\C_U, H^{-1}(\Db^\Tmp_M))$ but
$e^{1/x}\in \Hom(\C_U, \opb\pi\sheaffont{D}b_M)\simeq\Hom(\mathbb{C}_{\{x>0\}},\sheaffont{D}b_M)$
does not belong to
$$\Hom(\C_U, \C_{\{t<\ast\}} \tens \opb\pi\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M)
\simeq \Hom(\C_U, \opb\pi\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M)\simeq\Hom(\mathbb{C}_{\{x>0\}},\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_M).$$
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:DbTgeq0}
There are isomorphisms in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{M\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\begin{align*}
\Db^\Tmp_M
&\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_{\{t\geq0\}}, \Db^\Tmp_M) \\
&\isofrom {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_{\{t\geq a\}}, \Db^\Tmp_M) \quad \text{for any $a\geq 0$}.
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i)
Let us prove the isomorphism
\[
\Db^\Tmp_M \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_{\{t\geq0\}}, \Db^\Tmp_M).
\]
Denote by $p\colon M\times\mathsf{P}\to M$ the projection.
Let $U\subset M\times\mathsf{P}$ be an open subanalytic subset such that $U\cap(M\times\mathbb{R})\cap \opb p(x)$ is connected for all $x\in M$.
Note that $\roim j\Db^\Tmp_M$ belongs to $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\operatorname{suban}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{M\times\mathsf{P}})$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:vanrelsuban}, it is then enough to show
\[
\RHom(\C_U,{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_{\{t>0\}}, \Db^\Tmp_M))
\simeq 0.
\]
One has
\[
\RHom(\C_U,{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_{\{t>0\}}, \Db^\Tmp_M))
\simeq \RHom(\C_U \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \C_{\{t>0\}}, \Db^\Tmp_M).
\]
Set $V= p(U)\subset M$ and $U\cap(M\times\mathbb{R})=\{(x,t)\in V\times\mathbb{R} \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \varphi(x)<t<\psi(x) \}$, where $\varphi,\psi\colon V \to \overline\mathbb{R}$ are subanalytic functions with $\varphi(x)<\psi(x)$ for all $x\in V$. Then
\[
\C_U \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \C_{\{t>0\}} \simeq \C_W[-1],
\]
where $W=\{(x,t)\in V\times\mathbb{R}\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \varphi(x)<t \}$.
Note that $\varphi$ takes value in $\overline\mathbb{R}\setminus\{+\infty\}$.
Hence we have to prove that the bottom arrow in the commutative diagram below is an isomorphism.
\[
\xymatrix{
\Hom(\C_{M\times\mathbb{R}}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{M\times\mathsf{P}}) \ar@{->>}[r]^{\partial_t-1} \ar@{->>}[d] &
\Hom(\C_{M\times\mathbb{R}}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{M\times\mathsf{P}}) \ar@{->>}[d] \\
\Hom(\C_W, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{M\times\mathsf{P}}) \ar[r]^{\partial_t-1} &
\Hom(\C_W, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{M\times\mathsf{P}}) .
}
\]
Since the top arrow is surjective and the vertical arrows are surjective, also the bottom arrow is surjective.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:uet} below, the bottom arrow is injective.
\smallskip\noindent(ii)
In order to prove the isomorphism
\[
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_{\{t\geq a\}}, \Db^\Tmp_M) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_{\{t\geq0\}}, \Db^\Tmp_M),
\]
it is enough to show that
\[
{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_{\{t< a\}}, \Db^\Tmp_M) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_{\{t< 0\}}, \Db^\Tmp_M).
\]
Hence, as in (i), it is enough to show that
\[
\RHom(\C_U,{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_{\{t< a\}}, \Db^\Tmp_M)) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \RHom(\C_U,{\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_{\{t< 0\}}, \Db^\Tmp_M))
\]
for any subanalytic open subset $U\subset M\times\mathsf{P}$ such that
\[
U\cap(M\times\mathbb{R}) = \{(x,t)\in V\times\mathbb{R} \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \varphi(x)<t<\psi(x) \},
\]
where $V=p(U)$.
One has $\C_U \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \C_{\{t<a\}} \simeq \C_{W_a}[-1]$,
where
\[
W_a = \{(x,t)\in V\times\mathbb{R}\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax t-a<\psi(x) \}.
\]
Hence we have to show that the following morphism is a quasi-isomorphism
\begin{multline*}
\left( \Hom(\C_{W_a}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{M\times\mathsf{P}}) \to[\partial_t-1] \Hom(\C_{W_a}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{M\times\mathsf{P}}) \right) \\
\To
\left( \Hom(\C_{W_0}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{M\times\mathsf{P}}) \to[\partial_t-1] \Hom(\C_{W_0}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{M\times\mathsf{P}}) \right).
\end{multline*}
Since the arrows $\partial_t-1$ are surjective, we have to show that the natural morphism
\begin{multline*}
\ker\left( \Hom(\C_{W_a}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{M\times\mathsf{P}}) \to[\partial_t-1] \Hom(\C_{W_a}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{M\times\mathsf{P}}) \right) \\
\to
\ker\left( \Hom(\C_{W_0}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{M\times\mathsf{P}}) \to[\partial_t-1] \Hom(\C_{W_0}, \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{M\times\mathsf{P}}) \right)
\end{multline*}
is an isomorphism.
Indeed, its inverse is given by $u(x,t) \mapsto e^a\,u(x,t-a)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:uet}
Let $u\in\varGamma(M;\sheaffont{D}b_M)$ and assume that $u(x)e^t \in \varGamma(M\times\{t>0\};\sheaffont{D}b_{M\times\mathsf{P}})$ is tempered at $t=\infty$. Then $u=0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For any $v\in\sheaffont{C}^\infty_c(M)$, set $c= \int v(x)u(x) dx$. Then the function $ce^t= \int v(x)u(x)e^t dx$ is tempered at $t=\infty$, and hence $c=0$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Enhanced tempered holomorphic functions}
Let $X$ be a complex manifold.
Consider the natural morphism of bordered spaces
\[
i\colon X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \to X\times\mathbb{P} .
\]
Let $\tau\in\mathbb{C}\subset\mathbb{P}$ be the affine coordinate such that $\tau|_\mathbb{R} = t$, the affine coordinate of $\mathbb{R}$.
\begin{definition}
Set
\begin{align*}
\O^\enh_X
&= \epb i ((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})^\mathrm{r}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}]\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times\mathbb{P}})[1] \\
&\simeq \epb i \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}](\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^\tau,\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times\mathbb{P}})[2] \in \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}]X, \\
\Omega^\enh_X &= \Omega_X \ltens[\O_X] \O^\enh_X \\
&\simeq \epb i(\Omega^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X\times\mathbb{P}} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}] \sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})[1] \in \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}^\mathrm{op}]X.
\end{align*}
Recall that $\mathrm{r}\colon\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}) \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}^\mathrm{op})$ is the functor given by $\sheaffont{M}^\mathrm{r} = \Omega_\mathbb{P} \ltens[\O_\mathbb{P}] \sheaffont{M}$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:OTgeq0}
There is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C_{X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty})$
\[
\operatorname{R^\enh}\O^\enh_X \simeq \epb i ((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})^\mathrm{r}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}]\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times\mathbb{P}})[1],
\]
and there are isomorphisms in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}]X$
\begin{align*}
\O^\enh_X &\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_{\{t\geq 0\}}, \O^\enh_X) \\
&\isofrom {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_{\{t\geq a\}}, \O^\enh_X) \quad
\text{for any $a\geq 0$}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:DbTgeq0}, noticing that
\[
\O^\enh_X \simeq \rhom[\opb\pi\sheaffont{D}_{\overline X}](\opb\pi\O_{\overline X},\Db^\enh_{X_\mathbb{R}}),
\]
where $X_\mathbb{R}$ denotes the real analytic manifold underlying $X$.
\end{proof}
As a consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:OTgeq0} and Proposition~\ref{pro:equivTam}, we get the following result.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:CTamOT}
There are isomorphisms in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}]X$
\begin{align*}
\O^\enh_X
&\simeq {\sheaffont{I} hom}^+(\C_X^\mathsf{E}, \O^\enh_X) \\
&\simeq \C_X^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \O^\enh_X.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:OTetens}
There is a canonical morphism
\[
\O^\enh_X \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \O^\enh_Y \to \O^\enh_{X\times Y}.
\]
\end{proposition}
In order to prove this proposition, we need a complex analytic analogue of the construction in Notation~\ref{not:sfS}.
\begin{notation}
Denote by $\mathbb S'$ the closure of $\{(x_1,x_2,x_3)\in\mathbb{C}^3\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax x_1+x_2+x_3=0 \}$ in $\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}$.
Then $\mathbb S'$ has a quadratic singularity at $(\infty,\infty,\infty)$.
Denote by $\mathbb S$ the blow-up of $\mathbb S'$ with center $(\infty,\infty,\infty)$.
Then $\mathbb S$ is a smooth projective surface.
Consider the maps
\[
\mathbb{P} \from[{\ \tilde\mu\ }] \mathbb S\To[\tilde p] \mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}
\]
induced by $(x_1,x_2,x_3) \mapsto -x_3$, and $(x_1,x_2,x_3) \mapsto (x_1,x_2)$, respectively.
We denote by the same letters the induced maps
\[
X\times Y\times\mathbb{P} \from[\tilde\mu] X\times Y\times\mathbb S \to[\tilde p] X\times Y\times\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}.
\]
\end{notation}
\begin{remark}
The algebraic surface $\mathbb S$ is also obtained as the blow-up of the complex projective plane $\mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C})$ with center at three points on a line.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{pro:OTetens}]
Consider the diagrams of bordered spaces
\[
\xymatrix{
X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[d]^{i_X} & X\times Y\times\mathbb{R}_\infty\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[l]_-{p_1} \ar[r]^-{p_2} \ar[d]^j & Y\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[d]^{i_Y} \\
X\times\mathbb{P} & X\times Y\times\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P} \ar[l]_-{\overline p_1} \ar[r]^-{\overline p_2} & Y\times\mathbb{P}
}
\]
and
\[
\xymatrix{
X\times Y\times\mathbb S \ar[r]^{\tilde\mu} \ar[d]^{\tilde p} & X\times Y\times\mathbb{P} \\
X\times Y\times\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P} & X\times Y\times\mathbb{R}_\infty\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[ul]_{j_{\mathbb S}} \ar[r]^\mu \ar[l]^j & X\times Y\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \ar[ul]_{i_{X\times Y}}.
}
\]
Recall that
\begin{align*}
\O^\enh_X
&= \epb{i_X} ((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_1})^\mathrm{r}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}]\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times\mathbb{P}})[1], \\
\O^\enh_Y
&= \epb{i_Y} ((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_2})^\mathrm{r}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}]\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{Y\times\mathbb{P}})[1],
\end{align*}
where $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are coordinates on $\mathbb{C}\subset\mathbb{P}$.
There are morphisms
\begin{align*}
\opb{p_1}\O^\enh_X \tens \opb{p_2}\O^\enh_Y
&\to \epb j(\opb{\overline p_2}((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_1})^\mathrm{r}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}]\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times\mathbb{P}}) \tens \opb{\overline p_2}((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_2})^\mathrm{r}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}]\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{Y\times\mathbb{P}}))[2] \\
&\to \epb j((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_1}\etens \sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_2})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}\etens\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}] (\opb{\overline p_1}\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times\mathbb{P}} \tens \opb{\overline p_2}\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{Y\times\mathbb{P}}))[2] \\
&\to \epb j((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}^2|\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_1-\tau_2})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}}] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}})[2],
\end{align*}
where the first morphism follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:epbetens}.
Since $j = \tilde p\circ j_{\mathbb S}$, we have
\begin{align*}
\epb j(&(\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}^2|\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_1-\tau_2})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}}] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}})[2] \\
&\simeq \epb {j_{\mathbb S}}\epb{\tilde p}((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}^2|\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_1-\tau_2})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}}] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}})[2] \\
&\simeq \epb{j_{\mathbb S}}(\opb{\tilde p}(\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}^2|\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_1-\tau_2})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\opb{\tilde p}\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}}] \epb{\tilde p}\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}})[2] \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \epb {j_{\mathbb S}}(\opb{\tilde p}(\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}^2|\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_1-\tau_2})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\opb{\tilde p}\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}}] \sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}\from[{\;\tilde p\;}]\mathbb S} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb S}] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb S})[2] \\
&\simeq \epb{j_{\mathbb S}}(\dopb{\tilde p}(\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}^2|\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_1-\tau_2})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb S}] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb S})[2] ,
\end{align*}
where $(*)$ follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:ifunct} (i).
We have a morphism
\begin{align*}
\dopb{\tilde p}(\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}^2|\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_1-\tau_2})
&\to \dopb{\tilde p} (\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}^2|\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau_1-\tau_2})
(*\opb{\tilde p}(\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}\setminus\mathbb{C}^2)) \\
&\simeq \dopb{\tilde \mu}(\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})(*\opb{\tilde
p}(\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}\setminus\mathbb{C}^2)).
\end{align*}
Hence we obtain
\begin{align*}
\opb{p_1}\O^\enh_X \tens \opb{p_2}\O^\enh_Y
&\to \epb{j_{\mathbb S}}(\dopb{\tilde \mu}(\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})(*\opb{\tilde p}(\mathbb{P}\times\mathbb{P}\setminus\mathbb{C}^2))^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb S}] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb S})[2] \\
&\simeq \epb{j_{\mathbb S}}\rihom(\C_{X\times Y\times\mathbb{C}^2}, \dopb{\tilde \mu}(\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb S}] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb S})[2].
\end{align*}
Since $\opb{j_{\mathbb S}}(\mathbb{C}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb{C}^2})\simeq \mathbb{C}_{ X\times Y\times \mathbb{R}^2}$,
one has
\begin{align*}
\epb{j_{\mathbb S}}\rihom&(\C_{X\times Y\times \mathbb{C}^2}, \dopb{\tilde \mu}(\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb S}] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb S})[2] \\
&\simeq \epb{j_{\mathbb S}}(\dopb{\tilde \mu}(\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})^\mathrm{r}
\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb S}] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb S})[2] \\
&\simeq \epb{j_{\mathbb S}}(\opb{\tilde\mu}(\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\opb{\tilde\mu}\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}] \sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb{P}\from[{\;\tilde\mu\;}]\mathbb S} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\mathbb S}] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb S})[2] \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \epb{j_{\mathbb S}}(\opb{\tilde\mu}(\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\opb{\tilde\mu}\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}] \epb{\tilde\mu} \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb{P}})[1] \\
&\simeq \epb{j_{\mathbb S}}\epb{\tilde\mu}((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb{P}})[1] \\
&\simeq \epb\mu\epb{i_{X\times Y}}((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times Y\times\mathbb{P}})[1],
\end{align*}
where $(*)$ follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:ifunct} (i).
We thus get a morphism
\[
\opb{p_1}\O^\enh_X \tens \opb{p_2}\O^\enh_Y \to \epb\mu\O^\enh_{X\times Y}.
\]
The desired morphism follows by adjunction.
\end{proof}
\section{Riemann-Hilbert correspondence}\label{se:RH}
We have now all the ingredients to state and prove a Riemann-Hilbert correspondence for holonomic $\sheaffont{D}$-modules which are not necessarily regular. It is an analogue of the classical Riemann-Hilbert correspondence for regular holonomic $\sheaffont{D}$-modules, in the framework of enhanced ind-sheaves.
\subsection{Enhanced de Rham and solution functors}
Recall that
\[
i\colon X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \to X\times\mathbb{P}
\]
is the natural morphism of bordered spaces, $\tau\in\mathbb{C}\subset\mathbb{P}$ is the affine coordinate and $t=\tau|_\mathbb{R}$.
\begin{definition}
For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, set
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M}) &= \Omega^\enh_X \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \sheaffont{M} \\
&\simeq \epb i \mathcal{DR}^\tmp_{X\times\mathbb{P}}(\sheaffont{M}\detens\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})[1], \\
\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}) &= \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_X](\sheaffont{M},\O^\enh_X) \\
&\simeq \epb i \mathcal Sol^{\mspace{2.5mu}\tmp}_{X\times\mathbb{P}}(\sheaffont{M}\detens\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^\tau)[2].
\end{align*}
They induce the functors
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \to \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X, \\
\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X &\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)^\mathrm{op} \to \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X.
\end{align*}
\end{definition}
Note that one has
\[
\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M})
\simeq \mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{M})[-d_X].
\]
{}From Theorem~\ref{thm:ifunct}, one deduces
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:Tfunct}
Let $f\colon X\to Y$ be a complex analytic map.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
There is an isomorphism in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\opb f\sheaffont{D}]Y$
\[
\Eepb f \O^\enh_Y[d_Y] \simeq \sheaffont{D}_{Y\from X} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \O^\enh_X [d_X].
\]
\item
For any $\sheaffont{N}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_Y)$ there is an isomorphism in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\dopb f \sheaffont{N})[d_X] \simeq \Eepb f \mathcal{DR}^\enh_Y(\sheaffont{N})[d_Y].
\]
\item
Let $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{good}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, and assume that $\supp\sheaffont{M}$ is proper over $Y$. Then there is an isomorphism in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]Y$
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_Y(\doim f\sheaffont{M}) \simeq \Eeeim f\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M}).
\]
\item
Let $\sheaffont{L}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{rh}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ and $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$. Then
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{L}\dtens\sheaffont{M}) \simeq \rihom(\opb\pi\mathcal Sol_X(\sheaffont{L}), \mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})),
\]
where $\mathcal Sol_X(\sheaffont{L}) = \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_X](\sheaffont{L},\O_X)$.
In particular, for a closed hypersurface $Y\subset X$, one has
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X\bigl(\sheaffont{M}(*Y)\bigr) \simeq \rihom\bigl(\opb\pi\mathbb{C}_{X\setminus Y}, \mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})\bigr).
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:regireg}
For $\sheaffont{L}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{rh}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ one has an isomorphism in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]M$
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{L}) \simeq e(\mathcal{DR}_X(\sheaffont{L})) \mathbin{:=} \C_X^\mathsf{E} \tens \opb\pi\mathcal{DR}_X(\sheaffont{L}).
\]
In particular, one has
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\O_X) \simeq \C_X^\mathsf{E}[d_X].
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i)\ When $X={\{\mathrm{pt}\}}$, by Lemma~\ref{lem:Rt} we have
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{\{\mathrm{pt}\}}(\C) \simeq \C_{\{t<\ast\}}[1] \simeq \C_{\{\mathrm{pt}\}}^\mathsf{E}.
\]
Hence, Theorem~\ref{thm:Tfunct}~(ii) and Proposition~\ref{pro:stableops}~(ii) imply
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\O_X) \simeq \Eepb a_X \C_{\{\mathrm{pt}\}}^\mathsf{E}[-d_X] \simeq \C_X^\mathsf{E}[d_X],
\]
where $a_X\colon X\to{\{\mathrm{pt}\}}$ is the canonical map.
\smallskip\noindent(ii)\
By (i), setting $\sheaffont{M}=\O_X$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:Tfunct}~(iv) one has
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{L}) \simeq \rihom(\opb\pi\mathcal Sol_X(\sheaffont{L}), \C_X^\mathsf{E}[d_X]).
\]
Moreover,
\begin{align*}
\rihom(\opb\pi\mathcal Sol_X(\sheaffont{L}), \C_X^\mathsf{E}[d_X])
&\simeq \C_X^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \rihom(\opb\pi\mathcal Sol_X(\sheaffont{L}), \C_{\{t=0\}}[d_X]) \\
&\simeq \C_X^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} (\opb\pi\mathrm{D}_X(\mathcal Sol_X(\sheaffont{L})[d_X]) \tens \C_{\{t=0\}}) \\
&\simeq \C_X^\mathsf{E} \tens \opb\pi\mathrm{D}_X(\mathcal Sol_X(\sheaffont{L})[d_X]) \\
&\simeq \C_X^\mathsf{E} \tens \opb\pi\mathcal{DR}_X(\sheaffont{L}),
\end{align*}
where the first isomorphism follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:pifieldT}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Real blow-up}
Let $D\subset X$ be a normal crossing divisor, and denote by $\widetilde X$ the real blow-up of $X$ along $D$. Similarly, denote by $\widetilde{X\times\mathbb{P}}$ the real blow-up of $X\times\mathbb{P}$ along $D\times\mathbb{P}$.
There is a natural identification $\widetilde{X\times\mathbb{P}} = \widetilde X\times\mathbb{P}$. Hence, following the notations in section~\ref{sse:blowfun},
we have the sheaves of rings on $\widetilde X\times\mathbb{P}$
\begin{align*}
\sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X\times\mathbb{P}} &\subset \opb\varpi\rhom(\C_{(X\setminus D)\times\mathbb{P}},\O_{X\times\mathbb{P}}), \\
\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X\times\mathbb{P}}^\sheaffont{A} &= \sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X\times\mathbb{P}} \tens[\opb\varpi\O_{X\times\mathbb{P}}] \opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_{X\times\mathbb{P}},
\end{align*}
and the complex
\[
\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X\times\mathbb{P}} \in \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X\times\mathbb{P}}^\sheaffont{A}).
\]
Consider the natural morphisms
\[
\widetilde X \from[{\ \pi_{\widetilde X}\ }] \widetilde X \times \mathbb{R}_\infty \To[\tilde\imath] \widetilde X \times \mathbb{P}.
\]
\begin{definition}
Set
\begin{align*}
\O^\enh_{\widetilde X}
&= \epb{\tilde\imath} ((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})^\mathrm{r} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X\times\mathbb{P}})[1] \\
&\simeq \epb{\tilde\imath} \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}](\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^\tau,\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X\times\mathbb{P}})[2] \in \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}^\sheaffont{A}]{\widetilde X}, \\
\Omega^\enh_{\widetilde X} &= \opb{\pi_{\widetilde X}}\opb\varpi\Omega_X \ltens[\opb{\pi_{\widetilde X}}\opb\varpi\O_X] \O^\enh_{\widetilde X} \\
&\simeq \epb{\tilde\imath} (\Omega^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X\times\mathbb{P}}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}]\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau}) [1] \in \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^{\sheaffont{A}})^\mathrm{op}]{}
\end{align*}
and
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{L}) = \Omega^\enh_{\widetilde X} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A}] \sheaffont{L} \in \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]{\widetilde X}\quad\text{for $\sheaffont{L}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A})$.}
\]
\end{definition}
Theorem~\ref{thm:forOt} and Corollary~\ref{cor:varpiOt} imply
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:forOTtilde}
There are
an isomorphism in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\sheaffont{D}^\mathrm{op}]X$
\[
\Eoim\varpi\Omega^\enh_{\widetilde X} \simeq
\rihom(\opb\pi\C_{X\setminus D}, \Omega^\enh_X),
\]
and an isomorphism in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X{}^\mathrm{op}]{}$
\[
\operatorname{for}(\Omega^\enh_{\widetilde X}) \simeq
\Eepb\varpi\rihom(\opb\pi\C_{X\setminus D}, \Omega^\enh_X),
\]
where $\operatorname{for}\colon \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\sheaffont{D}^\sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X})^\mathrm{op}]{}\to \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X{}^\mathrm{op}]{}$ is the forgetful functor.
\end{theorem}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:drTXtilde}
For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ such that $\sheaffont{M}\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto}\sheaffont{M}(*D)$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M}) &\simeq \Eoim\varpi\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}), \\
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}) &\simeq \Eepb\varpi\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M}).
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By the first isomorphism in Theorem~\ref{thm:forOTtilde}, one has
\begin{align*}
\Eoim\varpi\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A})
&= \Eoim\varpi(\Omega^\enh_{\widetilde X} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A}]\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}) \\
&\simeq \Eoim\varpi(\Omega^\enh_{\widetilde X} \ltens[\opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X]\opb\varpi\sheaffont{M}) \\
&\simeq (\Eoim\varpi\Omega^\enh_{\widetilde X}) \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X]\sheaffont{M} \\
&\simeq \rihom(\opb\pi\C_{X\setminus D},\Omega^\enh_X) \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X]\sheaffont{M} \\
&\simeq \Omega^\enh_X \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X](\O_X(*D)\dtens\sheaffont{M} )\\
&\simeq \mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M} ).
\end{align*}
The proof of the second isomorphism in the statement is similar, using the second isomorphism in Theorem~\ref{thm:forOTtilde}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Constructibility}
Let $Y\subset X$ be a complex analytic hypersurface and $\varphi\in\O_X(*Y)$.
Set $U=X\setminus Y$.
Let $\tau\in\mathbb{C}\subset\mathbb{P}$ be the affine coordinate such that $\tau|_\mathbb{R} = t$.
We set
\[
\{t=\Re\varphi\} = \{(x,t)\in U\times\mathbb{R}\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax t=\Re\varphi(x)\}
\subset X\times\mathsf{P}
\]
and define the object $E^\mathsf{E}_{U|X}(\varphi)$ of $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ by
\[
E^\mathsf{E}_{U|X}(\varphi) = \C^\mathsf{E}_X \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \rihom(\C_{U\times\mathbb{R}}, \C_{\{t=\Re\varphi\}}).
\]
Recall the notation $\sheaffont{E}_{U|X}^\varphi$ from Definition~\ref{def:expY}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:drTEphi}
Let $Y\subset X$ be a closed hypersurface.
Let $\varphi\in\O_X(*Y)$ be a meromorphic function with poles at $Y$.
Then we have an isomorphism in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{E}_{U|X}^\varphi)
\simeq
E^\mathsf{E}_{U|X}(\varphi)[d_X] .
\]
In particular, $\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{E}_{U|X}^\varphi)$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have
\[
\sheaffont{E}_{U|X}^\varphi \detens \sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau} \simeq \sheaffont{E}_{U\times\mathbb{C}|X\times\mathbb{P}}^{\varphi-\tau}.
\]
By Proposition~\ref{pro:Solphi},
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\tmp_{X\times\mathbb{P}}(\sheaffont{E}_{U\times\mathbb{C}|X\times\mathbb{P}}^{\varphi-\tau}) =
\rihom(\C_{U\times\mathbb{C}}, \indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty] \C_{\{\Re(\tau-\varphi) < a\}} )[d_X+1],
\]
and by the definition,
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{E}_{U|X}^\varphi) \simeq \epb i \mathcal{DR}^\tmp_{X\times\mathbb{P}}(\sheaffont{E}_{U\times\mathbb{C}|X\times\mathbb{P}}^{\varphi-\tau}) [1].
\]
Hence
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{E}_{U|X}^\varphi)
&\simeq \rihom(\C_{U\times\mathbb{R}}, \epb i \indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty] \C_{\{\Re(\tau-\varphi) < a\}} [d_X+2]) \\
&\simeq \rihom(\C_{U\times\mathbb{R}}, \indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty] \C_{\{t-\Re\varphi < a\}} [d_X+1]),
\end{align*}
where the last isomorphism follows from
\[
\C_{U\times\mathbb{R}} \tens \epb i \C_{\{\Re(\tau-\varphi) < a\}} \simeq \C_{\{t-\Re\varphi < a\}}[-1].
\]
In $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ we have
\[
\indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty] \C_{\{t-\Re\varphi <a\}}[1]
\simeq \indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty] \C_{\{t-\Re\varphi \geq a\}}
\simeq \C_X^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \C_{\{t = \Re\varphi\}}.
\]
Thus we obtain
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{E}_{U|X}^\varphi)
&\simeq \rihom(\C_{U\times\mathbb{R}}, \C_X^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \C_{\{t = \Re\varphi\}}) [d_X] \\
&\simeq \C_X^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\rihom(\C_{U\times\mathbb{R}}, \C_{\{t = \Re\varphi\}}) [d_X].
\end{align*}
Here, the last isomorphism follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:pifieldT}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, the object $\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})$
of $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(i)
Assume first that $\sheaffont{M}$ is a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module with a normal form along a normal crossing divisor $D$. Then
\[
\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A} \mathbin{:=} \sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A}\ltens[\opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X]\opb\varpi\sheaffont{M}
\]
is locally a direct sum of $\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A}$-modules of the form $(\sheaffont{E}_{X\setminus D|X}^\varphi)^\sheaffont{A}$ for $\varphi\in\O_X(*D)$ as in Lemma~\ref{lem:drTEphi}. By Corollary~\ref{cor:drTXtilde}, one has
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{\widetilde X}((\sheaffont{E}_{X\setminus D|X}^\varphi)^\sheaffont{A})
\simeq \Eepb\varpi \mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{E}_{X\setminus D|X}^\varphi).
\]
Since $\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{E}_{X\setminus D|X}^\varphi)$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible, Proposition~\ref{pro:RcTfunctorial} implies that $\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{\widetilde X}((\sheaffont{E}_{X\setminus D|X}^\varphi)^\sheaffont{A})$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible. Hence also $\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A})$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
By Corollary~\ref{cor:drTXtilde}, $\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M} ) \simeq \Eoim\varpi\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A})$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible.
\smallskip\noindent (ii)
We shall apply Lemma~\ref{lem:redux} to the statement
\[
P_X(\sheaffont{M}) = \text{``$\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is $\mathbb{R}$-constructible''}.
\]
Hypotheses (a) and (b) are obvious, (c) follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:Rcthick}, (d) from Proposition~\ref{pro:summand}, (e) from Theorem~\ref{thm:Tfunct}~(iii) and Proposition~\ref{pro:RcTfunctorial}, and (f) from step (i).
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:drTetens}
For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ and $\sheaffont{N}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_Y)$, there is a canonical isomorphism
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M}) \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \mathcal{DR}^\enh_Y(\sheaffont{N}) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathcal{DR}^\enh_{X\times Y}(\sheaffont{M} \detens \sheaffont{N}).
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The morphism is defined by using Proposition~\ref{pro:OTetens}.
By d\'evissage, using Lemma~\ref{lem:redux}, we may assume that both $\sheaffont{M}$ and $\sheaffont{N}$ are holonomic $\sheaffont{D}$-modules having a normal form along a normal crossing divisor. Denote by $D_X\subset X$ and $D_Y\subset Y$ the normal crossing divisors of the singularities of $\sheaffont{M}$ and $\sheaffont{N}$, respectively.
Note that $\sheaffont{M}\detens\sheaffont{N}$ has singularities at $D_{X\times Y} \mathbin{:=} (D_X\times Y) \cup (X\times D_Y)$.
Consider the real blow-ups $\varpi_X\colon\widetilde X\to X$ and $\varpi_Y\colon\widetilde Y\to Y$. Note that $\widetilde{X\times Y} \simeq \widetilde X \times \widetilde Y$.
There is a natural morphism
\[
\Omega^\enh_{\widetilde X} \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \Omega^\enh_{\widetilde Y} \to \Omega^\enh_{\widetilde {X\times Y}}.
\]
Hence there are morphisms
\begin{align*}
(\Omega^\enh_{\widetilde X}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X]\sheaffont{M}) \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} (\Omega^\enh_{\widetilde Y}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_Y]\sheaffont{N})
&\to \Omega^\enh_{\widetilde {X\times Y}}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X\etens \sheaffont{D}_Y](\sheaffont{M}\etens\sheaffont{N}) \\
&\simeq \Omega^\enh_{\widetilde {X\times Y}}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{X\times Y}](\sheaffont{M}\detens\sheaffont{N}) .
\end{align*}
The composite of the above morphisms is isomorphic to
\[
(\Omega^\enh_{\widetilde X}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A}]\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}) \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} (\Omega^\enh_{\widetilde Y}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde Y}^\sheaffont{A}]\sheaffont{N}^\sheaffont{A})
\to (\Omega^\enh_{\widetilde {X\times Y}})\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde {X\times Y}}^\sheaffont{A}](\sheaffont{M}\detens\sheaffont{N})^\sheaffont{A},
\]
i.e.\ to
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}) \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \mathcal{DR}^\enh_{\widetilde Y}(\sheaffont{N}^\sheaffont{A})
\to \mathcal{DR}^\enh_{\widetilde {X\times Y}}((\sheaffont{M}\detens\sheaffont{N})^\sheaffont{A}).
\]
By Corollary~\ref{cor:drTXtilde}, it is enough to show that this morphism is an isomorphism.
Then, by Theorem~\ref{thm:normal}, we may assume
$\sheaffont{M}\simeq\sheaffont{E}_{X\setminus D_X|X}^\varphi$ and
$\sheaffont{N}\simeq\sheaffont{E}_{Y\setminus D_Y|Y}^\psi$
for $\varphi\in\O_X(*D_X)$ and $\psi\in\O_Y(*D_Y)$.
Hence, by Corollary~\ref{cor:drTXtilde}, one has
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}) \simeq \Eepb \varpi_X \mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M}),
\]
and similarly for $\sheaffont{M}$ replaced by $\sheaffont{N}$ and $\sheaffont{M}\detens\sheaffont{N}$.
On the other hand, Proposition~\ref{prop:inversedual} implies
\eqn
&&\Eepb \varpi_X \mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \Eepb \varpi_Y \mathcal{DR}^\enh_Y(\sheaffont{N})
\simeq \Eepb \varpi_{X\times Y} \bigl(\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})
\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \mathcal{DR}^\enh_Y(\sheaffont{N})\bigr).\eneqn
We have thus reduced the theorem to the case
$\sheaffont{M} = \sheaffont{E}_{X\setminus D_X|X}^\varphi$ and $\sheaffont{N} = \sheaffont{E}_{Y\setminus D_Y|Y}^\psi$, and we conclude by using the lemma below.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $X$, $Y$ be complex manifolds, $D_X\subset X$, $D_Y\subset Y$ closed hypersurfaces, and $\varphi\in\O_X(*D_X)$, $\psi\in\O_Y(*D_Y)$.
Then we have an isomorphism in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]{X\times Y}$
\[
E^\mathsf{E}_{X\setminus D_X|X}(\varphi) \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} E^\mathsf{E}_{Y\setminus D_Y|Y}(\psi) \simeq E^\mathsf{E}_{(X\setminus D_X)\times(Y\setminus D_Y)|X\times Y}(\varphi+\psi).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We have
\[
\mathrm{D}^\enh_X\bigl(E^\mathsf{E}_{X\setminus D_X|X}(\varphi)[d_X]\bigr)
\simeq \C^\mathsf{E}_X\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \C_{\{t=-\Re\varphi\}}[d_X].
\]
One checks easily that
\eqn
&&
\bigl(\C^\mathsf{E}_X\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \C_{\{t=-\Re\varphi\}}[d_X]\bigr) \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \bigl(\C^\mathsf{E}_Y\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \C_{\{t=-\Re\psi\}}[d_Y])\bigr)\\
&&\hspace*{30ex}\simeq\C^\mathsf{E}_{X\times Y}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \C_{\{t=-\Re(\varphi+\psi)\}}[d_X+d_Y].
\eneqn
Applying $\mathrm{D}^\enh_{X\times Y}$ and noticing that $\mathrm{D}^\enh$ commutes with $\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+}$
by Proposition~\ref{prop:exteriodual}, we obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Duality}
Let $\sheaffont{T}$ be a tensor category with unit object $\mathbbm 1$.
Recall that an adjunction in $\sheaffont{T}$ is a datum $(X_1,X_2,\eta,\varepsilon)$ where $X_1,X_2\in\sheaffont{T}$ and
\[
\mathbbm 1 \To[\eta] X_1\tens X_2, \quad
X_2\tens X_1 \To[\varepsilon] \mathbbm 1
\]
are morphisms such that the compositions
\begin{align*}
X_2 \simeq X_2\tens \mathbbm 1 \To[\eta] X_2\tens X_1\tens X_2
\To[\varepsilon] \mathbbm 1\tens X_2 \simeq X_2, \\
X_1 \simeq \mathbbm 1 \tens X_1 \To[\eta] X_1\tens X_2 \tens X_1
\To[\varepsilon] X_1 \tens \mathbbm 1 \simeq X_1
\end{align*}
are the identities. In this case, $\Hom[\sheaffont{T}](Z, X_2) \simeq \Hom[\sheaffont{T}](Z\tens X_1,\mathbbm 1)$ functorially in $Z\in\sheaffont{T}$, and one calls $X_2$ a right dual of $X_1$.
\medskip
Let $X$ be a complex manifold.
We shall adapt the construction above to the categories $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ and $\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$.
\medskip
Define the maps
\[
p^n_{i_1\cdots i_m}\colon X^n\to X^m \quad\text{by }(x_1,\dots,x_n) \mapsto (x_{i_1},\dots,x_{i_m}).
\]
In particular,
$p^1_{11}$ is the diagonal embedding $\delta\colon X\to X\times X$.
Recall that $\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}$ is the holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_{X\times X}$-module
associated with the diagonal set $\Delta_X$ (see \eqref{eq:B}).
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:HomDMM'}
For $\sheaffont{M},\sheaffont{M}'\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{good}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ one has
\begin{align}
\label{eq:homdetens1}
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)](\sheaffont{M},\sheaffont{M}') &\simeq
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_{X^3})](\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[-d_X]\detens\sheaffont{M}, \sheaffont{M}'\detens\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[d_X]), \\
\label{eq:homdetens2}
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)](\sheaffont{M},\sheaffont{M}') &\simeq
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_{X^3})](\sheaffont{M}\detens\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[-d_X], \sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[d_X]\detens\sheaffont{M}').
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us prove only \eqref{eq:homdetens1}.
We have
\begin{align*}
\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[-d_X]\detens\sheaffont{M} &\simeq \doimv{p^2_{112\mspace{2mu}*}} \dopbv{p_2^{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\sheaffont{M} [-d_X], \\
\sheaffont{M}'\detens\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[d_X] &\simeq
\doimv{p^2_{122\mspace{2mu}*}}\dopbv{p_1^{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\sheaffont{M}'[d_X].
\end{align*}
By Proposition~\ref{pro:Dadj},
\begin{multline*}
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_{X^3})](\doimv{p^2_{112\mspace{2mu}*}}\dopbv{p_2^{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\sheaffont{M}[-d_X], \doimv{p^2_{122\mspace{2mu}*}}\,\dopbv{p_1^{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\sheaffont{M}'[d_X]) \\ \simeq
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_{X^2})](\dopbv{p_2^{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\sheaffont{M}, \dopbv{p^{2\mspace{2mu}*}_{112}}\doimv{p^2_{122\mspace{2mu}*}}\,\dopbv{p_1^{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\sheaffont{M}'[d_X]).
\end{multline*}
Since
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:XX3}
\begin{myarray}{c}
\xymatrix@C=8ex{
X \ar[r]^-{\delta} \ar[d]^-{\delta} & X\times X \ar[d]^-{p^2_{122}} \\
X\times X \ar[r]^-{p^2_{112}}\ar@{}[ur]|-\square & X\times X\times X
}\end{myarray}
\end{equation}
is a transversal Cartesian diagram, Proposition~\ref{pro:transCart} gives
\begin{align*}
\dopbv{p^{2\mspace{2mu}*}_{112}}\doimv{p^2_{122\mspace{2mu}*}}\dopbv{p_1^{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\sheaffont{M}'
&\simeq \doim \delta \dopb \delta\dopbv{p^{2\mspace{2mu}*}_1}\sheaffont{M}' \\
&\simeq \doim \delta\sheaffont{M}'.
\end{align*}
Hence
\begin{align*}
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_{X^3})](\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[-d_X]\detens\sheaffont{M},& \sheaffont{M}'\detens\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[d_X]) \\
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_{X^2})](\dopbv{p^{2\mspace{2mu}*}_2}\sheaffont{M}, \doim \delta\sheaffont{M}'[d_X]) \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)](\sheaffont{M}, \doimv{p^2_{2\mspace{2mu}*}}\doim \delta\sheaffont{M}') \\
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)](\sheaffont{M}, \sheaffont{M}'),
\end{align*}
where $(*)$ follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:Dadj}.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}\label{def:Dadjun}
An \emph{adjunction} in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ is a datum
$(\sheaffont{M}_1,\sheaffont{M}_2,\eta,\varepsilon)$, where
$\sheaffont{M}_1,\sheaffont{M}_2\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ and
\begin{align*}
\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[-d_X] \To[\eta] &\sheaffont{M}_1\detens\sheaffont{M}_2, \\
&\sheaffont{M}_2\detens\sheaffont{M}_1 \To[\varepsilon] \sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[d_X]
\end{align*}
are morphisms such that:
\be[{\rm(a)}]
\item
the composition
\[
\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[-d_X]\detens\sheaffont{M}_1 \To[\eta] \sheaffont{M}_1\detens\sheaffont{M}_2\detens\sheaffont{M}_1 \To[\varepsilon] \sheaffont{M}_1\detens\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[d_X]
\]
corresponds to $\id_{\sheaffont{M}_1}$ by \eqref{eq:homdetens1},
\item
the composition
\[
\sheaffont{M}_2\detens\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[-d_X] \To[\eta] \sheaffont{M}_2\detens\sheaffont{M}_1\detens\sheaffont{M}_2 \To[\varepsilon] \sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[d_X]\detens\sheaffont{M}_2
\]
corresponds to $\id_{\sheaffont{M}_2}$ by \eqref{eq:homdetens2}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ there is a natural adjunction $(\sheaffont{M},\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{M},\eta,\varepsilon)$, that we denote by $(\sheaffont{M},\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{M})$ for short.
\item
If $(\sheaffont{M}_1,\sheaffont{M}_2,\eta,\varepsilon)$ is an adjunction in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, then $\sheaffont{M}_2\simeq\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{M}_1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since (i) is obvious, we will prove only (ii).
\smallskip\noindent(ii-a)
First, let us show that there is a functorial isomorphism in $\sheaffont{L}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:LM2}
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)](\sheaffont{L},\sheaffont{M}_2) \simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_{X^2})](\sheaffont{L}\detens\sheaffont{M}_1,\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[d_X]).
\end{equation}
Consider the map sending $\varphi\in\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)](\sheaffont{L},\sheaffont{M}_2)$ to the morphism $\psi$ given by the composition
\[
\sheaffont{L}\detens\sheaffont{M}_1 \To[\varphi] \sheaffont{M}_2\detens\sheaffont{M}_1 \To[\varepsilon]\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[d_X].
\]
Consider the map sending $\psi\in \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_{X^2})](\sheaffont{L}\detens\sheaffont{M}_1,\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[d_X])$ to the morphism $\varphi$ which corresponds by \eqref{eq:homdetens2} to the composition
\[
\sheaffont{L}\detens\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[-d_X] \To[\varepsilon] \sheaffont{L}\detens\sheaffont{M}_1\detens\sheaffont{M}_2
\To[\psi] \sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[d_X] \detens \sheaffont{M}_2.
\]
Then it is easy to check that these maps are inverse to each other.
\smallskip\noindent(ii-b)
By applying \eqref{eq:LM2} first to the natural adjunction $(\sheaffont{M}_1,\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{M}_1)$, and then to the adjunction $(\sheaffont{M}_1,\sheaffont{M}_2,\eta,\varepsilon)$, we have
\begin{align*}
\Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)](\sheaffont{L},\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{M}_1)
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_{X^2})](\sheaffont{L}\detens\sheaffont{M}_1,\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[d_X]) \\
&\simeq \Hom[\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)](\sheaffont{L},\sheaffont{M}_2).
\end{align*}
Hence, by Yoneda, $\sheaffont{M}_2\simeq\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{M}_1$.
\end{proof}
Now, we have a similar formulation for $\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$.
Recall from Notation~\ref{not:Tam} that
\begin{align*}
\C_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E} &= \C_{X\times X}^\mathsf{E} \tens \opb{\pi_{X\times X}}\C_{\Delta_X}, \\
\omega_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E} &= \C_{X\times X}^\mathsf{E} \tens \opb{\pi_{X\times X}}\omega_{\Delta_X}.
\end{align*}
\begin{lemma}
For $K,K'\in\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ one has
\begin{align}
\label{eq:homTetens1}
\Hom[{\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X}](K,K') &\simeq
\Hom[{\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]{X^3}}](\C_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K, K'\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+}\omega_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E}), \\
\label{eq:homTetens2}
\Hom[{\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X}](K,K') &\simeq
\Hom[{\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]{X^3}}](K\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+}\C_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E}, \omega_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K').
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is parallel to that of Lemma~\ref{lem:HomDMM'}.
Let us prove only \eqref{eq:homTetens1}.
We have
\begin{align*}
\C_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K &\simeq \Eeeimv{p^2_{112\mspace{2mu}!!}}\Eopbv{p_2^{2\mspace{2mu}-1}}K, \\
K'\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+}\omega_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E} &\simeq
\Eoimv{p^2_{122\mspace{2mu}*}}\Eepbv{p^{2\mspace{2mu}!}_1}K'.
\end{align*}
Hence
\begin{align*}
\Hom[{\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]{X^3}}]&(\C_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K, K'\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+}\omega_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E}) \\
&\simeq \Hom[{\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]{X^3}}](\Eeeimv{p^2_{112\mspace{2mu}!!}}\Eopbv{p_2^{2\mspace{2mu}-1}}K, \Eoimv{p^2_{122\mspace{2mu}*}}\Eepbv{p^{2\mspace{2mu}!}_1}K') \\
&\simeq \Hom[{\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]{X^2}}](\Eopbv{p_2^{2\mspace{2mu}-1}}K, \Eepbv{p^{2\mspace{2mu}!}_{112}}\Eoimv{p^2_{122\mspace{2mu}*}}\Eepbv{p^{2\mspace{2mu}!}_1}K') \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq \Hom[{\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]{X^2}}](\Eopbv{p_2^{2\mspace{2mu}-1}}K, \Eoim \delta\Eepb \delta \Eepbv{p^{2\mspace{2mu}!}_1}K') \\
&\simeq \Hom[{\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]{X^2}}](\Eopbv{p^{2\mspace{2mu}-1}_2}K, \Eoim \delta K') \\
&\simeq \Hom[{\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X}](K, \Eoimv{p^2_{2\mspace{2mu}*}} \Eoim \delta K') \\
&\simeq \Hom[{\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X}](K, K'),
\end{align*}
where $(*)$ follows from the fact that there is a Cartesian diagram \eqref{eq:XX3}.
\end{proof}
\begin{definition}\label{def:Tadjun}
An \emph{adjunction} in $\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ is a datum $(K_1,K_2,\eta,\varepsilon)$,
where $K_1,K_2\in\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ and
\begin{align*}
\C_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E} \To[\eta] &K_1\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K_2, \\
&K_2\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K_1 \To[\varepsilon] \omega_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E},
\end{align*}
are morphisms such that:
\be[{\rm(a)}]
\item
the composition
\[
\C_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K_1 \To[\eta] K_1\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K_2\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K_1 \To[\varepsilon] K_1\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+}\omega_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E}
\]
corresponds to $\id_{K_1}$ by \eqref{eq:homTetens1},
\item
the composition
\[
K_2\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+}\C_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E} \To[\eta] K_2\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K_1\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K_2 \To[\varepsilon] \omega_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E}\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} K_2
\]
corresponds to $\id_{K_2}$ by \eqref{eq:homTetens2}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
Similarly to the case of $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, we obtain:
\begin{proposition}
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item For $K\in\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ there is a natural adjunction $(K,\mathrm{D}^\enh_X K,\eta,\varepsilon)$, that we denote by $(K,\mathrm{D}^\enh_X K)$ for short.
\item
If $(K_1,K_2,\eta,\varepsilon)$ is an adjunction in $\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$, then $K_2\simeq\mathrm{D}^\enh_X K_1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\bigskip
Note that
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{X\times X}(\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[-d_X]) \simeq \C_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E},
\quad
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{X\times X}(\sheaffont{B}_{\Delta_X}[d_X]) \simeq \omega_{\Delta_X}^\mathsf{E}.
\]
\begin{proposition}
Let $(\sheaffont{M}_1,\sheaffont{M}_2,\eta,\varepsilon)$ be an adjunction in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$.
Then $(\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M}_1),\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M}_2),\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{X\times X}(\eta),\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{X\times X}(\varepsilon))$ is an adjunction in $\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This easily follows from the functorial properties of $\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X$.
\end{proof}
In particular, the natural adjunction $(\sheaffont{M},\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{M})$ in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ induces an adjunction $(\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M}),\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{M}))$ in $\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$.
We thus get the following result.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:drTsolT}
For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ there is an isomorphism
\[
\mathrm{D}^\enh_X\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M}) \simeq \mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{M}).
\]
\end{theorem}
Recalling that
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\mathbb{D}_X\sheaffont{M}) \simeq \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M})[d_X],
\]
we deduce
\begin{corollary}
For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ there is an isomorphism
\[
\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M})[d_X] \simeq \mathrm{D}^\enh_X(\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})).
\]
\end{corollary}
Hence we obtain the following corollary of Theorems~\ref{thm:Tfunct}, \ref{thm:drTetens} and Proposition~\ref{prop:exteriodual}.
\begin{corollary}
Let $f\colon X\to Y$ be a complex analytic map.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
For any $\sheaffont{N}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_Y)$ there is an isomorphism in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$
\[
\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\dopb f\sheaffont{N}) \simeq \Eopb f\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_Y(\sheaffont{N}).
\]
\item
Let $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)\cap \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{good}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, and assume that $\supp\sheaffont{M}$ is proper over $Y$. Then there is an isomorphism in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]Y$
\[
\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_Y(\doim f\sheaffont{M})[d_Y] \simeq \Eoim f\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M})[d_X].
\]
\item
Let $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ and $\sheaffont{N}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_Y)$. Then there is an isomorphism in $\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]{X\times Y}$
\[
\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}) \mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+} \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_Y(\sheaffont{N}) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{X\times Y}(\sheaffont{M} \detens \sheaffont{N}).
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
We obtain the following corollary of Theorem~\ref{thm:Tfunct}~(iv).
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:SolXminusY}
If $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$ and $Y\subset X$ is a closed hypersurface, then
\[
\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}(*Y)) \simeq \opb\pi\C_{X\setminus Y} \tens \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}).
\]
\end{corollary}
We also obtain the following corollary of Lemma~\ref{lem:drTEphi}.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:solTEphi}
If $Y\subset X$ is a closed hypersurface and $\varphi\in\O_X(*Y)$, then
\[
\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{X\setminus Y|X}) \simeq \C_X^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \C_{\{t=-\Re\varphi \}}.
\]
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Riemann-Hilbert correspondence}
Let $X$ be a complex manifold.
Recall the hom-functor from Definition~\ref{def:HomT}
\[
\mathcal{H}om^\enh\colon {\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X}^\mathrm{op} \times \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X \to \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\C_X).
\]
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:shmhomTam}
There is a functorial morphism in $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rec-morph}
\sheaffont{M} \To \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\O^\enh_X).
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Recall the natural morphisms
\[
X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \To[j_X] X\times\overline\mathbb{R} \To[\overline\pi_X] X.
\]
By the definition of $\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X$, one has
\[
\roimv{j_{X\mspace{2mu}*}}\operatorname{R^\enh} \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}) \simeq \rhom[\opb{\overline\pi_X}\sheaffont{D}_X](\opb{\overline\pi_X}\sheaffont{M},\roimv{j_{X\mspace{2mu}*}}\operatorname{R^\enh} \O^\enh_X).
\]
Hence, there is a morphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\opb{\overline\pi_X}\sheaffont{D}_X)$
\[
\opb{\overline\pi_X}\sheaffont{M} \to \rhom(\roimv{j_{X\mspace{2mu}*}}\operatorname{R^\enh} \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}(\sheaffont{M}),\roimv{j_{X\mspace{2mu}*}}\operatorname{R^\enh} \O^\enh_X),
\]
which induces by adjunction the desired morphism.
\end{proof}
Consider the diagonal embedding
\[
\delta \colon X \to X\times X.
\]
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:RC2}
For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, one has
\[
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\O^\enh_X) \simeq
\mathcal{H}om^\enh\bigl(\C_{\{t=0\}}, \Eepb\delta(\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+}\O^\enh_X)\bigr)[d_X].
\]
In particular, there is a functorial morphism in $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rec-truemorph}
\sheaffont{M} \to \mathcal{H}om^\enh\bigl(\C_{\{t=0\}}, \Eepb\delta(\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+}\O^\enh_X)\bigr)[d_X].
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition~\ref{homText} and Corollary~\ref{cor:CTamOT}, for $K\in\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X$ one has
\[
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathrm{D}^\enh_X K,\O^\enh_X) \simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\C_{\{t=0\}}, \Eepb\delta(K\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+}\O^\enh_X)).
\]
Moreover, by Theorem~\ref{thm:drTsolT}, one has
\[
\mathrm{D}^\enh_X(\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})) \simeq \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M})[d_X].
\]
\end{proof}
We can now state our Riemann-Hilbert correspondence.
\medskip
Consider the quasi-commutative diagram of functors
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:RH}
\begin{myarray}{c}\xymatrix@C=6.4ex{
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \ar[r]^-{\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X} \ar@{=}[d] & {\BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X}^\mathrm{op} \ar[rrr]^-{\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\ast,\O^\enh_X)} \ar[d]^{\mathrm{D}^\enh_X(\ast[d_X])}_\wr &&& \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \ar@{=}[d] \\
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \ar[r]_-{\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X} & \BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X \ar[rrr]_(.42){\qquad\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\C_{\{t=0\}}, \Eepb\delta(\ast\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+}\O^\enh_X))[d_X]} &&& \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X) .
}\end{myarray}
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}\label{th:RH}
\label{thm:RH}
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
For $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, the morphisms \eqref{eq:rec-morph} and \eqref{eq:rec-truemorph} are isomorphisms. This means in particular that we can reconstruct $\sheaffont{M}$ from $\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})$.
\item
The functor
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X \colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \to \BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X
\]
is fully faithful.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
We will prove (i) in Section~\ref{sse:Reconstruction} and (ii) in
Section~\ref{sse:Fullyfaithfulness}.
\medskip
Let us check that the correspondence \eqref{eq:RH} is compatible with the classical Riemann-Hilbert correspondence.
\begin{proposition}
There is a quasi-commutative diagram
\[
\xymatrix@C=5em{
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{rh}}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \ar[r]^{\mathcal{DR}_X} \ar[d]
& \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\C\text-\mathrm{c}}(\C_X) \ar[rr]^{\rhom(\mathrm{D}_X(\ast),\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X)[d_X]} \ar[d]^e
&& \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_{\mathrm{rh}}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \ar[d] \\
\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \ar[r]^{\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X}
& \BECRc[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X \ar[rr]^{\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\C_{\{t=0\}}, \Eepb\delta(\ast\mathbin{\mathop\boxtimes\limits^+}\O^\enh_X))[d_X]}
&& \derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X) ,
}
\]
where $e(F) = \C_X^\mathsf{E} \tens \opb\pi F$ is the fully faithful functor of {\rm Proposition~\ref{pro:embed}}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i) The quasi-commutativity of the left hand side square follows from
Proposition~\ref{prop:regireg}.
\smallskip\noindent(ii)
Denote by $i_0\colon X\to X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty$ the morphism given by $x\mapsto(x,0)$.
The quasi-commutativity of the right hand side square follows from
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}om^\enh&(\mathrm{D}^\enh_X(\C_X^\mathsf{E} \tens \opb\pi F),\O^\enh_X) \\
&\underset{(1)}\simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\C_X^\mathsf{E} \tens \opb\pi \mathrm{D}_X F,\O^\enh_X) \\
&\simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\C_X^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} (\C_{\{t=0\}} \tens \opb\pi \mathrm{D}_X F),\O^\enh_X) \\
&\simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\C_{\{t=0\}} \tens \opb\pi \mathrm{D}_X F,\O^\enh_X) \\
&\underset{(2)}\simeq \rhom(\mathrm{D}_X F,\epb{i_0}\operatorname{R^\enh}\O^\enh_X) \\
&\underset{(3)}\simeq \rhom(\mathrm{D}_X F, \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X).
\end{align*}
Here, $(1)$ follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:Tduala}, $(2)$ follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:ai0}, and $(3)$ follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:i0OT} below.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:i0OT}
One has
\[
\epb{i_0}\operatorname{R^\enh}\O^\enh_X \simeq \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X,
\]
where $i_0\colon X\to X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty$ denotes the morphism given by $x\mapsto(x,0)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:OTgeq0}, we have
\[
\operatorname{R^\enh}\O^\enh_X = \epb i((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})^\mathrm{r}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}]\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times\mathbb{P}})[1].
\]
Let $s\colon\{0\}\to\mathbb{P}$ be the inclusion, and denote by the same letter the induced map $s\colon X\to X\times\mathbb{P}$. Then one has $s = i\circ i_0$, and
\begin{align*}
\epb{i_0}\operatorname{R^\enh}\O^\enh_X
&\simeq \epb s((\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})^\mathrm{r}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}]\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{X\times\mathbb{P}})[1] \\
&\underset{(*)}\simeq (\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})^\mathrm{r}\ltens[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}] \sheaffont{D}_{X\times\mathbb{P} \from[s] X} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X \\
&\simeq (\dopb s \sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^{-\tau})\ltens[\mathbb{C}]\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X\simeq\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X.
\end{align*}
Here $(*)$ follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:ifunct}~(i).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Reconstruction}\label{sse:Reconstruction}
By Lemma~\ref{lem:RC2},
the following result implies
Theorem~\ref{thm:RH}~(i).
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:reconstruction}
Let $\sheaffont{M}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$. Then, the morphism
in {\rm Proposition~\ref{pro:shmhomTam}}
$$\sheaffont{M} \To \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\O^\enh_X)$$
is an isomorphism.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Consider the statement
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:P-rec}
P_X(\sheaffont{M}) = \text{``\,one has $\sheaffont{M} \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\O^\enh_X)$\,''}.
\end{equation}
Then the hypotheses of Lemma~\ref{lem:redux} are all easily verified, except (e) and (f). We will prove (e) in Lemma~\ref{lem:rec-e} below, and (f) in Lemma~\ref{lem:rec-f} below. Then the theorem follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:redux}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:rec-e}
Let $f\colon X\to Y$ be a projective morphism and $\sheaffont{M}$ a good holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module.
Under notation \eqref{eq:P-rec},
if $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is true, then $P_Y(\doim f \sheaffont{M})$ is true.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
One has
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_Y(\doim f\sheaffont{M}),\O^\enh_Y)
&\simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\Eoim f\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M})[d_X-d_Y],\O^\enh_Y) \\
&\simeq \roim f\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\Eepb f\O^\enh_Y[d_Y-d_X]) \\
&\simeq \roim f\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\sheaffont{D}_{Y\leftarrow X} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \O^\enh_X) \\
&\simeq \roim f (\sheaffont{D}_{Y\leftarrow X} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\O^\enh_X)) \\
&\simeq \roim f (\sheaffont{D}_{Y\leftarrow X} \ltens[\sheaffont{D}_X] \sheaffont{M})
= \doim f \sheaffont{M},
\end{align*}
where the last isomorphism follows from the fact that $P_X(\sheaffont{M})$ is true.
\end{proof}
We now have to show that Theorem~\ref{thm:reconstruction} holds if $\sheaffont{M}$ is a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module with a normal form along a normal crossing divisor. We begin with the following result, analogous to \cite[Proposition 7.3]{DAg12}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:rec-f-temp}
Let $Y\subset X$ be a complex analytic hypersurface and $\varphi\in\O_X(*Y)$.
Set $U=X\setminus Y$.
Then there is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}(\sheaffont{D}_X\tens[\C]\sheaffont{D}_{\overline X}))$
\[
\roim\pi\rihom(\C_{\{t<\Re\varphi\}}[1],\Db^\Tmp_{X_\mathbb{R}})
\simeq \sheaffont{E}^{-\varphi}_{U|X} \ltens[\O_X] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}}.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $j\colon X\times\mathbb{R}_\infty \to X\times \mathsf{P}$ and $\overline\pi\colon X\times\mathsf{P} \to X$ denote the natural morphisms. Recall that
\[
\Db^\Tmp_{X_\mathbb{R}} =
\epb j \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_\mathbb{P}](\sheaffont{E}_{\mathbb{C}|\mathbb{P}}^\tau,\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}})[1].
\]
Hence $\roim\pi\rihom(\C_{\{t<\Re\varphi\}}[1],\Db^\Tmp_{X_\mathbb{R}})$ is represented by the complex
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:piihomtleqphi}
\oim{\overline\pi}\ihom(\C_{\{t<\Re\varphi\}},\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}})
\To[\partial_t -1]
\oim{\overline\pi}\ihom(\C_{\{t<\Re\varphi\}},\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}})
\end{equation}
with components in degree $0$ and $1$.
We consider them as subanalytic ind-sheaves.
For any relatively compact open subanalytic subset $V\subset X$, \eqref{eq:piihomtleqphi} induces a complex
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:piihomtleqphiV}
\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}}(\{t<\Re\varphi\}\cap(V\times\mathbb{R}))
\To[\partial_t -1]
\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}}(\{t<\Re\varphi\}\cap(V\times\mathbb{R})).
\end{equation}
Hence it is enough to show that \eqref{eq:piihomtleqphiV} is surjective and that its kernel
\[
\ker(\partial_t-1) = \{u(t,x)\in \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}}(\{t<\Re\varphi\}\cap(V\times\mathbb{R})) \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \partial_t u = u \}
\]
is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kertau-1}
\{e^{t-\varphi(x)}v(x)\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax v(x)\in\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}}(V\cap U) \}.
\end{equation}
Note that the morphism
\[
\bigl(\sheaffont{E}^{-\varphi}_{U|X} \tens[\O_X] \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}}\bigr)(V\cap U)
\simeq \mathbb{C}\,e^{-\vphi}\tens\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}}(V\cap U) \to \ker(\partial_t-1)
\]
is given by $e^{-\varphi} \tens v(x) \mapsto e^{t-\varphi(x)}v(x)$.
The surjectivity follows from the surjectivity of
\[
\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}}(V\times\mathbb{R})
\to[\partial_t -1]
\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}}(V\times\mathbb{R}).
\]
Neglecting the tempered growth, it is obvious that
\begin{multline*}
\{u(t,x)\in \sheaffont{D}b_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}}(\{t<\Re\varphi\}\cap(V\times\mathbb{R})) \nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax \partial_t u = u \} \\
=\{e^{t-\varphi(x)}v(x)\nobreak \mskip2mu\mathpunct{}\nonscript\mkern-\thinmuskip{;}\mskip6mu plus1mu\relax v(x)\in\sheaffont{D}b_{X_\mathbb{R}}(V\cap U) \}.
\end{multline*}
Hence, \eqref{eq:kertau-1} coincides with $\ker(\partial_t-1)$
by the following sublemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{sublemma}
\label{sublemma}
For $v(x)\in\sheaffont{D}b_{X_\mathbb{R}}(V\cap U)$, one has
\[
e^{t-\varphi(x)}v(x) \in \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}}(\{t<\Re\varphi\}\cap(V\times\mathbb{R}))
\]
if and only if
\[
v(x)\in\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}}(V\cap U).
\]
\end{sublemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume $v(x)\in\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}}(V\cap U)$.
Since $e^{t-\varphi(x)}$ belongs to $\sheaffont{C}^{\infty,\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}}(\{t<\Re\varphi\})$, one has
\[
e^{t-\varphi(x)}v(x) \in \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}}(\{t<\Re\varphi\}\cap(V\times\mathbb{R})).
\]
Conversely, assume $e^{t-\varphi(x)}v(x)\in\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}}(\{t<\Re\varphi\}\cap(V\times\mathbb{R}))$.
Take a $C^\infty$-function $\chi(t)$ on $\mathsf{P}$ whose support is contained in
$\set{t\in\mathbb{R}}{-2<t<-1}$ and such that $\int e^t\chi(t)dt=1$.
Set
\eqn
&&W_1=\set{(x,t)\in (U\cap V)\times \mathbb{R}}{t<\Re\varphi(x)}\\
&&Z=\set{(x,t)\in (U\cap V) \times \mathbb{R}}{\Re\varphi(x)-2\le t\le\Re\varphi(x)-1}\\
&&W_2=\bigl((U\cap V)\times \mathsf{P}\bigr)\setminus Z
\eneqn
Then $W_1$ and $W_2$ are subanalytic open subsets and we have
$(U\cap V) \times \mathsf{P}=W_1\cup W_2$.
Since
$\chi(t-\Re\varphi(x))e^{\sqrt{-1}\Im\varphi(x)}$ belongs to $\sheaffont{C}^{\infty,\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}}(
W_1)$, we obtain
\[
\chi(t-\Re\varphi(x))e^{t-\Re\varphi(x)}v(x) \in \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}}(W_1).
\]
Since $\chi(t-\Re\varphi(x))e^{\sqrt{-1}\Im\varphi(x)}v(x)$ vanishes on $W_1\cap W_2$,
there exists $w(x,t) \in \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}\times\mathsf{P}}((U\cap V) \times \mathsf{P})$ such that
$$\text{$w(x,t)\vert_{W_1}
= \chi(t-\Re\varphi(x))e^{t-\Re\varphi(x)}v(x)$ and
$w(x,t)\vert_{W_2}=0$.}$$
Hence, $v(x) = \int w(x,t)dt \in \Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}}(U\cap V)$.
\end{proof}
We deduce the following result, analogous to \cite[Proposition 8.1]{DAg12}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{pro:rec-ephi}
Using the same notations as in {\rm Lemma~\ref{lem:rec-f-temp}}, one has
\[
\roim\pi\rihom(\operatorname{L^\enh} \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X}),\operatorname{R^\enh} \O^\enh_X)
\simeq \sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X} \ltens[\O_X] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X.
\]
In particular,
\[
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X}),\O^\enh_X)
\simeq \sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X}.
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We have
\begin{align*}
&\operatorname{L^\enh} \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{E}^\varphi_{U|X}) \underset{(*)}\simeq \C_{\{t\gg0\}}\mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+}\C_{\{t<-\Re\varphi\}}[1], \\
&\operatorname{R^\enh} \O^\enh_X \simeq \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_{\overline X}](\O_{\overline X},\Db^\Tmp_{X_\mathbb{R}}), \\
&\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X \simeq \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_{\overline X}](\O_{\overline X},\Db^{\mspace{1mu}\tmp}_{X_\mathbb{R}}),
\end{align*}
where $(*)$ follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:solTEphi}.
The statement then follows by applying the functor $\rhom[\sheaffont{D}_{\overline X}](\O_{\overline X},\ast)$ to the isomorphism of Lemma~\ref{lem:rec-f-temp}.
\end{proof}
Now it remains to prove the following result, required in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:reconstruction}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:rec-f}
Let $\sheaffont{M}$ be a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module with a normal form along a normal crossing divisor. Then
\[
\sheaffont{M} \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\O^\enh_X).
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $D\subset X$ be a normal crossing divisor and $\sheaffont{M}$ a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module with a normal form along $D$. Set $U=X\setminus D$.
We keep the same notations as in Section~\ref{se:realblow}
such as $\varpi\colon\widetilde X\to X$ and $\sheaffont{D}^\sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X}$.
We also consider the natural morphisms
\[
X \times \mathbb{R}_\infty\from[\tilde\varpi] \widetilde X \times \mathbb{R}_\infty \to[\pi_{\widetilde X}] \widetilde X.
\]
For a $\sheaffont{D}^\sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X}$-module $\sheaffont{L}$, we set
\[
\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{L}) = \rhom[\sheaffont{D}^\sheaffont{A}_{\widetilde X}](\sheaffont{L}, \O^\enh_{\widetilde X}) \in \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]{\widetilde X}.
\]
Similarly to the construction of \eqref{eq:rec-morph},
we have a morphism
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Topbmorph}
\sheaffont{L}
\to \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{L}),\O^\enh_{\widetilde X}).
\end{equation}
\smallskip\noindent(i)
We shall first show
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Topba}
\opb{\tilde\varpi}\opb\pi\C_U \tens \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A})
\simeq \Eopb\varpi\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}).
\end{equation}
Since
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tempOT}
\O^\enh_{\widetilde X} \simeq \Eepb\varpi\rihom(\opb\pi\C_U,\O^\enh_X),
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A})
&= \rhom[\sheaffont{D}_{\widetilde X}^\sheaffont{A}](\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A},\O^\enh_{\widetilde X}) \\
&\simeq \rhom[\opb\varpi\sheaffont{D}_X](\opb\varpi\sheaffont{M}, \Eepb\varpi\rihom(\opb\pi\C_U,\O^\enh_X)) \\
&\simeq \Eepb\varpi \rihom(\opb\pi\C_U,\rhom[\sheaffont{D}_X](\sheaffont{M},\O^\enh_X)) \\
&\simeq \rihom(\opb{\tilde\varpi}\opb\pi\C_U,\Eepb\varpi \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M})) \\
&\simeq \rihom(\opb{\tilde\varpi}\opb\pi\C_U,\Eopb\varpi \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M})),
\end{align*}
where the last isomorphism follows from the fact that $\varpi$ is an isomorphism over $U$.
Hence we obtain
\begin{align*}
\opb{\tilde\varpi}\opb\pi\C_U \tens \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A})
&\simeq \opb{\tilde\varpi}\opb\pi\C_U \tens \Eopb\varpi \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}) \\
&\simeq \Eopb\varpi (\opb\pi\C_U \tens \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M})) \\
&\simeq \Eopb\varpi\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}).
\end{align*}
Here, the last isomorphism follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:SolXminusY}.
\medskip
\noindent(ii)
Next, we shall show
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Topbb}
\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}
\@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}),\O^\enh_{\widetilde X}).
\end{equation}
Since the question is local, we can assume $\sheaffont{M}=\sheaffont{E}_{U|X}^\varphi$ for $\varphi\in\O_X(*D)$.
Then we have
\begin{align*}
\rihom&(\operatorname{L^\enh} \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}),\operatorname{R^\enh}\O^\enh_{\widetilde X}) \\
& \simeq \rihom(\operatorname{L^\enh} \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}),\rihom(\opb{\tilde\varpi}\opb\pi\C_U,\epb{\tilde\varpi}\operatorname{R^\enh}\O^\enh_X)) \\
& \simeq \rihom(\operatorname{L^\enh} \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}) \tens \opb{\tilde\varpi}\opb\pi\C_U,\epb{\tilde\varpi}\operatorname{R^\enh}\O^\enh_X) \\
& \underset{(*)}\simeq \rihom(\opb{\tilde\varpi}\operatorname{L^\enh} \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\epb{\tilde\varpi}\operatorname{R^\enh} \O^\enh_X) \\
& \simeq \epb{\tilde\varpi}\rihom(\operatorname{L^\enh} \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\operatorname{R^\enh} \O^\enh_X),
\end{align*}
where $(*)$ follows \eqref{eq:Topba}.
Hence
\begin{align*}
\roimv{\pi_{\widetilde X\mspace{2mu}*}}\rihom&(\operatorname{L^\enh} \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}),\operatorname{R^\enh} \O^\enh_{\widetilde X}) \\
&\simeq \roimv{\pi_{\widetilde X\mspace{2mu}*}}\epb{\tilde\varpi}\rihom(\operatorname{L^\enh}\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\operatorname{R^\enh} \O^\enh_X) \\
&\simeq \epb\varpi\roim\pi\rihom(\operatorname{L^\enh}\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\operatorname{R^\enh} \O^\enh_X) \\
&\simeq \epb\varpi(\sheaffont{M} \ltens[\O_X] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X),
\end{align*}
where the last isomorphism follows from Proposition~\ref{pro:rec-ephi}.
We have
\begin{align*}
\epb\varpi(\sheaffont{M} \ltens[\O_X] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X)
&\simeq \epb\varpi(\sheaffont{M} \ltens[\O_X] \rihom(\C_U,\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X)) \\
&\simeq \opb\varpi\sheaffont{M} \ltens[\opb\varpi\O_X] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X}.
\end{align*}
Hence, by applying $\alpha_{\widetilde X}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Topbd}
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}),\O^\enh_{\widetilde X})
\simeq \alpha_{\widetilde X}(\opb\varpi\sheaffont{M} \ltens[\opb\varpi\O_X] \O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X})
\simeq \sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}
\end{equation}
by Proposition~\ref{pro:AOt}.
\smallskip\noindent(iii)
Now we shall prove the statement
\[
\sheaffont{M} \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\O^\enh_X).
\]
By Proposition~\ref{pro:AOt}, we have
\begin{align*}
\roim\varpi\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}
&\simeq \alpha_X\roim\varpi(\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_{\widetilde X} \ltens[\opb\varpi\O_X] \opb\varpi\sheaffont{M}) \\
&\simeq (\alpha_X\rihom(\C_U,\O^{\mspace{2mu}\tmp}_X)) \ltens[\O_X] \sheaffont{M} \\
&\simeq \O_X(*D) \ltens[\O_X] \sheaffont{M} \simeq \sheaffont{M}.
\end{align*}
We have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{H}om^\enh&(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}),\O^\enh_{\widetilde X}) \\
& \simeq
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}),\rihom(\opb{\tilde\varpi}\opb\pi\C_U,\Eepb\varpi\O^\enh_X)) \\
& \simeq
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}) \tens \opb{\tilde\varpi}\opb\pi\C_U,\Eepb\varpi\O^\enh_X) \\
& \simeq
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\Eopb\varpi\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\Eepb\varpi\O^\enh_X),
\end{align*}
where the last isomorphism follows from \eqref{eq:Topba}.
It follows that
\[
\roim\varpi\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_{\widetilde X}(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A}),\O^\enh_{\widetilde X})
\simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\Eeeim\varpi\Eopb\varpi\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\O^\enh_X)
\]
by Lemma~\ref{homepb}.
Hence, applying $\roim\varpi$ to \eqref{eq:Topbb}, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Topbe}
\sheaffont{M} \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\Eeeim\varpi\Eopb\varpi\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}),\O^\enh_X).
\end{equation}
By Corollary~\ref{cor:SolXminusY}, we have
$\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}) \simeq \opb\pi\C_U\tens\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M})$.
Moreover, $\varpi\colon\widetilde X\to X$ is an isomorphism over $U$. Hence we have
\begin{align*}
\Eeeim\varpi\Eopb\varpi\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M})
&\simeq \Eeeim\varpi\Eopb\varpi(\opb\pi\C_U\tens\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M})) \\
&\simeq \opb\pi\C_U\tens\Eeeim\varpi\Eopb\varpi\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}) \\
&\simeq \opb\pi\C_U\tens\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}) \\
&\simeq \mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X(\sheaffont{M}) .
\end{align*}
We thus obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
Thus the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:reconstruction} is complete.
As a consequence of Theorem~\ref{thm:reconstruction}, we get the following result (which is also a consequence of Lemmas~\ref{lem:i0OT} and \ref{lem:ai0}).
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:OOT}
There is an isomorphism in $\derd^{\mathrm{b}}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$
\[
\O_X
\simeq \mathcal{H}om^\enh( \C_X^\mathsf{E} , \O^\enh_X).
\]
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Fully faithfulness}\label{sse:Fullyfaithfulness}
Let us now show that the functor $\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X$ is fully faithful.
\begin{theorem}
For $\sheaffont{M},\sheaffont{N}\in\derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X)$, there is an isomorphism
\[
\rhom[\sheaffont{D}_X](\sheaffont{M},\sheaffont{N}) \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M}), \mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{N})).
\]
In particular, the functor
\[
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X\colon \derd^{\mathrm{b}}_\mathrm{hol}(\sheaffont{D}_X) \to \BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X
\]
is fully faithful.
\end{theorem}
\Proof
By Theorem~\ref{thm:drTsolT} and Proposition~\ref{prop:homdual} (iv),
we have
$$\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{X}\sheaffont{M},\mathcal{DR}^\enh_{X}\sheaffont{N})
\simeq\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X\sheaffont{N},\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X\sheaffont{M}).$$
Then, we have
\eqn
\mathcal{H}om^\enh(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X\sheaffont{N},\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X\sheaffont{M})
&\simeq&\mathcal{H}om^\enh\bigl(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X\sheaffont{N},\rhom[\sheaffont{D}_X](\sheaffont{M}, \O^\enh_X)\bigr)\\
&\simeq&\rhom[\sheaffont{D}_X]\bigl(\sheaffont{M},\mathcal{H}om^\enh\bigl(\mathcal{S}ol^{\mspace{1mu}\enh}_X\sheaffont{N},\O^\enh_X)\bigr)\\
&\simeq&\rhom[\sheaffont{D}_X](\sheaffont{M},\sheaffont{N}).
\eneqn
Here the last isomorphism follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:reconstruction}.
\QED
\subsection{Stokes phenomenon}\label{sse:Stokes}
Liner ordinary differential equations with irregular singularities are subjected to the Stokes phenomenon (see for example \cite[Section 15]{Was65} or \cite[\S9.7]{Hil76}). Following \cite[\S7]{DK12}, we show here through an example how, in our setting, the Stokes phenomenon arises in a purely topological fashion.
\medskip
Let $X$ be an open disc in $\mathbb{C}$ centered at $0$.
(We will shrink $X$ if necessary.)
Consider the real blow-up $\varpi\colon \widetilde X\to X$ of $X$ along $\{0\}$, and recall that $\widetilde X^0 = \opb\varpi(0)$ is the set of normal directions to $0$ in $X$.
Let $\varphi,\psi\in\O_X(*0)$, and assume that $\psi-\varphi$ has an effective pole at $0$.
For $U = X\setminus \{0\}$, set
\[
\sheaffont{M}_0 \mathbin{:=} \sheaffont{E}^{\varphi}_{U|X} \dsum \sheaffont{E}^{\psi}_{U|X}.
\]
Let $\sheaffont{M}$ be a holonomic $\sheaffont{D}_X$-module such that
$\sheaffont{M} \simeq \sheaffont{M}(*0)$,
$\ss(\sheaffont{M})=\{0\}$, and one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:isoStokes}
(\sheaffont{M}^\sheaffont{A})|_\theta \simeq
(\sheaffont{M}_0^\sheaffont{A})|_\theta\quad\text{for any $\theta\in \widetilde X^0$.}
\end{equation}
Note that $\sheaffont{M}$ has a normal form along $\{0\}$.
The Stokes curves are the real analytic arcs $\ell_i\subset X$ defined by
\[
\{\Re(\psi-\varphi) = 0\} = \bigsqcup\nolimits_{i\in I}\ell_i.
\]
(Here we possibly shrink $X$ to avoid crossings of the $\ell_i$'s and to ensure that they admit $|z|$ as parameter.)
Since $\sheaffont{E}^{\varphi}_{U|X} \simeq \sheaffont{E}^{\varphi+\varphi_0}_{U|X}$ for $\varphi_0\in\O_X$, the Stokes curves depend on the choice of $\varphi$ and $\psi$.
The Stokes lines $L_i$, defined as the half-lines tangent to $\ell_i$ at $0$, are independent of the choice of $\varphi$ and $\psi$.
The Stokes multipliers of $\sheaffont{M}$ describe how the isomorphism \eqref{eq:isoStokes} changes when $\theta$ crosses a Stokes line.
Let us show how these data are topologically encoded in $\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M})$.
Set
\begin{align*}
F &\mathbin{:=} \mathbb{C}_X^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbb{C}_{\{t=\Re\varphi\}} \simeq \indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty]\mathbb{C}_{\{t-\Re\varphi \geq a \}} , \\
G &\mathbin{:=} \mathbb{C}_X^\mathsf{E} \mathbin{\mathop\otimes\limits^+} \mathbb{C}_{\{t=\Re\psi\}} \simeq \indlim[a\rightarrow+\infty]\mathbb{C}_{\{t-\Re\psi \geq a \}} .
\end{align*}
By Corollary~\ref{cor:drTXtilde}, Lemma~\ref{lem:drTEphi} and \eqref{eq:isoStokes},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:drH}
\mathcal{DR}^\enh_X(\sheaffont{M}) \simeq \rihom(\opb\pi\mathbb{C}_U ,H)[1],
\end{equation}
where $H$ is an enhanced ind-sheaf such that $H \simeq \opb\pi\C_U \tens H$ and
\[
\opb\pi\mathbb{C}_{S} \tens H \simeq \opb\pi\mathbb{C}_{S} \tens (F\dsum G)
\]
for any sufficiently small open sector $S$.
Let $\mathfrak{b}^\pm$ be the vector space of upper/lower triangular matrices in $\operatorname{M}_2(\mathbb{C})$, and let $\mathfrak{t}=\mathfrak{b}^+\cap \mathfrak{b}^-$ be the vector space of diagonal matrices.
Using Proposition~\ref{pro:pro:HomStab} one gets
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:FcGc}
Let $S$ be an open sector.
\be[{\rm(i)}]
\item
If $S\subset \{\pm\Re(\varphi-\psi)>0\}$, then
\[
\Endo[{\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X}](\opb\pi\mathbb{C}_{S} \tens (F\dsum G)) \simeq \mathfrak{b}^\pm.
\]
\item
If $S\supset L_i$ for some $i\in I$ and $S\cap L_j=\emptyset$ for $i\neq j$, then
\[
\Endo[{\BEC[\mathrm{I}\mspace{2mu}\C]X}](\opb\pi\mathbb{C}_{S} \tens (F\dsum G)) \simeq \mathfrak{t}.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
This proves that the Stokes lines are encoded in $H$.
Let us show how to recover the Stokes multipliers of $\sheaffont{M}$ as gluing data for $H$.
Let $S_i$ be an open sector which contains $L_i$ and is disjoint from $L_j$ for $i\neq j$. We choose $S_i$ so that $\bigcup\limits\nolimits_{i\in I} S_i = U$.
Then for each $i\in I$, there is an isomorphism
\[
\alpha_i\colon \opb\pi\mathbb{C}_{S_i} \tens H \@ifnextchar [{\relisoto}{\absisoto} \opb\pi\mathbb{C}_{S_i} \tens (F\dsum G).
\]
Note that $\alpha_i$ is unique only up to left multiplication by elements of $\mathfrak{t} \cap \operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbb{C})$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:FcGc}~(ii).
Take a cyclic ordering of $I$ such that the Stokes lines get ordered counterclockwise.
Since $\{S_i\}_{i\in I}$ is an open cover of $U$, the enhanced ind-sheaf $H$ is reconstructed from $F\dsum G$ via the gluing data given by the Stokes multipliers
\[
A_i = \alpha_{i+1}\alpha_i^{-1}|_{\opb \pi(S_i\cap S_{i+1})},
\]
where $A_i \in \mathfrak{b}^\pm \cap \operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbb{C})$ if $\pm\Re(\varphi-\psi)>0$ on $S_i\cap S_{i+1}$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:FcGc}~(i).
Note that, replacing $A_i$ with $A_i' = \gamma_{i+1} A_i \gamma_i^{-1}$ for $\gamma_i \in \mathfrak{t} \cap \operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbb{C})$, one gets an enhanced ind-sheaf isomorphic to $H$.
|
\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}{-3.5ex plus-1ex minus
-.2ex}{2.3ex plus.2ex}{\reset@font\Large\bf}}
\makeatother
\renewenvironment{equation}{\refstepcounter{subsection}\refstepcounter{prop}$$}{\leqno{\bf (\theprop)}$$}
\def\thesection.\arabic{prop}{\thesection.\arabic{prop}}
\def\mar[#1]{\ar@{-}[#1]|-{\object@{<}}}
\def\marb[#1]{\ar@{-}[#1]|{\object+{ }}}
\newcommand{\fleche}[2]{\xymatrix{*!U(-0.25){#1}&*!U(-0.25){#2}\mar[l]}}
\newcommand{\perm}[1]{\underline{\mathsf{Perm}}_k(#1)}
\newcommand{\operm}[1]{\mathsf{Perm}_k(#1)}
\newcommand{\permalg}[1]{\underline{\mathsf{PermAlg}}_k(#1)}
\newcommand{\opermalg}[1]{\mathsf{PermAlg}_k(#1)}
\newenvironment{maliste}%
{ \begin{list}%
{-}%
{\setlength{\labelwidth}{4ex}%
\setlength{\leftmargin}{2ex}%
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}%
\setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}}
{ \end{list} }
\def\,\big|\,{\,\big|\,}
\begin{document}
\centerline{\LARGE\bf The poset of posets}\vspace{2ex}
\centerline{\bf Serge Bouc}\vspace{6ex}
{\footnotesize {\bf Abstract:} Let $X$ be a finite set. This paper describes some topological and combinatorial properties of the poset $\Omega_X$ of order relations on $X$. In particular, the homotopy type of all the intervals in $\Omega_X$ is precisely determined, and the M\"obius function of $\Omega_X$ is computed.
}
\vspace{1ex}\par
{\footnotesize {\bf AMS subject classification: 06A11, 05E45, 55U10} }
\vspace{1ex}\par
{\footnotesize {\bf Keywords: poset, order, M\"obius function, homotopy type}}
\section{Introduction}
Let $X$ be a finite set. In this paper, we consider some topological and combinatorial properties of the {\em poset of posets} on $X$: it is the set $\Omega_X$ of order relations on $X$, ordered by inclusion of subsets of the cartesian product $X\times X$. \par
In particular we show that the the intervals $]R,S[_{\Omega_X}$ in this poset, for $R\subseteq S$, are either contractible, or have the homotopy type of a sphere of dimension $|S-R-2|$. As a consequence, we determine the M\"obius function of the poset $\Omega_X$. We also show that the upper intervals $]R,\,.\,[_{\Omega_X}$ are either contractible, or have the homotopy type of a sphere $S^{d_R}$. Each case can be precisely determined, and in particular the dimension $d_R$ of the sphere involved in the second case can be computed explicitly from the relation $R$.\par
The initial motivation for considering the poset $\Omega_X$ is a joint work with Jacques Th\'evenaz (\cite{both-relations}), in which the M\"obius function of $\Omega_X$ appears (even though the exact value of this function was not needed for our purpose in that paper). Apart from methods introduced by Quillen in his seminal paper~\cite{quillen}, the present paper is self contained.
\section{Relations, posets}
Let $X$ denote a finite set, of cardinality $n$.
\begin{itemize}
\item A {\em relation} on $X$ is by definition a subset of the cartesian product $X\times X$.
\item A {\em subrelation} of a relation $S$ is just a subset $R\subseteq S$ of $S$. A {\em proper} subrelation of $S$ is a proper subset $R\subset S$.
\item If $R$ and $S$ are relations on $X$, their {\em composition} $R\circ S$, also called the {\em product} $RS$ of $R$ and $S$, is defined by
$$R\circ S=\{(x,y)\in X\times X\mid\exists z\in X,\;(x,z)\in R\;\hbox{and}\;(z,y)\in S\}\;\;.$$
\item The relation $\Delta(=\Delta_X)=\{(x,x)\mid x\in X\}$ is called the {\em equality relation} on $X$. \par
\item If $R$ is a relation on $X$, then the {\em opposite} relation $R^{op}$ is defined by
$$R^{op}=\{(x,y)\in X\times X\mid (y,x)\in R\}\;\;.$$
\item A relation $R\subseteq X\times X$ is called:
\begin{maliste}
\item {\em reflexive} if $(x,x)\in R,\;\forall x\in X$. Equivalently $\Delta\subseteq R$.
\item {\em transitive} if $\forall x,y,z\in X, \;(x,y)\in R\; \hbox{and}\; (y,z)\in R \Rightarrow (x,z)\in R$. Equivalently $R^2\subseteq R$.
\item {\em a preorder} if $R$ is reflexive and transitive. Equivalently $\Delta\subseteq\nolinebreak R=\nolinebreak R^2$.
\item {\em symmetric} if $(x,y)\in R \Rightarrow (y,x)\in R$. Equivalently $R=R^{op}$.
\item {\em an equivalence relation} if it is a preorder, and $R$ is symmetric. Equivalently $\Delta\subseteq R=R^{op}=R^2$.
\item {\em antisymmetric} if $\forall x,y\in X, \;(x,y)\in R\;\hbox{and}\;(y,x)\in R\Rightarrow x=y$. Equivalently $R\cap R^{op}\subseteq \Delta$. A subrelation of an antisymmetric relation is antisymmetric.
\item {\em an order} if $R$ is a preorder, and $R$ is antisymmetric. Equivalently $R=R^2$ and $R\cap R^{op}=\Delta$.
\end{maliste}
\item A set endowed with an order relation is called a partially ordered set, or {\em poset} for short.
\end{itemize}
Let $\Omega_X$ denote the set of order relations on $X$. The inclusion of subsets of $X\times X$ induces an order relation on $\Omega_X$. The poset $(\Omega_X,\subseteq)$ is called the {\em poset of posets} on $X$.
\section{The Frattini subrelation}
From now on, the set $X$ will be fixed, and often understood. In particular, the poset $\Omega_X$ will be denoted by $\Omega$.
\par
\pagebreak[4]
\begin{mth}{Notation} \label{intervals}Let $R$ be an order on $X$. For $x,y\in X$, write $x\leq_Ry$ if $(x,y)\in R$, and $x<_Ry$ if $(x,y)\in R$ and $x\neq y$. Set moreover
\begin{eqnarray*}
{[x,y]_R}&=&\{z\in X\mid x\leq_Rz\leq_R y\}\;\;,\\
{]x,y[_R}&=&\{z\in X\mid x<_Rz<_R y\}\;\;,\\
{]\,.\,,x]_R}&=&\{z\in X\mid z\leq_Rx\}\\
{]\,.\,,x[_R}&=&\{z\in X\mid z<_Rx\}\\
{[x,\,.\,[_R}&=&\{z\in X\mid x\leq_Rz\}\\
{]x,\,.\,[_R}&=&\{z\in X\mid x<_Rz\}\;\;.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
If $R\in\Omega $, a pair $(x,y)\in X\times X$ is called {\em adjacent} for $R$ if $x<_Ry$ and $]x,y[_R=\emptyset$.
The set of adjacent pairs for the relation $R$ is denoted by $\mathcal{M}_R$.
\end{mth}
\smallskip\par\noindent\pagebreak[2]\refstepcounter{subsection}\refstepcounter{prop}{\bf \thesection.\arabic{prop}.\ \ } Let $R$ be reflexive relation on $X$. Then $\Delta\subseteq R\subseteq R^2\subseteq \ldots\subseteq R^m$, and there is an integer $m$ such that $R^m=R^{m+1}$. This limit $\sur{R}=R^m$ is a preorder, called the {\em transitive closure} of $R$.\par
Let $R,S\in \Omega $. Notation~\ref{intervals} becomes
\begin{eqnarray*}
{[R,S]_\Omega}&=&\{T\in\Omega \mid R\subseteq T\subseteq S\}\\
{]R,S[_\Omega}&=&\{T\in\Omega \mid R\subset T\subset S\}\\
{]R,\,.\,[_\Omega}&=&\{T\in\Omega \mid R\subset T\}\;\;.
\end{eqnarray*}
An order $R$ is said to be {\em maximal} in an order $S$ if the pair $(R,S)$ is adjacent in the poset $\Omega$, i.e. if $R\subset S$ and $]R,S[_\Omega=\emptyset$.\par
The subposet $[R,S]_\Omega$ of $\Omega $ is a {\em lattice}: the meet $T\wedge T'$ of $T,T'\in [R,S]_\Omega$ is the intersection $T\cap T'$, and their join is $T\vee T'=\sur{T\cup T'}$ (which is indeed an order, as it is a preorder contained in $S$).
\begin{mth}{Notation} When $S$ is a relation on $X$, denote by $S^{(2)}=S\times S^{op}$ the relation on $X\times X$ defined by
$$\big((x,x'),(y,y')\big)\in S^{(2)}\Leftrightarrow (x,y)\in S\;\hbox{and}\;(y',x')\in S\;\;.$$
If $S$ is an order on $X$, then $S^{(2)}$ is an order on $X\times X$. In this case
$$(x,y)\leq_{S^{(2)}}(x',y')\;\Leftrightarrow\;x\leq_Sx' \;\hbox{and}\; y'\leq_Sy\;\;.$$
\end{mth}
\begin{mth}{Lemma} \label{maximal}\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $S$ be an order on $X$, and $(x,y)$ be an adjacent pair for $S$. Then $R=S-\{(x,y)\}$ is an order on $X$, and $R$ is maximal in $S$.
\item Let $R,S\in \Omega $ with $R\subset S$. If $R$ is maximal in $S$, then
the set $S-R$ consists of a single pair $(x,y)$, which is adjacent for $S$, and a minimal element of $(X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})$ for the relation $R^{(2)}$.
\item Let $R\in\Omega $, and let $(x,y)$ be a minimal element of $(X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})$ for the relation $R^{(2)}$. Then $S=R\sqcup\{(x,y)\}$ is an order on $X$, and $R$ is maximal in $S$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{mth}
\noindent{\bf Proof~:}\ For Assertion 1, the relation $R=S-\{(x,y)\}$ is reflexive, as $x\neq y$. It is also antisymmetric, since it is contained in $S$. Showing that it is transitive amounts to showing that if $a,b,c\in X$ with $(a,b)\in R$ and $(b,c)\in R$, then $(a,c)\in R$. The assumptions imply $(a,c)\in S$, as $S$ is transitive. If $(a,c)\notin R$, then $(a,c)=(x,y)$. Then $a=x$ and $c=y$, and moreover $(x,b)\in S$ and $(b,y)\in S$. Since $(x,y)$ is adjacent for $S$, it follows that $x=b$ or $b=y$. If $x=b$, then $(b,c)=(x,y)\notin R$, and if $b=y$, then $(a,b)=(x,y)\notin R$. this contradiction shows that $(a,c)\in R$, and Assertion 1 follows.\par
For Assertion 2, let $R$ be maximal in $S$, and let $(x,y)\in S-R$ (so that in particular $x\neq y$). Then $(x,y)\in (X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})$, for otherwise $(x,y)$ and $(y,x)$ are both in $S$. Moreover, the transitive closure $\sur{R\sqcup\{(x,y)\}}$ is equal to~$S$. Thus for any $(a,b)\in S-R$, there exists a chain of pairs
\begin{equation}\label{sequence}
(a_0,a_1), (a_1,a_2),\ldots,(a_{k-1},a_k)
\end{equation}
with $a_0=a$ and $a_k=b$, and $(a_i,a_{i+1})\in R\sqcup\{(x,y)\}$, for $i\in\{0,\ldots,k-1\}$. Since $R$ is transitive, we can assume that there are no two consecutive $i$ in $\{0,\ldots,k-1\}$ such that $(a_i,a_{i+1})\in R$. If $(a_i,a_{i+1})=(x,y)$ for two distinct values $l$ and $l'$ of $i$, then we can assume $l'=l+2$, and $(a_{l+1},a_{l+2})\in R$. Then $a_{l+1}=y$ and $a_{l+2}=x$, hence $(y,x)\in R\subseteq S$. It follows that $x=y$, as $S$ is antisymmetric. \par
It follows that the pair $(x,y)$ occurs only once in the sequence~\ref{sequence}. Hence $(a,x)\in R$ and $(y,b)\in R$, i.e. $(a,b)\leq_{R^{(2)}}(x,y)$. By symmetry of the roles of $(x,y)$ and $(a,b)$, it follows that $(a,b)=(x,y)$. Thus $S-R$ consists of a single pair $(x,y)$. Moreover if $z\in X$ is such that $(x,z)$ and $(z,y)$ are both in $S$, then either $z=y$ or $(x,z)\neq (x,y)$, thus $(x,z)\in R$. Similarly, either $z=x$ or $(z,y)\in R$. Since $(x,y)\notin R$, one of the pairs $(x,z)$ or $(z,y)$ is not in $R$, hence $x=z$ or $z=y$. Hence $(x,y)$ is adjacent for $S$. \par
Moreover if $(x',y')\in (X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})$ and $(x',y')\leq_{R^{(2)}}(x,y)$, then $(x',x)\in R$ and $(y,y')\in R$. Since $R\subset S$ and $(x,y)\in S$, it follows that $(x',y')\in S$. If $(x',y')\neq (x,y)$, it follows that $(x',y')\in R$. Hence $(x,y)$ is a minimal element of $(X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})$ for the relation $R^{(2)}$, and this completes the proof of Assertion~2.\par
For Assertion 3, let $(x,y)$ be a minimal element of $(X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})$ for the relation $R^{(2)}$. Then as in the proof of Assertion 2, the transitive closure $S=\sur{R\sqcup\{(x,y)\}}$ consists of the union of $R$ with the set of pairs $(a,b)\in X\times X$ such that $(a,x)\in R$ and $(y,b)\in R$, i.e. $(a,b)\leq_{R^{(2)}}(x,y)$. Since $(x,y)$ is minimal for $R^{(2)}$, it follows that $S=R\sqcup\{(x,y)\}$. This relation $S$ is clearly antisymmetric if $(x,y)\notin R\cup R^{op}$, hence $S$ is an order and Assertion~3 follows.~\leaders\hbox to 1em{\hss\ \hss}\hfill~\raisebox{.5ex}{\framebox[1ex]{}}\smp
\smallskip\par\noindent\pagebreak[2]\refstepcounter{subsection}\refstepcounter{prop}{\bf \thesection.\arabic{prop}.\ \ } By analogy with the case of subgroups of a group, we set:
\begin{mth}{Definition} Let $S$ be an order on $X$. The {\rm Frattini subrelation} $\Phi(S)$ of $S$ is defined as the intersection of all the maximal order subrelations of $S$.
\end{mth}
\begin{mth}{Proposition} Let $S$ be an order on $X$. Then
$$\Phi(S)=\Delta\cup (S-\Delta)^2\;\;.$$
In other words, a pair $(x,y)$ of $X\times X$ is in $\Phi(S)$ if and only either $x=y$, or $x<_Sy$ and $]x,y[_S\neq\emptyset$.
\end{mth}
\noindent{\bf Proof~:}\ By Lemma~\ref{maximal}, the maximal order subrelations of $S$ are the relations $S-\{(x,y)\}$, where $(x,y)$ is adjacent for $S$. It follows that $\Phi(S)$ consists of the difference $S-\mathcal{M}_S$. The proposition follows.~\leaders\hbox to 1em{\hss\ \hss}\hfill~\raisebox{.5ex}{\framebox[1ex]{}}\smp
\section{Intervals}
\begin{mth}{Theorem} \label{interval and frattini}Let $R\subseteq S$ be two orders on $X$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\Phi(S)\not\subseteq R$, i.e. if there exist $x,y,z\in X$ such that $x<_Sy<_Sz$ and $x\not\leq_Rz$, then the poset $]R,S[_\Omega$ is contractible.
\item If $\Phi(S)\subseteq R$, then any subset of $S$ containing $R$ is an order. In particular, the poset $]R,S[_\Omega$ is isomorphic to the poset of proper non empty subsets of $S-R$, and it has the homotopy type of a sphere of dimension $|S-R-2|$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{mth}
\noindent{\bf Proof~:}\ If $T\in ]R,S[_\Omega$, then there is a maximal element $U$ of $]R,S[_\Omega$ which contains $T$, hence $T\cup\Phi(S)$. Thus $\sur{T\cup\Phi(S)}\in ]R,S[_\Omega$. Now if $\Phi(S)\not\subseteq R$, the maps of posets $T\mapsto \sur{T\cup\Phi(S)}\mapsto \sur{R\cup\Phi(S)}$ show that $]R,S[_\Omega$ is {\em conically contractible}, in the sense of \cite{quillen}~1.5.\par
If $\Phi(S)\subseteq R$, then $R=S-A$, where $A$ is a subset of $\mathcal{M}_S$. The map $\delta:T\mapsto T-R$ is a map of posets from $]R,S[_\Omega$ to the set $]\emptyset,A[$ of proper non empty subsets of $A$, ordered by inclusion. \par
{\bf Claim:} for any subset $B\in]\emptyset,A[$, the relation $R\cup B$ is an order on $X$: indeed $R\cup B=S-C$, where $C=A-B$. The case $|C|=1$ is Assertion~1 of Lemma~\ref{maximal}. The general case of the claim follows by induction on $|C|$, from the fact that if $T\subseteq S$, then $\mathcal{M}_S\cap T\subseteq \mathcal{M}_T$.\par
Now the map $\upsilon:B\mapsto R\cup B$ is a map of posets from $]\emptyset,A[$ to $]R,S[_\Omega$. Clearly the maps $\delta$ and $\upsilon$ are inverse isomorphisms of posets, and the poset of proper non empty subsets of a finite set of cardinality $c$ has the homotopy type of the sphere $S^{c-2}$: indeed, its geometric realization is the boundary of the standard $(c-1)$-simplex in $\mathbb{R}^c$, consisting of the points $(x_1,\ldots,x_c)\in\mathbb{R}^c$ such that $x_i\geq 0$ and $\sum_{i=1}^c\limits x_i=1$.~\leaders\hbox to 1em{\hss\ \hss}\hfill~\raisebox{.5ex}{\framebox[1ex]{}}\smp
\begin{mth}{Corollary} Let $R\subseteq S$ be orders on $X$. Then the M\"obius function $\mu_{\Omega }(R,S)$ of the poset $\Omega $ is equal to 0 if $\Phi(S)\not\subseteq R$, and to $(-1)^{|S-R|}$ otherwise.~\leaders\hbox to 1em{\hss\ \hss}\hfill~\raisebox{.5ex}{\framebox[1ex]{}}\smp
\end{mth}
\noindent{\bf Proof~:}\ Indeed, the M\"obius function $\mu_{\Omega }(R,S)$ is equal to the reduced Euler-Poincar\'e characteristic of the poset $]R,S[_\Omega$.~\leaders\hbox to 1em{\hss\ \hss}\hfill~\raisebox{.5ex}{\framebox[1ex]{}}\smp
\section{Upper intervals}
Let $R$ be an order on $X$. This section deals with the homotopy type of the poset $]R,\,.\,[_\Omega$.\par
\begin{mth}{Lemma} \label{lemmamini}Let $R$ be an order on $X$, and $(a,b)\in (X\times X)$. Then $(a,b)$ is a minimal element of $(X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})$ for the relation $R^{(2)}$ if and only if $(a,b)\notin R\cup R^{op}$ and
\begin{equation}\label{mini}
{]\,.\,,a[_R}\, \subseteq\, {]\,.\,,b[_R} \;\hbox{and}\;{]b,\,.\,[_R}\, \subseteq\, {]a,\,.\,[_R}\;\;.
\end{equation}
\end{mth}
\noindent{\bf Proof~:}\ If $(a,b)$ is a minimal element of $(X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})$ for the relation $R^{(2)}$, then $(a,b)\notin R\cup R^{op}$. If $x\in X$ and $x<_Ra$, then $(x,b)<_{R^{(2)}}(a,b)$. Hence $(x,b)\in R\cup R^{op}$. If $(x,b)\in R^{op}$, then $b\leq_Rx<_Ra$, hence $(b,a)\in R$, a contradiction. Hence $(x,b)\in R$, i.e. $x\leq_Rb$. Moreover $x\neq b$ since $(b,a)\notin R$. Hence $x<_Rb$, i.e. $x\in {]\,.\,,b[_R}$. This shows that ${]\,.\,,a[_R}\, \subseteq\, {]\,.\,,b[_R}$. Similarly, if $y\in X$ and $b<_Ry$, then $(a,y)<_{R^{(2)}}(a,b)$, so $(a,y)\in R\cup R^{op}$. If $(a,y)\in R^{op}$, then $b<_Ry\leq_R a$, and $(b,a)\in R$, a contradiction. Hence $(a,y)\in R$, i.e. $a\leq_Ry$. Moreover $a\neq y$ since $b\not\leq_Ra$. Hence $y\in {]a,\,.\,[_R}$, thus ${]b,\,.\,[_R}\, \subseteq\, {]a,\,.\,[_R}\}$, and Condition~\ref{mini} holds.\par
Conversely, if $(a,b)\notin R\cup R^{op}$, and if Condition~\ref{mini} holds, suppose that $(x,y)\in X\times X$ and $(x,y)\leq_{R^{(2)}}(a,b)$, i.e. $x\leq_Ra$ and $b\leq_Ry$. If $x\neq a$, then $x\in {]\,.\,,a[_R}\;\subseteq\,{]\,.\,,b[_R}$, hence $x<_Rb\leq_Ry$, thus $(x,y)\in R$. Similarly if $b\neq y$, then $y\in {]b,\,.\,[_R}\,\subseteq\,{]a,\,.\,[_R}$, hence $x\leq_Ra<_Ry$, and $(x,y)\in R$. Hence if $(x,y)<_{R^{(2)}}(a,b)$, then $(x,y)\in R\subseteq R\cup R^{op}$, so $(a,b)$ is a minimal element of $(X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})$ for the relation $R^{(2)}$.~\leaders\hbox to 1em{\hss\ \hss}\hfill~\raisebox{.5ex}{\framebox[1ex]{}}\smp
This motivates the following notation:
\pagebreak[3]
\begin{mth}{Notation}
Let $R\in\Omega $. Set
$$\mathcal{E}_R=\{(a,b)\in (X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})\,\big|\, {]\,.\,,a[_R}\, \subseteq\, {]\,.\,,b[_R} \;\hbox{and}\;{]b,\,.\,[_R}\, \subseteq\, {]a,\,.\,[_R}\}\;\;.$$
\end{mth}
\begin{mth}{Theorem} \label{upper intervals}Let $R$ be an order on $X$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If there exists $(a,b)\in\mathcal{E}_R$ such that $(b,a)\notin \mathcal{E}_R$, then $]R,\,.\,[_\Omega$ is contractible.
\item Otherwise $\mathcal{E}_R=(\mathcal{E}_R)^{op}$, and $E_R=\Delta\sqcup\mathcal{E}_R$ is an equivalence relation on~$X$, which can be defined by
$$(a,b)\in E_R\;\Leftrightarrow\;\left\{\begin{array}{l}{]\,.\,,a[_R}={]\,.\,,b[_R}\\ {]a,\,.\,[_R}={]b,\,.\,[_R}\end{array}\right.\;\;.$$
If $X_1,\ldots,X_r$ are the equivalence classes for this relation, let $\Omega_i=\Omega_{X_i}$ and $\Delta_i=\Delta_{X_i}$, for $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$. Then there is a homotopy equivalence
$$]R,\,.\,[_\Omega\,\cong\,]\Delta_1,\,.\,[_{\Omega_1}\,*\,]\Delta_2,\,.\,[_{\Omega_2}\,*\,\ldots\,*\,]\Delta_r,\,.\,[_{\Omega_r}\;\;,$$
where $P*Q$ in the right hand side denotes the {\em join} of two posets $P$ and~$Q$ (cf. \cite{quillen}~Proposition~1.9).
\end{enumerate}
\end{mth}
\noindent{\bf Proof~:}\
If $(a,b)\in\mathcal{E}_R$, then $(a,b)$ is a minimal element of $(X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})$ for the relation $R^{(2)}$, by Lemma~\ref{lemmamini}. It follows from Lemma~\ref{maximal} that the relation $S=R\sqcup\{(a,b)\}$ is an order on $X$. The poset $[S,\,.\,[_\Omega$ has a smallest element $S$, hence it is a contractible subposet of $]R,\,.\,[_\Omega$. \par
Let $i:[S,\,.\,[_\Omega\hookrightarrow ]R,\,.\,[_\Omega$ denote the inclusion map. For $T\in ]R,\,.\,[_\Omega$, the poset
$$i_{T}=\{U\in [S,\,.\,[_\Omega\,\,\big|\, U\supseteq T\}$$
is equal to the set of order relations containing $S\cup T$. If $\sur{S\cup T}$ is an order, i.e. if it is antisymmetric, then $i_T$ has a smallest element $\sur{S\cup T}$. Otherwise $i_T$ is empty.\par
Let
$$A_S=\{T\in]R,\,.\,[_\Omega\,\big|\, \sur{S\cup T}\;\hbox{is antisymmetric}\}\;\;.$$
In particular $A_S\supseteq [S,\,.\,[_\Omega$, and the inclusion $i:[S,\,.\,[_\Omega\hookrightarrow A_S$ is a homotopy equivalence (\cite{quillen}, Proposition~1.6). Hence $A_S$ is contractible.\par
Now it is easy to check that $\sur{S\cup T}=\sur{\{(a,b)\}\cup T}$ is antisymmetric if and only if $(b,a)\notin\nolinebreak T$.\par
Let
$$(A_S)_*=\{T\in A_S\,\big|\,\, ]\,.\,,T[_{A_S}\;\hbox{is not contractible}\}\;\;.$$
Then by standard results (e.g. \cite{homol} or~\cite{benson2}, Proposition~6.6.5), if $B$ is any poset with $(A_S)_*\subseteq B\subseteq A_S$, the inclusion $B\hookrightarrow A_S$ is a homotopy equivalence. Now $]\,.\,,T[_{A_S}=]R,T[_\Omega$, for any $T\in A_S$. Let
$$B=\{T\in ]R,\,.\,[_\Omega\,\big|\, (b,a)\notin T\;\hbox{and}\;\Phi(T)\subseteq R\}\;\;.$$
Then $(A_S)_*\subseteq B\subseteq A_S$ by Theorem~\ref{interval and frattini}, thus $B$ is contractible.\par
Let $T\in ]R,\,.\,[_\Omega$ such that $\Phi(T)\subseteq R$. If $(b,a)\in T$, then $R\sqcup\{(b,a)\}\subseteq T$ is an order, by Theorem~\ref{interval and frattini}. By Lemma~\ref{maximal}, the pair $(b,a)$ is a minimal element of $(X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})$ for the relation $R^{(2)}$. Hence $(b,a)\in\mathcal{E}_R$, by Lemma~\ref{lemmamini}.\par
Hence if there exist $(a,b)\in\mathcal{E}_R$ such that $(b,a)\notin \mathcal{E}_R$, then $\big(]R,\,.\,[_\Omega\big)_*=B$ is contractible, which proves Assertion~1.\par
Otherwise $\mathcal{E}_R\subseteq \mathcal{E}_R^{op}$, hence $\mathcal{E}_R= \mathcal{E}_R^{op}$, and
$$\mathcal{E}_R=\{(a,b)\in(X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})\,\big|\,\; ]\,.\,,a[_R=]\,.\,,b[_R\;\hbox{and}\;]a,\,.\,[_R=]b,\,.\,[_R\}\;\;.$$
Then $E_R=\Delta\sqcup\mathcal{E}_R$ is an equivalence relation: it is obviously reflexive and symmetric. To show that it is transitive, it suffices to show that if $(a,b), (b,c)\in \mathcal{E}_R$, then $(a,c)\in E_R$. The assumption implies that $ ]\,.\,,a[_R=]\,.\,,b[_R=]\,.\,,c[_R$ and $]a,\,.\,[_R=]b,\,.\,[_R=]c,\,.\,[_R$. If $(a,c)\in R$, then either $a=c$ or $a\in]\,.\,,c[_R$. In the latter case $a\in ]\,.\,,a[_R$, a contradiction. Thus $a=c$. Now if $(a,c)\in R^{op}$, then $c\leq_Ra$. Thus again if $a\neq c$, then $c\in ]\,.\,,a[_R=]\,.\,,c[_R$, a contradiction. In both cases $a=c$. Thus either $a=c$, or $(a,c)\notin R\cup R^{op}$, and then $(a,c)\in\mathcal{E}_R$. Hence $E_R$ is transitive, so it is an equivalence relation.\par
Let $X_1,\ldots,X_r$ be the equivalence classes of $E_R$. If $T$ is an order containing $R$, for each $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$, denote by $T_{|i}$ the restriction of $T$ to $X_i$, i.e. $T_{|i}=T\cap(X_i\times X_i)$. Then $T_{|i}$ is an order on $X_i$, in other words $T_{|i}\in \Omega_i=\Omega_{X_i}$. Let
$$P=[\Delta_1,\,.\,[_{\Omega_1}\times[\Delta_2,\,.\,[_{\Omega_2}\times\ldots\times[\Delta_r,\,.\,[_{\Omega_r}$$
denote the product poset. The map
$$e:[R,\,.\,[_{\Omega}\to P$$
defined by $e(T)=(T_{|1},\ldots,T_{|r})$ is a map of posets.\par
{\bf Claim:} Let $(T_1,\ldots,T_r)\in P$. Then $S={R\cup T_1\cup\ldots\cup T_r}$ is an order on~$X$.\par
Indeed $S$ is clearly reflexive. It is also antisymmetric: if $(a,b)\in S\cap S^{op}$, then we can assume that:
\begin{itemize}
\item either $(a,b)\in R\cap R^{op}$, and then $a=b$, since $R$ is antisymmetric.
\item or $(a,b)\in R$ and $(b,a)\in T_i-R$, for some $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$. Then $a\neq b$, thus $(b,a)\in \mathcal{E}_R$, hence ${]\,.\,,a[_R}={]\,.\,,b[_R}$, and $a\in {]\,.\,,b[_R}={]\,.\,,a[_R}$, a contradiction.
\item or $(a,b)\in T_i-R$ (thus $a\neq b$) and $(b,a)\in T_j$, for some $i,j\in \{1,\ldots,r\}$. In particular $(a,b)\in E_R$, so $a$ and $b$ are in the same equivalence class for $E_R$, hence $i=j$. But then $(a,b)\in T_i\cap T_i^{op}$, thus $a=b$ since $T_i$ is antisymmetric. This is again a contradiction.
\end{itemize}
Hence $S$ is antisymmetric. It is also transitive, for if $(a,b)\in S-\Delta$ and $(b,c)\in S-\Delta$, then:
\begin{itemize}
\item either $(a,b)\in R$ and $(b,c)\in R$, then $(a,c)\in R\subseteq S$, since $R$ is transitive.
\item or $(a,b)\in R-\Delta$ and $(b,c)\in T_i-R$, for some $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$. Then $a<_Rb$, thus $a\in{]\,.\,,b[_R}={]\,.\,,c[_R}$, and then $(a,c)\in R\subseteq S$.
\item or $(a,b)\in T_i-R$ and $(b,c)\in R-\Delta$, for some $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$. Then $b<_Rc$, i.e. $c\in]b,\,.\,,[_R=]a,\,.\,,[_R$, hence $(a,c)\in R\subseteq S$.
\item or $(a,b)\in T_i-R$ and $(b,c)\in T_j-R$, for some $i,j\in \{1,\ldots,r\}$. Then $(a,b)\in \mathcal{E}_R$ and $(b,c)\in \mathcal{E}_R$, and $a,b,c$ are in the same equivalence class for $E_R$. Hence $i=j$, thus $a<_{T_i}b<_{T_i}c$, thus $a<_{T_i}c$, and $(a,c)\in T_i\subseteq S$.
\end{itemize}
This completes the proof of the above claim.\par
Now let
$$f:P\to [R,\,.\,[_\Omega$$
be the map defined by $f(T_1,\ldots,T_r)=R\cup T_1\cup\ldots\cup T_r$. It is clearly a map of posets.\par
Moreover for any $T\in[R,\,.\,[_\Omega$
$$fe(T)= R\cup T_{|1}\cup\ldots\cup T_{|r}\subseteq T\;\;.$$
Conversely, for any $(T_1,\ldots,T_r)\in P$
$$ef(T_1,\ldots,T_r)=e(R\cup T_1\cup\ldots\cup T_r)=(T_1',\ldots,T'_r)\;\;,$$
where $T'_i=(R\cup T_1\cup\ldots\cup T_r)\cap(X_i\times X_i)\supseteq T_i$, for any $i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}$. Actually $T'_i=T_i$, since $R\cap(X_i\times X_i)=\Delta_i$~: indeed $R\cap(X_i\times X_i)\subseteq R\cap E_R=\Delta$. Hence $ef$ is the identity map of the poset $P$. This also shows that $e(R)=(\Delta_1,\ldots,\Delta_r)$.\par
Conversely, suppose that $T\in[R,\,.\,[_\Omega$ is such that $e(T)=(\Delta_1,\ldots,\Delta_r)$. Then $T_{|i}=\Delta_i$ for each $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$. If $T\neq R$, let $(a,b)\in T-R$, minimal for the relation $R^{(2)}$. Then $a\neq b$, and $(b,a)\notin R$, since $R\subseteq T$ and $T$ is antisymmetric. Hence $(a,b)$ is also a minimal element of $(X\times X)-(R\cup R^{op})$, thus $(a,b)\in\mathcal{E}_R$. It follows that $(a,b)\in T_i$ for some $i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}$. As $a\neq b$, this contradicts the assumption $T_{|i}=\Delta_i$. Hence $T=R$.\par
Finally, let $(T_1,\ldots,T_r)\in P$ such that $f(T_1,\ldots,T_r)=R$. It follows that
$(T_1,\ldots,T_r)= ef(T_1,\ldots,T_r)=e(R)=(\Delta_1,\ldots,\Delta_r)$.\par
Now the maps $e$ and $f$ restrict to maps of posets
$$\xymatrix{]R,\,.\,[_\Omega\ar[r]<.5ex>^-e&\big([\Delta_1,\,.\,[_{\Omega_1}\times[\Delta_2,\,.\,[_{\Omega_2}\times\ldots\times[\Delta_r,\,.\,[_{\Omega_r}\big)-\{(\Delta_1,\ldots,\Delta_r)\}\ar[l]<.5ex>^-f}$$
such that $fe\subseteq {\rm Id}$ and $ef= {\rm Id}$. Hence $e$ and $f$ are inverse homotopy equivalences (\cite{quillen}~1.3). This completes the proof of the Theorem, since the poset$$\big([\Delta_1,\,.\,[_{\Omega_1}\times[\Delta_2,\,.\,[_{\Omega_2}\times\ldots\times[\Delta_r,\,.\,[_{\Omega_r}\big)-\{(\Delta_1,\ldots,\Delta_r)\}$$
is homotopic to the join $]\Delta_1,\,.\,[_{\Omega_1}\,*\,]\Delta_2,\,.\,[_{\Omega_2}\,*\,\ldots \,*\,]\Delta_r,\,.\,[_{\Omega_r}$, by~\cite{quillen}~Proposition~1.9.~\leaders\hbox to 1em{\hss\ \hss}\hfill~\raisebox{.5ex}{\framebox[1ex]{}}\smp
\begin{mth}{Theorem} \label{delta} Let $X$ be a set of cardinality $n$. Then the poset $\Omega_X-\{\Delta_X\}$ of non trivial orders on $X$ has the homotopy type of a sphere of dimension ${n-2}$.
\end{mth}
\noindent{\bf Proof~:}\ Set $\Omega^\sharp=\Omega-\{\Delta\}$ (where as above $\Omega=\Omega_X$ and $\Delta=\Delta_X$). If $R\in \Omega^\sharp$, then $]\,.\,,R[_{\Omega^\sharp}=]\Delta,R[_\Omega$. If $\Phi(R)\neq\Delta$, then $]\Delta,R[_\Omega$ is contractible by Theorem~\ref{interval and frattini}. It follows that the inclusion
$$B=\{R\in \Omega^\sharp\,\big|\,\Phi(R)=\Delta\}\hookrightarrow \Omega^\sharp$$
is a homotopy equivalence.\par
Now saying that $\Phi(R)=\Delta$ is equivalent to saying that there is no chain $x<_Ry<_Rz$ in $X$. If $R\in B$, let
\begin{eqnarray*}
R_-&=&\{x\in X\mid\exists y\in X,\;x<_Ry\}\\
R_+&=&\{y\in X\mid\exists x\in X,\;x<_Ry\}\\
R_0&=&X-(R_-\cup R_+)\;\;.
\end{eqnarray*}
Define $h(R)=R\cup (R_-\times R_+)$. Then $h(R)$ is an order on $X$: it is obviously reflexive, since if $(a,b)\in h(R)\cap h(R)^{op}$, then:
\begin{itemize}
\item either $(a,b)\in R$ and $(b,a)\in R$, hence $a=b$.
\item or $(a,b)\in R$ and $(b,a)\in R_-\times R_+$. Then $b\in R_-$ and $a\in R_+$. Moreover $a\neq b$, and $a<_Rb$. Thus $a\in R_-$ and $b\in R_+$. This is a contradiction since $R_-\cap R_+=\emptyset$.
\item or $(b,a)\in R$ and $(a,b)\in R_-\times R_+$. The argument of the previous case applies to the pair $(b,a)$, and this gives a contradiction again.
\item or $(a,b)\in R_-\times R_+$ and $(b,a)\in R_-\times R_+$. Again, since $R_-\cap R_+=\emptyset$, this is a contradiction.
\end{itemize}
Finally if $(a,b)\in h(R)$ and $(b,c)\in h(R)$, then either $a=b$ or $b=c$, so $h(R)$ is trivially transitive. It follows that $h(R)\in\Omega^\sharp$. Clearly $R\subseteq h(R)$.\par
If $R\subseteq S\in B$, then clearly $R_-\subseteq S_-$ and $R_+\subseteq S_+$, thus $h(R)\subseteq h(S)$. Moreover $h(R)_-=R_-$ and $h(R)_+=R_+$, thus $h^2=h$. It follows that $h$ induces a homotopy equivalence
$$B\to h(B)=\{R\in B\mid h(R)=R\}\;\;,$$
inverse to the inclusion $h(B)\hookrightarrow B$. Here $h(B)$ is viewed as a subposet of $B$, i.e. $h(B)$ is ordered by inclusion.\par
Now if $R\in B$ and $h(R)=R$, then the pair $\pi(R)=(R_-,R_+)$ is a pair $(V,U)$ of disjoint non empty subsets of $X$. Conversely, such a pair $(V,U)$ yields an element $\omega(V,U)$ of $h(B)$ defined by $\omega(V,U)=\Delta\cup (V\times U)$. The maps $\pi$ and $\omega$ induce inverse isomorphisms of posets between $h(B)$ and the poset
$$D_2(X)=\{(V,U)\mid \emptyset\neq V\subset X,\;\emptyset\neq U\subset X,\;V\cap U=\emptyset\}\;\;,$$
ordered by the product order $(V',U')\subseteq (V,U) \Leftrightarrow V'\subseteq V$ and $U'\subseteq U$ (note that if $U$ and $V$ are disjoint non empty subsets of $X$, then $U$ and $V$ are {\em proper} subsets of $X$). \par
Let $D_1(X)$ denote the set of non empty proper subsets of $X$, ordered by inclusion. The projection map $g:D_2(X)\to D_1(X)$ defined by $g(V,U)=U$ is a map of posets. Moreover for $W\in D_1(X)$
$$g_W=\{(V,U)\in D_2(X)\mid g(V,U)\supseteq W\}=\{(V,U)\in D_2(X)\mid U\supseteq W\}$$
is contractible via the maps $(V,U)\mapsto (V,W)\subseteq (X-W,W)$. It follows that $g$ is a homotopy equivalence (\cite{quillen}, Proposition 1.6). Hence the posets $\Omega^\sharp$ and $D_1(X)$ are homotopy equivalent. \par
This completes the proof, since if $X$ has cardinality~$n$, then $D_1(X)$ has the homotopy type of a sphere of dimension $n-2$.~\leaders\hbox to 1em{\hss\ \hss}\hfill~\raisebox{.5ex}{\framebox[1ex]{}}\smp
\begin{mth}{Corollary} Let $R$ be an order on $X$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $\mathcal{E}_R\neq \mathcal{E}_R^{op}$, the poset $]R,\,.\,[_\Omega$ is contractible.
\item if $\mathcal{E}_R= \mathcal{E}_R^{op}$, then $E_R=\Delta\sqcup\mathcal{E}_R$ is an equivalence relation on $X$. The poset $]R,\,.\,[_\Omega$ is homotopy equivalent to a sphere of dimension $n-r-1$, where $r$ is the number of equivalence classes of $E_R$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{mth}
\noindent{\bf Proof~:}\ Assertion 1 follows from Theorem~\ref{upper intervals}. For Assertion~2, by Theorem~\ref{upper intervals}, there is a homotopy equivalence
$$]R,\,.\,[_\Omega\,\cong\,]\Delta_1,\,.\,[_{\Omega_1}\,*\,]\Delta_2,\,.\,[_{\Omega_2}\,*\,\ldots\,*\,]\Delta_r,\,.\,[_{\Omega_r}\;\;,$$
where $\Omega_i=\Omega_{X_i}$ is the poset of posets on the equivalence class $X_i$ of $X$ for the relation $E_R$.\par
By Theorem~\ref{delta}, each poset $]\Delta_i,\,.\,[_{\Omega_i}$ has the homotopy type of a sphere of dimension $|X_i|-2$. Since for $d,e\in\mathbb{N}$, the join $S^d*S^e$ is homotopy equivalent to $S^{d+e+1}$ (where $S^d$ denotes a sphere of dimension $d$), it follows that $]R,\,.\,[_\Omega$ has the homotopy type of a sphere of dimension
$$(|X_1|-2)+(|X_2|-2)+\ldots+(|X_r|-2)+r-1=n-2r+r-1=n-r-1\;\;,$$
as was to be shown.~\leaders\hbox to 1em{\hss\ \hss}\hfill~\raisebox{.5ex}{\framebox[1ex]{}}\smp
|
\section{Introduction}
It is well known \cite{Riv} that the Chebyshev polynomial $T_n(x)$ of the first kind is a polynomial
in $x$ of degree n, defined by the relation
$T_n(x) = \cos n\theta\;\;$ when $x = \cos \theta.$
Let $A=(a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_m)$ be a (m+1)-tuple of real numbers, $a_0, a_m\ne 0$, $m\ge 1$ . We introduce an infinite sequence of polynomials
\[T_{n,A}(x)=a_0T_{n}(x)+a_{1}T_{n-1}(x)+\cdots+a_{m}T_{n-m}(x)\;\;(n\ge m).\]
We will refer to $T_{n,A}(x)$ as an A-Chebyshev polynomial.
We can naturally extend this definition in the case $m=0$ and $A=a_0\ne 0$:
\[T_{n,a0}(x)=a_0T_{n}(x).\]
Also, it will be useful to introduce the polynomial
\[P_{A}(x)=a_0x^m+a_{1}x^{m-1}+\cdots+a_{m}.\]
We will refer to $P_{A}(t)$ as the characteristic polynomial of the A-Chebyshev polynomial.
\section{Roots of A-Chebyshev polynomial}
Let $Z_{n,A}$ denote the set of zeros of the A-Chebyshev polynomial.
The aim of this paper is to analyse the structure of the set $\lim \inf Z_{n,A}$, when $n$ tends to infinity, depending on $A$.
$\lim \inf Z_{n,A}$ consists of those elements which are limits of points in $Z_{n,A}$ for all n. That is, $x \in \lim \inf Z_{n,A}$ if and only if there exists a sequence of points $\{x_k\}$ such that $x_k \in Z_{k,A}$ and $x_k \rightarrow x$ as $k \rightarrow \infty$.
\begin{exm}\label{sec:exm101}
Using our notation, the Chebyshev polynomial $T_n(x)$ is A-Chebyshev polynomial with $A=1$. It is well known \cite{MasHan} that the zeros of $T_n(x)$ are
$x_{n,k} = \cos \frac{(n − k + \frac{1}{2})\pi}{n}$ $(k=1,2,\ldots,n)$. It is obviously that $x_{n,0}$ approaches to -1 and $x_{n,n}$ approaches to 1 when $n\rightarrow\infty$. Since $x_{n,k}$ are equispaced, it is clear that
$\lim \inf Z_{n,1}=[-1,1]$
\end{exm}
\begin{exm}\label{sec:exm102}
What can we say for A-Chebyshev polynomial if $A=(2,-5,2)$?
It is well known \cite{MasHan} that the recurrence relation $T_n(x)=2xT_{n-1}(x)-T_{n-2}(x),\;n=2,3,\ldots$ is satisfied. So $T_{n,(2,-5,2)}(x)=2T_n(x)-5T_{n-1}(x)+2T_{n-2}(x)=4xT_{n-1}(x)-2T_{n-2}(x)-5T_{n-1}(x)+2T_{n-2}(x)$,
$T_{n,(2,-5,2)}(x)=(4x-5)T_{n-1}(x)$. Now it is obvious that $x=\frac{5}{4}$ is a zero of $T_{n,(2,-5,2)}(x)$, for all $n=2,3,\ldots$. So $x=\frac{5}{4}\in Z_{n,(2,-5,2)}$ for all $n=2,3,\ldots$. Taking into account the previous example we conclude that $\lim \inf Z_{n,(2,-5,2)}=[-1,1]\cup\{\frac{5}{4}\}$.
\end{exm}
\begin{lem}\label{sec:ACheb}
$T_{n,A}(x) = \frac{1}{2}(P_A(w)w^{n-m}+P_A(w^{-1})w^{-(n-m)})$ where $w=x+\sqrt{x^2-1}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Starting from the definition of A-Chebyshev polynomial and using well known \cite{MasHan} formula $T_n(x) = \frac{1}{2}(w^n+w^{-n})$ we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
T_{n,A}(x) &= &\sum_{i=0}^m a_iT_{n-i}(x)\\
&=&\sum_{i=0}^m a_i\frac{1}{2}(w^{n-i}+w^{-n+i})\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}(\sum_{i=0}^m a_iw^{n-i}+\sum_{i=0}^m a_iw^{-n+i})\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}(w^{n-m}\sum_{i=0}^m a_iw^{m-i}+w^{-n+m}\sum_{i=0}^m a_iw^{-m+i})\\
&=& \frac{1}{2}(w^{n-m}P_A(w)+w^{-n+m}P_A(w^{-1})).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
One can calculate that if $w=x+\sqrt{x^2-1}$ then $x=\frac{1}{2}(w+w^{-1})$. So, from the previous lemma we can deduce next
\begin{cor}\label{sec:recipZero}
If there iz $w$ such as $ P_A(w)=P_A(w^{-1})=0$ then $T_{n,A}(x)=0$ for $x=\frac{1}{2}(w+w^{-1})$ and for all $n\ge m$.
\end{cor}
In the previous example we can see that $2,\frac{1}{2}$ are roots of $P_A(x)=2x^2-5x+2$, therefore $x=\frac{1}{2}(2+\frac{1}{2})=\frac{5}{4}$ is a zero of $T_{n,A}(x)$ for all $n\ge 2$.
For the next corollary we need the following definition: the set T of Salem numbers is the set of real algebraic
integers $\tau$ greater than 1, such that all its conjugate roots have modulus at most equal to
1, one at least having a modulus equal to 1.
\begin{cor}\label{sec:recipZero1}
If $\tau$ is a Salem number and $ P_A(x)$ is its minimal polynomial then $T_{n,A}(x)=0$ for $x=\frac{1}{2}(\tau+\tau^{-1})$ and for all $n\ge m$.
\end{cor}
The claim is a direct consequence of a well known property of a Salem number \cite{Ber} that $ P_A(\tau)=P_A(\tau^{-1})=0$.
\begin{thm}\label{cha:nulaPreko1}
If there iz a root $\omega$, out of the unit circle, of the polynomial $P_A$, that is $ P_A(\omega)=0, |\omega|>1$, then for every real number $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a natural number $n_0$ such that for all $n > n_0$, there is a root $\xi$ of the A-Chebyshev polynomial $T_{n,A}(x)$ such that $|\xi-\frac{1}{2}(\omega+\omega^{-1})|<\varepsilon$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
It is convenient to use Lemma \ref{sec:ACheb} to express $T_{n,A}(x)$ $ = \frac{1}{2}P_A(w)w^{n-m}+\frac{1}{2}P_A(w^{-1})w^{-(n-m)}$ where $w=x+\sqrt{x^2-1}$, or equivalently $x=x(w)=\frac{1}{2}(w+w^{-1})$. Since $x(w)$ is continuous for $w>0$, there is $\delta_1 >0$ such that if $|w-\omega|<\delta_1$ then $|\frac{1}{2}(w+w^{-1})-\frac{1}{2}(\omega+\omega^{-1})|<\varepsilon$. We can take an $\delta_2 <|\omega|-1$ such that, in the circle $\{z:|z-\omega|\le \delta_2\}$, there is no root of $P_A(w)$ which is different from $ \omega$.
Let $\delta=\min(\delta_1, \delta_2)$ and $C=\{z:|z-\omega|\le \delta\}$.
Since $\partial C$, the boundary of $C$, is a compact set, $|P_A(w)|$, $|P_A(w^{-1})|$ are continuous on $\partial C$, there is $w_{min}$ where $|P_A(w)|$ attains its minimum, and $w_{max}$ where $|P_A(w^{-1})|$ attains its maximum on $\partial C$. Since $\frac{1}{2}|P_A(w_{max}^{-1})|$ is constant and $|\omega|-\delta >1$, there is $n_0$ such that $\frac{1}{2}|P_A(w_{min})|(|\omega|-\delta)^{n_0-m}>\frac{1}{2}|P_A(w_{max}^{-1})|$.
For $n\ge n_0$, let us denote $f(w)=\frac{1}{2}P_A(w)w^{n-m}$, $g(w)=\frac{1}{2}P_A(w^{-1})w^{-(n-m)}$. This notation corresponds to Rouch\'{e}'s theorem which we intend to use. We have to prove that $|f(w)|>|g(w)|$ on $\partial C$.
Since $|w|\ge |\omega|-\delta >1$ we have on $\partial C$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
|f(w)| &= &\frac{1}{2}|P_A(w)||w|^{n-m}\\
&\ge&\frac{1}{2}|P_A(w_{min})|(|\omega|-\delta)^{n_0-m}\\
&>&\frac{1}{2}|P_A(w_{max}^{-1})|\\
&\ge&\frac{1}{2}|P_A(w^{-1})||w|^{-(n-m)}|\\
&=& |g(w)|.
\end{eqnarray*}
The conditions in Rouch\'{e}'s theorem are thus satisfied. Consequently, since $f(w)$ has root $\omega$, we conclude that $f(w)+g(w)$ has a root, let it be $\omega_1$, inside the circle $C$ . Clearly, since $|\omega_1-\omega|<\delta_1$, if we denote $\xi=\frac{1}{2}(\omega_1+\omega_1^{-1})$, we conclude
$|\xi-\frac{1}{2}(\omega+\omega^{-1})|<\varepsilon$. Finally, we conclude that $T_{n,A}(\xi)=\frac{1}{2}P_A(\omega_1)\omega_1^{n-m}+\frac{1}{2}P_A(\omega_1^{-1})\omega_1^{-(n-m)}=f(\omega_1)+g(\omega_1)=0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{cha:nulaIspod1}
If $x\in[-1,1]$, then for every real number $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a natural number $n_0$ such that for all $n > n_0$, there is a root $\xi$ of the A-Chebyshev polynomial $T_{n,A}(x)$ such that $|x-\xi|<\varepsilon$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Directly from the definitions of the Chebyshev polynomial and the A-Chebyshev polynomial we can show that
\begin{equation}\label{Cheb}
T_{n,A}(x)=a_0\cos n\theta+a_{1}\cos (n-1)\theta+\cdots+a_{m}\cos (n-m)\theta,\;\;n\ge m,
\end{equation} when $x = \cos \theta$.
Since $a_{k}\cos (n-k)\theta=a_{k}\cos (n-m+m-k)\theta=a_{k}(\cos (n-m)\theta\cos (m-k)\theta-\sin (n-m)\theta\sin (m-k)\theta)$ the equation $T_{n,A}(x)=0$ is equivalent with
\[\cos (n-m)\theta\sum_{k=0}^m a_{k}\cos (m-k)\theta=\sin (n-m)\theta\sum_{k=0}^m a_{k}\sin (m-k)\theta.\]
Finally we get \[\tan (n-m)\theta=\frac{\sum_{k=0}^m a_{k}\cos (m-k)\theta}{\sum_{k=0}^m a_{k}\sin (m-k)\theta} .\] The function on the right, let call it $R(\theta)$, does not depend on $n$. The graph of $\tan (n-m)\theta$ consists of parallel equispaced
tangents branches. So if we take $n:=2n-m$ we double $n-m$ and get a new graph which is actually the union of the old one with branches settled in the middle of each pair of neighbouring branches of the old graph. We conclude that all roots of $\tan (n-m)\theta=R(\theta)$, remain to be the roots of $\tan 2(n-m)\theta=R(\theta)$, and new roots interlace with old. Finally, changing variables $\theta=\arccos x$ will preserve order and denseness of the roots.
\end{proof}
\section{Envelope of an A-Chebyshev polynomial}
Let us observe the Chebishev polynomial $T_n(x)$ again. It is well known that, for any $n$, the graph of
the polynomial oscillates between -1 and 1 when $x\in[-1,1]$. As $n$ increases we have more and more oscillations.
Something like that we have in the case an A-Chebyshev polynomial.
\begin{exm}\label{sec:exm301}
Let $A=(1,0,1)$, so $T_{n,A}(x)=T_{n}(x)+T_{n-2}(x)=2xT_{n-1}(x)-T_{n-2}(x)+T_{n-2}(x)=2xT_{n-1}(x)$. Now it is obvious that $T_{n,A}(x)$ oscillates between lines $y=\pm 2x$, for $x\in [-1,1]$. We will refer to these lines as an envelope of the A-Chebyshev polynomial.
\end{exm}
Using the expression \eqref{Cheb} we can study the following
\begin{exm}\label{sec:exm302}
Let $A=(1,0,-1)$, so $T_{n,A}(x)=\cos n\theta-\cos ((n-2)\theta)=-2\sin((n-1)\theta) \sin \theta=-2\sin((n-1)\theta)\sqrt{1-\cos^2\theta}=-2\sin((n-1)\theta)\sqrt{1-x^2}$.
Now it is obvious that $T_{n,A}(x)$ oscillates between upper and lower half of the ellipse $y=\pm 2\sqrt{1-x^2}$, for $x\in [-1,1]$. These halves constitute the envelope of the A-Chebyshev polynomial in this case.
\end{exm}
With the same technique we can find the envelope in the next
\begin{exm}\label{sec:exm303}
Let $A=(1,-1)$, so $T_{n,A}(x)=\cos n\theta-\cos ((n-1)\theta)=-2\sin((n-\frac{1}{2})\theta) \sin \frac{\theta}{2}=-2\sin((n-\frac{1}{2})\theta)\sqrt{\frac{1-\cos\theta}{2}}=-\sqrt{2}\sin((n-\frac{1}{2})\theta)\sqrt{1-x}$.
Now it is obvious that the envelope of the A-Chebyshev polynomial is a parabola $y=\pm \sqrt{2}\sqrt{1-x}$, for $x\in [-1,1]$. \end{exm}
Using previous examples, we can formulate the characteristics that an envelope of the A-Chebyshev polynomial must have.
\begin{enumerate}[({Env}1)]
\item The Envelope depends only on $A$. If $A$ is fixed, it is unique for $T_{n,A}(x)$, $n\in \mathbb{N}$.
\item The Envelope is a non negative function.
\item The A-Chebyshev polynomial is not greater in modulus than the envelope, $x\in [-1,1]$.
\item The Envelope is a smooth function except at its zeros.
\item If the envelope and the A-Chebyshev polynomial have equal positive value in $x$ they have also equal the first derivative in $x$.
\end{enumerate}
We shall define the envelope of the A-Chebyshev polynomial as a function which satisfies the characteristics (Env1)-(Env5).
It is naturally to ask how can we find the envelope for an A-Chebyshev polynomial. The next lemma will be useful.
\begin{lem}\label{sec:Koren}
Let $R(t)$, $I(t)$ be real differentiable functions of real argument, with $R'(t)$, $I'(t)$ continuous, $E(t)=\sqrt{R^2(t)+I^2(t)}$, $t\in \mathbb{R}$. Then following three statements are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}[({}i)]
\item $|R(t)|\le E(t)$,
\item $|R(t)|= E(t)$ if and only if $I(t)=0$,
\item if $I(t)=0$ and $R(t)>0$ then $R(t)= E(t)$ and $R'(t)=E'(t)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The first and the second statements are straightforward. To demonstrate that $R'(t)=E'(t)$ we need to determinate
$E'(t)=\frac{2R(t)R'(t)+2I(t)I'(t)}{2\sqrt{R^2(t)+I^2(t)}}$. Using $I(t)=0$, $R(t)>0$ we get the claim.
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{cha:obvojnica}
The envelope $E_A(x)$ for an A-Chebyshev polynomial
$T_{n,A}(x)$ is the square root of the modulus of
\[\sum_{i=0}^m a_i^2+2\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}a_ia_{i+1}T_1(x)+2\sum_{i=0}^{m-2}a_ia_{i+2}T_2(x)+\cdots\]
\[\cdots+2\sum_{i=0}^{m-k}a_ia_{i+k}T_k(x)+\cdots+2a_0a_mT_m(x),\]
or in more compact form \[E_A(x)=\sqrt{\left|\sum_{i=0}^m \sum_{k=0}^m a_ia_kT_{|i-k|}(x)\right|}.\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $z_A(t)=a_0\cos(nt)+a_{1}\cos((n-1)t)+\cdots+a_{m}\cos((n-m)t)+i(a_0\sin(nt)+a_{1}\sin((n-1)t)+\cdots+a_{m}\sin((n-m)t))$
be an auxiliary function on $t\in \mathbb{R}$.
We can see that $T_{n,A}(x)=Re(z_A(t))$ so $|T_{n,A}(x)|^2\le|z_A(t)|^2$, $x=\cos(t)$. We will show that $E_A(x)=|z(t)|$.
\[|z_A(t)|^2=\left (\sum_{k=0}^m a_k\cos((n-k)t)\right )^2+\left (\sum_{k=0}^m a_k\sin((n-k)t)\right )^2\]
\[=\sum_{i=0}^m\sum_{k=0}^m a_i a_k\cos((n-i)t)\cos((n-k)t)+\sum_{i=0}^m\sum_{k=0}^m a_i a_k\sin((n-i)t)\sin((n-k)t)\]
\[=\sum_{i=0}^m\sum_{k=0}^m a_i a_k(\cos((n-i)t)\cos((n-k)t)+\sin((n-i)t)\sin((n-k)t))\]
\[=\sum_{i=0}^m\sum_{k=0}^m a_i a_k\cos((i-k)t).\]
If we substitute $x=\cos(t)$ in $\cos((i-k)t)$ we get $T_{|i-k|}(x)$. Since $E_A(x)$ does not depend on $n$ (Env1) is fulfilled. (Env2), (Env3), (Env4) are straightforward. Using previous lemma if $R(t)=Re(z(t))$, $I(t)=Im(z(t))$,
we can easily obtain (Env5).
\end{proof}
It is useful to calculate the envelope of the A-Chebyshev polynomial for $m=1,2,3,4$. Actually, we give the calculation of the square of the envelope, to avoid cumbersome square roots. Using previous formula we have:
\begin{enumerate}[({m}=1)]
\item $a_0^2+a_1^2+2a_0a_1x$
\item $a_0^2+a_1^2+a_2^2+2(a_0a_1+a_1a_2)x+2a_0a_2(2x^2-1)=$
$=a_0^2+a_1^2+a_2^2-2a_0a_2+(2a_0a_1+2a_1a_2)x+4a_0a_2x^2$
\item $a_0^2+a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2+2(a_0a_1+a_1a_2+a_2a_3)x+2(a_0a_2+a_1a_3)(2x^2-1)+2a_0a_3(4x^3-3x)=$
$=a_0^2+a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2-2a_0a_2-2a_1a_3+(2a_0a_1+2a_1a_2+2a_2a_3-6a_0a_3)x+(4a_0a_2+4a_1a_3)x^2+8a_0a_3x^3$;
\item $a_0^2+a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2+a_4^2+2(a_0a_1+a_1a_2+a_2a_3+a_3a_4)x+2(a_0a_2+a_1a_3+a_2a_4)(2x^2-1)+2(a_0a_3+a_1a_4)(4x^3-3x)+2a_0a_4(8x^4-8x^2+1)=$
$=a_0^2+a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2+a_4^2-2a_0a_2-2a_1a_3-2a_2a_4+(2a_0a_1+2a_1a_2+2a_2a_3+a_3a_4-6a_0a_3-6a_1a_4)x+(4a_0a_2+4a_1a_3+4a_2a_4-16a_0a_4)x^2+(8a_0a_3+8a_1a_4)x^3+16a_0a_4x^4$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{rem}
There is a connection with the theory of signal processing. The analytic signal $z(t)$ can be expressed in terms of complex polar coordinates, $z(t) = f(t) + i \hat{f}(t) = A(t)e^{i\phi(t)}$ where $A(t) =\sqrt{f^2(t) + \hat{f}^2(t)}$,
and $\phi(t) = \arctan \frac{\hat{f}(t)}{f(t)}$. These functions are respectively called the amplitude envelope and instantaneous phase of the signal, $\hat{f}(t)$ is Hilbert transform of $f(t)$.
\end{rem}
\section{Connection between the envelope and the characteristic polynomial}
Until now we used the envelope to describe the graph of the A-Chebyshev polynomial if $x$ is of modulus not greater than 1. If $|x|>1$ we preferred the characteristic polynomial $P_A(x)$. It is natural to ask, is there any connection between the envelope and the characteristic polynomial of the A-Chebyshev polynomial. The next theorem shows that the answer is affirmative.
\begin{thm}\label{cha:odnos}
The envelope of the A-Chebyshev polynomial is the function \[E_A(x)=\sqrt{\left|P_A(x+\sqrt{x^2-1})P_A(x-\sqrt{x^2-1})\right|}.\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We shall start from the compact form of the envelope given in Theorem \ref{cha:obvojnica} and use well known \cite{MasHan} formula $T_n(x) = \frac{1}{2}(w^n+w^{-n})$ where $w=x+\sqrt{x^2-1}$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
E_A(x) &=&\sqrt{\left|\sum_{i=0}^m \sum_{k=0}^m a_ia_kT_{|i-k|}(x)\right|}\\
&=&\sqrt{\left|\sum_{i=0}^m \sum_{k=0}^m a_ia_k\frac{1}{2}(w^{i-k}+w^{-(i-k)})\right|}\\
&=&\sqrt{\left|\sum_{K=0}^m \sum_{I=0}^m \frac{1}{2}a_Ka_Iw^{K-I}+\sum_{i=0}^m \sum_{k=0}^m \frac{1}{2}a_ia_kw^{k-i}\right|}
\end{eqnarray*}
(Here we renamed $i$ with K and $k$ with $I$ in the first double sum. Now we shall switch the order of summing in the first double sum and apply obvious $a_Ka_I=a_Ia_K$.)
\begin{eqnarray*}
&=&\sqrt{\left|\sum_{I=0}^m \sum_{K=0}^m \frac{1}{2}a_Ia_Kw^{K-I}+\sum_{i=0}^m \sum_{k=0}^m \frac{1}{2}a_ia_kw^{k-i}\right|}\\
&=&\sqrt{\left|2\sum_{i=0}^m \sum_{k=0}^m \frac{1}{2}a_ia_kw^{k-i}\right|}\\
&=&\sqrt{\left|\sum_{i=0}^m \sum_{k=0}^m a_ia_kw^{m-i}w^{-m+k}\right|}\\
&=&\sqrt{\left|\sum_{i=0}^m a_iw^{m-i}\sum_{k=0}^m a_kw^{-m+k}\right|}\\
&=&\sqrt{\left|P_A(w)P_A(w^{-1})\right|}.\\
&=& \sqrt{\left|P_A(x+\sqrt{x^2-1})P_A(x-\sqrt{x^2-1})\right|}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
Figure 1. shows graphs of A-Chebyshev polynomials of the first kind $T_{14,(1,0,0,1)}(x)$, $T_{44,(1,0,0,1)}(x)$ together with their common envelope $E(x)=\sqrt{|2+6x-8x^3|}$.
\begin{fgr}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics {envelope4.PNG}
\end{center}
\end{fgr}
\section{A-Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind}
It is well known \cite{Riv} that the Chebyshev polynomial $U_n(x)$ of the second kind is a polynomial
in $x$ of degree n, defined by the relation
$U_n(x) = \frac{\sin (n+1)\theta}{\sin\theta}\;\;$ when $x = \cos \theta.$
Let $A=(a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_m)$ be a (m+1)-tuple of real numbers, $a_0, a_m\ne 0$, $m\ge 1$ . We introduce an infinite sequence of polynomials
\[U_{n,A}(x)=a_0U_{n}(x)+a_{1}U_{n-1}(x)+\cdots+a_{m}U_{n-m}(x)\;\;(n\ge m).\]
We will refer to $U_{n,A}(x)$ as an A-Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind.
We can naturally extend this definition in the case $m=0$ and $A=a_0\ne 0$:
\[U_{n,a0}(x)=a_0U_{n}(x).\]
We will refer to the polynomial
\[P_{A}(x)=a_0x^m+a_{1}x^{m-1}+\cdots+a_{m}\]
as the characteristic polynomial of the A-Chebyshev polynomial.
\begin{lem}\label{sec:AChebII}
$U_{n,A}(x) = \frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}(w^{n+1-m}P_A(w)-w^{-n-1+m}P_A(w^{-1}))$ where $w=x+\sqrt{x^2-1}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Starting from the definition of A-Chebyshev polynomial and using well known \cite{MasHan} formula $U_n(x) = \frac{w^{n+1}-w^{-n-1}}{w-w^{-1}}$ we have:
\begin{eqnarray*}
U_{n,A}(x) &= &\sum_{i=0}^m a_iU_{n-i}(x)\\
&=&\sum_{i=0}^m a_i\frac{w^{n+1-i}-w^{-n-1+i}}{w-w^{-1}}\\
&=&\frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}(\sum_{i=0}^m a_iw^{n+1-i}-\sum_{i=0}^m a_iw^{-n-1+i})\\
&=&\frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}(w^{n+1-m}\sum_{i=0}^m a_iw^{m-i}-w^{-n-1+m}\sum_{i=0}^m a_iw^{-m+i})\\
&=& \frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}(w^{n+1-m}P_A(w)-w^{-n-1+m}P_A(w^{-1})).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}\label{cha:nulaPreko1II}
If there is a root $\omega$, out of the unit circle, of the polynomial $P_A$, that is $ P_A(\omega)=0, |\omega|>1$, then for every real number $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a natural number $n_0$ such that for all $n > n_0$, there is a root $\xi$ of the A-Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind $U_{n,A}(x)$ such that $|\xi-\frac{1}{2}(\omega+\omega^{-1})|<\varepsilon$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
It is convenient to use the previous lemma to express $U_{n,A}(x)$ = $ \frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}(w^{n+1-m}P_A(w)-w^{-n-1+m}P_A(w^{-1}))$ where $w=x+\sqrt{x^2-1}$ or equivalently $x=x(w)=\frac{1}{2}(w+w^{-1})$. Since $x(w)$ is continuous for $w>0$, there is $\delta_1 >0$ such that if $|w-\omega|<\delta_1$ then $|\frac{1}{2}(w+w^{-1})-\frac{1}{2}(\omega+\omega^{-1})|<\varepsilon$. We can take an $\delta_2 <|\omega|-1$ such that, in the circle $\{z:|z-\omega|\le \delta_2\}$, there is no root of $P_A(w)$ which is different from $ \omega$.
Let $\delta=\min(\delta_1, \delta_2)$ and $C=\{z:|z-\omega|\le \delta\}$.
Since $\partial C$, the boundary of $C$, is a compact set, $|P_A(w)|$, $|P_A(w^{-1})|$ are continuous on $\partial C$, there is $w_{min}$ where $|P_A(w)|$ gets its minimum and $w_{max}$ where $|P_A(w^{-1})|$ gets its maximum on $\partial C$. Since $\frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}|P_A(w_{max}^{-1})|$ is constant and $|\omega|-\delta >1$, there is $n_0$ such that $\frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}|P_A(w_{min})|(|\omega|-\delta)^{n_0+1-m}>\frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}|P_A(w_{max}^{-1})|$.
For $n\ge n_0$ let us denote $f(w)=\frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}w^{n+1-m}P_A(w)$, $g(w)=\frac{-1}{w-w^{-1}}w^{-n-1+m}P_A(w^{-1})$. This notation corresponds with Rouch\'{e}'s theorem which we intend to use. We have to prove that $|f(w)|>|g(w)|$ on $\partial C$.
Since $|w|\ge |\omega|-\delta >1$ we have on $\partial C$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
|f(w)| &= &\frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}|P_A(w)||w|^{n+1-m}\\
&\ge&\frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}|P_A(w_{min})|(|\omega|-\delta)^{n_0+1-m}\\
&>&\frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}|P_A(w_{max}^{-1})|\\
&\ge&\frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}|P_A(w^{-1})||w|^{-(n+1-m)}|\\
&=& |g(w)|.
\end{eqnarray*}
The conditions in Rouch\'{e}'s theorem are thus satisfied. Consequently, since $f(w)$ has root $\omega$, we conclude that $f(w)+g(w)$ has a root, let it be $\omega_1$, inside the circle $C$ . Clearly, since $|\omega_1-\omega|<\delta_1$, if we denote $\xi=\frac{1}{2}(\omega_1+\omega_1^{-1})$, we conclude
$|\xi-\frac{1}{2}(\omega+\omega^{-1})|<\varepsilon$. Finally, we conclude that $U_{n,A}(\xi)=\frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}P_A(\omega_1)\omega_1^{n+1-m}-\frac{1}{w-w^{-1}}P_A(\omega_1^{-1})\omega_1^{-(n+1-m)}=f(\omega_1)+g(\omega_1)=0$.
\end{proof}
\section{An application in number theory}
Recall that $q>1$ is a Pisot number if $q$ is an algebraic
integer, whose other conjugates are of modulus strictly less
than 1.
Salem proved that every Pisot number is a limit point of the set $T$ of Salem numbers.
Let $Q(x)=x^mP(\frac{1}{x})=a_0+a_{1}x+\cdots+a_{m}x^m$ be the reciprocal polynomial of the polynomial $P(x)=a_0x^m+a_{1}x^{m-1}+\cdots+a_{m}$. Salem showed that if $P(x)$ is the minimal polynomial of a Pisot number $q$ then $R_k(x)=x^kP(x) + Q(x)$ is polynomial with a root $\tau_k$ that is a Salem number, and the limit of the sequence $\tau_k$ is $q$, $k\rightarrow\infty$. There is a connection between Salem sequence $R_k(x)$ with A-Chebyshev polynomials $T_{n,A}(x)$ the characteristic polynomial of which is $P(x)$. We have seen that $T_{n,A}(\frac{1}{2}(w^{}+w^{-1}))= T_{n,A}(x)= \sum_{i=0}^m a_iT_{n-i}(x)=\sum_{i=0}^m a_i\frac{1}{2}(w^{n-i}+w^{-n+i})$. Now we can show that $2w^nT_{n,A}(\frac{1}{2}(w^{}+w^{-1}))=R_{2n-m}(w)$. Really, we obtain $2w^nT_{n,A}(\frac{1}{2}(w^{}+w^{-1}))=\sum_{i=0}^m a_i(w^{2n-i}+w^{i})=w^{2n-m}\sum_{i=0}^m a_i(w^{m-i})+\sum_{i=0}^m a_i(w^{i})=w^{2n-m}P(w)+Q(w)$.
The question is what is going on if we use A-Chebyshev polynomial of the second kind instead of $T_{n,A}(x)$.
We will demonstrate that one more sequence of Salem numbers, which converges to the Pisot number $q$, appears.
It is obvious that $U_{n,A}(\frac{1}{2}(w^{}+w^{-1}))= U_{n,A}(x)= \sum_{i=0}^m a_iU_{n-i}(x)=\sum_{i=0}^m \frac{a_i}{w-w^{-1}}(w^{n+1-i}-w^{-n-1+i})=\sum_{i=0}^m a_i(w^{n-i}+w^{n-i-2}+w^{n-i-4}\cdots+w^{-n+i+2}+w^{-n+i}))$. We claim that $S_{2n}(w)=w^nU_{n,A}(\frac{1}{2}(w^{}+w^{-1}))$ is polynomial of degree $2n$ with a root $\tau_{2n}$ that is a Salem number, and the limit of the sequence $\tau_{2n}$ is $q$, $n\rightarrow\infty$. Using the previous theorem it is clear that there is a root $\tau_{2n}$ of $S_{2n}(w)$ such as $\tau_{2n}\rightarrow q$. It is obvious that $S_{2n}(w)$ is a reciprocal polynomial. It remains to be proved that all other roots of $S_{2n}(w)$ are in the unit circle. We shall apply the method Salem (communicated by Hirschman) used to prove the same property of his sequence $R_{k}(x)$ \cite{Sal}. Using Lemma \ref{sec:AChebII} we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
S_{2n}(w)&=&w^nU_{n,A}(\frac{1}{2}(w^{}+w^{-1}))\\ &=&\frac{w^n}{w-w^{-1}}(w^{n+1-m}P_A(w)-w^{-n-1+m}P_A(w^{-1}))\\
&=&\frac{w^{n+1}}{w^2-1}(w^{n+1-m}P_A(w)-w^{-n-1+m}P_A(w^{-1}))\\
&=&\frac{1}{w^2-1}(w^{2n+2-m}P_A(w)-w^{m}P_A(w^{-1}))\\
&=&\frac{1}{w^2-1}(w^{2n+2-m}P_A(w)-Q(w)).
\end{eqnarray*}
We denote by $\epsilon$ a positive number and consider the equation
\[(1 + \epsilon)w^{2n+2-m}P_A(w)- Q(w) = 0.\]
Since for $ |w|=1$ we have $|P(w)|=|Q(w)|$, it follows by Rouch\'{e}'s theorem that inside
the circle $ |w|=1$ the number of roots of the last equation is equal to the number
of roots of $w^{2n+2-m}P(w) $, that is, $(2n+2-m) +m - 1$. As $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$, these roots vary continuously.
Hence, for $\epsilon=0$ we have $2n+1$ roots with modulus $\le 1$. It is obvious that two roots are $1,-1$ so the fraction can be reduced with $w^2-1$. Finally we conclude that at most one root of $S_{2n}(w)$ is outside the unit circle.
\begin{exm}\label{sec:exmSal}
Let $q$ be the golden ratio, the greater root of $P(x)=x^2-x-1$.
Then $R_k(w)=w^{k+2}-w^{k+1}-w^k-w^2-w+1$ is the Salem's sequence.
Our sequence of Salem numbers $\tau_{2m}$ which converge to $q$ consists of the greatest in modulus roots of the polynomials
$S_{2n}(w)=\frac{1}{w^2-1}(w^{2n+2-m}P_A(w)-Q(w))=\frac{1}{w^2-1}(w^{2n}(w^2-w-1)+w^2+w-1)=$
$(w^{2n}+w^{2n-2}+w^{2n-4}\cdots+w^2+1)-(w^{2n-1}+w^{2n-3}+w^{2n-5}\cdots+w^{3}+w^{})-(w^{2n-2}+w^{2n-4}+w^{2n-6}\cdots+w^{4}+w^{2}).$
Finally \[S_{2n}(w)=w^{2n}-(w^{2n-1}+w^{2n-3}+w^{2n-5}\cdots+w^{3}+w^{})+1.\]
\end{exm}
|
\section{Introduction}
The power of lattice QCD in probing of the Standard Model, and uncovering evidence for new physics, lies predominantly in the flavour sector. To constrain the CKM unitarity triangle there are many inputs required that can only be accessed non-perturbatively, particularly in the $B$-meson sector. For instance, lattice calculations of the decay constants $f_{B}$ and $f_{B_s}$ are necessary inputs for neutral $B$-meson mixing calculations and for the Standard Model predictions of BR$(B\to\tau\nu)$ and BR$(B_s\to\mu^+\mu^-)$ respectively. Furthermore, lattice calculations of the $B\to\pi l\nu$ form factor allow a determination of the CKM matrix element $|V_{ub}|$.
For both semileptonic form factors and mixing matrix elements, the lattice precision lags behind experiment. However the experimental measurements will continue to improve with the large data sets available at Belle~II and the LHCb upgrade. Therefore it is essential to further reduce the theoretical uncertainties in the non-perturbative hadronic parameters in order to maximise the scientific impact of current and future $B$-physics experiments.\\
A major source of uncertainties in all previous lattice calculations is from practical difficulties simulating at physical light-quark masses. Theoretical insight from HM$\chi$PT{} can guide extrapolations down to the physical point, but lack of knowledge of the low-energy constants (LECs) of the theory introduces unwanted uncertainties. For example, at next-to-leading order (NLO) in HM$\chi$PT{} the dependence of $f_{B_d}$ on the light-quark (or equivalently, pion) mass is given by
\begin{equation}
f_{B_d} = F\left(1+\frac{3}{4}(1+3g_b^2)\frac{M_{\pi}^2}{(4\pi f_{\pi})^2}\log(M_{\pi}^2/\mu^2)\right) + \cdots ,
\end{equation}
where $g_b$ is the leading order LEC of the theory, and is directly related to the strong coupling $g_{B^*B\pi}$. In this work we perform the first calculation of the coupling $g_b$ directly at the $b$-quark mass.
\section{Heavy Meson Chiral Perturbation Theory}\label{heavymesontheory}
In the infinite quark mass limit, symmetries predict that properties of heavy-light mesons will be independent of the heavy quark's spin and flavour quantum numbers. Combining this with the chiral symmetry present in the $m_q \rightarrow 0$ limit of QCD provides the basis for heavy meson chiral perturbation theory (HM$\chi$PT{}). This effective theory of QCD is a joint expansion in powers of the inverse heavy-quark mass $1/m_h$ and the light-quark-mass $m_q$. At lowest order the interactions between the heavy and light mesons are determined by a Lagrangian with a single LEC~\cite{Wise1992}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:HMCHIPTLagrangian}
\mathcal{L}_{HM\chi PT}^{int} = g Tr \left(\bar{H}_aH_b\mathcal{A}^{ba}_{\mu}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma{5}\right),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}_{\mu} = \frac{i}{2}\left(\xi^{\dagger}\partial_{\mu}\xi + \xi \partial_{\mu}\xi^{\dagger} \right)
\end{equation}
and $\xi = \exp\left(i\mathcal{M}/f_{\pi} \right)$, where $\mathcal{M}$ represents the usual octect of pseudo-goldstone bosons. The coupling $g_b$ can be related to the coupling responsible for the strong decay $B^* \rightarrow B\pi$, defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gBstarBpi}
\langle B(p) \pi(q)|B^*(p^{\prime}, \lambda)\rangle = -g_{B^*B\pi}\:q\cdot\epsilon^{\lambda}(p^{\prime}).
\end{equation}
Equivalently, the same matrix element can be evaluated at leading order in HM$\chi$PT{},
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:gbstarbpihmchipt}
\langle B(p) \pi(q)|B^*(p^{\prime}, \lambda)\rangle = -\frac{2M_B}{f_{\pi}} g_b q\cdot\epsilon^{\lambda}(p^{\prime}),
\end{equation}
giving the relationship
\begin{equation}
\label{gbtogbstarbpi}
g_{B^*B\pi} = \frac{2M_B}{f_{\pi}} g_b.
\end{equation}
Performing an LSZ reduction and using the partially-conserved axial current relation for a soft pion, Eq. (\ref{eq:gBstarBpi}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{pionpole}
g_{B^*B \pi}\; q \cdot \epsilon^{\lambda}(p^{\prime}) = i q_{\mu} \frac{M_{\pi}^2-q^2}{f_{\pi}M_{\pi}^2} \int d^4x\; e^{iq\cdot x} \langle B(p)|A_{\mu}(x)|B^*(p^{\prime}, \lambda)\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $A^\mu = \bar q \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 q$ is the light-quark axial vector current. If we parameterise the axial-current matrix element in terms of form factors
\begin{equation}\label{formfactors}
\begin{split}
\langle B(p)| A^\mu | B^*(p^{\prime},\lambda) \rangle &= 2M_{B^*} A_0(q^2) \frac{\epsilon\cdot q}{q^2}q^\mu + (M_{B^*}+M_{B})A_1(q^2)\left[\epsilon^\mu - \frac{\epsilon\cdot q}{q^2}q^\mu\right] \\
&+ A_2(q^2)\frac{\epsilon\cdot q}{M_{B^*}+M_{B}}
\left[p^{\mu}+p^{\prime\mu} - \frac{M_{B^*}^2-M_{B}^2}{q^2} q^\mu
\right],
\end{split}
\end{equation}
we see that at $q^2=0$
\begin{equation}
g_{B^*B\pi}=\frac{2M_{B^*}A_0(0)}{f_{\pi}}.
\end{equation}
On the lattice, we cannot simulate exactly at $q^2=0$ without using twisted boundary conditions. Furthermore, and from Eq.
(\ref{pionpole}) we see the form factor $A_0$ contains a pole at the pion mass,
so it will be difficult to extrapolate to $q^2=0$ in a controlled manner. However, the form factor
decomposition in Eq.~\eqref{formfactors} must be free of
nonphysical poles, which allows us to obtain the relation
\begin{equation}
g_{B^*B\pi} = \frac1{f_\pi} \left[ (M_{B^*}+M_B)A_1(0) + (M_{B^*}-M_B)A_2(0)\right] .
\end{equation}
\section{Calculational strategy}
Our analysis is carried out using ensembles produced by the RBC and UKQCD collaborations~\cite{Aoki2010a} with the Iwasaki gauge action and 2+1 flavour dynamical domain-wall fermions. The configurations are at two lattice spacings, the finer $32^2$ ensembles have an inverse lattice spacing of $a^{-1} = 2.28(3)$~GeV and the coarser $24^3$ ensmbles have $a^{-1} = 1.73(3)$~GeV, corresponding to approximately 0.08~fm and 0.11~fm respectively. All ensembles have a spatial extent of 2.6~fm. We simulate with unitary light-quarks corresponding to pion masses down to $M_{\pi}=289$~MeV. On all ensembles, the sea strange-quark mass is tuned to within 10\% of its physical value. The fifth dimensional extent of both lattices is $L_S = 16$, corresponding to a residual quark mass of $(m_{\rm res}a)=0.003$ on the $24^3$ lattice and $(m_{\rm res}a)=0.0007$ on the $32^3$ lattice. Full details of the ensembles and propagators used are presented in Table~\ref{fig:ensembles}.\\
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}[c]{ccccccc}
\hline
$L/a$ & $a$(fm) & $m_la$ & $m_sa$ & \#Configs & \#Sources & $M_{\pi}$(MeV)\\
\hline
24 & 0.11 & 0.005 & 0.04 & 1636 & 1 & 329\\
24 & 0.11 & 0.010 & 0.04 & 1419 & 1 & 422\\
24 & 0.11 & 0.020 & 0.04 & 345 & 1 & 558\\
32 & 0.08 & 0.004 & 0.03 & 628 & 2 & 289\\
32 & 0.08 & 0.006 & 0.03 & 889 & 2 & 345\\
32 & 0.08 & 0.008 & 0.03 & 544 & 2 & 394\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Lattice simulation properties. All ensembles are generated using 2+1 flavours of domain-wall fermions and the Iwasaki gauge action. All valence pion masses are equal to the sea-pion mass.}
\label{fig:ensembles}
\end{table}
In this work we use the Relativistic Heavy Quark (RHQ) action~\cite{El-Khadra1996a, Aoki2001, Christ2006} to simulate fully relativistic bottom quarks whilst controlling discretisation effects. The RHQ action is an anisotropic Wilson action with a Sheikholeslami-Wohlert term:
\begin{equation*}
\label{eq:RHQ}
S_{RHQ} = a^4\sum_{x,y} \bar{\psi}(y)\left(m_0+\gamma_0D_0+\xi\vec{\gamma}\cdot\vec{D}-\frac{a}{2}(D_0)^2-\frac{a}{2}\xi(\vec{D})^2+\sum_{\mu \nu}\frac{ia}{4}c_p\sigma_{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}\right)_{y,x}\psi(x).
\end{equation*}
El Khadra, Kronfeld, and Mackenzie showed that for correctly tuned parameters the anisotropic Clover action can be used to describe heavy quarks with controlled cut-off effects to all orders in $ma$ and of $\mathcal{O}(|\vec{p}a|)$~\cite{El-Khadra1996a}. Christ, Li, and Lin~\cite{Christ2006} later showed that only three independent parameters need to be determined and, further, presented a method for performing this parameter tuning non-perturbatively~\cite{Lin2006}. This tuning has now been completed for $b$-quarks~\cite{tuning12} on the RBC/UKQCD configurations and these results are exploited in this calculation.
\subsection{Ratios}
To access the matrix element in Eq. (\ref{formfactors}) we calculate the lattice three-point function:
\begin{equation}\label{threepoint}
C_{\mu \nu}^{(3)}\left( t_x, t_y; \bar{p}, \bar{p}^{\prime} \right) = \sum_{\bar{x}\bar{y}} e^{-\imath \bar{p}\cdot\bar{x}} e^{-\imath \bar{p}^{\prime}\cdot\bar{y}} \langle B(y) A_{\nu}(0) B^*(x) \rangle_{t_x<0<t_y}
\end{equation}
and the vector and pseudoscalar meson two point functions. If we set both the vector and pseudoscalar momenta to zero in Eq.~(\ref{threepoint}) we can see from Eq.~\eqref{formfactors} that the only form factor accessible is
$A_1$. Therefore we form the ratio:
\begin{equation}
R_1 = \frac{C_{i,i}^{(3)}\left( t_x, t_y; \bar{p}=0, \bar{p}^{\prime}=0 \right)Z_{B}^{1/2}Z_{B^*}^{1/2}}{C_{BB}^{(2)}\left(t_y;\bar{p}=0\right) C_{B^*_{i}B^*_{i}}^{(2)}\left(T-t_x;\bar{p}=0\right) } = (M_{B^*}+M_B)A_1(q_0^2),
\end{equation}
where $Z_{B}$ and $Z_{B^*}$ are the amplitudes extracted from the pseudoscalar and vector two-point functions.\\
To access the other form factors we need to inject a unit of momentum,
such that $\bar{q} = \bar{p} = (1,0,0)\times2\pi/L$ and
$\bar{p}^{\prime}=0$. Following~\cite{Abada2002}, we
define further ratios $R_2$, $R_3$ and $R_4$ which allows access to the form factor $A_2$ through
\begin{equation} \label{A2/A1} \frac{A_2}{A_1} =
\frac{(M_{B^*}+M_B)^2}{2M_B^2q_1^2}\left[-q^2_1+E_{B^*}(E_{B^*}-M_B)-\frac{M_{B^*}^2(E_{B^*}-M_B)}{E_{B^*}}\frac{R_3}{R_4}
- i\frac{M_{B^*}^2q_1}{E_{B^*}}\frac{R_2}{R_4}\right].
\end{equation}
The ratio in Eq.~(\ref{A2/A1}) is obtained at non-zero values of
$q^2$ and needs to be extrapolated to $q^2=0$. However, its contribution is
suppressed by the ratio $(M_{B^*} - M_{B})/(M_{B^*} + M_{B})$. The form factor
$A_1$ is obtained at $q^2 = (M_{B^*} - M_B)^2$, but examination shows that the slight extrapolation to $q^2=0$ is not necessary at the resolution possible with the available statistics. If we define functions $G_1$ and $G_2$
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:G1G2}
\begin{split}
G_1(q^2) &= (M_{B^*}+M_B)A_1(q^2),\\
G_2(q^2) &= (M_{B^*}-M_B) A_2(q^2),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
we can write the coupling as $G_1(0)$ plus a small correction from the ratio $G_2/G_1$, giving
\begin{equation}
\label{eg:gb}
g_{b} = \frac{Z_A}{2M_B} G_1(0)\left( 1+\frac{G_2(0)}{G_1(0)} \right),
\end{equation}
where $Z_A$ is the light axial vector current renormalisation factor. We use the determination of $Z_A$ from the RBC/UKQCD combined analysis of the light hadron spectrum, pseudoscalar meson decay constants and quark masses on the $24^3$ and $32^3$ ensembles~\cite{Aoki2010a}.
\section{Results}
Figure~\ref{fig:R1R2} shows the ratios $R_1$ and $R_2$ on the $24^3$, $m_la=0.005$ ensemble fitted to a constant with statistical errors estimated using single elimination jack-knife.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}[c]{cc}
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.47\linewidth ]{R1_24c_m005_ty6_fit_50-58.eps}& \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.47\linewidth ]{R2_24c_m005_ty6_fit_51-60.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Ratios $R_1$ (left), $R_2$ (right) on the $24^3$, $m_la=0.005$ ensemble.}
\label{fig:R1R2}
\end{figure*}
We perform a chiral extrapolation using the SU(2) HM$\chi$PT{} formula for the axial coupling matrix element derived in~\cite{Detmold2011}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:BecirevicChiralII}
g_b = g_0\left(1 - \frac{ 2(1+2g_0^2) }{ (4\pi f_{\pi})^2 } M_{\pi}^2 \log \frac{ M_{\pi}^2 }{ \mu^2 } + \alpha M_{\pi}^2 + \beta a^2\right),
\end{equation}
which is next-to-leading order in the chiral expansion, but only leading order in the heavy-quark expansion.
We parameterize the light-quark and gluon discretisation effects with an $a^2$ term, as expected for the domain-wall light-quark and Iwasaki gauge actions. The lattice-spacing dependence from the RHQ action is more complicated. However, we estimate the heavy-quark discretisation effects using power counting arguments~\cite{Oktay2008} and find them to be negligible, such that extrapolating in $a^2$ captures the leading scaling behaviour.
Figure~\ref{chiral_extrap} shows the chiral-continuum extrapolation to the physical light-quark mass and continuum using Eq.~\eqref{eq:BecirevicChiralII}.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.75\linewidth ]{chiral_gb_sq.eps}
\caption{Chiral and continuum extrapolation. The bottom (blue) dashed line is the fit through the $24^3$ ensemble points. The dashed line above (red) is the fit through the $32^3$ ensemble points and the green solid line is the continuum extrapolation with a shaded error band. The intersect with the vertical dashed line corresponds to the physical pion mass. }\label{chiral_extrap}
\end{figure*}
We consider systematic errors arising from uncertainty in the lattice scale, the difference of our sea strange quark mass from its physical value, and uncertainties propagated through from the tuning of the RHQ paramaters. However, we find our dominant source of uncertainties to be the combined chiral and continuum extrapolation. To estimate this error we tried a number of variations to our fitting procedure which included dropping the heaviest masses from each ensemble, considering a linear fit, and a fit function with no lattice scale dependence. We also varied the value of $f_{\pi}$ that appears in Eq.~\eqref{eq:BecirevicChiralII} to simulate changing the relative sizes of the NLO and NNLO terms that appear in the chiral expansion. Our overall estimate of the uncertainty arising from the chiral and continuum extrapolations is 10\%, and adding this in quadrature to the systematic errors from all other sources we arrive at a total error of 10.4\%. Our final value of the $g_b$ coupling including statistical and systematic errors is:
\begin{equation}
g_b = 0.567(52)_{stat}(59)_{sys}.
\end{equation}
A publication with full details of our analysis and error estimates is in progress.
\section{Conclusions}
The determination of physical quantities from lattice-QCD simulations with unphysically heavy up- and down-quark masses requires a chiral extrapolation to the physical point. For heavy-light mesons, theoretical guidance is provided by heavy-meson chiral perturbation theory. At leading order the HM$\chi$PT Lagrangian has one low-energy constant $g$, which we have calculated for the theory with heavy $b$-quarks. Our calculation is the first directly at the physical $b$-quark mass, and has a complete systematic error budget. Comparing our result with other determinations \cite{Ohki2008,Detmold2012, Becirevic2012} shows it lies in the region that would be expected from interpolating between the charm- and infinite-mass. Our result will be used by the RBC/UKQCD collaboration in the chiral extrapolations of numerical lattice data for the $B$-meson leptonic decay constants \cite{Witzel2012} and $B\to\pi\ell\nu$ semileptonic form factor \cite{Witzel}, and can also be used by other lattice collaborations working on $B$-physics. This will help to reduce the important, and in many cases dominant, systematic uncertainty from the chiral extrapolation.
|
\section{Introduction}
The question of when $\mathrm{D}^b(X)$ is equivalent as a $k$-linear triangulated category to
$\mathrm{D}^b(Y)$ for two $k$-varieties $X$ and $Y$ has been extensively studied since Mukai
proved that $\mathrm{D}^b(\hat{A})\simeq\mathrm{D}^b(A)$ for an abelian variety $A$ and its dual
$\hat{A}$~\cite{mukai}.
Since in general $A$ and $\hat{A}$ are not isomorphic, derived equivalence is a weaker
condition than isomorphism. However, derived equivalence nevertheless does preserve a great deal
of information: derived equivalent varieties have the same dimension, the same algebraic
$K$-theory, and the same Hochschild homology.
The cohomological Brauer group of a scheme $X$ is
$\Br'(X)=\Hoh^2_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(X,\mathds{G}_{m})_{\mathrm{tors}}$. When $X$ is quasi-compact, there is an inclusion
$\Br(X)\subseteq\Br'(X)$, where $\Br(X)$ denotes the Brauer group of $X$,
which classifies Brauer equivalence classes of Azumaya algebras on $X$. In many cases of
interest, $\Br(X)=\Br'(X)$.
Examples include all quasi-projective schemes over affine schemes~\cite{dejong}. The
Brauer group comes into play because in many problems on moduli of vector bundles, there is
an obstruction, living in the Brauer group of the coarse moduli space, to the existence of a
universal vector bundle. Another way to say this is that this class in the Brauer group is
the obstruction to the coarse moduli space being fine. At times one then obtains an equivalence
$\mathrm{D}^b(X)\simeq\mathrm{D}^b(Y,\beta)$, where $\mathrm{D}^b(Y,\beta)$ is the derived category of
$\beta$-twisted coherent sheaves. Particular cases of this arise in the study of K3 surfaces
for example.
The systematic study of when $\mathrm{D}^b(X,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{D}^b(Y,\beta)$ began with
C\u{a}ld\u{a}raru's thesis~\cite{caldararu}. In this short note, we are interested in the following
two problems.
\begin{problem}\label{problem:A}
Let $R$ be a commutative ring,
let $X$ and $Y$ be two locally noetherian $R$-schemes, and fix $\alpha\in\Br'(X)$ and $\beta\in\Br'(Y)$.
Determine when there exists an $R$-linear equivalence of triangulated categories
$\mathrm{D}^b(X,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{D}^b(Y,\beta)$.
\end{problem}
\begin{problem}\label{problem:A'}
Let $R$ be a commutative ring,
let $X$ and $Y$ be two quasi-compact and quasi-separated $R$-schemes, and fix $\alpha\in\Br'(X)$ and $\beta\in\Br'(Y)$.
Determine when there exists an $R$-linear equivalence of triangulated categories
$\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(X,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(Y,\beta)$.
\end{problem}
Here, $\mathrm{D}^b(X,\alpha)$ denotes the bounded derived category of
$\alpha$-twisted coherent sheaves, while $\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(X,\alpha)$ is the triangulated
category of perfect complexes of $\alpha$-twisted $\mathscr{O}_X$-modules. When $X$ is regular and
noetherian, the existence locally of finite-length finitely generated locally free
resolutions implies that the natural map
$\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(X,\alpha)\rightarrow\mathrm{D}^b(X,\alpha)$ is an equivalence of $R$-linear triangulated
categories.
\begin{question}\label{question:eq}
Are Problems~\ref{problem:A} and~\ref{problem:A'} equivalent for $X$ and $Y$ noetherian
and quasi-separated?
\end{question}
The contents of our paper are as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:tdc}, we give some background
on twisted derived categories and equivalences between them.
Then, in Section~\ref{sec:affine}, the affine case of Problems~\ref{problem:A}
and~\ref{problem:A'} is solved completely, and we explain how work of Rickard shows that
these two problems \emph{are} equivalent for affine schemes. We do not claim that this
result is new, but rather that it is not as well-known as it should be.
\paragraph{Acknowledgments.}
We would like to thank the organizers of the AIM workshop ``Brauer groups and
obstruction problems'' for facilitating a stimulating week in February 2013.
\section{Twisted derived categories}\label{sec:tdc}
Let $X$ be a scheme, and take $\alpha\in\Hoh^2_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(X,\mathds{G}_{m})$. Then, $\alpha$ is represented
by a $\mathds{G}_{m}$-gerbe $\mathscr{X}\rightarrow X$. There is a good notion of quasi-coherent sheaf on
$\mathscr{X}$, or of coherent sheaf when $X$ is locally noetherian. An $\mathscr{O}_{\mathscr{X}}$-module
$\mathscr{F}$ comes naturally with a left action of the sheaf $\mathds{G}_{m,X}$. But, there is a
second, inertial action, which can be described as saying that a section
$u\in\mathds{G}_{m,X}(U)$ over $U\rightarrow\mathscr{X}$ acts on $\mathscr{F}(U)$ via the
isomorphism $u^*\mathscr{F}_U\rightarrow\mathscr{F}_U$, which induces an isomorphism
$u^*:\mathscr{F}(U)\rightarrow\mathscr{F}(U)$. There is an associated left action of the inertial
action. An $\alpha$-twisted $\mathscr{O}_X$-module is by definition an
$\mathscr{O}_{\mathscr{X}}$-module $\mathscr{F}$ for which these two left actions agree. It is shown
in~\cite{lieblich-moduli}*{Proposition 2.1.3.3} that this agrees with the definition of
$\alpha$-twisted sheaf given by C\u{a}ld\u{a}raru.
If $X$ is a scheme and $\alpha\in\Hoh^2_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(X,\mathds{G}_{m})$,
write $\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(X,\alpha)$ for the derived category of complexes of $\alpha$-twisted
sheaves that are \'etale locally quasi-isomorphic to finite-length complexes of vector
bundles. This is naturally a full subcategory of $\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}(X,\alpha)$ of complexes of
$\alpha$-twisted sheaves with ($\alpha$-twisted) quasi-coherent cohomology sheaves. If $X$
is regular and noetherian, then $\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(X,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{D}^b(X,\alpha)$, the bounded
derived category of $\alpha$-twisted coherent $\mathscr{O}_X$-modules.
Let $A$ be an Azumaya algebra on $X$ with class $\alpha$. A complex of right $A$-modules $P$ (in the
abelian category $\mathrm{Mod}_{\mathscr{O}_X}$) is perfect if there is an open affine cover $\{U_i\}_{i\in
I}$ of $X$ such that $P_{U_i}$ is quasi-isomorphic to a bounded complex of finitely
generated projective right $\Gamma(U_i,A)$-modules. The derived category of perfect complexes of
right $A$-modules will be denoted $\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(X,A)$. Then, as explained in~\cite{caldararu},
$\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(X,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(X,A)$. In the same way, there is a big derived
category of all all complexes of right $A$-modules with quasi-coherent cohomology sheaves $\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}(X,A)$
and an equivalence $\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}(X,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}(X,A)$.
In the next section, we will need dg enhancements of these categories.
Write $\mathrm{Perf}(X,\alpha)$ and $\mathrm{QC}(X,\alpha)$ for dg enhancements of $\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(X,\alpha)$
and $\mathrm{QC}(X,\alpha)$, respectively. These are pretriangulated dg categories. The big dg
category $\mathrm{QC}(X,\alpha)$ is constructed for example in To\"en~\cite{toen-derived}. The small
dg category $\mathrm{Perf}(X,\alpha)$ can then be taken to be the dg category of compact objects in
$\mathrm{QC}(X,\alpha)$.
\section{Twisted derived equivalences over affine schemes}\label{sec:affine}
Many of us first learned of twisted derived categories from C\u{a}ld\u{a}raru's
thesis~\cite{caldararu} and the paper~\cite{caldararu-elliptic}. In that paper, C\u{a}ld\u{a}raru~cites a private communication from
Yekuteli giving the following theorem~\cite{caldararu}*{Theorem 6.2}.
\begin{theorem}
Suppose that $R$ is a commutative local ring and that $A$ and $B$ are Azumaya
$R$-algebras with classes $\alpha,\beta\in\Br(R)$. Then, the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\alpha=\beta$ in $\Br(R)$;
\item $A$ and $B$ are derived Morita equivalent over $R$---that is, there is an
$R$-linear equivalence of triangulated categories $\mathrm{D}^b(A)\simeq\mathrm{D}^b(B)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
It is the purpose of our paper to advertise the fact that the condition that $R$ be local
is unnecessary.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:thm}
Suppose that $R$ is a commutative ring and that $\alpha,\beta\in\Br(R)$. Then, the
following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\alpha=\beta$ in $\Br(R)$;
\item there is an $R$-linear equivalence of triangulated categories $\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(R,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(R,\beta)$.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, if $R$ is noetherian, these are equivalent to:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[3.] there is an $R$-linear equivalence of triangulated categories
$\mathrm{D}^b(R,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{D}^b(R,\beta)$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
Since $\alpha,\beta\in\Br(R)$, we can assume that $\alpha$ is represented by an
Azumaya $R$-algebra $A$, and that $\beta$ is represented by an Azumaya $R$-algebra
$B$. In this case,
$\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(X,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(X,A)\simeq\mathrm{D}^b(\mathrm{proj}_A)$, where
$\mathrm{D}^b(\mathrm{proj}_A)$ is the bounded derived category of finitely generated
projective $A$-modules. The second equivalence follows because on an affine scheme,
every perfect complex is quasi-isomorphic to a bounded complex of finitely generated
projectives (see~\cite{thomason-trobaugh}*{Proposition~2.3.1(d)}), and this generalizes in a straightforward way to Azumaya algebras on an
affine scheme.
When $\alpha=\beta$, the Azumaya algebras $A$ and $B$ are Brauer equivalent. This
means that there exist finitely generated projective $R$-modules $M$ and $N$ and an
$R$-algebra isomorphism
\begin{equation*}
A\otimes_R\End_R(M)\cong B\otimes_R\End_R(N).
\end{equation*}
It follows from classical Morita theory that there is an equivalence
$\mathrm{Mod}_A\simeq\mathrm{Mod}_B$ of abelian categories of right $A$ and $B$-modules. From this it
follows immediately that $\mathrm{D}^b(\mathrm{proj}_A)\simeq\mathrm{D}^b(\mathrm{proj}_B)$. This
proves that (1) implies (2).
So, suppose that
$\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(R,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(R,\beta)$, or in other words that
$\mathrm{D}^b(\mathrm{proj}_A)\simeq\mathrm{D}^b(\mathrm{proj}_B)$. Rickard's
theorem~\cite{rickard-morita}*{Theorem 6.4} as refined in~\cite{rickard-derived}
implies that there is a tilting complex inducing an
$R$-linear equivalence $\mathrm{D}^b(\mathrm{proj}_A)\simeq\mathrm{D}^b(\mathrm{proj}_B)$. (Rickard's
theorem does not imply that this is the equivalence we began with, but it \emph{is}
still $R$-linear.) The existence of
the tilting complex implies that there is an equivalence of $R$-linear dg category enhancements
$\mathrm{Perf}(R,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{Perf}(R,\beta)$, which is then a derived Morita equivalence. That
is, there is an equivalence of the ``big'' $R$-linear dg categories
$\mathrm{QC}(R,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{QC}(R,\beta)$. These are locally presentable dg categories with
descent in the language of~\cite{toen-derived}. Now, the derived Brauer group of
$R$, denoted $\dBr(R)$, classifies locally presentable dg categories with descent
over $R$ that are \'etale locally equivalent to $\mathrm{QC}(R)$. Since $\Spec R$ is affine,
the $R$-linear equivalence $\mathrm{QC}(R,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{QC}(R,\beta)$ means that $\alpha$ and $\beta$
define the same element of $\dBr(R)$ (see~\cite{toen-derived}*{Section 3}). But, $\dBr(R)\cong\Hoh^1_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(\Spec
R,\mathds{Z})\times\Hoh^2_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(\Spec R,\mathds{G}_{m})$ by~\cite{toen-derived}*{Theorem 1.1}. Since $\Br(R)\subseteq\dBr(R)$, it follows
that $\alpha=\beta$, and so (2) implies (1).
Finally, the fact that (2) and (3) are equivalent follows
from~\cite{rickard-morita}*{Propositions 8.1, 8.2}. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
By~\cite{dejong}, $\Br(R)=\Br'(R)=\Hoh^2_{\mathrm{\acute{e}t}}(\Spec R,\mathds{G}_{m})_{\mathrm{tors}}$.
\end{remark}
We expand briefly on the philosophy of the proof.
Write $\mathscr{QC}$ for the \'etale stack of locally presentable dg categories with dg category of
sections over $f:Y\rightarrow X$ the locally presentable dg category $\mathrm{QC}(Y)$, which is a dg
category enhancement of the derived category $\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}(Y)$ of complexes of
$\mathscr{O}_Y$-modules with quasi-coherent cohomology sheaves. The derived Brauer group $\dBr(X)$ of a scheme
classifies stacks of locally presentable dg categories that are \'etale locally equivalent
to $\mathscr{QC}$ up to equivalence \emph{of stacks}.
\begin{motto}
The Brauer group classifies Azumaya algebras $\mathscr{A}$ up to derived Morita equivalence of stacks
of dg categories of complexes of $\mathscr{A}$-modules.
\end{motto}
For $\alpha\in\dBr(X)$, write $\mathscr{QC}(\alpha)$ for the associated stack. For instance, if
$\alpha$ is the Brauer class of an Azumaya algebra $\mathscr{A}$ over $X$
then the dg category of sections over $f:Y\rightarrow X$ of $\mathscr{QC}(\alpha)$ is
$\mathrm{QC}(Y,f^*\mathscr{A})$, which is a dg category enhancement of
$\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}(Y,\mathscr{A})\simeq\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{qc}}(Y,\alpha)$. The key point in the proof of the theorem was
that over an affine scheme $\Spec R$, giving an equivalence of stacks
$\mathscr{QC}(\alpha)\simeq\mathscr{QC}(\beta)$ is equivalent to giving an $R$-linear equivalence of the global sections $\mathrm{QC}(R,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{QC}(R,\beta)$.
On non-affine schemes, giving an equivalence of global sections is, not surprisingly, insufficient.
The following example is due to C\u{a}ld\u{a}raru~\cite{caldararu}*{Example 1.3.16}. Let $X$ be a smooth projective K3 surface over
the complex numbers given as a
double cover of $\mathds{P}^2$ branched along a smooth sextic curve. The involution $\phi$ of $X$ given by interchanging
the sheets of the cover has the property that $\phi^*\alpha=-\alpha$ for $\alpha\in\Br(X)$.
Clearly $\phi$ induces an equivalence
$\mathrm{D}^b(X,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{D}^b(X,-\alpha)$. But, since $\Br(X)$ contains non-zero $p$-torsion
for every prime $p$, there is a class $\alpha\in\Br(X)$ such that $\alpha\neq-\alpha$. Thus,
the theorem fails in the non-affine case. The problem is that the equivalence does not
respect restriction to open subsets of $X$.
We now prove the conjecture suggested by C\u{a}ld\u{a}raru~after~\cite{caldararu-elliptic}*{Theorem
6.2}.
\begin{corollary}
Suppose that $R$ and $S$ are commutative rings and that there is an equivalence of
triangulated categories
$\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(R,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(S,\beta)$ for $\alpha\in\Br(R)$ and
$\beta\in\Br(S)$. Then, there exists a ring isomorphism $\phi:R\rightarrow S$ such that
$\phi^*(\alpha)=\beta$ in $\Br(S)$.
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ be an Azumaya algebra with class $\alpha$ over $R$, and let $B$ an be Azumaya
over $S$ with class $\beta$. Then, our hypotheses say that
$\mathrm{D}^b(\mathrm{proj}_A)\simeq\mathrm{D}^b(\mathrm{proj}_B)$.
By Rickard~\cite{rickard-morita}*{Proposition 9.2}, the centers of $A$ and $B$ are
isomorphic.
Thus, there is an isomorphism $\phi:R\rightarrow S$, and there are equivalences
$\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(S,\beta)\simeq\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(R,\alpha)\simeq\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(S,\phi^*(\alpha))$.
The composition induces a ring automorphism $\sigma:S\rightarrow S$. So, by composing on
the $\phi$ on the right with $\sigma^{-1}$,
we can assume that
$\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(S,\beta)\simeq\mathrm{D}_{\mathrm{perf}}(S,\phi^*(\alpha))$ \emph{is} $S$-linear.
The corollary follows now from the theorem.
\end{proof}
\end{corollary}
We end by observing that the condition of $R$-linearity in Theorem~\ref{thm:thm} is necessary.
\begin{remark}\label{rem:caution}
Consider the field $k=\mathds{C}(w,x,y,z)$ and the quaternion division algebras
$(w,x)$ and $(y,z)$ over $k$. Then, these algebras are evidently derived Morita
equivalent over $\mathds{C}$ (they are even isomorphic over $\mathds{C}$). However, $[(w,x)]\neq [(y,z)]$ in $\Br(k)$.
\end{remark}
\begin{bibdiv}
\begin{biblist}
\bib{caldararu}{thesis}{
author = {C\u{a}ld\u{a}raru, Andrei},
title = {Derived categories of twisted sheaves on Calabi-Yau manifolds},
note = {Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University (2000)},
eprint = {http://www.math.wisc.edu/\textasciitilde andreic/},
}
\bib{caldararu-elliptic}{article}{
author={C\u{a}ld\u{a}raru, Andrei},
title={Derived categories of twisted sheaves on elliptic threefolds},
journal={J. Reine Angew. Math.},
volume={544},
date={2002},
pages={161--179},
issn={0075-4102},
}
\bib{dejong}{article}{
author={de Jong, Aise Johan},
title={A result of Gabber},
eprint={http://www.math.columbia.edu/~dejong/},
}
\bib{lieblich-moduli}{article}{
author={Lieblich, Max},
title={Moduli of twisted sheaves},
journal={Duke Math. J.},
volume={138},
date={2007},
number={1},
pages={23--118},
issn={0012-7094},
}
\bib{mukai}{article}{
author={Mukai, Shigeru},
title={Duality between $D(X)$ and $D(\hat X)$ with its application to
Picard sheaves},
journal={Nagoya Math. J.},
volume={81},
date={1981},
pages={153--175},
issn={0027-7630},
}
\bib{rickard-morita}{article}{
author={Rickard, Jeremy},
title={Morita theory for derived categories},
journal={J. London Math. Soc. (2)},
volume={39},
date={1989},
number={3},
pages={436--456},
issn={0024-6107},
}
\bib{rickard-derived}{article}{
author={Rickard, Jeremy},
title={Derived equivalences as derived functors},
journal={J. London Math. Soc. (2)},
volume={43},
date={1991},
number={1},
pages={37--48},
issn={0024-6107},
}
\bib{thomason-trobaugh}{article}{
author={Thomason, R. W.},
author={Trobaugh, Thomas},
title={Higher algebraic $K$-theory of schemes and of derived categories},
conference={
title={The Grothendieck Festschrift, Vol.\ III},
},
book={
series={Progr. Math.},
volume={88},
publisher={Birkh\"auser Boston},
place={Boston, MA},
},
date={1990},
pages={247--435},
}
\bib{toen-derived}{article}{
author = {To{\"e}n, Bertrand},
title = {Derived Azumaya algebras and generators for twisted derived categories},
journal = {Invent. Math.},
year = {2012},
volume = {189},
number = {3},
pages = {581--652},
}
\end{biblist}
\end{bibdiv}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let us fix variables $x_1,\dots,x_N$ and denote by $X_d$ the space of non-singular homogeneous polynomials of degree $d$ in $x_1,\dots,x_N$ with complex coefficients.
A recent result of Vakil and Wood \cite[Thm. 1.13]{vakilwood} about stabilization in the Grothendieck ring suggests that the rational cohomology of $X_d$ stabilizes for $d\gg 0$, in the sense that its $k$th cohomology group is independent of $d$ for $d$ sufficiently large with respect to $k$.
In this note, we prove that this is indeed the case for $k<\frac{d+1}2$ and describe explicitly the stable cohomology of $X_d$, by proving it is isomorphic to the cohomology of the general linear group.
Let us remark that Peters and Steenbrink proved in \cite{ps-leray} that the rational cohomology of $X_d$ contains a copy of the cohomology of $\mathrm{GL}_N(\bb{C})$ for $d\geq3$.
Thus the same property should hold for stable cohomology, provided it exists.
More precisely, Peters and Steenbrink showed in \cite{ps-leray} that the cohomology of $X_d$ is isomorphic to the tensor product of the cohomology of $\mathrm{GL}_N(\bb{C})$ and that of the moduli space $M_d:=X_d/\mathrm{GL}_N(\bb{C})$ of smooth degree $d$ hypersurfaces in $\Pp{N-1}$.
Hence, in view of the results of \cite{ps-leray}, one can say that the stable cohomology of $X_d$ is the minimal possible and that it coincides with the subalgebra generated by the classes described in \cite[\S5--6]{ps-leray}.
Furthermore, our result implies that the cohomology of the moduli space $M_d$ vanishes in (low) degree $k>0$ if $d$ is sufficiently large.
%
Our approach to stable cohomology is based on Vassiliev's method \cite{Vbook} for computing the cohomology of complements of discriminants, i.e. of the locus of non-singular elements inside a vector space of functions.
A main feature of this method is the possibility of computing the cohomology of the complement of a discriminant from the description of the possible singular loci of the elements of the discriminant. In this way one obtains a relationship between the topology of the complement of the discriminant and the geometry of the spaces of singular configurations.
We will show that, in the case of $X_d$, this kind of approach yields that stable cohomology is determined by the geometry of spaces of configurations of up to $N$ points in $\Pp{N-1}$.
Vassiliev's method was adapted to the algebro-geometric setting
first by Vassiliev in \cite{Vart} and subsequently by Gorinov \cite{gorinov} and by the author \cite{OTM4}.
All these approaches are equivalent for the purpose of this note, which only requires to deal with the first steps of the method. However, for the sake of completeness, we include a direct construction of the part of Vassiliev's spectral sequence we need to prove our result. This construction is strongly based on the construction of cubical hyperresolutions of singular spaces in \cite{hyperres}, see also \cite[\S5]{ps-book}.
It is interesting to remark that in almost all cases in which the rational cohomology of $X_d$ is known, it coincides with the stable cohomology.
For instance, it is well known that the cohomology of the space $X_d$ for $N=2$ and $d\geq 4$ coincides with the cohomology of $\mathrm{GL}(2)$. A short proof based on Vassiliev's method can be found in \cite[Lemma 5.1]{OTM4}.
For $N=3$, i.e. for polynomials defining non-singular plane curves, the rational cohomology was computed for degree $3,4$ and $5$ in \cite[Thm. 1 and 2]{Vart} and \cite{gorinov}, respectively. Moreover, the cohomology for $N=4$ and degree $3$, i.e. for cubic surfaces, is described in \cite[Thm. 4]{Vart}. Among these examples, the only case in which non-stable cohomology occurs is for plane quartics.
Finally, let us remark that the results of \cite{vakilwood} in the Grothendieck ring hold for a much larger class of spaces than the spaces $X_d$. Specifically, one would expect cohomological stability phenomena in much greater generality,
for the space of divisors with a prescribed number of singular points in the linear system $|L^{\otimes d}|$ for $L$ a very ample line bundle on an arbitrary smooth manifold $X$.
We plan to consider this more general situation in a subsequent paper.
\subsection*{Notation}
Throughout this note we will make an extensive use of Borel--Moore homology, i.e. homology with closed support, which we denote by the symbol $\bar H_\bullet$. For its definition and the properties we refer to \cite[Chapter 19]{intersectiontheory}.
In our results, we take into account mixed Hodge structures on homology and cohomology groups. The Hodge structures that arise in the stable cohomology of $X_{d}$ are always pure and of Tate type. We will use the notation
$\bb{Q}(-k)$ for the Tate Hodge-structure of weight $2k$ (i.e. of Hodge type $(k,k)$).
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank Ravi Vakil and Melanie Matchett Wood for helpful discussions on this project. Furthermore, I am indebted to the referee for many useful suggestions on how to improve the paper. Finally, I would like to thank Remke Kloosterman for help with the proof of Lemma~\ref{vectorbundle}.
\section{The result}
For a fixed $n\geq 1$, let us denote by $V_{d,n}=\bb{C}[x_0,\dots,x_n]_d$ the vector space of homogeneous polynomials of degree $d$.
Let us recall that a polynomial $f\in V_{d,n}$ is \emph{singular} if there is a non-zero vector $y=(y_0,\dots,y_n)\in\bb{C}^n\setminus(0,\dots,0)$ such that all partial derivatives of $f$ vanish at $y$, i.e. if we have
$$\frac {\partial f}{\partial x_0}(y)=\dots=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_n}(y)=0.$$
This condition can be interpreted geometrically as follows. If $f\neq0$ holds, then the vanishing of $f$ defines a hypersurface in projective space $\Pp n$. The condition above means that the point $[y]\in\Pp n$ belongs to the singular locus of the hypersurface, i.e. to the closed subset of points at which the hypersurface is not a smooth complex manifold.
The locus of singular polynomials inside
$V_{d,n}$ is called the \emph{discriminant hypersurface} $\Sigma=\Sigma_{d,n}$. We denote its complement by $X_{d,n}=V_{d,n}\setminus\Sigma_{d,n}$.
The aim of this note is to prove the following result:
\begin{thm}
The cohomology with rational coefficients of $X_{d,n}$ and the rational cohomology of $\mathrm{GL}_{n+1}(\bb{C})$ (considered as a topological space) are isomorphic in degree $k< \frac {d+1}2$.
\end{thm}
By work of Peters and Steenbrink, this isomorphism between the cohomology of $X_{d,n}$ and $\mathrm{GL}_{n+1}(\bb{C})$ in low degree is induced by the orbit map associated with the action of the general linear group on $X_{d,n}$. Specifically, their result is the following.
\begin{prop}[{\cite[Lemma~7]{ps-leray}}]\label{prop}
If $d\geq 3$ and $n\geq 1$, then
for every polynomial $f(x_0,\dots,x_n)\in X_{d,n}$, the orbit map
$$
\begin{array}{rccc}
r:&\mathrm{GL}_{n+1}(\bb{C})&\longrightarrow &X_{d,n}\\
&g&\longmapsto&f(g(x_0),\dots,g(x_n))
\end{array}
$$
given by the natural action of $\mathrm{GL}_{n+1}(\bb{C})$ on $\bb{C}^{n+1}=\operatorname{span}(x_0,\dots,x_n)$
induces a surjection $\coh\bullet{X_{d,n}}\rightarrow\coh\bullet{\mathrm{GL}_{n+1}(\bb{C})}$ in cohomology.
\end{prop}
In particular, to prove the above theorem it is enough to show that the orbit map is an isomorphism in the stable range $k <\frac {d+1}2$.
Furthermore, Peters and Steenbrink use Proposition~\ref{prop} to prove a stronger result, namely, the degeneration at $E_2$ of the Leray spectral sequence in rational cohomology associated with the quotient map $X_{d,n}\rightarrow M_{d,n}:=X_{d,n}/\mathrm{GL}_{n+1}(\bb{C})$. In particular, there is an isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{ps-iso}
\coh\bullet{X_{d,n}}\cong \coh\bullet{M_{d,n}}\otimes \coh\bullet{\mathrm{GL}_{n+1}(\bb{C})}
\end{equation}
of graded $\bb{Q}$-vector spaces with mixed Hodge structures.
Note that the quotient space $M_{d,n}=X_{d,n}/\mathrm{GL}_{n+1}(\bb{C})$ is the moduli space of non-singular degree $d$ hypersurfaces in $\Pp n$.
If we combine the theorem above with Peters--Steenbrink's isomorphism \eqref{ps-iso}, we get
\begin{cor}
The rational cohomology of the moduli space $M_{d,n}$ of non-singular degree $d$ hypersurfaces in $\Pp n$ vanishes in degree $k$ for $0<k< \frac {d+1}2$ and $d\geq 3$.
\end{cor}
Before we proceed to outline the structure of the proof of the main theorem, let us discuss some natural questions related to it.
First, the theorem implies the existence of isomorphisms $\coh k{X_{d,n}}\cong\coh k{X_{d',n}}$ for all $d'>d>2k-1$. However, the proof of the theorem we will give in the next sections does not explain how to construct such stability isomorphisms in a natural way. The reason behind that is that we will only investigate the range in which the $E^1$ terms in Vassiliev's spectral sequence vanish. Although we will not discuss this further, it is indeed possible to construct isomorphisms between non-zero terms of the Vassiliev's spectral sequence and this should expectedly give more information about the existence of stability or transfer maps between the $\coh k{X_{d,n}}$ for different values of $d$ and fixed $k$ in the stable range.
Secondly, although all our results are for cohomology with rational coefficients, we would like to remark that Vassiliev's method can also be applied to compute cohomology with integral coefficients. The vanishing result (Lemma~\ref{main}) on which the proof of the main theorem is based is not expected to hold if one replaces $\bb{Q}$-coefficients with $\bb{Z}$-coefficients, but it is conceivable that
one can still detect stability phenomena using Alexander duality \eqref{alex} and the Vassiliev's spectral sequence with integral coefficients.
Finally, the bound $k<\frac {d+1}2$ for the stability range is not optimal. We will discuss how to improve it in Remark~\ref{betterbounds}.
\medskip
By Proposition~\ref{prop}, to prove the theorem it suffices to prove that the cohomology of $X_{d,n}$ in the degree range $k< \frac {d+1}2$ is not larger than one copy of $\coh\bullet{\mathrm{GL}_{n+1}(\bb{C})}$.
The cohomology of $\mathrm{GL}_{n+1}(\bb{C})$ is well known. By \cite[Prop.~7.3]{borel}, it is an exterior algebra generated in odd degree. As shown in \cite[\S5]{ps-leray}, there are exactly $n+1$ generators $\eta_k$ ($k=0,\dots,n$) of degree $2k+1$ and Hodge type $(k+1,k+1)$, with a very precise geometrical description.
In particular, the cohomology of $\mathrm{GL}_{n+1}(\bb{C})$ vanishes in degree larger than $(n+1)^2$ and is generated by the product $\eta_0\eta_1\dots\eta_{n}$ %
in degree $(n+1)^2$. To prove the theorem, it suffices to prove that
the cohomology of $X_{d,n}$ in the stable range $k< \frac{d+1}2$ vanishes in degree larger than $(n+1)^2$.
\medskip
By definition, requiring a polynomial $f$ to be singular at a given point $p\in\Pp n$ imposes $n+1$ conditions. Therefore, if we choose $N$ points in $\Pp n$ and require $f$ to be singular at all of them, the naive expectation is that this will impose $N(n+1)$ conditions on $f$. Indeed, this is always the case if $N$ is sufficiently small with respect to the degree of $f$.
\begin{lem}\label{vectorbundle}
For a fixed integer $N\geq 1$,
the restriction of
\begin{equation}\label{vbundle}
\left\{(f,p_1,\dots p_N)\in V_{d,n}\times (\Pp n)^N|\;
p_1,\dots,p_N\in\Sing(f)\right\}\xrightarrow{\pi} (\Pp n)^N
\end{equation}
to the locus where all $p_i$ are distinct is a vector bundle of rank $\cc{d}{n}-N(n+1)$ if and only if $d\geq 2N-1$ holds.
\end{lem}
\proof
To prove the Lemma, we translate its statement into the language of commutative algebra.
Let us fix $N$ distinct points $p_1,\dots,p_N$ in $\Pp n$ and denote by $I\subset \bb{C}[x_0,\dots,x_n]$ the ideal of the set $\{p_1,\dots,p_N\}$. Then the fibre of $\pi$ is exactly the degree $d$ part of the second power $I^2$ of the ideal $I$; its codimension in $V_{d,n}$ is (by definition) the value $P_{M}(d)$ of the Hilbert function of the module $M=\bb{C}[x_0,\dots,x_n]/I^2$.
As the Hilbert polynomial of $M$ is exactly $n(N+1)$, what we want to prove is that the Hilbert function and the Hilbert polynomial of $M$ agree in degree $d$ for $d\geq 2N-1$.
Let us observe that the depth of $M$ is at least $1$, as both $I$ and $I^2$ are saturated with respect to the irrelevant ideal of $\bb{C}[x_0,\dots,x_n]$.
Hence, the projective dimension of $M$ is $n$ by the Auslander--Buchsbaum formula. By \cite[Thm. 4.2(2)]{syzygies}, this implies that the Hilbert function and the Hilbert polynomial of $M$ are equal if $d$ is larger than or equal to the Castelnuovo--Mumford regularity of $M$.
Therefore, it suffices to show that the regularity of the module $M$ is at most $2N-1$, or, equivalently, that the regularity of the ideal $I^2$ is at most $2N$. But by \cite[Thm. 1.1]{GGP} (see also \cite{chandler}) we have $\reg(I^2)\leq 2\reg(I)$ and the regularity of the ideal $I$ of $N$ points of $\Pp n$ is at most $N$ (see for instance \cite[Thm. 4.1]{syzygies} and the discussion preceding it). Note that the regularity of $I$ is $N$ if and only if the points $p_1,\dots,p_N$ are collinear.
It remains to prove that the bound $d\geq 2N-1$ is sharp. This follows from an explicit calculation in the case where the points $p_1,\dots,p_N$ lie on the same line in $\Pp N$. In this case, the space of polynomials in $V_{d,n}$ singular at $p_1,\dots,p_N$ has codimension $N(n+1)$ for $d\geq 2N-1$ and codimension at most $N(n-1)+d+1\leq N(n+1)-1$ for $d\leq 2N-2$.
\qed
To complete the proof of the Theorem, we will show the following:
\begin{lem}\label{main}
For all $N\geq 3$ and $d\geq 2N-1$,
the cohomology group $\coh k{X_{d,n}}$ vanishes for $(n+1)^2<k< N$.
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}\label{betterbounds}
Vassiliev proved that the behaviour of configurations with more than $k+1$ points contained in a $k$-dimensional linear subspace of $\Pp n$ does not play a role in his method (see e.g. \cite[Lemma~4 and~9]{Vart}). For this reason, one can replace the bound $2N-1$ with the minimal value $d_{0,N}$ of $d$ such that the restriction of \eqref{vbundle} to the locus where the $p_i$ are in general linear position is a vector bundle of the desired rank. This allows to give a better bound on the degree $d$ in Lemma~\ref{main}.
\end{rem}
In the next two sections, we will prove Lemma~\ref{main}. Instead than studying the cohomology of $X_{d,n}$ directly, in the spirit of Vassiliev's method we will focus on its Alexander dual, the Borel--Moore homology of the discriminant $\Sigma_{d,n}$. To this end, we construct a cubical space $\mathcal{X}$ based on a (simplified) resolution of the singularities of $\Sigma_{d,n}$, and show that its geometrical realization $\big|\mathcal{X}\big|$, endowed with an appropriate topology, is proper homotopy equivalent to $\Sigma_{d,n}$. This is done in section~\ref{cubical}. In section~\ref{proof}, we define a stratification of $\big|\mathcal{X}\big|$ by locally closed subsets and study the associated spectral sequence in Borel--Moore homology, usually called the \emph{Vassiliev spectral sequence}. We will use an explicit description of the strata to prove the vanishing of the $E^1$ terms of Vassiliev spectral sequence in a suitable range to prove Lemma~\ref{main}.
\section{Cubical resolutions}\label{cubical}
As usual with Vassiliev's method, the first step is to observe that knowing the cohomology of $X_{d,n}$ is equivalent to knowing the Borel--Moore homology of the discriminant $\Sigma=\Sigma_{d,n}$. This follows from Alexander duality:
\begin{equation}\label{alex}
\coh k {X_{d,n}}\cong\BM{2\ccc dn-k-1}{\Sigma_{d,n}}\otimes\bb{Q}\left(-\ccc dn \right),\ k>0,
\end{equation}
for $\ccc dn = \dim_\bb{C} V_{d,n}=\cc dn$.
To compute the Borel--Moore homology of $\Sigma$, we construct a cubical resolution of it.
\begin{ntn}
For all $k\geq 0$, we denote by $\Sigma_{\geq k}$ the locus inside $\Sigma$ of polynomials whose singular locus contains at least $k$ distinct points.
We denote the symmetric group in $k$ letters by $\mathfrak S_k$,
the space of ordered configurations of $k$ points in $\Pp n$ by $\F k{\Pp n}=\{(p_1,\dots,p_k)\in(\Pp n)^k|\; p_i\neq p_j\text{ for }i\neq j\}$
and the corresponding space of unordered configurations by
$\B k{\Pp n}=\F k{\Pp n}/\mathfrak S_k$.
\end{ntn}
It is easy to show that $\Sigma$ is singular in codimension $1$. In particular, polynomials $f$ defining hypersurfaces with cusps or with more than one singular point belong to the singular locus of $\Sigma$.
However, there is a natural way to construct a resolution of singularities of $\Sigma$, i.e. a proper surjective map $\varphi:\;\tilde\Sigma\rightarrow \Sigma$ from a non-singular quasi-projective variety $\tilde\Sigma$ to $\Sigma$ which restricts to an isomorphism $\tilde\Sigma\setminus\varphi^{-1}(\Sing(\Sigma))\cong (\Sigma\setminus\Sing(\Sigma))$ on the complement of the singular locus. Namely, one can consider the following map:
$$
\cusub\calX1:=\tilde\Sigma:=\{(f,p)\in V_{d,n}\times\Pp n|\; p \in \Sing(f)\} \xrightarrow{\varphi} \mathcal{X}_\emptyset:=\Sigma.
$$
This resolution is a homeomorphism outside the set $\Sigma_{\geq2}$ and its preimage $\varphi^{-1}(\Sigma_{\geq 2})$.
Furthermore, to construct a resolution of singularities of $\varphi^{-1}(\Sigma_{\geq 2})$ is not difficult: it suffices to consider the space of triples $(f,p_1,p_2)$ where the $p_i$ are prescribed singular points of $f$, with its natural forgetful map to $\cusub\calX1$. Of course, ordered pairs $(p_1,p_2)$ are equivalent to considering inclusions $x_1\subset x_2$ with $x_1=\{p_1\}\in\B1{\Pp n}$ and $x_2=\{p_1,p_2\}\in\B2{\Pp n}$.
Again, this resolution of singularities is a homeomorphism outside the preimage $\varphi^{-1}(\Sigma_{\geq3})$ of $\Sigma_{\geq3}$ in $\varphi^{-1}(\Sigma_{\geq2})$.
By iterating $N-1$ times this construction of a resolution, one obtains the following spaces:
\begin{dfn}
For $1\leq i_1\leq \dots\leq i_r\leq N-1$ and $I=\{i_1,\dots,i_r\}$ we set
$$
\mathcal{X}_I=\left\{(f,x_1,\dots,x_r)\in V_{d,n}\times \prod_{1\leq j\leq r} \B{i_j}{\Pp n}|\; x_1\subset x_2\subset\dots\subset x_r\subset \Sing f\right\}$$
and
$\mathcal{X}_{I\cup\{N\}}=\left\{(f,x_1,\dots,x_r)\in \mathcal{X}_I|\; f\in\overline{\Sigma_{\geq N}}\right\}$,
where $\overline{\Sigma_{\geq N}}$ denotes the Zariski closure of ${\Sigma_{\geq N}}$ in $V_{d,n}$.
In particular, we have $\mathcal{X}_\emptyset = \Sigma$ and $\cusub\mathcal{X} N = \overline{\Sigma_{\geq N}}$.
\end{dfn}
For each inclusion $I\subset J\subset\{1,\dots, N\}$ there is a natural forgetful map $\varphi_{IJ}:\;\mathcal{X}_J\rightarrow\mathcal{X}_I$.
This can be rephrased by saying that $\mathcal{X}$ is a \emph{cubical space} over the set $\{1,\dots,N\}$. For general background on cubical spaces and their relationship with semisimplicial spaces we refer to \cite[\S5.1.1]{ps-book}.
\begin{rem}
The construction of the cubical space $\mathcal{X}$ is directly inspired by the construction of cubical resolutions for pairs of algebraic varieties in \cite[\S{}I.2]{hyperres} and \cite[\S5.2]{ps-book}.
We remark that in these references, at each step of the construction of the resolution, one considers the maximal subset on which the resolution of singularities is an \emph{isomorphism} of quasi-projective varieties and resolves the singularities of its complement in the next step. This has the advantage that the locus one is resolving is automatically Zariski closed.
Instead, we consider the locus where the resolution of singularities is a \emph{homeomorphism}, so its complement --- such as for example $\Sigma_{\geq2}$ in the case of $\tilde\Sigma\rightarrow\Sigma$ --- is {a priori} just a constructible subset and in general not Zariski closed.
In particular, our maps $\varphi_{\emptyset,I}:\;\mathcal{X}_I\rightarrow\mathcal{X}_\emptyset=\Sigma$ are (in general) not proper.
Note that the construction in \cite[Ch. 5]{ps-book} extends also to the case in which in the next step one takes a resolution of singularities of the Zariski closure of the complement of the locus in which the previously constructed resolution is not a homeomorphism, like $\overline{\Sigma_{\geq2}}$ in our example \cite[Rmk.~5.18]{ps-book}.
\end{rem}
\begin{dfn}
For all $I\subset \{1,\dots,N\}$, we denote by $\Delta_I$ the simplex
$$\Delta_I = \left\{(\alpha:\;I\rightarrow [0,1])\left| \; \sum_{i\in I}\alpha(i)=1\right.\right\}.$$
For every inclusion $I\subset J\subset\{1,\dots, N\}$ we denote by $e_{IJ}:\;\Delta_I\rightarrow\Delta_J$ the inclusion obtained by extending each function $\alpha\in\Delta_I$ to take value $0$ on $J\setminus I$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}
The \emph{geometric realization} of the cubical space $\mathcal{X}$ is the quotient space
$$
\big|\mathcal{X}\big| =\left. \left(\bigsqcup_{I\subset\{1,\dots,N\}}\mathcal{X}_I\times\Delta_I\right)\right/\sim
$$
where $\sim$ is the equivalence relation generated by $(\varphi_{IJ}(t),\alpha)\sim(t,e_{IJ}(\alpha))$ for all $\alpha\in\Delta_I$, $t\in\mathcal{X}_J$ with $I\subset J\subset \{1,\dots,N\}$.
\end{dfn}
Note that $\Delta_\emptyset$ is empty, so that $\mathcal{X}_\emptyset$ does not play a role in the construction of the geometrical realization of $\mathcal{X}$.
At this point, we need to define a topology on $\big|\mathcal{X}\big|$ that takes degenerations appropriately into account. This is made necessary from our choice of working with subsets which were not Zariski closed in the definition of the cubical space $\mathcal{X}$.
We start by constructing a partial compactification of the spaces $\cusub\mathcal{X} k$ for $1\leq k\leq N-1$. By definition, the elements of $\cusub\mathcal{X} k$ are pairs $(f,x)$ with $x\in\B k{\Pp n}$ and $f\in V_{d,n}$ a polynomial singular in $x$. As we assumed $d\geq 2N-1$, being singular at the points in $x$ imposes $k(n+1)$ independent conditions on $f$, so that $\cusub\mathcal{X} k$ is a vector bundle of rank $\cc dn-k(n+1)$ over $\B k{\Pp n}$. Moreover, the assumption $d\geq 2N-1$ implies that the fibres of $\cusub\mathcal{X} k\rightarrow\B k{\Pp n}$ are pairwise distinct linear subspaces of $V_{d,n}$. In other words, the vector bundle structure on $\cusub\mathcal{X} k$ induces an injection of $\B k{\Pp n}$ into the Grassmannian $G\left(\cc dn-k(n+1),V_{d,n}\right)$ of linear subspaces of $V_{d,n}$ of codimension $k(n+1)$.
\begin{ntn}
For $1\leq k\leq N-1$, we denote by $L_k$ the Zariski closure of the image of the map $\B k{\Pp n}\hookrightarrow G(\dim V_{d,n}-k(n+1),V_{d,n})$ induced by the vector bundle $\cusub\mathcal{X} k\rightarrow \B k{\Pp n}$. For $1\leq k_1\leq k_2\leq N-1$ and $\lambda_i\in L_{k_i}$ we write $\lambda_1<\lambda_2$ whenever we have inclusions $W_{\lambda_2}\subset W_{\lambda_1}$ of the corresponding linear subspaces in $V_{d,n}$.
\end{ntn}
Let us remark that this definition of $<$ agrees with the inclusion of configurations on the open subsets $\B k{\Pp n}\subset L_k$.
\begin{ntn}
For each $\lambda\in L_k$ the set-theoretical intersection of the singular loci of all $f$ lying in the corresponding linear subspace $W_\lambda\subset V_{d,n}$ is a non-empty subset which by the assumption $d\geq 2N-1\geq 2k-1$ contains at most $k$ distinct points in $\Pp n$. We will call this element the \emph{support} of $\lambda$ and denote it by $s(\lambda)\in \B{n(\lambda)}{\Pp n}$, where $1\leq n(\lambda)\leq k$ denotes the number of distinct points in $s(\lambda)$.
\end{ntn}
We are ready to define a partial compactification $\bar\calX$ of the cubical space~$\mathcal{X}$.
\begin{dfn}
For $1\leq i_1\leq \dots\leq i_r\leq N-1$ and $I=\{i_1,\dots,i_r\}$ we set
$$
\bar\calX_I=\left\{(f,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_r)\in \Sigma\times \prod_{1\leq j\leq r} L_{i_j}|\; \lambda_1< \lambda_2<\dots< \lambda_r, f\in W_{\lambda_r}\subset V_{d,n} \right\}$$
and
$\bar\calX_{I\cup\{N\}}=\left\{(f,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_r)\in \bar\calX_I|\; f\in\overline{\Sigma_{\geq N}}\right\}$.
\end{dfn}
As in the case of $\mathcal{X}$, the forgetful maps ${\bar\varphi}_{IJ}:\;\bar\calX_J\rightarrow\bar\calX_I$ for $I\subset J$ define a structure of cubical space on $\bar\calX$ with the property that all maps $\bar\varphi_{\emptyset,I}:\;\bar\calX_I\rightarrow\bar\calX_\emptyset=\Sigma$ are proper.
We can use the concept of support of elements in $L_k$ to define a contraction map $\big|\bar\calX\big|\rightarrow\big|\mathcal{X}\big|$, as follows.
\begin{dfn}
Let us denote by $\rho:\;\bigsqcup_{I\subset\{1,\dots,N\}}\bar\calX_I\times\Delta_I\rightarrow\big|\mathcal{X}\big|$ the map defined by mapping $\left(f,\left(\lambda_i,\alpha_i\right)_{i\in I}\right)\in\bar\calX_I\times\Delta_I$
to the equivalence class of $\left(f,\left(x_j,\beta_j\right)_{j\in J}\right)\in\mathcal{X}_J\times\Delta_J$ with $J=\{n(\lambda_i)|\;i\in I\}$ and $x_j=s(\lambda_j)$, $\beta_j=\sum_{i\in I| n(\lambda_i)=j}\alpha_i$ for all $j\in J$.
\end{dfn}
It is easy to check that the map $\rho$ is compatible with the equivalence relation $\sim$ on $\bigsqcup_{I\subset\{1,\dots,N\}}\bar\calX_I\times\Delta_I$ and that the induced map $\big|\bar\calX\big|\rightarrow\big|\mathcal{X}\big|$ is the identity when restricted to $\big|\mathcal{X}\big|\subset\big|\bar\calX\big|$.
\begin{ntn}
We denote by $\big|\mathcal{X}\big|_\rho$ the geometrical realization $\big|\mathcal{X}\big|$ endowed with the topology induced by the topology on $\bigsqcup_{I\subset\{1,\dots,N\}}\bar\calX_I\times\Delta_I$ under $\rho$.
\end{ntn}
\begin{lem}
The augmentation $\big|\mathcal{X}\big|_\rho\rightarrow\Sigma$ defined by the natural forgetful map extends to a homotopy equivalence of their one-point compactifications. In particular, it induces an isomorphism on Borel--Moore homology.
\end{lem}
\proof
To prove the claim, it suffices to prove that the augmentation is a proper map with contractible fibres. %
For sufficiently nice spaces, this is enough to ensure that the augmentation defines a proper homotopy equivalence. For instance, this follows from combining Theorem 1.1 and 1.2 from \cite{lacher}, see also the discussion in \cite[\S2.1]{WJR} for more details on the required topological conditions.
The properness of the augmentation follows from the definition of the topology on $\big|\mathcal{X}\big|_\rho$ and the fact that the natural maps $\bar\calX_I\times\Delta_I\rightarrow\Sigma$ are proper maps for all $I\subset\{1,\dots,N\}$, since they are the composition of the projection map to $\bar\calX_I$ (with compact fibre $\Delta_I$) with the proper map $\bar\varphi_{\emptyset,I}$.
Next, we describe explicitly the fibres of $\big|\mathcal{X}\big|_\rho\rightarrow\Sigma$ and check that they are contractible. If $f\in\Sigma\setminus\overline{\Sigma_{\geq N}}$ has exactly $k$ singular points $p_1,\dots,p_k$, then one can show that the fibre over $f$ can be contracted to the equivalence class of the point $(f,\{p_1,\dots,p_k\}),k\mapsto 1)\in\cusub\mathcal{X} k\times\cusub\Delta k$. Using barycentric subdivisions one actually shows that the fibre over $f$ is piecewise linearly isomorphic to the $(k-1)$-dimensional simplex $\cusub\Delta{p_1,\dots,p_k}$, where the vertices are given by the equivalence classes of the $k$ points $(f,p_i,1\mapsto 1)\in\cusub\calX1\times\cusub\Delta1$.
If $f$ belongs to $\overline{\Sigma_{\geq N}}$, then the fibre over $f$ is a topological cone with vertex in the point $(f,N\mapsto1)\in\cusub\mathcal{X} N\times\cusub\Delta N$.
This follows from the fact that the maps $\varphi_{I,I\cup\{N\}}:\;\mathcal{X}_{I\cup\{N\}}\rightarrow\mathcal{X}_I$ in the cubical structure are induced by the inclusion $\overline{\Sigma_{\geq N}}\hookrightarrow\Sigma$.
For instance, in the case of $0\in\overline{\Sigma_{\geq N}}$, in which the singular locus coincides with $\Pp n$, the fibre over $0$ can be described as the topological cone over the topological $(N-1)$st self-join of $\Pp n$.
\qed
\section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{main}}\label{proof}
We study the Borel--Moore homology of $\big|\mathcal{X}\big|_\rho$ using the following stratification into locally closed subsets $F_1,\dots,F_N$.
\begin{dfn}
For $l=1,\dots,N$, we denote by $F_l$ the locally closed subset of $\big|\mathcal{X}\big|_\rho$ defined by
$$
F_l
=\rho\left(\bigsqcup_{\max I =l}\bar\calX_I\times\Delta_I\right).
$$
\end{dfn}
By the definition of $\rho$, each subset $F_l$ coincides with the image under $\rho$ of the union of the $\mathcal{X}_I\times\Delta_I$ with $\max I=l$ inside $\bigsqcup_{\max I =l}\bar\calX_I\times\Delta_I$.
The Vassiliev spectral sequence is the spectral sequence $E^r_{p,q}\Rightarrow\BM{p+q}\Sigma$ in Borel--Moore homology associated with the filtration $F_\bullet$. Its $E^1$ term is given by $E^1_{p,q}=\BM{p+q}{F_p}$.
For $l<N$, the description of $F_l$ given in \cite[Prop. 2.7]{OTM4} applies (see \cite[Thm. 3, Lemma 1]{gorinov} for a proof).
Hence, the space $F_l$ is a non-orientable simplicial bundle over $\cusub\mathcal{X}{l}$, which in turn is a vector bundle of rank $\cc{d}{n}-l(n+1)$ over $\B l{\Pp n}$.
The fibre of $F_l\rightarrow\cusub\mathcal{X}{l}$ is isomorphic to the interior $\cusub\Delta {p_1,\dots,p_l}^\circ$ of a simplex of dimension $l-1$.
As $\cusub\Delta {p_1,\dots,p_l}^\circ$ is a contractible space of real dimension $l-1$, its only non-trivial Borel--Moore homology group is $\BM{l-1}{\cusub\Delta {p_1,\dots,p_l}^\circ}\cong \bb{Q}$. Under any loop based at a point $\{p_1,\dots,p_l\}\in\B l{\Pp n}$, the orientation of $\BM{l-1}{\cusub\Delta {p_1,\dots,p_l}^\circ}$ changes according to the sign representation of the symmetric group $\mathfrak S_l$ permuting $p_1,\dots,p_l$. %
Therefore, the Borel--Moore homology of the stratum $F_l$ is given by
$$
\BM\bullet{F_l} %
=\BM[\pm \bb{Q}]{\bullet-2\ccc dn+2ln+l+1}{\B l{\Pp n}}\otimes\bb{Q}(-\ccc dn+l(n+1))
$$
for $\ccc dn=\cc dn$, where $\pm\bb{Q}$ denotes the rank $1$ local system on $\B l{\Pp n}$ induced by the sign representation of $\mathfrak S_l$, so that $\BM[\pm \bb{Q}]\bullet{\B l{\Pp n}}$ is the $\mathfrak S_l$-alternating part of the Borel--Moore homology of $\F l{\Pp n}$. We will refer to Borel--Moore homology with $\pm\bb{Q}$-coefficients as \emph{twisted} Borel--Moore homology.
\begin{prop}[{\cite[Lemma~2]{Vart}}]\label{grass}
The twisted Borel--Moore homology of $\B l{\Pp n}$ is given by
$$\BM [\pm\bb{Q}]\bullet{\B l{\Pp n}}= H_{\bullet-l(l-1)}(G(l,\bb{C}^{n+1});\bb{Q})\otimes\bb{Q}(l(l-1)/2),$$
where $G(l,\bb{C}^{n+1})$ denotes the Grassmannian of $l$-dimensional linear subspaces of $\bb{C}^{n+1}$.
\end{prop}
Let us remark that, although Vassiliev did not consider Hodge structures in \cite{Vart}, it follows from his proof of Proposition~\ref{grass} that the Hodge structures on $\BM [\pm\bb{Q}]k{\B l{\Pp n}}$ are pure of Tate type and weight $-k$.
As $G(l,\bb{C}^{n+1})$ is empty for $l> n+1$, this means that $E^1_{p,q}$ vanishes for $n+1<p<N$, i.e. only the strata $F_1,\dots,F_{n+1}$ contribute to the Borel--Moore homology of $F_1\cup\dots\cup F_{N-1}=\big|\mathcal{X}\big|_\rho\setminus F_N$.
The description of the open stratum $F_N$ is more complicated, nevertheless the following lemma implies that its Borel--Moore homology does not contribute to the stable cohomology of $X_{d,n}$. The proof essentially consists in proving $E^1_{N,q}=0$ for the range $q\geq 2\left(\cc dn-N\right)$ in Vassiliev's spectral sequence.
\begin{lem}\label{laststratum}
\begin{align*}
\BM k\Sigma&\cong\BM k{\big|\mathcal{X}\big|_\rho\setminus F_{N}} & \forall k\geq 2\cc dn -N+1.
\end{align*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}%
To prove the claim, we stratify $F_N$ as the union of the following locally closed substrata:
$$
\Phi_0:=\rho\left(\cusub\mathcal{X} N\times\cusub\Delta N\right),
\ \ \
\Phi_l:=\rho\left(\bigsqcup_{\max J=l} \mathcal{X}_{J\cup\{N\}}\times\Delta_{J\cup\{N\}}\right)\text{ for }1\leq l\leq N-1.
$$
By definition, $F_N$ and its substrata are only determined by the geometry of the inclusions $x_1\subsetneq x_2\subsetneq\dots\subsetneq x_r$ of subsets of the singular loci of elements $f\in\Sigma_{\geq N}$, where the $x_i$ consist of at most $N-1$ distinct points. For a substratum $\Phi_l$, the chain of inclusions should terminate with $x_r\in\B l{\Pp n}$.
Keeping this in mind, it is easy to generalize \cite[Prop. 2.7]{OTM4} to show that the natural map
$$
\Phi_l\longrightarrow \cusub\mathcal{X}{l,N}
$$
is a locally trivial fibration whose fibre is the interior of an $l$-dimensional simplex. Intuitively, for $l\geq 1$ the fibre at $(f,x)\in\cusub\mathcal{X}{l,N}\subset\cusub\mathcal{X} l$ can be thought of as a cone over the fibre of $F_l\longrightarrow\cusub\mathcal{X} l$.
As we are dealing with polynomials $f$ with at least $N$ singular points, we have that $(f,p_1,\dots,p_N)\mapsto(f,\{p_1,\dots,p_l\})$ defines a surjection
$$\left\{(f,p_1,\dots p_N)\in V_{d,n}\times\F N{\Pp n}|\;
p_1,\dots,p_N\in\Sing(f)\right\}
\longrightarrow \cusub\mathcal{X}{l,N},
$$
where the domain is a vector bundle of rank $\cc dn-N(n+1)$ over $\F N{\Pp n}$ by the assumption $d\geq 2N-1$.
As a consequence, the complex dimension of $\cusub\mathcal{X}{l,N}$ is at most $\cc dn-N$ and the real dimension of each stratum $\Phi_l$ (in the sense of the maximal dimension of a cell in a cell decomposition of $\Phi_l$) is at most $2\cc dn - 2N+l$. In particular, the largest-dimensional stratum $\Phi_{N-1}$ has real dimension smaller than $2\cc dn -N-1$, which implies that the Borel--Moore homology of $F_N$ vanishes in degree larger than or equal to $2\cc dn-N$.
Then the claim follows from the long exact sequence
$$
\dots\rightarrow\BM{\bullet+1}{F_N}
\rightarrow\BM\bullet{\big|\mathcal{X}\big|_\rho\setminus F_N}
\rightarrow\BM\bullet{\big|\mathcal{X}\big|_\rho}
\rightarrow\BM\bullet{F_N}\rightarrow\dots
$$
induced by the closed inclusion $\big|\mathcal{X}\big|_\rho\setminus F_N\hookrightarrow \big| \mathcal{X}\big|$.
\end{proof}
In view of the above lemma, we can concentrate on the first $n+1$ strata.
As the Grassmannian $G(l,\bb{C}^{n+1})$ has complex dimension $l(n+1-l)$,
in view of Proposition~\ref{grass}
the twisted Borel--Moore homology of $\B l{\Pp n}$ is non-trivial only between degree $l(l-1)$ and degree $2ln-l(l-1)$.
Hence, the Borel--Moore homology of $F_l$ can be non-trivial only between
degree $l(l-1)+2\cc dn-2ln+1-l-1=2\cc dn-l(2n+2-l)-1$
and degree $2ln-l(l-1)+2\cc dn-2ln-l-1=2\cc dn-l^2-1$.
In particular, the minimal degree in which a stratum $F_l$ with $l\leq n+1$ has non-trivial Borel--Moore homology is degree
$2\cc dn-(n+1)^2-1$, which is attained exactly for $l=n+1$.
Hence, this is the minimal degree for which the Borel--Moore homology of $\big|\mathcal{X}\big|_\rho\setminus F_N$ can be non-trivial.
By Lemma \ref{laststratum}, this implies the vanishing of the $k$th Borel--Moore homology group of $\Sigma$
for $2\cc dn -N\leq k<2\cc dn-(n+1)^2-1$.
Then the claim of Lemma \ref{main} follows from Alexander duality \eqref{alex}.%
As a further check, one can consider Hodge structures and check that the Hodge weight of $\coh{(n+1)^2}{X_{d,n}}$ agrees with the Hodge weight $(n+1)(n+2)$ of $\eta_0\dots\eta_n$.
One has $G(n+1,\bb{C}^{n+1})=\{\text{pt}\}$, so that the only non-trivial twisted Borel--Moore homology group of $\B {n+1}{\Pp n}$ is $$\BM[\pm\bb{Q}]{n(n+1)}{\B{n+1}{\Pp n}} =\bb{Q}(n(n+1)/2).$$ From this one obtains
$$\BM{2\ccc dn-(n+1)(n+2)+n}{F_{n+1}}=\bb{Q}(\ccc dn-(n+1)(n+2)/2),\ \ccc dn=\cc dn$$
and
$$\coh{(n+1)^2}{X_{d,n}}=\bb{Q}(-(n+1)(n+2)/2)
$$
after applying Alexander duality \eqref{alex}.
\def$'${$'$}
|
\section{Introduction}
Stochastic techniques for optimization have gained immense popularity
over the last couple of decades.
Stochastic alternatives have been developed for a variety of
classic optimization problems,
such as maximum likelihood estimation~\cite{Spall_1987_conf_ACC},
expectation maximization~\cite{Delyon_1999_jour_AnnStat},
least squares estimation~\cite{Ljung_2001_jour_ACSP},
discrete parameter optimization~\cite{Mishra_2007_conf_CDC} and
control of discrete-event systems~\cite{Bhatnagar_1998_jour_ProbEnggInfoSc}
among others.
On the other hand,
a wide class of problems related to automated control and sequential decision making
are often posed as Markov Decision Process (MDP) models~\cite{Puterman_1994_book_Wiley}.
A classic example is encountered in control of a stochastic process,
where one needs to optimize the performance of a system by appropriately tuning some parameter.
This scenario is quite common in reinforcement learning problems~\cite{Bertsekas_1996_book_Athena}.
Simulation based schemes~\cite{Bhatnagar_2013_book_Springer}
are popularly used for solving MDPs since these algorithms do not require prior knowledge of
the system dynamics; rather, the transitions of the system are simulated to obtain
estimates of the cost function to be minimized.
One of the earliest ideas of stochastic optimization is due to
Kiefer and Wolfowitz~\cite{Kiefer_1952_jour_AnnMathStat}, where the zeros
of the gradient of the objective function is determined via
Robbins-Monro root-finding~\cite{Robbins_1951_jour_AnnMathStat}.
This approach uses a finite difference gradient estimate,
and hence, is termed as finite difference stochastic approximation (FDSA).
It proves quite useful in optimization of
stochastic functions, commonly encountered in stochastic control problems.
However, it requires $2N$ parallel simulations
to estimate the gradient
at each iteration, $N$ being the dimension of the optimizer.
More efficient techniques have been proposed in the literature,
which perform gradient estimation using only two parallel simulations.
These techniques include
simultaneous perturbations stochastic approximation (SPSA)~\cite{Spall_1992_jour_AutoControlTrans},
random direction stochastic approximation (RDSA)~\cite{Kushner_1978_book_Springer}
and the smoothed functional (SF) method~\cite{Styblinski_1990_jour_NeuNet}.
More computationally efficient one-simulation variants of these methods also
exist~\cite{Styblinski_1986_jour_TransCADICS,Spall_1997_jour_Automatica}
but their performance is relatively poor when compared with their two-simulation counterparts.
All the above approaches employ an approximate \emph{steepest} descent method for optimization.
It is well known that second order techniques such as Newton's method,
are faster and provide greater accuracy when compared with steepest descent methods.
In the context of stochastic optimization,
Newton based approaches have been proposed for FDSA~\cite{Ruppert_1985_jour_AnnStat},
SPSA~\cite{Spall_2000_jour_AutoCtrl,Bhatnagar_2005_jour_TOMACS}, and SF~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}, respectively,
in the literature. Though these methods suffer from increased
computational effort due to Hessian estimation,
projection (to the set of positive definite and symmetric matrices)
and inversion at each update,
they have been observed to perform significantly better
than their steepest descent counterparts~\cite{Spall_2000_jour_AutoCtrl,Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}.
Approximate methods for projecting the Hessian to the set of positive definite matrices and its inversion have also been
studied~\cite{Zhu_2002_jour_AdapCtrlSP,Bhatnagar_2005_jour_TOMACS}.
An efficient approximation is the Jacobi variant, where only the diagonal
terms of the Hessian matrix are updated, while the off-diagonal elements are simply set to zero.
This simplifies both the Hessian projection
and inversion procedures.
In this paper, we focus on the SF algorithms for optimization.
The idea of smoothing dates back to Katkovnik and Kulchitsky~\cite{Katkovnik_1972_jour_Automation}
and Rubinstein~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley},
where it was shown that a smoother variant of the objective function
can be estimated as an expectation (sample average is used for practical purposes)
of perturbed observations of the objective function.
This method was employed by Styblinski and Opalski~\cite{Styblinski_1986_jour_TransCADICS}
for parameter optimization in the manufacturing process of integrated circuits.
Subsequently, a two-sided version of SF~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley}
was employed for gradient based optimization in~\cite{Styblinski_1990_jour_NeuNet}.
Second-order SF schemes were proposed by Bhatnagar~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}.
Till this point, SF methods considered smoothing using either Gaussian or Cauchy
distributions~\cite{Styblinski_1990_jour_NeuNet}, while it was known that
uniform and symmetric Beta distributions were possible
candidates~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley,Kreimer_1992_jour_AnnOR}.
Moreover, the random search algorithms were also observed to be a special case of SF~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley}.
Recent studies by the authors~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2012_conf_ISIT,Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}
revealed that this set of smoothing kernels can be further
extended to the class of $q$-Gaussian distributions~\cite{Prato_1999_jour_PhyRevE},
extensively studied in the field of nonextensive statistical mechanics~\cite{Tsallis_1998_jour_PhysicaA}.
The main focus of the work in~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}
was to exploit two key properties of $q$-Gaussians. This class of
distributions generalize the Gaussian distribution via a Tsallis generalization
of the Shannon entropy functional~\cite{Tsallis_1998_jour_PhysicaA}.
Hence, they retain some of the \emph{nice} characteristics
of Gaussian, which include its smoothing properties~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley}.
On the other hand, the $q$-Gaussians exhibit a power-law nature for some $q$-values,
which can be exploited to achieve greater exploration in the SF method.
In~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}, the authors proposed two gradient descent optimization
algorithms using one-simulation and two-simulation $q$-Gaussian SF.
The current paper extends the work in~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv} to Newton based search techniques
and derives, for the first time, a $q$-Gaussian Hessian estimator.
Due to the observation that two-simulation methods
consistently perform better than one-simulation
methods~\cite{Bhatnagar_2005_jour_TOMACS,Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS,Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv},
we focus only on the two-simulation version of Newton based optimization
using $q$-Gaussian SF even though the one-simulation version is easier to derive
than the two-simulation estimator that we present.
We refer to our algorithm as N$q$-SF2
to indicate that it is a Newton based smoothed functional algorithm
that uses $q$-Gaussian perturbations and requires two simulations.
This terminology is also consistent with that used in~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS,Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}.
Our approach requires estimation of the Hessian of the two-sided $q$-Gaussian SF.
We derive the Hessian estimator and subsequently present a
theoretical analysis, which shows that the N$q$-SF2
algorithm converges to the neighborhood of a local optimum.
For various values of $q$, the $q$-Gaussian distribution encompasses the Gaussian,
Cauchy, symmetric Beta and uniform distributions as special cases.
Our analysis shows that the algorithm converges for a range of values of
$q$ that includes the aforementioned distributions barring the uniform distribution.
Thus our work significantly enhances the class of perturbation distributions
for smoothed functional algorithms, We note here that the Hessian estimator in~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}
is only for the case of Gaussian perturbations.
Simulations on a two-node queuing network show significant performance
improvements of the N$q$-SF2 algorithm over the Newton algorithm in~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}
and also the gradient $q$-SF algorithms in~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
Section~\ref{sec_hessian} briefly reviews the basic idea of smoothed functional (SF)
algorithms using the multivariate $q$-Gaussian distribution.
It also presents the $q$-Gaussian smoothed Hessian estimates that we use for our
Newton based search techniques.
Section~\ref{sec_problem} presents the proposed two-simulation method.
This section describes the problem setting, and
gives the proposed algorithm.
Section~\ref{sec_convergence} provides a theoretical study of the
convergence analysis of the algorithm,
while results of numerical experiments are shown in Section~\ref{sec_simulation}.
Concluding remarks are provided in Section~\ref{sec_conclusion}.
Finally, Appendix~\ref{app_convergence} provides some of the detailed
proofs pertaining to the convergence analysis.
\section{Hessian estimation using $q$-Gaussian SF}
\label{sec_hessian}
The idea of smoothed functionals (SF) was first proposed in~\cite{Katkovnik_1972_jour_Automation}.
Consider the optimization problem
\begin{align}
&\min_{\theta\in C \subset \mathbb{R}^N} J(\theta),
\end{align}
where $C$ is a compact and convex subset of $\mathbb{R}^N$,
and $J:C\to \mathbb{R}$ is a real-valued function,
which either does not have an analytic expression,
or has an expression that is not known.
To achieve a ``good'' optimal solution in such cases,
it is often useful to minimize a smoothed variant of the objective function,
called the smoothed functional, defined as
\begin{align}
S_{\beta} [J(\theta)]
= \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} G_\beta(\eta) J(\theta-\eta) \mathrm{d}\eta \;.
\end{align}
Katkovnik and Kulchitsky~\cite{Katkovnik_1972_jour_Automation}
considered $G_\beta$ to be the $N$-dimensional Gaussian distribution with zero mean
and covariance matrix $\beta^2 I_{N\times N}$.
An alternative (two-sided) definition of the smoothed functional
was given in~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley} as
\begin{align}
S_{\beta} [J(\theta)]
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} G_\beta(\eta) \big(J(\theta+\eta)
+ J(\theta-\eta) \big) \mathrm{d}\eta \;.
\label{eq_2SF_general}
\end{align}
It was shown that reasonably good solutions can be obtained
by minimizing $S_\beta[J(\cdot)]$ using standard optimization techniques
with properly tuned smoothing parameter $\beta$.
Subsequently, Rubinstein~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley} showed that
Gaussian distribution is not the only such function,
and provided necessary conditions that need to be satisfied by
a distribution to provide appropriate smoothing.
The uniform and Cauchy distributions were also found to satisfy
the properties required of smoothing kernels.
A symmetric version of the Beta distribution was shown to satisfy
similar conditions~\cite{Kreimer_1992_jour_AnnOR},
and this smoothing was shown to have connections with polynomial approximations.
\subsection{$q$-Gaussian smoothed functionals}
Recently, Ghoshdastidar et al.~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}
proposed a class of smoothing kernels based on
the $N$-dimensional $q$-Gaussian distributions~\cite{Tsallis_2007_arxiv,Vignat_2007_jour_PhyA} defined as
\begin{align}
\label{Gq:formula_q}
G_{q}(&x|q,\mu_q,\Sigma_q) = {\frac{1}{K_{q,N} |\Sigma_q|^{1/2}}} \times
\\&
\left(1-{\frac{(1-q)}{(N+2-Nq)}(x-\mu_q)^T\Sigma_q^{-1}(x-\mu_q)}
\right)_+^{\frac{1}{1-q}}
\nonumber
\end{align}
for all {$x\in\mathbb{R}^N$}, where
{$\mu_q$} and {$\Sigma_q$} are known as the $q$-mean and $q$-covariance matrix, respectively.
These are generalizations of the usual mean and covariance~\cite{Prato_1999_jour_PhyRevE} and
correspond to the first and second moments with respect to the
so-called `deformed' expectation or normalized $q$-expectation that in turn is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{q-expect-defn}
\langle{f}\rangle_q =
\frac{\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}f(x) p(x)^q\:\mathrm{d}x}{\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}p(x)^q\:\mathrm{d}x},
\end{equation}
which is the expectation with respect to an escort distribution
{$p_q(x) = \frac{p(x)^q}{\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}p(x)^q\:\mathrm{d}x}$},
that is compatible with the foundations of nonextensive
information theory~\cite{Tsallis_1998_jour_PhysicaA}.
The condition {$y_+=\max(y,0)$} in~\eqref{Gq:formula_q},
called the Tsallis cut-off condition~\cite{Tsallis_1995_jour_Chaos},
ensures that the above expression is well-defined,
and {$K_{q,N}$} is the normalizing constant given by
\begin{equation}
K_{q,N} = \left\{\begin{array}{l}
\left(\frac{N+2-Nq}{1-q}\right)^{\frac{N}{2}}
\frac{\pi^{N/2} \Gamma\left(\frac{2-q}{1-q}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{2-q}{1-q}+\frac{N}{2}\right)}
\hfill\text{~~~~for } q<1,
\\\\
\left(\frac{N+2-Nq}{q-1}\right)^{\frac{N}{2}}
\frac{\pi^{N/2} \Gamma\left(\frac{1}{q-1}-\frac{N}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{q-1}\right)}
\hspace{15mm}
\\ \hfill \text{for } 1<q<\left(1+\frac{2}{N}\right).
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq_normalizing_const}
\end{equation}
The distribution~\eqref{Gq:formula_q} is only defined for $q<1+\frac{2}{N}$.
It retrieves the Gaussian distribution as $q\to1$,
and for $q>1$, it has a one-one correspondence with the
Student-$t$ distribution, with the special case of $q=1+\frac{2}{N+1}$ being the Cauchy distribution.
The uniform distribution on an infinitesimally small hypercube around the origin can
be obtained in the limit as $q\to-\infty$.
For $q=0$, we have the smoothing kernel corresponding to random search algorithms~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley}.
Further, in the one-dimensional case,
$q$-Gaussian with $q=-1$ gives the semicircle distribution, and
$q=\frac{\alpha-2}{\alpha-1}$
corresponds to the symmetric Beta$(\alpha,\alpha)$ distribution used in~\cite{Kreimer_1992_jour_AnnOR}.
In fact, the support of the
$q$-Gaussian distribution can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\Omega_q = \left\{\begin{array}{l}
\left\{x: (x-\mu_q)^T\Sigma_q^{-1}(x-\mu_q) < \frac{N+2-Nq}{1-q}\right\}
\\ \hfill\text{for } q<1,
\\\\
\mathbb{R}^N
\hfill\text{for } 1<q<\left(1+\frac{2}{N}\right).
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq_support}
\end{equation}
Ghoshdastidar et al.~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv} showed that the
$q$-Gaussian family of distributions satisfy the Rubinstein
conditions~\cite[pg 263]{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley} for smoothing kernels. The significance of the
$q$-Gaussian smoothing kernel is enhanced by the fact that it encompasses
the existing examples of smoothing kernels,
and thus significantly enhances the class of perturbation distributions for smoothed
functional algorithms.
For the remainder of the paper, we will use an $N$-dimensional $q$-Gaussian distribution
with zero $q$-mean and $q$-covariance matrix $\beta^2I_{N\times N}$. For convenience,
we refer to this distribution as $G_{q,\beta}(\cdot)$, with the
case of $\beta=1$ being denoted by $G_q$.
We also use $\Omega_q$ to denote only the support set of $G_q$,
while we use $\theta+\beta\Omega_q$ for the support set of the distribution with $q$-mean
$\theta$ and $q$-covariance matrix $\beta^2I_{N\times N}$.
However, for $q>1$, the above set is always equal to $\mathbb{R}^N$.
A projected gradient based technique is commonly employed to optimize the smoothed
functional, and it has been observed
in~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS,Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}
that the two-sided gradient SF estimate provides significantly improved performance
over the corresponding one-sided counterpart.
In the case of $q$-Gaussian smoothing,
the gradient estimate is given by~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta} S_{q,\beta}&[J(\theta)]
= \mathsf{E}_{G_{q}(\eta)}
\left[\left.\frac{\eta \big(J(\theta+\beta\eta)-J(\theta-\beta\eta)\big)}
{\beta(N+2-Nq)\rho{(\eta)}} \right|\theta\right],
\label{grad_SF2_formula}
\end{align}
where
the term
\begin{equation}
\rho(\eta) = \left(1-\frac{(1-q)}{(N+2-Nq)}\Vert{\eta}(n)\Vert^2\right)
\label{rho_defn}
\end{equation}
appears due to the differentiation of $G_q$.
It is shown that for $\beta$ small enough, the smoothed gradient is close to the
gradient of the objective function, assuming that it exists.
Then,
a simple technique to estimate the above gradient is to consider a sample average
over some $L$ samples as
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta}&J(\theta) \approx \frac{1}{\beta L(N+2-Nq)} \times
\nonumber \\
&\sum_{n=0}^{L-1}
\frac{{\eta}(n)\big(J(\theta+\beta\eta(n))-J(\theta-\beta\eta(n))\big)}{\left(1-\frac{(1-q)}{(N+2-Nq)}\Vert{\eta}(n)\Vert^2\right)}\;.
\label{estimate1}
\end{align}
\subsection{Two-simulation $q$-Gaussian SF Hessian estimate}
In this section, we extend the above idea to the case of Hessians,
which is required in Newton based search algorithms.
Before presenting the estimate, we make a technical assumption
that ensures the existence of the gradient and Hessian of the objective function.
\begin{assumption}
\label{differentiable}
The function {$J(.)$} is twice continuously differentiable for all {$\theta\in C$}.
\end{assumption}
The above assumption is required for the theoretical analysis, but is
not necessary from a practical perspective,
since we hold $\beta>0$ fixed in the algorithm.
As with the case of gradient,
the existence of {$\nabla_{\theta}^2 J(\theta)$} is assumed (Assumption~\ref{differentiable}), and
we estimate the same using SF approach.
We define the two-sided smoothed Hessian with $q$-Gaussian smoothing
by following~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley}.
For this, we can write the two-sided SF~\eqref{eq_2SF_general} as
\begin{align*}
S_{q,\beta} [J(\theta)]
&= \frac{1}{2} \int\limits_{\beta\Omega_q} G_{q,\beta}(\eta) J(\theta+\eta) \mathrm{d}\eta
\\&\qquad\qquad\nonumber
+\frac{1}{2} \int\limits_{\beta\Omega_q} G_{q,\beta}(\eta) J(\theta-\eta) \mathrm{d}\eta \;.
\end{align*}
Denoting the integrals by $\mathcal{S}_1(\theta)$ and $\mathcal{S}_2(\theta)$, respectively, and
substituting $\eta' = \theta+\eta$ in $\mathcal{S}_1(\theta)$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{S}_1(\theta)
&= \frac{1}{\beta^N} \int\limits_{\theta+\beta\Omega_q}
G_{q} \left(\frac{\eta'-\theta}{\beta}\right)J(\eta')\mathrm{d}\eta'
\end{align*}
where we use the fact that $G_{q,\beta}(\eta) = \frac{1}{\beta^N} G_q(\frac{\eta}{\beta})$,
which is true for all smoothing kernels.
The Hessian of $\mathcal{S}_1(\theta)$ is
\begin{align*}
\nabla_{\theta}^{2} \mathcal{S}_1(\theta)
&= \frac{1}{\beta^N} \int\limits_{\theta+\beta\Omega_q}
\nabla_{\theta}^{2} G_{q} \left(\frac{\eta'-\theta}{\beta}\right)J(\eta')\mathrm{d}\eta'\;.
\end{align*}
One can note that for $q<1$, the region over which integration is performed is a
function of $\theta$, and hence by Leibnitz integral rule, there should be an additional
integral term, where the integration is over the surface of
the set $\theta+\beta\Omega_q$. However, since this integrand involves
$G_{q} (\frac{\eta'-\theta}{\beta})$ that is zero over the surface, we can
ignore the term completely.
Now, we substitute $\eta'' = \frac{\eta'-\theta}{\beta}$ above, and as a result, we have
$\mathrm{d}\eta'' = \frac{1}{\beta^N}\mathrm{d}\eta'$ and for all components
$i,j=1,\ldots,N$, $\frac{\partial{d}\eta''^{(i)}}{\partial{d}\theta^{(j)}} = -\frac{1}{\beta}$
whenever $i=j$, and 0 otherwise. Under this change of variables,
we can write
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta}^{2} \mathcal{S}_1(\theta)
&= \frac{1}{\beta^2} \int\limits_{\Omega_q}
\nabla_{\eta''}^{2} G_{q} (\eta'') J(\theta+\beta\eta'')\mathrm{d}\eta''\;.
\end{align}
Similarly $\nabla_{\theta}^{2} \mathcal{S}_2(\theta)$ can also be derived,
and the two-sided smoothed Hessian with $q$-Gaussian smoothing is
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta}^2 &S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)] \nonumber\\
&= \frac{1}{2\beta^2} \int_{\Omega_q} \nabla_{\eta}^{2} G_{q} (\eta) \big(J(\theta+\beta\eta)
+ J(\theta-\beta\eta) \big) \mathrm{d}\eta \;.
\label{hess_SF_defn}
\end{align}
We now compute the Hessian matrix corresponding to the standard $q$-Gaussian distribution, $G_q$.
When $\eta\in\Omega_q$,
the partial derivative of $G_q(\eta)$ with respect to $\eta^{(i)}$ for all $i=1,\ldots,N$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial G_q(\eta)}{\partial \eta^{(i)}}
= -\frac{2\eta^{(i)} \rho(n)^{\frac{q}{1-q}}}{K_{q,N}(N+2-Nq)}\;,
\end{align*}
where $\rho(\cdot)$ is as defined in~\eqref{rho_defn}.
From above, we can compute the second derivatives,
which can be expressed in terms of $G_q(\eta)$ as
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 G_q(\eta)}{\partial \eta^{(i)} \partial \eta^{(j)}}
= \frac{4q \eta^{(i)} \eta^{(j)}}{(N+2-Nq)^2} \frac{G_q(\eta)}{\rho(\eta)^2}
\end{align*}
for {$i\neq j$}. For {$i=j$}, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 G_q(\eta)}{\partial {\eta^{(i)}}^2}
&= \frac{4q {\eta^{(i)}}^2}{(N+2-Nq)^2} \frac{G_q(\eta)}{\rho(\eta)^2}
\\&\qquad\qquad
- \frac{2}{(N+2-Nq)} \frac{G_q(\eta)}{\rho(\eta)} \;.
\end{align*}
Thus, the Hessian turns out to be of the form
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\eta}^2 G_{q}(\eta)
= \frac{2}{(N+2-Nq)} H(\eta) G_{q}(\eta),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
H(\eta) = \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
\left(\displaystyle\frac{2q}{(N+2-Nq)} \displaystyle\frac{\eta^{(i)}\eta^{(j)}}
{\rho{(\eta)}^2}\right) &\text{for} &i\neq j
\\ \\
\left(\displaystyle\frac{2q}{(N+2-Nq)} \displaystyle\frac{\left(\eta^{(i)}\right)^2}{\rho{(\eta)}^2}
- \displaystyle\frac{1}{\rho{(\eta)}}\right) &\text{for} &i=j.
\end{array} \right.
\label{H_defn}
\end{align}
is a generalization of a similar function given in~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS},
that can be obtained as {$q\to1$}.
Substituting $\nabla_{\eta}^2 G_{q}(\eta)$ in~\eqref{hess_SF_defn}, we have
\begin{align}
&\nabla_{\theta}^2 S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)]
\nonumber \\
&=
\mathsf{E}_{G_{q}(\eta)}\left[ \left. \frac{H(\eta) \big(J(\theta+\beta\eta)+J(\theta-\beta\eta)\big)}{\beta^2(N+2-Nq)} \right| \theta \right].
\label{hess_SF2_formula}
\end{align}
Subsequently, we show that the Hessians of $S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)]$ and $J(\theta)$
are close enough, and hence,
we obtain the Hessian estimate of $J(\theta)$, for large $L$ and small {$\beta$}, as
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta}^2 &J(\theta) \approx\frac{1}{\beta^2 L (N+2-Nq)} \times
\nonumber \\
&\sum_{n=0}^{L-1}
H\big(\eta(n)\big) \big(J(\theta+\beta\eta(n))+J(\theta-\beta\eta(n))\big) .
\label{SF_estimate1}
\end{align}
In the next section, we present a Newton based search technique
using the above gradient and Hessian estimates,~\eqref{estimate1}
and~\eqref{SF_estimate1}, respectively.
\section{Optimization of long-run average cost of a parametrized Markov process}
\label{sec_problem}
Our objective here is to optimize $J:C\mapsto\mathbb{R}$,
when only (noisy) observations of $J$ are known.
If $J$ is an analytic function, as considered
in~\cite{Spall_2000_jour_AutoCtrl,Chin_1997_jour_TransSysManCyber}, then the estimates
in~\eqref{estimate1} and~\eqref{SF_estimate1} can be directly used.
We consider a slightly complicated scenario,
often encountered in problems of stochastic control,
where the objective is a stochastic function with no analytic expression.
Such a setting is discussed below.
\subsection{Problem Framework}
Let {$\{Y_n\}_{n\geqslant0} \subset\mathbb{R}^d$} be a parameterized Markov process
with transition kernel {${P}_{\theta}(x,\:\mathrm{d}y)$} that depends
on a tunable parameter {$\theta\in C$}, where {$C\subset\mathbb{R}^N$} is compact and convex.
We assume the following.
\begin{assumption}
\label{ergodic}
For a fixed operative parameter $\theta\in C$,
the Markov process {$\{Y_n\}$} is ergodic and has a unique invariant measure $\nu_{\theta}$.
\end{assumption}
Though we restrict ourselves to an ergodic Markov process in this paper, the subsequent
discussions can be directly extended to hidden Markov models following the lines
of~\cite{Bhatnagar_2001_jour_IIETrans}. Thus the work in this paper is also applicable,
with suitable modifications, to a broader class of problems.
We also consider a Lipschitz continuous cost function
{$h:\mathbb{R}^d\mapsto\mathbb{R}^+\bigcup \{0\}$} associated with the process.
Our objective is to minimize the long-run average cost
\begin{equation}
\label{Jdefn}
J(\theta) = \lim_{M\to\infty}\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}h(Y_m) = \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^d}h(x)\nu_{\theta}(\:\mathrm{d}x),
\end{equation}
by choosing an appropriate {$\theta\in C$}. The existence of the above limit is assured by Assumption~\ref{ergodic}
and the fact that $h$ is continuous, hence measurable.
In addition, we assume that the average cost {$J({\theta})$} satisfies
Assumption~\ref{differentiable}.
However, in this setting, verification of Assumption~\ref{differentiable} depends on the underlying process
and is non-trivial in most cases. One can observe that under certain conditions
(for instance when cost function $h(\cdot)$ is bounded),
Assumption~\ref{differentiable} can be translated to impose the condition of continuous
differentiability of the stationary measure $\nu_\theta$ for all $\theta\in C$.
This, in turn, would depend on a similar condition on the transition kernel $P_\theta(x,\mathrm{d}y)$.
Discussions on such conditions for finite state Markov processes can be found
in~\cite{Schweitzer_1968_jour_AppProb,Kushner_1981_jour_SIAMCtrlOptim}, and similar
results for general state systems were presented in~\cite{Vazquez_1992_jour_AppProb}.
However, in the general case, such conditions are difficult to verify.
In addition to above, we also assume the existence of a stochastic Lyapunov function.
This requires the notion of a non-anticipative sequence, defined below.
\begin{definition}[Non-anticipative sequence]
Any random sequence of parameter vectors, {$(\theta(n))_{n\geqslant0} \subset C$}, controlling a process
{$\{Y_n\}\subset\mathbb{R}^d$}, is said to be non-anticipative if the conditional probability
{$P(Y_{n+1}\in B |\mathcal{F}_n) = {P}_{\theta} (Y_n, B)$}
almost surely for {$n\geqslant0$} and all Borel sets {$B\subset\mathbb{R}^d$},
where {$\mathcal{F}_n = \sigma(\theta(m),Y_m,m\leqslant n)$}, {$n\geqslant0$} are the associated {$\sigma$}-fields.
\end{definition}
One can verify that under a non-anticipative parameter sequence {$(\theta(n))$}, the joint process
{$(Y_n,\theta(n))_{n\geqslant0}$} is Markov.
We assume the existence of a stochastic Lyapunov function (below), which
ensures that the process under a tunable parameter remains stable.
Assumption~\ref{lyapunov} will not be required, for instance, if, in addition, the single-stage cost function $h$ is bounded.
It can be seen that the sequence of parameters obtained using our algorithm
forms a non-anticipative sequence.
\begin{assumption}
\label{lyapunov}
Let {$(\theta(n))$} be a non-anticipative sequence of random parameters controlling the process {$\{Y_n\}$},
and {$\mathcal{F}_n = \sigma(\theta(m),$} {$Y_m,m\leqslant n)$}, {$n\geqslant0$} be a sequence of associated {$\sigma$}-fields.
There exists {$\epsilon_0>0$}, a compact set {$\mathcal{K}\subset\mathbb{R}^d$}, and a continuous function
{$V:\mathbb{R}^d\mapsto\mathbb{R}^+\bigcup\{0\}$}, with
{$\lim_{\Vert{x}\Vert\to\infty} V(x) = \infty$}, such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
{$\sup\limits_n \mathsf{E}[V(Y_n)^2] < \infty$}, and
\item
{$\mathsf{E}[V(Y_{n+1})|\mathcal{F}_n] \leqslant V(Y_n) - \epsilon_0$}, whenever {$Y_n\notin\mathcal{K}$}, {$n\geqslant0$}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
As a consequence of Assumption~\ref{ergodic},
we can estimate the gradient and Hessian,~\eqref{estimate1} and~\eqref{SF_estimate1}
respectively, as
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta}J(\theta) &\approx\frac{1}{\beta ML(N+2-Nq)} \times
\nonumber \\
&\sum_{n=0}^{M-1}\sum_{m=0}^{L-1}
\frac{{\eta}(n)\big(h(Y_m)-h(Y'_m)\big)}{\left(1-\frac{(1-q)}{(N+2-Nq)}\Vert{\eta}(n)\Vert^2\right)}
\label{estimate2}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta}^2 J(\theta) &\approx\frac{1}{\beta^2 ML (N+2-Nq)} \times
\nonumber \\
&\sum_{n=0}^{M-1}\sum_{m=0}^{L-1}
H(\eta(n)) \big(h(Y_m)+h(Y'_m)\big),
\label{SF_estimate2}
\end{align}
for large $M$, $L$ and small {$\beta$}, where {$\{Y_m\}$} and {$\{Y'_m\}$} are governed by the parameters
{$(\theta+\beta{\eta}(n))$} and {$(\theta-\beta{\eta}(n))$}, respectively.
\subsection{Proposed Newton based technique}
Since $C$ is a compact and convex
subset of $\mathbb{R}^N$, projected gradient or Newton methods can be used,
where the update rule is of the form
\begin{equation}
\theta(n) = \mathcal{P}_C \big(\theta(n-1) - a(n)Z(n)\big)
\label{eq_graddes_update}
\end{equation}
for gradient based search, and
\begin{equation}
\theta(n) = \mathcal{P}_C \left(\theta(n-1) - a(n)W(n)^{-1}Z(n)\right)
\label{eq_newton_update}
\end{equation}
for Newton's method. Here, $\mathcal{P}_C$ is a projection operator onto the set $C$,
$Z(n)$ and $W(n)$ are estimates of the gradient vector and the Hessian matrix, respectively,
of the objective function at the $n^{th}$ iteration,
and $(a(n))_{n\geqslant0}$ is a prescribed non-increasing step-size sequence.
The update in~\eqref{eq_graddes_update} corresponds to the gradient based $q$-Gaussian
SF algorithms~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}.
The estimators for the gradient and Hessian, given in~\eqref{estimate2} and~\eqref{SF_estimate2}, respectively,
are quite computationally intensive considering the fact that, at each iteration,
we require the sample size to be considerably large so that
the steady state average for a given parameter update can be approximated closely.
A computationally efficient solution to this
problem is to consider a multi-timescale stochastic approximation
scheme~\cite{Bhatnagar_1998_jour_ProbEnggInfoSc}.
The idea is to update the estimates, $Z$ and $W$, on a different timescale,
faster than the update iteration as
\begin{align}
Z(n+1) &= (1-b(n))Z(n) + b(n)\hat{Z}(n),
\label{eq_2time_Z}
\\
W(n+1) &= \mathcal{P}_{pd} \big((1-b(n))W(n) + b(n)\hat{W}(n)\big),
\label{eq_2time_W}
\end{align}
where $Z(n), W(n)$ are the updates till the $n^{th}$ iteration,
and $\hat{Z}(n), \hat{W}(n)$ are the instantaneous estimates
of the gradient and Hessian,
using~\eqref{estimate2} and~\eqref{SF_estimate2} where one may let $M=1$.
Also $\mathcal{P}_{pd}$ is an operator that projects any $N \times N$ matrix to
the space of positive definite and symmetric matrices.
We make the following
assumption on the two step-size sequences
{$(a(n))_{n\geqslant0}$} and {$(b(n))_{n\geqslant0}$}.
\begin{assumption}
\label{stepsize}
{$(a(n))_{n\geqslant0}$}, {$(b(n))_{n\geqslant0}$} are sequences
of positive scalars such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$b(n) \leqslant 1$ for all $n$,
\item
{$a(n) = o(b(n))$}, \textit{i.e.}, {$\frac{a(n)}{b(n)}\to0$} as {$n\to\infty$},
\item
{$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a(n) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}b(n) = \infty$},
\item
{$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a(n)^2 <\infty$}, and {$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}b(n)^2 <\infty$}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
Considering the step-sizes as above, if we update both gradient and Hessian
estimate using the larger step-sizes $(b(n))$,
then these estimates are updated on a faster timescale.
On the other hand, the parameter $\theta(n)$, when updated using step-sizes $(a(n))$
appears to change slowly and is seen to be nearly constant from the timescale of $b(n)$.
Thus, even if we choose $M$ in~\eqref{estimate2} and~\eqref{SF_estimate2}
to be small (say $M=1$), the asymptotic stationarity of the process
is not affected because the updates of the estimators always occur with the parameter
in a quasi-static state.
The convergence analysis in Section~\ref{sec_convergence} shows that
when estimated as per~\eqref{eq_2time_Z}--\eqref{eq_2time_W}, the
sample size $L$ can also be set as $L=1$. However, it has been
observed~\cite{Bhatnagar_2003_jour_Simulation} that updates along a subsample,
typically $L$ between 50 and 100 gives desirable performance.
One of the issues with Newton-based algorithms is that the Hessian has to be positive definite
for the algorithm to progress in the descent direction. This
may not hold always.
Hence, the estimate obtained at each update step has to be projected onto
the space of positive definite and symmetric matrices.
This is taken care of by the map
{$\mathcal{P}_{pd}:\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}\mapsto\{$}symmetric matrices with eigenvalues{$\geqslant\varepsilon\}$}
that projects any {$N\times N$} matrix onto the
set of symmetric positive definite matrices, with a minimum eigenvalue
of at least {$\varepsilon$} for some {$\varepsilon>0$}.
We assume the projection operator $\mathcal{P}_{pd}$ satisfies the following:
\begin{assumption}
\label{projection}
If {$(A_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$}, {$(B_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \subset \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$} are sequences of matrices
satisfying {$\lim_{n\to\infty} \Vert{A_n-B_n}\Vert = 0$}, then
{$\lim_{n\to\infty} \Vert{\mathcal{P}_{pd}(A_n)-\mathcal{P}_{pd}(B_n)}\Vert = 0$}.
\end{assumption}
We present our Newton based algorithm below, which we denote N$q$-SF2 to signify that
it employs a Newton based approach with two-simulation $q$-Gaussian SF.
The update runs for some specified $M$ iterations
(not to be confused with the $M$ in the estimators above), and
$Z$ and $W$ denote the estimators for the gradient and the Hessian, respectively.
It requires sampling from a standard $q$-Gaussian
distribution for some $q\in(0,1+\frac{2}{N})$. The procedure for generating $q$-Gaussian samples is
given in~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}. The reason behind the restriction on
the values of $q$ is discussed in the next section.
\begin{alg}[N$q$-SF2 algorithm]
\label{NqSF2_problem2}
Assuming that constants $\beta>0$, $\varepsilon>0$,
$q\in(0,1+\frac{2}{N})$, $L$ and $M$,
and the step-sizes {$(a(n))_{n\geqslant0}$}, {$(b(n))_{n\geqslant0}$}
are specified, the algorithm proceeds as below.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Initialize some $\theta(0) \in C$.
\item
Set $Z=0 \in \mathbb{R}^N$ and {$W(0) = 0 \in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$}.
\item
For $n=0$ to $M-1$
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Generate a random vector {$\eta(n) \in \mathbb{R}^N$}
from a standard $N$-dimensional $q$-Gaussian distribution\;
\item
For $m=0$ to $L-1$
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Generate two independent simulations {$Y_{nL+m}$} and
{$Y'_{nL+m}$} governed by
{$\mathcal{P}_C(\theta(n)+\beta\eta(n))$} and
{$\mathcal{P}_C(\theta(n)-\beta\eta(n))$}, respectively.
\item
Update gradient estimate as
\begin{align*}
& \hspace{-10mm}
Z(nL+m+1) = (1-b(n))Z(nL+m) +\\
& \hspace{-9mm}
b(n) \left[\frac{\eta(n)(h(Y_{nL+m})-h(Y'_{nL+m}))}
{\beta(N+2-Nq)(1-\frac{(1-q)}{(N+2-Nq)}\Vert{\eta}(n)\Vert^2)}\right]
\end{align*}
\item
Compute $H(\eta(n))$ using~\eqref{H_defn}, and
update Hessian estimate as
\begin{align*}
& \hspace{-10mm}
W(nL+m+1) = (1-b(n))W(nL+m) +\\
& \hspace{-9mm}
b(n) \left[\frac{H(\eta(n))(h(Y_{nL+m})+h(Y'_{nL+m}))}
{\beta^2(N+2-Nq)}\right]
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\item
Project Hessian matrix, \textit{i.e.},
\begin{displaymath}
W((n+1)L) := \mathcal{P}_{pd}\big(W((n+1)L)\big).
\end{displaymath}
\item
Update $\theta(n+1) = $
\begin{displaymath}
\hspace{-7mm}
\mathcal{P}_C \left( \theta(n) - a(n)W((n+1)L)^{-1}Z((n+1)L) \right).
\end{displaymath}
\end{enumerate}
\item
Output $\theta(M)$ as the final parameters.
\end{enumerate}
\end{alg}
For implementation purposes, a modified version of the above algorithm is often
considered~\cite{Spall_2000_jour_AutoCtrl,Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}.
This is known as the Jacobi variant, where the projection map $\mathcal{P}_{pd}$
is such that it sets all the off-diagonal terms in $W(n)$ to zero, and the diagonal
terms are projected onto the interval $[\varepsilon,\infty)$.
This ensures that the projected matrix has a minimum eigenvalue of at least $\varepsilon$,
and this also simplifies the inverse computation.
\section{Convergence of the proposed algorithm}
\label{sec_convergence}
We present below our main convergence results whose proofs can be
found in Appendix~\ref{app_convergence} at the end of the paper.
Let us consider the updates along the faster timescale, \textit{i.e.}, Step~(3b) of the N$q$-SF2 algorithm.
We define {$\tilde{\theta}(p) = \theta(n)$}, {$\tilde{\eta}(p) = \eta(n)$} and
{$\tilde{b}(p) = b(n)$} for {$nL\leqslant p<(n+1)L$}, {$n\geqslant0$}. From Assumption~\ref{stepsize}, we have
{$a(p) = o\big(\tilde{b}(p)\big)$}, {$\sum_p \tilde{b}(p) = \infty$} and {$\sum_p \tilde{b}(p)^2 < \infty$}.
Since, {$\{Y_p\}_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$} and {$\{Y'_p\}_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$} are independent Markov processes,
we can consider {$\{(Y_p,Y'_p)\}_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$} as a joint Markov process
parameterized by
{$\big(\mathcal{P}_C{(\tilde{\theta}(p)+\beta\tilde{\eta}(p))},\mathcal{P}_C{(\tilde{\theta}(p)-\beta\tilde{\eta}(p))}\big)$}.
We can rewrite Step~(3b.ii) using the following iteration for all {$p\geqslant0$}:
\begin{equation}
Z(p+1) = Z(p) + \tilde{b}(p)\big( g_1(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p)) - Z(p) \big),
\label{faststep_Z}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
g_1(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p)) =
\left(\displaystyle\frac{\tilde{\eta}(p) (h(Y_p)-h(Y'_p))}{\beta (N+2-Nq) \rho{(\tilde{\eta}(p))}}\right)
\end{equation}
for {$nL\leqslant p<(n+1)L$}, with {$\rho{(.)}$} defined as in~\eqref{rho_defn}.
Similarly, the update of the Hessian matrix in Step~(3b.iii) can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
W(p+1) = W(p) + \tilde{b}(p)\big( g_2(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p)) - W(p) \big),
\label{faststep_W}
\end{equation}
where, for {$nL\leqslant p<(n+1)L$},
\begin{equation}
g_2(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p)) = \left(\displaystyle\frac{{H}(\tilde{\eta}(p)) (h(Y_p)+h(Y'_p))}{\beta^2(N+2-Nq)}\right).
\end{equation}
Let {$\mathcal{G}_p = \sigma\big(\tilde{\theta}(k), \tilde{\eta}(k), Y_k, Y'_k, k\leqslant p\big), p\geqslant0$}
denote a sequence of $\sigma$-fields
generated by the mentioned quantities. We can observe that {$(\mathcal{G}_p)_{p\geqslant0}$} is a filtration,
where {$g_1(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p))$} and {$g_2(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p))$}
are {$\mathcal{G}_p$}-measurable for each {$p\geqslant0$}.
We can rewrite~\eqref{faststep_Z} and~\eqref{faststep_W} as
\begin{align}
Z&(p+1) = Z(p) +
\nonumber \\&\tilde{b}(p)\big[ E[g_1(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p))|\mathcal{G}_{p-1}] - Z(p) + A_p\big],
\label{eq_Z_step}
\\
W&(p+1) = W(p) +
\nonumber \\&\tilde{b}(p)\big[ E[g_2(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p))|\mathcal{G}_{p-1}] - W(p) + B_p\big],
\label{eq_W_step}
\end{align}
where {$A_p = g_1(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p)) - E[g_1(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p))|\mathcal{G}_{p-1}]$} and
{$B_p = g_2(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p)) - E[g_2(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p))|\mathcal{G}_{p-1}]$}
are both {$\mathcal{G}_p$}-measurable.
The following result presents a useful property of {$(A_p)_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$}
and {$(B_p)_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$}.
\begin{lem}
\label{B_n_convergence}
For all values of {$q\in\big(-\infty,1\big)\cup\big(1,1+\frac{2}{N}\big)$},
{$(A_p,\mathcal{G}_p)_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$} and {$(B_p,\mathcal{G}_p)_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$}
are martingale difference sequences with bounded variance.
\end{lem}
The iterations~\eqref{faststep_Z} and~\eqref{faststep_W} are
not coupled, \textit{i.e.}, iterates $Z(p)$ do not depend on $W(p)$
and vice-versa. Thus,
they can be dealt with separately.
We can write the parameter update along the slower timescale as
{$\theta(n+1) = \mathcal{P}_C\big(\theta(n) - \tilde{b}(n)\zeta(n)\big)$},
where we use
\begin{displaymath}
\zeta(n)=\frac{a(n)}{\tilde{b}(n)}W((n+1)L)^{-1}Z((n+1)L)=o(1),
\end{displaymath}
since {$a(n) = o(\tilde{b}(n))$}.
Thus, the parameter update recursion is quasi-static
when viewed from the timescale of {$(\tilde{b}(n))$}, and hence, one may let
{$\tilde{\theta}(p) \equiv \theta$} and {$\tilde{\eta}(p) \equiv \eta$} for all {$p\in\mathbb{N}$}, when analyzing~\eqref{eq_Z_step}
and \eqref{eq_W_step}.
The system of ODEs associated with these updates is the following:
\begin{align}
\dot{\theta}(t) &= 0,
\label{fastode_2}
\\ \dot{Z}(t) &= \frac{\eta \big(J(\theta+\beta\eta)-J(\theta-\beta\eta)\big)}{\beta(N+2-Nq)\rho{(\eta)}} - Z(t)\;,
\label{fastode_Z}
\\ \text{and~~}
\dot{W}(t) &= \frac{{H}(\eta) \big(J(\theta+\beta\eta)+J(\theta-\beta\eta)\big)}{\beta^2(N+2-Nq)} - W(t)\;.
\label{fastode_W}
\end{align}
At this stage, we recall a series of
results by Borkar~\cite{Borkar_2008_book_Cambridge}.
\begin{thm}
\label{borkar_cor_8}
\textbf{\cite[Thm 7--Cor 8, pp. 74 and Thm~9, pp. 75]{Borkar_2008_book_Cambridge}}
Consider the iteration,
\begin{displaymath}
x_{p+1} = x_p + \gamma(p)\big[f(x_p,Y_p)+M_p\big].
\end{displaymath}
Let the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
{$\{Y_p:p\in\mathbb{N}\}$} is a Markov process satisfying Assumptions~\ref{ergodic} and~\ref{lyapunov},
\item
for each {$x\in\mathbb{R}^N$} and {$x_p\equiv x$} for all $p\in\mathbb{N}$,
{$Y_p$} has a unique invariant probability measure {$\nu_{x}$},
\item
{$(\gamma(p))_{p\geqslant0}$} are step-sizes satisfying {$\sum\limits_{p=0}^{\infty} \gamma(p)=\infty$}
and {$\sum\limits_{p=0}^{\infty} \gamma^2(p)<\infty$},
\item
{$f(.,.)$} is Lipschitz continuous in its first argument uniformly w.r.t the second,
\item
{$M_p$} is a martingale difference noise term with bounded variance,
\item
if {$\tilde{f}\big(x,\nu_x\big) = \mathsf{E}_{\nu_x} \big[f(x,Y)\big]$}, then the limit
\begin{displaymath}
\hat{f}\big(x(t)\big) = \displaystyle\lim\limits_{a\uparrow\infty} \frac{\tilde{f}\big(ax(t),\nu_{ax(t)}\big)}{a}
\end{displaymath}
exists uniformly on compacts, and
\item
the ODE {$\dot{x}(t) = \hat{f}\big(x(t)\big)$} is well-posed
and has the origin as the unique globally asymptotically stable equilibrium.
\end{enumerate}
Then the update {$x_p$} satisfies {$\sup_p \Vert{x_p}\Vert < \infty$}, almost surely,
and converges to the stable fixed points of the ODE
\begin{displaymath}
\dot{x}(t) = \tilde{f}\big(x(t),\nu_{x(t)}\big).
\end{displaymath}
\end{thm}
As a consequence of Lemma~\ref{B_n_convergence} and the above result,
we have the following lemma proving the convergence of the gradient and Hessian updates.
\begin{lem}
\label{W_bounded}
The sequences $(Z(p))$ and {$(W(p))$} are uniformly bounded with probability 1. Further,
\begin{align*}
&\left\Vert Z(p) -
\frac{\tilde{\eta}(p)\big(J(\tilde{\theta}(p)+\beta\tilde{\eta}(p))-J(\tilde{\theta}(p)-\beta\tilde{\eta}(p))\big)}{
\beta(N+2-Nq)\rho{(\tilde{\eta}(p))}}
\right\Vert,
\\
&\left\Vert W(p) -
\frac{{H}(\tilde{\eta}(p))\big(J(\tilde{\theta}(p)+\beta\tilde{\eta}(p))+J(\tilde{\theta}(p)-\beta\tilde{\eta}(p))\big)}{
\beta^2 (N+2-Nq)}
\right\Vert
\end{align*}
$\to 0$ almost surely as {$p\to\infty$}.
\end{lem}
Thus, both {$Z$} and {$W$} recursions eventually track the gradient and Hessian of {$S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)]$}.
So, after incorporating the projection considered in Step~(3c), we can write the parameter update, Step~(3d)
of the N$q$-SF2 algorithm, as
\begin{align}
\theta (n+&1)= \mathcal{P}_C \bigg(\theta(n) + a(n) \bigg[ \Delta \big(\theta(n)\big) + \xi_n
\nonumber \\
& -\mathcal{P}_{pd}\left(\nabla_{\theta(n)}^2 J\big(\theta(n)\big)\right)^{-1}
\nabla_{\theta(n)} J\big(\theta(n)\big) \bigg]\bigg),
\label{hess_slowstep}
\end{align}
where we use~\eqref{grad_SF2_formula} and~\eqref{hess_SF2_formula} to write
\begin{align}
&\Delta \big(\theta(n)\big) =
\mathcal{P}_{pd}\left(\nabla_{\theta(n)}^2 J\big(\theta(n)\big)\right)^{-1}
\nabla_{\theta(n)} J\big(\theta(n)\big)
\nonumber \\&
- \mathcal{P}_{pd}\left(\nabla_{\theta(n)}^2 S_{q,\beta}\Big[J\big(\theta(n)\big)\Big]\right)^{-1}
\nabla_{\theta(n)} S_{q,\beta}\Big[J\big(\theta(n)\big)\Big],
\label{hess_error_term}
\end{align}
and the noise term
\begin{align}
&\xi_n =
\mathsf{E}\bigg[\mathcal{P}_{pd}
\left(\frac{H(\eta(n))\bar{J}_n}{\beta^2 (N+2-Nq)}\right)^{-1} \times
\nonumber\\&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\frac{\eta(n)\bar{J}'_n}{\beta\rho{(\eta(n))}(N+2-Nq)}\bigg|\theta(n)\bigg]
\nonumber \\&
- \mathcal{P}_{pd}
\left(\frac{H(\eta(n))\bar{J}_n}{\beta^2 (N+2-Nq)}\right)^{-1}
\frac{\eta(n)\bar{J}'_n}{\beta\rho{(\eta(n))}(N+2-Nq)}\;,
\label{hess_noise_term}
\end{align}
where {$\bar{J}_n= J\big(\theta(n)+\beta\eta(n)\big)+J\big(\theta(n)-\beta\eta(n)\big)$}
and {$\bar{J}'_n= J\big(\theta(n)+\beta\eta(n)\big)-J\big(\theta(n)-\beta\eta(n)\big)$}.
It may be noted that the second term in~\eqref{hess_error_term} is the same as the first in~\eqref{hess_noise_term}.
The next few results discuss some properties of
the error term {$\Delta \big(\theta(n)\big)$} and the noise term {$\xi_n$},
that will be used to prove the convergence of N$q$-SF2 to a local optimum.
\begin{prop}
\label{hess_SF2_convergence}
For a given {$q\in\big(0,1\big)\bigcup\big(1,1+\frac{2}{N}\big)$}, for all {$\theta\in C$} and {$\beta>0$},
\begin{align*}
& \left\Vert \nabla_{\theta} S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)]-\nabla_{\theta} J(\theta) \right\Vert = o(\beta)
\\ \text{and }&
\left\Vert \nabla_{\theta}^2 S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)]-\nabla_{\theta}^2 J(\theta) \right\Vert = o(\beta).
\end{align*}
Further, if Assumption~\ref{projection} holds, then {$\left\Vert\Delta (\theta)\right\Vert = o(\beta)$}.
\end{prop}
One may note that the proof of Proposition~\ref{hess_SF2_convergence} imposes the condition of $q>0$. Hence, subsequent
analysis and simulations of N$q$-SF2 algorithm have been done only over the range of $q$ specified above.
The following result deals with the noise term $\xi_n$.
For this we consider the filtration {$(\mathcal{F}_n)_{n\geqslant0}$} defined as
{$\mathcal{F}_n=\sigma\big(\theta(0),\ldots,\theta(n),\eta(0),\ldots,\eta(n-1)\big)$}.
\begin{lem}
\label{hess_xi_n_convergence}
Defining {$M_n = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} a(k)\xi_k$}, {$(M_n,\mathcal{F}_n)_{n\geqslant0}$}
is an almost surely convergent martingale sequence for all {$q\in\big(0,1\big)\bigcup\big(1,1+\frac{2}{N}\big)$}.
\end{lem}
We state the following result due to Kushner and Clark~\cite{Kushner_1978_book_Springer} adapted to our scenario.
\begin{lem}
\label{kushner_thm_5.3.1}
\textbf{\cite[Theorem~5.3.1, pp 189--196]{Kushner_1978_book_Springer}}
Given the iteration, {$x_{n+1} = \mathcal{P}_C \big(x_n + \gamma_n(f(x_n) + \xi_n)\big)$}, where
\begin{enumerate}
\item
{$\mathcal{P}_C$} represents a projection operator onto a closed and bounded constraint set {$C$},
\item
{$f(.)$} is a continuous function,
\item
{$(\gamma_n)_{n\geqslant0}$} is a positive sequence satisfying {$\gamma_n\downarrow0$}, {$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \gamma_n=\infty$}, and
\item
{$\sum_{n=0}^m \gamma_n\xi_n$} converges a.s.
\end{enumerate}
Under the above conditions, the update {$(x_n)$} converges almost surely
to the set of asymptotically stable fixed points of the ODE
\begin{equation}
\label{projectedode}
\dot{x}(t) = \tilde{\mathcal{P}}_C \big(f(x(t))\big),
\end{equation}
where {$\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_C \big(f(x)\big) =
\lim\limits_{\epsilon\downarrow0}\left(\frac{\mathcal{P}_C \big(x+\epsilon f(x)\big)-x}{\epsilon}\right)$}.
\end{lem}
Proposition~\ref{hess_SF2_convergence} and Lemma~\ref{hess_xi_n_convergence}
can be combined with Lemma~\ref{kushner_thm_5.3.1}
to derive the main theorem which affirms the convergence of the N$q$-SF2 algorithm.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm_NqSF2}
Under Assumptions \ref{differentiable} -- \ref{projection}, given {$\epsilon>0$} and {$q\in\big(0,1\big)\bigcup\big(1,1+\frac{2}{N}\big)$},
there exists {$\beta_0 >0$} such that
for all {$\beta\in(0,\beta_0]$}, the sequence {$(\theta(n))$} obtained using N$q$-SF2 converges almost surely
as {$n\to\infty$} to the $\epsilon$-neighborhood of the set of stable attractors of the ODE
\begin{equation}
\dot{\theta}(t) = \tilde{\mathcal{P}}_C \left(
\mathcal{P}_{pd}\left(\nabla_{\theta(t)}^2 J\big(\theta(t)\big)\right)^{-1}
\nabla_{\theta(t)} J\big(\theta(t)\big)\right)
\label{New_ode}
\end{equation}
where the domain of attraction is
\begin{equation}
\left\{\theta\in C \left| \nabla_{\theta}J(\theta)^T
\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_C \left(-
\mathcal{P}_{pd}\left(\nabla_{\theta}^2 J(\theta)\right)^{-1}
\nabla_{\theta}J(\theta)\right) = 0 \right. \right\}
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\section{Experimental results}
\label{sec_simulation}
The simulations are performed using
a two-node network of {$M/G/1$} queues with feedback,
which is a similar setting as the one considered by Bhatnagar~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c||c|c||c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\beta=0.01$} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\beta=0.05$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\beta=0.25$} \\
\cline{2-7}
$q$ & G$q$-SF2 & N$q$-SF2 & G$q$-SF2 & N$q$-SF2 & G$q$-SF2 & N$q$-SF2\\
\hline
\hline
0.001 & 0.6680$\pm$0.0645 & 0.7875$\pm$0.1334 & 0.5621$\pm$0.0519 & 0.5772$\pm$0.0793 & 0.7531$\pm$0.0640 & 0.5191$\pm$0.0653\\
0.200 & 0.6598$\pm$0.0623 & 0.7577$\pm$0.0743 & 0.5355$\pm$0.0799 & 0.4527$\pm$0.0864 & 0.6984$\pm$0.1159 & 0.5011$\pm$0.0571\\
0.400 & 0.6736$\pm$0.0476 & 0.7026$\pm$0.0895 & 0.5477$\pm$0.0736 & 0.4169$\pm$0.0700 & 0.7140$\pm$0.0800 & 0.4630$\pm$0.0565\\
0.600 & 0.6202$\pm$0.0728 & 0.7083$\pm$0.0928 & 0.5475$\pm$0.0411 & 0.4418$\pm$0.0623 & 0.7178$\pm$0.0697 & 0.4578$\pm$0.0732\\
0.800 & 0.5909$\pm$0.0533 & 0.6796$\pm$0.0653 & 0.5605$\pm$0.0721 & 0.4256$\pm$0.0749 & 0.6427$\pm$0.0676 & 0.4475$\pm$0.0525\\
{Gaussian}& 0.6339$\pm$0.0658 & 0.6657$\pm$0.0816 & 0.5018$\pm$0.0647 & 0.4111$\pm$0.0534 & 0.6922$\pm$0.0670 & 0.4568$\pm$0.0635\\
1.020 & 0.6394$\pm$0.0738 & 0.6978$\pm$0.0732 & 0.4755$\pm$0.0701 & 0.4266$\pm$0.0685 & 0.7135$\pm$0.0763 & 0.4427$\pm$0.0518\\
1.040 & 0.6101$\pm$0.0663 & 0.6323$\pm$0.0768 & 0.4646$\pm$0.0405 & 0.3950$\pm$0.0807 & 0.6483$\pm$0.0514 & 0.4438$\pm$0.0602\\
1.060 & 0.6362$\pm$0.1036 & 0.6675$\pm$0.0894 & 0.4988$\pm$0.0796 & 0.3894$\pm$0.0520 & 0.7143$\pm$0.0755 & 0.4775$\pm$0.0556\\
1.080 & 0.5319$\pm$0.0745 & 0.6598$\pm$0.0787 & 0.5019$\pm$0.0353 & 0.4068$\pm$0.0503 & 0.6611$\pm$0.0866 & 0.4865$\pm$0.0680\\
{Cauchy}& 0.6217$\pm$0.0533 & 0.6455$\pm$0.0925 & 0.5359$\pm$0.0255 & 0.4573$\pm$0.0570 & 0.7040$\pm$0.0693 & 0.4861$\pm$0.0588\\
1.099 & 0.6440$\pm$0.0635 & 0.6577$\pm$0.0721 & 0.6550$\pm$0.1071 & 0.5722$\pm$0.0977 & 0.8658$\pm$0.1703 & 0.5873$\pm$0.0942\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$\Vert\theta(n)-\bar{\theta}\Vert$ for G$q$-SF2 and N$q$-SF2 for
varying $q$ and $\beta$, when step-sizes are $a(n)=\frac{1}{(n+1)}$, $b(n) = \frac{1}{(n+1)^{0.85}}$
$c(n) = \frac{1}{(n+1)^{0.65}}$.}
\label{tab_compare}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{Queue_network.jpg}
\caption{Queuing Network.}
\label{fig_queue}
\end{figure}
The nodes in the network, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_queue} are
fed with independent Poisson external arrival processes with rates {$\lambda_1$} and {$\lambda_2$},
respectively. After service at the first node, a customer enters the second node.
When a customer departs from the second node, he either leaves the system with probability {$p = 0.4$} or
re-enters the first node with the remaining probability.
The service time processes at each node, {$\{S_n^i(\theta_i)\}_{n\geqslant1}, i = 1,2$} are given by
\begin{equation}
S_n^i(\theta_i) = U_i(n)\frac{\left(1+\Vert{\theta_i(n) - \bar{\theta}_i}\Vert^2\right)}{R_i} \;,
\end{equation}
where {$R_i$} are constants and {$U_i(n)$} are independent samples drawn from the uniform distribution on {$(0,1)$}.
The service time of each node depends on the {$N_i$}-dimensional tunable parameter vector {$\theta_i$}, whose individual components
lie in the closed interval $[\alpha_{\min},\alpha_{\max}] = [0.1,0.6]$.
{$\theta_i(n)$} represents the {$n^{th}$} update of the parameter vector at the {$i^{th}$} node, and {$\bar{\theta}_i$}
represents the target parameter vector corresponding to the {$i^{th}$} node.
For the purpose of simulations, we consider $\lambda_1 = 0.2$, $\lambda_2 = 0.1$, $R_1 = 10$ and $R_2 = 20$.
The cost function, at any instant, is the total waiting time of all the customers in the system.
In order to minimize the cost, we need to minimize {$S_n^i(\theta_i)$},
\textit{i.e.}, we require {$\theta_i(n)=\bar{\theta}_i$}, {$i=1,2$}.
Let {$N=N_1+N_2$} and we consider $\theta,\bar{\theta} \in\mathbb{R}^N$ as
{$\theta = (\theta_1, \theta_2)^{T}$} and {$\bar\theta = (\bar\theta_1, \bar\theta_2)^{T}$}.
Thus, $\bar{\theta}$ is the optimal value, and hence, we use
$\Vert{\theta(n)-\bar{\theta}}\Vert$ as a measure of performance of the algorithm.
The service time parameters at each node are assumed to be 10-dimensional vectors
($N_1=N_2=10$).
Thus, $N=20$ and {$C=[0.1,0.6]^{20}$}.
We fix each component of the target parameter vector, {$\bar{\theta}$}, at 0.3
and each component of the initial parameter, $\theta(0)$, at 0.6.
The simulations were performed using C on an Intel Pentium dual core machine
with Linux operating system.
The analysis along the faster timescale for the Newton based algorithms shows that
the gradient and Hessian updates run independently
and are not coupled between themselves, \textit{i.e.},
update of one does not influence the other,
and hence, their convergence to the smoothed gradient and Hessian,
respectively, can be independently analyzed.
This also provides a scope to update the gradient and Hessian along different timescales without affecting the
convergence of the algorithms.
The step-size sequences for the parameter update and gradient estimation are
chosen as $a(n) = \frac{1}{(n+1)}$ and $b(n) = \frac{1}{(n+1)^{0.85}}$,
respectively, while the one for Hessian estimation is considered as
$c(n) = \frac{1}{(n+1)^\gamma}$, $n\geqslant0$.
In order to satisfy Assumption~\ref{stepsize}, we require $\gamma\in(0.5,1)$,
but Bhatnagar~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}
observed that better performance can be achieved in the N-SF2 algorithm if
Hessian is updated on a faster timescale.
Even though as suggested by the convergence analysis, one does not
require three separate timescales, as two timescales are sufficient,
it is observed empirically that updating Hessian on a timescale
faster than both the parameter and the gradient updates can lead to better performance.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{plot.jpg}
\caption{Convergence behavior of Gaussian and $q$-Gaussian SF algorithms for {$q=0.6$}
and $1.05$.}
\label{plot}
\end{figure}
We compare the performance of the Jacobi variant of the N$q$-SF2 algorithm
with respect to the corresponding gradient based method (G$q$-SF2) for different
values of $q$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$.
The other parameters are held fixed at {$M = 5000$}, {$L=100$} and {$\varepsilon=0.1$}.
Thus, we perform a total of $2ML = 10^6$ simulations
to obtain $M=5000$ parameter updates. The following results are averaged over
20 independent runs, each requiring about 5 seconds of clock time.
Fig.~\ref{plot} shows the convergence
behavior of the G$q$-SF2 and N$q$-SF2 for {$q=0.6$}, $q=1.05$ and Gaussian
with {$\beta=0.1$} and $\gamma=0.65$.
Table~\ref{tab_compare} compares the performance of
G$q$-SF2 and N$q$-SF2, for different
values of $q$, in terms of the mean and variance of the final distance from the target vector.
We note here that, in this case, $q$ varies in the range $(0,1.1)$
since $N=20$. The two special cases of Gaussian and Cauchy are retrieved
for $q\to1$ and $q = 1.095$, respectively. The table presents a comparison
for three values of $\beta$, viz., $\beta = 0.01, 0.05$ and $0.25$, respectively (comparison for $\beta=0.1$
is given in the second and fourth columns of Table~\ref{tab_step}).
The step-size for the Hessian update is fixed with $\gamma=0.65$.
The results show that although for small $\beta$ ($\beta=0.01$), G$q$-SF2
works better than N$q$-SF2, but for higher $\beta$, N$q$-SF2 consistently outperforms
its gradient counterpart. In fact, it can be observed that the ratio of the distances
obtained using G$q$-SF2 and N$q$-SF2 increases with increasing $\beta$,
indicating that the relative performance of N$q$-SF2
in relation to G$q$-SF2 improves with more smoothing.
Other observations pertaining to the trends of performance with respect to $q$
and $\beta$ are similar to those for G$q$-SF2, discussed in~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|}
\hline
{$q$} & N$q$-SF2 $(\gamma=0.55)$ & N$q$-SF2 $(\gamma=0.65)$ & N$q$-SF2 $(\gamma=0.75)$ & G$q$-SF2 \\
\hline
\hline
0.001 & 0.4867$\pm$0.1056 & 0.4698$\pm$0.0627 & \textbf{0.4335$\pm$0.0693} & 0.5561$\pm$0.0832 \\
0.200 & 0.3847$\pm$0.0729 & \textbf{0.3589$\pm$0.0591} & 0.3698$\pm$0.0695 & 0.5555$\pm$0.0544 \\
0.400 & \textbf{0.3328$\pm$0.0554} & 0.3547$\pm$0.0548 & 0.3956$\pm$0.0698 & 0.5376$\pm$0.0569 \\
0.600 & 0.3422$\pm$0.0792 & \textbf{0.3163$\pm$0.0582} & 0.3254$\pm$0.0488 & 0.5472$\pm$0.0470 \\
0.800 & \textbf{0.3127$\pm$0.0694} & 0.3136$\pm$0.0699 & 0.3397$\pm$0.0536 & 0.5068$\pm$0.0548 \\
{Gaussian} & \textbf{0.3130$\pm$0.0539} & 0.3560$\pm$0.0488 & 0.3383$\pm$0.0514 & 0.5354$\pm$0.0810 \\
1.020 & \textbf{0.3160$\pm$0.0534} & 0.3223$\pm$0.0397 & 0.3712$\pm$0.0653 & 0.5263$\pm$0.0511 \\
1.040 & 0.3203$\pm$0.0585 & \textbf{0.3081$\pm$0.0552} & 0.3315$\pm$0.0655 & 0.5103$\pm$0.0965 \\
1.060 & \textbf{0.3130$\pm$0.0599} & 0.3216$\pm$0.0566 & 0.3681$\pm$0.0540 & 0.4725$\pm$0.0599 \\
1.080 & 0.3722$\pm$0.0516 & \textbf{0.3584$\pm$0.0633} & 0.3782$\pm$0.0384 & 0.5165$\pm$0.0666 \\
{Cauchy} & 0.4249$\pm$0.0615 & \textbf{0.3997$\pm$0.0509} & 0.4402$\pm$0.0657 & 0.5685$\pm$0.0798 \\
1.099 & \textbf{0.5450$\pm$0.0683} & 0.5594$\pm$0.0623 & 0.5677$\pm$0.0626 & 0.7253$\pm$0.0776 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$\Vert\theta(n)-\bar{\theta}\Vert$ for G$q$-SF2 and N$q$-SF2 for
varying $q$ and varying step-size for Hessian update, $c(n) =\frac{1}{(n+1)^\gamma}$, with $\beta=0.1$ and other step-sizes
maintained at $a(n)=\frac{1}{(n+1)}$ and $b(n) = \frac{1}{(n+1)^{0.85}}$.}
\label{tab_step}
\end{table*}
We also discuss about the effect of updating the Hessian estimate along different timescales.
Table~\ref{tab_step} shows the effect of {$\gamma$} on the N$q$-SF2 algorithm for varying {$q$}
(see earlier discussion),
while {$\beta$} is held fixed at {$0.1$}. It can be observed that, at this
level of smoothing, N$q$-SF2 always performs better than G$q$-SF2.
For each value of $q$, the best value of $\gamma$ is highlighted.
A faster update of the Hessian is seen to result in an improved performance.
Finally, it is interesting to note from both tables that the best results
are most often obtained for values of $q$ that do not correspond to
either the Gaussian or the Cauchy perturbations,
thereby signifying the importance of generalization of the SF algorithms to include
$q$-Gaussian perturbations, with a continuously-valued $q$ parameter.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec_conclusion}
We proposed a two-simulation SF algorithm with $q$-Gaussian perturbations
to perform Newton based optimization of a stochastic objective function.
In this process, we derived estimates for the Hessian of
a two-sided smoothed functional using $q$-Gaussian distribution.
We also derived conditions for convergence of the algorithms,
and illustrated the performance of the algorithms through numerical simulations.
An interesting fact here is that though it is known
that gradient of $q$-Gaussian SF always converges to the gradient of cost function
as smoothing parameter $\beta\to0$,
we observed that the same does not always hold for the Hessian.
In particular, we found that the Hessian in the case of uniform ($q\to-\infty$) smoothing
does not converge.
The issue lies in the attempt to derive an expression
for the smoothed Hessian, $\nabla_\theta^2 S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)]$,
in terms of the cost function. One can verify that this is not possible
for the uniform case since the Hessian of the smoothed functional turns out to be
in the form of a finite difference of the gradient of the cost function.
Deriving a Hessian estimator for the case of uniform perturbations
in terms of objective function remains an open problem.
As suggested in~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}, we may vary the
smoothing parameter, $\beta$, at different update iterations.
It would be useful to use more smoothing (larger $\beta$) at the initial
stages to proceed towards the global minimum, whereas at later stages of the algorithm
a smaller value of $\beta$ would provide better estimates for the gradient and Hessian.
From the analysis point of view, such a modification does not affect
the results, where we can easily
replace $\beta$ by the corresponding sequence $\beta(n)$
as long as the sequence $\frac{b(n)}{\beta(n)}$ satisfies the conditions in Assumption~\ref{stepsize}
in place of the sequence $b(n)$. Further,
Theorem~\ref{thm_NqSF2} holds as long as we have $\sup_n \beta(n) \leqslant \beta_0$.
A similar modification may also be used for the values of $q$. It has been empirically observed,
both in Section~\ref{sec_simulation} and in~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv},
that as $\beta$ decreases, larger values of $q$ tend to perform better. Hence,
one may start from a high value of $\beta$ and low value of $q$, and
can decrease the former and increase the latter as the iterations proceed.
One may also incorporate the modification suggested in~\cite{Spall_2000_jour_AutoCtrl},
where steepest descent is employed for the initial parameter updates
and Newton based search is employed for faster convergence of later recursions.
Such algorithmic modifications can be effectively used to improve the performance of the method
and reduce the the computational burden of full Newton methods
without affecting the theoretical analysis.
\section{Introduction}
Stochastic techniques for optimization have gained immense popularity
over the last couple of decades.
Stochastic alternatives have been developed for a variety of
classic optimization problems,
such as maximum likelihood estimation~\cite{Spall_1987_conf_ACC},
expectation maximization~\cite{Delyon_1999_jour_AnnStat},
least squares estimation~\cite{Ljung_2001_jour_ACSP},
discrete parameter optimization~\cite{Mishra_2007_conf_CDC} and
control of discrete-event systems~\cite{Bhatnagar_1998_jour_ProbEnggInfoSc}
among others.
On the other hand,
a wide class of problems related to automated control and sequential decision making
are often posed as Markov Decision Process (MDP) models~\cite{Puterman_1994_book_Wiley}.
A classic example is encountered in control of a stochastic process,
where one needs to optimize the performance of a system by appropriately tuning some parameter.
This scenario is quite common in reinforcement learning problems~\cite{Bertsekas_1996_book_Athena}.
Simulation based schemes~\cite{Bhatnagar_2013_book_Springer}
are popularly used for solving MDPs since these algorithms do not require prior knowledge of
the system dynamics; rather, the transitions of the system are simulated to obtain
estimates of the cost function to be minimized.
One of the earliest ideas of stochastic optimization is due to
Kiefer and Wolfowitz~\cite{Kiefer_1952_jour_AnnMathStat}, where the zeros
of the gradient of the objective function is determined via
Robbins-Monro root-finding~\cite{Robbins_1951_jour_AnnMathStat}.
This approach uses a finite difference gradient estimate,
and hence, is termed as finite difference stochastic approximation (FDSA).
It proves quite useful in optimization of
stochastic functions, commonly encountered in stochastic control problems.
However, it requires $2N$ parallel simulations
to estimate the gradient
at each iteration, $N$ being the dimension of the optimizer.
More efficient techniques have been proposed in the literature,
which perform gradient estimation using only two parallel simulations.
These techniques include
simultaneous perturbations stochastic approximation (SPSA)~\cite{Spall_1992_jour_AutoControlTrans},
random direction stochastic approximation (RDSA)~\cite{Kushner_1978_book_Springer}
and the smoothed functional (SF) method~\cite{Styblinski_1990_jour_NeuNet}.
More computationally efficient one-simulation variants of these methods also
exist~\cite{Styblinski_1986_jour_TransCADICS,Spall_1997_jour_Automatica}
but their performance is relatively poor when compared with their two-simulation counterparts.
All the above approaches employ an approximate \emph{steepest} descent method for optimization.
It is well known that second order techniques such as Newton's method,
are faster and provide greater accuracy when compared with steepest descent methods.
In the context of stochastic optimization,
Newton based approaches have been proposed for FDSA~\cite{Ruppert_1985_jour_AnnStat},
SPSA~\cite{Spall_2000_jour_AutoCtrl,Bhatnagar_2005_jour_TOMACS}, and SF~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}, respectively,
in the literature. Though these methods suffer from increased
computational effort due to Hessian estimation,
projection (to the set of positive definite and symmetric matrices)
and inversion at each update,
they have been observed to perform significantly better
than their steepest descent counterparts~\cite{Spall_2000_jour_AutoCtrl,Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}.
Approximate methods for projecting the Hessian to the set of positive definite matrices and its inversion have also been
studied~\cite{Zhu_2002_jour_AdapCtrlSP,Bhatnagar_2005_jour_TOMACS}.
An efficient approximation is the Jacobi variant, where only the diagonal
terms of the Hessian matrix are updated, while the off-diagonal elements are simply set to zero.
This simplifies both the Hessian projection
and inversion procedures.
In this paper, we focus on the SF algorithms for optimization.
The idea of smoothing dates back to Katkovnik and Kulchitsky~\cite{Katkovnik_1972_jour_Automation}
and Rubinstein~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley},
where it was shown that a smoother variant of the objective function
can be estimated as an expectation (sample average is used for practical purposes)
of perturbed observations of the objective function.
This method was employed by Styblinski and Opalski~\cite{Styblinski_1986_jour_TransCADICS}
for parameter optimization in the manufacturing process of integrated circuits.
Subsequently, a two-sided version of SF~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley}
was employed for gradient based optimization in~\cite{Styblinski_1990_jour_NeuNet}.
Second-order SF schemes were proposed by Bhatnagar~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}.
Till this point, SF methods considered smoothing using either Gaussian or Cauchy
distributions~\cite{Styblinski_1990_jour_NeuNet}, while it was known that
uniform and symmetric Beta distributions were possible
candidates~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley,Kreimer_1992_jour_AnnOR}.
Moreover, the random search algorithms were also observed to be a special case of SF~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley}.
Recent studies by the authors~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2012_conf_ISIT,Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}
revealed that this set of smoothing kernels can be further
extended to the class of $q$-Gaussian distributions~\cite{Prato_1999_jour_PhyRevE},
extensively studied in the field of nonextensive statistical mechanics~\cite{Tsallis_1998_jour_PhysicaA}.
The main focus of the work in~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}
was to exploit two key properties of $q$-Gaussians. This class of
distributions generalize the Gaussian distribution via a Tsallis generalization
of the Shannon entropy functional~\cite{Tsallis_1998_jour_PhysicaA}.
Hence, they retain some of the \emph{nice} characteristics
of Gaussian, which include its smoothing properties~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley}.
On the other hand, the $q$-Gaussians exhibit a power-law nature for some $q$-values,
which can be exploited to achieve greater exploration in the SF method.
In~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}, the authors proposed two gradient descent optimization
algorithms using one-simulation and two-simulation $q$-Gaussian SF.
The current paper extends the work in~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv} to Newton based search techniques
and derives, for the first time, a $q$-Gaussian Hessian estimator.
Due to the observation that two-simulation methods
consistently perform better than one-simulation
methods~\cite{Bhatnagar_2005_jour_TOMACS,Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS,Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv},
we focus only on the two-simulation version of Newton based optimization
using $q$-Gaussian SF even though the one-simulation version is easier to derive
than the two-simulation estimator that we present.
We refer to our algorithm as N$q$-SF2
to indicate that it is a Newton based smoothed functional algorithm
that uses $q$-Gaussian perturbations and requires two simulations.
This terminology is also consistent with that used in~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS,Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}.
Our approach requires estimation of the Hessian of the two-sided $q$-Gaussian SF.
We derive the Hessian estimator and subsequently present a
theoretical analysis, which shows that the N$q$-SF2
algorithm converges to the neighborhood of a local optimum.
For various values of $q$, the $q$-Gaussian distribution encompasses the Gaussian,
Cauchy, symmetric Beta and uniform distributions as special cases.
Our analysis shows that the algorithm converges for a range of values of
$q$ that includes the aforementioned distributions barring the uniform distribution.
Thus our work significantly enhances the class of perturbation distributions
for smoothed functional algorithms, We note here that the Hessian estimator in~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}
is only for the case of Gaussian perturbations.
Simulations on a two-node queuing network show significant performance
improvements of the N$q$-SF2 algorithm over the Newton algorithm in~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}
and also the gradient $q$-SF algorithms in~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
Section~\ref{sec_hessian} briefly reviews the basic idea of smoothed functional (SF)
algorithms using the multivariate $q$-Gaussian distribution.
It also presents the $q$-Gaussian smoothed Hessian estimates that we use for our
Newton based search techniques.
Section~\ref{sec_problem} presents the proposed two-simulation method.
This section describes the problem setting, and
gives the proposed algorithm.
Section~\ref{sec_convergence} provides a theoretical study of the
convergence analysis of the algorithm,
while results of numerical experiments are shown in Section~\ref{sec_simulation}.
Concluding remarks are provided in Section~\ref{sec_conclusion}.
Finally, Appendix~\ref{app_convergence} provides some of the detailed
proofs pertaining to the convergence analysis.
\section{Hessian estimation using $q$-Gaussian SF}
\label{sec_hessian}
The idea of smoothed functionals (SF) was first proposed in~\cite{Katkovnik_1972_jour_Automation}.
Consider the optimization problem
\begin{align}
&\min_{\theta\in C \subset \mathbb{R}^N} J(\theta),
\end{align}
where $C$ is a compact and convex subset of $\mathbb{R}^N$,
and $J:C\to \mathbb{R}$ is a real-valued function,
which either does not have an analytic expression,
or has an expression that is not known.
To achieve a ``good'' optimal solution in such cases,
it is often useful to minimize a smoothed variant of the objective function,
called the smoothed functional, defined as
\begin{align}
S_{\beta} [J(\theta)]
= \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} G_\beta(\eta) J(\theta-\eta) \mathrm{d}\eta \;.
\end{align}
Katkovnik and Kulchitsky~\cite{Katkovnik_1972_jour_Automation}
considered $G_\beta$ to be the $N$-dimensional Gaussian distribution with zero mean
and covariance matrix $\beta^2 I_{N\times N}$.
An alternative (two-sided) definition of the smoothed functional
was given in~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley} as
\begin{align}
S_{\beta} [J(\theta)]
&= \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^N} G_\beta(\eta) \big(J(\theta+\eta)
+ J(\theta-\eta) \big) \mathrm{d}\eta \;.
\label{eq_2SF_general}
\end{align}
It was shown that reasonably good solutions can be obtained
by minimizing $S_\beta[J(\cdot)]$ using standard optimization techniques
with properly tuned smoothing parameter $\beta$.
Subsequently, Rubinstein~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley} showed that
Gaussian distribution is not the only such function,
and provided necessary conditions that need to be satisfied by
a distribution to provide appropriate smoothing.
The uniform and Cauchy distributions were also found to satisfy
the properties required of smoothing kernels.
A symmetric version of the Beta distribution was shown to satisfy
similar conditions~\cite{Kreimer_1992_jour_AnnOR},
and this smoothing was shown to have connections with polynomial approximations.
\subsection{$q$-Gaussian smoothed functionals}
Recently, Ghoshdastidar et al.~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}
proposed a class of smoothing kernels based on
the $N$-dimensional $q$-Gaussian distributions~\cite{Tsallis_2007_arxiv,Vignat_2007_jour_PhyA} defined as
\begin{align}
\label{Gq:formula_q}
G_{q}(&x|q,\mu_q,\Sigma_q) = {\frac{1}{K_{q,N} |\Sigma_q|^{1/2}}} \times
\\&
\left(1-{\frac{(1-q)}{(N+2-Nq)}(x-\mu_q)^T\Sigma_q^{-1}(x-\mu_q)}
\right)_+^{\frac{1}{1-q}}
\nonumber
\end{align}
for all {$x\in\mathbb{R}^N$}, where
{$\mu_q$} and {$\Sigma_q$} are known as the $q$-mean and $q$-covariance matrix, respectively.
These are generalizations of the usual mean and covariance~\cite{Prato_1999_jour_PhyRevE} and
correspond to the first and second moments with respect to the
so-called `deformed' expectation or normalized $q$-expectation that in turn is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{q-expect-defn}
\langle{f}\rangle_q =
\frac{\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}f(x) p(x)^q\:\mathrm{d}x}{\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}p(x)^q\:\mathrm{d}x},
\end{equation}
which is the expectation with respect to an escort distribution
{$p_q(x) = \frac{p(x)^q}{\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}p(x)^q\:\mathrm{d}x}$},
that is compatible with the foundations of nonextensive
information theory~\cite{Tsallis_1998_jour_PhysicaA}.
The condition {$y_+=\max(y,0)$} in~\eqref{Gq:formula_q},
called the Tsallis cut-off condition~\cite{Tsallis_1995_jour_Chaos},
ensures that the above expression is well-defined,
and {$K_{q,N}$} is the normalizing constant given by
\begin{equation}
K_{q,N} = \left\{\begin{array}{l}
\left(\frac{N+2-Nq}{1-q}\right)^{\frac{N}{2}}
\frac{\pi^{N/2} \Gamma\left(\frac{2-q}{1-q}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{2-q}{1-q}+\frac{N}{2}\right)}
\hfill\text{~~~~for } q<1,
\\\\
\left(\frac{N+2-Nq}{q-1}\right)^{\frac{N}{2}}
\frac{\pi^{N/2} \Gamma\left(\frac{1}{q-1}-\frac{N}{2}\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{q-1}\right)}
\hspace{15mm}
\\ \hfill \text{for } 1<q<\left(1+\frac{2}{N}\right).
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq_normalizing_const}
\end{equation}
The distribution~\eqref{Gq:formula_q} is only defined for $q<1+\frac{2}{N}$.
It retrieves the Gaussian distribution as $q\to1$,
and for $q>1$, it has a one-one correspondence with the
Student-$t$ distribution, with the special case of $q=1+\frac{2}{N+1}$ being the Cauchy distribution.
The uniform distribution on an infinitesimally small hypercube around the origin can
be obtained in the limit as $q\to-\infty$.
For $q=0$, we have the smoothing kernel corresponding to random search algorithms~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley}.
Further, in the one-dimensional case,
$q$-Gaussian with $q=-1$ gives the semicircle distribution, and
$q=\frac{\alpha-2}{\alpha-1}$
corresponds to the symmetric Beta$(\alpha,\alpha)$ distribution used in~\cite{Kreimer_1992_jour_AnnOR}.
In fact, the support of the
$q$-Gaussian distribution can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\Omega_q = \left\{\begin{array}{l}
\left\{x: (x-\mu_q)^T\Sigma_q^{-1}(x-\mu_q) < \frac{N+2-Nq}{1-q}\right\}
\\ \hfill\text{for } q<1,
\\\\
\mathbb{R}^N
\hfill\text{for } 1<q<\left(1+\frac{2}{N}\right).
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq_support}
\end{equation}
Ghoshdastidar et al.~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv} showed that the
$q$-Gaussian family of distributions satisfy the Rubinstein
conditions~\cite[pg 263]{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley} for smoothing kernels. The significance of the
$q$-Gaussian smoothing kernel is enhanced by the fact that it encompasses
the existing examples of smoothing kernels,
and thus significantly enhances the class of perturbation distributions for smoothed
functional algorithms.
For the remainder of the paper, we will use an $N$-dimensional $q$-Gaussian distribution
with zero $q$-mean and $q$-covariance matrix $\beta^2I_{N\times N}$. For convenience,
we refer to this distribution as $G_{q,\beta}(\cdot)$, with the
case of $\beta=1$ being denoted by $G_q$.
We also use $\Omega_q$ to denote only the support set of $G_q$,
while we use $\theta+\beta\Omega_q$ for the support set of the distribution with $q$-mean
$\theta$ and $q$-covariance matrix $\beta^2I_{N\times N}$.
However, for $q>1$, the above set is always equal to $\mathbb{R}^N$.
A projected gradient based technique is commonly employed to optimize the smoothed
functional, and it has been observed
in~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS,Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}
that the two-sided gradient SF estimate provides significantly improved performance
over the corresponding one-sided counterpart.
In the case of $q$-Gaussian smoothing,
the gradient estimate is given by~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta} S_{q,\beta}&[J(\theta)]
= \mathsf{E}_{G_{q}(\eta)}
\left[\left.\frac{\eta \big(J(\theta+\beta\eta)-J(\theta-\beta\eta)\big)}
{\beta(N+2-Nq)\rho{(\eta)}} \right|\theta\right],
\label{grad_SF2_formula}
\end{align}
where
the term
\begin{equation}
\rho(\eta) = \left(1-\frac{(1-q)}{(N+2-Nq)}\Vert{\eta}(n)\Vert^2\right)
\label{rho_defn}
\end{equation}
appears due to the differentiation of $G_q$.
It is shown that for $\beta$ small enough, the smoothed gradient is close to the
gradient of the objective function, assuming that it exists.
Then,
a simple technique to estimate the above gradient is to consider a sample average
over some $L$ samples as
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta}&J(\theta) \approx \frac{1}{\beta L(N+2-Nq)} \times
\nonumber \\
&\sum_{n=0}^{L-1}
\frac{{\eta}(n)\big(J(\theta+\beta\eta(n))-J(\theta-\beta\eta(n))\big)}{\left(1-\frac{(1-q)}{(N+2-Nq)}\Vert{\eta}(n)\Vert^2\right)}\;.
\label{estimate1}
\end{align}
\subsection{Two-simulation $q$-Gaussian SF Hessian estimate}
In this section, we extend the above idea to the case of Hessians,
which is required in Newton based search algorithms.
Before presenting the estimate, we make a technical assumption
that ensures the existence of the gradient and Hessian of the objective function.
\begin{assumption}
\label{differentiable}
The function {$J(.)$} is twice continuously differentiable for all {$\theta\in C$}.
\end{assumption}
The above assumption is required for the theoretical analysis, but is
not necessary from a practical perspective,
since we hold $\beta>0$ fixed in the algorithm.
As with the case of gradient,
the existence of {$\nabla_{\theta}^2 J(\theta)$} is assumed (Assumption~\ref{differentiable}), and
we estimate the same using SF approach.
We define the two-sided smoothed Hessian with $q$-Gaussian smoothing
by following~\cite{Rubinstein_1981_book_Wiley}.
For this, we can write the two-sided SF~\eqref{eq_2SF_general} as
\begin{align*}
S_{q,\beta} [J(\theta)]
&= \frac{1}{2} \int\limits_{\beta\Omega_q} G_{q,\beta}(\eta) J(\theta+\eta) \mathrm{d}\eta
\\&\qquad\qquad\nonumber
+\frac{1}{2} \int\limits_{\beta\Omega_q} G_{q,\beta}(\eta) J(\theta-\eta) \mathrm{d}\eta \;.
\end{align*}
Denoting the integrals by $\mathcal{S}_1(\theta)$ and $\mathcal{S}_2(\theta)$, respectively, and
substituting $\eta' = \theta+\eta$ in $\mathcal{S}_1(\theta)$, we have
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{S}_1(\theta)
&= \frac{1}{\beta^N} \int\limits_{\theta+\beta\Omega_q}
G_{q} \left(\frac{\eta'-\theta}{\beta}\right)J(\eta')\mathrm{d}\eta'
\end{align*}
where we use the fact that $G_{q,\beta}(\eta) = \frac{1}{\beta^N} G_q(\frac{\eta}{\beta})$,
which is true for all smoothing kernels.
The Hessian of $\mathcal{S}_1(\theta)$ is
\begin{align*}
\nabla_{\theta}^{2} \mathcal{S}_1(\theta)
&= \frac{1}{\beta^N} \int\limits_{\theta+\beta\Omega_q}
\nabla_{\theta}^{2} G_{q} \left(\frac{\eta'-\theta}{\beta}\right)J(\eta')\mathrm{d}\eta'\;.
\end{align*}
One can note that for $q<1$, the region over which integration is performed is a
function of $\theta$, and hence by Leibnitz integral rule, there should be an additional
integral term, where the integration is over the surface of
the set $\theta+\beta\Omega_q$. However, since this integrand involves
$G_{q} (\frac{\eta'-\theta}{\beta})$ that is zero over the surface, we can
ignore the term completely.
Now, we substitute $\eta'' = \frac{\eta'-\theta}{\beta}$ above, and as a result, we have
$\mathrm{d}\eta'' = \frac{1}{\beta^N}\mathrm{d}\eta'$ and for all components
$i,j=1,\ldots,N$, $\frac{\partial{d}\eta''^{(i)}}{\partial{d}\theta^{(j)}} = -\frac{1}{\beta}$
whenever $i=j$, and 0 otherwise. Under this change of variables,
we can write
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta}^{2} \mathcal{S}_1(\theta)
&= \frac{1}{\beta^2} \int\limits_{\Omega_q}
\nabla_{\eta''}^{2} G_{q} (\eta'') J(\theta+\beta\eta'')\mathrm{d}\eta''\;.
\end{align}
Similarly $\nabla_{\theta}^{2} \mathcal{S}_2(\theta)$ can also be derived,
and the two-sided smoothed Hessian with $q$-Gaussian smoothing is
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta}^2 &S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)] \nonumber\\
&= \frac{1}{2\beta^2} \int_{\Omega_q} \nabla_{\eta}^{2} G_{q} (\eta) \big(J(\theta+\beta\eta)
+ J(\theta-\beta\eta) \big) \mathrm{d}\eta \;.
\label{hess_SF_defn}
\end{align}
We now compute the Hessian matrix corresponding to the standard $q$-Gaussian distribution, $G_q$.
When $\eta\in\Omega_q$,
the partial derivative of $G_q(\eta)$ with respect to $\eta^{(i)}$ for all $i=1,\ldots,N$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial G_q(\eta)}{\partial \eta^{(i)}}
= -\frac{2\eta^{(i)} \rho(n)^{\frac{q}{1-q}}}{K_{q,N}(N+2-Nq)}\;,
\end{align*}
where $\rho(\cdot)$ is as defined in~\eqref{rho_defn}.
From above, we can compute the second derivatives,
which can be expressed in terms of $G_q(\eta)$ as
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 G_q(\eta)}{\partial \eta^{(i)} \partial \eta^{(j)}}
= \frac{4q \eta^{(i)} \eta^{(j)}}{(N+2-Nq)^2} \frac{G_q(\eta)}{\rho(\eta)^2}
\end{align*}
for {$i\neq j$}. For {$i=j$}, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2 G_q(\eta)}{\partial {\eta^{(i)}}^2}
&= \frac{4q {\eta^{(i)}}^2}{(N+2-Nq)^2} \frac{G_q(\eta)}{\rho(\eta)^2}
\\&\qquad\qquad
- \frac{2}{(N+2-Nq)} \frac{G_q(\eta)}{\rho(\eta)} \;.
\end{align*}
Thus, the Hessian turns out to be of the form
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\eta}^2 G_{q}(\eta)
= \frac{2}{(N+2-Nq)} H(\eta) G_{q}(\eta),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
H(\eta) = \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
\left(\displaystyle\frac{2q}{(N+2-Nq)} \displaystyle\frac{\eta^{(i)}\eta^{(j)}}
{\rho{(\eta)}^2}\right) &\text{for} &i\neq j
\\ \\
\left(\displaystyle\frac{2q}{(N+2-Nq)} \displaystyle\frac{\left(\eta^{(i)}\right)^2}{\rho{(\eta)}^2}
- \displaystyle\frac{1}{\rho{(\eta)}}\right) &\text{for} &i=j.
\end{array} \right.
\label{H_defn}
\end{align}
is a generalization of a similar function given in~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS},
that can be obtained as {$q\to1$}.
Substituting $\nabla_{\eta}^2 G_{q}(\eta)$ in~\eqref{hess_SF_defn}, we have
\begin{align}
&\nabla_{\theta}^2 S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)]
\nonumber \\
&=
\mathsf{E}_{G_{q}(\eta)}\left[ \left. \frac{H(\eta) \big(J(\theta+\beta\eta)+J(\theta-\beta\eta)\big)}{\beta^2(N+2-Nq)} \right| \theta \right].
\label{hess_SF2_formula}
\end{align}
Subsequently, we show that the Hessians of $S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)]$ and $J(\theta)$
are close enough, and hence,
we obtain the Hessian estimate of $J(\theta)$, for large $L$ and small {$\beta$}, as
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta}^2 &J(\theta) \approx\frac{1}{\beta^2 L (N+2-Nq)} \times
\nonumber \\
&\sum_{n=0}^{L-1}
H\big(\eta(n)\big) \big(J(\theta+\beta\eta(n))+J(\theta-\beta\eta(n))\big) .
\label{SF_estimate1}
\end{align}
In the next section, we present a Newton based search technique
using the above gradient and Hessian estimates,~\eqref{estimate1}
and~\eqref{SF_estimate1}, respectively.
\section{Optimization of long-run average cost of a parametrized Markov process}
\label{sec_problem}
Our objective here is to optimize $J:C\mapsto\mathbb{R}$,
when only (noisy) observations of $J$ are known.
If $J$ is an analytic function, as considered
in~\cite{Spall_2000_jour_AutoCtrl,Chin_1997_jour_TransSysManCyber}, then the estimates
in~\eqref{estimate1} and~\eqref{SF_estimate1} can be directly used.
We consider a slightly complicated scenario,
often encountered in problems of stochastic control,
where the objective is a stochastic function with no analytic expression.
Such a setting is discussed below.
\subsection{Problem Framework}
Let {$\{Y_n\}_{n\geqslant0} \subset\mathbb{R}^d$} be a parameterized Markov process
with transition kernel {${P}_{\theta}(x,\:\mathrm{d}y)$} that depends
on a tunable parameter {$\theta\in C$}, where {$C\subset\mathbb{R}^N$} is compact and convex.
We assume the following.
\begin{assumption}
\label{ergodic}
For a fixed operative parameter $\theta\in C$,
the Markov process {$\{Y_n\}$} is ergodic and has a unique invariant measure $\nu_{\theta}$.
\end{assumption}
Though we restrict ourselves to an ergodic Markov process in this paper, the subsequent
discussions can be directly extended to hidden Markov models following the lines
of~\cite{Bhatnagar_2001_jour_IIETrans}. Thus the work in this paper is also applicable,
with suitable modifications, to a broader class of problems.
We also consider a Lipschitz continuous cost function
{$h:\mathbb{R}^d\mapsto\mathbb{R}^+\bigcup \{0\}$} associated with the process.
Our objective is to minimize the long-run average cost
\begin{equation}
\label{Jdefn}
J(\theta) = \lim_{M\to\infty}\frac{1}{M}\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}h(Y_m) = \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^d}h(x)\nu_{\theta}(\:\mathrm{d}x),
\end{equation}
by choosing an appropriate {$\theta\in C$}. The existence of the above limit is assured by Assumption~\ref{ergodic}
and the fact that $h$ is continuous, hence measurable.
In addition, we assume that the average cost {$J({\theta})$} satisfies
Assumption~\ref{differentiable}.
However, in this setting, verification of Assumption~\ref{differentiable} depends on the underlying process
and is non-trivial in most cases. One can observe that under certain conditions
(for instance when cost function $h(\cdot)$ is bounded),
Assumption~\ref{differentiable} can be translated to impose the condition of continuous
differentiability of the stationary measure $\nu_\theta$ for all $\theta\in C$.
This, in turn, would depend on a similar condition on the transition kernel $P_\theta(x,\mathrm{d}y)$.
Discussions on such conditions for finite state Markov processes can be found
in~\cite{Schweitzer_1968_jour_AppProb,Kushner_1981_jour_SIAMCtrlOptim}, and similar
results for general state systems were presented in~\cite{Vazquez_1992_jour_AppProb}.
However, in the general case, such conditions are difficult to verify.
In addition to above, we also assume the existence of a stochastic Lyapunov function.
This requires the notion of a non-anticipative sequence, defined below.
\begin{definition}[Non-anticipative sequence]
Any random sequence of parameter vectors, {$(\theta(n))_{n\geqslant0} \subset C$}, controlling a process
{$\{Y_n\}\subset\mathbb{R}^d$}, is said to be non-anticipative if the conditional probability
{$P(Y_{n+1}\in B |\mathcal{F}_n) = {P}_{\theta} (Y_n, B)$}
almost surely for {$n\geqslant0$} and all Borel sets {$B\subset\mathbb{R}^d$},
where {$\mathcal{F}_n = \sigma(\theta(m),Y_m,m\leqslant n)$}, {$n\geqslant0$} are the associated {$\sigma$}-fields.
\end{definition}
One can verify that under a non-anticipative parameter sequence {$(\theta(n))$}, the joint process
{$(Y_n,\theta(n))_{n\geqslant0}$} is Markov.
We assume the existence of a stochastic Lyapunov function (below), which
ensures that the process under a tunable parameter remains stable.
Assumption~\ref{lyapunov} will not be required, for instance, if, in addition, the single-stage cost function $h$ is bounded.
It can be seen that the sequence of parameters obtained using our algorithm
forms a non-anticipative sequence.
\begin{assumption}
\label{lyapunov}
Let {$(\theta(n))$} be a non-anticipative sequence of random parameters controlling the process {$\{Y_n\}$},
and {$\mathcal{F}_n = \sigma(\theta(m),$} {$Y_m,m\leqslant n)$}, {$n\geqslant0$} be a sequence of associated {$\sigma$}-fields.
There exists {$\epsilon_0>0$}, a compact set {$\mathcal{K}\subset\mathbb{R}^d$}, and a continuous function
{$V:\mathbb{R}^d\mapsto\mathbb{R}^+\bigcup\{0\}$}, with
{$\lim_{\Vert{x}\Vert\to\infty} V(x) = \infty$}, such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
{$\sup\limits_n \mathsf{E}[V(Y_n)^2] < \infty$}, and
\item
{$\mathsf{E}[V(Y_{n+1})|\mathcal{F}_n] \leqslant V(Y_n) - \epsilon_0$}, whenever {$Y_n\notin\mathcal{K}$}, {$n\geqslant0$}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
As a consequence of Assumption~\ref{ergodic},
we can estimate the gradient and Hessian,~\eqref{estimate1} and~\eqref{SF_estimate1}
respectively, as
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta}J(\theta) &\approx\frac{1}{\beta ML(N+2-Nq)} \times
\nonumber \\
&\sum_{n=0}^{M-1}\sum_{m=0}^{L-1}
\frac{{\eta}(n)\big(h(Y_m)-h(Y'_m)\big)}{\left(1-\frac{(1-q)}{(N+2-Nq)}\Vert{\eta}(n)\Vert^2\right)}
\label{estimate2}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\nabla_{\theta}^2 J(\theta) &\approx\frac{1}{\beta^2 ML (N+2-Nq)} \times
\nonumber \\
&\sum_{n=0}^{M-1}\sum_{m=0}^{L-1}
H(\eta(n)) \big(h(Y_m)+h(Y'_m)\big),
\label{SF_estimate2}
\end{align}
for large $M$, $L$ and small {$\beta$}, where {$\{Y_m\}$} and {$\{Y'_m\}$} are governed by the parameters
{$(\theta+\beta{\eta}(n))$} and {$(\theta-\beta{\eta}(n))$}, respectively.
\subsection{Proposed Newton based technique}
Since $C$ is a compact and convex
subset of $\mathbb{R}^N$, projected gradient or Newton methods can be used,
where the update rule is of the form
\begin{equation}
\theta(n) = \mathcal{P}_C \big(\theta(n-1) - a(n)Z(n)\big)
\label{eq_graddes_update}
\end{equation}
for gradient based search, and
\begin{equation}
\theta(n) = \mathcal{P}_C \left(\theta(n-1) - a(n)W(n)^{-1}Z(n)\right)
\label{eq_newton_update}
\end{equation}
for Newton's method. Here, $\mathcal{P}_C$ is a projection operator onto the set $C$,
$Z(n)$ and $W(n)$ are estimates of the gradient vector and the Hessian matrix, respectively,
of the objective function at the $n^{th}$ iteration,
and $(a(n))_{n\geqslant0}$ is a prescribed non-increasing step-size sequence.
The update in~\eqref{eq_graddes_update} corresponds to the gradient based $q$-Gaussian
SF algorithms~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}.
The estimators for the gradient and Hessian, given in~\eqref{estimate2} and~\eqref{SF_estimate2}, respectively,
are quite computationally intensive considering the fact that, at each iteration,
we require the sample size to be considerably large so that
the steady state average for a given parameter update can be approximated closely.
A computationally efficient solution to this
problem is to consider a multi-timescale stochastic approximation
scheme~\cite{Bhatnagar_1998_jour_ProbEnggInfoSc}.
The idea is to update the estimates, $Z$ and $W$, on a different timescale,
faster than the update iteration as
\begin{align}
Z(n+1) &= (1-b(n))Z(n) + b(n)\hat{Z}(n),
\label{eq_2time_Z}
\\
W(n+1) &= \mathcal{P}_{pd} \big((1-b(n))W(n) + b(n)\hat{W}(n)\big),
\label{eq_2time_W}
\end{align}
where $Z(n), W(n)$ are the updates till the $n^{th}$ iteration,
and $\hat{Z}(n), \hat{W}(n)$ are the instantaneous estimates
of the gradient and Hessian,
using~\eqref{estimate2} and~\eqref{SF_estimate2} where one may let $M=1$.
Also $\mathcal{P}_{pd}$ is an operator that projects any $N \times N$ matrix to
the space of positive definite and symmetric matrices.
We make the following
assumption on the two step-size sequences
{$(a(n))_{n\geqslant0}$} and {$(b(n))_{n\geqslant0}$}.
\begin{assumption}
\label{stepsize}
{$(a(n))_{n\geqslant0}$}, {$(b(n))_{n\geqslant0}$} are sequences
of positive scalars such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$b(n) \leqslant 1$ for all $n$,
\item
{$a(n) = o(b(n))$}, \textit{i.e.}, {$\frac{a(n)}{b(n)}\to0$} as {$n\to\infty$},
\item
{$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a(n) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}b(n) = \infty$},
\item
{$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a(n)^2 <\infty$}, and {$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}b(n)^2 <\infty$}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{assumption}
Considering the step-sizes as above, if we update both gradient and Hessian
estimate using the larger step-sizes $(b(n))$,
then these estimates are updated on a faster timescale.
On the other hand, the parameter $\theta(n)$, when updated using step-sizes $(a(n))$
appears to change slowly and is seen to be nearly constant from the timescale of $b(n)$.
Thus, even if we choose $M$ in~\eqref{estimate2} and~\eqref{SF_estimate2}
to be small (say $M=1$), the asymptotic stationarity of the process
is not affected because the updates of the estimators always occur with the parameter
in a quasi-static state.
The convergence analysis in Section~\ref{sec_convergence} shows that
when estimated as per~\eqref{eq_2time_Z}--\eqref{eq_2time_W}, the
sample size $L$ can also be set as $L=1$. However, it has been
observed~\cite{Bhatnagar_2003_jour_Simulation} that updates along a subsample,
typically $L$ between 50 and 100 gives desirable performance.
One of the issues with Newton-based algorithms is that the Hessian has to be positive definite
for the algorithm to progress in the descent direction. This
may not hold always.
Hence, the estimate obtained at each update step has to be projected onto
the space of positive definite and symmetric matrices.
This is taken care of by the map
{$\mathcal{P}_{pd}:\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}\mapsto\{$}symmetric matrices with eigenvalues{$\geqslant\varepsilon\}$}
that projects any {$N\times N$} matrix onto the
set of symmetric positive definite matrices, with a minimum eigenvalue
of at least {$\varepsilon$} for some {$\varepsilon>0$}.
We assume the projection operator $\mathcal{P}_{pd}$ satisfies the following:
\begin{assumption}
\label{projection}
If {$(A_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$}, {$(B_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \subset \mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$} are sequences of matrices
satisfying {$\lim_{n\to\infty} \Vert{A_n-B_n}\Vert = 0$}, then
{$\lim_{n\to\infty} \Vert{\mathcal{P}_{pd}(A_n)-\mathcal{P}_{pd}(B_n)}\Vert = 0$}.
\end{assumption}
We present our Newton based algorithm below, which we denote N$q$-SF2 to signify that
it employs a Newton based approach with two-simulation $q$-Gaussian SF.
The update runs for some specified $M$ iterations
(not to be confused with the $M$ in the estimators above), and
$Z$ and $W$ denote the estimators for the gradient and the Hessian, respectively.
It requires sampling from a standard $q$-Gaussian
distribution for some $q\in(0,1+\frac{2}{N})$. The procedure for generating $q$-Gaussian samples is
given in~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}. The reason behind the restriction on
the values of $q$ is discussed in the next section.
\begin{alg}[N$q$-SF2 algorithm]
\label{NqSF2_problem2}
Assuming that constants $\beta>0$, $\varepsilon>0$,
$q\in(0,1+\frac{2}{N})$, $L$ and $M$,
and the step-sizes {$(a(n))_{n\geqslant0}$}, {$(b(n))_{n\geqslant0}$}
are specified, the algorithm proceeds as below.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Initialize some $\theta(0) \in C$.
\item
Set $Z=0 \in \mathbb{R}^N$ and {$W(0) = 0 \in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}$}.
\item
For $n=0$ to $M-1$
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Generate a random vector {$\eta(n) \in \mathbb{R}^N$}
from a standard $N$-dimensional $q$-Gaussian distribution\;
\item
For $m=0$ to $L-1$
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Generate two independent simulations {$Y_{nL+m}$} and
{$Y'_{nL+m}$} governed by
{$\mathcal{P}_C(\theta(n)+\beta\eta(n))$} and
{$\mathcal{P}_C(\theta(n)-\beta\eta(n))$}, respectively.
\item
Update gradient estimate as
\begin{align*}
& \hspace{-10mm}
Z(nL+m+1) = (1-b(n))Z(nL+m) +\\
& \hspace{-9mm}
b(n) \left[\frac{\eta(n)(h(Y_{nL+m})-h(Y'_{nL+m}))}
{\beta(N+2-Nq)(1-\frac{(1-q)}{(N+2-Nq)}\Vert{\eta}(n)\Vert^2)}\right]
\end{align*}
\item
Compute $H(\eta(n))$ using~\eqref{H_defn}, and
update Hessian estimate as
\begin{align*}
& \hspace{-10mm}
W(nL+m+1) = (1-b(n))W(nL+m) +\\
& \hspace{-9mm}
b(n) \left[\frac{H(\eta(n))(h(Y_{nL+m})+h(Y'_{nL+m}))}
{\beta^2(N+2-Nq)}\right]
\end{align*}
\end{enumerate}
\item
Project Hessian matrix, \textit{i.e.},
\begin{displaymath}
W((n+1)L) := \mathcal{P}_{pd}\big(W((n+1)L)\big).
\end{displaymath}
\item
Update $\theta(n+1) = $
\begin{displaymath}
\hspace{-7mm}
\mathcal{P}_C \left( \theta(n) - a(n)W((n+1)L)^{-1}Z((n+1)L) \right).
\end{displaymath}
\end{enumerate}
\item
Output $\theta(M)$ as the final parameters.
\end{enumerate}
\end{alg}
For implementation purposes, a modified version of the above algorithm is often
considered~\cite{Spall_2000_jour_AutoCtrl,Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}.
This is known as the Jacobi variant, where the projection map $\mathcal{P}_{pd}$
is such that it sets all the off-diagonal terms in $W(n)$ to zero, and the diagonal
terms are projected onto the interval $[\varepsilon,\infty)$.
This ensures that the projected matrix has a minimum eigenvalue of at least $\varepsilon$,
and this also simplifies the inverse computation.
\section{Convergence of the proposed algorithm}
\label{sec_convergence}
We present below our main convergence results whose proofs can be
found in Appendix~\ref{app_convergence} at the end of the paper.
Let us consider the updates along the faster timescale, \textit{i.e.}, Step~(3b) of the N$q$-SF2 algorithm.
We define {$\tilde{\theta}(p) = \theta(n)$}, {$\tilde{\eta}(p) = \eta(n)$} and
{$\tilde{b}(p) = b(n)$} for {$nL\leqslant p<(n+1)L$}, {$n\geqslant0$}. From Assumption~\ref{stepsize}, we have
{$a(p) = o\big(\tilde{b}(p)\big)$}, {$\sum_p \tilde{b}(p) = \infty$} and {$\sum_p \tilde{b}(p)^2 < \infty$}.
Since, {$\{Y_p\}_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$} and {$\{Y'_p\}_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$} are independent Markov processes,
we can consider {$\{(Y_p,Y'_p)\}_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$} as a joint Markov process
parameterized by
{$\big(\mathcal{P}_C{(\tilde{\theta}(p)+\beta\tilde{\eta}(p))},\mathcal{P}_C{(\tilde{\theta}(p)-\beta\tilde{\eta}(p))}\big)$}.
We can rewrite Step~(3b.ii) using the following iteration for all {$p\geqslant0$}:
\begin{equation}
Z(p+1) = Z(p) + \tilde{b}(p)\big( g_1(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p)) - Z(p) \big),
\label{faststep_Z}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
g_1(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p)) =
\left(\displaystyle\frac{\tilde{\eta}(p) (h(Y_p)-h(Y'_p))}{\beta (N+2-Nq) \rho{(\tilde{\eta}(p))}}\right)
\end{equation}
for {$nL\leqslant p<(n+1)L$}, with {$\rho{(.)}$} defined as in~\eqref{rho_defn}.
Similarly, the update of the Hessian matrix in Step~(3b.iii) can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
W(p+1) = W(p) + \tilde{b}(p)\big( g_2(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p)) - W(p) \big),
\label{faststep_W}
\end{equation}
where, for {$nL\leqslant p<(n+1)L$},
\begin{equation}
g_2(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p)) = \left(\displaystyle\frac{{H}(\tilde{\eta}(p)) (h(Y_p)+h(Y'_p))}{\beta^2(N+2-Nq)}\right).
\end{equation}
Let {$\mathcal{G}_p = \sigma\big(\tilde{\theta}(k), \tilde{\eta}(k), Y_k, Y'_k, k\leqslant p\big), p\geqslant0$}
denote a sequence of $\sigma$-fields
generated by the mentioned quantities. We can observe that {$(\mathcal{G}_p)_{p\geqslant0}$} is a filtration,
where {$g_1(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p))$} and {$g_2(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p))$}
are {$\mathcal{G}_p$}-measurable for each {$p\geqslant0$}.
We can rewrite~\eqref{faststep_Z} and~\eqref{faststep_W} as
\begin{align}
Z&(p+1) = Z(p) +
\nonumber \\&\tilde{b}(p)\big[ E[g_1(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p))|\mathcal{G}_{p-1}] - Z(p) + A_p\big],
\label{eq_Z_step}
\\
W&(p+1) = W(p) +
\nonumber \\&\tilde{b}(p)\big[ E[g_2(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p))|\mathcal{G}_{p-1}] - W(p) + B_p\big],
\label{eq_W_step}
\end{align}
where {$A_p = g_1(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p)) - E[g_1(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p))|\mathcal{G}_{p-1}]$} and
{$B_p = g_2(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p)) - E[g_2(Y_p,Y'_p,\tilde{\eta}(p))|\mathcal{G}_{p-1}]$}
are both {$\mathcal{G}_p$}-measurable.
The following result presents a useful property of {$(A_p)_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$}
and {$(B_p)_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$}.
\begin{lem}
\label{B_n_convergence}
For all values of {$q\in\big(-\infty,1\big)\cup\big(1,1+\frac{2}{N}\big)$},
{$(A_p,\mathcal{G}_p)_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$} and {$(B_p,\mathcal{G}_p)_{p\in\mathbb{N}}$}
are martingale difference sequences with bounded variance.
\end{lem}
The iterations~\eqref{faststep_Z} and~\eqref{faststep_W} are
not coupled, \textit{i.e.}, iterates $Z(p)$ do not depend on $W(p)$
and vice-versa. Thus,
they can be dealt with separately.
We can write the parameter update along the slower timescale as
{$\theta(n+1) = \mathcal{P}_C\big(\theta(n) - \tilde{b}(n)\zeta(n)\big)$},
where we use
\begin{displaymath}
\zeta(n)=\frac{a(n)}{\tilde{b}(n)}W((n+1)L)^{-1}Z((n+1)L)=o(1),
\end{displaymath}
since {$a(n) = o(\tilde{b}(n))$}.
Thus, the parameter update recursion is quasi-static
when viewed from the timescale of {$(\tilde{b}(n))$}, and hence, one may let
{$\tilde{\theta}(p) \equiv \theta$} and {$\tilde{\eta}(p) \equiv \eta$} for all {$p\in\mathbb{N}$}, when analyzing~\eqref{eq_Z_step}
and \eqref{eq_W_step}.
The system of ODEs associated with these updates is the following:
\begin{align}
\dot{\theta}(t) &= 0,
\label{fastode_2}
\\ \dot{Z}(t) &= \frac{\eta \big(J(\theta+\beta\eta)-J(\theta-\beta\eta)\big)}{\beta(N+2-Nq)\rho{(\eta)}} - Z(t)\;,
\label{fastode_Z}
\\ \text{and~~}
\dot{W}(t) &= \frac{{H}(\eta) \big(J(\theta+\beta\eta)+J(\theta-\beta\eta)\big)}{\beta^2(N+2-Nq)} - W(t)\;.
\label{fastode_W}
\end{align}
At this stage, we recall a series of
results by Borkar~\cite{Borkar_2008_book_Cambridge}.
\begin{thm}
\label{borkar_cor_8}
\textbf{\cite[Thm 7--Cor 8, pp. 74 and Thm~9, pp. 75]{Borkar_2008_book_Cambridge}}
Consider the iteration,
\begin{displaymath}
x_{p+1} = x_p + \gamma(p)\big[f(x_p,Y_p)+M_p\big].
\end{displaymath}
Let the following conditions hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
{$\{Y_p:p\in\mathbb{N}\}$} is a Markov process satisfying Assumptions~\ref{ergodic} and~\ref{lyapunov},
\item
for each {$x\in\mathbb{R}^N$} and {$x_p\equiv x$} for all $p\in\mathbb{N}$,
{$Y_p$} has a unique invariant probability measure {$\nu_{x}$},
\item
{$(\gamma(p))_{p\geqslant0}$} are step-sizes satisfying {$\sum\limits_{p=0}^{\infty} \gamma(p)=\infty$}
and {$\sum\limits_{p=0}^{\infty} \gamma^2(p)<\infty$},
\item
{$f(.,.)$} is Lipschitz continuous in its first argument uniformly w.r.t the second,
\item
{$M_p$} is a martingale difference noise term with bounded variance,
\item
if {$\tilde{f}\big(x,\nu_x\big) = \mathsf{E}_{\nu_x} \big[f(x,Y)\big]$}, then the limit
\begin{displaymath}
\hat{f}\big(x(t)\big) = \displaystyle\lim\limits_{a\uparrow\infty} \frac{\tilde{f}\big(ax(t),\nu_{ax(t)}\big)}{a}
\end{displaymath}
exists uniformly on compacts, and
\item
the ODE {$\dot{x}(t) = \hat{f}\big(x(t)\big)$} is well-posed
and has the origin as the unique globally asymptotically stable equilibrium.
\end{enumerate}
Then the update {$x_p$} satisfies {$\sup_p \Vert{x_p}\Vert < \infty$}, almost surely,
and converges to the stable fixed points of the ODE
\begin{displaymath}
\dot{x}(t) = \tilde{f}\big(x(t),\nu_{x(t)}\big).
\end{displaymath}
\end{thm}
As a consequence of Lemma~\ref{B_n_convergence} and the above result,
we have the following lemma proving the convergence of the gradient and Hessian updates.
\begin{lem}
\label{W_bounded}
The sequences $(Z(p))$ and {$(W(p))$} are uniformly bounded with probability 1. Further,
\begin{align*}
&\left\Vert Z(p) -
\frac{\tilde{\eta}(p)\big(J(\tilde{\theta}(p)+\beta\tilde{\eta}(p))-J(\tilde{\theta}(p)-\beta\tilde{\eta}(p))\big)}{
\beta(N+2-Nq)\rho{(\tilde{\eta}(p))}}
\right\Vert,
\\
&\left\Vert W(p) -
\frac{{H}(\tilde{\eta}(p))\big(J(\tilde{\theta}(p)+\beta\tilde{\eta}(p))+J(\tilde{\theta}(p)-\beta\tilde{\eta}(p))\big)}{
\beta^2 (N+2-Nq)}
\right\Vert
\end{align*}
$\to 0$ almost surely as {$p\to\infty$}.
\end{lem}
Thus, both {$Z$} and {$W$} recursions eventually track the gradient and Hessian of {$S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)]$}.
So, after incorporating the projection considered in Step~(3c), we can write the parameter update, Step~(3d)
of the N$q$-SF2 algorithm, as
\begin{align}
\theta (n+&1)= \mathcal{P}_C \bigg(\theta(n) + a(n) \bigg[ \Delta \big(\theta(n)\big) + \xi_n
\nonumber \\
& -\mathcal{P}_{pd}\left(\nabla_{\theta(n)}^2 J\big(\theta(n)\big)\right)^{-1}
\nabla_{\theta(n)} J\big(\theta(n)\big) \bigg]\bigg),
\label{hess_slowstep}
\end{align}
where we use~\eqref{grad_SF2_formula} and~\eqref{hess_SF2_formula} to write
\begin{align}
&\Delta \big(\theta(n)\big) =
\mathcal{P}_{pd}\left(\nabla_{\theta(n)}^2 J\big(\theta(n)\big)\right)^{-1}
\nabla_{\theta(n)} J\big(\theta(n)\big)
\nonumber \\&
- \mathcal{P}_{pd}\left(\nabla_{\theta(n)}^2 S_{q,\beta}\Big[J\big(\theta(n)\big)\Big]\right)^{-1}
\nabla_{\theta(n)} S_{q,\beta}\Big[J\big(\theta(n)\big)\Big],
\label{hess_error_term}
\end{align}
and the noise term
\begin{align}
&\xi_n =
\mathsf{E}\bigg[\mathcal{P}_{pd}
\left(\frac{H(\eta(n))\bar{J}_n}{\beta^2 (N+2-Nq)}\right)^{-1} \times
\nonumber\\&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\frac{\eta(n)\bar{J}'_n}{\beta\rho{(\eta(n))}(N+2-Nq)}\bigg|\theta(n)\bigg]
\nonumber \\&
- \mathcal{P}_{pd}
\left(\frac{H(\eta(n))\bar{J}_n}{\beta^2 (N+2-Nq)}\right)^{-1}
\frac{\eta(n)\bar{J}'_n}{\beta\rho{(\eta(n))}(N+2-Nq)}\;,
\label{hess_noise_term}
\end{align}
where {$\bar{J}_n= J\big(\theta(n)+\beta\eta(n)\big)+J\big(\theta(n)-\beta\eta(n)\big)$}
and {$\bar{J}'_n= J\big(\theta(n)+\beta\eta(n)\big)-J\big(\theta(n)-\beta\eta(n)\big)$}.
It may be noted that the second term in~\eqref{hess_error_term} is the same as the first in~\eqref{hess_noise_term}.
The next few results discuss some properties of
the error term {$\Delta \big(\theta(n)\big)$} and the noise term {$\xi_n$},
that will be used to prove the convergence of N$q$-SF2 to a local optimum.
\begin{prop}
\label{hess_SF2_convergence}
For a given {$q\in\big(0,1\big)\bigcup\big(1,1+\frac{2}{N}\big)$}, for all {$\theta\in C$} and {$\beta>0$},
\begin{align*}
& \left\Vert \nabla_{\theta} S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)]-\nabla_{\theta} J(\theta) \right\Vert = o(\beta)
\\ \text{and }&
\left\Vert \nabla_{\theta}^2 S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)]-\nabla_{\theta}^2 J(\theta) \right\Vert = o(\beta).
\end{align*}
Further, if Assumption~\ref{projection} holds, then {$\left\Vert\Delta (\theta)\right\Vert = o(\beta)$}.
\end{prop}
One may note that the proof of Proposition~\ref{hess_SF2_convergence} imposes the condition of $q>0$. Hence, subsequent
analysis and simulations of N$q$-SF2 algorithm have been done only over the range of $q$ specified above.
The following result deals with the noise term $\xi_n$.
For this we consider the filtration {$(\mathcal{F}_n)_{n\geqslant0}$} defined as
{$\mathcal{F}_n=\sigma\big(\theta(0),\ldots,\theta(n),\eta(0),\ldots,\eta(n-1)\big)$}.
\begin{lem}
\label{hess_xi_n_convergence}
Defining {$M_n = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} a(k)\xi_k$}, {$(M_n,\mathcal{F}_n)_{n\geqslant0}$}
is an almost surely convergent martingale sequence for all {$q\in\big(0,1\big)\bigcup\big(1,1+\frac{2}{N}\big)$}.
\end{lem}
We state the following result due to Kushner and Clark~\cite{Kushner_1978_book_Springer} adapted to our scenario.
\begin{lem}
\label{kushner_thm_5.3.1}
\textbf{\cite[Theorem~5.3.1, pp 189--196]{Kushner_1978_book_Springer}}
Given the iteration, {$x_{n+1} = \mathcal{P}_C \big(x_n + \gamma_n(f(x_n) + \xi_n)\big)$}, where
\begin{enumerate}
\item
{$\mathcal{P}_C$} represents a projection operator onto a closed and bounded constraint set {$C$},
\item
{$f(.)$} is a continuous function,
\item
{$(\gamma_n)_{n\geqslant0}$} is a positive sequence satisfying {$\gamma_n\downarrow0$}, {$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \gamma_n=\infty$}, and
\item
{$\sum_{n=0}^m \gamma_n\xi_n$} converges a.s.
\end{enumerate}
Under the above conditions, the update {$(x_n)$} converges almost surely
to the set of asymptotically stable fixed points of the ODE
\begin{equation}
\label{projectedode}
\dot{x}(t) = \tilde{\mathcal{P}}_C \big(f(x(t))\big),
\end{equation}
where {$\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_C \big(f(x)\big) =
\lim\limits_{\epsilon\downarrow0}\left(\frac{\mathcal{P}_C \big(x+\epsilon f(x)\big)-x}{\epsilon}\right)$}.
\end{lem}
Proposition~\ref{hess_SF2_convergence} and Lemma~\ref{hess_xi_n_convergence}
can be combined with Lemma~\ref{kushner_thm_5.3.1}
to derive the main theorem which affirms the convergence of the N$q$-SF2 algorithm.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm_NqSF2}
Under Assumptions \ref{differentiable} -- \ref{projection}, given {$\epsilon>0$} and {$q\in\big(0,1\big)\bigcup\big(1,1+\frac{2}{N}\big)$},
there exists {$\beta_0 >0$} such that
for all {$\beta\in(0,\beta_0]$}, the sequence {$(\theta(n))$} obtained using N$q$-SF2 converges almost surely
as {$n\to\infty$} to the $\epsilon$-neighborhood of the set of stable attractors of the ODE
\begin{equation}
\dot{\theta}(t) = \tilde{\mathcal{P}}_C \left(
\mathcal{P}_{pd}\left(\nabla_{\theta(t)}^2 J\big(\theta(t)\big)\right)^{-1}
\nabla_{\theta(t)} J\big(\theta(t)\big)\right)
\label{New_ode}
\end{equation}
where the domain of attraction is
\begin{equation}
\left\{\theta\in C \left| \nabla_{\theta}J(\theta)^T
\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_C \left(-
\mathcal{P}_{pd}\left(\nabla_{\theta}^2 J(\theta)\right)^{-1}
\nabla_{\theta}J(\theta)\right) = 0 \right. \right\}
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\section{Experimental results}
\label{sec_simulation}
The simulations are performed using
a two-node network of {$M/G/1$} queues with feedback,
which is a similar setting as the one considered by Bhatnagar~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c||c|c||c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\beta=0.01$} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{$\beta=0.05$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$\beta=0.25$} \\
\cline{2-7}
$q$ & G$q$-SF2 & N$q$-SF2 & G$q$-SF2 & N$q$-SF2 & G$q$-SF2 & N$q$-SF2\\
\hline
\hline
0.001 & 0.6680$\pm$0.0645 & 0.7875$\pm$0.1334 & 0.5621$\pm$0.0519 & 0.5772$\pm$0.0793 & 0.7531$\pm$0.0640 & 0.5191$\pm$0.0653\\
0.200 & 0.6598$\pm$0.0623 & 0.7577$\pm$0.0743 & 0.5355$\pm$0.0799 & 0.4527$\pm$0.0864 & 0.6984$\pm$0.1159 & 0.5011$\pm$0.0571\\
0.400 & 0.6736$\pm$0.0476 & 0.7026$\pm$0.0895 & 0.5477$\pm$0.0736 & 0.4169$\pm$0.0700 & 0.7140$\pm$0.0800 & 0.4630$\pm$0.0565\\
0.600 & 0.6202$\pm$0.0728 & 0.7083$\pm$0.0928 & 0.5475$\pm$0.0411 & 0.4418$\pm$0.0623 & 0.7178$\pm$0.0697 & 0.4578$\pm$0.0732\\
0.800 & 0.5909$\pm$0.0533 & 0.6796$\pm$0.0653 & 0.5605$\pm$0.0721 & 0.4256$\pm$0.0749 & 0.6427$\pm$0.0676 & 0.4475$\pm$0.0525\\
{Gaussian}& 0.6339$\pm$0.0658 & 0.6657$\pm$0.0816 & 0.5018$\pm$0.0647 & 0.4111$\pm$0.0534 & 0.6922$\pm$0.0670 & 0.4568$\pm$0.0635\\
1.020 & 0.6394$\pm$0.0738 & 0.6978$\pm$0.0732 & 0.4755$\pm$0.0701 & 0.4266$\pm$0.0685 & 0.7135$\pm$0.0763 & 0.4427$\pm$0.0518\\
1.040 & 0.6101$\pm$0.0663 & 0.6323$\pm$0.0768 & 0.4646$\pm$0.0405 & 0.3950$\pm$0.0807 & 0.6483$\pm$0.0514 & 0.4438$\pm$0.0602\\
1.060 & 0.6362$\pm$0.1036 & 0.6675$\pm$0.0894 & 0.4988$\pm$0.0796 & 0.3894$\pm$0.0520 & 0.7143$\pm$0.0755 & 0.4775$\pm$0.0556\\
1.080 & 0.5319$\pm$0.0745 & 0.6598$\pm$0.0787 & 0.5019$\pm$0.0353 & 0.4068$\pm$0.0503 & 0.6611$\pm$0.0866 & 0.4865$\pm$0.0680\\
{Cauchy}& 0.6217$\pm$0.0533 & 0.6455$\pm$0.0925 & 0.5359$\pm$0.0255 & 0.4573$\pm$0.0570 & 0.7040$\pm$0.0693 & 0.4861$\pm$0.0588\\
1.099 & 0.6440$\pm$0.0635 & 0.6577$\pm$0.0721 & 0.6550$\pm$0.1071 & 0.5722$\pm$0.0977 & 0.8658$\pm$0.1703 & 0.5873$\pm$0.0942\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$\Vert\theta(n)-\bar{\theta}\Vert$ for G$q$-SF2 and N$q$-SF2 for
varying $q$ and $\beta$, when step-sizes are $a(n)=\frac{1}{(n+1)}$, $b(n) = \frac{1}{(n+1)^{0.85}}$
$c(n) = \frac{1}{(n+1)^{0.65}}$.}
\label{tab_compare}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{Queue_network.jpg}
\caption{Queuing Network.}
\label{fig_queue}
\end{figure}
The nodes in the network, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_queue} are
fed with independent Poisson external arrival processes with rates {$\lambda_1$} and {$\lambda_2$},
respectively. After service at the first node, a customer enters the second node.
When a customer departs from the second node, he either leaves the system with probability {$p = 0.4$} or
re-enters the first node with the remaining probability.
The service time processes at each node, {$\{S_n^i(\theta_i)\}_{n\geqslant1}, i = 1,2$} are given by
\begin{equation}
S_n^i(\theta_i) = U_i(n)\frac{\left(1+\Vert{\theta_i(n) - \bar{\theta}_i}\Vert^2\right)}{R_i} \;,
\end{equation}
where {$R_i$} are constants and {$U_i(n)$} are independent samples drawn from the uniform distribution on {$(0,1)$}.
The service time of each node depends on the {$N_i$}-dimensional tunable parameter vector {$\theta_i$}, whose individual components
lie in the closed interval $[\alpha_{\min},\alpha_{\max}] = [0.1,0.6]$.
{$\theta_i(n)$} represents the {$n^{th}$} update of the parameter vector at the {$i^{th}$} node, and {$\bar{\theta}_i$}
represents the target parameter vector corresponding to the {$i^{th}$} node.
For the purpose of simulations, we consider $\lambda_1 = 0.2$, $\lambda_2 = 0.1$, $R_1 = 10$ and $R_2 = 20$.
The cost function, at any instant, is the total waiting time of all the customers in the system.
In order to minimize the cost, we need to minimize {$S_n^i(\theta_i)$},
\textit{i.e.}, we require {$\theta_i(n)=\bar{\theta}_i$}, {$i=1,2$}.
Let {$N=N_1+N_2$} and we consider $\theta,\bar{\theta} \in\mathbb{R}^N$ as
{$\theta = (\theta_1, \theta_2)^{T}$} and {$\bar\theta = (\bar\theta_1, \bar\theta_2)^{T}$}.
Thus, $\bar{\theta}$ is the optimal value, and hence, we use
$\Vert{\theta(n)-\bar{\theta}}\Vert$ as a measure of performance of the algorithm.
The service time parameters at each node are assumed to be 10-dimensional vectors
($N_1=N_2=10$).
Thus, $N=20$ and {$C=[0.1,0.6]^{20}$}.
We fix each component of the target parameter vector, {$\bar{\theta}$}, at 0.3
and each component of the initial parameter, $\theta(0)$, at 0.6.
The simulations were performed using C on an Intel Pentium dual core machine
with Linux operating system.
The analysis along the faster timescale for the Newton based algorithms shows that
the gradient and Hessian updates run independently
and are not coupled between themselves, \textit{i.e.},
update of one does not influence the other,
and hence, their convergence to the smoothed gradient and Hessian,
respectively, can be independently analyzed.
This also provides a scope to update the gradient and Hessian along different timescales without affecting the
convergence of the algorithms.
The step-size sequences for the parameter update and gradient estimation are
chosen as $a(n) = \frac{1}{(n+1)}$ and $b(n) = \frac{1}{(n+1)^{0.85}}$,
respectively, while the one for Hessian estimation is considered as
$c(n) = \frac{1}{(n+1)^\gamma}$, $n\geqslant0$.
In order to satisfy Assumption~\ref{stepsize}, we require $\gamma\in(0.5,1)$,
but Bhatnagar~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}
observed that better performance can be achieved in the N-SF2 algorithm if
Hessian is updated on a faster timescale.
Even though as suggested by the convergence analysis, one does not
require three separate timescales, as two timescales are sufficient,
it is observed empirically that updating Hessian on a timescale
faster than both the parameter and the gradient updates can lead to better performance.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.37\textwidth]{plot.jpg}
\caption{Convergence behavior of Gaussian and $q$-Gaussian SF algorithms for {$q=0.6$}
and $1.05$.}
\label{plot}
\end{figure}
We compare the performance of the Jacobi variant of the N$q$-SF2 algorithm
with respect to the corresponding gradient based method (G$q$-SF2) for different
values of $q$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$.
The other parameters are held fixed at {$M = 5000$}, {$L=100$} and {$\varepsilon=0.1$}.
Thus, we perform a total of $2ML = 10^6$ simulations
to obtain $M=5000$ parameter updates. The following results are averaged over
20 independent runs, each requiring about 5 seconds of clock time.
Fig.~\ref{plot} shows the convergence
behavior of the G$q$-SF2 and N$q$-SF2 for {$q=0.6$}, $q=1.05$ and Gaussian
with {$\beta=0.1$} and $\gamma=0.65$.
Table~\ref{tab_compare} compares the performance of
G$q$-SF2 and N$q$-SF2, for different
values of $q$, in terms of the mean and variance of the final distance from the target vector.
We note here that, in this case, $q$ varies in the range $(0,1.1)$
since $N=20$. The two special cases of Gaussian and Cauchy are retrieved
for $q\to1$ and $q = 1.095$, respectively. The table presents a comparison
for three values of $\beta$, viz., $\beta = 0.01, 0.05$ and $0.25$, respectively (comparison for $\beta=0.1$
is given in the second and fourth columns of Table~\ref{tab_step}).
The step-size for the Hessian update is fixed with $\gamma=0.65$.
The results show that although for small $\beta$ ($\beta=0.01$), G$q$-SF2
works better than N$q$-SF2, but for higher $\beta$, N$q$-SF2 consistently outperforms
its gradient counterpart. In fact, it can be observed that the ratio of the distances
obtained using G$q$-SF2 and N$q$-SF2 increases with increasing $\beta$,
indicating that the relative performance of N$q$-SF2
in relation to G$q$-SF2 improves with more smoothing.
Other observations pertaining to the trends of performance with respect to $q$
and $\beta$ are similar to those for G$q$-SF2, discussed in~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv}.
\begin{table*}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|}
\hline
{$q$} & N$q$-SF2 $(\gamma=0.55)$ & N$q$-SF2 $(\gamma=0.65)$ & N$q$-SF2 $(\gamma=0.75)$ & G$q$-SF2 \\
\hline
\hline
0.001 & 0.4867$\pm$0.1056 & 0.4698$\pm$0.0627 & \textbf{0.4335$\pm$0.0693} & 0.5561$\pm$0.0832 \\
0.200 & 0.3847$\pm$0.0729 & \textbf{0.3589$\pm$0.0591} & 0.3698$\pm$0.0695 & 0.5555$\pm$0.0544 \\
0.400 & \textbf{0.3328$\pm$0.0554} & 0.3547$\pm$0.0548 & 0.3956$\pm$0.0698 & 0.5376$\pm$0.0569 \\
0.600 & 0.3422$\pm$0.0792 & \textbf{0.3163$\pm$0.0582} & 0.3254$\pm$0.0488 & 0.5472$\pm$0.0470 \\
0.800 & \textbf{0.3127$\pm$0.0694} & 0.3136$\pm$0.0699 & 0.3397$\pm$0.0536 & 0.5068$\pm$0.0548 \\
{Gaussian} & \textbf{0.3130$\pm$0.0539} & 0.3560$\pm$0.0488 & 0.3383$\pm$0.0514 & 0.5354$\pm$0.0810 \\
1.020 & \textbf{0.3160$\pm$0.0534} & 0.3223$\pm$0.0397 & 0.3712$\pm$0.0653 & 0.5263$\pm$0.0511 \\
1.040 & 0.3203$\pm$0.0585 & \textbf{0.3081$\pm$0.0552} & 0.3315$\pm$0.0655 & 0.5103$\pm$0.0965 \\
1.060 & \textbf{0.3130$\pm$0.0599} & 0.3216$\pm$0.0566 & 0.3681$\pm$0.0540 & 0.4725$\pm$0.0599 \\
1.080 & 0.3722$\pm$0.0516 & \textbf{0.3584$\pm$0.0633} & 0.3782$\pm$0.0384 & 0.5165$\pm$0.0666 \\
{Cauchy} & 0.4249$\pm$0.0615 & \textbf{0.3997$\pm$0.0509} & 0.4402$\pm$0.0657 & 0.5685$\pm$0.0798 \\
1.099 & \textbf{0.5450$\pm$0.0683} & 0.5594$\pm$0.0623 & 0.5677$\pm$0.0626 & 0.7253$\pm$0.0776 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{$\Vert\theta(n)-\bar{\theta}\Vert$ for G$q$-SF2 and N$q$-SF2 for
varying $q$ and varying step-size for Hessian update, $c(n) =\frac{1}{(n+1)^\gamma}$, with $\beta=0.1$ and other step-sizes
maintained at $a(n)=\frac{1}{(n+1)}$ and $b(n) = \frac{1}{(n+1)^{0.85}}$.}
\label{tab_step}
\end{table*}
We also discuss about the effect of updating the Hessian estimate along different timescales.
Table~\ref{tab_step} shows the effect of {$\gamma$} on the N$q$-SF2 algorithm for varying {$q$}
(see earlier discussion),
while {$\beta$} is held fixed at {$0.1$}. It can be observed that, at this
level of smoothing, N$q$-SF2 always performs better than G$q$-SF2.
For each value of $q$, the best value of $\gamma$ is highlighted.
A faster update of the Hessian is seen to result in an improved performance.
Finally, it is interesting to note from both tables that the best results
are most often obtained for values of $q$ that do not correspond to
either the Gaussian or the Cauchy perturbations,
thereby signifying the importance of generalization of the SF algorithms to include
$q$-Gaussian perturbations, with a continuously-valued $q$ parameter.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec_conclusion}
We proposed a two-simulation SF algorithm with $q$-Gaussian perturbations
to perform Newton based optimization of a stochastic objective function.
In this process, we derived estimates for the Hessian of
a two-sided smoothed functional using $q$-Gaussian distribution.
We also derived conditions for convergence of the algorithms,
and illustrated the performance of the algorithms through numerical simulations.
An interesting fact here is that though it is known
that gradient of $q$-Gaussian SF always converges to the gradient of cost function
as smoothing parameter $\beta\to0$,
we observed that the same does not always hold for the Hessian.
In particular, we found that the Hessian in the case of uniform ($q\to-\infty$) smoothing
does not converge.
The issue lies in the attempt to derive an expression
for the smoothed Hessian, $\nabla_\theta^2 S_{q,\beta}[J(\theta)]$,
in terms of the cost function. One can verify that this is not possible
for the uniform case since the Hessian of the smoothed functional turns out to be
in the form of a finite difference of the gradient of the cost function.
Deriving a Hessian estimator for the case of uniform perturbations
in terms of objective function remains an open problem.
As suggested in~\cite{Bhatnagar_2007_jour_TOMACS}, we may vary the
smoothing parameter, $\beta$, at different update iterations.
It would be useful to use more smoothing (larger $\beta$) at the initial
stages to proceed towards the global minimum, whereas at later stages of the algorithm
a smaller value of $\beta$ would provide better estimates for the gradient and Hessian.
From the analysis point of view, such a modification does not affect
the results, where we can easily
replace $\beta$ by the corresponding sequence $\beta(n)$
as long as the sequence $\frac{b(n)}{\beta(n)}$ satisfies the conditions in Assumption~\ref{stepsize}
in place of the sequence $b(n)$. Further,
Theorem~\ref{thm_NqSF2} holds as long as we have $\sup_n \beta(n) \leqslant \beta_0$.
A similar modification may also be used for the values of $q$. It has been empirically observed,
both in Section~\ref{sec_simulation} and in~\cite{Ghoshdastidar_2013_arxiv},
that as $\beta$ decreases, larger values of $q$ tend to perform better. Hence,
one may start from a high value of $\beta$ and low value of $q$, and
can decrease the former and increase the latter as the iterations proceed.
One may also incorporate the modification suggested in~\cite{Spall_2000_jour_AutoCtrl},
where steepest descent is employed for the initial parameter updates
and Newton based search is employed for faster convergence of later recursions.
Such algorithmic modifications can be effectively used to improve the performance of the method
and reduce the the computational burden of full Newton methods
without affecting the theoretical analysis.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
This paper is part of the long-term BOCCE (Bologna Open Clusters Chemical Evolution) project,
aimed at precisely and homogeneously derive the fundamental properties of a large sample of Open Clusters (OCs), and described in detail by \cite{boc_06}. The ultimate goal of the BOCCE project is to get insight on the formation and evolution of the Galactic disc, and OCs are among the best tracers of the disc properties (e.g. \citealt{fri_95}).
We have already analysed photometric data for 31 OCs (see \citealt{boc_06,cig_11,donati12,ahumada13}, and references therein), and derived their age, distance and reddening from the comparison of their colour-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) with synthetic ones based on three sets of stellar evolution models (see \citealt{boc_06}).
In this paper we discuss NGC~1817 (Galactic coordinates $l=207.8^{\circ},b=2.6^{\circ}$), NGC~2141 ($l=214.2^{\circ},b=1.9^{\circ}$), and Berkeley 81 (Be~81, $l=227.5^{\circ},b=-0.6^{\circ}$).
These clusters have been selected because they could be targets of the Gaia-ESO Survey (GES, see \citealt{ges} for a description).
The GES is an on-going public spectroscopic survey with FLAMES@VLT, that will obtain high-resolution GIRAFFE and UVES spectra of about 10$^5$ stars of all Milky Way components,
including stars in about 100 OCs and associations. For all the GES cluster targets we need photometry and precise astrometry covering all the FLAMES field of view (diameter of 25\arcmin) to properly point the fibres. Such adequate photometry was not yet available for NGC~2141, Be~81, and NGC~1817, and we acquired it on purpose with LBT.
NGC~2141 and NGC~1817 are anti-centre clusters, whilst Be~81 lies towards the Galactic centre\footnote{On the basis of the moduli derived in the following Sections their distances from the Galactic centre are $R_{GC}\simeq9.5$ kpc for NGC~1817, $R_{GC}\simeq12$ kpc for NGC~2141, and $R_{GC}\simeq5.7$ kpc for Be~81. }, so they are particularly interesting to study the radial distribution of the disc properties. In Table~\ref{tablit} we report a consistent summary of all the parameters available in the literature for the three clusters. It is apparent that
they do not agree with each other, and a more precise analysis is called for.
{\em NGC~1817 -} Its richness,
distance from the Galactic plane (-400 pc), and metallicity make this cluster particularly interesting. In fact, NGC~1817 has been the target of many photometric studies,
starting from \cite{ac62} and \cite{purgathofer61}, who obtained shallow
photographic CMDs, including only stars at the main sequence turn-off (MSTO) and some giants. \cite{harris77} acquired photographic $UBV$ data, providing a well defined MS and red clump (RC), and derived distance, reddening (see Table~\ref{tablit}), age similar to the Hyades, and a low
metallicity. \cite{balaguer04a} performed deep, wide field photometry in the Str\"omgren system ($uvby-H\beta$), covering an area of $65\times40$ arcmin$^2$
and building on the proper motion and membership analysis by \cite{balaguer98}.
For the cluster members they derived the parameters listed in Table~\ref{tablit}. A subsolar metallicity was derived by \cite{parisi05} on the basis of
Washington photometry.
Spectroscopic analyses were made using low resolution spectra by \cite{friel93} and high resolution ones by \cite{jacobson09} and \cite{jacobson11} for different cluster stars. Despite showing different results all these studies point to a slightly subsolar metallicity (see Table~\ref{tablit}).
Crucial information on radial velocities (RVs), membership, and binary stars were given by
\citet{mermilliod03,mermilliod07}, and \cite{mermilliod08}.
{\em NGC~2141 -} It is a rich cluster, subject of several studies in the past.
\cite{burkhead72} obtained photoelectric and photographic $UBV$ data, barely
reaching below the MSTO;
they determined the distance modulus and reddening listed in Table~\ref{tablit}, and an age intermediate between those of
M67 and NGC~2477. \cite{rosvick95} observed an area of 173 arcmin$^2$
with $VI$ filters and a
smaller area with $JHK$. Her CMD reached about four
magnitudes below the MSTO, and showed a large scatter, interpreted in terms of both field star
contamination and
differential reddening.
\cite{rosvick95} determined the reddening,
distance modulus, metallicity and age listed in Table~\ref{tablit}
from a fit with the \cite{bertelli94} isochrones. The latest photometric data for this cluster have been presented by \cite{carraro01}, who acquired
$BV$ and $JK$ data. Their optical CMD extends to
$V\sim21.5$, while the IR CMD reaches about two magnitudes below the MSTO.
They estimated the metallicity from the IR photometry, deriving best-fit age and distance, based on the
\cite{girardi00} isochrones (see Table~\ref{tablit}).
Spectroscopic analyses of cluster stars was made by different authors: \cite{friel93}, \cite{minniti95} used low resolution spectra while \cite{yong05} and \cite{jacobson09} high resolution ones. They found different values for the cluster metallicity from solar to sub-solar (see Table~\ref{tablit}). \cite{jacobson09} discussed the possible sources for the
discrepancy and thoroughly analysed
the literature findings.
In summary, this cluster has a metallicity near solar or slightly
lower, and this information will be used here to constrain the
choice of the cluster's parameter.
{\em Berkeley~81 -} $BVI$ photometry of part of Be~81 has been presented by
\cite{sagar98}. They argued for the absence of
significant differential reddening from the CMDs of different regions, and
attributed the width of the MS to the presence of field stars, binaries, and
variables. They derived a cluster radius of $2.7\pm0.2$ arcmin, and the reddening, distance modulus and age listed in Table~\ref{tablit},
using the \cite{bertelli94} isochrones with solar metallicity.
The metallicity of Be~81 was determined from calcium
triplet (CaT) spectroscopy by \cite{wc09}. Their subsolar value is however quite uncertain, since
they were unable to convincingly define the cluster mean RV, due to the
huge contamination by field stars. The GES spectra will thus be crucial to infer its actual metallicity.
\begin{table*}
\label{tablit}
\caption{List of the main properties of the three clusters found in literature. The true distance modulus $(m-M)_0$ is evaluated from literature values after applying the same extinction law adopted in this paper ($R_V=3.1$).}
\begin{tabular}{lccccl}
\hline
Cluster & E(B-V) &$(m-M)_0$ & age &metallicity &Reference \\
\hline
NGC 1817 & 0.28 &11.3$\pm0.4$ &$\sim$Hyades &less than Hyades &Harris \& Harris (1977) \\
& 0.27 &10.9$\pm0.6$ & 1.1 Gyr &[Fe/H]$=-0.34\pm0.26$ &Balaguer-Nun\'ez et al. (2004) \\
& & & &[Fe/H]$=-0.33\pm0.09$ &Parisi et al. (2005)\\
& & & &[Fe/H]$=-0.38\pm0.04$ &Friel \& Janes (1993)\\
& & & &[Fe/H]$=-0.07\pm0.04$ &Jacobson et al. (2009)\\
& & & &[Fe/H]$=-0.16\pm0.03$ &Jacobson et al. (2011)\\
NGC 2141 & 0.3 &13.17 &NGC2477$<$age$<$M67 & &Burkhead et al. (1972)\\
&0.35$\pm0.07$ &13.08$\pm0.16$ &2.5 Gyr &Z=0.004-0.008 &Rosvick (1995)\\
&0.40 &12.90$\pm0.15$ &2.5 Gyr &[Fe/H]$=-0.43\pm0.07$ &Carraro et al. (2001)\\
& & & &[Fe/H]$=-0.39\pm0.11$ &Friel \& Janes (1993)\\
& & & &[Fe/H]$=-0.18\pm0.15$ &Yong et al. (2005)\\
& & & &[Fe/H]$=+0.00\pm0.16$ &Jacobson et al. (2009)\\
Berkeley 81 &1.0 &12.5 &1 Gyr &solar &Sagara \& Griffiths (1998)\\
& & & &[Fe/H]$=-0.15\pm0.11$: &Warren \& Cole (2009)\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
This paper is organised as follows. Observations and the resulting CMDs are
presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:data}; the estimation of the clusters centre in
Sec.~\ref{sec:centre}; differential reddening is discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:diffredd}; the derivation of their age, distance, reddening, and
metallicity using comparison to synthetic CMDs in Sec.~\ref{sec:CMDsynth}.
Discussion and summary can be found in Sec.~\ref{sec:sum}.
\section[]{The Data}
\label{sec:data}
The three clusters were observed in service mode at the
LBT
on Mt. Graham (Arizona) with the Large Binocular Camera (LBC) in 2011 (see Tab. \ref{tab:logbook} for details). There are two LBCs, one optimised for the UV-blue filters and one for the red-IR ones, mounted at each prime focus of the LBT. Each LBC uses four EEV chips (2048$\times$4608 pixels) placed three in a row, and the fourth
above them and rotated by 90 deg (see Figure \ref{fig:map}).
The field of view (FoV) of LBC is equivalent to $22\arcmin\times25\arcmin$, with a pixel sampling of 0.23$\arcsec$. The clusters were positioned in the central chip (\# 2) of the LBCs CCD mosaic (see Fig. \ref{fig:map}). We
observed in the $B$ filter with the LBC-Blue camera and in
$V$ and $I$ with the LBC-Red one. No dithering pattern was adopted. Tab. \ref{tab:logbook} gives the log of the observations. The seeing was good (about 1$\arcsec$), and the airmass of the exposures was in the range 1.0-1.3. Landolt fields were observed to perform our own calibration to the Johnson-Cousins system.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{donatif02a.ps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{donatif02b.ps}
\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{donatif02c.ps}
\caption{The field of views of the three clusters, NGC~1817, NGC~2141, and Be~81, from left to right. In the last map on the right we highlight the dimension of the FoV in arcminutes. All these images were downloaded from the DSS SAO catalogue in the GSSS bandpass 6 (V495). North is up and East is left.}
\label{fig:map}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Logbook of the observations. The listed coordinates refer to the telescope pointings.}
\begin{tabular}{lcclcccl}
\hline
Cluster Name & RA (h m s) & Dec ($\degr$ $\arcmin$ $\arcsec$) & Date & B & V & I & seeing \\
& J2000 & J2000 & & Exp. time & Exp. time & Exp. time & $\arcsec$ \\
\hline
NGC~1817 & 05 12 41 & 16 44 30 & 24 Oct 2011 & 1s, 3$\times$5s, 3$\times$90s & 1s, 3$\times$5s, 3$\times$60s & 1s, 3$\times$5s, 3$\times$60s & 1$\arcsec$ \\
NGC~2141 & 06 02 57 & 10 27 27 & 21 Oct 2011 & 1s, 3$\times$5s, 3$\times$90s & 1s, 3$\times$5s, 3$\times$60s & 1s, 3$\times$5s, 3$\times$60s & 1$\arcsec$ \\
Be~81 & 19 01 41 & -00 27 40 & 20 Oct 2011 & 1s, 3$\times$5s, 3$\times$90s & 1s, 3$\times$5s, 3$\times$60s & 1s, 3$\times$5s, 3$\times$60s & 1$\arcsec$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:logbook}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\centering \caption{Completeness level for calibrated $B$, $V$, and $I$ magnitudes.}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline \hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{NGC~1817 (d$<5\arcmin$)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{NGC~2141 (d$<4\arcmin$)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Be~81 ($d<2\arcmin$)}\\
\hline
bin & $B$ & $V$ & $I$ & $B$ & $V$ & $I$ & $B$ & $V$ & $I$ \\
16.5 & - & 100.0 $\pm$ 1.0 & - & - & 100.0 $\pm$ 1.3 & 100.0 $\pm$ - & - & - & 100.0 $\pm$ 3.0 \\
17.0 & 100.0 $\pm$ 1.7 & 100.0 $\pm$ 1.8 & 100.0 $\pm$ 1.2 & - & 97.1 $\pm$ 1.4 & 100.0 $\pm$ 1.2 & - & 100.0 $\pm$ 6.0 & 84.9 $\pm$ 2.9 \\
17.5 & 100.0 $\pm$ 1.4 & 100.0 $\pm$ 1.5 & 95.3 $\pm$ 1.1 & 100.0 $\pm$ 1.2 & 97.1 $\pm$ 1.4 & 95.7 $\pm$ 1.1 & - & 97.7 $\pm$ 5.5 & 77.6 $\pm$ 2.2 \\
18.0 & 100.0 $\pm$ 1.9 & 96.1 $\pm$ 1.4 & 94.4 $\pm$ 1.0 & 97.4 $\pm$ 1.4 & 97.4 $\pm$ 1.2 & 94.7 $\pm$ 1.0 & 100.0 $\pm$ 8.2 & 94.2 $\pm$ 3.9 & 78.1 $\pm$ 1.9 \\
18.5 & 100.0 $\pm$ 1.6 & 95.4 $\pm$ 1.4 & 92.5 $\pm$ 1.0 & 97.1 $\pm$ 1.4 & 96.7 $\pm$ 1.2 & 93.7 $\pm$ 0.9 & 98.5 $\pm$ 7.5 & 93.4 $\pm$ 3.6 & 69.6 $\pm$ 1.4 \\
19.0 & 96.0 $\pm$ 1.6 & 95.9 $\pm$ 1.3 & 87.5 $\pm$ 0.9 & 96.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 95.9 $\pm$ 1.2 & 90.8 $\pm$ 0.9 & 95.2 $\pm$ 4.5 & 92.2 $\pm$ 2.9 & 64.9 $\pm$ 1.1 \\
19.5 & 95.5 $\pm$ 1.5 & 95.0 $\pm$ 1.3 & 83.7 $\pm$ 0.8 & 96.6 $\pm$ 1.3 & 94.6 $\pm$ 1.1 & 81.1 $\pm$ 0.8 & 93.4 $\pm$ 3.9 & 89.9 $\pm$ 2.5 & 54.6 $\pm$ 0.9 \\
20.0 & 95.5 $\pm$ 1.5 & 94.4 $\pm$ 1.2 & 68.9 $\pm$ 0.8 & 96.0 $\pm$ 1.2 & 93.7 $\pm$ 1.1 & 69.4 $\pm$ 0.7 & 93.2 $\pm$ 3.5 & 88.4 $\pm$ 2.1 & 35.0 $\pm$ 0.6 \\
20.5 & 95.5 $\pm$ 1.4 & 92.4 $\pm$ 1.2 & 28.5 $\pm$ 0.4 & 94.6 $\pm$ 1.2 & 91.4 $\pm$ 1.0 & 28.0 $\pm$ 0.4 & 92.0 $\pm$ 3.0 & 82.4 $\pm$ 1.6 & 9.7 $\pm$ 0.3 \\
21.0 & 95.1 $\pm$ 1.4 & 88.8 $\pm$ 1.1 & 3.0 $\pm$ 0.1 & 94.7 $\pm$ 1.2 & 83.5 $\pm$ 1.0 & 1.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 88.6 $\pm$ 2.5 & 77.7 $\pm$ 1.3 & 1.1 $\pm$ 0.1 \\
21.5 & 94.7 $\pm$ 1.4 & 84.0 $\pm$ 1.0 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.0 & 92.0 $\pm$ 1.1 & 74.7 $\pm$ 0.9 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.0 & 88.1 $\pm$ 2.1 & 69.4 $\pm$ 1.1 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.0 \\
22.0 & 92.3 $\pm$ 1.3 & 78.5 $\pm$ 0.9 & 0.0 $\pm$ - & 88.3 $\pm$ 1.1 & 60.5 $\pm$ 0.8 & - & 81.4 $\pm$ 1.7 & 51.4 $\pm$ 0.8 & - \\
22.5 & 89.8 $\pm$ 1.2 & 64.8 $\pm$ 0.8 & - & 80.5 $\pm$ 1.0 & 25.5 $\pm$ 0.4 & - & 78.0 $\pm$ 1.4 & 21.1 $\pm$ 0.5 & - \\
23.0 & 85.2 $\pm$ 1.0 & 31.2 $\pm$ 0.5 & - & 74.9 $\pm$ 1.0 & 2.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & - & 71.6 $\pm$ 1.2 & 3.1 $\pm$ 0.2 & - \\
23.5 & 81.5 $\pm$ 1.0 & 4.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & - & 64.5 $\pm$ 0.9 & 0.1 $\pm$ 0.0 & - & 58.4 $\pm$ 1.0 & 0.2 $\pm$ 0.0 & - \\
24.0 & 72.5 $\pm$ 0.9 & 0.3 $\pm$ - & - & 40.7 $\pm$ 0.7 & - & - & 36.2 $\pm$ 0.7 & - & - \\
24.5 & 47.4 $\pm$ 0.6 & - & - & 6.9 $\pm$ 0.2 & - & - & 8.2 $\pm$ 0.3 & - & - \\
25.0 & 8.0 $\pm$ 0.2 & - & - & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.0 & - & - & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.1 & - & - \\
25.5 & 0.3 $\pm$ 0.0 & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}\label{tab:compl}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Data reduction}
The raw LBC images were corrected for bias and flat field, and the overscan region was trimmed using a pipeline specifically developed for LBC image prereduction by the Large Survey Center (LSC) team at the Rome Astronomical Observatory\footnote{LSC website: http://lsc.oa-roma.inaf.it/}. The source detection and relative photometry was performed independently on each B, V, and I image, using the PSF-fitting code DAOPHOTII/ALLSTAR \citep[][]{ste_87,ste_94}. We sampled the PSF using the highest degree of spatial variability allowed by the programme because the images are affected by severe spatial distortion. This procedure is adopted in other papers of this series and is proven to be effective to well sample the PSF on the whole frame. \cite{gial08} showed that the geometric distortion, of pin-cushion type, is always below 1.75\% even at the edge of the field. At any rate, for our purposes we mostly use the inner area of the FoV where a distortion up to only 1\% is expected. Moreover, the energy concentration of the instrumental PSF is very good: 80\% of the energy is enclosed in a single CCD pixel in the $B$ band and in 2$\times$2 pixels in the $V,I$ bands.
The brightest stars, saturated in the deepest images, where efficiently recovered from the short exposure images. The weighted average of the independent measures obtained from the different images were adopted as the final values of the instrumental magnitude (basing the weight on the error).
More than 200 stars from the 2MASS catalogue \citep{2mass} where used as astrometric standards to find an accurate astrometric solution
and transform the instrumental positions, in pixels, into J2000 celestial coordinates for each chip. To this aim we adopted the code CataXcorr, developed by Paolo Montegriffo at
the INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna.
The rms scatter of the solution was about 0.1$\arcsec$ in both RA and Dec.
We derived the completeness level of the photometry by means of extensive artificial stars experiments following the recipe described in \cite{bel_02} and adopted in other papers of this series. About $10^5$ artificial stars were used to derive photometric errors and completeness in $B$, $V$, and $I$ exposures for the central chip. The results are shown in Tab. \ref{tab:compl}.
\subsection{Calibration and comparison with previous data}\label{sec:calib}
The calibration to the Johnson-Cousins photometric system was obtained using standard stars \citep{lan_92} obtained in the same observing nights. Landolt fields SA98, SA101, SA113L1, and L92 were observed at different airmasses: in the range 1.2-1.9 during the nights of Oct. 20 2011 and Oct. 21 2011, and in the range 1.2-1.5 during the third night. It was not possible to derive a calibration equation for each chip. So, we used the same one for all the four CCDs.
The adopted calibration equation is the following:
$$(M-m_i)=zp+k\times C_i$$
where $M$ is the magnitude in the standard photometric system, $m_i$ the instrumental magnitude, $zp$ the zero point, and $k$ describes the linear dependence from the instrumental colour $C_i$.
We adopted the average coefficients $k_B=-0.22$, $k_V=-0.15$, and $k_I=-0.04$ given by the telescope web page for all the three clusters.
The results are summarised in Tab. \ref{tab:calib}.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Calibration equations obtained for the three observing nights. The quoted zero-points include the zero-point adopted by DAOPHOTII (25 mag).}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Oct. 20 2011} \\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\# of individual CCD images: 184 in $B$, 188 in $V$, and 64 in $I$.}\\
\hline
equation & rms & stars used for each chip (1 to 4)\\
\hline
$B-b=2.696-0.111\times(b-v)$ & rms 0.01 & 148, 124, 64, and 164\\
$V-v=2.558-0.025\times(b-v)$ & rms 0.01 & 148, 124, 64, and 164\\
$V-v=2.558-0.032\times(v-i)$ & rms 0.02 & 93, 118, 86, and 100\\
$I-i=2.317+0.016\times(v-i)$ & rms 0.02 & 93, 118, 86, and 100\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Oct. 21 2011} \\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\# of individual CCD images: 72 in $B$, 72 in $V$, and 40 in $I$}\\
\hline
equation & rms & stars used for each chip (1 to 4)\\
\hline
$B-b=2.715-0.107\times(b-v)$ & rms 0.03 & 61, 99, 78, and 53\\
$V-v=2.614-0.045\times(b-v)$ & rms 0.03 & 61, 99, 78, and 53\\
$V-v=2.615-0.053\times(v-i)$ & rms 0.03 & 104, 74, 107, and 70\\
$I-i=2.368-0.014\times(v-i)$ & rms 0.03 & 104, 74, 107, and 70\\
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{c}{Oct. 24 2011} \\
\multicolumn{3}{c}{\# of individual CCD images: 59 in $B$, 95 in $V$, and 63 in $I$}\\
\hline
equation & rms & stars used for each chip (1 to 4)\\
\hline
$B-b=2.759-0.209\times(b-v)$ & rms 0.02 & 11, 21, 11, and 9\\
$V-v=2.606-0.075\times(b-v)$ & rms 0.02 & 11, 21, 11, and 9\\
$V-v=2.576-0.039\times(v-i)$ & rms 0.03 & 29, 24, 14, and 16\\
$I-i=2.324+0.012\times(v-i)$ & rms 0.03 & 29, 24, 14, and 16\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:calib}
\end{table*}
Comparing the calibrated $V$ obtained from
$(b-v)$ with that obtained with $(v-i)$, we find a small difference of $\leq0.02$ mag, which tends to worsen towards fainter magnitudes (see Fig. \ref{fig:vsv}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif03.ps}
\caption{Comparison of the $V$ calibrated from $(b-v)$ and $(v-i)$ colours with respect to the $V$ magnitude for the three clusters (from top to bottom NGC~1817, NGC~2141, and Be~81). The labelled values $<\Delta V>$ are the medians of all the stars shown for each plot.}
\label{fig:vsv}
\end{figure}
In Figs. \ref{fig:vsLn1817}, \ref{fig:vsLn2141}, and \ref{fig:vsLbe81} we show the comparisons of our calibration with the literature ones (downloaded through WEBDA\footnote{The WEBDA database is operated at the Department of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics of the Masaryk University, see http://webda.physics.muni.cz}) for NGC~1817, NGC~2141, and Be~81.
In the case of NGC~1817, we find a small offset: about 0.04 mag in $B$ and 0.03 in $V$, corresponding to an offset of 0.01 mag in $B-V$. More worrisome are the comparisons obtained for NGC~2141 and Be~81, showing an offset of up to 0.1 mag. The explanation for such differences is not straightforward, since we can only perform relative comparisons, with no absolute reference point. There must be issues
related to the adopted calibration equations, but it is not possible to identify in which data set. We have further investigated this problem using photoelectric measurements, when available. This was feasible for NGC~1817 and NGC~2141, thanks to the photoelectric data by \cite{harris77}, \cite{purgathofer64}, and \cite{burkhead72}, but not for Be~81. The results
are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:vsfotel}. The agreement between our photometry and photoelectric standards is good for both clusters, showing only a tiny offset, smaller than 0.02 mag in most cases and only slightly worse for the $B$ of NGC~1817.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{donatif04.ps}
\caption{Comparison of our photometry with the one by Harris et al. (1977) for NGC~1817. The average difference is computed using the golden points, retained after one sigma-clipping has been applied.}
\label{fig:vsLn1817}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{donatif05a.ps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{donatif05b.ps}
\caption{Same as Fig. \ref{fig:vsLn1817}, but for NGC~2141. In the upper panels we compare $B$ and $V$ with the photometry of Carraro et al. (2001), in the bottom panels $V$ and $I$ with Rosvick et al. (1995).}
\label{fig:vsLn2141}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{donatif06.ps}
\caption{Same as Fig. \ref{fig:vsLn1817}, but for Be81 compared to Sagar et al. (1998).}
\label{fig:vsLbe81}
\end{figure}
For NGC~1817 we were also able to compare our photometry with the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) \citep[see][]{york00} using the transformation by Lupton\footnote{http://www.sdss.org/dr4/algorithms/sdssUBVRITransform.html\#Lupton2005} to convert their magnitudes into the Johnson-Cousins system.
The results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:sdss1817}. The median of the difference in $B$ is about 0.05 mag, and is lower than 0.03 in $V$ and $I$. This translates in colour differences smaller than 0.03 mag.
In summary, we find that our photometry for NGC~1817 is in good agreement with the literature, and in particular with both photoelectric measurements and SDSS data.
For NGC~2141 we find a poor comparison with literature CCD data but a very good agreement with photoelectric measurements, which
makes us confident of our results. For Be~81 there were no further checks feasible, but, given the robustness of the calibrations adopted for the other two clusters, we believe the third is correct too.
\subsection{The colour magnitude diagram}\label{sec:cmd}
The CMDs obtained for the three clusters are shown in Figs. \ref{fig:cmderrbv} and \ref{fig:cmderrvi}, with errors in colour and magnitude indicated. The errors are evaluated using the artificial stars tests. They are random standard errors, with no consideration of possible sources of systematics. In the upper panels only the more central regions are plotted, while more external regions are used for comparison to estimate the field contamination. For Be~81 the
size of the LBC FoV makes this possible, but NGC~2141 is present also in the outer parts of the FoV, and NGC~1817 is so extended that it fills all the four CCDs.
The differences between the CMDs of the three OCs are quite evident.
NGC~1817 is a young and luminous cluster,
but not as rich as NGC~2141. Its size is probably larger than the LBT FoV, given the presence of probable cluster RC (at $V\sim12$ mag) and MS stars in the outer parts of our frames. The brighter MS and RC stars were saturated in I even in short exposures and we miss them in the $V,V-I$ CMD.
On the other hand we obtained a very good description of the MS, which extends for about 10 mag in $V$.
NGC~2141 shows a very rich MS and a populated RC at $V\sim15$ mag. The RGB is visible at $B-V\sim1.6-2.0$
up to $V=13$
and there are a few probable sub giant branch (SGB) stars at its base. The binary sequence (redder and brighter than the MS) is very clear and neat. The TO is extended in colour, with a ``golf club'' shape common to other young OCs (see Sec. \ref{sec:diffredd}). A small clump of stars bluer and brighter than MS stars ($V\sim15.5$, $B-V\sim0.3$) is visible, probably blue-stragglers.
Be~81 is heavily contaminated by field stars,
and is hardly distinguishable, even using the control field for comparison.
However, there is a mild excess of stars at $V\sim16.5$ and $B-V\sim1.9$, which is not present in the outer field, and can be considered the cluster signature, probably its RC.
The catalogue with the photometry of the three clusters will be made available through the CDS.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{donatif07a.ps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{donatif07b.ps}
\caption{Comparison of the $B$ and $V$ calibrated photometry with the photoelectric photometry. On the left the results for NGC~1817, on the right the case of NGC~2141.}
\label{fig:vsfotel}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Radial Velocity}\label{sec:RV}
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Stars in common with Jacobson et al. (2009,2011) and Yong et al. (2005) in NGC~1817 and NGC~2141.}
\begin{tabular}{rcccccrrl}
\hline\hline
ID & RA &Dec & $V$ &$B-V$ &$V-I$ &ID$_{webda}$ & RV &flag \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{c}{NGC~1817 - stars in common with Jacobson et al. (2011)}\\
\hline
1429 & 78.0807757 & 16.6801860 & 12.116 & 1.052 & 99.999 & 8 & 64.8 & M \\
1431 & 78.0260996 & 16.6376011 & 12.232 & 1.025 & 99.999 & 81 & 65.1 & M \\
1432 & 78.0190940 & 16.6740782 & 12.237 & 1.227 & 99.999 & 90 & 27.8 & NM \\
1434 & 78.0271406 & 16.7457104 & 12.389 & 1.048 & 99.999 & 177 & 65.2 & M \\
1435 & 78.0444686 & 16.6419862 & 12.494 & 1.027 & 99.999 & 79 & 65.8 & M \\
1436 & 78.0960056 & 16.5669407 & 12.480 & 1.268 & 99.999 & 155 & 14.5 & NM \\
1438 & 78.0772008 & 16.6959836 & 12.597 & 0.960 & 99.999 & 12 & 62.7 & M \\
1440 & 78.0941116 & 16.6357254 & 12.713 & 1.034 & 99.999 & 40 & 65.1 & M \\
1448 & 78.0939209 & 16.7331841 & 13.282 & 1.322 & 99.999 & 53 & 50.4 & M? \\
2922 & 78.1881838 & 16.5799475 & 13.808 & 0.844 & 0.976 & 219 & -26.1 & NM \\
3106 & 78.1092441 & 16.5988226 & 12.079 & 1.039 & 99.999 & 72 & 66.5 & M \\
3108 & 78.1890040 & 16.7280692 & 12.106 & 1.115 & 99.999 & 2049 & 65.0 & M \\
3109 & 78.1498523 & 16.7244935 & 12.206 & 1.059 & 99.999 & 19 & 35.2 & M?,SB \\
3110 & 78.2087521 & 16.6804613 & 12.253 & 1.100 & 99.999 & 127 & 65.1 & M \\
3111 & 78.1601438 & 16.7064247 & 12.336 & 1.110 & 99.999 & 22 & 63.7 & M \\
3112 & 78.2283968 & 16.6160611 & 12.361 & 1.126 & 99.999 & 2050 & 65.7 & M \\
3113 & 78.1356504 & 16.6660230 & 12.460 & 1.059 & 99.999 & 30 & 65.0 & M \\
3116 & 78.1717679 & 16.5846748 & 12.590 & 1.019 & 99.999 & 286 & 66.9 & M \\
3118 & 78.2083091 & 16.7333221 & 12.710 & 1.042 & 99.999 & 121 & 64.6 & M \\
3121 & 78.1291901 & 16.8236832 & 12.815 & 1.055 & 99.999 & 185 & 65.3 & M \\
3124 & 78.1221863 & 16.5986027 & 12.882 & 1.034 & 99.999 & 71 & 65.9 & M \\
3126 & 78.1834030 & 16.6199452 & 12.931 & 1.179 & 99.999 & 138 & 8.4 & NM \\
4510 & 78.3186789 & 16.6698094 & 13.663 & 1.066 & 1.192 & 471 & 48.1 & NM \\
4511 & 78.2917601 & 16.7518247 & 13.468 & 0.867 & 0.964 & 1722 & 15.1 & NM \\
4513 & 78.3164620 & 16.7476535 & 13.566 & 0.793 & 0.929 & 482 & 15.6 & NM \\
4518 & 78.3029299 & 16.7208041 & 13.736 & 0.881 & 0.955 & 477 & 40.3 & NM \\
4670 & 78.2593664 & 16.6553140 & 12.288 & 1.090 & 99.999 & 211 & 65.1 & M \\
6178 & 78.0818374 & 16.9064095 & 12.235 & 1.059 & 99.999 & 1292 & 65.5 & M \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{c}{NGC~2141 - $^a$Jacobson et al. (2009), $^b$Yong et al. (2005)}\\
\hline
6770 & 90.7115940 & 10.5078007 & 13.341 & 1.761 & - & 1007$^a$ & 25.5 & M \\
& & & & & & 1007$^b$ & 24.4 & M \\
6590 & 90.7427760 & 10.4441398 & 14.178 & 1.546 & 1.715 & 2066$^b$ & 24.8 & M \\
6604 & 90.7345371 & 10.4851441 & 14.777 & 1.385 & 1.606 & 1286$^b$ & 23.0 & M \\
6644 & 90.7511372 & 10.4788874 & 15.082 & 1.359 & 1.572 & 1333$^b$ & 23.5 & M \\
6771 & 90.7564588 & 10.4763049 & 13.337 & 1.871 & - & 1348$^b$ & 24.6 & M \\
6776 & 90.7500858 & 10.5398554 & 14.081 & 1.500 & - & 514$^b$ & 23.3 & M \\
6777 & 90.7814610 & 10.4469925 & 14.145 & 1.537 & - & 1821$^b$ & 24.8 & M \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:RV}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif08.ps}
\caption{Comparison of the $BVI$ with SDSS $ugri$ magnitudes calibrated to the Johnson-Cousins system for NGC~1817. The median of the difference (red line) is computed using the golden points: we excluded bright and possibly saturated stars and faint star, we used stars in common only with chip\#2 and flagged with $Q$ SDSS parameter equal to three.}
\label{fig:sdss1817}
\end{figure}
For NGC~1817 and NGC~2141, we have identified the stars in our catalogue with literature RVs from high-resolution spectroscopy. They are all evolved stars, mainly on the RC but also on the bright RGB. They are listed in Tab.~\ref{tab:RV}, and are displayed with larger symbols in the CMDs of Fig. \ref{fig:RV}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{donatif09.ps}
\caption{\textit{Upper panels:} $V,B-V$ CMDs for the inner part of NGC~1817 (d$<5\arcmin$), NGC~2141 (d$<3\arcmin$), and Be~81 (d$<2.5\arcmin$). The errors on colour and magnitudes are indicated by error-bars and derived using the artificial stars tests. \textit{Lower panels:} $V,B-V$ CMDs for an external area with the same dimension.}
\label{fig:cmderrbv}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{donatif10.ps}
\caption{As Fig. \ref{fig:cmderrbv}, but for $V,V-I$.}
\label{fig:cmderrvi}
\end{figure*}
For Be~81, \cite{wc09} observed stars in the CaT spectral region, but we
opted not to use
their data because of the large uncertainty
in the membership attribution (see Introduction and their Sect. 3.1).
\section{Centre of gravity and density profile}
\label{sec:centre}
Exploiting the deep and precise photometry obtained with LBT and
its large field of view, we re-determined the centre of each cluster following
the approach described in \cite{donati12}. Briefly, we selected the
densest region on the images
by looking for the smallest coordinates interval that contains 70\% of all the stars. The centre is obtained as the average right ascension and declination when the selection is iterated twice.
For a more robust estimate, several magnitude cuts have been considered and the corresponding results averaged. The root mean square (r.m.s.)
on the centre coordinates is about 5$\arcsec$.
The most uncertain determination is for NGC~1817. It is a nearby cluster, hence its projected angular dimensions are
larger
than the LBT's FoV. Moreover it is not richly populated and it does not seem particularly concentrated, circumstances that both hamper the analysis. We
thus applied the same method on the 2MASS catalogue to check the results on a larger field of view ($30\arcmin$ of radius). We find a very similar answer, with a difference
of only about half arcminute in both RA and Dec. We therefore adopted the value obtained from our photometry, which is more precise and deeper than 2MASS, and allows us to include stars on the fainter MS.
The results are summarised in Tab. \ref{tab:OCcentre}.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Clusters centres and structural parameters. The rms on the centre determination is about 5$\arcsec$. }
\begin{tabular}{rcccccccc}
\hline\hline
Cluster & RA$^a$ & Dec$^a$ & RA & Dec & $c$ & $r_c$ & $r_h$ & $r_t$ \\
& (h:m:s) & ($\degr$:$\arcmin$ :$\arcsec$) & (h:m:s) & ($\degr$:$\arcmin$:$\arcsec$) & & (arcsec) & (arcsec) & (arcsec) \\
\hline
NGC~1817 & 05:12:15 & 16:41:24 & 05:12:38.33 & 16:43:48.85 & - & - & - & - \\
NGC~2141 & 06:02:55 & 10:26:48 & 06:02:57.71 & 10:27:14.43 & 1.0 & 120 & 234 & 1219 \\
Be~81 & 19:01:40 & -0:27:22 & 19:01:42.82 & -0:27:07.67 & 0.6 & 95 & 128 & 388 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$^a$Previous centre estimates from the web update of the \cite{dias_02} catalogue, see http://www.astro.iag.usp.br/$\sim$wilton/.
\label{tab:OCcentre}
\end{table*}
Following the approach adopted by \cite{cig_11}, the projected number density profile is
determined by dividing the entire data-set in N concentric annuli, each one partitioned in four
subsectors
(although only two or three subsectors are used, if the available data sample only a portion of the annulus).
The number of stars in each subsector is counted and the density is obtained by dividing this value by the
sector area. The stellar density in each annulus is then obtained as the average of the subsector densities,
and the uncertainty is estimated from the variance among the subsectors. Also in this case, only stars within
a limited range of magnitudes are considered in order to avoid spurious effects due to photometric incompleteness.
The observed stellar density profiles are shown in Figs. \ref{fig:kbe81}, \ref{fig:kn2141} for the clusters
Be~81 and NGC~2141, respectively. For these two OCs the collected data-set covers the
entire cluster extension, reaching the outermost region where the Galactic field stars represent the dominant
contribution with respect to the cluster. This is not the case for NGC~1817, which is not fully covered by the LBT's FoV. As done for the centre determination, we tried to evaluate its density profile on a larger area using 2MASS, SDSS, and literature catalogues, but the looseness of the cluster and its proximity to a nearby OC (NGC~1807, even if \citealt{balaguer04a} showed
that NGC~1807 is not a physical cluster) jeopardise the analysis. Unable to reach a satisfying conclusion, we preferred to limit the analysis to Be~81 and NGC~2141. The results are summarised in Tab. \ref{tab:OCcentre}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif11.ps}
\caption{\textit{Left panel:} CMD of NGC~1817 inside 5$\arcmin$. \textit{Right panel:} CMD of NGC~2141 inside 4$\arcmin$. The shaped points are the targets with RV measurements listed in Tab. \ref{tab:RV}. In red the sure members, in blue the non members, in cyan the stars with uncertain membership.}
\label{fig:RV}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[bb=10 160 530 710,clip,scale=0.45]{donatif12.ps}
\caption{King profile for Be~81.}
\label{fig:kbe81}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[bb=10 160 530 710,clip,scale=0.45]{donatif13.ps}
\caption{King profile for NGC~2141.}
\label{fig:kn2141}
\end{figure}
In order to reproduce the observed profile, isotropic, single-mass King models \citep{king66} have been computed
adopting the~\citet[][]{sig95} code. The best
fit models are shown as solid curves
are shown in Figs. \ref{fig:kbe81}, \ref{fig:kn2141} together with the observed density profiles.
In each figure we also show the values of concentration ($c=log_{10}(r_t/r_c)$), core radius ($r_c$),
half-mass radius ($r_h$),
and tidal radius ($r_t$) as obtained from the best-fit model. The residual of the fit of the model to each observed point is shown in the lower panel of each density plot.
Clearly, Be~81 is a small, low-mass
and very sparse OC. The density profile is hence affected by larger statistical uncertainty. Nevertheless, the residuals of the model fit are quite small,
at least in the most central part, where the
star counts are dominated by the cluster's
members.
\section[]{Differential reddening}\label{sec:diffredd}
As noted in Sec. \ref{sec:cmd}, NGC~2141 shows a ``golf club'' shaped MSTO. We can exclude that this observed feature is due to the photometric error, which is too small to explain the colour extension. \cite{carraro01} propose a metallicity spread as best explanation, but this circumstance is very unlikely in OCs. In literature there are other similar examples of Milky Way OCs and Magellanic
Clouds clusters showing an extended MSTO (see e.g. Tr~20 in the MW, \citealt{pla08}, and about 10 young globular clusters in the LMC, \citealt{mil09}). Another possible explanation is stellar rotation. For instance, \cite{bast09} find that fast rotators at the TO phase have a redder and fainter colour, and can be responsible
for the ``golf club'' shape. \cite{gir11}, instead,
exclude that rotation can have such an effect. Also binary systems, which have redder colour and brighter magnitude than single stars, could explain the broadening of the MS, as could an age spread.
The latter, however
has never been convincingly observed in OCs. A more plausible explanation can be differential reddening (DR). Different absorptions on the cluster field due to different extinction paths along the line of sight results in different shifts in colour and magnitude. This circumstance can also explain the elongated shape of the RC, when RC stars are spread along one single direction.
Most likely, DR is not negligible also over the field of Be~81, that
is located very close to the Galactic plane (about 130 pc below the disc, see Sec. \ref{sec:CMDsynth}) and toward the Galactic centre. Its high average reddening, $E(B-V)\sim1.0$ mag, favours the chances for DR. However, Be~81 is severely contaminated by field stars, and this makes it very hard to measure DR.
For NGC~1817 there is no direct evidence of DR from the observational CMD (see Fig. \ref{fig:cmderrbv}).
To evaluate the effect of DR for NGC~2141 we adopt the following approach, using a revision of the method described in \cite{mil12}, adapted to the case of the OCs, which are less populated and more contaminated by field stars than the globular clusters. The main steps of the process are the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item we draw a fiducial line along the MS, and use it as a reference locus for the DR estimate;
\item we draw a box on the MS: all stars falling in this box are used to estimate the DR. The box is chosen to select stars on the blue side of the MS, and to avoid as many binaries as possible, since they also produce a shift to the red of the sequence. We also keep far from the MSTO and the fainter part of the MS, where errors are larger and field stars confuse the picture;
\item for each star in the catalogue we pick the 30 nearest and brightest stars inside the MS box and compute their median distance along the reddening vector direction from the fiducial line in the CMD plane. This distance is used to correct colour and magnitude for DR;
\item after the correction for the first DR estimate is applied star-by-star, the algorithm starts a new loop and this procedure is repeated until a convergence is reached. The convergence criterion is a user-defined percentage of stars for which the DR correction is lower than the average rms on these estimates;
\item once a final value for the DR is obtained for each star, a binning is performed in the spatial plane. The spatial scale
must be
compatible with the average distance of the 30 neighbour stars selected and used for the DR estimate. In our case it is less than 1 arcmin$^2$, as described in the following paragraphs. At this point
the outliers are rejected, i.e., stars whose DR estimate is larger
than the average error, and stars whose distance to the 30 neighbours is larger than average.
\item a final and robust value for the DR is then computed as the average value of the DR corrections associated to the stars falling in the same bin and the error on this estimate is the associated rms. The values obtained are not absolute values but relative
to the fiducial line.
\end{itemize}
We estimated the DR in the $B-V$ colour. The direction of the reddening vector is derived assuming the standard extinction law ($R_V=3.1$, $E(V-I)=1.25\times E(B-V)$) described in \cite{dean_78}. The fiducial line is defined using the CMD of the inner part of the cluster (all the stars inside 4$\arcmin$) and is chosen as the ridge line along the MS. Several attempts have been made to avoid fiducial lines that, during the estimates of the DR, lead to corrections that artificially and significantly change the magnitude and colour of the age-sensitive indicators (e.g. RC, MSTO). We
want in fact to keep RC, MSTO and the blue envelope of the MS as close as possible to the original position in the CMD, to avoid
spurious interpretations of the cluster parameters due to DR corrections. When defining the MS box we avoided the broad and bended region of the TO, where the morphology could hamper the correct interpretation, and the fainter part of the MS, where the photometric error is more important. The box and the fiducial line used are highlighted in Fig. \ref{fig:cmd_box} with colours.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif14.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:cmd_box}CMD of NGC~2141 inside 4 arcmin. The red box and the blue line indicate the MS box and the fiducial line for the DR estimate. The red arrow indicates the reddening vector.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Taking into account the star counts of the inner and outer parts of the cluster (see Sec. \ref{sec:centre}) we decided to limit the
DR correction to stars within a 4$\arcmin$
radius (approximately the half mass radius). For the outer
regions
the contamination of field stars becomes not negligible (the contrast density counts with respect to the field plateau drops below 50\%) and any attempt to estimate the DR is severely affected by field interlopers. The spatial smoothing applied to have a more robust statistic is $0\arcmin.4\times 0\arcmin.4$ in right ascension and declination. As final caveat, we stress that photometric errors, undetected binary systems, and residual contamination from the field could affect the DR estimation, since they all produce a broadening of the MS. Our results are then an upper limit to the DR.
In Fig. \ref{fig:drgrid} we show the map of the DR obtained in terms of $\Delta E(B-V)$ with respect to the fiducial line. It ranges from $\sim-0.04$ to $\sim+0.1$. In the same figure we show the corresponding map of the error associated to our estimates. The discrete appearance of these maps is due to two
reasons: the poor sampling of a circular area with
polygonal bins and the avoidance of interpolation in the corners, where the poor statistics could lead to uncertain estimates.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif15a.ps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif15b.ps}
\caption{\textit{Top panel:} Colour deviations from the reference line due to the effect of DR, mapped on a $0\arcmin.4\times0\arcmin.4$ grid for stars inside 4$\arcmin$ from the centre. The correction is expressed in gray-scale colours, see the legend on the right side. \textit{Bottom:} Corresponding error map.}
\label{fig:drgrid}
\end{figure}
The overall effect of the DR correction on the CMD appearance is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:drn2141}. The MS and MSTO region appear tighter, reducing substantially the broadening.
In the figure, only the upper MS stars corrected for DR are highlighted in black, but the lower MS benefits from the DR correction too.
The RC stars,
apparently aligned along the direction of the reddening vector in the original
CMD (see the left panel in Fig. \ref{fig:drn2141}), appear more clumped after the DR correction, thus supporting the DR hypothesis.
Also the RGB looks better defined. Furthermore, our DR estimate
does not change the luminosity level and colour of age sensitive indicators such as the MSTO, or the bright edge of the MS, the red-hook phase.
We list in our catalogue for NGC~2141 both the original magnitudes and the DR corrected ones.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif16.ps}
\caption{CMDs for NGC~2141 inside 4 arcmin. \textit{Left panel:} observational CMD. \textit{Right panel:} CMD after correction for DR. The stars in the upper part of the MS and in the RC phase are highlighted in black to better show the effect of the correction.}
\label{fig:drn2141}
\end{figure}
We cannot apply the same analysis to
Be~81 because it is severely contaminated by field interlopers even in the inner regions.
For instance, in the central 2$\arcmin$ (approximately the half-mass radius estimated in Sec. \ref{sec:centre}), the density contrast is only 25\%.
Hence, in its case the algorithm would be driven
by stars not belonging to the cluster rather than MS stars, seriously weakening the results.
We thus prefer to evaluate the effect of DR on Be~81 with the synthetic CMD technique described in the next section.
\section[]{Synthetic CMD}
\label{sec:CMDsynth}
Age, metallicity, distance, mean Galactic reddening, and binary fraction have been estimated
with the same procedure adopted for other works of this series \citep[see][and references therein]{donati12,ahumada13}. We compare the observational CMDs with a library of synthetic ones, built using synthetic stellar populations \citep[see e.g., ][]{cig_11}. Different sets of evolutionary tracks\footnote{The Padova \citep{bre_93}, FRANEC \citep{dom_99}, and FST ones \citep{ven_98} of all available metallicities, as in all the papers of the BOCCE series.}
have been used to Monte Carlo generate the synthetic CMDs. The best fit solution is chosen as the one that can best reproduce some age-sensitive indicators as the luminosity level of the MS reddest point (``red hook'', RH), the RC and the Main Sequence Termination Point (MSTP, evaluated as the maximum luminosity reached after the overall contraction, OvC, and before the runaway to the red), the luminosity at the base of the red giant branch (RGB), the RGB inclination and colour, and the RC colour.
The most valuable age indicators are the Turn Off (TO) point, that is the bluest point after the OvC, and the RC luminosity; however, at least in the case of OCs, these phases may be very poorly populated, and identifying them is not a trivial game, especially if a strong field stars contamination is present (as in the case of Be~81).
The binary fraction is estimated adopting the method described in \cite{cig_11}. The DR is taken into account and the synthetic CMD technique applied to the
DR corrected photometry. The best fit to all the above indicators provides the best choice for age, reddening, and distance modulus. To infer the metallicity it is crucial to analyse together
all the $BVI$ photometry \citep[see][]{tosi_07}: the best metallicity is the one that allows to reproduce at the same time both the observed $B-V$ and $V-I$ CMD.
To deal with $(B-V)$ and $(V-I)$ colours we adopted the normal extinction law \citep{dean_78}.
We estimated the errors on the cluster parameters considering both the instrumental photometric errors and the uncertainties of the fit analysis, as done in \cite{donati12}. The net effect of the former is an uncertainty on the luminosity level and colour of the
adopted indicators. This affects mainly the estimate of the mean Galactic reddening and distance modulus, as they are directly defined by matching the level and colour of the upper MS and the RH and MSTP indicators.
We must also consider the dispersion in the results arising from the fit analysis. Open Clusters offer poor statistics, and important indicators, such as the RC locus, are poorly defined. Hence, we cannot find a unique solution, but only a restricted range of viable solutions. In practice, we select the best fitting synthetic CMD and then take into account the dispersion of the cluster parameters estimates in the error budget.
The uncertainties are assumed
to be of the form:
$$\sigma^2_{E(B-V)}\sim\sigma^2_{(B-V)}+\sigma^2_{fit}$$
$$\sigma^2_{(m-M)_0}\sim\sigma^2_{V}+R_V^2\sigma^2_{E(B-V)}+\sigma^2_{fit}$$
$$\sigma^2_{age}\sim\sigma^2_{fit}$$
Typical photometric errors are $\sim0.04$ on the reddening and $\sim0.1$ on the distance modulus (assuming negligible the error on $R_V$). The error resulting from
the fit analysis depends mainly on the uncertainty on the RC level and on the coarseness of the isochrone grid. It is of the order of $\sim0.02$ for the reddening, and ranges between 0.01 and 0.05 for the distance modulus, and about 0.2-1 Gyr for the age.
\subsection{NGC~1817}
With the deep LBT photometry we can reach magnitude $V\sim23$ in the $B-V$ CMD, describing very well the MS. The RC is well visible at $V\simeq12.3$, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:n1817cmd}. In the same figure we show the comparison with an external
region of the same area.
We can see the signature of the cluster
(mainly MS stars) also in the outer parts of the image.
As explained in Sec. \ref{sec:centre}, we could not cover the whole extension of the cluster with the instrument's FoV. There is a clear signature of RC stars, confirmed by the studies on the RV of spectroscopic targets (see Sec. \ref{sec:RV} and Fig. \ref{fig:RV}); the upper part of the MS is poorly populated so it is difficult to reach a statistically firm conclusion on the locus of the RH. We place this phase at magnitude $V\simeq13$. A well defined binary sequence is visible redward of the MS.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif17.ps}
\caption{{Left panel:} $V,B-V$ CMD for the inner part of NGC~1817 (inside 5$\arcmin$). The age indicators RC (green box) and RH (red line) are shown. The red and green boxes on the MS and redward of it are used to estimate the percentage of binaries. \textit{Right panel:} CMD of the comparison field of the same area. The same RC box adopted in the left panel is shown here.}
\label{fig:n1817cmd}
\end{figure}
To estimate the binary fraction we defined two CMD boxes, one which encloses MS stars and the other redward of the MS in order to cover the binary sequence (see dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:n1817cmd}). To remove the field contamination we subtracted the contribution of field stars falling inside the same CMD boxes
in a portion of the control field with same area.
We performed the same computation on regions smaller and larger than 5$\arcmin$, finally ending with an estimate between 20\% and 30\%. The dispersion on the estimate is mostly due to the spatial fluctuations across the control field. For example in the inner
area around the cluster centre a higher fraction of binaries is found.
Notice that the derived binary fractions may be underestimated, since we possibly miss systems with very low mass secondary, whose luminosity doesn't alter significantly that of the primary. A mean fraction of 25\% has been assumed for all the simulations presented here.
We limit the differential reddening to 0.02 mag because we find no direct evidence of it in this cluster.
After fixing these two parameters we use the synthetic CMD technique to estimate the age, reddening, and distance modulus of the cluster. For the simulations we used all the stars inside $5\arcmin$ from the centre.
Using the Padova models we find that a subsolar metallicity is required to describe with the same model both the $V,B-V$ and $V,V-I$ observational CMDs. In particular the best match is obtained for $Z=0.008$ ([Fe/H]$\simeq$-0.40), an age of 1.1 Gyr, $E(B-V)=0.23$, and $(m-M)_0=11.1$.
In the case of the FST models we converge to similar results, finding the best solution for a metallicity lower than solar. We
chose $Z=0.01$, an age of 1.05 Gyr, $E(B-V)=0.21$, and $(m-M)_0=10.98$.
For the FRANEC models we find the best fit for $Z=0.01$, age of 0.8 Gyr, $E(B-V)=0.34$, and $(m-M)_0=10.88$. The age is younger
than with the other two models, as expected since these evolution tracks
do not include overshooting. We reproduce the magnitude of the age sensitive indicators (RH and RC), but we don't match the RC colour and the MS shape and colour. In particular, the FRANEC models
cannot reproduce the correct inclination of the MS for $V>16$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:n1817synth} shows the comparison between the observational CMD (top left) and the best fits obtained with the three sets of tracks.
The luminosity functions (LFs, see Fig. \ref{fig:n1817lfs}) show a satisfying agreement. There are small departures between the observational and synthetic LFs probably due to the poor statistics in star counts. For example the observational CMD (Fig. \ref{fig:n1817cmd}) shows a lack of stars at $V\sim19$ which is not reproduced in any synthetic CMDs.
From this analysis it turns out that the Padova and FST models provide a better description of the observational CMDs. This restricts the best age to 1.05-1.1 Gyr. Consequently the Galactic reddening is about 0.22\footnote{The \cite{sch_98} estimate is 0.43 mag, but this is the asymptotic value in that direction, while the cluster is nearby},
while the distance modulus is between 10.98 and 11.1. The results are summarised in Tab. \ref{tab:summary}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif18.ps}
\caption{Top left panel: CMD of stars inside 5$\arcmin$ radius area of NGC~1817. Clockwise from the top right panel: the best fitting synthetic CMD obtained with Padova, FST, and FRANEC models.}
\label{fig:n1817synth}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif19.ps}
\caption{Luminosity functions in magnitude $V$ (upper panel) and colour $B-V$ (lower panel). The solid black line is obtained from the observational CMD, the blue dotted line from the Padova synthetic CMD, the red dashed line from the FST synthetic CMD, and the green dot-dashed line from the FRANEC synthetic CMD.}
\label{fig:n1817lfs}
\end{figure}
\cite{balaguer04a} estimate an age of about 1.1 Gyr, a reddening of 0.21 and a distance modulus of 10.9.
Our results are in excellent agreement with theirs.
The metallicity of the cluster is well defined by several high-resolution spectra analysis, and different works show very similar results of about [Fe/H]$\simeq$-0.34 (see Introduction).
Our photometric analysis suggests a metallicity ranging from -0.40 to -0.30 and confirms these findings.
\subsection{NGC~2141}
NGC~2141 shows clearly all its evolutionary sequences. In Fig. \ref{fig:n2141cmd} we show the comparison of the inner part of the cluster (inside 4$\arcmin$, corresponding to the half-mass radius of the cluster) with an external
region of the same area. Even in the outer parts of the instrument FoV the cluster it is clearly present,
with an evident star excess at $V\sim20$ aligned along the MS direction, and a mild excess at brighter magnitudes.
We identify
the RH at $V\simeq16.4$, the MSTP at $V\simeq16$, and the RC at $V\simeq15$ and $B-V\simeq1.3$. We find an indication of stars in the SGB phase at the base of the RGB and identify the BRGB at $V\simeq17$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif20.ps}
\caption{ \textit{Left panel:} $V,B-V$ CMD for the inner part of NGC~2141 (inside 4$\arcmin$) corrected for DR. The age indicators RC (green box), RH (red line), MSTP (blue line), and BRGB (magenta line) are shown. The red and green boxes on the MS and redward the MS are used to estimate the percentage of binaries. \textit{Right panel:} CMD of the comparison field of the same area. The cluster is still visible, even if as a minor component.}
\label{fig:n2141cmd}
\end{figure}
We evaluated the fraction of binaries as for NGC~1817, and find
an average fraction of 16\%. For the simulations we use the photometry corrected for DR (see Sec. \ref{sec:diffredd}),
and adopt a DR of
0.02 mag to take into account the intrinsic scatter in the correction.
Keeping fixed these parameters we estimate the cluster age and metallicity comparing the observational CMD for stars inside $4\arcmin$
from the cluster centre
with our synthetic CMDs. We find that only models with metallicity $Z<0.02$ are in agreement with both $(B-V)$ and $(V-I)$, therefore we discard models with solar metallicity.
For the Padova models we obtain the best match using the metallicity $Z=0.008$ ([Fe/H]$\sim$-0.4). Our synthetic CMD reproduces the magnitude and colour of all the age indicators,
reproducing very well the MS, the binary sequence, and the RGB. The corresponding cluster parameters are: age 1.9 Gyr, $E(B-V)=0.36$, and $(m-M)_0=13.2$.
With the FST models we find a good match for $Z=0.006$, age 1.7 Gyr, $E(B-V)=0.45$, and $(m-M)_0=13.06$. Also in this case the synthetic CMDs can reproduce well the MS, the binary sequence, and the RGB even if the RC colour is slightly redder than observed.
In the case of the FRANEC models, the best fit is obtained for $Z=0.01$, age of 1.25 Gyr, $E(B-V)=0.45$, and $(m-M)_0=13.19$. Despite being able of
matching the luminosity of the age sensitive indicators, the colour of one of them, the RC, is much redder than observed. Moreover, the MS shape is poorly reproduced for faint magnitudes ($V>19$).
Fig.~\ref{fig:n2141synth} shows the comparison between the observed CMD (top left) and the best fits obtained with the three sets of tracks. From this analysis the Padova models provide a better match of the MS shape and of the colour and magnitude of the age indicators. The results are summarised in Tab. \ref{tab:summary}.
Looking at the luminosity functions of the observational and synthetic CMDs (see Fig. \ref{fig:n2141lfs}) we clearly see that the peak of the
synthetic distribution is fainter than the observational
one. In the comparison field (shown in Fig. \ref{fig:n2141cmd}) there are clearly MS stars around $V\sim20$. This may be due to
evaporation. i.e., the typical tendency of low mass stars of moving out of the cluster.
Another possible explanation is related to the Initial Mass Function (IMF). The best models predicts a mass of about 0.8 $M_{\odot}$ at $V\sim20$, in the mass range where
Salpeter's IMF \citep{salp55} overestimates the mass fraction. Since the synthetic CMDs are generated assuming Salpeter's IMF, they are likely to overpredict low mass stars.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif21.ps}
\caption{Same as Fig. \ref{fig:n1817synth} but for NGC~2141. The observational CMD in the top left panel is for stars inside a 4$\arcmin$ radius area.}
\label{fig:n2141synth}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif22.ps}
\caption{Same as Fig. \ref{fig:n1817synth} but for NGC~2141.}
\label{fig:n2141lfs}
\end{figure}
Comparing with literature results we find a lower age with respect to both \cite{rosvick95} and \cite{carraro01}.
In both cases the authors chose a TO
fainter than ours by about 0.5 mag
(at about the same level of our RH), and a RC slightly brighter than ours (see Fig. 5 in \citealt{rosvick95}). Since the age is
primarily constrained by the magnitude difference between the RC and the MSTO, the large difference in age is explained by the choice of these two age indicators. We confirm a sub-solar metallicity as suggested by the two papers.
\subsection{Be~81}
Be~81 is highly contaminated by field interlopers, condition that makes the interpretation of the cluster features more difficult. For a more robust analysis we studied the inner part of the cluster, where the contrast density with respect to the background density (see Sec. \ref{sec:centre}) is higher and the cluster members should be more evident. From Fig. \ref{fig:be81cmd} an excess at the brighter MS end ($V\simeq15.6$) and on the probable RC locus ($V\simeq16.3$, $B-V\simeq1.8$) is visible for the central part with respect to an external control region. These features have been evaluated for different inner regions and for different choices of comparison field of the same area. We are confident in adopting these features as age sensitive indicators.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif23.ps}
\caption{{Left panel:} $V,B-V$ CMD for the inner part of Be~81 (inside 2$\arcmin$). The age indicators RC (green box) and RH (red line) are shown. \textit{Right panel:} CMD of the comparison field of the same area. No RC stars appear in the external part of the field.}
\label{fig:be81cmd}
\end{figure}
The binary sequence for this cluster is not evident at all from the CMDs because of the high contamination and possibly DR, and for the simulations we adopted a conservative value of 25\% as found on average in many OCs.
We expect a not negligible DR. The MS appears more extended in colour than expected from the photometric error and the probable RC stars have scattered colour and magnitude. After
several tests,
we decided to adopt a DR of 0.15 for the simulations, with a sensitivity of 0.03. Lower or higher values imply a too tight or too extended MS in the synthetic CMDs.
We find that the cluster footprints (MS and RC) can be reproduced by a solar metallicity, for which we obtain a good match in both $V,B-V$ and $V,V-I$ CMDs. With all the models we can reproduce the magnitude of the age sensitive indicators (RH and RC) and the overall shape of the observational CMD (see Fig. \ref{fig:be81synth}). The colour of the RC is well recovered by FST and FRANEC models. Because of the high contamination from field stars and the effect of severe DR we cannot detail our analysis further.
With the Padova models we find an age of 0.9 Gyr, an average reddening $E(B-V)=0.91$, and a distance modulus $(m-M)_0=12.4$.
In the case of FST models the best match is for an age of 1.0 Gyr, $E(B-V)=0.90$, and $(m-M)_0=12.37$.
With FRANEC we estimate an age of 0.75 Gyr, $E(B-V)=0.92$, and $(m-M)_0=12.45$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif24.ps}
\caption{Same as Fig. \ref{fig:n1817synth} but for Be~81. The observations CMD in the top left panel is of stars inside a 2$\arcmin$ radius area, corresponding to the half mass radius of the cluster.}
\label{fig:be81synth}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{donatif25.ps}
\caption{Same as Fig. \ref{fig:n1817synth} but for Be~81.}
\label{fig:be81lfs}
\end{figure}
The comparison of the observational and synthetic LFs is very good both in magnitude and in colour, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:be81lfs}.
We find a good agreement with the results
presented
by \cite{sagar98}. We estimate a lower average differential reddening (about 0.1 mag lower) but this can be explained by the differences in our photometries (see Sec. \ref{sec:calib}). On the other hand they exclude that DR
be the explanation of the observed broad MS, pointing out that the severe contamination of field stars pollutes the cluster sequences and drives
the CMD appearance. We investigated further this hypothesis using the synthetic CMD technique and choosing different external areas inside our FoV. We find that the lower MS ($V>19$) is always dominated by field contamination and the signature of the cluster is not evident.
Hence we evaluated the DR effect from
the brighter part of the MS. It is true that there are many field interlopers even for $V<19$, but low DRs always imply
a too tight synthetic MS and RC with respect to the observations. Hence we suggest that DR is not negligible across the FoV of Be~81. Firmer conclusions, especially on the cluster metallicity, will be obtained
from the analysis of the GES spectra. Both radial velocity measurements and chemical abundance estimates will be fundamental to distinguish cluster members from field stars, cleaning the cluster sequences by interlopers.
\subsection{The cluster masses}
The synthetic CMD technique can also be used to evaluate the total mass of the clusters summing the masses of all the synthetically generated stars still alive. In order to do that properly we normalised the synthetic population to the star counts inside one $r_h$ and with magnitude $V$ for which 100\% completeness is achieved. The contamination of field stars is taken into account for the normalisation. The derived mass inside one $r_h$ is then multiplied by two to have an estimate of the total mass. The results quoted in Tab. \ref{tab:summary} are obtained with MonteCarlo experiments. We generated 300 hundred synthetics for each cluster taking into account the uncertainty on the normalisation star counts and the error on the distance modulus and differential reddening parameters. The first one is considered as a poissonian error on the counts, hence it affects the number of stars extracted to populate the synthetic. The errors on the distance modulus and reddening (quoted in Sec. \ref{sec:CMDsynth}) affect the mass limit at which the synthetic population is normalised. We use the median of the distribution obtained and its rms. as the reference estimate for the total mass of the cluster.
We can perform this evaluation only for NGC~2141 and Be~81, the two clusters for which we could estimate the King profile (see Sec. \ref{sec:centre}). For NGC~2141 we adopted $V<16.75$ as magnitude limit to normalise the synthetic population. This limit corresponds to the faintest magnitude at which completeness is still 100\% (see Tab. \ref{tab:compl}). For Be~81 we adopted $V<17.25$ as magnitude limit. Using brighter magnitude limits comparable mass estimates are found within the errors.
These computations provide about $1000 M_{\odot}$ for Be~81 and $\sim4000 M_{\odot}$ for NGC~2141.
These mass estimates are a lower limit to the total cluster mass. In fact the stellar models we are using to make synthetic populations have a lower mass limit of 0.6 $M_{\odot}$, hence all the
stars with lower mass
are not taken into account. To get the actual cluster mass we then need to extrapolate along the IMF down to
0.1 $M_{\odot}$. This implies multiplying by a factor of two the mass if we adopt Salpeter's IMF (Salpeter 1955) and by a factor of 1.4 if we adopt Kroupa's (2002). Since the latter is supposed to best describe the real IMF, we conclude that Be~81 has a mass of $1400 M_{\odot}$ and NGC~2141 of $5600 M_{\odot}$. These are the values listed in Tab. \ref{tab:summary}.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Cluster parameters derived using different models.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\hline
Model & age & $Z$ & $(m-M)_0$ & $E(B-V)$ & $d_{\odot}$ & $R_{GC}^a$ &Z & $M_{TO}$ & $M_{tot}$ \\
& (Gyr) & & (mag) & (mag) & (kpc) & (kpc) & (pc) & ($M_{\odot}$) & ($M_{\odot}$)\\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{c}{NGC~1817}\\
\hline
Padova & 1.1 & 0.008 & 11.10 & 0.23 & 1.66 & 9.61 & -373.2 & 1.8 & - \\
FST & 1.05 & 0.010 & 10.98 & 0.21 & 1.57 & 9.53 & -353.2 & 1.9 & - \\
FRANEC & 0.80 & 0.010 & 10.88 & 0.34 & 1.50 & 9.46 & -337.3 & 2.0 & - \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{c}{NGC~2141}\\
\hline
Padova & 1.9 & 0.008 & 13.20 & 0.36 & 4.37 & 12.21 & -440.9 & 1.5 & $5600\pm300$ \\
FST & 1.7 & 0.006 & 13.06 & 0.45 & 4.09 & 11.95 & -413.4 & 1.6 & $6160\pm400$ \\
FRANEC & 1.25 & 0.010 & 13.19 & 0.45 & 4.34 & 12.19 & -438.9 & 1.7 & $4480\pm300$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{c}{Be~81}\\
\hline
Padova & 0.9 & 0.020 & 12.40 & 0.91 & 3.02 & 5.74 & -131.3 & 2.1 & $1540\pm100$ \\
FST & 1.0 & 0.020 & 12.37 & 0.90 & 2.98 & 5.77 & -129.5 & 2.1 & $1624\pm100$ \\
FRANEC & 0.75 & 0.020 & 12.45 & 0.92 & 3.09 & 5.69 & -134.4 & 2.2 & $1232\pm100$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{9}{l}{$^aR_{\odot}=8$ kpc is used to compute $R_{GC}$}
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:summary}
\end{table*}
\section{Summary and conclusions}\label{sec:sum}
Set in the framework of the BOCCE project \citep[see][]{boc_06}, this paper adds three old open clusters to the BOCCE database. One,
Be~81,
is located toward the Galactic centre, while the other two, NGC~1817 and NGC~2141, are in the anti-centre direction. They were observed with LBC@LBT using the $BVI$ filters. We obtained CMDs two/three magnitudes deeper than the ones found in literature; hence we could obtain more precise data for the lower MS. The large instrument FoV allowed us to estimate the structure parameters of the clusters NGC~2141 and Be~81 by fitting a King model to their density profile. The analysis of the cluster parameters was carried
out
using the synthetic CMDs technique that allowed us to infer a confidence interval for age, metallicity, binary fraction, reddening, and distance for each clusters. We used three different sets of stellar tracks (Padova, FST, FRANEC) to describe the evolutionary status of the clusters in order to minimise the model dependence of our analysis. For NGC~2141 a dedicated analysis of the DR is described, using a different technique with respect to the synthetic one and a map of the DR across the cluster is provided. By using the best synthetic CMD and the King profile we evaluated the total cluster mass for NGC~2141 and Be~81.
We found that:
\begin{itemize}
\item NGC~1817 is located at about 1.6 kpc from the Sun. Its position in the Galactic disc is at $R_{GC}\sim9.6$ kpc and 360 pc below the plane (assuming $R_\odot=8$ kpc as in our previous works). The resulting age
is
between 0.8 and 1.1 Gyr, depending on the adopted stellar model, with better fits for ages between 1.05 and 1.1 Gyr. A metallicity lower than solar seems preferable, in the range $0.006<Z<0.010$. The mean Galactic reddening $E(B-V)$ is between 0.21 and 0.34 and we estimate a
fraction of binaries of at least 25\%.
\item NGC~2141 is at $\sim4.2$ kpc from the Sun, about 12 kpc from the Galactic centre and $\sim$ 430 pc below the Galactic plane. The age is between 1.25 and 1.9 Gyr, with better fits in the age range 1.7-1.9 Gyr. The metallicity for this cluster is lower than solar but higher than $Z=0.004$; the mean Galactic reddening $E(B-V)$ is about 0.40. The estimated binary fraction for this cluster is $\sim$ 16\%. For this cluster we evaluated the effect of the differential reddening: its evident structured MSTO phase, resembling a ``golf club'' shape common to other MW OCs, and its elongated RC can be explained by the presence of not negligible DR across the cluster. The total mass for NGC~2141 is about $5900\pm300M_{\odot}$.
\item Be~81 is located toward the Galactic centre at $\sim$3 kpc from the Sun,
and at about 130 pc below the plane. Its Galactocentric
distance $R_{GC}$ is 5.7 kpc . This cluster shows a strong contamination by field stars and an extended MS and RC likely due to differential reddening (up to $0.15$), adding uncertainty to the interpretation of the cluster parameters. The best fitting age is between 0.75 and 1.0 Gyr with a preference for models with a solar metallicity. The reddening estimate is $E(B-V)\sim0.9$. The total mass of this cluster is $\sim 1500\pm100 M_{\odot}$.
\end{itemize}
A robust determination of the three clusters parameters would require additional information on cluster membership for evolved and MSTO stars. This is obtainable in the immediate future measuring radial velocities of at least many tens of stars, as in the case of Be~81 within the GES, or we can wait for the results of the Gaia astrometric satellite, with precise individual distances and proper motions. The estimated metallicity is in concordance with their position on the Galactic disc (lower than solar for the outer disc, and solar for the inner part) but only high-resolution spectroscopy will be able to definitely determine the metallicity value.
Our future plan is to update the study described in \cite{boc_06}, adding
all new BOCCE clusters (we count now 34 OCs), taking into account the information from our studies, the literature, and the on-going surveys, e.g., on metallicity. We will
discuss our findings also in the light of improved models of chemical evolution of the disc and taking into account the latest results on stars and clusters
migration in the disc.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Paolo Montegriffo, whose software for catalogue matching we
consistently use for our work. For this paper we used the VizieR catalogue
access tool (CDS, Strasbourg, France), WEBDA, and NASA's Astrophysics Data
System. We are grateful to the LBC team for the pre-reduction procedures.
PD thanks the hospitality of the European Southern Observatory where part of this work was done and the
Marco Polo funds of the Universit\`a di Bologna.
\bsp
|
\section{Introduction}
Galaxy clusters are high density regions in the Universe where we can test our knowledge of the physical processes governing galaxy formation and evolution. Massive galaxy clusters in particular contain a diffuse luminous component consisting of stars which are out of galaxy halos in the intracluster environment. This intracluster light or ICL was first detected by \citet{Zwicky51} and today we know that the ICL is an important component of the total stellar luminosity (e.g. \citet{Arnaboldi03,Arnaboldi04,Mihos05,Zibetti05,Krick07,Toledo11,Burke12,Guennou12}).
The first identification of the ICL was connected with the measure of very extended halos in the intensity profiles of the brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs), in excess with respect to the de Vaucouleurs ($r^{1/4}$) intensity profile for elliptical galaxies (\citet{Matthews64,Shombert88}). Estimates of the fraction of cluster light contained in the ICL in nearby clusters range from few \% up to 50\% depending on the cluster mass and redshift, where the highest value has been estimated in the Coma Cluster \citep{Bernstein95}.
Several models have been suggested to explain the origin of intracluster stars (see e.g. \citet{Tutukov11}). Although various processes might contribute to some of the observed ICL it is widely accepted that stars in the external regions of galaxy halos are pushed into the intracluster environment by tidal stripping due to galaxy interactions (e.g. \citet{Weil97,Puchwein10,Rudick11,Martel12,Cui14} and references therein).
Recent N-body results \citep{Rudick11} predict that the ICL should contain a significant fraction ($\sim 10-40$\%) of the total stellar mass in clusters, in broad agreement with observations. Thus, the study of the ICL distribution in clusters can provide important information on the dynamical properties of the clusters and on their dark matter (DM) density profiles.
Different techniques have been adopted to measure the ICL in galaxy clusters since its definition is not unambiguous among observers. Moreover, different ICL classifications adopt different assumptions about the distribution of luminosity in galaxy halos. This results in different estimates of the intensity distribution of the ICL in the cluster cores, as stated by \citet{Rudick11}. Indeed, some authors have measured the ICL below a given surface brightness threshold (e.g., \citet{Feldmeier04,Zibetti05}). Other authors have measured the ICL as an excess found in their model fits to galaxy halos
(e.g., \citet{Gonzalez05,Seigar07}). Because the study of ICL requires very deep, time-consuming observations, it is difficult to analyze the ICL distribution in different galaxy clusters within a single observational program (e.g., \citet{Mihos05,Krick06}).
To this end we began a long-term imaging program devoted to the analysis of the ICL in clusters of different physical properties at intermediate redshift. Wide field images are being obtained with the Large Binocular Camera (LBC, \citet{Giallongo08}), a prime focus camera at the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT). LBC is an ideal imager for this kind of study. Its high sensitivity due to the prime focus position at an 8m class telescope like LBT and its relatively wide field of view which allows a controlled background subtraction using regions far away from the cluster, provide an unique opportunity for the ICL detection.
We began the program with the well known massive cluster CL0024+17 at $z\simeq 0.4$ where
an overwhelming amount of data and theoretical work are available in the literature (e.g. \citet{Tyson98,Broadhurst00,Czoske01,Treu03,Moran05,Jee07,Umetsu10}). A first detection of ICL for this cluster has been shown by \citet{Tyson98} who determined the ICL fraction with respect to the total light to be $\sim 15$\% within the 100 kpc region. \citet{Jee10} has recently studied the ICL profile in this cluster, masking the core region and focusing the analysis on the external region $\sim 0.5$ Mpc looking for ICL signature of an external DM ring he claimed to be present from weak lensing analysis.
In the present paper we follow a different approach trying to remove the galaxy halo contribution with detailed profile fitting to derive an accurate ICL profile in the core region down to the BCG position and comparing this with simple theoretical predictions.
In the following analysis all magnitudes are in the AB systems and all physical parameters have been computed adopting the standard $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, $\Omega_{0}=0.3$, baryonic density
$\Omega_b=0.04$ and Hubble constant $h=0.7$ in units of 100 km/s/Mpc.
\section{Data acquisition and reduction}
The data set was obtained with LBC at the LBT on Mount Graham in Arizona. LBC is a binocular camera installed at the prime focus of each of the two 8.4m telescopes. Each camera has an unvignetted field of view of 23$\times$ 23 arcmin$^2$ with a sampling of 0.226 arcsec/pixel. LBC-Blue is optimized in the UV-B band and LBC-Red is optimized for the VRIZ bands.
The R-band image used for the present analysis has been obtained from frames in the LBC-Red Sloan filter taken in 2011 November and 2012 January in photometric or clear sky conditions. The typical exposure time per frame was 120 s (which provided 4000 adu per pixel with a gain of 2$e^- adu^{-1}$ and a saturation for stars brighter than R=18.1 mag) and the final image is the coadding of several frames for a total of 2.73 hr of exposure time in an area which includes the core of the CL0024+17 cluster in a single chip, avoiding the analysis of inhomogeneities among different chips in the LBC field of view. The image has been calibrated using a zeropoint derived from Sloan r magnitudes of a set of Sloan Digital Sky Survey stars present in the field. We have verified that the LBC-Red Sloan R filter is very similar to the Sloan one and that any dependence on the (r-i)$_{Sloan}$ color
is negligible. The rms uncertainty in the zeropoint is $\sim 0.07$ mag.
\subsection{Flat Fielding}
The first step consisted of producing a coadded image of individual frames. The data were initially reduced using the LBC pipeline for imaging data: bias-subtraction, sky flat-fielding, and astrometric correction \citep{Giallongo08}.
Specifically, we have applied skyflats (twilight flats) from blank field images taken the same night or the night just before, for the two runs of November $27-28$ and January 20 where the cluster data have been acquired. We have also applied superflats derived from different science images of deep, relatively empty fields, after removing all the detected objects down to the faintest limits allowed by the noise level. As emphasized in the analysis of Gonzalez et al. (2005), changes in flat fields can affect the measure of any diffuse light along the chips. For this reason we have quantified the stability of the flat fields measuring the difference among various superflats and skyflats. Superflats changed from 2011 November to 2012 March by up to 0.3\% but the flat accuracy remained confined at 0.06\% level since the adopted superflats have been computed using data within one to two days from the target observations. This accuracy would allow us to probe surface brightnesses 8.0 mag deeper than the sky level (R=21.1 mag arcsec$^{-2}$), corresponding to R=29.1 mag arcsec$^{-2}$. The same check has been applied to skyflats measuring the difference between skyflats obtained in two consecutive nights. In this case, since we are interested in variations on scales of tens of arcsec which could affect the selection of ICL subregions, we have smoothed the frame with a Gaussian filter with a $\sigma$=2 arcsec to reduce the pixel to pixel noise level. The resulting difference is of the order of 0.05\% on a region of $1.7\times 1.7$ arcmin$^2$ around the cluster position. In Figure 1 we have shown the stability of the superflat of the chip used for the cluster observations. The two superflats were obtained in two consecutive nights near the second cluster observing run. The superflat ratio in Figure 1(c) shows no specific spatial features. Time variation of the superflat on a day by day scale is thus confined on a spatial scale much smaller than the cluster angular size. The flat uncertainty is taken into account in the ICL estimate and shown as a horizontal threshold in the plot of the ICL profile shown in Section 3.
\subsection{Background subtraction}
The final coadded image has been obtained after equalization of each individual frame to the same value estimated in a region with poor contamination by faint sources. The resulting quality of the image corresponds to a resolution of FWHM$\simeq 0.73$ arcsec. The LBC pipeline also produces an rms map for each scientific image, directly from the raw science frame, as described in detail by \citet{Boutsia11}. These rms maps are used for the subsequent photometric analysis of the galaxies in the cluster.
The second step consisted of the objects detecting and masking. We ran Source Extractor (Sextractor,\citet{Bertin96}) to the coadded R-band image to create a source catalog.
Concerning the scattered light from bright stars, this is an additive light which is often removed after careful fitting of the point-spread function (PSF) wings in bright saturated stellar images, as was done in, e.g., \citet{Gonzalez05} or \citet{Krick07}.
Since we are interested in measuring the ICL in the central core of the cluster ($2\times2$ arcmin$^2$), here we have followed a different equivalent approach.
After a first background estimate finalized to the selection of sources down to R=27 mag, we have masked all the sources including the overall $\sim 3\times2$ arcmin$^2$ cluster region shown in our Figure 2.
We optimized parameters for source extraction of the faintest objects with a very low sky-$\sigma$ threshold. The galaxy detection was established at 2$\sigma$ level in an area within the FWHM.
This provided a first temporary catalog of galaxies detected down to $R\simeq 27$ and a Sextractor segmentation map used for subsequent object masking of the image.
Then we have estimated the background map using the Sextractor package.
The choice of the mesh size (BACKSIZE) is of course important. If it is too small, the background estimation is affected by the presence of objects. Most importantly, the flux of the external regions of extended objects can be included in the background map. If the mesh size is too large, it cannot reproduce the small scale variations of the background. For this reason we have first used a backsize=256 pixel (LBC scale is 0.226"/pixel) for object selection and masking, then
we have used the much smaller value of backsize=32 pixel to absorb the extended wings of the bright saturated stars. Since the two nearest brightest stars are at
about 2.4 (the brightest) and 1.4 arcmin from the south edge of the cluster core shown in Figure 2, the backsize value adopted guarantees that in the midway, where we assume there is no detectable ICL, the background in empty regions is 0 within the rms noise level. In Figure 3 we show the enlarged background-subtracted image around the cluster core with the two saturated bright stars. We have tested that the results do not depend on the backsize value unless we use values $\gtrsim 256$ pixels. In the latter case a coarse sampling of the background map (e.g. $\lesssim 8\times 16$ mesh) introduce stellar halo contamination in the background estimate.
We show in Figure 3 an empty encircled region where the pixel intensity histogram has been computed. Its intensity distribution shown in Figure 4 suggests that we have removed any significant contribution from bright stellar halos in the cluster core.
The background in the masked cluster region is finally interpolated from the neighborhood region.
The background-subtracted image has a 1$\sigma$ sky surface brightness limit of $R_{rms}\simeq 29.3$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$ estimated as in Boutsia et al. (2011).
We conservatively take into account any systematic error in the next ICL estimate due to the adopted background subtraction procedure producing different background-subtracted images. We adopt background maps with different backsize values (from 24 to 256 pixels),
ensuring that any residual background surface brightness in the selected regions was smaller than its rms value. These scatters in the background maps were taken into account when estimating error bars associated with the evaluation of the ICL profile described in the next section.
The resulting background-subtracted area around the CL0024+17 cluster core is shown in Figure 2. The presence of a diffuse (green in the online journal) emission is clearly visible in the image. The diffuse emission surrounds the brightest galaxies extending outside their halos and including fainter and smaller dwarf galaxies. Sharp edges are clearly visible in the external region of the cluster core outside about 50 arcsec from the BCG.
\section{ICL estimate}
To evaluate the measure of diffuse emission in the cluster core, we need to remove the galaxy halo contamination. Previous evaluations on the same cluster by \citet{Jee10} were mainly focused on external regions up to $R\sim 0.5$ Mpc to probe the possible presence of an external DM ring which has then been questioned by subsequent lensing analysis \citep{Umetsu10}. For this reason, almost all of the central cluster core was masked in the previous analysis. Here we follow an opposite approach, trying to remove the galaxy halo contribution by detailed profile fitting of the galaxies present in the cluster core, both cluster members or foreground and background/lensed.
We applied the Galfit package \citep{Peng10} for profile fitting all the galaxies found by Sextractor down to $R\simeq 27$ in the cluster core ($R\lesssim 200$ kpc from the BCG). Galfit is one of the most accurate softwares, allowing us to fit the galaxy profiles of ellipticals, spirals, as well as irregular galaxies adopting parametric functions like the S{\'e}rsic, Moffat, King, Ferrer, etc., profiles.
We used S{\'e}rsic power-law models which can mimic radial distributions of different galaxy types ranging from spirals to ellipticals. A PSF estimated using relatively bright stars present near the cluster was convolved with the intrinsic profiles. When the power-law index $n$ is large, it has a steep inner profile and an extended outer wing. On the contrary, when $n$ is small, it has a shallow inner profile and a sharp drop at large radius. The traditional de Vaucouleurs and exponential disk profiles are specific cases with $n=4$ or 1, respectively. It is clear from Figure 4 of \citet{Peng10} that profile fitting with large ($n>5$) power-law indices imply very extended halos which in our case can emulate the presence of any extended background around bright galaxies, for this reason best fits were considered acceptable for $n<4.5$.
The objects were fitted in groups as a tradeoff among different requirements.
A relatively large area including more galaxies was required for a better estimation of the local diffuse background. The group should not be too large to allow the best sensitivity in the fit of the more numerous faint objects compared to the brighter ones. Finally, the computer time needed for convergence is a further limiting parameter.
We have first fitted the central region of the cluster core: the original, fitted and residual images are shown in Figure 5(a), (b), and (c). The region for the simultaneous galaxy fit was selected to sample the connected diffuse light on the basis of the isophotal connection limited to 27.4 mag arcsec$^{-2}$.
Previous analyses by Gonzalez et al. 2005 tried to fit the external BCG halos of lower redshift, well relaxed clusters with a two-component de Vaucouleurs profile (instead of a single S{\'e}rsic profile, with an index often greater than 4) and identify the external component as being due to the ICL contribution. To fit the external light we adopted a "modified Ferrer profile" \citep{Peng10} which consists of a central power-law shape followed by an external cutoff whose truncation sharpness can be tuned by a free parameter.
In addition to the standard radial profiles, azimuthal shape functions like Fourier and bending modes were used to add azimuthal perturbations to the radial profiles. These azimuthal functions were adopted specifically to account for lensed, distorted galaxy images or tidal tails, as well as to model the irregular shape of the observed diffuse light contours at various intensity levels.
All the galaxies have been fitted with S{\'e}rsic profiles with resulting best fit values $n<4$ with the exception of the bright A, B, and C galaxies indicated in Figure 5(a). For these galaxies a single component analysis gave index values up to $n\sim 6$ and a significant ring appeared in the halo residuals together with a negative intensity hole in the center. Although the fitting of the region shown in Figure 5(a) was still acceptable with a reduced $\chi^2=1.7$, following Gonzalez et al. (2005), we included a second component in the fit which, with few more degrees of freedom, provided a significant reduction of the $\chi^2$ by about $-9500$. The resulting fit gave $n<4.5$ for all the double components of the three mentioned galaxies and a small and uniform residual where holes and rings disappeared (Figure 5(c)). The resulting best fit gave a reduced $\chi^2=1.5$ and the residual map shown in Figure 5(c) gave an average value$=-0.003$ adu and a noise rms$=0.067$. The best fit S{\'e}rsic values for the A, B, and C galaxies are shown in Table 1 as an example.
The best fitting modified Ferrer profile values are: central brightness 24.3, $\alpha=9.2$ (outer truncation sharpness), $\beta=1.4$ (central slope), an axis ratio of 0.8, an outer truncation radius of 231 arcsec, a position angle of 67 deg, bending coefficients 298.8,4406, and $-8269$, Fourier terms F1, F3, F4 0.3, $-0.1$, and 0.08, respectively. The effects due to the bending modes and Fourier terms can be seen in Figure 5(b) where the low-intensity profile (green) is curved toward the lower left corner with two main blobs on the left side.
More external regions have been fitted in a similar way. This ensured that any residual halo intensity of each galaxy has been excluded from the ICL analysis.
At the center of the cluster where the four brightest galaxy halos overlap, the ICL measure mainly depends on the interpolation of the background shape estimated in the more external region. We emphasize that at the low resolutions of ground-based observations it is difficult to recover the true, intrinsic model parameters of the intensity profile in the galaxy cores. However, what is important for the estimate of the ICL is the best fit of the galaxy profile which minimizes the residuals.
The overall best-fit solution is shown in Figure 6(a) where the intensity distributions of all the fitted galaxies are shown. In the same Figure 6(a) it is possible to evaluate the contribution to the apparent diffuse light by the overlaps of the galaxy halos which is relevant around the cluster brightest galaxies. Figure 6(b) shows the image in Figure 6(a) subtracted from the original image, where the smoothed ICL is shown as a residual to the galaxy profile fitting. On the basis of this procedure the ICL shown in Figure 6(b) could be considered as a lower limit if some physical radial truncations were present in the galaxy intensity profiles. The ICL shows a main structure elongated in the direction northwest-southeast (NW-SE) and a clear substructure in the southwest (SW) side of the image.
The ICL distribution extends at least up to 200 kpc (the scale is $\sim 5.3$ kpc/arcsec) from the barycenter located at R.A.=00 26 35.478 decl.=17 09 43.6. The center is few arcsec from the X-ray (R.A.=00 26 36.3 decl=17 09 46) and DM (R.A.=00 26 33.37 decl.=17 09 41.68, \citet{Umetsu10} centers.
Various aperture magnitudes with their associated errors were computed using the Sextractor package. The resulting circular intensity profile is shown in Figure 7. It is interesting to note the resulting nearly exponential profile of the ICL which extends up to 140 kpc. Fitting a linear relation in the $R=30-140$ kpc region gives the best fit result shown in Figure 7: ICL$=a+R/R_0$ with $a=24.80\pm 0.03$ and $R_0=48\pm 1$ kpc. At 150 kpc a small bump is present that is associated with the SW substructure and the SE elongation and
at larger radii the profile appears to resume an exponential behavior. It is not obvious to find out such an exponential behavior from a region that is influenced by de Vaucouleurs profiles of early-type galaxy halos. However in a CDM framework where the ICL production is mainly due to stellar tidal stripping from galaxy halos, an exponential behavior is expected for the stellar mass lost by galaxy halos which is roughly proportional to the ICL intensity in the red bands, as shown in the next section. Error bars in Figure 7 take into account possible systematic errors in the background subtraction as analyzed in Section 2. The horizontal line shows the level where uncertainties in the flat fielding procedure affect the ICL measure.
It is possible at this point to evaluate the intensity ratio profile of the ICL, ${\cal F}_{ICL}$, defined as the ratio in circular apertures between ICL and galaxy intensities. The ratio is shown in Figure 8 in differential form after removal of galaxies whose available spectroscopic or photometric redshifts (see e.g. \citet{Czoske01,Treu03,Smith05}) are not compatible with the cluster membership. Uncertainties in the evaluation of the cluster membership are small for $R_{AB}<21.5$ since most of the galaxies in the cluster core (Figure 6(a)) have spectroscopic redshifts (33/43) and the remaining accurate photometric $z$. For increasing magnitudes,
the use of photometric redshifts with typical errors of 0.1 \citep{Smith05} gradually increases the uncertainties in the cluster member assignment. For $R_{AB}>23$ we assume all the galaxies in the cluster core as cluster members. Since they are faint and small, any uncertainty in their membership fraction should change the estimate of the ICL fraction by $\sim 10$\%.
The ratio profile in annular regions appears to increase as the radius decreases from 200 kpc down to $70-80$ kpc reaching a peak value of ${\cal F}_{ICL}\sim 40$\%. At lower radii a bending followed by a decrease is present. The decrease is due to the presence of three among the BCGs whose extended halos overlap in the small central region. Thus, any evidence of diffuse light in the cluster center relies on the extrapolation at $R<50$ kpc of the modeled background gradient behind the central galaxy profiles. The integrated fraction within $R\sim 100-150$ kpc
is ${\cal F}_{ICL}\simeq 23$\%. This integrated value is in between the first \citet{Tyson98} 15\% estimate and the 35\% value derived by \citet{Jee10}. Our integrated value is that expected on average by numerical simulations of cluster evolution in the CDM scenario from clusters of similar mass (e.g. \citet{Henriques10,Rudick11,Martel12}). The differential ICL profile, however, can give more detailed information on the shape of the cluster potential well, as outlined in the next section.
\section{ICL predictions from tidal stripping}
Here we show how basic quantities related to the shape of the cluster potential wells can be extracted from the
observed radial dependence of the ratio ${\cal F}_{ICL}$ in Figure 8. In fact, a straightforward, though simplified, analytical
computation of the ICL fraction ${\cal F}_{ICL}(x)$ can be worked out starting from the canonical expression
(see \citet{King62,Taylor01}) for the tidal radius of a satellite galaxy (with initial mass $m_s$,
halocentric radius $r$, and angular velocity $\omega$) in a potential $\phi(r)$:
\begin{equation}
r_t=\Bigg({G\,m_s\over \omega^2-{d^2\phi\over dr^2}}\Bigg)^{1/3}
\end{equation}
The above expression identifies the tidal radius with the distance to the saddle point in the potential interior to the satellites orbit, since this is the point at which the radial forces on a test particle cancel out (\citet{vonh57,King62,Binney87}). Here we shall focus on the effect of the external potential on the stellar distribution of the orbiting galaxies; note in our approach we deliberately neglect other processes which may be relevant for stripping, such as the cumulative effects of gravitational two-body interactions (\citet{Gallagher75,Richstone75,Merritt83}; for an N-body investigation including galaxy harassment see \citet{Moore96}), or pre-processing (\citet{Mihos04}; see also \citet{Fujita04}). Our approach is to estimate whether the effect of the tidal field of the cluster gravitational potential is sufficient to explain the observed ICL profile. An investigation of such effect on galaxy orbits and stripping has been performed by \citet{Taylor01}; these authors, however, focussed on the detailed description of the possible orbital evolution of galaxies, but do not compute the effects on the statistical distribution of galaxies and ICL for different profiles. Previous computations investigating the tidal effects of the cluster potential (starting from \citet{Miller83}) have been performed through N-body simulations; in particular \citet{Bekki03}) simulations were aimed at determining the effect of such process on the dwarf population of the Fornax cluster, finding that such tidal effects may appreciably affect the stripping and the final properties of such dwarf galaxies. Here we analytically compute - under simplified assumptions - the effect of the cluster tidal field on the stripping of stars for a generic gravitational potential, to investigate whether such process can account for our observational results.
Let us assume that satellite galaxies move on circular orbits (we shall come back on this point later). We write the dark matter density profile
of the cluster in the form $\rho(r)=\rho_0\,f(x)$, where $\rho_0$ is a central density and $x\equiv r/r_c$ is the distance from
the cluster center in units of a scale radius $r_c$;
for the standard \citet{Navarro97} profile, this is defined in terms of the viral radius $r_v$ and of the concentration parameter $c$ as
$r_c=r_v/c$. An analogous notation for the satellite yields for the satellite mass $m_s=4\,\pi\,r_{cs}^3\,\rho_{0s}\int^{x_s}_0\,f(x'_s)\,x_s'^2\,dx'_s$
where $x_s\equiv r_s/r_{cs}$, and $r_s$ and $r_{cs}$ are the effective boundary radius and the scale radius of the satellite galaxy, respectively.
Then Equation (1) becomes
\begin{equation}
r_t={\sigma_{s}\over \sigma}\,x\,r_c\,A(x)
\end{equation}
where we have defined an effective velocity dispersion in the cluster $\sigma\propto\rho_0\,r_c^2$ and similarly in the satellite galaxy (in analogy with the isothermal case) and
\begin{equation}
A(x)\equiv\Bigg\{{[I(x_s)/x_s]^{3/2}\over [I(x)/x]^{1/2}\,\bigg[ [2\,I(x)/x]+x\,{d\over dx} [I(x)/x] \bigg]}\Bigg\}^{1/3}~,
\end{equation}
where we have defined the function $I(x)\equiv \int^{x}_0 f(x')\,x'^2\,dx'$. Details are shown in the Appendix.
Note that in the isothermal case is $f(x)=x^{-2}$, so that $I(x)=x$ and Equation (2) reduces to the
expression $r_t=(\sigma_{s}/\sigma)\,r/2^{1/3}$. In this respect, the function $I(x)/x$ in Equation (3) represents the deviation from the isothermal case.
To estimate the amount of stars lost by a satellite galaxy at a distance $r$ from the center (in a circular orbit), we compute the stellar mass
that lies beyond the tidal radius (5), assuming an exponential form for the initial stellar mass distribution:
\begin{equation}
m_{lost}=\int_{r_t}^{\infty}2\,\pi\,\Sigma_0\,e^{-{\xi\over r_d}}\,\xi\,d\xi
\end{equation}
where $r_d$ is the disk exponential scale length and $\Sigma_0$ the central surface density.
We now substitute expression (2) for $r_t$ in Equation (4) obtaining
\hfil\break
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{lost} & = & m_*\,G(x,\lambda,c) \nonumber \\
G(x,\lambda,c) & \equiv & \Bigg[1+{x\,A(x)\over \lambda\,c}\Bigg]\,exp{\Bigg[-{x\,A(x)\over \lambda\,c}}\Bigg]
\end{eqnarray}
where $m_*$ is the initial stellar mass of the satellite galaxy and $\lambda=r_d/r_{vs}$ is the spin parameter or equivalently the ratio between its scale length and its virial radius \citep{Mo98}.
For circular orbits, the contribution to the intracluster stellar mass from all galaxies at a distance in the range $(x, x+dx)$ from the cluster center can
be obtained summing up the contribution of all galaxies orbiting at the radial distance $x$ from the
cluster center, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{lost}(x) & =& \int dm_*N(m_*)\,w(x)\,x^2\,m_*\,G(x) \\
& = & \overline{m_*}\,w(x)\,x^2G(x) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\hfil\break
where $w(x)$ - for any given stellar mass - is the number density of galaxies between $x$ and $x+dx$, and $\overline{m_*}\equiv \int\,dm_*\,N(m_*)\,m_*$ is the average stellar mass before stripping. The analogous expression for the total initial stellar mass in galaxies before stripping is
\begin{equation}
M_{*}(x)=\int dm_*N(m_*)\,w(x)\,x^2\,m_*= \overline{m_*}\,w(x)\,x^2.
\end{equation}
In particular, in the simplifying assumption of constant mass to light ratio,
the ratio ${\cal F}_{ICL}$ of intra-cluster to galactic light assumes a simple form
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}_{ICL}(x)\approx {M_{lost}(x)\over M_*(x)-M_{lost}(x)}={G(x)\over 1-G(x) }.
\end{equation}
In the context of our simple physical description of tidal stripping, the latter expression shows that the ratio ${\cal F}_{ICL}$ is independent of the physical and statistical properties of the satellite population. Thus the interesting result is that the ratio {\it mainly depends on the gravitational profile of the cluster}. Thus, the ICL fraction can be used as a further probe of the large scale cluster physical properties.
In fact, to compare with observations, Equation (8) should be projected on the direction perpendicular to the line-of-sight as shown in the Appendix (Equation (A.7)). We remark that the above computation has been derived assuming circular orbits. However, the distribution of
halo circularities in simulated clusters is peaked at values $\epsilon\approx 0.8$ (see, e.g., \citet{Ghigna98}), so that a more realistic computation can be performed assuming that - for any radial shell at a distance $r$ from the cluster center - galaxies oscillate within a distance $\Delta r$
from $r$. In such a case we can perform a numerical computation adopting, for the angular velocity $\omega$, the proper value at any point of the orbit, and
assuming different values for $\Delta r$ so as to explore the possible circularities between 0.7 and 1. The results from such a numerical computation
are almost identical to those obtained analytically from Equation (8), which we then use to interpret the observational radial distribution ${\cal F}_{ICL}$.
When compared to our observational results for ${\cal F}_{ICL}$ (Section 3), Equation (A.7) can be used to probe the shape of the cluster
potential wells. In particular, we can probe the effect of assuming different forms for the function $f(x)$ defining the shape of the
density distribution $\rho(x)=\rho_0\,f(x)$. The procedure is as follows. We chose different forms for $f(x)$ and for the
concentration parameter $c$ , which determines the function $G(x)$ entering the ICL ratio ${\cal F}_{ICL}(x)$ given in Equations 8 and A.7 through the expression in Equation (3). This is compared to the observed radial dependence of the ICL ratio determined in Section 3, to estimate which of the input forms for $f(x)$ provides the best match to the observed run. We focus on the cored isothermal form $f(x)=1/(1+x^2)$, and on the \citet{Navarro97} form $f(x)=1/x(1+x^2)$, and we always assume a fixed canonical value for the spin parameter $\lambda=0.1$.
We take for the virial radius of the cluster the observed value $r_v=1.6/h$ Mpc; for fixed virial radius, the radial coordinate $x=r/r_c=c\,r/r_v$ depends on the concentration parameter $c$ for which we explore different values for each of our assumed form of $f(x)$. The results of the comparison are shown in Figure 8 for
both the isothermal and NFW profiles. The best agreement is obtained for a NFW profile with $c=9$; interestingly, this is very close to the value $c=9.2$ obtained from the combined strong-weak lensing analysis by \citet{Umetsu10}. Note that we do not attempt to fit the inner region of the ${\cal F}_{ICM}(r)$; the observed turning down of the profile
is affected by the accretion effect of the central galaxy which is by no means included in our analytical computation.
Finally, in our computation we have also assumed the satellite galaxies to have the same density profile of the galaxy cluster, i.e. $c=c_s=9$, which is reasonable for this specific cluster. However, we have checked that - in the \citet{Navarro97} case - adopting a difference $\left|{c-c_s}\right|\sim 4\div 5$ yields only minor changes to the results obtained assuming the same density profile (in fact, we can recast its effect in terms of a normalization of $A(x)$ in Equation (3) differing by less than 5\% from our reference cases).
Nevertheless, the remarkable agreement found between the ICL fitting technique described above and the measurements from weak lensing shows that, despite the approximations adopted in our analytical computation, the radial dependence of the ICL distribution can constitute a complementary probe for the shape of the clusters potential wells.
\section{ICL predictions from galaxy counts}
If the spread of ICL in the cluster core is due to the diffusion of unbound stars stripped from the halos of satellite galaxies, the resulting stellar mass loss is expected to alter
the luminosity of cluster galaxies. A sign of this effect should be found in the shape of the galaxy luminosity function (LF) in the cluster core.
For this reason we built binned number counts for all the fitted galaxies which have then been removed for the ICL measure. The number counts are shown in Figure 9 and appear 50\% complete down to $R_{AB}\simeq 26.5$. For this reason we limited the statistical analysis to $R_{AB}=26$. We derived absolute magnitudes adopting the appropriate redshift and $k-$corrections estimated from \citet{Fukugita95} for E-Sab galaxies.
We fitted a Schechter function to the observed counts which have the same shape of the galaxy luminosity function. This assumption implies that all the galaxies shown in the counts are at the same cluster redshift. This is justified by the fact that in order to compute the ICL fraction with respect to the total galaxy light we have already removed from the catalog the foreground/background galaxies selected on the basis of their colors and spectroscopic redshifts, where available.
However it is well known that the Schechter function generally underestimates the abundance of very bright galaxies ($M_R<-22.5$), which is mainly due to the presence of the BCGs (e.g \citet{Christlein03}). For this reason we fitted them with a second Schechter component.
For the scope of the present work, we applied a simple $\chi^2$ fitting to the data points shown in Figure 9. We adopted the sum of two Schechter functions. The best fit values found are $M^*\simeq -21.65$ and $\alpha\simeq 3.7$ for the BCGs component and $M_{br}^*=-22.2$, $\alpha \simeq -1.2$ for the main component. We emphasize that the atypical best fit values of the former component have been obtained, forcing a Schechter shape to the brightest data point.
We have compared the best fit parameters of the main counts with that derived from composite samples of clusters at various redshifts. More specifically we have selected the composite luminosity functions derived by \citet{Harsono09}. Their sample is composed by archival Hubble Space Telescope/Advanced Camera for Surveys images of six clusters in the redshift interval $z\simeq 0.14-0.4$, including also the present cluster. They derive a characteristic luminosity $M^*\simeq -22\pm 0.3$ in the R band and a faint end slope $\alpha\simeq -1.33\pm 0.03$ for galaxies within the virial radius, i.e. in a much larger volume than sampled in the core of CL0024+17.
\citet{Alshino10} derived stacked luminosity functions of XMM–LSS clusters of Class 1 at different average redshifts. In particular at redshifts $z\simeq 0.3$ they find $M^*\simeq -21.99\pm 0.25$ and $\alpha\simeq -1.47\pm 0.07$. Their slope is steeper, probably due to the larger area sampled for their clusters as noted by the same authors. We retain both slopes to enclose the uncertainties present so far at the faint end.
Although there is a good agreement on the value of the characteristic luminosity among CL0024+17 and the two cluster samples, the faint end slope in our cluster appears somewhat flatter. A speculative explanation for this flattening is given in terms of a stellar tidal stripping from the halos of galaxies in the cluster core.
The two luminosity function shapes are shown in Figure 9 in terms of surface counts normalized to the CL0024+17 counts at $M^*=-22.2$. The bright Schechter component found in CL0024+17 has then been added to the two counts.
Since galaxies of intermediate mass/luminosity are those which lose a significant amonut of stellar mass from their halos due to tidal stripping, they dim progressively their luminosity as clusters relax. Thus it is interesting to compare the CL0024 galaxy emissivity $\epsilon_{CL0024}$ with that predicted by the two cluster luminosity functions. Specifically we have computed the quantity
\begin{equation}
(\epsilon_{clf}-\epsilon_{CL0024})/\epsilon_{CL0024}
\end{equation}
for the two composite luminosity functions, where the integration in luminosity has been done in the representative interval $M=-24\div -15$.
It is interesting to note that the galaxy emissivity in the CL0024 core (within 200 Kpc) is smaller than that predicted on the basis of the average cluster luminosity functions and the fractional loss of galaxy emissivity ranges from 19\% to 37\% for the two slopes, respectively. Thus, the fractional galaxy emissivity missing in the CL0024 core appears to be consistent with the fractional emission of the ICL, $\simeq 23$\% of the galaxy emission.
This result reinforces the scenario where ICL in cluster cores is produced by stars stripped from the halos of their parent galaxies in the cluster potential well, as described in the previous section. The stripping produces a flattening of the faint end counts or luminosity functions in the cluster core with respect to the average shape derived from cluster galaxy counts within the virial radius. Thus the average cluster luminosity functions derived by \citet{Alshino10} and \citet{Harsono09} appear steeper than our LF derived in the CL0024 core since they are derived in much larger clusters volumes, up to the virial radius (e.g. of the order of megaparsec). In the latter case the LFs are steeper since they are dominated by galaxies located far from the central 200 kpc region where tidal stripping is more effective and ICL is more intense. In other words, we predict a faint LF slope which should flatten considering volume shells approaching the cluster center. The amount of flattening observed in the CL0024 luminosity function is quantitatively consistent with the measured ICL within a radius of 200 kpc.
\section{Summary}
We have derived an estimate of the diffuse ICL in the cluster CL0024+17 at $z\simeq 0.4$ to connect this quantity and its spatial distribution with the dynamical properties of the cluster core mainly due to the action of the stellar tidal stripping.
The main objective has been reached through an accurate evaluation of the systematics introduced in the flat fielding and background subtraction procedures, and after careful removal of the galaxies light in the cluster center. This has been obtained through profile fitting using the galfit software package. Only the sum of the galaxy profiles has then been subtracted from the original image and the residual intensity distribution obtained in this way was considered representative of the ICL spatial distribution.
The main results can be summarized as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item
The ICL distribution due to the stripping action of the brightest galaxies in the cluster core extends at least up to 200 kpc from the center.
\item
The radial intensity profile of the ICL derived from circular apertures has an exponential behavior. A small deviation is present at $R=150$ kpc due to the action of a distinct group of galaxies. An exponential decrease is consistent with the expectation of theoretical CDM models where intracluster stars are produced by tidal stripping in galaxy halos.
\item
After removing foreground galaxies on the basis of the available spectroscopic or photometric redshifts, we have estimated an integrated ICL fraction of $\simeq 23$\% of the overall galaxy light
within 150 kpc.
\item
The average radial profile of the ICL fraction increases with decreasing radius reaching a maximum value $\sim 40$\% at $R\sim 70-80$ kpc. At smaller radii a bending is present followed by a significant decrease due to the overlap of the halos of the cluster brightest galaxies.
\item
Simple predictions in CDM scenarios show that the ratio between the total stellar mass lost by stripping over the stellar mass present in galaxies is almost independent of the physical properties of the generic galaxy hosting stripping action. The ratio mainly depends on the global cluster properties such as e.g., total mass, and DM profile shape. Adopting the mass value of $M=1.7 \times 10^{15}$ M$_{\odot}$ and a Navarro-Frenk-White DM profile with concentration parameter $c_{vir}= 9$, very close to the values derived from extensive lensing analysis on this cluster, we predict an ICL fraction profile in broad agreement with the observational trend for $R>70$ kpc.
\item
We have computed the galaxy counts in the core of the cluster ($R<200$ kpc). Fitting two Schechter laws, one for the brightest bin populated by the dominant brightest galaxies in the core and one for the remaining sample, we derived a characteristic absolute magnitude $M^*\simeq -22.2$ for the main component, consistent with that estimated from composite cluster samples at similar redshifts. The faint slope, however, appears definitely flatter, $\alpha \simeq -1.2$, with respect to the average slope derived from composite cluster samples ($\alpha \sim -1.3$ to $ -1.5$).
\item
Since the composite cluster samples are derived on much larger volumes up to their virial radius, we have tested whether stellar tidal stripping can be responsible for the observed bending of the counts in our cluster core.
Normalizing composite average counts (or equivalently luminosity functions) to the value derived for CL0024+17 at $M^*\simeq -22.2$, we have computed the relative difference of total emissivity produced by the composite and CL0024+17 counts. This difference amounts to 19\%$-37$\% for $\alpha=-1.3, -1.5$, respectively. The emissivity "lost" in CL0024+17 appears in broad agreement with the ICL fraction we have measured in the core, $23$\%, suggesting that the stripping activity, bending the galaxy counts, can quantitatively explain the observed ICL fraction.
\end{itemize}
This pilot study will be applied to more clusters at different redshifts to explore the dependence of the ICL fraction on the cluster physical (e.g. mass and concentration) and evolutionary (e.g. relaxation status) properties. A large amount of statistics will enable us to follow on average the stellar stripping activity during the evolution of the cluster cores.
\acknowledgments
We thank the referee for detailed comments which helped us to improve the presentation of the paper and the robustness of our results. We also thank T. Treu for useful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper, we have studied the impact of nuclear effects and nonisoscalarity corrections on the weak structure functions $F^A_2(x)$ and $F^A_3(x)$
using the expression discussed in the other paper presented in this conference. Using the results for $F^A_2(x)$ and $F^A_3(x)$, we obtain the
results for charged and neutral current differential scattering cross sections~\cite{prc84,prc85}. The expression for the (anti)neutrino induced charged current
differential scattering cross section is written as:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{diff_dxdy_A}
\frac{d^2 \sigma^{\nu(\bar{\nu})A}}{d x d y}=
\frac{{G_F}^2ME_{\nu}}{\pi}
\left\{xy^2 F_1^{\nu(\bar{\nu})A} (x, Q^2)
+ \left(1-y-\frac{xyM}{2 E_{\nu}}\right) F_2^{\nu(\bar{\nu})A} (x, Q^2) \pm xy\left(1-\frac{y}{2}\right)F_3^{\nu(\bar{\nu})A} (x, Q^2)
\right\},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
where the plus(minus) sign stands for the $\nu(\bar \nu)$ cross section. Similarly, one can write the differential scattering cross section for the
neutral current $\nu(\bar \nu)$ induced reactions by changing the couplings and the nucleon structure functions~\cite{prc}. Using these expressions, the result for
the ratio
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray}
R^-&=&\frac{\frac{d\sigma_{NC}^{\nu A}}{dx\,dy}-\frac{d\sigma_{NC}^{\bar{\nu}A}}{dx\,dy}}{\frac{d\sigma_{CC}^
{\nu A}}{dx\,dy}-\frac{d\sigma_{CC}^{\bar{\nu}A}}{dx\,dy}} \label{huma6}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
is obtained. Paschos and Wolfenstein(PW)~\cite{Paschos} demonstrated that for an isoscalar nuclear target the ratio of neutral current to charged current cross sections is
related to the Weinberg angle $\theta_W$ as:
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{pwrelation}
R_{PW}=\frac{\sigma(\nu_\mu~N \rightarrow \nu_\mu~X)~-~\sigma(\bar\nu_\mu~N \rightarrow \bar\nu_\mu~X)}{\sigma(\nu_\mu~N \rightarrow \mu^-~X)~-~\sigma(\bar\nu_\mu~N \rightarrow \mu^+~X)}=\frac{1}{2}~-~\sin^2 \theta_W
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=4.8cm, width=7cm]{iron_F2.eps}
\includegraphics[height=4.8cm, width=7cm]{iron_F3.eps}
\caption{Dotted line is our base result at LO for $F_i(x,Q^2)$ vs $Q^2$ in $^{56}$Fe(i=2(Left Panel), 3(Right panel)).
Dashed(Solid) line is the full model at LO(NLO). The experimental points are from CDHSW~\cite{Berge} and NuTeV~\cite{Tzanov}.}
\label{fig_f2_f3_iron}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The above relation is also valid for the ratio obtained using differential scattering cross sections under more general assumptions. NuTeV Collaboration~\cite{Zeller} has extracted the
weak mixing angle using $\nu/\bar \nu$ beam on iron target and the above relation, and obtained $sin^{2}\theta_W=0.2277\pm0.0004$, which is
3$\sigma$ above the global fit of $sin^2 \theta_W=0.2227\pm0.0004$ and is known as NuTeV anomaly.
Since iron is a nonisoscalar nuclear target, therefore, we have studied the effect of nuclear medium as well as nonisoscalarity correction on the extraction of
weak mixing angle using PW relation. The details are given in Ref.~\cite{prc}. $R^-$ given by Eq.~\ref{huma6}, for a nonisoscalar nuclear target, may be written as
\begin{small}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{delta_modified}
R^- &=&\frac{1}{2}-\sin^{2}\theta_W + \delta R^{-}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{small}
where $\delta R^{-}$ is the nonisoscalarity effect the expression for which is given in Ref.~\cite{prc}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=4.8cm, width=7cm]{F2_lead.eps}
\includegraphics[height=4.8cm, width=7cm]{F3_lead.eps}
\caption{Same results as in Fig.\ref{fig_f2_f3_iron} for $^{208}$Pb. The experimental points are from CHORUS~\cite{chorus1}.}
\label{fig_f2_f3_lead}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Results and Discussions}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=5.0cm,width=12cm]{fig6_neutrino_iron_65gev.eps}
\caption{$\frac{1}{E}\frac{d^2\sigma}{dxdy}$ vs y at different x for $\nu_\mu$($E_{\nu_\mu}=65$ GeV) induced reaction in $^{56}$Fe.
Dotted line is our base result at LO for $F_2(x,Q^2)$ vs $Q^2$ in $^{56}$Fe. Dashed(Solid) line is the full model at LO(NLO).
The experimental points are from CDHSW~\cite{Berge} and NuTeV~\cite{Tzanov}.}
\label{figFe}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=5.0cm,width=12cm]{fig9.eps}
\caption{Same results as in Fig.\ref{figFe} for $^{208}$Pb at $E_{\nu_\mu}=25$ GeV. The experimental points are from CHORUS\cite{chorus1}.}
\label{figPb}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Here we present the numerical results for $F^A_2$ and $F^A_3$ structure functions in Fig.\ref{fig_f2_f3_iron} for iron nucleus along with the experimental data of
CDHSW~\cite{Berge} and NuTeV~\cite{Tzanov} collaborations for a wide range of x and $Q^2$. The results are obtained using target mass correction and for nucleon parton distribution
functions we have used CTEQ PDFs. When the effect of
Pauli blocking, Fermi motion, nuclear binding energy and nucleon correlations are taken, we call the results as the base results. Then we include pion, rho cloud contributions
and shadowing and antishadowing effects and the results obtained using the full calculation, we call it as the results with the full calculation. We find that the effect of shadowing is
about 3-5$\%$ at x=0.1 for Q$^2$=1-5GeV$^2$ and 1-2$\%$ at x=0.2 for Q$^2$=1-5GeV$^2$ which dies out with the increase in x and Q$^2$.
Furthermore, in the evaluation of $F^A_2$ nuclear structure function there is contribution from pion and rho clouds.
Pion contribution
is significant in the region of $0.1~<~x~<~0.4$ which is $\approx$ 14-16$\%$ at x=0.1 which reduces to 4-6$\%$ at mid values of x.
It is the meson cloud contribution which is dominant at low and intermediate x for $F_2$.
In Fig.\ref{fig_f2_f3_lead}, we have shown the numerical results for $F^A_2$ and $F^A_3$ structure functions in lead along with the experimental data of
CHORUS collaboration for a wide range of x and $Q^2$. Similar to the case of iron, shadowing is negligible as compared to the other nuclear effects
and meson cloud contribution plays a significant role at low and mid x.
We observe that the results at NLO are in better agreement with experimental data.
In Fig.\ref{figFe}, we have shown the results for $\frac{1}{E}\frac{d^2\sigma}{dxdy}$ in $^{56}$Fe at $E_{\nu_\mu}$=65 GeV.
Similarly in Fig.\ref{figPb}, we have shown the results for $\frac{1}{E}\frac{d^2\sigma}{dxdy}$ $^{208}$Pb at $E_{\nu_\mu}$=25 GeV.
We find that the results of the full calculation at NLO are in general in good agreement with the experimental observations of CDHSW, NuTeV and CHORUS collaborations.
In Fig. \ref{rminusdelta}, we have presented the results for $R^-$ vs y and $\delta R^-$ vs y for different values of x at $\nu(\bar \nu)$ energy E= 80 GeV in the left(right)
panel respectively.
We find that $R^-$ is almost independent of x and y for an isoscalar target, while for the nonisoscalar target there is x as well as y dependence.
In the right panel of Fig.\ref{rminusdelta}, we find that the effect of non-isoscalarity is large at low y and high x which decreases with the increase in the value of
y. In Fig.\ref{sinthetafig}, we have depicted the results of $sin^{2}\theta_W$ vs y for different values of x at $\nu(\bar \nu)$ energy E= 80 GeV.
We find that due to medium effects, $sin^{2}\theta_W$ is different from the global fit,
and this difference is $\approx 7\%$ when evaluated for low value of y at x=0.2 and this decreases to $1\%$ at high values of y, while this change is $\approx 9\%$ when
calculated for low y at x=0.6 and this reduces to $2\%$ at high values of y.
Thus, we observe that nonisoscalarity as well as nuclear medium effects are important while extracting $sin^{2}\theta_W$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=4.4cm,width=7cm]{rminus.eps}
\includegraphics[height=4.4cm,width=7cm]{deltaR.eps}
\caption{$R^-$(Left panel) and $\delta R^{-}$(Right panel) as a function of y at different values of x.}
\label{rminusdelta}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=4.4cm,width=12cm]{sintheta.eps}
\caption{$sin^{2}\theta_w$ vs y in $^{56}$Fe at different x treating it to be nonisoscalar nuclear target.}
\label{sinthetafig}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
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}
The purpose of the present note is to establish a geometric formula for the entropy of certain
superconformal interfaces between $N=(2,2)$ superconformal sigma models.
As is well known, in the large volume limit the target spaces of such sigma models are
Calabi-Yau manifolds.
The interfaces of interest separate theories with the same K\"ahler modulus
but different complex structure, or vice versa, and they reduce to the trivial interface when the moduli
of the two theories coincide.
Our main result is that for such interfaces
\begin{eqnarray}\label{calabi-dist}
2\, {\rm log}\, g = K(t ,\bar t ) + K(t^\prime,\bar t^\prime) - K(t ,\bar t^\prime) - K(t^\prime,\bar t ) ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $g$ is the universal degeneracy \cite{Affleck:1991tk} of the interface \footnote{When the interface is viewed as an operator between the initial and deformed theory, then $g$ is the image of the identity projected to the identity of the other theory, see Section 4 for more details.} ,
$t$ and $t^\prime$ are the moduli of the theories on either side of the interface, and $K$ is the K\"ahler
function on moduli space.
\smallskip
The right-hand side of the above equation is a known quantity in K\"ahler geometry; it is the so-called
{Calabi diastatic function} \cite{Calabi}.
It can be defined on any K\"ahler manifold (this requires showing that the analytic continuation
of $K(z,\bar z)$ to independent $z$ and $\bar z$ makes sense, which is done in \cite{Calabi}).
A nice feature of the combination \eqref{calabi-dist} is that the K\"ahler-Weyl dependence of $K(z,\bar z)$
cancels out, so that it is a function. It agrees with the geodesic distance at small separations, but
has the property that it is preserved under restriction to a submanifold.
\smallskip
Equation \eqref{calabi-dist} gives a world-sheet definition of the diastatic function that can
be used away from the geometric, large volume limit.
It is a natural extension of the well-known formula that relates the (quantum) K\"ahler potential to
the norm of a canonical Ramond-Ramond (RR) ground state in the sigma model,
\cite{Periwal:1989mx,Cecotti:1991me}
\begin{eqnarray}
\ _{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0 \vert 0 \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR}
\ =\ e^{ - K(t, \bar t) }\ .
\end{eqnarray}
Recently, \cite{Jockers:2012dk,Gomis:2012wy}
the norm of this RR ground state has been related to the partition function of $N=(2,2)$ gauge
theories on the (squashed) two-sphere, which can be computed exactly
using the technique of localization \cite{Benini:2012ui,Doroud:2012xw}. This is a new way to
compute world-sheet instanton corrections to the K\"ahler potential, and to extract Gromov-Witten invariants,
without
the need to identify and solve a classical geometric mirror problem.
Similarly, through equation \eqref{calabi-dist} one may relate quantum corrections to Calabi's diastasis function to
the partition function on the (squashed) two-sphere in the presence
of certain $N=2$ supersymmetric domain walls. Localization techniques for the computation of the latter have been
developed recently in
\cite{Hori:2013ika,Sugishita:2013jca}. They could be used to extract the relevant ``open-string'' Gromov-Witten invariants,
which are notoriously hard to compute by other means.
\smallskip
We were actually led to this formula while studying the following broader question: how to
define alternative metric(s) on
spaces of conformal field theories \cite{Douglas:2010ic}\,? One promising proposal \cite{inprogress} is to define
the distance between CFT$_1$ and CFT$_2$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{distance}
d(1,2) = {\rm min}_{\, \cal S}\, \sqrt{\log\, g}\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal S}$ is an
appropriate set of interfaces which separate the two conformal theories.
An appealing feature of such a definition is that $d$ reduces to the Zamolodchikov metric whenever
CFT$_1$ can be obtained from CFT$_2$ by a small variation of continuous
moduli.
In the special case of $N=(2,2)$ models this follows immediately from \eqref{calabi-dist},
but the proof is more general \cite{inprogress} and does not require the use of supersymmetry.
Another appealing feature of the above definition is that CFT$_1$ and CFT$_2$ need not belong
to the same moduli space, or even have the same central charge. In particular, equation \eqref{calabi-dist}
extends the definition of the diastatic function to pairs of sigma models separated by an $N=2$ interface,
even when these sigma models belong to
different moduli spaces.
\smallskip
Despite its intuitive appeal, the proposal \eqref{distance} does not automatically obey the axioms for a proper distance.
In particular, conformal interfaces may have negative entropy, and
Calabi's diastasis need not always obey, as we will show, the triangle inequality.
Ideas for bypassing these obstructions, by
restricting the set $\cal S$ of allowed interfaces, will be discussed elsewhere \cite{inprogress}.
Here we concentrate on proving formula \eqref{calabi-dist}, which is
interesting in its own right as a new entry in the ``worldsheet versus target-space geometry''
dictionary.
\smallskip
The paper is organized as follows: in section~\ref{sec2} we prove formula
\eqref{calabi-dist}
in the simplest case of $N=(2,2)$
sigma model whose target space is the two-dimensional torus. We give both an algebraic and a geometric
derivation of $g$ for any moduli deformations, and show that it reduces to \eqref{calabi-dist} when either the K\"ahler or
the complex structure are held fixed.
In section~\ref{sec3} we extend the geometric derivation to arbitrary Calabi-Yau $n$-folds with $n>1$.
This uses the well-known ``folding trick'', to map the interfaces to branes in a product Calabi-Yau manifold.
Section~\ref{sec4} presents an algebraic derivation of this result, which only relies on the $N=2$ supersymmetry of the interface.
This shows that interface entropy provides a natural extension of Calabi's diastasis in the non-geometric regime,
and even when the two
worldsheet theories do not belong to the same moduli space.
Finally, in section ~\ref{sec5} we show that Calabi's diastasis function does not obey
the triangle inequality in spaces with positive sectional curvature, and may hence
fail one of the key tests for a proper distance. We
conclude the section with some remarks.
\section{The two-dimensional torus CFT}
\label{sec2}
The simplest Calabi-Yau manifold is the two-dimensional torus, $T^2= \mathbb{R}^2/(\mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{Z})$.
As a warm up, we shall first derive the
formula \eqref{calabi-dist} in this special case.
\smallskip
We parametrize the torus by $(x , y) \in (0,1]\times (0,1]$.
The K\"ahler and complex structure moduli, $\tau = \tau_1 + i \tau_2$ and $\rho = \rho_1 + i \rho_2$, are
related to the flat metric, $G$, and antisymmetric Neveu-Schwarz field, $B$, as follows:\footnote{Later, we
will refer to the complex structure moduli collectively as $t$, and to the K\"ahler moduli as $u$. But for
the 2-torus we use the
more canonical notation, $\rho$ and $\tau$.}
\begin{equation}\label{2torusModuli}
G = { \tau_2\over \rho_2}
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 1 & \rho_1 \\ \rho_1 & \vert \rho\vert^2 \end{array}\right) \ \ , \qquad
B = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \tau_1 \\ -\tau_1 & 0 \end{array}\right) \ .
\end{equation}
In terms of the complex coordinate $z = x + \rho y$ one has
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = { \tau_2\over \rho_2}\, dz d\bar z \
\Longleftrightarrow\
k = {i\over 2} {\tau_2\over \rho_2}\, dz\wedge d\bar z = \tau_2\, dx \wedge dy\ ,
\end{equation}
where $k$ is the real K\"ahler form. It is complexified by the addition of the Neveu-Schwarz 2-form,
$\omega = B + i k\ $ with
$\ B = \tau_1\, dx \wedge dy $.
The holomorphic $(1,0)$ form is $\Omega = dz$, up to an irrelevant multiplicative constant.
\smallskip
The moduli space of $N=(2,2)$ superconformal theories
with target space $T^2$ consists of two copies of the symmetric coset
${\cal M} = SL(2, \mathbb{Z}) \backslash SL(2, \mathbb{R})/ SO(2)$. One copy parametrizes the complex structure modulus,
and the other the K\"ahler modulus.
T-duality exchanges $\tau$ and $\rho$, so that the full moduli space is
$({\cal M}\times {\cal M})/\mathbb{Z}_2$.
The metric on this moduli space
derives from the K\"ahler potential
\begin{equation}
K = K_{\rm K} (\tau, \bar\tau) + K_{\rm C} (\rho, \bar\rho)\ ,
\end{equation}
where $K_{\rm K}$ and $K_{\rm C}$ are given by
\begin{equation}\label{KahlerTorus}
K_{\rm K} = - {\rm log} \left( \int_{M} k \right) = - {\rm log}\, \tau_2 \ , \qquad
K_{\rm C} = - {\rm log}\left( \int_{M} {i\over 2}\, \Omega \wedge \bar\Omega\right) = - {\rm log}\, \rho_2\ .
\end{equation}
The $SL(2, \mathbb{R})$ transformations of $\tau$ and $\rho$
act as K\"ahler-Weyl
transformations on the K\"ahler potential, $K\to K + f + \bar f$ where $f$ is a holomorphic function
of $\tau$ and $\rho$. Such transformations leave the metric invariant, as expected.
\subsection{Algebraic derivation}
Consider now two conformal theories with moduli $(\tau, \rho)$ and $(\tau^\prime, \rho^\prime)$.
We will be interested in a special conformal interface between these two theories -- the ``deformed identity''
interface introduced and discussed in \cite{Bachas:2001vj,Bachas:2007td,Brunner:2008fa, Bachas:2012bj}.
This is the deformation
of the trivial defect (the ``no interface'') as the moduli of the second CFT vary continuously
from $(\tau, \rho)$ to $(\tau^\prime, \rho^\prime)$.
In general, such an interface could depend on the specific deformation path,
as well as on (open-string) moduli.
However, in the case at hand, the deformed identity only depends on the homotopy class of the
deformation path, and its
$g$-function is independent of open-string moduli. Thus log$\,g$ is
a well-defined
function of pairs of points on the covering space of moduli space, i.e. on
two copies of the upper-half complex plane.
\smallskip
Both the trivial interface, and its deformations, preserve the $U(1)^4$ symmetry of the toroidal theory.
Such symmetry-preserving interfaces were analyzed recently
in \cite{Bachas:2012bj}, where it was shown that their
$g$-function can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{BBR}
{\rm log}\, g = {1\over 2} {\rm log\, det} (\Lambda_{22})\ , \qquad {\rm with} \qquad
\Lambda = {\footnotesize \mat{ \Lambda_{11}}{\Lambda_{12}} {\Lambda_{21}}{\Lambda_{22}} }
\end{equation}
the $SO(2,2)$ matrix that relates the even self-dual Lorentzian charge lattices of the two theories.
Written
in $2\times 2$-block form, this matrix obeys $\ \Lambda^t {\scriptsize \mat{0}{\bf 1}{\bf 1}{0} \Lambda} = {\scriptsize \mat{0}{\bf 1}{\bf 1}{0} }$.
One can give an explicit formula for the matrix $\Lambda$ corresponding to the deformed
identity
by using the expression for the charge lattice
of toroidal models
in terms of the metric $G$ and Kalb-Ramond field $B$ \cite{Giveon:1994fu}. The answer is\,\footnote{More general
$U(1)^4$ symmetric interfaces are given by $ \Lambda = V^\prime \hat\Lambda V^{-1}$ where $\hat\Lambda$ is an element of $O(2,2, \mathbb{Q})$.
These have $g= \sqrt{l.c.m.\times \vert\Lambda_{22}\vert}$ where $l.c.m.$ is the least common multiple of the matrix elements of $\hat\Lambda$
\cite{Bachas:2012bj}.
}
\begin{equation}
\Lambda = V^\prime V^{-1} \ \qquad {\rm with}\qquad V = \mat{\hat e}{\ \hat e (B+G)}{\hat e}{\ \hat e(B-G)}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\hat e$ is the vielbein that satisfies $2\, \hat e^t\, \hat e = G^{-1}$, and there is a similar
expression for $V^\prime$. Inserting these formulae and \eqref{2torusModuli}
in equation \eqref{BBR} leads to the following expression for
the $g$-function of the deformed identity:
\begin{equation}\label{torusg}
g_{\rm d.i.} = \left[ { (\tau - \bar\tau^\prime)(\tau^\prime - \bar\tau) \over (\tau - \bar\tau)(\tau^\prime - \bar\tau^\prime)}
+ { (\rho - \bar\rho^{\,\prime})(\rho^\prime - \bar\rho) \over (\rho - \bar\rho)(\rho^\prime - \bar\rho^{\,\prime})} - 1 \right]^{1/2} \ .
\end{equation}
As anticipated earlier, this is a well-defined function of $\tau^\prime, \rho^\prime$ as these range over
the (simply-connected) covering space of the CFT moduli space.
Note that $g_{\rm d.i.}$ is invariant under a simultaneous $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$ transformation of the primed and unprimed moduli,
but not under a transformation of only one of the two CFTs.
\subsection{Geometric derivation}
The expression \eqref{torusg} can be derived more directly, in a way that will
generalize to any large volume
Calabi-Yau $n$-fold.
The starting point is the folding trick, which maps an interface between
$\sigma$-models with target spaces $M$ and $M^\prime$ to a boundary of the $\sigma$-model
with target space $ M \times M^\prime$ \cite{Bachas:2001vj,Bachas:2004sy,Fuchs:2007fw}.
When the two $\sigma$-models are identical there exists a trivial interface across which all the fields are continuous --
the ``no interface''. This is
mapped after folding to the diagonally-embedded middle-dimensional D-brane:
$M\rightarrow M\times M$ given by $x\rightarrow (x,x)$. Now as one of the $\sigma$-models is deformed,
this diagonal brane is also deformed to a new brane, $\Delta_f$, which we describe (at least locally) as the graph of a function $f$
from $M$ to $M^\prime$.
Put differently, $\Delta_f$ is given by the embedding $x\rightarrow (x, f(x))\in M \times M^\prime$.
\smallskip
We may determine $f$ by minimizing the $g$-function of the brane -- this is the condition of conformal invariance.
In the large volume limit, the $g$-function is the appropriately normalized Dirac-Born-Infeld action
(see e.g. \cite{Harvey:1999gq}):
\begin{equation}\label{DBI}
g \simeq \frac{ \int_{M} {\rm det}^{1/2}( G- B + f^*G^\prime + f^*B^\prime) }
{\sqrt{2^d\, \ Vol \hskip -1mm (M) \ Vol \hskip -1mm (M^\prime)}}\ .
\end{equation}
Here $f^*$ denotes the pullback from $M^\prime$ to $M$, and we note
that folding
flips the sign of $B$ thereby complex-conjugating the K\"ahler form of the folded $\sigma$-model.
In the toroidal case at hand this amounts to trading $(\tau, \rho)$ for $(-\bar\tau, \rho)$.
Note also the normalization of the DBI action by the volume factors in \eqref{DBI}. This
can be fixed by requiring that $g =1$ for the trivial (or identity) interface.\,\footnote{In string theory, the $g$-function
of a D-brane wrapping some dimensions of the compact space is the mass of the corresponding point-particle
in the Einstein frame.}
\smallskip
For toroidal theories, the identity defect is a diagonally-embedded planar D2-brane. As one
of the two tori is deformed this D2-brane follows suit, i.e. it is still given by
the planar diagonal embedding $x=x^\prime$ and $y=y^\prime$ where $(x,y)$ and $(x^\prime, y^\prime)$ are the canonically-normalized
flat coordinates of the two tori.
One thus finds
\begin{equation}
g_{\rm d.i.} = {1\over \sqrt{4\tau_2 \tau_2^\prime}} \, {\rm det}^{1/2} ( G + G^\prime - B + B^\prime ) \ ,
\end{equation}
which after inserting (\ref{2torusModuli}) and doing some simple algebra leads to the result \eqref{torusg}
for the $g$-function of the deformed identity.
Note that the two, geometric and algebraic, derivations of $g$ give the same result, because
the DBI approximation \eqref{DBI} is in this case exact.
\smallskip
\subsection{Supersymmetry and diastasis}
Expression \eqref{torusg} simplifies considerably if $\rho = \rho^\prime$, i.e. if one keeps the complex structure fixed and only deforms
the K\"ahler modulus of the torus. The folded interface is in this case the holomorphic brane $z= z^\prime$, and
\begin{equation}
2\, {\rm log} \, g_{\rm d.i.}\Bigl\vert_{\rho=\rho^\prime} \ = - {\rm log} (\tau - \bar\tau) - {\rm log} (\tau^\prime - \bar\tau^\prime)
+ {\rm log} (\tau - \bar\tau^\prime) + {\rm log} (\tau^\prime - \bar\tau) \ ,
\end{equation}
which is precisely Calabi's diastasis function for the potential \eqref{KahlerTorus}.
\smallskip
The same conclusion holds if one only deforms the complex structure, $\rho$, keeping the K\"ahler modulus, $\tau$, fixed.
The $g$ function of such branes is given again by Calabi's diastasis,
\begin{equation}
2\, {\rm log} \, g_{\rm d.i.}\Bigl\vert_{\tau=\tau^\prime} \ = - {\rm log} (\rho - \bar\rho) - {\rm log} (\rho^\prime - \bar\rho^\prime)
+ {\rm log} (\rho - \bar\rho^\prime) + {\rm log} (\rho^\prime - \bar\rho) \ .
\end{equation}
This is of course expected by mirror symmetry. For later use, it is
nevertheless interesting to understand how supersymmetry is preserved
in this case.
To this end, we consider the 2-form $\bar\Omega\wedge \Omega^\prime = d\bar z\wedge dz^\prime$.
The D-brane corresponding to the folded interface obeys trivially
\begin{equation}\label{11}
{\rm Im} (e^{i\theta}\, d\bar z\wedge dz^\prime) \Bigl\vert_{\Delta_f} = {\rm Im} [e^{i\theta}\, (\rho^\prime - \bar\rho) dx\wedge dy]
\Bigl\vert_{\Delta_f} = 0 \ ,
\end{equation}
where $-\theta$ is the phase of the complex number $( \rho^{\, \prime} - \bar\rho)$.
Furthermore, since $\tau = \tau^\prime$, the restriction of the two K\"ahler forms on the D-brane is the same,
\begin{equation}
(k- k^\prime) \Bigl\vert_{\Delta_f} = 0\ .
\end{equation}
Finally the following two top-forms are equal to the volume form of the doubled torus,
up to an irrelevant multiplicative constant:
\begin{equation}\label{13}
(d\bar z\wedge dz^\prime)\wedge (d z\wedge d\bar z^{\, \prime}) = {\cal C} (k-k^\prime)^2\ .
\end{equation}
The set of conditions \eqref{11}-\eqref{13} define special lagrangian submanifolds,
which preserve $N=2$ supersymmetries in any Calabi-Yau space.
\smallskip
In conclusion, interfaces between theories which differ only in complex structure,
or in K\"ahler form, preserve half of the bulk supersymmetries, and their entropy is the diastasis function.
Note that if one varies both $\tau$ and $\rho$,
then \eqref{torusg} is not any more related to the diastasis function.\,\footnote{The reader may here object that
any planar brane in a four-torus is half-BPS, and this would continue to be true for the direct product of any two tori.
The unbroken supersymmetries mix however in this case the
fields of the two tensored CFTs, so they are
not local symmetries after unfolding.}
Nevertheless, these two functions do coincide for small deformations at quadratic order.
This is actually a general fact:
$\sqrt{{\rm log} \, g }$ of the deformed-identity can be shown to reduce to the Zamolodchikov distance
for {\it all} infinitesimal marginal deformations of a 2d conformal theory,
whether they preserve supersymmetry or not \cite{inprogress}.
\section{Large volume Calabi-Yau $\sigma$-models}
\label{sec3}
It is straightforward to extend the geometric arguments of the previous subsection to any
Calabi-Yau sigma model in the large volume limit.
The product of two Calabi-Yau $n$-folds, $M\times M^\prime$,
is also a Calabi-Yau manifold of complex dimension $2n$.
Its K\"ahler form is $k+k^\prime$, and its holomorphic
$(2n,0)$ form $\Omega \wedge \Omega^\prime$.
Like all Calabi-Yau manifolds, $M\times M^\prime$ has two types of supersymmetric submanifolds
\cite{ Becker:1995kb,Bershadsky:1995qy,Ooguri:1996ck,Brunner:1999jq} :
the special Lagrangians (A-type), and the
holomorphic submanifolds (B-type). As we will see, these correspond to interfaces between theories
with the same complex, respectively K\"ahler, structures.
\subsection{K\"ahler structure deformation}
Consider the trivial interface between two identical $\sigma$-models, which after folding becomes the diagonal brane
$M\rightarrow M\times M$ given by $x\rightarrow (x,x)$. This is a holomorphic brane since in complex coordinates
we can write $z\rightarrow (z,z)$. Let us now deform one of the theories from $M$ to $M^\prime$.
If $M$ and $M^\prime$ have the same complex structure, the above
brane will stay holomorphic and, in general,
there will be no other nearby holomorphic branes. The $g$-function of this deformed identity is
proportional, in the large volume limit,
to the Dirac-Born-Infeld action
\begin{equation}\label{31}
g_{\scriptsize\, \rm hol} \ \simeq \ { 2^{-n} \vert \int_M (-\bar \omega +\omega^\prime)^{n} \vert \over \vert \int_M k^{\,n} \vert^{1/2}\,
\vert \int_M (k^{\prime})^n \vert^{1/2} } \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\omega$ and $\omega^\prime$ are the complexified K\"ahler forms of $M$ and $M^\prime$, and we recall
that folding transforms $\omega := B + ik$ to $-\bar \omega$. As explained in the previous section, the
normalization factor can be fixed by requiring that
$g_{\scriptsize\, \rm hol} = 1$ for the identity, namely when $\omega=\omega^\prime$.
Taking the logarithm of \eqref{31}, and using the fact
that $K (u, \bar u) \simeq - {\rm log}(\int_M k^n )$ gives precisely Calabi's diastasis
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cy-distA}
2 \, {\rm log}\, (g_{\scriptsize\, \rm hol} ) \simeq K(u,\bar u ) + K(u^\prime,\bar u^{\, \prime}) - K(u ,\bar u^{\, \prime}) - K(u^\prime,\bar u ) \ ,
\end{equation}
where $u $ denotes collectively the K\"ahler moduli, and we have defined the
analytic extension of $K(u,\bar u )$ to independent $u$ and $\bar u$ as follows
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cpx-kpot}
K(u^\prime ,\bar u)\simeq - \log \int_M [ -\bar \omega(\bar u) + \omega(u^\prime) ]^n + n \log\, 2 \ .
\end{equation}
We expect this last formula to make sense in any open neighborhood of a generic point on the K\"ahler cone.
That the analytic continuation of $K(u, \bar u)$ makes sense (and is unique)
is a crucial input in the original work of Calabi.
\smallskip
This proves the equation \eqref{calabi-dist} for interfaces separating
theories with the same complex structure but different K\"ahler
forms, in the large volume limit.
\subsection{Complex structure deformation}
What is the the mirror statement to \eqref{eq:cy-distA}? If $M$ and $M^\prime$ have the same K\"ahler
form but different complex structures,
then the deformed identity interface does not correspond to a holomorphic submanifold.
We will now show that it corresponds to a special Lagrangian
(sLag) brane calibrated not by the holomorphic $(2n,0)$ form, but by the appropriately-normalized
mixed $2n$-form $\varphi = i^n\, \bar \Omega \wedge \Omega^\prime$.
\smallskip
The existence of this extra calibrating form, in addition to the holomorphic volume form, is due to the fact that
$M\times M^\prime$ is ``more special'' as it has $SU(n)^2\subset SU(2n)$ holonomy.
One may in particular complex conjugate one of the two manifolds in the product, which
gives also a new symplectic form $s= i(k - k^\prime)$, different from the standard K\"ahler form $k+k^\prime$.
Clearly, both $\varphi$ and $s$ are closed forms, and they satisfy, up to normalization,
the top-form condition
\begin{equation}
2^{-2n} \varphi \wedge\bar \varphi = {1\over (2n)!} \, s^{2n} = d(volume) \ .
\end{equation}
They can thus be used to construct a new class of sLag submanifolds,\,\footnote{This observation has been
exploited, for instance, in the context of $N=(2,0)$ $\sigma$-models in \cite{Kapustin:2010zc}.}
different from those constructed with the standard K\"ahler and holomorphic volume forms.
\smallskip
It is easy to see that the brane $\Delta_{id}$ corresponding to the trivial interface belongs to this new class.
The necessary and sufficient conditions (see e.g. \cite{Joyce:2001xt}),
\begin{equation}
s \Bigl\vert_{\Delta_{id}} = 0 \qquad {\rm and} \qquad {\rm Im} \varphi\Bigl\vert_{\Delta_{id}} = 0\ ,
\end{equation}
are trivialy satisfied in this case. The sLag conditions can still be imposed if we deform the complex
structure of $M^\prime$ without changing its K\"ahler form (so that $k= k^\prime$).
The Lagrangian requirement for the submanifold $\Delta_f \subset M\times M^\prime$ now reads
\begin{equation}
k = f^*k \ ,
\end{equation}
which says that $f$ preserves the K\"ahler form -- it is a ``symplectomorphism''.
Many such maps indeed exist, and they can be specified locally by a single function $F({\rm Re}z, {\rm Re}z^\prime)$
which defines a canonical transformation. This function can then be determined by the
(volume-minimizing) calibration condition
\begin{equation}\label{calibr}
{\rm Im} (e^{i\theta} \, \varphi)\Bigl\vert_{\Delta_{f}} = {\rm Im} (e^{i\theta} i^n \, \bar\Omega\wedge f^* \Omega^\prime ) = 0\,
\end{equation}
for some constant phase $\theta$. This gives an equation for the function $f$, which can be always solved at least in a local patch.
In the toroidal theory of the previous section, $f$ is the map $(x^\prime, y^\prime) = (x,y)$ as the reader can easily verify.
\smallskip
It has been actually shown \cite{McL} that for compact manifolds the moduli space of a sLag submanifold has dimension
equal to its first Betti number. By continuity this should be in our case the first Betti number of $\Delta_{id}$, which is isomorphic to
the Calabi-Yau manifold $M$. Since $b_1(M)$ vanishes for complex dimension $n>1$, the sLag submanifold $\ \Delta_{f}$ is unique
in all cases with the exception of the two-torus.\footnote{For the 2-torus the sLag D2-brane has $b_1=2$. Its
two geometric moduli, which determine the brane's position on the doubled torus,
get complexified by the Wilson lines along the two non-contractible cycles.}
\smallskip
The $g$-function of this sLag D-brane is given by its volume, which by the sLag condition
is the integral of the calibrating form
\begin{equation}\label{sLagg}
g_{\scriptsize \, \rm sLag}= { \vert \int_M \bar \Omega \wedge f^*\Omega^\prime \vert \over
( \vert \int_M \Omega \wedge \bar \Omega\vert\, \vert \int_M \Omega^\prime \wedge \bar \Omega^\prime \vert )^{1/2} }\ .
\end{equation}
The normalization was once again fixed so as to ensure that $g=1$ for the trivial interface. Notice that we do not need here the
Dirac-Born-Infeld action, because the $B$-field on the D-brane is zero. This is because we have assumed that
the two $\sigma$-models have the same {complexified} K\"ahler moduli, i.e. $k= k^\prime$ {and} $B= B^\prime$.
Since folding flips the sign of $B$ in one of the models, the net field on the sLag brane vanishes.
\smallskip
Expression \eqref{sLagg} is again suggestive of an exponentiated diastasis function for the K\"ahler potential
in complex structure moduli space. We denote complex moduli by $t$.
The analytic extension of $K(t,\bar t ) = -\log \int_M \Omega(t)\wedge\bar\Omega(\bar t)$
suggested by \eqref{sLagg} is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cpx-kpot}
K( t^\prime, \bar t) = -\log \int_M f^*\Omega(t^\prime)\wedge\bar\Omega(\bar t) \ ,
\end{equation}
with $f$ defined by the calibration condition \eqref{calibr}. Notice that this condition only depends on $t^\prime$ and $\bar t$,
so the function $f$ does not introduce any implicit dependence on the conjugate variables, $\bar t^\prime$ and $t$,
as claimed.\,\footnote{One
may of course complex-conjugate \eqref{calibr} and express the calibrating map $f$, equivalently, in terms only of the independent
variables $\bar t^\prime$ and $t$.}
With this analytic extension one has
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cy-distB}
2 \, {\rm log}\, (g_{\scriptsize\, \rm sLag} ) = K(t,\bar t ) + K(t^\prime,\bar t^{\, \prime}) - K(t ,\bar t^{\, \prime}) - K(t^\prime,\bar t ) \ ,
\end{equation}
which proves the advertised identity \eqref{calabi-dist} for interfaces between
theories with the same K\"ahler structure but different complex structures.
\section{Superconformal $ {N=(2,2)} $ $\sigma$-models}
\label{sec4}
We turn next to an algebraic derivation of the basic formula \eqref{calabi-dist},
which only relies on the $ N=2$ superconformal symmetry of the interface.
To this end, we
view an interface between two theories, CFT and CFT$^\prime$, as a formal operator
mapping the states on the circle of CFT to those of CFT$^\prime$. This has been explained for instance
in \cite{Bachas:2001vj,Bachas:2007td}.
Folding converts this operator to a boundary state
of the tensor-product theory $\overline {\rm CFT}\otimes {\rm CFT}^\prime$, where here the bar denotes the parity-conjugate theory.
We use the same symbol, $ {\Delta}_f $, for the operator,
for the corresponding brane, and for its boundary state.
Our discussion parallels the analysis of $N=2$ superconformal boundaries
by Ooguri et al \cite{Ooguri:1996ck}, and we will therefore adopt the conventions of these authors.
\smallskip
Every interface operator contains a term\ $g \, \vert 0 \rangle\langle 0^\prime \vert + \cdots$ , where
$\vert 0\rangle$ is the normalized ground state of theory CFT, and $\vert 0^\prime \rangle$ the normalized ground state
of theory CFT$^\prime$. The coefficient of this term is, by definition, the $g$-function of the interface.
Since we will be working with non-normalized ground states, we write more generally
\begin{equation}\label{gCyl}
g \, =\, { \langle 0 \vert q^H \ {\Delta}_f \ q^{H^\prime} \vert 0^\prime \rangle \over
\langle 0 \vert q^H\vert 0\rangle^{1\over 2} \, \langle 0^\prime \vert q^{H^\prime} \vert 0^\prime\rangle^{1\over 2}
}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $H$ and $H^\prime$ are the Hamiltonians in the closed-string channel.
This expression does not depend on the evolution time log\,$q$, so one can take
$q\to 0$ and replace the ground states by any other states with non-vanishing vacuum components.
\subsection{Type-A and type-B boundaries}
We are interested in interfaces that preserve a $N=2$ superconformal algebra, and
which can be continuously deformed to the identity operator.
Since folding converts these operators to boundary states,
we first recall some well-known facts about
supersymmetry-preserving boundaries
in $N=(2,2)$ superconformal theories.
Supersymmetric branes come in two varieties, type-A and type-B.
The boundary states of type-A branes obey
the following conditions:\,\footnote{These are the conditions in the closed-string channel, in which the reality
conditions for fermions involve the exchange of left and right movers.
In the open-string
channel one has $J_L = -J_R$ and $G_L^+= G_R^-$
for the type-A boundaries, $J_L = J_R$ and $G_L^+= G_R^+$ for the type-B boundaries.}
\begin{equation}
(G_L^+ -i G_R^-)\, \vert A \rangle\hskip -1mm \rangle = (G_L^- -i G_R^+)\, \vert A \rangle\hskip -1mm \rangle =
(J_{ L} - J_{ R}) \, \vert A \rangle\hskip -1mm \rangle = 0\ , \nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{AA}
{\rm and}\qquad e^{i\alpha\phi} \, \vert A \rangle\hskip -1mm \rangle =
e^{i\alpha\phi_0}\, \vert A \rangle\hskip -1mm \rangle\ ,
\end{equation}
where $G^\pm_L $ and $G^\pm_R $
are the complex left- and right-moving supercurrents,
$J_L$ and $J_R$ are the R-symmetry currents, and
$\phi = \int (J_L - J_R) = \phi_L+\phi_R$.
Likewise, the B-type boundaries obey the conditions
\begin{equation}
(G_L^+ -i G_R^+)\, \vert B \rangle\hskip -1mm \rangle = (G_L^- -i G_R^-)\, \vert B \rangle\hskip -1mm \rangle =
(J_{ L} + J_{ R}) \, \vert B \rangle\hskip -1mm \rangle = 0\ , \nonumber \end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{BB}
{\rm and}\qquad e^{i\alpha \tilde \phi} \, \vert B \rangle\hskip -1mm \rangle =
e^{i\alpha \tilde \phi_0}\, \vert B \rangle\hskip -1mm \rangle\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde\phi = \int (J_L + J_R) = \phi_L - \phi_R$.
The above conditions
imply that type-A branes couple only to the $(c,c)$ and $(a,a)$ fields, while type-B branes couple to
$(c,a)$ and $(a,c)$ fields. Here $c$ and $a$ denote chiral and antichiral primaries of the $N=2$ superconformal algebra,
$(c,c)$ is a field that is chiral with respect to both the left and the right algebra etc.
\smallskip
Another consequence of the above conditions, which will be important for our purposes here, has to do with spectral flow.
The two spectral-flow operators are
$e^{ic\phi/6}$ and $e^{ic\tilde\phi/6}$, with $c$ the central charge of the CFT.
It follows then from \eqref{AA} and \eqref{BB} that
\begin{equation}\label{bps}
\langle\hskip -1mm \langle A \vert 0 \rangle = e^{- i c\phi_0/6}\,
\langle\hskip -1mm \langle A \vert 0 \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR}
\qquad {\rm and} \qquad
\langle\hskip -1mm \langle B \vert \tilde 0 \rangle = e^{- ic \tilde \phi_0/6 }\,
\langle\hskip -1mm \langle B \vert \tilde 0 \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} \ ,
\end{equation}
where
$\vert 0\rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR}$ and $\vert \widetilde 0\rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR}$ are the canonical Ramond-Ramond
ground states, obtained
from the Neveu-Schwarz vacuum by spectral flow.\,\footnote{Readers not familiar with $N=2$ should
compare these facts to the analogous statements for
boundary states of a free-boson theory. There, the Dirichlet condition
couples only to the closed-string momentum modes, and the coupling has equal strength
for all states that differ only in momentum. This is necessary in order to produce the
localizing $\delta$-function of the Dirichlet brane. Likewise, a Neumann condition couples only to winding modes, and the coupling
depends on winding number through a phase factor. In the context of $N=(2,2)$ theories,
type-A and type-B branes are, respectively Dirichlet and Neumann conditions for the field
$\phi$, and the two spectral-flow operators inject, respectively, momentum and winding.}
\smallskip
These statements have a nice geometric interpretation in the large volume limit \cite{Ooguri:1996ck}.
The boundary states $ \vert A \rangle\hskip -1mm \rangle $ correspond to D-branes wrapping Lagrangian submanifolds,
$\gamma$, of the Calabi-Yau $n$-fold, while the states $ \vert B \rangle\hskip -1mm \rangle $
correspond to ($p$-dimensional) holomorphic submanifolds
${\tilde \gamma}$. The overlaps with the NS vacuum are the $g$-factors of the corresponding D-branes, whereas
the overlaps with the appropriately-normalized,
canonical RR ground states give the D-brane charges
\begin{equation}\label{eq:brane-charge}
\langle\hskip -1mm \langle A \vert 0 \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} = \int_\gamma \Omega
\qquad {\rm and} \qquad
\langle\hskip -1mm \langle B \vert \tilde 0 \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} = \int_{\tilde \gamma}
\, {1\over p !}
\, \omega^p \ .
\end{equation}
In the context of string theory compactified on a Calabi-Yau
3-fold, the equations \eqref{bps} are the BPS mass formulae for the corresponding supersymmetric black holes.
The above disk amplitudes have also an interpretation in terms of topological twists. To compute the first amplitude for example,
one puts A-type boundary conditions at the end of a semi-infinite cigar, where the curved region at the tip of the cigar is B-twisted. Due to the topological twist, the identity operator sitting at the end point of the cigar becomes a RR-ground state at the end of the cigar. This is the canonical RR ground state, corresponding to the holomorphic 3-form on a Calabi-Yau manifold.
\subsection{Diastasis as entropy of A-type interfaces}
The discussion of supersymmetric boundaries
can be adapted easily to N=2 superconformal interfaces \cite{Brunner:2007qu}.
These are of A-type or of B-type
depending on which combination of superconformal generators they intertwine.
Explicitly, in terms of the interface operators one has
\begin{eqnarray}\label{intertwine}
[ G_L^+ -i G_R^- , \, {\Delta}_{f,A} ] =
[ G_L^- -i G_R^+ , \, {\Delta}_{f,A} ] = [J_{ L} - J_{ R} , \, {\Delta}_{f,A}]
= 0\ , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
[ G^+_L -i G^+_R , \, {\Delta}_{f,B} ] =
[ G_L^- -i G_R^- , \, {\Delta}_{f,B} ] = [J_{ L} + J_{ R} , \, {\Delta}_{f,B}] = 0\ .
\end{eqnarray}
Likewise, the intertwining of spectral-flow operators reads
\begin{equation}\label{47}
e^{i\alpha\phi} \, {\Delta}_{f,A}\, e^{-i\alpha\phi} = e^{i\alpha\phi_0} \, {\Delta}_{f,A} \ , \quad {\rm or}\qquad
e^{i\alpha\tilde\phi} \, {\Delta}_{f,B}\, e^{-i\alpha\tilde\phi} = e^{i\alpha\tilde\phi_0} \, {\Delta}_{f,B} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\phi$ and
$\tilde\phi$ are the fields defined earlier, and $\phi_0$, $\tilde\phi_0$ are constant phases.
These
equations are the unfolded versions of equations \eqref{AA} and \eqref{BB} for the tensor-product theory.
To be precise, since folding converts the interfaces to boundaries of the product theory
$\overline {\rm CFT}\otimes {\rm CFT}^\prime$, the generators that enter in \eqref{AA} and \eqref{BB}
are the sums of the generators
for the individual theories, but with theory CFT parity-transformed.\,\footnote{The tensor-product theory has also
superconformal branes that do not involve this parity operation. From the geometric point of view, this is because the target
manifold is more special than Calabi-Yau. The corresponding interfaces are not continuously-connected
to the identity, and will not concern us here. }
\smallskip
Combining equations \eqref{gCyl} and \eqref{47} leads to
the following alternative expression for the square of the $g$ function of type-A interfaces:
\begin{equation}\label{gCylR}
g_A^2 \, =\, { \ _{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0 \vert q^H \, {\Delta}_{f,A}
\, q^{H^\prime} \vert 0^\prime \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} \times
\ _{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0^\prime \vert q^{H^\prime} \, {\Delta}_{f,A}^\dagger
\, q^{H} \vert 0 \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR}
\over
\hskip -0.6mm \ _{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0 \vert q^H\vert 0\rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} \times
\ _{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0^\prime \vert q^{H^\prime} \vert 0^\prime\rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR}
}\ \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\vert 0 \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR}$ is the canonical Ramond-Ramond ground state obtained by acting
with the spectral-flow operator $e^{ic\phi/6}$ on the Neveu-Schwarz vacuum,
and $\vert \bar 0\rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR}$ is the conjugate ground state.
There is a
similar expression for type-B interfaces, with $\vert 0 \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} $ replaced by
the twisted canonical Ramond ground state, $\vert \widetilde 0 \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} $, obtained
with the spectral-flow operator $e^{ic\tilde \phi/6}$.
Taking the logarithm of \eqref{gCylR}
gives an expression reminiscent of the diastasis function of the previous section,
\begin{equation}\label{410}
2\, {\rm log} (g_{A}) \, = K(t, \bar t) + K(t^\prime, \bar t^\prime) -
{\rm log} ( \hskip -0.6mm \ _{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0 \vert {\Delta}_{f,A}
\vert 0^\prime \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR}) -
{\rm log} ( \hskip -0.6mm \ _{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0^\prime \vert {\Delta}_{f,A}^\dagger
\vert 0 \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} ) \ .
\end{equation}
We used here the fact \cite{Cecotti:1991me} (see also \cite{Periwal:1989mx})
that the canonical Ramond ground state, which has holomorphic dependence
on the complex structure moduli, has norm
\begin{equation}
{\rm log} \left(\hskip -0.4mm \ _{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0 \vert 0 \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} \right)
\ =\ - K(t, \bar t) \ .
\end{equation}
There are analogous expressions for type-B interfaces with$K(t, \bar t)$ replaced by
$K(u, \bar u)$, the K\"ahler potential on the moduli space of K\"ahler structures.
\smallskip
To show that \eqref{410} is Calabi's diastasis we interpret the expression
${\rm log} ( \hskip -0.6mm \ _{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0 \vert {\Delta}_{f,A}
\vert 0^\prime \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} ) $ at large volume. For this, we note that $ \vert 0 \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} $ becomes the holomorphic three-form for the geometry
corresponding to the unprimed theory, whereas $\hskip -0.6mm \ _{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0 \vert$ corresponds to the anti-holomorphic three-form for the primed theory. The expression then becomes, in the folded picture, the RR-charge of an A-type brane with respect to the canonical RR ground state. The relevant A-brane is the deformed diagonal brane described before. Hence, we can employ (\ref{eq:brane-charge}) to conclude that at large volume
\begin{equation}\label{eq:analytic}
\hskip -0.6mm \ _{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0 \vert {\Delta}_{f,A}
\vert 0^\prime \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} = \int_M \bar\Omega' \wedge f^* \Omega \ .
\end{equation}
This is precisely the analytic continuation of the K\"ahler potential appearing in Calabi's diastasis function.
Note that relation (\ref{eq:analytic}) was computed at large volume. However, the relevant disk one-point functions do not
depend on K\"ahler moduli, hence the above relation can be extrapolated to all length scales.
\subsection{Quantum diastasis function}
We will now prove that for any B-twistable theory the left hand side of (\ref{eq:analytic}) depends holomorphically on $t^\prime$
and antiholomorphically on $t$, in some open region of moduli space.
The proof does not rely on a geometrical interpretation, and also goes through practically unchanged for B-type interfaces
in A-twistable theories. This shows that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{analytic43}
\hskip -0.6mm \ _{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0 \vert {\Delta}_{f,A}
\vert 0^\prime \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} \equiv e^{-K(t^\prime, \bar t)}\ , \quad {\rm and}
\quad
\hskip -0.6mm \ _{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar {\tilde 0} \vert {\Delta}_{f,B}
\vert {\tilde 0}^\prime \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} \equiv e^{-K(u^\prime, \bar u)}
\end{eqnarray}
define the analytic extensions of the quantum K\"ahler potentials to independent holomorphic and anti-holomorphic moduli.
\smallskip
To establish this holomorphicity property, recall that N=2
supersymmetric conformal theories can be marginally perturbed by suitable descendants of fields from the chiral $(c,c)$ sector, or the twisted chiral $(a,c)$ sector. The two are interchanged by mirror symmetry, and we focus here on chiral perturbations, which geometrically correspond to complex structure deformations.
On the level of the action, and on a worldsheet with boundaries, the perturbation reads
\begin{equation}
S \to S + \Delta S (t_i) + \overline{\Delta S}(\bar{t}_i),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Delta S = \sum_i t_i \int Q_L^+ Q_R^+ \phi_i + \Delta S_{b}\ , \qquad
\overline{\Delta S} = \sum_i \bar{t}_i \int Q_R^- Q_L^- \bar\phi_i + \overline {\Delta S_{b}} \ ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Sbound}
\Delta S_{b} + \overline {\Delta S_{b}}\ =\ -2i \oint_{\cal C} ds (t_i \phi_i-\bar{t}_i\bar\phi_i) \ .
\end{equation}
The addition of this boundary term is necessary
in order to preserve A-type supersymmetry \cite{Hori:2000ck}, assuming this
was the unbroken supersymmetry in the unperturbed theory.
The supercharges $Q_L^\pm, Q_R^\pm$ are obtained by contour integration of the
supersymmetry currents $G_L^\pm, G_R^\pm$, and they satisfy the standard $N=2$ algebra
\begin{equation}
\{ Q_L^+, Q_L^- \} = 2 (H+P), \quad \{ Q_R^+, Q_R^- \} = 2 (H-P) \ ,
\end{equation}
where $H$ and $P$ are translation operators in Euclidean time and space.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.75\textwidth,trim=0cm 8cm 0cm 6cm,clip=true]{figure.pdf}
\caption{\label{fig:i} Schematic representation of the amplitude \eqref{analytic43} that defines the
analytic extension of the K\"ahler potential to independent holomorphic and antiholomorphic moduli.}
\end{figure}
We are interested in perturbations that are restricted to only part of the worldsheet. The resulting interface then connects an unperturbed initial theory to another theory on the same moduli space. If the perturbation is from the $(c,c)$ sector, the interface will be A-type, i.e.
it preserves the same supersymmetry as A-type branes.
Thus the fusion between $(c,c)$ deformation interfaces and A-type branes is protected by supersymmetry, in agreement with the fact that A-type branes remain supersymmetric under $(c,c)$ perturbations \cite{Brunner:2007ur}.
Viewed as an operator, the A-interface acts naturally on elements of the $(c,c)$ ring, in the same way that A-branes couple to $(c,c)$ fields.
\smallskip
Recall from the discussion in section \ref{sec3} that complex structure interfaces were related
after folding to special Lagrangian branes. The deformation of the original diagonal brane was determined
by a map $f: M\to M^\prime$, which ensured that the deformed brane is still special Lagrangian, hence supersymmetric.
In the conformal theory, the role of $f$ is played by the boundary perturbation (\ref{Sbound}), which adjusts to
the bulk perturbation continuously as long as there are no relevant operators at the interface. After a
finite perturbation, on the other hand, the O.P.E. of the perturbing field with the boundary may stop being regular,
thereby inducing a renormalization-group flow to some lower-$g$ interface. When a space-time interpretation of D-branes
in terms of BPS states is available, this means that we hit a line of marginal stability.
\smallskip
From now on, we assume that relevant boundary operators do not appear, which should be true in open regions around
generic points of moduli space. We would like to show that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hol-derivative}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{t_i}^\prime } \, \left[ {}_{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0 | \Delta_f | 0^\prime \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR}\right] = 0 \ ,
\end{equation}
so that the amplitude has holomorphic dependence on the primed moduli.
Our analysis follows \cite{Hori:2000ck}.
The amplitude under consideration is drawn in Figure 1. We model the
RR ground state $|0'\rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} $ by a semi-infinite cigar in a B-twisted topological theory.
Since the operator insertion at the tip of the cigar is the identity, the state appearing at the boundary
of the cigar is the canonical RR ground state.
Similarly, we create the state ${}_{\rm\footnotesize RR} \langle \bar 0 |$ by inserting the identity at the tip of a semi-infinite cigar with
an anti-topological B-twist. The two cigars
are connected by a flat cylinder, on which we locate the interface $\Delta_f$ that separates the perturbed
(green) region from the unperturbed (blue) region.
\smallskip
We can now prove \eqref{eq:hol-derivative} in two steps. First, we use the results of \cite{Cecotti:1991me} to conclude that
the canonical RR ground state has holomorphic dependence on the moduli,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{t}_i^\prime} \, |0'\rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR}\ =\ 0 \ .
\end{equation}
Hence, all we need to do is to consider the $t_i$ perturbation on a flat region $\Sigma'$
between the interface and the boundary of the semi-infinite cigar, see Figure 1.
Taking the derivative in (\ref{eq:hol-derivative}) then amounts to inserting in the amplitude
\begin{equation}
\overline {\Delta S_i} = \int_{\Sigma'} Q_R^- Q_L^- \bar{\phi}_i +2i \oint_{{\cal C}_{int}} \bar{\phi}_i \ .
\end{equation}
Using the supersymmetry algebra, we can rewrite this insertion as
\begin{equation}\label{insert}
\overline {\Delta S_i} = \int_{\Sigma'} (Q_R^- - i Q_L^+)(Q_L^-+i Q_R^+) \bar\phi_i + 2i \oint_{{\cal C}'} \bar{\phi}_i \ ,
\end{equation}
where ${\cal C}'$ is the boundary of the cigar on the right. The above rewriting follows from the
supersymmetry algebra and the fact that $\bar \phi_i$ is a anti-chiral field. Together these imply that
\begin{eqnarray}
(Q_R^- - i Q_L^+)(Q_L^-+i Q_R^+) \bar\phi_i = (Q_R^- - i Q_L^+)Q_L^- \bar\phi_i
=
(Q_R^-Q_L^- -2 i H) \bar\phi_i\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $H$ is the generator of translations perpendicular to the interface.
\smallskip
Proving equation \eqref{eq:hol-derivative} is therefore equivalent to proving that
\begin{eqnarray} {}_{\rm\footnotesize RR}\langle \bar 0 | \Delta_f \, \left[ \int_{\Sigma'} (Q_R^- - i Q_L^+)(Q_L^-+i Q_R^+) \bar\phi_i + 2i \oint_{{\cal C}'} \bar{\phi}_i
\right] \, | 0^\prime \rangle_{\rm\footnotesize RR} = 0\ .
\end{eqnarray}
The second piece vanishes, since otherwise the amplitude would violate the selection rules for R-charge.
As for the bulk piece,
we use that $Q_R^--i Q_L^+$ intertwines the interface operator $\Delta_f$.
By contour deformation, we can thus let it act on the bra state ${}_{\rm\footnotesize RR} \langle \bar{0}|$,
which is annihilated since it is a ground state. Here, we have used that $\Sigma'$ is flat, hence all contours can be deformed freely.
This concludes the proof of (\ref{eq:hol-derivative}).
\section{On the triangle inequality}
\label{sec5}
We conclude this letter with a remark on whether Calabi's diastasis function defines a distance.
Although Calabi did not comment on this in \cite{Calabi},
the name he chose suggests that he knew it did not.
Since his motivation was to study isometric embeddings of K\"ahler manifolds, this question was
not central to his work anyway. If, on the other hand,
the proposal \eqref{distance} for a distance between
conformal field theories \cite{inprogress} makes sense, it should do so for
Calabi-Yau manifolds, for which we have proven
equation \eqref{calabi-dist}. The question, therefore, is whether
the square-root of the diastasis function defines a distance in the special case of
Calabi-Yau moduli spaces.
\smallskip
Actually, the complex structure moduli space of a Calabi-Yau $n$-fold can be embedded
isometrically in a higher-dimensional
projective space. This is because the K\"ahler potential
$ K = -\log (\int_M \Omega\wedge \bar \Omega)$
can be interpreted as the
Fubini-Study potential
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fs-indef}
K = -\log \eta_{\alpha\beta} \Pi^\alpha \bar\Pi^\beta
\end{equation}
restricted to the embedding
\begin{equation}
t\rightarrow \Pi^\alpha \equiv \int_{\Sigma_\alpha} \Omega \ ,
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma_\alpha$ is a basis for $H_{n}(M,\mathbb{Z})$, and $\eta_{\alpha\beta}$ is the
intersection form (antisymmetric for $n=2k+1$).
As a first step, we may thus like to
check whether the square root of
Calabi's diastatic function on projective space is a distance.
\smallskip
The answer actually depends on the signature of the metric.
It is true in the hyperbolic case (signature $-+++\ldots$), which includes the
complex structure and K\"ahler moduli spaces on $T^2$.
To see why,
take a coordinate patch $z_0=1$ and choose, without loss of generality, the third
point at $\vec z=0$. If the other two points are at $\vec z_1$ and $\vec z_2$
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
d_{i3}^2 &=& -\log (1-|\vec z_i|^2) \qquad i=1,2 ; \nonumber \\
d_{12}^2 &=& \log \frac{|1-\vec z_1\cdot\bar z_2|^2}{(1-|\vec z_1|^2)(1-|\vec z_2|^2)}
= \log |1-\vec z_1\cdot\bar z_2|^2 + d_{13}^2 + d_{23}^2 .
\end{eqnarray}
To check the triangle inequality, we need to check that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tri-sq}
(d_{13} + d_{23})^2 \ge d_{12}^2 \Longleftrightarrow
2 d_{13} d_{23} \ge 2 \log |1-\vec z_1\cdot\bar z_2| .
\end{equation}
The worst case is when $z_1=x$ and $z_2=-x$ are antialigned, so it is sufficient to check that
\begin{equation}
|\log (1-x^2)| \ge \log (1+x^2) .
\end{equation}
This inequality is indeed true for all values of $x$.
\smallskip
The same analysis for the elliptic case
(signature $+++\ldots$) shows that
the triangle inequality fails. Take for instance the three points $z_1=z$, $z_2=1$ and $z_3=0$
on $CP^1$ for which one finds
\begin{equation}
d^2_{13} (0, z) = \log (1+ |z|^2) \ , \quad d^2_{12} = \log \frac{2(1+| z|^2)}{|1+z |^2}\ ,
\quad d^2_{23} = \log 2\ .
\end{equation}
Since $d_{13}$
diverges as $ z\rightarrow \infty$, while $d_{12}$ and $d_{23}$ approach $\sqrt{\log 2}$, the triangle inequality
cannot possibly be valid.
What about the projective spaces relevant for
Calabi-Yau moduli spaces? For general signature $(n,m)$ this contains
the elliptic case as a submanifold, so it cannot hold everywhere. Thus the actual
embedding is important.
While one could study this,
it is simpler to test the claim locally by constructing the expansion for the diastatic function from
the intrinsic geometric data of the moduli space. In K\"ahler normal coordinates, we
have
\begin{equation}
K(t,\bar t) = \sum_\alpha |t^\alpha|^2
- \frac{1}{4} R_{\alpha\bar\beta \gamma\bar\delta} t^\alpha \bar{t}^{\bar\beta} t^\gamma \bar{t}^{\bar\delta}
+ \ldots
\end{equation}
so the Calabi diastasis function is
\begin{equation}
d^2(t_1,t_2) = |t_1-t_2|^2
- \frac{1}{4} R_{\alpha\bar\beta \gamma\bar\delta}
( t_1^\alpha t_1^\gamma - t_2^\alpha t_2^\gamma )
( \bar{t}_1^{\bar\beta} \bar{t}_1^{\bar\delta} - \bar{t}_2^{\bar\beta} \bar{t}_2^{\bar\delta} )
+ \ldots
\end{equation}
Setting $t_3=0$, the triangle inequality at this order becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
|t_1| + |t_2| - |t_1-t_2| && \geq - \frac{1}{8} R_{\alpha\bar\beta \gamma\bar\delta}
\Biggl[ \frac{1}{|t_1-t_2|}
( t_1^\alpha t_1^\gamma - t_2^\alpha t_2^\gamma )
( \bar{t}_1^{\bar\beta} \bar{t}_1^{\bar\delta} - \bar{t}_2^{\bar\beta} \bar{t}_2^{\bar\delta} )
\nonumber \\
&&
- \frac{1}{|t_1|} t_1^\alpha t_1^\gamma \bar{t}_1^{\bar\beta} \bar{t}_1^{\bar\delta}
- \frac{1}{|t_2|} t_2^\alpha t_2^\gamma \bar{t}_2^{\bar\beta} \bar{t}_2^{\bar\delta}
\Biggr]\, .
\end{eqnarray}
For the special choice $t_1=x$ and $t_2=-x$, one finds $R_{x\bar{x} x\bar{x}} <0$, namely the
sectional curvature in the plane $x\bar{x}$ must be negative. This confirms
the previous computation, and shows that
there is a local condition.
\smallskip
Since K\"ahler manifolds can have either sign of sectional curvature, we see that
in general the diastatic function does not satisfy the triangle inequality. For a Calabi-Yau moduli
space, in particular, the sectional curvature is known to be positive near a conifold point \cite{Candelas:1990rm}.
Thus, if
the supersymmetric interfaces minimize the entropy,
the proposal \eqref{distance} violates the triangle inequality. We hope to return to this problem
in the future \cite{inprogress}.
\acknowledgments
The work of I.B. is supported in part
by a EURYI grant of the European Science Foundation. The work of M.D. is supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-92ER40697.
The work of
L.R. is supported in part by the NSF under Grant PHY-0969919 and by a Simons Foundation Sabbatical Fellowship.
We have benefited from useful discussions with Amir Kashani-Poor, Michael
Kay, Bruno Le Floch and Vasilis Niarchos. C.B. thanks the string-theory group at LMU for their warm hospitality
during an extended visit made possible by the Humboldt foundation. L.R. is grateful to the theory groups of the LPTENS, Paris,
and of the IAS, Princeton, for their warm hospitality.
|
\section{Introduction}
It is now well established that the Bern-Dixon-Smirnov (BDS) conjecture \cite{Bern:2005iz} for the MHV $n$-point scattering amplitude in the planar limit of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory is incomplete for $n \ge 6$. In \cite{Alday:2007he} it has been shown that this conjecture is not correct at strong coupling and for a large number of gluons. The authors of \cite{Bartels:2008ce,Bartels:2008sc} showed that also at weak coupling this conjecture does not reproduce the correct result in different kinematic regions. Corrections to the BDS formula have been named "remainder functions", $R_{n}$, and in recent years major efforts have been made \cite{Lipatov:2009nt, Lipatov:2010qg, Lipatov:2010ad, Bartels:2010tx, Bartels:2011nz, Bartels:2011xy, Prygarin:2011gd, Bartels:2011ge, Bartels:2014ppa,Hatsuda:2014oza,Basso:2014koa, Golden:2014xqa} to determine these remainder functions. For $n=6$, the remainder function $R_{6}$ has been calculated for two, and three loops \cite{Goncharov:2010jf,DelDuca:2009au,DelDuca:2010zg, Dixon:2011pw, Dixon:2011nj, Dixon:2012yy,Pennington:2012zj,Dixon:2013eka,Lipstein:2013xra,Golden:2013xva,DelDuca:2013lma,Caron-Huot:2013fea}. Beyond this loop expansion, it has turned out to be useful to consider a special kinematic limit, the multi-Regge limit. For the $n=6$ point amplitude, the comparison of the BDS conjecture with the leading logarithmic approximation that extends over all orders of the coupling constant has shown that the remainder function consists of a Regge cut contribution that vanishes in the Euclidean region and in the physical region where all energies are positive. It is nonzero only in special kinematic regions, called "Mandelstam regions", which are physical regions where some of the energy variables are positive,and others are negative (the precise definition of these "mixed regions" will be given later on). These results have been generalized also beyond the leading logarithmic approximation, and there is no doubt that the multi-Regge limit plays a key role in the determination of the remainder functions.
In the comparison of the multi-Regge formula with the BDS conjecture in \cite{Bartels:2008ce,Bartels:2008sc,Lipatov:2010qf} it was crucial to make use of the analytic structure of the $2 \to 4$ scattering amplitude in the multi-Regge limit. It is well known that in non-Abelian gauge theories the gauge bosons Reggeize, and in the leading approximation the $2 \to n+1$ production amplitudes can be written in a simple factorizing form with the exchange of Reggeized gluons in all $t$ channels. Beyond the leading approximation this factorizing form of the Regge-pole contribution remains valid in the region of all energies being positive, but the production vertices become complex-valued functions, in agreement with the results of Regge theory derived from dual models \cite{Weis:1972ir,Weis:1972tn,Brower:1974yv} or scalar theories \cite{Drummond:1969ft}. In \cite{Lipatov:2010qf,Bartels:2008ce} in was also shown that the simple factorized form of the Regge pole contributions is valid only in the physical region with all energy variables being positive (and also in the Euclidean region), but it takes a quite different form in all other regions, in particular in the Mandelstam regions mentioned before: in the expression for the Regge pole contribution a new term appears which contains an unphysical singularity and should be cancelled by other terms.
This representation of the Regge poles is equivalent to another representation, in which the scattering amplitude is written as a sum of $k_n$ different terms, each of them belonging to a distinct set of nonvanishing simultaneous energy discontinuities: in this representation the agreement with the Steinmann relation is explicit. For the case of $n=6$, there are five terms, i.e. $k_6=5$; for $n>6$ the number increases rapidly: $k_7=14$, $k_8=42$ etc. As discussed in \cite{Bartels:2008ce,Bartels:2008sc}, the perturbative analysis of Yang-Mills theories shows that some of these terms contain, in addition to the Regge poles, also Regge cut singularities.
For the $2\to4$ case, this applies to two terms: in the notation of \cite{Bartels:2008ce,Bartels:2008sc}, to $W_3$ and $W_4$. In the physical region where all energies are positive, the phase factors in front $W_3$ and $W_4$ are such that the Regge cut contributions in $W_3$ and $W_4$ cancel, whereas in the Mandelstam region they add up to a nonzero result. Both the discussions of the Regge cut contributions and of Regge poles have made it clear that a complete analysis of the analytic structure of scattering amplitudes must include the investigation of all physical regions.
The analysis of \cite{Lipatov:2010qf} for the $2\to 4$ amplitude has shown that there is an important connection between the Regge poles and Regge cuts which has not been seen in earlier analysis of Regge pole models \cite{Brower:1974yv}. First, it was observed that the Regge cut appears in exactly the same kinematic regions in which the Regge pole expression contains the terms with the unphysical singularities. Furthermore, both this singular Regge pole piece and the Regge cut term have the same complex phase structure: this allows us to absorb the singular Regge pole piece into the Regge cut contribution, leading to a "renormalized" Regge pole which is free from unphysical divergences, and to a modified Regge cut definition. The existence of Regge cuts therefore resolves the problem connected with appearance of the singular pieces of the Regge poles. Conversely, without Regge cuts the standard factorizing Regge pole expression appears to be problematic.
For the determination of the conformal invariant remainder function in $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM it is necessary to perform a careful analysis of the content of the BDS formula. In \cite{Bartels:2008ce,Bartels:2008sc,Lipatov:2010qf} it was shown that, in multi-Regge kinematics, the BDS formula does not agree with the analytic structure outlined above in two respects: (i) the Regge pole contribution is correctly described in the region of positive energies and in the Euclidean region, but not in the Mandelstam region and (ii) in these Mandelstam regions the Regge cut contributions are contained only in the one-loop approximation, but not to all orders. This implies that the conformal invariant remainder function must (i) correct the Regge pole contribution in all kinematic regions and (ii) provide the all-loop Regge cut contribution. In view of the described interdependence between Regge pole and Regge cut contributions, there must be a close connection between the solutions to both problems. It looks reasonable to start with the Regge pole part: here the main task is the subtraction of the singular pieces by Regge cut contributions. To be more concrete, one can attempt to use the known phase structure of the Regge pole terms in all kinematic regions to constrain the phases of the Regge cuts in such a way that they can absorb all singular terms of the Regge poles. In this subtraction, most powerful constraints follow from the conformal invariance of the remainder function: after absorbing the singular Regge pole pieces (which by themselves are not conformal invariant) into the Regge cut contributions, the remaining "renormalized" Regge poles and the modified Regge cut terms must be conformal invariant.
In this paper we describe this subtraction procedure for the $2\to4$ and for $2\to 5$ cases. For the former case, most the work has been done already in earlier publications: so we only briefly review and complete our previous studies and then generalize to the $2\to 5$ case.
In the first part (Sec. II) we analyze the general factorization formula of Regge pole contributions in all physical regions. Starting from the region of positive energies where factorization holds, we continue to other regions and derive the existence of terms with unphysical pole singularities which have to be compensated by Regge cut contributions. Particular attention will be given to the phase structure which is important in determining the phase structure of Regge cut contributions in $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM. We present explicit results for $2\to4$ and $2\to 5$,
but our analysis can also be generalized to the general case $2\to n+1$. In the second part (Sec. III) we present an analysis of the BDS formula in multi-Regge kinematics in all physical regions. This analysis is general and applies
to the case $2\to n+1$.
In the third part (Sec. V) we carry out the program described at the end of the previous paragraph.
We first compute, for the case $2 \to 5$, phases of Regge cut contributions which allow to absorb the unphysical terms of the Regge poles calculated in the first part. We then define subtraction schemes for absorbing these pieces into the Regge cuts, leaving conformal invariant expressions for the Regge poles. In the final part of this section we combine these results with our findings of the BDS amplitude obtained in Sec. III, and we present predictions for the remainder function. It should be emphasized that, in this paper, we do not yet address the second part of the program, the construction of the conformal invariant Regge cut contributions. This will be left for a separate paper.
\section{The Regge Pole framework}
\subsection{Factorizing Regge poles}
We begin with the factorized form of the fully signatured $2 \to n+1$ production amplitude (Fig.\ref{2to_np1_lab}). The produced particles will be labeled by $a_1,...,a_{n-1}$, and they can have positive or negative energies.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=2to_np1.eps}
\caption{Notations for the $2 \to n-2$ amplitude}
\label{2to_np1_lab}
\end{figure}
\noindent
We want to describe all physical channels of these amplitudes in the multi-Regge kinematics $s\gg |s_1|,...,|s_{n}|
\gg -t_1,...,-t_n$.
We introduce, for each $t$ channel $t_i$, the signature label $\tau_i$ which takes the values $\tau_i=+1$ or $\tau_i=-1$. For $\tau_i=+1 (-1)$ the scattering amplitude is even (odd) under twisting the $t_i$ channel, i.e. under the crossing of the corresponding energy variables (for the simplest case, the $2 \to 2$ scattering "twisting the $t$ channel" is the same as $s \leftrightarrow u$ crossing). For our present discussion it is sufficient to consider signatured amplitudes as sums and differences of planar untwisted and twisted amplitudes. Denoting a twist by a simple cross, a signatured $2 \to 2$ scattering amplitude has the form (Fig.\ref{2to2lab})
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=2to2.eps,scale=0.9}
\caption{The signatured $2 \to 2$ amplitude}
\label{2to2lab}
\end{figure}
\noindent
where the cross indicates the change of sign of the energies of the particles $B$ and $B'$.
Generalizing this to arbitrary $n$, we write down the amplitude for the $2\to n+1$ production amplitude in the
following form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{generalAmp}
\frac{A^{\tau_i\tau_j...\tau_n}_{2\rightarrow n+1}}{\Gamma(t_1)\Gamma(t_n)}\;=\;|s_1|^{\omega_1}\xi_{1}V^{\tau_1\tau_2;a_1}|s_2|^{\omega_2}\xi_2 V^{\tau_2\tau_3;a_2}|s_3|^{\omega_3}\xi_3\times...\nonumber\\ \times |s_{n-1}|^{\omega_{n-1}}\xi_{n-1}V^{\tau_{n-1}\tau_{n};a_{n-1}}|s_{n}|^{\omega_{n}}\xi_{n},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{xis}
\xi_{i}\;=\;e^{-i\pi \omega_i} - \tau_i\;\;;\;\xi_{ij}\;=\;e^{-i\pi \omega_{ij}} + \tau_i\tau_j\;\;;\;\xi_{ji}\;=\;e^{-i\pi \omega_{ji}} + \tau_i\tau_j
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
\omega_{ij}=\omega_i-\omega_j
\end{equation}
denote the signature factors, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{prodvrx}
V^{\tau_i \tau_j;a_j}\;=\;\frac{\xi_{ij}}{\xi_i}c^{ij;a_i}_R + \frac{\xi_{ji}}{\xi_j}c^{ij;a_i}_L
\end{eqnarray}
stands for the complex-valued production vertex.
As an example, for the case $2\rightarrow3$, the one particle production amplitude has a simple structure \cite{Lipatov:2010qf,Weis:1972tn}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{A^{\tau_1\tau_2}_{2\rightarrow 3}}{\Gamma(t_1)|s_1|^{\omega_1}|s_2|^{\omega_2}\Gamma(t_2)}\;=\;\xi_{1}V^{\tau_1\tau_2;a_1}\xi_2\;=\;\xi_{12}\xi_2 c^{12;a_1}_R + \xi_{21}\xi_1 c^{12;a_1}_L\;\equiv\;\tilde{V}^{\tau_1\tau_2;a_1},
\label{prodvertex1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Gamma(t)$ is the Regge pole residue and $c_R$ and $c_L$ the Reggeon-Reggeon-particle vertices. Similarly, the production of two particles has the form \cite{Lipatov:2010qf,Weis:1972tn}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{A^{\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3}_{2\rightarrow 4}}{\Gamma(t_1)|s_1|^{\omega_1}|s_2|^{\omega_2}|s_3|^{\omega_3}\Gamma(t_3)}\;=\;\xi_{1}V^{\tau_1\tau_2;a_1}\xi_2 V^{\tau_2\tau_3;a_2}\xi_3.
\end{eqnarray}
In order to arrive at a symmetric factorizing expression, we insert, for the $t_2$ channel, an additional signature factor and write
\begin{eqnarray}\label{sixpt}
\frac{A^{\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3}_{2\rightarrow 4}}{\Gamma(t_1)|s_1|^{\omega_1}|s_2|^{\omega_2}|s_3|^{\omega_3}\Gamma(t_3)}\;= \tilde{V}^{\tau_1\tau_2;a_1}\frac{1}{\xi_2}\tilde{V}^{\tau_2\tau_3;a_2},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\tilde{V}^{\tau_1\tau_2;a_1}= \xi_1 V^{\tau_1\tau_2;a_1}\xi_2.
\end{equation}
Generalizing to the case $2 \to n+1$, we see that for each "inner" $t_i$ channel, $t_2,...,t_{n-1}$, we need an extra "propagator" $1/\xi_i$. With this rule Eq.\eqref{generalAmp} can be written in the convenient form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{generalAmpfact}
\frac{A^{\tau_i\tau_j...\tau_n}_{2\rightarrow n+1}}{\Gamma(t_1) |s_1|^{\omega_1} |s_2|^{\omega_2}...
|s_{n}|^{\omega_{n}}\Gamma(t_n)}
\;=\; \tilde{V}^{\tau_1\tau_2;a_1} \frac{1}{\xi_2} \tilde{V}^{\tau_2\tau_3;a_2} \frac{1}{\xi_3} ...
\frac{1}{\xi_{n-1}} \tilde{V}^{\tau_{n-1}\tau_{n};a_{n-1}}.
\end{eqnarray}
It will be useful to write this formula as an expansion in monomials of signatures $\tau_i$. In such an expansion, terms without any $\tau_i$ can be identified as the planar approximation in the kinematic region where all energies are positive. For the case of $n=6$, terms proportional to $\tau_1 \tau_3$ correspond to the planar amplitude where the particles $a_1$ and $a_2$ have become incoming: this is one of the Mandelstam regions where, according to the analysis in \cite{Bartels:2008ce,Bartels:2008sc}, the Regge cut contribution will appear.
In order to obtain this representation we observe that the production vertex, Eq.\eqref{prodvertex1}, can be expanded as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{V}^{\tau_1\tau_2;a}= e^{-i\pi \omega_1} c^{12;a_1}_R + e^{-i\pi \omega_2} c^{12;a_1}_L
-\tau_1 e^{-i\pi \omega_1} \left( e^{-i\pi \omega_1} c^{12;a_1}_R + e^{-i\pi \omega_2} c^{12;a_1}_L \right)\nonumber\\
-\tau_2 e^{-i\pi \omega_2} \left( e^{-i\pi \omega_1} c^{12;a_1}_R + e^{-i\pi \omega_2} c^{12;a_1}_L \right)
+ \tau_1\tau_2 \left( e^{-i\pi \omega_2} c^{12;a_1}_R + e^{-i\pi \omega_1} c^{12;a_1}_L \right),
\label{vertextauexp}
\end{eqnarray}
and the propagator can be written in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{pseudopropagator}
\frac{1}{\xi_2}\;=\;\frac{1}{e^{-i\pi\omega_2}-\tau_2}\;=\;\frac{e^{-i\pi\omega_2}+\tau_2}{-2i\sin(\pi\omega_2)e^{-i\pi\omega_2}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note the appearance of the nonphysical poles $\sim 1/\sin(\pi \omega_2)$ which should be cancelled by the Regge cut contributions.
With these ingredients it is straightforward to find the expansion in monomials for the general $2\to n+1$ amplitude.
\subsection{Generating Function approach for the Regge Pole formula}
To be definite, let us from now on concentrate on planar $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM. It will be convenient to define a generating function for the pole-term coefficients. Let us briefly introduce the idea behind it. We are interested in the analytical continuation of the planar scattering amplitude to arbitrary kinematic regions in multi-Regge kinematics. During such a continuation, various factors and phases may appear. As explained above, each particular kinematic region can be reached by a sequence of twists (crosses) of $t$ channels, and each such twist is denoted by a corresponding factor $\tau$\footnote{It should be clear that, from now on, $\tau$ is no longer related to signature but simply denotes kinematic regions}. Thus, it is instructive to have a list of all possible phases and factors that appear due to continuation for each appropriate kinematic configuration. One may also think of a different point of view on the scattering amplitude. Instead of having one analytical function of kinematic invariants and then continuing to arbitrary physical and nonphysical kinematic regions, one can introduce a generating function, $P_{2 \to n}$, which is given as a sum of amplitudes in all physical regions. As a simple example, consider such a generating function of the $2 \rightarrow 3$ scattering process Fig.\ref{2to3lab}:
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=pole_twist.eps}
\caption{The generating function for the $2\rightarrow 3$ production process written in terms of monomials of $\tau_1$, $\tau_2$.}
\label{2to3lab}
\end{figure}
\noindent
Turning now to the BDS formula, applied to the $2\to3$ amplitude \cite{Bartels:2008ce}, we have for the Reggeon vertices in (\ref{prodvrx}):
\begin{eqnarray}\label{vertexRL}
c^{ii+1;a}_R\;=\;|\Gamma_{i,i+1}|\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_i-\pi\omega_a)}{\sin(\pi\omega_i-\pi\omega_{i+1})}\;\;\;\;;\;\;\;c^{ii+1;a}_L\;=\;|\Gamma_{i,i+1;a}|\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{i+1}-\pi\omega_a)}{\sin(\pi\omega_{i+1}-\pi\omega_i)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $i$ labels the $t$ channel (for the $2\to3$ case we have $i=1$ only), $a$ denotes the produced particle. Going to the physical region where all energies are positive, this allows to write the Reggeon-Reggeon-Gluon vertex
$\Gamma_{i,j;a}$ (see Eqs.(19)-(22) \cite{Lipatov:2010qf}) in the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{omegas}
\Gamma_{i,i+1;a}(\ln(\kappa_{a}-i\pi))\;=\;|\Gamma_{i,i+1;a}|e^{i\pi\omega_{a}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the expansions in powers of $a=\frac{g^2N_c}{8\pi^2}$ are given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_i\;=\;-\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\frac{|q_i|^2}{\lambda^2}\;,\;\;\gamma_K=4a + {\it{O}}(a^2),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\gamma_K$ is the cusp anomalous dimension and $\lambda^2\,\equiv\,\mu^2e^{1/\epsilon}$ for $D=4-2\epsilon$ with $\epsilon\rightarrow 0^{-}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{omega-a}
\omega_a\;=\;-\frac{\gamma_K}{8}\ln\frac{|q_i|^2|q_{i+1}|^2}{|k_{a_{i+1}}|^2\lambda^2}
\end{eqnarray}
with $k_{a_{i+1}} = q_i-q_{i+1}$,
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\ln|\Gamma_{i,i+1}|\;=\;\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\left(-\frac{1}{4}\ln^2\frac{|q_i-q_{i+1}|^2}{\lambda^2}-\frac{1}{4}\ln^2\frac{|q_i|^2}{|q_{i+1}|^2}+\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{|q_i|^2|q_{i+1}|^2}{\lambda^4}\ln\frac{|q_i-q_{i+1}|^2}{\mu^2}+\frac{5}{4}\zeta(2)\right).\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
Let us now return to the generating functions $P_{2 \to n}$, to the sum of amplitudes in all kinematic regions. It is convenient to divide by factors which are common to all kinematic regions. Beginning with the case $2\to3$, Namely, using the explicit form Eq.\eqref{prodvertex1} with Eq.\eqref{vertexRL} one arrives at
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{fivepointpartitionfunction}
P_{2\to3}&=&
\frac{A_{2\to3}}{\Gamma(t_1)|s_1|^{\omega_1}||\Gamma_{1,2}| |s_2|^{\omega_2}\Gamma(t_2)}\;\nonumber\\
&=&\tilde{V}_{red}^{\tau_1\tau_2;a}\\ &=&\;\;e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_1 + \omega_2 - \omega_a\right)} - e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_2 - \omega_a\right)}\tau_1 - e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_1 - \omega_a\right)}\tau_2 + e^{- i\pi\omega_a}\tau_1\tau_2.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have defined a reduced vertex by
\begin{equation}
\tilde{V}_{red}^{\tau_1\tau_2;a} =\frac{\tilde{V}^{\tau_1\tau_2;a}}{|\Gamma_{1,2}|}\;=\;e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_1 + \omega_2 - \omega_a\right)} - e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_2 - \omega_a\right)}\tau_1 - e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_1 - \omega_a\right)}\tau_2 + e^{- i\pi\omega_a}\tau_1\tau_2,
\end{equation}
which consists of phases only.
As the next example we calculate, from Eq.\eqref{sixpt}, the six-point generating function
(cf.(\cite{Lipatov:2010qf}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{sixpointpartitionfunction}
P_{2\rightarrow 4}&=&
\frac{A_{2\rightarrow 4}}{\Gamma(t_1)|s_1|^{\omega_1}|\Gamma_{1,2}| |s_2|^{\omega_2}
|\Gamma_{2,3}|
|s_3|^{\omega_3}\Gamma(t_3)}\nonumber \\
&=&\;\tilde{V}_{red}^{\tau_1\tau_2;a}\frac{1}{\xi_2}\tilde{V}_{red}^{\tau_2\tau_3;b}\nonumber\\ \;&=&e^{-i\pi(\omega_1+\omega_2+\omega_3-\omega_a-\omega_b)}\nonumber\\
&-&e^{-i\pi(\omega_2+\omega_3-\omega_a-\omega_b)}\tau_1 - e^{-i\pi(\omega_1+\omega_3-\omega_a-\omega_b)}\tau_2 - e^{-i\pi(\omega_1+\omega_2-\omega_a-\omega_b)}\tau_3 \nonumber\\&+& e^{-i\pi(\omega_3 + \omega_a-\omega_b)}\tau_1\tau_2 + e^{-i\pi(\omega_1 - \omega_a + \omega_b)}\tau_2\tau_3 \nonumber \\ &+& e^{-i\pi\omega_2}\left\{\cos(\pi\omega_{ab}) + i\left(\sin(\pi\omega_a+\pi\omega_b) - 2e^{i\pi\omega_2}\frac{ \sin (\pi\omega_a) \sin (\pi\omega_b)}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)} \right)\right\}\tau_1\tau_3 + \nonumber \\ &-& \left\{\cos(\pi\omega_{ab}) - i\left(\sin(\pi\omega_a+\pi\omega_b) -2e^{-i\pi\omega_2}\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_a) \sin(\pi\omega_b)}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)}\right)\right\} \tau_1\tau_2\tau_3,\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
where $\omega_{ab}\;=\;\omega_a - \omega_b$. The careful reader may notice that this expression has a mirror symmetry with respect to right and left ($a \leftrightarrow b$) exchange. This fact will be important in the future.
Concluding this part, on can write a general expression for the generating function for an arbitrary number of produced particles $2\rightarrow n+1$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{generalpartitionfunction}
P_{2\rightarrow n+1}&=&\frac{A_{2\rightarrow n+1}}{\Gamma(t_1) |s_1|^{\omega_1} |\Gamma_{1,2}| |s_2|^{\omega_2}...
|\Gamma_{n-1,n}| |s_{n}|^{\omega_{n}}\Gamma(t_n)} \nonumber \\
&=&\; \tilde{V}_{red}^{\tau_1\tau_2;a_1} \frac{1}{\xi_2} \tilde{V}_{red}^{\tau_2\tau_3;a_2} \frac{1}{\xi_3} ...
\frac{1}{\xi_{n-1}} \tilde{V}_{red}^{\tau_{n-1}\tau_{n};a_{n-1}}\nonumber\\
&=&\;a_0 + a_1\tau_1 + a_2\tau_2 + a_{12}\tau_1\tau_2 + ... + a_{1..n}\tau_{1}...\tau_n.
\end{eqnarray}
The r.h.s. can be written as a polynomial in the $\tau_i$, and the coefficients consist of phases and trigonometric functions. In the Appendix A we list, for the cases $2\to3$, $2\to4$, and $2\to5$, all coefficients of the generating function.
\subsection{Rules: a few particular cases}
It will be useful to extract, from the particular cases given above, a few general rules. Let us begin with the case $n=5$. As we have said before, the term without any $\tau$ belongs to the planar amplitude in the physical region with all positive energies. On the rhs of Eq.\eqref{fivepointpartitionfunction} we have:
\begin{equation}
e^{i\pi\omega_a}e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_1+\omega_2\right)}.
\end{equation}
As expected, the amplitude has the simple factorized form, with phase factors for the produced particle, $e^{i\pi \omega_a}$, and for the exchange channels, $e^{-i\pi \omega_1}$ and $e^{-i\pi \omega_2}$.
As to the remaining three terms for $n=5$ we observe the following pattern: each $t$ channel without a twist comes with a phase factor
$e^{-i\pi \omega_i}$, each $t$ channel with a twist carries the factor $-1$:
\begin{itemize}
\item twisted propagator: $\rightarrow$ $-1$
\item untwisted propagator in channel $t_i$: $\rightarrow$ $e^{-i\pi\omega_i}$
\end{itemize}
An illustration is given in Fig.\ref{propagators}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=propagators.eps}
\caption{Two types of propagators in channel $i$.}
\label{propagators}
\end{figure}
\noindent
Turning to $n=6$, all but two terms are of the form that we have just described:
phase factors for the propagators and for the production vertices. It is important to note that in all these terms the pole $\sim 1/\sin (\pi \omega_2)$ from the propagator of the $t_2$ channel cancels. New features appear for $\tau_1 \tau_3$ and $\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_3$, namely terms where the poles $\sim 1/\sin (\pi \omega_2)$ from the propagator Eq.(\ref{pseudopropagator}) remain. The term proportional to $\tau_1 \tau_3$ belongs to the planar amplitude continued into the physical regions where particles $a$ and $b$ are incoming Fig.\ref{Fig_2to4_twist13}:
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=2to4twist1_3.eps}
\caption{Illustration of the term $\tau_1\tau_3$.}
\label{Fig_2to4_twist13}
\end{figure}
\noindent
This kinematic region is the one in which the Regge cut appears \cite{Bartels:2008ce,Bartels:2008sc}.
For this term we find from the rhs of Eq.\eqref{sixpointpartitionfunction}
\begin{equation}
\label{2to4twist13a}
= e^{-i\pi \omega_2} \Big[ \cos (\pi(\omega_a-\omega_b)) + i \sin ( \pi(\omega_a+\omega_b)) - 2i
\frac{\cos (\pi \omega_2) \sin (\pi \omega_a) \sin (\pi \omega_b)}{\sin (\pi \omega_2)} \Big].
\end{equation}
which we rewrite as
\begin{equation}
\label{2to4twist13}
\text{Eq.}\eqref{2to4twist13a} =e^{-i\pi\omega_2}\left[e^{i\pi\left(\omega_a+\omega_b\right)} - 2ie^{i\pi\omega_2}\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_a)\sin(\pi\omega_b)}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)} \right] .
\end{equation}
Here the first term is of the same form as discussed before, whereas the second term is new: it has an unphysical pole in $\sin (\pi \omega_2)$.
The important observation made in \cite{Lipatov:2010qf} is that the last two terms can be included in the Regge cut contribution, because they have the same phase structure as the Regge cut.
This is the simplest example of the general feature that a Regge pole amplitude which, for positive energies, has the factorizing form, after analytic continuation, exhibits unphysical poles (in our case: $\sim 1/\sin (\pi \omega_2)$). From \cite{Bartels:2008ce,Bartels:2008sc} we know that, in Yang-Mills theories, the $2\to4$ amplitude contains a Regge cut contribution with the same phase $i e^{-i\pi \omega_2}$, which can absorb the singular piece in Eq.\eqref{2to4twist13a} of the Regge pole contribution.
An analogous discussion applies also to the term proportional to $\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3$. Note, however, that in this case the first term (see Appendix A) is of the form
\begin{equation}
-e^{-i\pi(\omega_a+\omega_b)}.
\end{equation}
As expected, there are no phases from $t$ channel propagators, but for the production vertices we have
$e^{-i\pi \omega_a}$ instead of $e^{i\pi \omega_a}$.
Moving on to $n=7$, we again note the appearance of pole terms: the coefficient of $\tau_1\tau_3$ is illustrated in Fig.\ref{Fig_2to5_twist13}:
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=2to5twist1_3.eps}
\caption{Illustration of the term $\tau_1\tau_3$.}
\label{Fig_2to5_twist13}
\end{figure}
\noindent
It has the form (Appendix A)
\begin{equation}
e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_2+\omega_4\right)}e^{i\pi\omega_c}\left[e^{i\pi\left(\omega_a+\omega_b\right)} - 2ie^{i\pi\omega_2}\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_a)\sin(\pi\omega_b)}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)} \right].
\end{equation}
It is easily obtained from the analogous term of the $2\to4$ amplitude by multiplication with
$e^{i \pi \omega_c}$ (for the additional vertex of particle $c$) and by $e^{-i \pi \omega_4}$ (for the untwisted
propagator of the $t_4$ channel). The pole term $\sim 1/\sin (\pi \omega_2)$ belongs to the $t_2$ channel, and later on we will show that it can be combined with the Regge cut contribution in the same $t$ channel. An analogous discussion holds for the coefficient of $\tau_2 \tau_4$. Next let us consider the coefficient of $\tau_1 \tau_4$ (Fig.\ref{Fig_2to5_twist14}):
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=2to5twist1_4.eps}
\caption{Illustration of the term $\tau_1\tau_4$.}
\label{Fig_2to5_twist14}
\end{figure}
\noindent
The corresponding term on the rhs of Eq.\eqref{generalpartitionfunction} is (see Appendix A)
\begin{equation}
\left[e^{i\pi\left(\omega_a+\omega_b+\omega_c\right)}e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_2+\omega_3\right)} - 2i\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_a)\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_c)}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)\sin(\pi\omega_3)}\right].
\end{equation}
Again, the first term is of the same form as the cases discussed above, whereas the double pole term belongs to the
$t_2$ and $t_3$ channels and has to be combined with the Rege cut contribution extending over these two channels. Finally, we look at the coefficient of $\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_3 \tau_4$ (Fig.\ref{Fig_2to5_twist1234})
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=2to5twist1234.eps}
\caption{Illustration of the term $\tau_1\tau_2 \tau_3\tau_4$.}
\label{Fig_2to5_twist1234}
\end{figure}
\noindent
It has the form
\begin{equation}
\left[e^{i\pi\left(\omega_b-\omega_a-\omega_c\right)} - 2i\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{2a})\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_{3c})}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)\sin(\pi\omega_3)} \right],
\end{equation}
and there is again a double pole which has to absorbed by the Rege cut contribution extending over the $t_2$ and $t_3$ channels. The first term deviates from the previous cases: for the production vertex of particle $b$ we have $e^{i\pi \omega_b}$, whereas particles $a$ and $c$ become the complex conjugate.
In Appendix A we present, for the cases $2\to3$ (Table~\ref{table1}), $2\to4$ (Table~\ref{table2}),and $2\to5$ (Table~\ref{table3}), a complete list of all coefficients of the generating function. In all cases we first find a term with a pure phase. For the "generalized Mandelstam regions", there are, in addition, terms with simple, double, and multipoles of the form $\sim 1/\left( \sin (\pi \omega_i) \sin (\pi \omega_j) ...\sin(\pi \omega_k)\right) $. A closer inspection shows a one-to-one correspondence between these singular terms and Regge cut contributions: we will explicitly study the case $n=7$ and show that these Regge cut pieces can be used to absorb all singular terms.
\subsection{The general case: recurrence relations}
In order to analyze the structure for the general case it is useful to make use of recurrence relations. To begin with, consider the generating function of the five point amplitude, $P_{2\to3}^{\tau_1\tau_2}$ (Eq.\eqref{fivepointpartitionfunction}). Due to the factorization property Eq.\eqref{generalpartitionfunction}, we can obtain the six-point generating function by applying a recurrence operator $\tilde{K}$.
\begin{equation}
P_{2\to4} = \tilde{V}_{red}^{\tau_1,\tau_2;a}\frac{1}{\xi_{2}} \tilde{V}_{red}^{\tau_2,\tau_3;b}=
\tilde{V}_{red}^{\tau_1,\tau_2;a} \tilde{K}(\tau_2,\tau_3;b)
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\tilde{K}(\tau_2,\tau_3;b)\;=\;\frac{1}{\xi_{2}} \tilde{V}_{red}^{\tau_2,\tau_3}.
\end{equation}
Explicitly:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{evolvop}
\tilde{K}(\tau_2,\tau_3;b)\;=\;e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_3-\omega_b\right)}-\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{2b})}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)}\tau_3+\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_b)}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)}\tau_2\tau_3.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $\tilde{K}$ is not symmetric with respect to the monomial representation. In particular, it does not contain a term proportional to $\tau_2$. Nevertheless, the resulting generating function, $P_{2\to n+1}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{2 \to n+1}=\tilde{V}_{red}^{\tau_1,\tau_2;a_1}\;\tilde{K}(\tau_{2},\tau_{3};a_2)...\tilde{K}(\tau_{n-1}.\tau_{n};a_{n-1})
\label{P_red-general}
\end{eqnarray}
is symmetric.
In Appendix B we present a more general discussion of the coefficients of different configuration of $\tau$'s.
Here we only discuss one special case which corresponds to two crosses in the first (left) and in the last (right) channel Fig.\ref{config_1n}. As before, we consider the case $2 \to n+1$ with $n$ $t$ channels ($t_1,...,t_n$) and ($\omega_1,...\omega_n$), and $n-1$ produced particles labeled by ${a_1}, ..., {a_{n-1}}$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=example_two_twists_recc.eps}
\caption{Initial configuration $\tau_1\tau_n$.}
\label{config_1n}
\end{figure}
\noindent
and we want to prove, by induction, that the coefficient of $\tau_1\tau_{n}$ in $P_{2\to n+1}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{t1tn}
\left\{e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_2+\omega_3+...\omega_{n-1}\right)}e^{i\pi\left(\omega_{a_1}+\omega_{a_2}+...+\omega_{a_{n-1}}\right)} \right. \nonumber \\ \left.
-2i\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{a_1})\sin(\pi\omega_{a_2})...\sin(\pi\omega_{a_{n-1}})}{\sin(\pi\omega_{2})\sin(\pi\omega_{3})...\sin(\pi\omega_{n-1})} \right\}\tau_1\tau_n.
\end{eqnarray}
For this we also need to show that the coefficient proportional to $\tau_1$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_2+\omega_3+...\omega_{n}\right)}e^{i\pi\left(\omega_{a_1}+\omega_{a_2}+...+\omega_{a_{n-1}}\right)}\right\}\tau_1.
\label{tau1inP2ton}
\end{eqnarray}
To begin with the simplest case, $2 \to4$, we have for the coefficient $\tau_1\tau_3$ (Eq.\eqref{2to4twist13} or Appendix A).
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{t1t3}
e^{-i\pi \omega_2} e^{i\pi (\omega_{a_1}+\omega_{a_2})}
-2i\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{a_1}) \sin(\pi\omega_{a_2})}{\sin(\pi\omega_{2})},
\end{eqnarray}
whereas the coefficient of $\tau_1$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{-i\pi (\omega_2+\omega_3)} e^{i\pi\left(\omega_{a_1}+\omega_{a_2} \right)}.
\label{tau1inP2to4}
\end{eqnarray}
Let us now prove, by induction, our assertion. In order to go from the case $2\to n+1$ to the case $2 \to n+2$, we multiply $P_{2\to n+1}$ with the kernel $\tilde{K}(\tau_ n,\tau_{n+1};a_n)$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{operatoTNNP1}
\tilde{K}(\tau_ n,\tau_{n+1};a_n)\;=\;e^{-i\pi\omega_{n+1}}e^{i\pi\omega_{a_{n}}}-\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_n-\pi\omega_{a_{n}})}{\sin(\pi\omega_{n})}\tau_{n+1}+\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{a_n})}{\sin(\pi\omega_n)}\tau_n\tau_{n+1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Within this product, the relevant terms are
\begin{equation}
P_{2\to n+1} \cdot \tilde{K}(\tau_ n,\tau_{n+1};a_n)=\\
\Big[\{...\}\tau_1 + \{...\}\boldsymbol{\tau_{1}\tau_{n}}\Big]
\cdot \Big[1\{...\}+ \{...\}\boldsymbol{\tau_{n+1}}+\{...\}\tau_{1} \tau_{n+1} \Big],
\end{equation}
where, by assumption, in the first square bracket we use Eq.\eqref{t1tn} and Eq.\eqref{tau1inP2ton}, and the second bracket is given in Eq.\eqref{operatoTNNP1}.
We immediately see that, on the rhs, the coefficient of $\tau_1$ comes from the product of the first terms
in each square bracket and equals
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{-i\pi (\omega_2+...+\omega_{n+1})}e^{i\pi\left(\omega_{a_1}+...+\omega_{a_n} \right)}.
\end{eqnarray}
This proves the second part of our assertion. Next, in order to calculate, the contribution proportional to
$\tau_1\tau_{n+1}$, one should take into account two terms:
the product of the term $\sim \tau_1 \tau_n$ in the first bracket with the term $\tau_n\tau_{n+1}$ in
the second bracket, and the product of the term $\tau_1$ in the first
bracket with the term $\tau_{n+1}$ in the second bracket.
When combining these two contributions, the following identity is useful:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{identity}
\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{a_n})}{\sin(\pi\omega_n)}+e^{-i\pi\omega_n}\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_n-\pi\omega_{a_n})}{\sin(\pi\omega_n)}\;=\;e^{-i\pi\omega_n}e^{i\pi\omega_{a_n}}.
\end{eqnarray}
One arrives at
\begin{eqnarray}\label{t1tn+1}
\left\{e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_2+\omega_3+...\omega_{n}\right)}e^{i\pi\left(\omega_{a_1}+\omega_{a_2}+...+\omega_{a_{n}}\right)} \right. \nonumber \left.
-2i\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{a_1})\sin(\pi\omega_{a_2})...\sin(\pi\omega_{a_{n}})}{\sin(\pi\omega_{2})\sin(\pi\omega_{3})...\sin(\pi\omega_{n})} \right\}\tau_1\tau_{n+1},
\end{eqnarray}
which proves the first part of our assertion.
Concluding this part, according to Eq.\eqref{P_red-general}, each coefficient of the $\tau$ expansion in Eq.\eqref{generalpartitionfunction} can be calculated recursively, by multiplying the iterative kernel Eq.\eqref{operatoTNNP1} with the initial expression $\tilde{V}_{red}^{\tau_1,\tau_2;a_1}$.\footnote{ Although it is possible to calculate each coefficient in the expansion by using these recurrence relations, practically it is more efficient to use simple code with Wolfram Mathematica, which generates these coefficients immediately. The simplest implementation might be iterative multiplication with the kernel $\tilde{K}$.}
\section{Generating function for the BDS amplitudes in the multi-Regge kinematics}
\subsection{Motivation}
In order to determine the remainder function in each physical region for the pole and cut combinations, let us now find the phase structure of the BDS amplitude \cite{Bern:2005iz} in the different kinematic regions. Again, we find it convenient to define a generating function:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{generalexapnsion}
A_{BDS}\;=\;a_0 + a_1\tau_1 + a_2\tau_2 +...+a_n\tau_n + a_{12}\tau_1\tau_2 + a_{13}\tau_1\tau_3+...a_{1..n}\tau_1\tau_2...\tau_n.
\end{eqnarray}
In this expansion, each monomial of the twists $\tau_i...\tau_j$ defines a kinematic region, and the coefficient
$a_{i...j}$ is the BDS prediction for this region.
As before, each term in the expansion corresponds to a diagram of the type shown in Fig. \ref{fig:fig10}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=general_twist.eps}
\caption{Example of a diagram with twists in the channels 1, 2, and 4. In Eq.\eqref{generalexapnsion} it corresponds to the term $\tau_1\tau_2\tau_4$.}
\label{fig:fig10}
\end{figure}
\noindent
The following discussion of the BDS formula will be similar to the previous study of the Regge pole model, but
the results all be quite different.
The meaning of the "twist" or "crossed line" is the same as before. By twist we mean that the diagram is rotated around the direction of the exchanged momenta to the right of the cross ("{\bf X}") sign. For example if one twists the diagram with respect to channel 1 (corresponding to $\omega_1$), the result is as shown in Fig. \ref{firsttwist}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=twisted_1.eps}
\caption{Example of diagram with a twist in channel 1, which in the expansion Eq.\eqref{generalexapnsion} corresponds to the term $\tau_1$.}
\label{firsttwist}
\end{figure}
\noindent
We can generalize the twisting of the diagram in order to reach other channels. For example, in Fig.\ref{doublytwisted} we rotated twice. We move from left to right. The first twist brings the diagram similar to presented in Fig.\ref{firsttwist} and the second twist (cross in channel 3) rotates back the rest of the diagram to the right of the cross sign. It is important to stress that despite the fact that we rotate the diagram, it remains planar.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=twisted_2.eps}
\caption{Example of double twisted diagram with twists in the channels 1 and 3, which in the expansion Eq.\eqref{generalexapnsion} corresponds to the term $\tau_1\tau_3$.}
\label{doublytwisted}
\end{figure}
\noindent
The diagram in Fig.\ref{doublytwisted} corresponds to the following kinematic region:
\begin{eqnarray}
s_1 < 0, s_2 >0, s_3<0, s_4 >0; s_{012} < 0, s_{123} < 0, s_{234} < 0; s_{0123} > 0, s_{1234} < 0;s >0.\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{BDS predictions: examples}
Let us begin with a brief review of the five point and the six point functions in the multi-Regge kinematics. As shown in \cite{Bartels:2008ce}, for the $2\to3$ amplitude in the region of positive energies (no $\tau$ factors) we have the simple exponential form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{BDSphase2to3}
\frac{M^{BDS}_{2\rightarrow 3}}{\Gamma(t_1) |s_1|^{\omega_1}|\Gamma_{1,2}| |s_2|^{\omega_2}\Gamma(t_2)}\;=\;e^{-i\pi\omega_1}e^{i\pi\omega_a}e^{-i\pi\omega_2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Analogous expressions hold for the other regions. The exponents resemble those which we have discussed in the previous section. However, in contrast to our discussion of the Regge pole framework, for the BDS amplitudes we can formulate simple rules which also fix the signs of the exponents of the production vertices. Let us next consider the $2\to4$ case in the region belonging to the coefficient $\tau_1\tau_3$ (Mandelstam region). From \cite{Bartels:2008ce,Lipatov:2010qf} we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{BDSphase2to4}
\frac{M^{BDS}_{2\rightarrow 4}}{\Gamma(t_1) |s_1|^{\omega_1}|\Gamma_{1,2}||s_2|^{\omega_2}| |\Gamma_{2,3}||s_3|^{\omega_3} \Gamma(t_3)}\;=\;C e^{-i\pi\omega_2}e^{i\pi(\omega_a+\omega_b)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $C$ is the new phase factor, related to the one-loop approximation of the Regge cut
\begin{eqnarray}
C\;=\;e^{i\pi\left(\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\frac{|q_1|^2|q_3|^2}{|k_a+k_b|^2\lambda^2}\right)}
\end{eqnarray}
with $k_a+k_b\;=\;q_1-q_3$. The remaining parts of the phases are obtained from the rules of Sec. II. It has been noticed in \cite{Lipatov:2010qf} that when combining this phase with the two vertex factors one arrives at a conformal invariant phase
\begin{equation}\label{delta_ph}
C e^{i\pi (\omega_a + \omega_b)} = e^{i \delta}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta\;=\;\pi\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\frac{|q_1||q_2||k_a||k_b|}{|k_a+k_b|^2|q_2|^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
It is important to recall the origin of the phase factor $C$: the BDS formula for the $2\to4$ amplitude contains three $Li_2$ functions (dilogarithms) which depend upon the three independent anharmonic cross ratios. In the multi-Regge limit, one of these anharmonic cross ratios is a phase factor
\begin{equation}
\Phi= \frac{(-s_2) (-s)}{(-s_{012})(-s_{123})},
\label{phase2to4}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\Phi - 1 = \frac{|k_a+k_b|^2}{s_{2}},
\end{equation}
whereas the remaining two ratios go to zero. The dilogarithm depending upon the phase $\Phi$
appears in the combination
\begin{equation}
R(\Phi)\;=\;-\frac{1}{4}\ln^2 \Phi -\frac{1}{2}\ln \Phi \left(\ln \frac{(-t_{1})(-t_{3})}{(-s_{2})\mu^2}-\frac{1}{\epsilon}\right)-\frac{1}{2} Li_2(1-\Phi).
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that
\begin{equation}
R(\Phi=1) = 0,
\end{equation}
whereas for $\Phi=e^{\pm 2i\pi}$ the argument of the dilogarithm passes through a cut and
\begin{equation}
Li_2(1-\Phi) \to \mp 2\pi i \ln(1-\Phi)
\end{equation}
with $\ln(1-\Phi)$ being real valued. Concluding, one can see that the analytical continuation of the combination of the $Li_2$ function with the appropriate logarithms produces a logarithmic phase factor
\begin{eqnarray}
R(|\Phi|e^{\mp 2\pi i})\;=\;\pm i\pi\left(\ln\frac{|q_i|^2|q_j|^2}{ |q_i-q_j|^2 \lambda^2 }\right),
\label{pmV13}
\end{eqnarray}
which corresponds to the Mandelstam cut in the one-loop approximation.. There is an overall factor $\gamma_K/4$ in front of the logarithm, which was omitted during the computation of $R$ and should be restored in the final expression.
For the $2\to5$ amplitude there are three phases which have to be rotated. We first consider the kinematic region belonging to the coefficient of $\tau_1\tau_3$. Here we rotate only
\begin{equation}
\Phi_1 = \frac{(-s_{12}) (-s_{0123})}{(-s_{012})(-s_{123})}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\Phi_1 - 1 = \frac{|k_a+k_b|^2}{s_{12}},
\end{equation}
whereas the two other phases are kept fixed.
The BDS prediction is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{BDSphase2to5tau1tau3}
\frac{M^{BDS}_{2\rightarrow 5}}{\Gamma(t_1) |s_1|^{\omega_1}|\Gamma_{1,2}||s_2|^{\omega_2} |\Gamma_{2,3}| |s_3|^{\omega_3}|\Gamma_{3,4}| |s_4|^{\omega_4} \Gamma(t_4)}\;=\;C_{13}e^{-i\pi(\omega_2+\omega_4)}e^{i\pi(\omega_a+\omega_b+\omega_c)}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
C_{13}\;=\;e^{i\pi\left(\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\frac{|q_1|^2|q_3|^2}{|k_a+k_b|^2\lambda^2}\right)}\;\;\;;\;\;\;\;|k_a+k_b|^2\;=\;|q_1-q_3|^2.
\end{equation}
We introduce the conformal invariant phase $\delta_{13}$:
\begin{equation}
C_{13} e^{-i\pi(\omega_2+\omega_4)}e^{i\pi(\omega_a+\omega_b+\omega_c)}= e^{-i\pi(\omega_2+\omega_4)}
e^{i\pi \omega_c} e^{i\delta_{13}} ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\delta_{13} = \pi\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\frac{|q_1||q_3||k_a||k_b|}{|k_a+k_b|^2|q_2|^2}.
\end{equation}
The coefficient of $\tau_{2}\tau_4$ (with the rotating phase $\Phi_2$) is obtained from symmetry considerations. Next the region belonging to $\tau_1\tau_4$. The relevant phase which rotates to $e^{-2i\pi}$ is
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\Phi} = \frac{(-s_{123}) (-s)}{(-s_{0123})(-s_{1234})}\;\;\;;\;\;\;\tilde{\Phi} - 1 = \frac{|k_a+k_b+k_c|^2}{s_{123}},
\end{equation}
and the corresponding $Li_2$-function yields the phase factor
\begin{equation}
C_{14}\;=\;e^{i\pi\left(\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\frac{|q_1|^2|q_4|^2}{|k_a+k_b+k_c|^2\lambda^2}\right)}\;\;\;;\;\;\;\;|k_a+k_b+k_c|^2\;=\;|q_1-q_4|^2.
\end{equation}
The prediction of the BDS formula for this kinematic region is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{BDSphase2to5tau1tau4}
\frac{M^{BDS}_{2\rightarrow 5}}{\Gamma(t_1) |s_1|^{\omega_1}|\Gamma_{1,2}||s_2|^{\omega_2} |\Gamma_{2,3}||s_3|^{\omega_3} |\Gamma_{3,4}||s_4|^{\omega_2} \Gamma(t_4)}\;=\;C_{14} e^{-i\pi(\omega_2+\omega_3)}e^{i\pi(\omega_a+\omega_b+\omega_c)}.\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
We write this as
\begin{equation}
C_{14} e^{-i\pi(\omega_2+\omega_3)}e^{i\pi(\omega_a+\omega_b+\omega_c)}= e^{-i\pi(\omega_2+\omega_3)}
e^{i\pi \omega_b} e^{i\delta_{14}}
\end{equation}
with the conformal invariant phase
\begin{equation}
\delta_{14} = \pi\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\frac{|q_1||q_4||k_a||k_c|}{|k_a+k_b+k_c|^2|q_2||q_3|}.
\end{equation}
One can spot that the contribution for a {\it single} $Li_2$ function belonging to a Mandelstam cut is given by the simple exponential expression [cf.(\ref{pmV13})]
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{ij}\;=\;e^{i\pi\left(\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\frac{|q_i|^2|q_j|^2}{|q_i-q_j|^2\lambda^2}\right)}.
\end{eqnarray}
The composite state of several single coefficients $C_{ij}$ consists of a product of $C$'s with appropriate signs of exponents, in accordance with the direction of the rotation of the analytical continuation.
Finally the coefficient of $\tau_1\tau_2\tau_2\tau_4$. Now we rotate $\tilde{\Phi}$ by $e^{-2i\pi}$ and
$\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ by $e^{+2i\pi}$. In terms of a single coefficient $C_{ij}$, the composite coefficient $C_{1234}$ will be:
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{1234}\;=\;C^{+}_{14}C^{-}_{13}C^{-}_{24},
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_{14}$ corresponds to the rotation of $\tilde{\Phi}$, $\Phi_1$, and $\Phi_2$ respectively. $\pm$ corresponds to the sign in front of $i\pi$ in the exponent.
We obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{BDSphase2to5tau1tau2tau3tau4}
\frac{M^{BDS}_{2\rightarrow 5}}{\Gamma(t_1) |s_1|^{\omega_1}|\Gamma_{1,2}||s_2|^{\omega_2} |\Gamma_{2,3}||s_3|^{\omega_3}|\Gamma_{3,4}||s_4|^{\omega_4} \Gamma(t_4)}\;=\;C_{1234} e^{-i\pi(\omega_a+\omega_b+\omega_c)}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
C_{1234} = e^{-i\pi\left(\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\frac{|q_2|^2|q_3|^2|k_a+k_b+k_c|^2}{|k_a+k_b|^2|k_b+k_c|^2\lambda^2}\right)}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
C_{1234} e^{i\pi (\omega_a + \omega_c)} = e^{i\delta_{1234}}\;\;\;\text{with}\;\;\;\delta_{1234} = \pi\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\frac{|q_1||q_4||k_a+k_b|^2|k_b+k_c|^2}{|k_a+k_b+k_c|^2|k_a||k_c||q_2||q_3|}.
\end{equation}
In general, the definition of the phases $\delta_{ij...}$ is not unique. It depends upon which vertex factors are combined with the phases resulting from the $Li_2$ functions. We will fix these phases at the end of Sec. VC, after we have
defined our renormalized Regge pole contributions.
\subsection{Propagators, Vertices, and $Li_2$ functions}
In order to generalize this discussion, we introduce "Feynman rules" for the calculation of the
terms in the generating function. From the previous discussion it follows that there are three building blocks: propagators, vertices, and phases resulting from the $Li_2$ functions.
Beginning with the propagators, there are two types of propagators: one corresponds to untwisted $t$ channel lines, the other one to a twisted line (Fig.\ref{propagatorsBDS}). For each untwisted propagator one should put $e^{-i\pi\omega_i}$, and for the twisted propagator, one puts $-\tau_i$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=propagators_BDS.eps}
\caption{Two types of propagators in channel $i$.}
\label{propagatorsBDS}
\end{figure}
\noindent
The second ingredient is the production vertex for the particle $a_i$ with the phase $\pi\omega_{a_i}$. We denote the produced momenta as $k_{a_1}$, $k_{a_2}$, $k_{a_3},\,...$. There are four types of vertices. Three vertices are {\it simple} - with at most only one twisted propagator line (upper line in Fig \ref{verticesrulesBDS}), and the rule is $e^{i\pi\omega_{a_i}}$. For the "doubly-twisted" vertex (the lower line in the Fig \ref{verticesrulesBDS}), we have the conjugated rule $e^{-i\pi\omega_{a_k}}$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=vertices_rules_BDS.eps}
\caption{Four types of vertices for the production of a particle with momentum $k_{a_{i}}$.}
\label{verticesrulesBDS}
\end{figure}
\noindent
For completeness we recapitulate the expressions for the different $\omega$'s presented here. The propagator in Fig.\ref{propagatorsBDS} corresponds to the Regge trajectory, which is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{regge_omega}
\omega_i\;=\;-\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\frac{|q_i|^2}{\lambda^2},
\end{eqnarray}
while the vertex function $\omega_{a_i}$ corresponds to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{omega_p}
\omega_{a_i}\;=\;-\frac{\gamma_K}{8}\ln\left(\frac{|q_i|^2|q_j|^2}{|q_i-q_j|^2\lambda^2}\right)
\;\;;\;\;(j=i+1),
\end{eqnarray}
where $q_i-q_j\;=\;k_{a_i}$.
The final ingredient is the phase resulting from the $Li_2$ functions. It depends on the kinematic regions, and it is convenient to find graphical rules for deriving these contribution. The idea of twisting the diagram is equivalent to changing the kinematic regions of energy variables $s_{ij..k}$. Consider the diagram in Fig.\ref{Li2example}.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=Li2_example_color_ai.eps}
\caption{Rules for obtaining the $Li_2$ functions for a particular kinematic region (see text).}
\label{Li2example}
\end{figure}
\noindent
We connect crosses by lines. Each connecting line except for those which embrace a single production vertex - corresponds to a phase (anharmonic cross ratio) that has been rotated, $\Phi \to e^{\pm 2\pi i}$, and for each rotated phase the corresponding $Li_2$ function has to be analytically continued and produces a nonvanishing phase. The sign in the exponent can be determined by counting the number of crosses embraced by the line: if the number is even, we have $\Phi \to e^{ - 2\pi i}$ otherwise, $\Phi \to e^{+2\pi i}$. A simple example has already been given above, the case $2 \to4$,
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=6pt_example_ext_ai.eps}
\caption{Example for the relation between connecting lines and kinematic regions}
\label{6pt_Li2example}
\end{figure}
\noindent
For the coefficient $\tau_1 \tau_3$ (left part of Fig.\ref{6pt_Li2example})
there is only one such line which corresponds to the phase $\Phi=\frac{(-s)(-s_2)}{(-s_{012})(-s_{1223})}$ [Eq.\eqref{phase2to4}], and there is no cross ("zero cross") inside the line. This phase is rotated by $\Phi \to e^{ - 2\pi i}$. The analytic continuation of the $Li_2$ function leads to the expression Eq.\eqref{pmV13} which we denote by the "potential" $V_{13}$,
\begin{equation}
e^{i\pi V_{13}}=e^{i\pi \frac{\gamma_K}{4} \ln \frac{|q_1|^2 |q_3|^2}{|q_1-q_3|^2\lambda^2}}.
\end{equation}
If we apply the same discussion to the coefficient of $\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3$ (right part of Fig.\ref{6pt_Li2example}),
we have one cross inside the line, the phase is rotated by $\Phi \to e^{ +2\pi i}$, and the analytic continuation of the $Li_2$ function gives
\begin{equation}
e^{-i\pi V_{13}}=e^{-i\pi \frac{\gamma_K}{4} \ln \frac{|q_1|^2 |q_3|^2}{|q_1-q_3|^2\lambda^2}}
\end{equation}
We generalize the notion of a "potential" for the interaction between two crosses in the $t_i$ channel and the $t_j$ channel:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{vij}
V_{ij}\;=\;\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\frac{|q_i|^2|q_j|^2}{|q_i-q_j|^2\lambda^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
Returning to the production vertices $\omega_{a_i}$, it is convenient to extend the notion of the "potential" also to
neighboring lines which encircle not more than one production vertex:
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{i i+1}= - 2 \omega_{a_{i}}.
\end{eqnarray}
With this definition we modify our rules for the production vertex: instead of writing $e^{\pm i \pi \omega_{a_i}}$ (depending on whether we have crosses on both sides of the produced particle $a_i$) we adopt the following rule:
for each vertex we write the unique factor $e^{+i \pi \omega_a}$, and for production vertices with crosses on both sides we include the
additional factor
\begin{equation}
e^{i\pi V_{ii+1}}.
\end{equation}
This allows us to include into our rules, in Fig.\ref{Li2example}, also the short line around the vertex $a_1$:
now each line that connects crosses in the $t_i$, and the $t_j$ channel obtains a factor
\begin{equation}
e^{\pm i \pi V_{ij}}.
\end{equation}
If the channels $i$ and $j$ are adjacent (i.e. $j=i+1$ and they enclose a production vertex) the sign is always
positive. Otherwise the counting rules of crosses inside the lines apply (Fig.\ref{Li2_ph}),
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=Li2_phase.eps}
\caption{Sign of the phase depending on the number of crosses "{\bf X}" between two twists $i$ and $j$.}
\label{Li2_ph}
\end{figure}
\noindent
Concluding everything, we formulate Feynman-like rules for the calculation of the coefficients in the monomial expansion of the amplitude $A_{BDS}$ [Eq.\eqref{generalexapnsion}]. Each coefficient $a_{i..j}$ will be written
in the form
\begin{equation}
a_{i..j}=\pm |a_{i..j}| e^{i\varphi_{i...j}} e^{i\delta_{i...j}},
\end{equation}
and for the overall sign and for the sum of the phases in the exponent we have the following rules:
\begin{itemize}
\item for each $t$ channel we write a propagator (twisted and untwisted) according to the rules
\begin{itemize}
\item twisted propagator: $\rightarrow$ $-1$
\item untwisted propagator in channel $t_i$: $\rightarrow$ $e^{-i\pi\omega_i}$
\end{itemize}
\item write the product of phase factors of vertices for all produced particles:
$e^{i\pi\left(\omega_{a_1} + \omega_{a_2} +...\right)}$
\item write all pairwise interactions $e^{\pm i\pi V_{ij}}$, $i\neq j$ with the sign $(-1)^n$ in the exponent.
Here $n$ is the number of crosses encircled by the pair $(ij)$.
\end{itemize}
These rules uniquely define the sum of all phases. For our purposes, however, we go one step further and divide this sum into two terms, $i(\varphi_{i...j} + \delta_{i...j})$. Examples have been given in Sec. IIIB for the case $2\to4$. The first part, $i\varphi_{i...j}$, contains all the propagators, and it may contain some of the production vertices. The second part has to be conformal invariant. From these requirements alone, we do not find a unique separation into the two terms, $i(\varphi_{i...j} + \delta_{i...j})$. We will come back to this question in our final Sec. IVD. As an example of applying these rules, we return to the diagram in Fig.\ref{Li2example}:
\begin{itemize}
\item propagators: $(-)(-)e^{-i\pi\omega_3}(-)e^{-i\pi\omega_5}(-)$
\item vertices: $ e^{i\pi\left(\omega_{a_1}+\omega_{a_2}+\omega_{a_3}+\omega_{a_4}+\omega_{a_5}\right)}$
\item potentials: $e^{i\pi\left(V_{12} - V_{14} + V_{16} + V_{24} - V_{26} + V_{46}\right)} $.
\end{itemize}
The final expression for Fig.\ref{Li2example} becomes
\begin{eqnarray}\label{rules4twists}
e^{i\pi\left(\omega_{a_1}+\omega_{a_2}+\omega_{a_3}+\omega_{a_4}+\omega_{a_5}\right)}e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_3+\omega_5\right)}e^{i\pi
\left(V_{12} - V_{14} + V_{16} + V_{24} - V_{26} + V_{46}\right)}\tau_1\tau_2\tau_4\tau_6.
\end{eqnarray}
The logarithmic form of the potential Eq.\eqref{vij}, together with the exponential form of the
coefficient of the monomial in Eq.\eqref{rules4twists}, allow an interesting analogy.
Namely, we can interpret $V_{ij}$ as a two dimensional Coulomb potential of the interaction of two point charges $i$ and $j$, derived from the Polyakov string action.
In more detail, we consider the product of $k$ vertex operators, i.e. correlators of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle 0|e^{i\pi\sum_{r=1}^{k} c_r \left[\phi(\vec{\rho}_{r})-\phi(\vec{\rho}_{0}) \right]}|0\rangle,
\label{correlator}
\end{eqnarray}
where the averaging is done with the free action
\begin{eqnarray}
e^{i\frac{1}{2}\int\, d^{2}\vec{\rho} \left[\partial_{\sigma}\phi(\vec{\rho})\right]^2}
\end{eqnarray}
and $c_r\;=\;(-1)^r$ is the charge. It is convenient to introduce the following currents:
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi\sum_{r=1}^{k}c_r\left[\phi(\vec{\rho}_{r})-\phi(\vec{\rho}_{0})\right]\;&=&\;\pi\int d^2\vec{\rho}\,\phi(\vec{\rho}_{r})\sum_{r=1}^{k}c_r\left(\delta^{(2)}(\vec{\rho}-\vec{\rho}_r)-\delta^{(2)}(\vec{\rho}-\vec{\rho}_0)\right)\;=\;\nonumber\\ &=&\int d^2\vec{\rho}\,\phi(\vec{\rho})J(\vec{\rho}),
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
J(\vec{\rho})\;=\;\pi\sum_{r=1}^{k}c_r\left(\delta^{(2)}(\vec{\rho}-\vec{\rho}_r)-\delta^{(2)}(\vec{\rho}-\vec{\rho}_0)\right).
\end{eqnarray}
One can calculate the Gaussian integral of the neutral system
\begin{eqnarray}
Z[J]= \int e^{i\int d^2\vec{\rho}\left[\frac{1}{2} \left(\partial_{\sigma}\phi(\vec{\rho}\right)^2 + \phi(\vec{\rho})J(\vec{\rho})\right]}\mathcal{D}\phi
\end{eqnarray}
by using the inverse of the two-dimensional Laplacian,
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial^{2}_{\sigma}\tilde{\phi}(\vec{\rho})\;=\;J(\vec{\rho})\;\rightarrow\;\;\tilde{\phi}(\vec{\rho})=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int d^2\vec{\rho'} J(\rho')\log\left(|\vec{\rho}-\vec{\rho'}|^2\right)
\end{eqnarray}
and by shifting the field variables: $\phi=\phi'+\tilde{\phi}$. One obtains:
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d^2\vec{\rho}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_{\sigma}\phi(\vec{\rho})\right)^2+\phi(\vec{\rho}) J(\vec{\rho}) \right]\;&=&
\nonumber\\
\;=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int\int \ d^2\vec{\rho}d^2\vec{\rho'}J(\vec{\rho})\log\left(|\vec{\rho}-\vec{\rho'}|^2\right)J(\vec{\rho'})&+&\frac{1}{2}\int d^2\vec{\rho}\left(\partial_{\sigma}\phi'\right)^2.
\end{eqnarray}
From this expression one derives, for the correlator (\ref{correlator}), an exponential of the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{ij}\;=\;\frac{\pi}{8}\sum_{r,r'=1}^{k}c_r\,c_{r'}\left[\log|\vec{\rho_r}-\vec{\rho_r'}|^2-\log|\vec{\rho_r}-\vec{\rho_0}|^2-\log|\vec{\rho_{r'}}-\vec{\rho_0}|^2+\log|\vec{\rho_{00}}|^2\right].
\end{eqnarray}
In the first term one recognizes the logarithmic part of the "potential" $V_{ij}$ between two crosses defined in (\ref{vij}). In particular, we notice the universal short-range interaction between two adjacent crosses,
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{i,i+1} \sim \log|\vec{\rho_{i}}-\vec{\rho}_{r_{i+1}}|^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, returning to the generating function introduced at the beginning of this section,
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{BDS}\;=\;a_0 + a_1\tau_1 + a_2\tau_2 +...+a_n\tau_n + a_{12}\tau_1\tau_2 + a_{13}\tau_1\tau_3+...a_{1...n}\tau_1\tau_2...\tau_n,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
we can interpret this expression also as a partition function, where each terms represents one of the correlators described above. For the rest of this paper, we will not pursue this analogy any further.
\section{Subtractions from Regge pole contributions}
In the previous sections we have seen that the Regge pole formula, based upon
factorization and the analytic decomposition into 5 terms (for the case $2\to4$) or 14 terms (for the case $2\to 5$), exhibits, when continued into different kinematic regions with positive and negative energies, terms with unphysical singularities. At the end of Sec. III we have indicated that Regge cut terms are needed in order to compensate these unwanted singularities. The subsequent analysis of the BDS predictions, on the other hand, has shown that the BDS formula is not in agreement with the Regge pole structure, because it contains contributions from the $Li_2$ functions.
As a consequence, depending on the kinematic region, it contains phases which, in the $2\to4$ case \cite{Bartels:2008ce}, have been understood as a signal of the beginning of Regge cut contributions.
In this final section we concentrate on the case $n=7$, and we show that Regge cut contributions
can be determined which satisfy the following two conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the terms with Regge cuts have the correct phase structure for absorbing the unwanted pole terms,
\item after absorbing the unphysical pole pieces of the Regge poles into the Regge cut terms,
we are left with conformal invariant Regge pole contributions.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent
To be definite, our construction proceeds as follows. Initially we have the Regge pole terms which, as we have
stated, factorize in the kinematic region of positive energies but, when analytically continued, lead to unphysical singularities. They have to be absorbed into Regge cut contributions. Schematically we therefore write,
\begin{equation}
A= A_{pole} + A_{cut},
\end{equation}
where the pole contributions are listed in Appendix A, and the phase structure of the cut contributions have to be discussed in the following.
Their contributions to the scattering amplitude depend upon the kinematic region: they vanish for positive energies (and in the Euclidean region), and they are nonzero in exactly those kinematic regions where the Regge poles exhibit the unphysical
singularities. After having fixed the subtractions we will arrive at modified expressions,
\begin{equation}
A= A'_{pole} + A'_{cut},
\end{equation}
where the primes indicate that, in each physical region with Regge cuts and singular Regge pole pieces, the unphysical singular pieces have been absorbed by the Regge cuts. In this new representation the amplitude, for each region $\tau_i...\tau_j$, will be written in the form:
\begin{equation}
A= A_{BDS} R,
\end{equation}
where $A_{BDS}$ contains the phase factors $\varphi_{i...j}$ and $\delta_{i...j}$ calculated in the previous section (IIIC),
and the conformal invariant remainder function $R$ is of the form
\begin{equation}
R e^{i\delta} = {\text{conformal pole + conformal Regge cut}}.
\end{equation}
For illustration we return, once more, very briefly to the $2\to4$ case \cite{Lipatov:2010qf}. As shown in \cite{Bartels:2008ce,Bartels:2008sc}, the Regge cut piece has the phase $i e^{-i\pi \omega_2}$.
To see this we remind that, in the decompositon of the $2\to4$, amplitude, the Regge cut appears in two
of the five terms. Their phase structure follows from the energy factors which, in the notation of \cite{Bartels:2008ce,Bartels:2008sc}, is
\begin{eqnarray}
W_3 \sim (-s_2)^{\omega_{21}} (-s_{012})^{\omega_{13}} (-s)^{\omega_3} V_{cut}\nonumber \\
W_4 \sim - (-s_2)^{\omega_{23}} (-s_{123})^{\omega_{31}} (-s)^{\omega_1} V_{cut}.
\end{eqnarray}
The coefficient $V_{cut}$ is the same in both terms, and there is relative minus sign between the two
partial waves. From this structure one derives easily that the sum of these two contributions vanishes in the physical region where all energies are positive (a phase factor $e^{-i\pi}$ form each energy), in the Euclidean region (all energies negative, i.e. all phases reduce to unity), and also in the region where only one energy is negative. In contrast to this, in the region $s, s_2>0$, $s_{012}, s_{123}<0$, the sum is proportional to $i e^{-i\pi \omega_2}$.
On the other hand, the Regge pole, when continued into this kinematic region, takes the form Eq.\eqref{2to4twist13a}, i.e. we have one term proportional to $e^{-i\pi \omega_2}$, and two terms proportional to $i e^{-i\pi \omega_2}$. The latter ones have the same phase structure as the Regge cut contribution, and thus they can be combined with the Regge cut: we can remove them by a special contribution ("subtraction") inside the Regge cut. What is then left is the first term of the Regge pole contribution
\begin{equation}
e^{-i\pi \omega_2} \cos (\pi \omega_{ab}),
\end{equation}
with $\omega_{ab}\;=\;\omega_a-\omega_b$. Here the argument of the "cosine" function is conformally invariant. Therefore, this expression defines, for this kinematic region, a "conformal" Regge pole contribution. The amplitude can be written as
\begin{equation}
A=A_{BDS} R,
\end{equation}
where $A_{BDS}$ contains the phase factor $e^{-i\pi \omega_2}$, and
\begin{equation}
R e^{i\delta} = \cos (\pi \omega_{ab}) + i {\text{ ReggeCut}} .
\end{equation}
The new Regge cut contribution is expected to be conformally invariant.
\subsection{Analytic structure of the $2\to5$ production amplitude}
In the following we will extend this analysis to the $2\to5$ case. We now have three different Regge cut contributions.
They are illustrated in the following figure:
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=regions_ep.eps}
\caption{Regge cut contributions for the $2\to5$ production amplitude}
\label{2to5Reggecuts}
\end{figure}
\noindent
In addition to the $t$ channels where the Regge cuts appear, we have also indicated a few kinematic regions in which these Regge cut contribute. In the generating functional, these kinematic regions correspond to the coefficients of $\tau_1\tau_3$, $\tau_2\tau_4$, $\tau_1\tau_4$, and $\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4$. The analytic representation of the $2\to5$ amplitude contains 14 different terms.
They are illustrated below in Fig. \ref{f3_to_w3},
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=Steinmann_a_modified.eps}
\caption{Terms without Regge cuts}
\label{f3_to_w3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=Steinman1_modified.eps}\\
\epsfig{file=Steinman2_modified.eps}
\caption{Terms which contain Regge cut contributions: two doublets (a) and (b), and two triplets (c) and (d)}
\label{f3_to_w3all3}
\end{figure}
\noindent
Here each term is written as a multiple Sommerfeld-Watson integral over $\omega$ variables, and the integrand comes as a product of energy factors which contain all the phases and a real-valued partial wave. For simplicity, we will disregard the $\omega$ integration in the rest of our paper..
The analytic structure of these terms is in agreement with the Steinmann relations, i.e. each of these 14 terms has a maximal set of energy discontinuities in nonoverlapping channels (denoted by dashed lines).
Only 10 of these 14 terms contain Regge cut contributions: they can be arranged as two doublets $a,b$ and two triplets $c,d$. The "short" Regge cut in the $t_3$ channel [Fig.\ref{2to5Reggecuts}b] is contained in the first doublet $a_1$ and $a_2$ and in the first triplet, $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$. Similarly, the "short" Regge cut in the $t_2$ channel [Fig.\ref{2to5Reggecuts}a]
is contained in the second doublet, $b_1$ and $b_2$, and in the second triplet, $d_1$, $d_2$, and $d_3$. Finally, the "long" cut in Fig.\ref{2to5Reggecuts}$c_1$, and Fig.\ref{2to5Reggecuts}$c_2$ appears in the first two terms of both triplets. In each term, these Regge cut contributions are additive. As an example, the first two terms of the triplets are sums of two terms, each of a "short" cut and of the "long" cut.
Next we are interested in the phase structure of these terms: it follows from the energy
factors which we list in the following. For the doublets we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{acuts}
a_1\;&=&\;\left(-s_{1}\right)^{\omega_{12}} \left(-s_{3}\right)^{\omega_{34}}\left(-s_{234}\right)^{\omega_{42}}\left(-s\right)^{\omega_2}\\
a_2\;&=&\;\left(-s_{1}\right)^{\omega_{12}} \left(-s_{3}\right)^{\omega_{32}}\left(-s_{0123}\right)^{\omega_{24}}\left(-s\right)^{\omega_4} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
b_1\;&=&\;\left(-s_{2}\right)^{\omega_{21}} \left(-s_{012}\right)^{\omega_{13}}\left(-s_{4}\right)^{\omega_{43}}\left(-s\right)^{\omega_3}\\
b_2\;&=&\;\left(-s_{2}\right)^{\omega_{23}} \left(-s_{4}\right)^{\omega_{43}}\left(-s_{1234}\right)^{\omega_{31}}\left(-s\right)^{\omega_1}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly for the two triplets,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ccuts}
c_1\;&=&\;\left(-s_{3}\right)^{\omega_{32}} \left(-s_{123}\right)^{\omega_{21}}\left(-s_{0123}\right)^{\omega_{14}}\left(-s\right)^{\omega_4}\\ \nonumber
c_2\;&=&\;\left(-s_{3}\right)^{\omega_{32}} \left(-s_{123}\right)^{\omega_{24}}\left(-s_{1234}\right)^{\omega_{41}}\left(-s\right)^{\omega_1}\\ \nonumber
c_3\;&=&\;\left(-s_{3}\right)^{\omega_{34}} \left(-s_{234}\right)^{\omega_{42}}\left(-s_{1234}\right)^{\omega_{21}}\left(-s\right)^{\omega_1} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{dcuts}
d_1\;&=&\;\left(-s_{2}\right)^{\omega_{23}} \left(-s_{123}\right)^{\omega_{34}}\left(-s_{1234}\right)^{\omega_{41}}\left(-s\right)^{\omega_1}\\ \nonumber
d_2\;&=&\;\left(-s_{2}\right)^{\omega_{23}} \left(-s_{123}\right)^{\omega_{31}}\left(-s_{0123}\right)^{\omega_{14}}\left(-s\right)^{\omega_4}\\ \nonumber
d_3\;&=&\;\left(-s_{2}\right)^{\omega_{21}} \left(-s_{012}\right)^{\omega_{13}}\left(-s_{0123}\right)^{\omega_{34}}\left(-s\right)^{\omega_4}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
It should be noted that in these expressions, for simplicity, we have disregarded $\kappa$ factors as well as energy scales.
As an example, the complete form of $d_1$ from Eq.\eqref{dcuts} which includes these coefficients has the
form \cite{Bartels:2008ce,Bartels:2008sc}
\begin{eqnarray}
d_1\;&=&\;\left(\frac{-s_{2}}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_{23}} \left(\frac{-s_{123}\kappa_{23}}{\mu^4}\right)^{\omega_{34}}\left(\frac{-s_{1234}\kappa_{23}\kappa_{34}}{\mu^6}\right)^{\omega_{41}}\left(\frac{-s\kappa_{12}\kappa_{23}\kappa_{34}}{\mu^8}\right)^{\omega_1},\nonumber
\label{kappafactors}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa_{ii+1}\;=\frac{s_i s_{i+1}}{s_{i-1 i i+1}}\;=\;|q_i - q_{i+1}|^2\;\;\;,\;\;\;\;\text{and the usual convention:}\;\;\;s_i\equiv s_{i-1 i}.
\end{eqnarray}
As a result of these $\kappa$ factors, all energy factors $d_1$, etc. can be written in the
common form
\begin{eqnarray}
d_1 = {\text{phase factor}}\times \left( \frac{|s_1|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_1}
\left( \frac{|s_2|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_2}\left(\frac{|s_3|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_3}\left(\frac{|s_4|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_4}
\end{eqnarray}
In the following, our interest will first be devoted to the phase factors derived from Eqs.\eqref{acuts} - \eqref{dcuts}: they depend upon the kinematic regions. In the next step, we will determine the coefficients that accompany the phase factors; they are real valued and do not depend upon the kinematic region we are considering.
\subsection{Determination of the coefficients of the partial waves}
As we have said before,the kinematic regions in which the Regge pole expressions
(listed in Appendix A) contain poles of the type $1/\sin (\pi \omega_i)$ are the same regions for which we also have Regge cut contributions \footnote{Conditions for the existence of the Regge cuts have been formulated in the appendix of \cite{Lipatov:2009nt}.}. For each such region we write schematically
\begin{equation}
f = f_{pole} + f_{cut}.
\end{equation}
In this notation, $f$ denotes the sum of all those terms which contribute to this region, and it contains both the energy (and phase) factors and their real-valued coefficient, the partial waves. As a consequence, the form of the $f$ will be different in different kinematic regions. In general, the Regge cut piece will a sum of several terms: for example, the coefficient of $\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4$
contains the two "short" cuts and the "long" cut:
\begin{equation}
f_{cut} = f_{\omega_2} + f_{\omega_3} + f_{\omega_2 \omega_3}.
\end{equation}
In this paper we will not address the full structure of these Regge cut terms. Instead, we will concentrate on the overall phases, $f^{phase}_{cut}$, and only those pieces of the Regge cuts which absorb the "unwanted" pieces of the Regge pole contributions, i.e. those terms that have the unphysical poles of the form $1/\sin(\pi \omega_i)$: $\delta f_{cut}$, namely:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{f_omega}
f_{\omega_i}\;=\;N_{\omega_i}f^{phase}_{\omega_i}\delta f_{\omega_i}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
We therefore have to keep in mind that the $f_{cut}$ which we discuss in the following contain only the subtraction terms but not the full Regge cut terms. We will name this procedure "subtraction", in analogy to the removal of ultraviolet divergences in the renormalization of quantum field theory.
In more detail, for the two doublets and for the two triplets, we will find a set of coefficients which should satisfy the following requirements:\\
(i) the Regge cuts contribute only in specific kinematic regions where the so-called Mandelstam conditions are fulfilled. In particular, Regge cuts do not contribute to the Euclidean region or to the physical region where all energies are positive.\\
(ii) Phases of the Regge cut contributions have to match the "unwanted" pieces of the Regge pole contributions, i.e. those terms which have the unphysical poles of the form $1/\sin(\pi \omega_i)$.\\
(iii) After having absorbed these "unwanted" pole terms into the Regge cut terms, the remaining Regge pole contributions have to be conformal invariant.
Let us begin with the "short" Regge cut in the $t_3$ which appears in the terms labeled by $a_1$, $a_2$, $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$. We are searching for real-valued coefficients of theses terms which, for the sum of all five terms, lead to correct phases in all kinematic regions. First we notice that, in the region of all energies being positive,
all $c_i$ have the common phase $e^{-i\pi \omega_3}$, and all $a_i$ the common phase $e^{-i\pi (\omega_1-\omega_2+\omega_3)}$. The absence of the Regge cut in this region implies that
the sum of the terms $a_1$, $a_2$ and the sum of the terms $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$ must be
zero separately. This alone does not fix the coefficients of the $c_i$. We make the ansatz (which will be justified in a moment) and choose, for the coefficients of $c_1$, $c_2$, and $c_3$, the relative weights $\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{1}{2}$, and $-1$, respectively. Similarly, for
the coefficients of $a_1$ and $a_2$ the relative weights are $+1$ and $-1$, respectively.
In order to determine the common factors of the $c_i$, we go to the region $\tau_2\tau_4$: here the terms $c_1$ and $c_2$ have the common phase $e^{-i\pi \omega_3} e^{-i\pi (\omega_4 -\omega_2)}$, whereas $c_3$ has the phase $e^{-i\pi \omega_3} e^{-i\pi (\omega_2 -\omega_4)}$. Taking into account the relative weights given above, the sum of the terms $c_i$ gives the phase $e^{-i\pi \omega_3} 2i \sin \pi (\omega_2-\omega_4)$. In the same way, the sum of $a_1$ and $a_2$ lead to the factor $e^{-i\pi (\omega_3 + \omega_1-\omega_2} 2i \sin \pi (\omega_4-\omega_2)$. Combining the sum of the $c_i$ terms with the sum of the $a_i$ terms we still have the freedom to chose coefficients:
with the choice $\sin(\pi \omega_{2a})$ and $\sin(\pi \omega_{1a})$\footnote{Please keep in mind that $\omega_{ij}\;=\;\omega_i-\omega_j$.} we have, again for the region $\tau_2\tau_4$, the result:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sin(\pi \omega_{2a})\left\{\frac{1}{2} c_1 + \frac{1}{2} c_2 - c_3 \right\} + \sin(\pi \omega_{1a})\left\{a_1 - a_2\right\}
\nonumber\\
=2i \sin (\pi \omega_{12}) \sin(\pi\omega_{34}) e^{-i\pi \omega_1} e^{i\pi \omega_a} e^{-i\pi \omega_3}.
\end{eqnarray}
The phases are in agreement with what one expects from Regge factorization: the Regge cut in the $t_3$ channel has the same phase in the $2\to4$ amplitude, $i e^{-i\pi \omega_3}$, and the phase of the $t_1$ channel together with the production vertex of particle $a$ factorizes as $e^{-i\pi \omega_1} e^{i\pi \omega_a}$.
However, this is not yet the final answer for the cut in the $\omega_3$ channel. Namely, when going to the
region $\tau_1\tau_4$, we find the phases
\begin{equation}
a_1- a_2 = e^{-i\pi \omega_3} 2i \sin(\pi \omega_{24})
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}(c_1+c_2)-c_3=e^{-i\pi \omega_3} i \sin(\pi\omega_{14}).
\end{equation}
Together with the prefactors $\sin (\pi \omega_{1a})$, $\sin (\pi \omega_{2a})$, these terms cannot be combined to arrive at the the expected phase $e^{-i\pi (\omega_2+\omega_3)}$. As a solution, we chose to completely cancel this contribution by adding a term proportional to $c_1-c_2$. In the region $\tau_1\tau_4$ we have
\begin{equation}
c_1-c_2 =e^{-i\pi \omega_3} 2 i \sin(\pi \omega_{14}),
\label{c1-c2}
\end{equation}
and with the following coefficients we arrive at our final answer for the "short" cut in the $\omega_3$ channel,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{f_3phases}
N_{\omega_3} f_{\omega_3}^{phase} \;&=&\;\sin(\pi \omega_{2a})\left\{\frac{1}{2} c_1 + \frac{1}{2} c_2 - c_3 \right\} + \sin(\pi \omega_{1a})\left\{a_1 - a_2\right\}- \\
&-& \frac{1}{\sin(\pi \omega_{14})}\left(\frac{1}{2}\sin(\pi \omega_{14})\sin(\pi \omega_{2a}) + \sin(\pi \omega_{42})\sin(\pi \omega_{1a}) \right)\left\{c_1 - c_2\right\}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We make sure that, by analytically continuing this function $f_{\omega_3}$ into different kinematic regions, we find correct answers. In detail, the results are the following: nonzero values appear only in the four kinematic regions $\tau_2\tau_4$, $\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4$,
$\tau_1\tau_2\tau_4$ and $\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4$ (Fig.\ref{f3_cont}),
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=fw3.eps}
\caption{Analytical continuation of $f_{\omega_3}$.}
\label{f3_cont}
\end{figure}
\noindent
In all other kinematic regions $f_{\omega_3}^{phase}$ vanishes.
The common factor $N_{\omega_3}$ is found to be
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{\omega_3} = 2\sin(\pi\omega_{24})\sin(\pi\omega_{21}) \left( \frac{|s_1|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_1}
\left( \frac{|s_2|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_2}\left(\frac{|s_3|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_3}\left(\frac{|s_4|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_4}.
\end{eqnarray}
A comment is in place about the second line in (4.22) which is proportional to $c_1-c_2$. As we will show in a few moments, the combination $c_1-c_2$ belongs to the "long" cut in the $\omega_2$ and $\omega_3$ channel. The fact that this combination also participates in our calculations of the "short" cut hints at the fact that the "long" cut contribution may contain terms which have the $\omega$ plane singularity structure of the "short" cuts, i.e. there is a mixing between the different Regge cuts. We will come back to this question in a forthcoming paper.
An analogous discussion applies to the "short" cut in the $f_{\omega_2}$ channel (Fig.\ref{f2_cont}),
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{\omega_2} f_{\omega_2}^{phase}\;&=&\;\sin(\pi \omega_{3c})\left\{\frac{1}{2} d_1 + \frac{1}{2} d_2 - d_3\right\} + \sin(\pi \omega_{4c})\left\{b_1 - b_2\right\}-\\\nonumber &-& \frac{1}{\sin(\pi \omega_{41})}\left(\frac{1}{2}\sin(\pi \omega_{41})\sin(\pi \omega_{3c}) + \sin(\pi \omega_{13})\sin(\pi \omega_{4c}) \right)\left\{d_1 - d_2\right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
We continue the function $f_{\omega_2}^{phase}$ to those four different kinematic regions where it is nonzero:
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=fw2.eps}
\caption{Analytical continuation of $f_{\omega_2}$.}
\label{f2_cont}
\end{figure}
\noindent
with the common factor
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{\omega_2}= 2\sin(\pi\omega_{31})\sin(\pi\omega_{34}) \left( \frac{|s_1|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_1}
\left( \frac{|s_2|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_2}\left(\frac{|s_3|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_3}\left(\frac{|s_4|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_4}.
\end{eqnarray}
In all other kinematic regions we have $f^{phase}_{\omega_2}\;=\;0$.
Next we turn to the "long" Regge cut in the $\omega_2$ and $\omega_3$ channels simultaneously. This cut is contained in the first two terms of the triplets $c_1$, $c_2$, $d_1$, $d_2$ of Fig.\ref{f3_to_w3all3} with the corresponding phases $c_1$, $c_2$, $d_1$, and $d_2$ in Eq.\eqref{ccuts} and Eq.\eqref{dcuts}. Repeating our line of arguments, we first consider the region where all energies are positive: since all $c_i$ are proportional to $e^{-i\pi \omega_3}$, all $d_i$ proportional to $e^{-i\pi \omega_2}$, the coefficient of $c_1$ has to be opposite equal to that $c_2$, and similarly for $d_1$ and $d_2$. Turning to the region $\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4$, the phases of $c_1-c_2$ are
\begin{equation}
c_1-c_2= 2i e^{-i\pi \omega_2} \sin (\pi \omega_{14}).
\end{equation}
We take the following linear combination,
\begin{equation}
\sin (\pi \omega_{3x})\left\{c_1 - c_2\right\} + \sin(\pi \omega_{2x})\left\{d_1 - d_2\right\}
= 2i e^{-i\pi \omega_x} \sin (\pi \omega_{14}) \sin (\pi \omega_{32})
\end{equation}
with $x=a,b,c$. Obviously, $x_b$ would be a symmetric choice; however the singular term in the Regge pole contribution (Appendix A) has no phase $e^{-i\pi \omega_b}$, and therefore this ansatz for the Regge cut cannot be used to subtract for the subtraction. Instead, we take the linear combination of two contributions,
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{\omega_2 \omega_3} f^{a;phase}_{(\omega_2 \omega_{3})}\;=\;\sin (\pi \omega_{3a})\left\{c_1 - c_2\right\} + \sin(\pi \omega_{2a})\left\{d_1 - d_2\right\}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{\omega_2 \omega_3} f^{c;phase}_{(\omega_2 \omega_{3})}\;=\;\sin (\pi \omega_{3c})\left\{c_1 - c_2\right\} + \sin(\pi \omega_{2c})\left\{d_1 - d_2\right\},
\end{eqnarray}
and in the combination $A f^{a;phase}_{(\omega_2 \omega_{3})} + C f^{c;phase}_{(\omega_2 \omega_{3})}$ we will
determine real valued coefficients $A=\delta f^{a}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}$ and $C=\delta f^{c}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}$ which subtract the singular part of the Regge pole contribution.
Let us first study the other kinematic regions. The functions $f^{a;phase}_{\omega_2 \omega_{3}}$ and $f^{c;phase}_{\omega_2 \omega_{3}}$ have nonzero values in four particular kinematic regions (Fig.\ref{fa_cont},
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=fa.eps}
\caption{Analytical continuation of $f^{a:phase}_{\omega_2\omega_3}$.}
\label{fa_cont}
\end{figure}
(Fig.\ref{fc_cont})
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=fc.eps}
\caption{Analytical continuation of $f^{c;phase}_{\omega_2\omega_3}$.}
\label{fc_cont}
\end{figure}
\noindent
The common factor is the same for $f^{a;phase}_{\omega_2\omega_3}$ and for $f^{c;phase}_{\omega_2\omega_3}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{\omega_2 \omega_3} = 2\sin(\pi\omega_{14})\sin(\pi\omega_{32}) \left( \frac{|s_1|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_1}
\left( \frac{|s_2|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_2}\left(\frac{|s_3|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_3}\left(\frac{|s_4|}{\mu^2}\right)^{\omega_4}.
\end{eqnarray}
For all other possible configuration of analytical continuation, the result is zero. Thus, the "long" cut contributes only to these four particular kinematic regions. We combine these two terms
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta f_{\omega_2\omega_3}\;=\; \delta f^{a}_{\omega_2 \omega_3} f^{a;phase}_{\omega_2\omega_3}
+ \delta f^{c}_{\omega_2 \omega_3} f^{c;phase}_{\omega_2\omega_3}
\end{eqnarray}
with real coefficients $\delta f^{a}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}$ and $\delta f^{c}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}$, and we find for the different regions \footnote{We omitted the subscript `$\omega_2\omega_3$' of the $\delta f^{a,c}$ in the figure for the sake of simplicity.} (Fig.\ref{fd_cont}):
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=f_delta.eps}
\caption{Analytical continuation of $\Delta f_{\omega_2\omega_3}$.}
\label{fd_cont}
\end{figure}
\noindent
It is remarkable that the square bracket is the same in all four cases, up to complex conjugation of the phases. Below we will determine the coefficients $\delta f^{a}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}$ and $\delta f^{c}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}$. Summarizing this subsection, we have determined coefficients of the partial waves $a_1,...d_3$ which, for all those kinematic region which contains Regge cuts, can be combined to give a "good" phase structure. Returning to Eq.\eqref{f_omega}, we have determined the normalization factors $N$ and the phases $f_{\omega}^{phase}$. In the following we still have to calculate the coefficients $\delta f_{\omega}$, and we have to show that our ansatz matches the phases of the singular pieces of the Regge pole terms (studied in Sec. II) and thus allows us to absorb these singularities by the Regge cuts.
\subsection{Redefinitions of Regge pole terms: subtractions}
Let us now turn to the subtraction procedure. Figs.\ref{f3_cont}, \ref{f2_cont}, \ref{fd_cont} show the kinematic regions in which the different Regge cuts, $f_{\omega_3}$, $f_{\omega_2}$, and $f_{\omega_2 \omega_3 }$, contribute. There are two regions ($\tau_2\tau_4$ and $\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4$) in which only $f_{\omega_3}$ contributes, two regions ($\tau_1\tau_3$ and $\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3$) where only $f_{\omega_2}$ is nonzero, and one region ($\tau_1\tau_4$) where only the "long" cut appears. In the remaining three regions we have combinations of several Regge cuts. In particular, the region $\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4$ sees all cut contributions. We begin with the "short" cut $f_{\omega_3}$: from the region $\tau_2\tau_4$ we determine the subtraction $\delta f_{\omega_3}$ which then fixes the subtractions in all regions listed in Fig.\ref{f3_cont}. Similarly, $\delta f_{\omega_2}$ is obtained from the region $\tau_1\tau_3$ and will be used in all regions listed in Fig.\ref{f2_cont}. Finally, in the region $\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4$ we can fix the remaining subtraction, $\delta f_{\omega_2 \omega_3 }$.
We begin with the region $\tau_2\tau_4$ where only the "short" cut in the $t_3$ channel contributes. From Appendix A we read off the Regge pole contribution in the region $\tau_2\tau_4$,
\begin{equation}
f_{pole}^{\tau_2 \tau_4} = e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_1+\omega_3\right)}e^{i\pi\omega_a}
\left(\cos (\pi \omega_{bc})+ \left[ e^{i\pi\left( \omega_b+\omega_c\right)} -\cos(\pi \omega_{bc}) - 2ie^{i\pi\omega_3} \frac{\sin(\pi\omega_b) \sin(\pi\omega_c) }{\sin (\pi\omega_3)} \right] \right).
\label{pole-tau2-tau4}
\end{equation}
The square bracket expression on the rhs can also be written as [Eq.\eqref{2to4twist13a} and Eq.\eqref{2to4twist13}]
\begin{equation}
[...] = +i\sin (\pi (\omega_b + \omega_c)) -2i \frac{\cos(\pi\omega_3)\sin (\pi \omega_b) \sin (\pi \omega_c)}{\sin (\pi \omega_3)},
\label{f_2-subtraction}
\end{equation}
which shows that it is purely imaginary and can also be written as
\begin{equation}
[...]=
- \left[ e^{- i\pi\left( \omega_b+\omega_c\right)} -\cos(\pi \omega_{bc}) + 2ie^{-i\pi\omega_3} \frac{\sin(\pi\omega_b) \sin(\pi\omega_c) }{\sin (\pi\omega_3)} \right].
\end{equation}
Thus the phase structure of the second part of Eq.\eqref{pole-tau2-tau4} is the same as that of the cut contribution $f^{phase}_{\omega_3}$ in the first line of Fig.\ref{f3_cont}, and we define the subtraction term as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta f_{\omega_3}&=&i \left[e^{i\pi\left( \omega_b+\omega_c\right)} -\cos (\pi \omega_{bc}) - 2ie^{i\pi\omega_3} \frac{\sin(\pi\omega_b) \sin (\pi\omega_c) }{\sin(\pi\omega_3)}\right]\nonumber\\
&=&-i \left[e^{-i\pi\left( \omega_b+\omega_c\right)} -\cos (\pi \omega_{bc}) + 2ie^{-i\pi\omega_3} \frac{\sin(\pi\omega_b) \sin (\pi\omega_c) }{\sin(\pi\omega_3)}\right]\nonumber\\
&=&- \left[ \sin (\pi (\omega_b + \omega_c)) -2 \frac{\cos(\pi\omega_3)\sin (\pi \omega_b) \sin (\pi \omega_c)}{\sin (\pi \omega_3)}\right].
\label{3-subtraction}
\end{eqnarray}
Having fixed the subtraction $\delta f_{\omega_3}$ in the $\tau_2\tau_4$ region, we know the subtraction for all kinematic regions in which the $\omega_3$-cut appears (these regions are listed in Fig.\ref{f3_cont}). In our generating function we therefore have the following contributions\footnote{Note that here we follow our convention that terms promotional to an odd number of factors $\tau$ receive an additional minus sign.}
\begin{eqnarray}
-\left[ \tau_2 \tau_4 e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_1+\omega_3\right)}e^{i\pi\omega_a} - \tau_1\tau_2 \tau_4 e^{-i\pi \omega_3}e^{i\pi\omega_a} \right]\left[e^{i\pi\left( \omega_b+\omega_c\right)} -\cos (\pi \omega_{bc}) - 2ie^{i\pi\omega_3} \frac{\sin(\pi\omega_b) \sin (\pi\omega_c) }{\sin(\pi\omega_3)}\right]\nonumber\\
+ \left[ -\tau_2 \tau_3 \tau_4 e^{-i\pi \omega_1}e^{i\pi\omega_a} + \tau_1\tau_2 \tau_3 \tau_4 e^{-i\pi\omega_a} \right] \left[e^{-i\pi\left( \omega_b+\omega_c\right)} -\cos (\pi \omega_{bc}) + 2ie^{-i\pi\omega_3} \frac{\sin(\pi\omega_b) \sin (\pi\omega_c) }{\sin(\pi\omega_3)}\right].\nonumber\\
\label{omega3-cut-subtraction}
\end{eqnarray}
For the regions $\tau_2 \tau_4$ and $\tau_2\tau_3 \tau_4$ these are the only subtractions, and by subtracting the corresponding parts of Eq.\eqref{omega3-cut-subtraction} from their Regge pole terms (Appendix A), all unwanted singular terms must cancel. Indeed, for the region $\tau_2 \tau_4$ we find
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{ren; pole}^{\tau_2 \tau_4} &=& f_{pole}^{\tau_2 \tau_4} + i e^{-i\pi \left( \omega_1+\omega_3 \right) } e^{i\pi\omega_a} \delta f_{\omega_3} \nonumber \\
&=& e^{-i\pi\left( \omega_1+\omega_3\right)} e^{i\pi\omega_a} \cos (\pi \omega_{bc}),
\end{eqnarray}
which consists of a phase factor and a conformal invariant expression: the latter will be called the "conformal Regge pole".
Similarly, in the region $\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4$, together with the Regge pole contribution from Appendix A which we write as
\begin{equation}
f_{pole}^{\tau_2 \tau_3 \tau_4}= -e^{-i\pi\omega_1}e^{i\pi\omega_a } \left( \cos (\pi \omega_{bc}) + \left[ e^{-i\pi (\omega_b+\omega_c)} -\cos (\pi \omega_{bc}) + 2ie^{-i\pi\omega_3}\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_c)}{\sin(\pi\omega_3)} \right] \right)
\end{equation}
we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{ren; pole}^{\tau_2 \tau_3 \tau_4} &=& f_{pole}^{\tau_2 \tau_3 \tau_4} - i e^{-i\pi \omega_1 } e^{i\pi\omega_a} \delta f_{\omega_3} \nonumber \\
&=& - e^{-i\pi \omega_1} e^{i\pi\omega_a} \cos (\pi \omega_{bc}).
\end{eqnarray}
This defines our renormalized pole contribution in the region $\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4$.
The other two regions, $\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_4$ and $\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_3 \tau_4$, receive contributions also from the "long" cut. They will be discussed further below.
A similar discussion applies to the symmetric region $\tau_1\tau_3$ which is used
to calculate the subtraction contained in $f_{\omega_2}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta f_{\omega_2}
&=&i \left[e^{i\pi\left( \omega_a+\omega_b\right)} -\cos (\pi \omega_{ab}) - 2ie^{i\pi\omega_2} \frac{\sin(\pi\omega_a) \sin (\pi\omega_b) }{\sin (\pi\omega_2)}\right] \nonumber \\
&=&- i \left[e^{-i\pi\left( \omega_a+\omega_b\right)} -\cos (\pi \omega_{ab}) + 2ie^{-i\pi\omega_2} \frac{\sin(\pi\omega_a) \sin (\pi\omega_b) }{\sin (\pi\omega_2)}\right] \nonumber \\
&=&- \left[ \sin (\pi (\omega_a + \omega_b)) -2 \frac{\cos(\pi\omega_2)\sin (\pi \omega_a) \sin (\pi \omega_b)}{\sin (\pi \omega_2)}\right].\nonumber\\
\label{2-subtraction}
\end{eqnarray}
From Fig.\ref{f2_cont} it follows that the same subtraction contributes also to the regions $\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_3$, $\tau_1 \tau_3 \tau_4$, and $\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_3 \tau_4$. The analogue of Eq.\eqref{omega3-cut-subtraction} reads,
\begin{eqnarray}
-\left[ \tau_1 \tau_3 e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_2+\omega_4\right)}e^{i\pi\omega_c} - \tau_1\tau_3 \tau_4 e^{-i\pi \omega_2}e^{i\pi\omega_c} \right]\left[e^{i\pi\left( \omega_a+\omega_b\right)} -\cos (\pi \omega_{ab}) - 2ie^{i\pi\omega_2} \frac{\sin(\pi\omega_a) \sin (\pi\omega_b) }{\sin(\pi\omega_2)}\right]\nonumber\\
+ \left[ -\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_3 e^{-i\pi \omega_1}e^{i\pi\omega_c} + \tau_1\tau_2 \tau_3 \tau_4 e^{-i\pi\omega_c} \right] \left[e^{-i\pi\left( \omega_a+\omega_b\right)} -\cos (\pi \omega_{ab}) + 2ie^{-i\pi\omega_2} \frac{\sin(\pi\omega_a) \sin (\pi\omega_b) }{\sin(\pi\omega_2)}\right],\nonumber\\
\label{omega2-cut-subtraction}
\end{eqnarray}
and the renormalized Regge poles in the regions $\tau_1\tau_3$ and $\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_3$ have the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{ren; pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_3} &=& f_{pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_3} + i e^{-i\pi \left( \omega_2+\omega_4 \right) } e^{i\pi\omega_c} \delta f_{\omega_2} \nonumber \\
&=& e^{-i\pi\left( \omega_2+\omega_4\right)} e^{i\pi\omega_c} \cos (\pi \omega_{ab}),
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{ren; pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_3} &=& f_{pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_3} - i e^{-i\pi \omega_4 } e^{i\pi\omega_c} \delta f_{\omega_2} \nonumber \\
&=& - e^{-i\pi \omega_4} e^{i\pi\omega_c} \cos (\pi \omega_{ab}).
\end{eqnarray}
Finally we turn to the contributions of the "long" cut which contributes to the regions listed in Fig.\ref{fd_cont}. We start with the region $\tau_1 \tau_2\tau_3 \tau_4$: in this region all three cuts contribute. The subtractions contained in the two "short" cuts have already been determined before, and we can use these results for fixing the subtraction due to the "long" cut. We again begin with the Regge pole expression (from the Appendix A):
\begin{equation}
f_{pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_2\tau_3\tau_4}=
e^{i\pi\left(-\omega_a+\omega_b-\omega_c\right)} - 2i\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{2a})\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_{3c})}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)\sin(\pi\omega_3)}.
\label{pole1234}
\end{equation}
The subtractions from the "short" cuts, $\delta f_{\omega_3}$ and $\delta f_{\omega_2}$, have been defined above: $\delta f_{\omega_3}$ in Eq.\eqref{3-subtraction} and Eq.\eqref{omega3-cut-subtraction}, and $\delta f_{\omega_2}$ in Eq.\eqref{2-subtraction} and Eq.\eqref{omega2-cut-subtraction}. Before the subtraction due to the "long" cut, we have,
\begin{equation}
f_{pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_2\tau_3\tau_4} - i e^{-i \pi \omega_c} \delta f_{\omega_2 }- i e^{-i \pi \omega_a} \delta f_{\omega_3}
\label{1234-renorm}
\end{equation}
which contains a double pole term $\sim 1/\left( \sin (\pi \omega_2) \sin (\pi \omega_3) \right)$ [from $f_{pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_2\tau_3\tau_4}$ in Eq.\eqref{pole1234}] and single poles $\sim 1/\sin(\pi \omega_i)$ (i=1,2) (from $\delta f_{\omega_3}$ and $\delta f_{\omega_2}$). We now use the freedom of having another subtraction connected with the "long" cut, $f^{a,c}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}$. We chose these remaining subtractions $\delta f^{a,c}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}$ in such a way that they remove all double poles $\sim 1/\left( \sin (\pi \omega_2) \sin (\pi \omega_3) \right) $, all single poles $\sim 1/\sin(\pi \omega_i)$ (i=1,2), and make the resulting expression conformally invariant. This leads to,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta f_{\omega_2 \omega_3}&=& \left\{
- 2\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{2a})\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_{3c})}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)\sin(\pi\omega_3)} - \right.\nonumber\\
&&\;\;- e^{-i\pi\omega_a}i \left[e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_b+\omega_c\right)} - \cos(\pi\omega_{bc})+ 2ie^{-i\pi\omega_3}\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_c)}{\sin(\pi\omega_3)}\right]-\nonumber\\
&&\;\ \left.- e^{-i\pi\omega_c}i\left[e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_a+\omega_b\right)} - \cos(\pi\omega_{ab})+ 2ie^{-i\pi\omega_2}\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_a)\sin(\pi\omega_b)}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)}\right]
\right\}.
\label{f_{23}-subtraction}
\end{eqnarray}
Here we remind that, according to Eq.\eqref{f_2-subtraction}, the square brackets in the second and third rows are purely imaginary. The first term can also be written in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
- 2\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{2a})\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_{3c})}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)\sin(\pi\omega_3)}= \hspace{3cm}\\
\left(e^{-i\pi \omega_a} \frac{\sin (\pi \omega_c)}{\sin(\pi \omega_{ac})} + e^{-i\pi \omega_c} \frac{\sin (\pi \omega_a)}{\sin(\pi \omega_{ca})}\right) 2 \frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{2a})\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_{3c})}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)\sin(\pi\omega_3)}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Inserting this into Eq.\eqref{f_{23}-subtraction} one sees that, in fact, $ \Delta f_{\omega_2 \omega_3}$ can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\Delta f_{\omega_2 \omega_3}= \delta f^{a}_{\omega_2 \omega_3} e^{-i\pi \omega_a}
+ \delta f^{c}_{\omega_2 \omega_3} e^{-i\pi \omega_c}
\end{equation}
with real coefficients $\delta f^{a}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}$ and $\delta f^{c}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}$.
Having fixed the subtractions due to the "long" cut, $\delta f^{a}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}$ and $\delta f^{c}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}$, we must show that in all four kinematic regions in which the "long" cut is nonzero (Fig.\ref{fd_cont}), the unphysical singularities of the Regge pole contributions cancel. We collect these subtractions by writing them as part of the generating function,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{subtraction_step2}
&&\left\{e^{i\pi\left(\omega_a+\omega_b+\omega_c\right)}e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_2+\omega_3\right)} - 2i\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_a)\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_c)}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)\sin(\pi\omega_3)}\right\}\tau_1\tau_4\\
&&\left\{e^{i\pi\left(-\omega_a+\omega_b-\omega_c\right)} - 2i\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{2a})\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_{3c})}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)\sin(\pi\omega_3)}- \right.\nonumber\\
&&\;\;-e^{-i\pi\omega_a}\left[e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_b+\omega_c\right)} - \cos(\omega_{bc})+ 2ie^{-i\pi\omega_3}\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_c)}{\sin(\pi\omega_3)}\right]\nonumber\\
&&\;\;\left.-e^{-i\pi\omega_c}\left[e^{-i\pi\left(\omega_a+\omega_b\right)} - \cos(\omega_{ab})+ 2ie^{-i\pi\omega_2}\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_a)\sin(\pi\omega_b)}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)}\right]
\right\}\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4\nonumber\\
&-&\left\{e^{i\pi\left(-\omega_a+\omega_b+\omega_c\right)}e^{-i\pi\omega_3} - 2i\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_{2a})\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_c)}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)\sin(\pi\omega_3)} - \right.\nonumber\\
&&\;\;-\left.e^{-i\pi\omega_3}e^{i\pi\omega_a}\left[e^{i\pi\left(\omega_b+\omega_c\right)} - \cos(\omega_{bc}) - 2ie^{i\pi\omega_3}\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_c)}{\sin(\pi\omega_3)}\right]\right\}\tau_1\tau_2\tau_4\nonumber\\
&-&\left\{e^{i\pi\left(\omega_a+\omega_b-\omega_c\right)}e^{-i\pi\omega_2} - 2i\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_a)\sin(\pi\omega_b)\sin(\pi\omega_{3c})}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)\sin(\pi\omega_3)} - \right.\nonumber\\
&&\;\;-\left.e^{-i\pi\omega_2}e^{i\pi\omega_c}\left[e^{i\pi\left(\omega_a+\omega_b\right)} - \cos(\omega_{ab}) - 2ie^{i\pi\omega_2}\frac{\sin(\pi\omega_a)\sin(\pi\omega_b)}{\sin(\pi\omega_2)}\right]\right\}\tau_1\tau_3\tau_4.\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
It is now a matter of straightforward algebra to calculate the conformal Regge poles for the four different kinematic regions. For the region $\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4$ we return to Eq.\eqref{1234-renorm} and find:
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{ren;pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_2\tau_3\tau_4}&=& f_{pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_2\tau_3\tau_4} - i e^{-i \pi \omega_c} \delta f_{\omega_2 }- i e^{-i \pi \omega_a} \delta f_{\omega_3} + i \Delta f_{\omega_2 \omega_3}\nonumber\\
&=& e^{i \pi(-\omega_a+\omega_b-\omega_c)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the "conformal Regge pole" equals unity. In the same way we find for the other regions,
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{ren;pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_4}&=& f_{pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_4} +
i e^{-i\pi (\omega_2+\omega_3)} \Delta f_{\omega_2 \omega_3}\nonumber\\
&=& e^{-i\pi (\omega_2+\omega_3)} e^{i \pi \omega_b} \cos (\pi \omega_{ac}),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{ren;pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_4}&=& f_{pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_2 \tau_4}+ ie^{-i\pi \omega_{3}}\delta f_{\omega_3} -
i e^{-i\pi \omega_{3}} \Delta f_{\omega_2 \omega_3}\nonumber\\
&=& - e^{-i\pi \omega_{3}} e^{i\pi \omega_{c}} \cos (\pi \omega_{ab}),
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{ren;pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_3 \tau_4}&=& f_{pole}^{\tau_1 \tau_3 \tau_4} - i e^{-i\pi \omega_{2}}\delta f_{\omega_2} -
i e^{-i\pi \omega_{2}} \Delta f_{\omega_2 \omega_3}\nonumber\\
&=&- e^{-i\pi \omega_{2}} e^{i\pi \omega_{a}} \cos (\pi \omega_{bc}).
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Predictions for the remainder function of the $2\rightarrow 5$ amplitude}
Let us summarize our results for those eight kinematic regions for which the Regge pole terms need to be renormalized. This are also the regions which contain Regge cuts. We again use our notation of a generating function and write for the scattering amplitude $A$:
\begin{equation}
A\;=\; A_0 + A_1 \tau_1 + ...+ A_{12} \tau_1 \tau_2 +... + A_{1234} \tau_1\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4.
\end{equation}
Here each term proportional to $\tau_i...\tau_j$ is written as a product of the BDS prediction and a remainder function:
\begin{equation}
A_{i..j} = A_{BDS; i..j} R_{\tau_i ...\tau_j} ,
\end{equation}
and in Sec. III it has been shown that the BDS amplitude $A_{BDS;i..j}$ can be written as the product of a real part, a kinematic phase factor, and a second phase factor $e^{i\delta_{i...j}}$, where the conformal invariant $\delta_{i...j}$ result from the $Li_2$ functions and represent the one-loop approximations to Regge cut contributions,
\begin{equation}
A_{BDS;i..j} =\pm |A_{BDS;i..j}| e^{i\varphi_{i...j}} e^{i\delta_{i...j}}.
\end{equation}
In the following Fig.\ref{table_mobius} we list the phase factors $e^{i\varphi_{i...j}}$,
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\epsfig{file=table_short_phases.eps,scale=1.25}
\caption{Phase factors $\varphi_{i...j}$ of the $2\rightarrow 5$ amplitude.}
\label{table_mobius}
\end{figure}
\noindent
Next, we collect the phases $\delta_{i...j}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta_{14}\;&=&\;\pi\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\left(\frac{|k_a||k_c||q_1||q_4|}{|k_a+k_b+k_c|^2|q_2||q_3|}\right)\\
\delta_{24}\;&=&\;\pi\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\left(\frac{|k_b||k_c||q_2||q_4|}{|k_b+k_c|^2|q_3|^2}\right)\nonumber\\
\delta_{13}\;&=&\;\pi\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\left(\frac{|k_a||k_b||q_1||q_3|}{|k_a+k_b|^2|q_2|^2}\right)\nonumber\\
\delta_{124}\;&=&\;\pi\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\left(\frac{|k_a+k_b+k_c|^2|k_a||q_2|^2|q_3|}{|k_b+k_c|^2|k_b||q_1|^3}\right)\nonumber\\
\delta_{134}\;&=&\;\pi\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\left(\frac{|k_a+k_b+k_c|^2|k_c||q_2||q_3|^2}{|k_a+k_b|^2|k_b||q_4|^3}\right)\nonumber\\
\delta_{123}\;&=&\;\pi\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\left(\frac{|k_a||k_b||q_1||q_3|}{|k_a+k_b|^2|q_2|^2}\right)\nonumber\\
\delta_{234}\;&=&\;\pi\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\left(\frac{|k_b||k_c||q_2||q_4|}{|k_b+k_c|^2|q_3|^2}\right)\nonumber\\
\delta_{1234}\;&=&\;\pi\frac{\gamma_K}{4}\ln\left(\frac{|k_a+k_b|^2|k_b+k_c|^2|q_1||q_4|}{|k_a+k_b+k_c|^2|k_a||k_c||q_2||q_3|}\right).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, we collect the conformal invariant Regge pole and cut terms which have been calculated in the previous subsection and represent the main results of Sec. IV.
They define our predictions for the remainder function $R$, more precisely for the products
$R_{\tau_i...\tau_j} e^{i\delta_{ij}}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau_1\tau_4: &&\;\;\;\cos(\pi\omega_{ac})+i\,\left( e^{i\pi\omega_{ba}} f^{a}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}+ e^{i\pi\omega_{bc}} f^{c}_{\omega_2 \omega_3} \right)\\
\tau_2\tau_4: &&\;\;\;\cos(\pi\omega_{bc})+i\,f_{\omega_{3}}\nonumber\\
\tau_1\tau_3: &&\;\;\;\cos(\pi\omega_{ab})+i\,f_{\omega_2}
\nonumber\\
\tau_1\tau_2\tau_4: &&\;\;\; - \cos(\pi\omega_{ab})-i\, e^{i\pi\omega_{ac}} f_{\omega_3}-i\, e^{i\pi\omega_{ac}} f^{a}_{\omega_2 \omega_3} -i\, f^{c}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}\nonumber\\
\tau_1\tau_3\tau_4: &&\;\;\;- \cos(\pi\omega_{bc})-i\, e^{i\pi\omega_{ca}} f_{\omega_2}-i\, f^{a}_{\omega_2 \omega_3} -i\, e^{i\pi\omega_{ca}}f^{c}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}\,\nonumber\\
\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3:&&\;\;\;-\cos (\pi \omega_{ab}) - i\, f_{\omega_2} \nonumber\\
\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4:&&\;\;\;-\cos (\pi \omega_{bc}) - i\, f_{\omega_3} \nonumber\\
\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3\tau_4:&&\;\;\; e^{i\pi \omega_{ba}} e^{i\pi \omega_{bc}} -i\, e^{i\pi\omega_{ba}} f_{\omega_3}
-i\, e^{i\pi\omega_{bc}} f_{\omega_2} +i\, e^{i\pi\omega_{ba}}f^{a}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}+i\, e^{i\pi\omega_{bc}}f^{c}_{\omega_2 \omega_3}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The conformal invariant Regge cut terms $f_{\omega_2}$, $f_{\omega_3}$, $f^{a,c}_{\omega_2\omega_3}$ contain, in addition to the subtraction terms $\delta f_{\omega_2}$, $\delta f_{\omega_3}$, $\delta f^{a,c}_{\omega_2\omega_3}$, respectively, which we have discussed in subsection IVC, the terms with Regge cut singularities. In this paper, we have not addressed yet the general structure of these amplitudes. This will be the subject of a forthcoming paper.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have addressed different aspects of scattering amplitudes in the multi-Regge region. Starting from Regge pole models that factorize in the kinematic region of positive energies, we have seen that after analytic continuation to other kinematic regions, terms with unphysical poles appear which need to be compensated by other terms. Specializing to the planar approximation of the conformal $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory, we have studied the cases $2\to4$ and $2\to5$, and we have shown that it is possible to compute, in agreement with the analytic structure dictated by the Steinmann relations, coefficients of Regge cut contributions which match the singular Regge pole pieces and thus can be used to absorb the singularities. We have outlined a "renormalization scheme" that consistently removes the singularities and leads to conformal invariance of the pole contribution.
Since most of this has been motivated by the goal of determining the remainder function $R_{n}$ in
$\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM theory, we have systematically studied the predictions of the BDS formula in multi-Regge kinematics for the different kinematic regions, and compared them with our results for Regge pole models and Regge cuts. This has led us to the definition of a remainder function that contains, apart from the Regge cut contribution, a conformal invariant Regge pole term. In this paper, we have not addressed the detailed structure of the Regge cut terms; this will be the content of a separate paper.
In a future study we will extend our study to the case $2\to6$, which is expected to contain a new form of the Regge cut consisting of three Reggeized gluons.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thank B. Basso, S. Caron-Huot, L. Dixon, V.S. Fadin, A. Prygarin, A. Sabio Vera, V. Schomerus, A. Sever, M. Spradlin, M. Sprenger, and A. Volovich for helpful discussions. The work of A.K. is supported by the Minerva Fellowship Program of Max Planck Gesellschaft.
\section*{Acknowledgments}}
\newcommand\notoc{\notoctrue}
\newcommand\preprint[1]{\gdef\@preprint{\hfill #1}}
\newcommand\note[2][]{%
\if!#1!%
\stepcounter{footnote}\footnotetext{#2}%
\else%
{\renewcommand\thefootnote{#1}%
\footnotetext{#2}}%
\fi}
\newcommand\compress{%
\renewcommand\afterProceedingsSpace{\bigskip}%
\renewcommand\afterTitleSpace{\bigskip}%
\renewcommand\afterRuleSpace{\bigskip\bigskip}
\renewcommand\afterEmailSpace{\par\bigskip}}
\newtoks\auth@toks
\renewcommand{\author}[2][]{%
\if!#1!%
\auth@toks=\expandafter{\the\auth@toks#2\ }%
\else
\auth@toks=\expandafter{\the\auth@toks#2$^{#1}$\ }%
\fi
}
\newtoks\affil@toks\newif\ifaffil\affilfalse
\newcommand{\affiliation}[2][]{%
\affiltrue
\if!#1!%
\affil@toks=\expandafter{\the\affil@toks{\item[]#2}}%
\else
\affil@toks=\expandafter{\the\affil@toks{\item[$^{#1}$]#2}}%
\fi
}
\newtoks\email@toks\newcounter{email@counter}%
\setcounter{email@counter}{0}%
\newcommand{\emailAdd}[1]{%
\emailaddtrue%
\ifnum\theemail@counter>0\email@toks=\expandafter{\the\email@toks, \@email{#1}}%
\else\email@toks=\expandafter{\the\email@toks\@email{#1}}%
\fi\stepcounter{email@counter}}
\newcommand{\@email}[1]{\href{mailto:#1}{\tt #1}}
\newcommand*\collaboration[1]{\gdef\@collaboration{#1}}
\newcommand*\collaborationImg[2][]{\gdef\@collaborationImg{#2}}
\newcommand\afterLogoSpace{\smallskip}
\newcommand\afterSubheaderSpace{\vskip3pt plus 2pt minus 1pt}
\newcommand\afterProceedingsSpace{\vskip21pt plus0.4fil minus15pt}
\newcommand\afterTitleSpace{\vskip23pt plus0.06fil minus13pt}
\newcommand\afterRuleSpace{\vskip23pt plus0.06fil minus13pt}
\newcommand\afterCollaborationSpace{\vskip3pt plus 2pt minus 1pt}
\newcommand\afterCollaborationImgSpace{\vskip3pt plus 2pt minus 1pt}
\newcommand\afterAuthorSpace{\vskip5pt plus4pt minus4pt}
\newcommand\afterAffiliationSpace{\vskip3pt plus3pt}
\newcommand\afterEmailSpace{\vskip16pt plus9pt minus10pt\filbreak}
\newcommand\afterXtumSpace{\par\bigskip}
\newcommand\afterAbstractSpace{\vskip16pt plus9pt minus13pt}
\newcommand\afterKeywordsSpace{\vskip16pt plus9pt minus13pt}
\newcommand\afterArxivSpace{\vskip3pt plus0.01fil minus10pt}
\newcommand\afterDedicatedSpace{\vskip0pt plus0.01fil}
\newcommand\afterTocSpace{\bigskip\medskip}
\newcommand\afterTocRuleSpace{\bigskip\bigskip}
\newlength{\affiliationsSep}\setlength{\affiliationsSep}{-3pt}
\newcommand\beforetochook{\pagenumbering{roman}}
\DeclareFixedFont\trfont{OT1}{phv}{b}{sc}{11}
\renewcommand\maketitle{
\pagestyle{empty}
\thispagestyle{titlepage}
\setcounter{page}{0}
\noindent{\small\scshape\@fpheader}\@preprint\par
\afterLogoSpace
\if!\@subheader!\else\noindent{\trfont{\@subheader}}\fi
\afterSubheaderSpace
\if!\@proceeding!\else\noindent{\sc\@proceeding}\fi
\afterProceedingsSpace
{\LARGE\flushleft\sffamily\bfseries\@title\par}
\afterTitleSpace
\hrule height 1.5\p@%
\afterRuleSpace
\if!\@collaboration!\else
{\Large\bfseries\sffamily\raggedright\@collaboration}\par
\afterCollaborationSpace
\fi
\if!\@collaborationImg!\else
{\normalsize\bfseries\sffamily\raggedright\@collaborationImg}\par
\afterCollaborationImgSpace
\fi
{\bfseries\raggedright\sffamily\the\auth@toks\par}
\afterAuthorSpace
\ifaffil\begin{list}{}{%
\setlength{\leftmargin}{0.28cm}%
\setlength{\labelsep}{0pt}%
\setlength{\itemsep}{\affiliationsSep}%
\setlength{\topsep}{-\parskip}}
\itshape\small%
\the\affil@toks
\end{list}\fi
\afterAffiliationSpace
\ifemailadd
\noindent\hspace{0.28cm}\begin{minipage}[l]{.9\textwidth}
\begin{flushleft}
\textit{E-mail:} \the\email@toks
\end{flushleft}
\end{minipage}
\else
\PackageWarningNoLine{\jname}{E-mails are missing.\MessageBreak Plese use \protect\emailAdd\space macro to provide e-mails.}
\fi
\afterEmailSpace
\if!\@xtum!\else\noindent{\@xtum}\afterXtumSpace\fi
\if!\@abstract!\else\noindent{\renewcommand\baselinestretch{.9}\textsc{Abstract:}}\ \@abstract\afterAbstractSpace\fi
\if!\@keywords!\else\noindent{\textsc{Keywords:}} \@keywords\afterKeywordsSpace\fi
\if!\@arxivnumber!\else\noindent{\textsc{ArXiv ePrint:}} \href{http://arxiv.org/abs/\@arxivnumber}{\@arxivnumber}\afterArxivSpace\fi
\if!\@dedicated!\else\vbox{\small\it\raggedleft\@dedicated}\afterDedicatedSpace\fi
\pagestyle{myplain}\ifnotoc\else
\iftoccontinuous\else\newpage\fi
\beforetochook\hrule
\tableofcontents
\afterTocSpace
\hrule
\afterTocRuleSpace
\fi
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\pagenumbering{arabic}
}
\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}\normalsize
\setlength\lineskip{1\p@}
\setlength\parindent{1.2\parindent}
\setlength\normallineskip{1\p@}
\setlength\parskip{0\p@ \@plus \p@}
\@lowpenalty 51
\@medpenalty 151
\@highpenalty 301
\widowpenalty 1000
\clubpenalty 1000
\setcounter{topnumber}{4}
\renewcommand\topfraction{1}
\setcounter{bottomnumber}{1}
\renewcommand\bottomfraction{.6}
\setcounter{totalnumber}{5}
\renewcommand\textfraction{0}
\renewcommand\floatpagefraction{1}
\textwidth .72\paperwidth
\setlength\@tempdima{.76\paperheight}
\divide\@tempdima\baselineskip
\@tempcnta=\@tempdima
\setlength\textheight{\@tempcnta\baselineskip}
\addtolength\textheight{\topskip}
\voffset -1in
\topmargin .05\paperheight
\headheight .02\paperheight
\headsep .03\paperheight
\footskip .07\paperheight
\marginparsep 9\p@
\marginparpush 6\p@
\hoffset -1in
\oddsidemargin .14\paperwidth
\evensidemargin .14\paperwidth
\marginparwidth .11\paperwidth
\setlength\arraycolsep{2\p@}
\setlength\tabcolsep{6\p@}
\setlength\arrayrulewidth{.4\p@}
\setlength\doublerulesep{2\p@}
\setlength\tabbingsep{\labelsep}
\skip\@mpfootins = \skip\footins
\setlength\fboxsep{3\p@}
\setlength\fboxrule{.4\p@}
\renewcommand{\@dotsep}{10000}
\newcommand\ps@myplain{
\pagenumbering{arabic}
\renewcommand\@oddfoot{\hfill-- \thepage\ --\hfill}
\renewcommand\@oddhead{}}
\let\ps@plain=\ps@myplain
\newcommand\ps@titlepage{\renewcommand\@oddfoot{}\renewcommand\@oddhead{}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\renewcommand\section{\@startsection{section}{1}{\z@}%
{-3.5ex \@plus -1.3ex \@minus -.7ex}%
{2.3ex \@plus.4ex \@minus .4ex}%
{\normalfont\large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
{-2.3ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.5ex}%
{1.2ex \@plus .3ex \@minus .3ex}%
{\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
{-2.3ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.5ex}%
{1ex \@plus .2ex \@minus .2ex}%
{\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
{1.75ex \@plus1ex \@minus.2ex}%
{-1em}%
{\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
{1.75ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
{-1em}%
{\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries}}
\def\fnum@figure{\textbf{\figurename\nobreakspace\thefigure}}
\def\fnum@table{\textbf{\tablename\nobreakspace\thetable}}
\long\def\@makecaption#1#2{%
\vskip\abovecaptionskip
\sbox\@tempboxa{\small #1. #2}%
\ifdim \wd\@tempboxa >\hsize
\small #1. #2\par
\else
\global \@minipagefalse
\hb@xt@\hsize{\hfil\box\@tempboxa\hfil}%
\fi
\vskip\belowcaptionskip}
\let\oldthebibliography=\thebibliography
\let\endoldthebibliography=\endthebibliography
\renewenvironment{thebibliography}[1]{%
\begin{oldthebibliography}{#1}%
\small%
\raggedright%
\setlength{\itemsep}{5pt plus 0.2ex minus 0.05ex}%
}%
{%
\end{oldthebibliography}%
}
|
\section{Introduction}}
We denote by $\mathbb{Z}, \mathbb{Z}_+, \mathbb{N}$ and $\mathbb{C}$
the set of all integers, nonnegative integers, positive integers and
complex numbers, respectively.
The Schr\"{o}dinger group is the symmetry group of the free particle
Schr\"{o}dinger equation. The Lie algebra $\mathfrak{S}$ of this
group in the case of $(1+1)-$dimensional space-time is called the
Schr\"{o}dinger algebra which plays an important role in physics
applications (see [1-4]). Concretely, the Schr\"{o}dinger algebra
has a basis $\{e, h, f,p, q, z\},$ subject to the Lie brackets
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{split}
&[h,e]=2e, &[&h,f]=-2f, &[&e,f]=h,\\
&[h,p]=p, &[&h,q]=-q, &[&p,q]=z,\\
&[e,q]=p, &[&p,f]=-q, &[&f,q]=0,\\
&[e,p]=0, &[&z,\mathfrak{S}]=0. &
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray}
From the definition, we see that the
Schr\"{o}dinger algebra $\mathfrak{S}$ can be viewed as a semidirect
product $ \mathfrak{S}=\mathfrak{H}\rtimes sl_2 $ of two
subalgebras: a Heisenberg subalgebra
$\mathfrak{H}=\mathrm{span}\{p,q,z\}$ and
$sl_2=\mathrm{span}\{e,h,f\}.$ We also see that
$\mathfrak{S}=\bigoplus_{i=-2}^2\mathfrak{S}_i$ is
$\mathbb{Z}-$graded, where
$$\mathfrak{S}_{-2}=\mathbb{C}f,\mathfrak{S}_{-1}=\mathbb{C}q,
\mathfrak{S}_{0}=\mathbb{C}h+\mathbb{C}z,
\mathfrak{S}_{1}=\mathbb{C}p, \mathfrak{S}_{2}=\mathbb{C}e.$$
Obviously,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathfrak{S}=\mathfrak{n}^{+}\oplus\mathfrak{h}\oplus\mathfrak{n}^{-}
\end{eqnarray}
is the Cartan decomposition according to the Cartan subalgebra
$\mathfrak{h}=\mathbb{C}h+\mathbb{C}z,$ where
$\mathfrak{n}^{-}=\mathrm{span}\{f,q\},
\mathfrak{n}^{+}=\mathrm{span}\{p,e\}.$
A module $V$ for Schr\"{o}dinger algebra $\mathfrak{S}$ is called a
weight module if it is the sum of all its weight spaces
$V_{\lambda}=\{v\in V|hv=\lambda v\}$ for some $\lambda\in
\mathbb{C}$. Vectors in $V_{\lambda}$ are called weight vectors. A
weight $\mathfrak{S}-$module $V$ is called a Harish-Chandra module
if all weight spaces are finite-dimensional. A nonzero weight
vector $v\in V$ is called a highest weight vector if
$\mathfrak{n}^{+}v=0$. $V$ is called a highest
weight module if it is generated by a highest weight vector $v$.
Recently, the weight modules for
the Schr\"{o}dinger algebra are deeply studied. In [5], the
irreducible lowest weight modules are classified by using the
technique of singular vectors. In [6], it is proved that all the
weight spaces of a simple weight module which is neither a highest
weight module nor a lowest weight module have the same dimension. By
using the results in [5] and [6] and $\mathrm{Mathieu}^{,}$s
twisting functors (see [7]), the author proved that the
Harish-Chandra modules can be twisted from a class of irreducible
highest weight modules in [8]. Thus the classification of simple
weight modules with finite-dimensional weight spaces are completely
obtained: such module is either a dense $sl_2-$module (see [9]) or a
highest (lowest) weight module or a module ``twisted" from a highest
weight module. Moreover, The classification of simple weight modules
over the Schr\"odinger algebra are completed in [10].
The first series of nonweight simple modules for complex semisimple
Lie algebras were constructed by B. Kostant in [11]. These modules
were called Whittaker modules because of their connection to
Whittaker equation in number theory. D. Arnal and G. Pinczon studied
in [12] a generalization of Whittaker modules.
Since then the study of property
of Whittaker modules over various
algebras are open. The prominent role played by Whittaker modules is
illustrated by the main result in [13] about the
classification of all simple modules for the Lie algebra
$sl_2:$ the simple $sl_2-$modules fall into three families: highest
(lowest) weight modules, Whittaker modules and a third family
obtained by localization. Whittaker modules have many important
properties and are studied for many algebras, such as Virasoro
algebra, Heisenberg algebras, affine Lie algebras, generalized Weyl
algebras, quantum enveloping algebra $U(sl_2)$, Schr\"{o}dinger-witt
algebra, generalized Virasoro algebra, twisted Heisenberg-Virasoro
algebra as well as a class of algebras similar to $U(sl_2)$ etc.
(see Refs. [14-23]). Moreover, quantum deformation of Whittaker
modules and modules induced from Whittaker modules are studied(see
Refs.[24],[25]).
In this paper, we classify the simple Whittaker modules over the
Schr\"{o}dinger algebra.
In section 2, we give some notations, identities and some lemmas
which will be used in the following sections. If $V$ is a simple
module over the Schr\"{o}dinger algebra then $z$ acts as a scalar
$\dot{z}$, called the level.
In section 3, we study the Whittaker modules of zero level. For
simplicity, we first study the Whittaker modules over a subalgebra
generated by $e,p,h,q,z$ in subsection 3.1. In subsection 3.2,
the classification of simple Whittaker modules of zero level is
given. A quasi-central element plays an important role in this part.
In section 4, we use the Casimir operator to study the simplicity of
Whittaker modules for semisimple Lie algebra $sl_2$ first. Then by
using the simple Whittaker modules for Heisenberg algebra
$\mathfrak{H}$ and $sl_2,$ we give the classification of simple
Whittaker modules of nonzero level for Schr\"{o}dinger algebra.
\noindent{\section{Definitions, identities and some lemmas}}
In this section, we first give some fundamental definitions and some
identities which will be used frequently in this paper.
\begin{defi} Let $\phi:\mathfrak{n}^{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ be any
nonzero Lie algebra homomorphism. Let $V$ be a
$\mathfrak{S}$-module.
$\mathrm{(i)}$ A nonzero vector $v\in V$ is
called a Whittaker vector of type $\phi$ if $xv=\phi(x)v$ for all
$x\in\mathfrak{n}^{+}.$
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ $V$ is called a Whittaker module for $\mathfrak{S}$
of type $\phi$ if $V$ contains a cyclic Whittaker vector $v$ of type
$\phi$.
\end{defi}
\begin{defi} Let
$\phi:\mathfrak{n}^{+}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ be any nonzero Lie
algebra homomorphism. Define a one-dimensional
$\mathfrak{n}^{+}$-module $\mathbb{C}_{\phi}=\mathbb{C}w$ by
$ew=\phi(e)w, pw=\phi(p)w.$ The induced module
$$W_{\phi}=U(\mathfrak{S})\otimes_{U(\mathfrak{n}^{+})}\mathbb{C}_{\phi}$$
is called the universal Whittaker module of type $\phi$ in the sense
that for any Whittaker module $V$ with whittaker vector $v$ of type
$\phi,$ there is a unique surjective homomorphism
$f:W_{\phi}\rightarrow V$ such that $uw\mapsto uv, \forall u\in
U(\mathfrak{b}^{-}).$
\end{defi}
For simplicity, we always denote $\phi(x)$ by $\dot{x}$ for $x=e,p$
in the following.
We give some useful identities in $U(\mathfrak{S})$:
\begin{lemm}In $U(\mathfrak{S}),$ the following identities hold:
\begin{align}
&[p,f^n]=-nqf^{n-1},\\
&[p,h^n]=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(-1)^i\binom{n}{i}
h^{n-i}p,\\
&[q,h^n]=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\binom{n}{i}
h^{n-i}q,\\
&[e,q^n]=nq^{n-1}p+\frac{n(n-1)}{2}q^{n-2}z,\\
&[e,f^n]=nf^{n-1}h-n(n-1)f^{n-1},\\
&[e,h^n]=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(-2)^i\binom{n}{i} h^{n-i}e.
\end{align}
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof} We only prove (2.6), the other identities are obvious or can be
proved similarly. Let $R_h$ (resp. $L_h$) be the right (resp. left)
multiplication operator by $h.$ Then
\begin{align*}
& [e,h^n]=R_h^n(e)+h^ne=(L_h-\mathrm{ad}h)^ne+h^ne.
\end{align*}
Using the binomial formula since $L_h$ and $\mathrm{ad}h$ are
commuting, we obtain (2.6).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemm} For an arbitrary homomorphism of Lie algebra $\phi:\mathfrak{n}^+\rightarrow\mathbb{C},$
if $W_{\phi}$ is the universal Whittaker module type $\phi$, then
any Whittaker vectors of $W_{\phi}$ are all of type $\phi.$
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $\phi^{'}:\mathfrak{n}^{+}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is a Lie
algebra homomorphism which is different from $\phi$ and $v^{'}=\sum
a_{ijk}f^iq^jh^kw$ is a Whittaker vector of type $\phi^{'}.$ Define
$A:=\mathrm{max}\{i+j+k|a_{ijk}\neq0\}$ and let $\succ$ be the
lexicographic order on $\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}.$
Suppose $(\bar{i},\bar{j},\bar{k})$ is the maximal element of
$\{(i,j,k)|i+j+k=A\}$ and $a_{\bar{i}\bar{j}\bar{k}}=1.$ Then
\begin{align}
v=f^{\bar{i}}q^{\bar{j}}h^{\bar{k}}w+\sum_{i+j+k<A\ or\
(i,j,k)\prec(\bar{i},\bar{j},\bar{k})}a_{ijk}f^iq^jh^kw.
\end{align}
If $\phi^{'}(x)\neq \phi(x),$ $x=e$ or $p,$ on one hand, we have
\begin{align}
xv=\phi^{'}(x)v.
\end{align}
On the other hand, we have
\begin{align}
xv=\phi(x)v+([x,f^{\bar{i}}q^{\bar{j}}h^{\bar{k}}]+\sum_{i+j+k<A\
or\ (i,j,k)\prec(\bar{i},\bar{j},\bar{k})}a_{ijk}[x,f^iq^jh^k])w.
\end{align}
By Lemma 2.3 and identity (2.9), we see that
\begin{align}
xv=\phi(x)f^{\bar{i}}q^{\bar{j}}h^{\bar{k}}w+\sum_{i+j+k<A\ or\
(i,j,k)\prec(\bar{i},\bar{j},\bar{k})}b_{ijk}f^iq^jh^kw,
\end{align} where $b_{ijk}\in\mathbb{C}.$
Then the lemma follows from (2.7), (2.8) and (2.10).
\end{proof}
\begin{lemm} Suppose $\mathfrak{L}$ be a
finite-dimensional Lie algebra with the triangular decomposition
$\mathfrak{L}=\mathfrak{L}^{+}\oplus \mathfrak{L}_0\oplus
\mathfrak{L}^{-}$ according to the Cartan subalgebra
$\mathfrak{L}_0$, $\phi:\mathfrak{L}^{+}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is a
Lie algebra homomorphism.
$\mathrm{(i)}$ If $V$ is a Whittaker $\mathfrak{L}-$module with
cyclic Whittaker vector of type $\phi$, then every submodule $W$ of
$\mathfrak{L}-$module $V$ contains a Whittaker vector of type
$\phi.$
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If the vector space of Whittaker vectors of type
$\phi$ is one dimensional, then $V$ is irreducible.
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof} We see that $\{x-\phi(x)|x\in\mathfrak{L}^+\}$ act locally nilpotent on $V$ since $\mathrm{ad}x$
acts locally nilpotent on $U(\mathfrak{L})$ for any
$x\in\mathfrak{L}^+.$ Thus for any nonzero submodule $W$ of $V$ and
any nozero vector $v\in W,$ $U(\mathfrak{L}^+)v$ is a
finite-dimensional $\mathfrak{L}^+$-submodule. By Lie Theorem, (i)
holds. (ii) is a direct corollary of (i).
\end{proof}
The following result is a direct corollary of Lemma 2.5.
\begin{coro}
Let $V$ be any Whittaker module of type $\phi$ for Schr\"{o}dinger
algebra $\mathfrak{S}.$ Then every submodule $W$ of $V$ contains a
Whittaker vector of type $\phi.$
\end{coro}
\vskip 3mm\noindent{\section{Whittaker modules of zero level}}
In this section, we classify the simple Whittaker modules of zero
level for the Schr\"{o}dinger algebra $\mathfrak{S}.$ For
simplicity, we first study the Whittaker vectors and Whittaker
modules for the subalgebra $\mathfrak{S}_1$ generated by $\langle
p,q,e,h\rangle$ in subsection 3.1. Then in subsection 3.2, we study
the Whittaker $\mathfrak{S}$-modules induced from the simple
Whittaker $S_1-$modules, and determine the classification of simple
Whittaker $\mathfrak{S}$-modules of zero level. In our study, a
quasi-central element (see Lemma 3.5) of $U(\mathfrak{S})$ given in
[26] plays an important role.
\vskip 3mm\noindent{\subsection{Whittaker modules of zero level for
subalgebra $\mathfrak{S_1}$ }}
We denote the subalgebra of Schr\"{o}dinger algebra $\mathfrak{S}$
generated by $\{e,p,h,q\}$ by $\mathfrak{S}_1$. The universal
Whittaker module of type $\phi$ for $\mathfrak{S}_1$ is denoted by $
W_{\phi}.$ Then for any $v=\in W_{\phi},$ $v$ can be written in the
form:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:1}
v=\sum_{i=0}^na_ih^i\psi_i(q)w,
\end{equation}
where $\psi_i(x)\in\mathbb{C}[x],\psi_n(x)\neq0$ and $a_n\neq0$.
\begin{prop}
$\mathrm{(i)}$ Suppose $\dot{e}\neq0,\dot{p}=0$ and $W_{\phi}$ is
the universal Whittaker module for $\mathfrak{S}_1$ with cyclic
Whittaker vector $w$. Then $v\in W_{\phi}$ is a Whittaker vector if
and only if $v=uw$ for some $u\in\mathbb{C}[q].$
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If $\dot{p}\neq0,$ the set of Whittaker vectors in
$W_{\phi}$ is $\mathbb{C}w$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
$\mathrm{(i)}$ By (2.4) and $[p,q]w=0,$ it is obvious that $uw$ is
a Whittaker vector if $u\in\mathbb{C}[q]$. For any Whittaker vector
$v\in W_{\phi}$ with form (3.1), if $n\neq0,$ by (2.6), we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:1}
(e-\dot{e})^{n}v=a_{n}(-2)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}n!\dot{e}\psi_{n}(q)w\neq0,
\end{equation}
a contradiction.
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ For any nonzero vector $v\in
W_{\phi}\setminus\mathbb{C}w,$ we can assume $
v=\sum_{i=0}^na_ih^i\psi_i(q)w, $ where $a_i\in\mathbb{C}, a_n\neq0,
\psi_i(x)\in\mathbb{C}[x]$ and $n+\mathrm{deg}(\psi_i(x))>0.$
If $n=0, \mathrm{deg}(\psi_i(x))>0,$ we see that
$v=\sum_{j=0}^mb_jq^jw,$ where $m>0,b_j\in\mathbb{C},b_m\neq0.$ By
(2.4), we can easily get that
$$(e-\dot{e})v=\dot{p}\sum_{j=1}^mjb_jq^{j-1}w\neq0,$$ which means
$v$ is not a Whittaker vector.
If $n\neq0,$ by (2.2) we see that
$$(p-\dot{p})v=-n\dot{p}a_nh^{n-1}\psi_n(q)w+\sum_{k<n-1}c_kh^k\psi_k^{'}(q)w\neq0,$$where
$c_k\in\mathbb{C},\psi_k^{'}(x)\in \mathbb{C}[x].$ Thus $v$ is not a
Whittaker vector.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemm} If $\dot{e}\neq0,\dot{p}=0$, $M$ is a
$\mathfrak{S}_1$-submodule of $W_{\phi},$
then
$M$ is a maximal submodule of $W_{\phi}$ if and only if there exists
an a scalar $\xi$ such that $M$ is generated by $(q-\xi)w.$
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
Suppose there exists a scalar $\xi$ such that $M$ is generated by
$(q-\xi)w.$ For arbitrary vector $v\in M$, $v$ is of the form
$$v=\sum_{i,j}a_{i,j}h^iq^j(q-\xi)w.$$ By
$(e-\dot{e})(q-\xi)w=0=p(q-\xi)w$ and identities (2.2), (2.3) and
(2.6) we see that $w\notin M.$ Thus $M$ is a proper submodule of
$W_{\phi}.$ For any $v^{'}\notin M,$ we have $v^{'}\equiv
\sum_{i}a_ih^iw(\mathrm{mod}M).$ Thus we can assume that
$$v^{'}=h^kw+\sum_{j<k}a_jh^jw\in (U(\mathfrak{S}_1)w+M).$$
Then by using (2.6) we can easily deduce that $w\in
(U(\mathfrak{S}_1)w+M),$ which means
$U(\mathfrak{S}_1)w+M=W_{\phi}.$ Thus $M$ is maximal.
Now suppose $M$ is a maximal $\mathfrak{S}_1-$submodule of
$W_{\phi}$ and $v\in M$ is an arbitrary nonzero vector. Then $v$
must be of the form (3.1). We choose $v\in M$ such that $n$ be the
minimal. If $n\neq0,$ by (3.2), we see that $\psi_{n}(q)w\in M$,
which is contrary to the minimal of $n.$ Thus there exists
polynomial $0\neq\psi_0(x)\in\mathbb{C}[x]$ such that $\psi_0(q)w\in
M.$ Set
$$\underline{k}=\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{deg}(\psi(x))|\psi(q)w\in M\}$$ and
choose monic polynomial $\underline{\psi}(x)\in\mathbb{C}[x]$ such
that $\mathrm{deg}(\underline{\psi}(x))=\underline{k}$ and
$\underline{\psi}(q)w\in M$. We see that $\underline{k}>0$ since
$w\notin M.$ Now we claim that $M$ is generated by
$\underline{\psi}(q)w.$ In fact, for any $0\neq v\in M$ with form
(3.1), similar as we have done in (3.2), we find that $\psi_i(q)w\in
M$ for all $i$ with $a_i\neq0.$ Thus $\underline{\psi}(x)|\psi_i(x)$
by the definition of $\underline{\psi}(x)$ and division algorithm in
$\mathbb{C}[x].$ So $M=U(\mathfrak{S}_1)\underline{\psi}(q)w.$
Furthermore, we see that $\underline{\psi}(x)$ is irreducible since
$M$ is maximal, which means there exists a $\xi\in\mathbb{C}$ such
that $\underline{\psi}(x)=x-\xi$ since
$\underline{\psi}(x)\in\mathbb{C}$ is monic.
\end{proof}
By Lemma 3.2 we see that if
$\phi(e)=\dot{e}\neq0,\phi(p)=\dot{p}=0,$ $M_{\xi}$ is a maximal
$\mathfrak{S}_1-$submodule of $W_{\phi}$ generated by $(q-\xi)w,$
then the corresponding simple quotient module
$W_{\phi}/M_{\xi}=\mathbb{C}[h]\bar{w}$ as vector space. We will
denote the simple quotient module $W_{\phi}/M_{\xi}$ by
$\mathbb{C}[h]_{\phi}^{\xi}\bar{w},$ where $\bar{w}=w+M_{\xi}.$
\begin{prop}$\mathrm{(i)}$ If $\dot{e}\neq0,\dot{p}=0,$
any simple Whittaker $\mathfrak{S}_1-$module of
type $\phi$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{C}[h]_{\phi}^{\xi}\bar{w}$ for
some $\xi\in\mathbb{C}.$
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If $\dot{p}\neq0,$ then $W_{\phi}$ is simple
Whittaker $\mathfrak{S}_1-$module.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
$\mathrm{(i)}$ For any simple Whittaker $\mathfrak{S}_1-$module $V$,
there exists a maximal submodule $M$ of $W_{\phi}$ such that $V\cong
W_{\phi}/M.$ By Lemma 3.2, there exists some $\xi\in\mathbb{C}$ such
that $M=M_{\xi},$ so we have $V\cong
\mathbb{C}[h]_{\phi}^{\xi}\bar{w}$ for some $\xi\in\mathbb{C}.$
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ This is the direct corollary of Lemma 2.5 and
Proposition 3.1 (ii).
\end{proof}
\vskip 3mm\noindent{\subsection{Simple Whittaker modules for
$\mathfrak{S}$ of zero level }}
In subsection 3.1, we obtain all the simple $\mathfrak{S}_1-$modules
$\mathbb{C}[h]_{\phi}^{\xi}$ (when $\dot{e}\neq0,\dot{p}=0$) and
$W_{\phi}$ (when $\dot{p}\neq0)$. For $\dot{e}\neq0,\dot{p}=0,\xi\in
\mathbb{C},$ in the following, we set
$$L_{\phi}^{\xi}:=U(\mathfrak{S})\otimes_{U(\mathfrak{S}_1)}\mathbb{C}[h]_{\phi}^{\xi}.$$
For $\dot{p}\neq0,$ we set
$$\widetilde{W}_{\phi}=U(\mathfrak{S})\otimes_{U(\mathfrak{S}_1)}V.$$
In this subsection, we first study the Whittaker vectors and
simplicity of the above induced Whittaker modules. Then we classify
the simple Whittaker modules of zero level over $\mathfrak{S}$.
\begin{lemm} Suppose $\dot{p}\neq0.$ For $\bar{\mathfrak{c}}\in U(\mathfrak{S})$ with form $\bar{\mathfrak{c}}=f+\bar{\mathfrak{c}},$ where
$\bar{\mathfrak{c}}_1\in U(\mathfrak{S}_1),$ such that
$\bar{\mathfrak{c}}w$ is a Whittaker vector, then
$$\bar{\mathfrak{c}}=f-\frac{1}{\dot{p}}q(1+h)-\frac{\dot{e}}{\dot{p}^2}q^2+c,$$
where $c\in\mathbb{C}.$
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $\bar{\mathfrak{c}}=f+\sum_{i=0}^na_i\psi_i(q)h^i,$ where
$a_i\in\mathbb{C},a_{n}\neq0,\psi_i(x)\in\mathbb{C}[x].$ Then by
$(p-\dot{p})\bar{\mathfrak{c}}w=0,$ we get that
$$-qw+\dot{p}\sum_{i=1}^na_i\psi_i(q)\big(\sum_{k=1}^i(-1)^k\binom{i}{k}h^{i-k}\big)w=0.$$
So $n=1$ and $-qw-\dot{p}a_1\psi_1(q)w=0.$ Thus
$\psi_1(q)=-\frac{1}{a_1\dot{p}}q.$ If we assume that
$\psi_1(x)=b_0+b_1x+\cdots+b_sx^s,$ then we can rewrite
$\bar{\mathfrak{c}}$ as following
$$\bar{\mathfrak{c}}=f+a_0(b_0+b_1q+\cdots+b_sq^s)-\frac{1}{\dot{p}}qh.$$
By $(e-\dot{e})\bar{\mathfrak{c}}w=0,$ we get that $s=2$ and
$a_0b_1\dot{p}+2a_0b_2\dot{p}q+1+\frac{2\dot{e}}{\dot{p}}q=0.$ So
$$b_1=-\frac{1}{a_0\dot{p}}, b_2=-\frac{\dot{e}}{a_0\dot{p}^2},$$
which means that
$\bar{\mathfrak{c}}=(f-\frac{1}{\dot{p}}q(1+h)-\frac{\dot{e}}{\dot{p}^2}q^2)+a_0b_0.$
\end{proof}
From Lemma 3.4, we see that
$$(\bar{\mathfrak{c}}-a)w=(f-\frac{1}{\dot{p}}q(1+h)-\frac{\dot{e}}{\dot{p}^2}q^2)w=(fp^2-q(1+h)p-q^2e)(\frac{1}{\dot{p}^2}w).$$
The following key lemma is from [10], we will call $\mathfrak{c}$ a
quasi-central element of $U(\mathfrak{S}):$
\begin{lemm} Let $\mathfrak{c}=fp^2-q(1+h)p-q^2e.$ Then the center of
$U(\mathfrak{S}/\mathbb{C}z)=\mathbb{C}[\mathfrak{c}].$
\end{lemm}
We denote by $U(\langle q,h\rangle)$ the universal enveloping
algebra of the subalgebra generated by $q$ and $h.$ For
$u=\sum_{i=0}^na_i\psi_{i}(q,h)f^i\in U(\mathfrak{S}),$ where
$\psi_{i}(q,h)\in U(\langle q,h\rangle)$, $a_i\in\mathbb{C},$
$a_n\neq0,$ $\psi_{n}(q,h)\neq0,$ we define $\mathrm{deg}_f(u)=n.$
Define
$$W_{\phi}^k:=\mathrm{span}\{uw|\mathrm{deg}_f(u)\leq k.\}$$
\begin{lemm}
If $\dot{p}\neq0,$ then for any $a\in \mathbb{C}, i\in\mathbb{N},$
there exists $\psi_k(q,h)\in U(\langle q,h\rangle),$ $
k=0,\cdots,i,$ such that
$$f^iw=\frac{1}{\dot{p}^{2i}}(\mathfrak{c}-a)^iw+\psi_1(q,h)(\mathfrak{c}-a)^{i-1}w+\cdots+\psi_{i-1}(q,h)(\mathfrak{c}-a)w+\psi_i(q,h)w.$$
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof} Suppose Lemma
3.6 is proved for $i\leq k.$ By Lemma 3.4 and Lemma 3.5, we have
\begin{align*}
&f^{k+1}w=
f^{{k}}(f-\frac{1}{\dot{p}}q(1+h)-\frac{\dot{e}}{\dot{p}^2}q^2)w(\mathrm{mod}W_{\phi}^k)
\\
&\equiv f^{{k}}(fp^2-q(1+h)p-q^2e)\frac{1}{\dot{p}^2}w
(\mathrm{mod}W_{\phi}^k)
\\
&\equiv f^{{k-1}}(fp^2-q(1+h)p-q^2e)f\frac{1}{\dot{p}^2}w
(\mathrm{mod}W_{\phi}^k)\\
&\equiv f^{{k-2}}(fp^2-q(1+h)p-q^2e)^2\frac{1}{\dot{p}^4}w
(\mathrm{mod}W_{\phi}^k)\\
&\equiv \cdots\\
&\equiv (fp^2-q(1+h)p-q^2e)^{k+1}\frac{1}{\dot{p}^{2(k+1)}}w
(\mathrm{mod}W_{\phi}^k).
\end{align*}
By induction, Lemma 3.6 holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} $\mathrm{(i)}$ If $\dot{e}\neq0, \dot{p}=0, \xi\neq0,$ the set of Whittaker vectors of
$L_{\phi}^{\xi}$ is $\mathbb{C}\bar{w}.$
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If $\dot{p}\neq0, $ the set of Whittaker vectors
of $\widetilde{W}_{\phi}$ is $\mathbb{C}[\mathfrak{c}]w,$ where
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{c}=fp^2-q(1+h)p-q^2e.
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
$\mathrm{(i)}$ Suppose $\dot{e}\neq0,\dot{p}=0,\xi\neq0.$ For any
nonzero $v\in L_{\phi}^{\xi},$ we can assume that
$$v=\sum_{k=0}^{n}a_kf^k\psi_k(h)\bar{w},$$ where
$a_n\neq0,\psi_k(x)\in \mathbb{C}[x],\psi_n(x)\neq0.$ Then if $v$ is
a Whittaker vector, by identities (2.1) and (2.2), we have
$$pv=\sum_{k=0}^{n}a_k(-k)f^{k-1}q\psi_k(h)\bar{w}=0.$$ By (2.3) and the fact
that $q\bar{w}=\xi\bar{w}\neq0,$ we have $n=0.$ So $v$ can be
written by
$$v=\psi_0(h)\bar{w}=h^k\bar{w}+a_{k-1}h^{k-1}\bar{w}+\cdots +a_0h_0,$$
where $k\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ and $a_i\in\mathbb{C}, i=0,i,\cdots,k-1.$
Then by using $(e-\dot{e})v=0$ and (2.6) we deduce that $k=0$, which
means $v\in \mathbb{C}\bar{w}.$
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ By Lemma 3.5, we see that every nonzero vector of
$\mathbb{C}[\mathfrak{c}]w$ is a Whittaker vector. For any Whittaker
vector $v\in \widetilde{W}_{\phi}$, there exists $0\neq
u=\sum_{i=0}^na_i\psi_{i}(q,h)f^i\in U(\mathfrak{S})$ with
$\mathrm{deg}_f(u)=n$ such that $v=uw.$ If $n=0,$ by Proposition
3.1(ii), we see that $\psi_{0}(q,h)\in\mathbb{C}^*,$ so $v\in
\mathbb{C}w\subseteq\mathbb{C}[\mathfrak{c}]w.$ Suppose for $n\leq
k$ we have proved that $v\in \mathbb{C}[\mathfrak{c}]w.$ Now we
begin to investigate the case of $n=k+1.$
Using $(p-\dot{p})$ and
$(e-\dot{e})$ to act in turn on $v$, we can easily deduce that
$\psi_{k+1}(q,h)\in\mathbb{C}^{*}.$ For simplicity, we can assume
that $a_{k+1}=1=\psi_{k+1}(q,h).$ So by Lemma 3.6, we see that
\begin{align*}
v&=f^{k+1}w+\sum_{i=0}^ka_i\psi_{i}(q,h)f^iw\in\mathbb{C}[\mathfrak{c}]w.
\end{align*}Then, by
induction, Proposition 3.7 holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{theo}
$\mathrm{(i)}$ If $\dot{e}\neq0,\dot{p}=0,\xi\neq0,$ the Whittaker
module
$L_{\phi}^{\xi}$
is simple.
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If $\dot{p}\neq0,$ for any
$a\in\mathbb{C},$ the Whittaker module $\widetilde{W}_{\phi}$ has the following filtration:
$$\widetilde{W}_{\phi}=W^0\supset W^1\supset W^2\supset\cdots \supset W^n\supset
\cdots,$$ where $W^i$ is a Whittaker submodule defined by $W^i=U(\mathfrak{S})(\mathfrak{c}-a)^iw.$ More precisely, $\widetilde{W}_{\phi}/W^1$
is simple and $W^i/W^{i+1}\cong \widetilde{W}_{\phi}/W^1$ for all
$i\in\mathbb{N}.$
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
$\mathrm{(i)}$ follows from Corollary 2.6 and Proposition 3.7.
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ Suppose $\dot{p}\neq0.$ By Lemma 3.6, we see that
for any $0\neq v\in \widetilde{W}_{\phi}\setminus W_1,$
there exists $\psi_i(q,h)\in
U(\langle q,h\rangle), i=0,\cdots,n, \psi_0(q,h)\neq0,
\psi_n(q,h)\neq0$ such that
$$v=\psi_n(q,h)(\mathfrak{c}-a)^nw+\psi_{n-1}(q,h)(\mathfrak{c}-a)^{n-1}w+\cdots+\psi_{1}(q,h)(\mathfrak{c}-a)w+\psi_0(q,h)w.$$
Thus $\psi_0(q,h)w\in (U(\mathfrak{S})v+W_1).$ Then by Proposition
3.3 (ii), we have $w\in(U(\mathfrak{S})v+W_1)$ and
$U(\mathfrak{S})v+W_1=\widetilde{W}_{\phi},$ which means $W_1$ is a
maximal submodule of $\widetilde{W}_{\phi}.$
By Lemma 3.5 and Lemma 3.6, for any element $v\in W^i,$ $v$ is of
the form
$$v=\sum_{k=i}^n\psi_k(q,h)(\mathfrak{c}-a)^kw,$$ where $n\geq i, \psi_n(q,h)\neq0.$
Define linear map:
\begin{align*}
g:\ \ \ W^i\ \ \ &\rightarrow\ \ \ \widetilde{W}_{\phi}/W^1\\
\psi(q,h)(\mathfrak{c}-a)^{k+i}w & \mapsto
\psi(q,h)(\mathfrak{c}-a)^{k}\bar{w}.
\end{align*}
It is easy to see that $g$ is a module homomorphism and
$\mathrm{ker}(g)=W^{i+1}$, which means that $W^{i}/W^{i+1}\cong
\widetilde{W}_{\phi}/W^1.$
\end{proof}
In the following, we denote $\widetilde{W}_{\phi}/W^1$ by
$M_{\phi}^{a}.$ So $M_{\phi}^{a}$ is a simple Whittaker module with
cyclic Whittaker vector $\bar{w}:=w+W^1.$ By Proposition 3.7 (ii)
and the definition of $M_{\phi}^{a}$, we have the following lemma
immediately:
\begin{lemm}
The set of Whittaker vectors of $M_{\phi}^{a}$ is
$\mathbb{C}\bar{w}.$
\end{lemm}
\begin{theo} Suppose $V$ is any simple Whittaker module of zero level of type $\phi$ for
$\mathfrak{S}$.
$\mathrm{(i)}$ If $\dot{e}\neq0,\dot{p}=0,$ then $V$ is either a
simple $sl_2-$module of type $\phi$ or isomorphic to
$L_{\phi}^{\xi}$
for some $\xi\neq0.$
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If $\dot{p}\neq0,$ then $V$ is
isomorphic to $M_{\phi}^a$ for some $a\in\mathbb{C}.$
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
If $V$ is a simple Whittaker module of with cyclic Whittaker vector
$w_v$ of type $\phi$, by the universal property of
$\widetilde{W}_{\phi},$ there exists a surjective module
homomorphism $g:\widetilde{W}_{\phi}\rightarrow V$ with
$uw\rightarrow uw_v.$
$\mathrm{(i)}$ If $\phi$ satisfies
$\phi(e)=\dot{e}\neq0,\phi(p)=\dot{p}=0,$ let $V_1\subseteq V$ be
the $\mathfrak{S}_1$-module generated by $w_v.$ Then as
$\mathfrak{S}_1$-module, $V$ has the following direct sum
decomposition:
$$V=V_1\oplus fV_1/V_1\oplus f^2V_1/fV_1\oplus\cdots\oplus f^nV_1/f^{n-1}V_1\oplus\cdots.$$
Since $V$ is simple as $\mathfrak{S}-$module, we see that $V_1$ is
simple as $\mathfrak{S}_1$-module. Then by Proposition 3.3, there
exists $\xi\in \mathbb{C}$ such that $V_1\cong
\mathbb{C}[h]_{\phi}^{\xi}\bar{w}.$
\noindent{\bf{Case (1)}} If $\xi=0,$ then $qw_v=0,$ combing with
$ew_v=zw_v=0,$ we see that $V$ is just a simple Whittaker
$sl_2-$module.
\noindent{\bf{Case (2)}} If $\xi\neq0,$ then as
$\mathfrak{S}-$module, $V=\mathbb{C}[f]V_1$ is a quotient module of
$L_{\phi}^{\xi}=U(\mathfrak{S})\otimes_{U(\mathfrak{S}_1)}\mathbb{C}[h]_{\phi}^{\xi}\bar{w}.$
Thus $V\cong L_{\phi}^{\xi}$ since $L_{\phi}^{\xi}$ is simple by
Theorem 3.8 (i).
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If $\phi$ satisfies $\phi(p)=\dot{p}\neq0,$ by
Proposition 3.7 (ii), for $n\in\mathbb{Z}_+$ and $x=e$ or $p$ we
have
$$x\mathfrak{c}^nw_v=x(\mathfrak{c}^ng(w))=g(x\mathfrak{c}^nw)=\dot{x}g(\mathfrak{c}^nw)=\dot{x}\mathfrak{c}^ng(w),$$
which means $\mathbb{C}[\mathfrak{c}]w_v$ is a subset of Whittaker
vector of $V$. Since $V$ is simple, the Whittaker vectors are of the
form $cw_v$ for some $c\in\mathbb{C},$ thus $\mathfrak{c} w_v=aw_v$
for some $a\in \mathbb{C}.$ So
$U(\mathfrak{S})(\mathfrak{c}-a)w_v=0,$ which means
$U(\mathfrak{S})(\mathfrak{c}-a)w\subseteq \mathrm{ker}(g).$ Thus
$V\cong \widetilde{W}_{\phi}/\mathrm{ker}(g)$ is a nonzero submodule
of $M_{\phi}^{a},$ thus $V\cong M_{\phi}^{a}$ since $ M_{\phi}^{a}$
is simple by Theorem 3.8.
\end{proof}
\begin{coro}
Let $V$ be a Whittaker $\mathfrak{S}-$module of level zero of type
$\phi:e \rightarrow \dot{e}, p \rightarrow \dot{p}$.
$\mathrm{(i)}$ If $\dot{e}\neq0,\dot{p}=0,$ then $V$ is simple if
and only if $q$ acts on cyclic Whittaker vector as a scalar.
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If $\dot{p}\neq0,$ then $V$ is simple if and
only if
$\mathfrak{c}$ acts as a zero.
\end{coro}
\begin{theo} $\mathrm{(i)}$ If
$\dot{e}\neq0,\dot{p}=0, \xi, \xi^{'}\neq0,$ then
$L_{\phi^{'}}^{\xi^{'}}\cong L_{\phi}^{\xi}$ if and only if
$\phi^{'}=\phi,$ and $\xi^{'}=\xi.$
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If $\dot{p}\neq0,$ then $M_{\phi^{'}}^{a^{'}}\cong
M_{\phi}^{a}$ if and only if $\phi^{'}=\phi,$ and $a^{'}=a.$
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
$\mathrm{(i)}$ The sufficiency is trivial. By Proposition 3.7 (i) and Lemma 2.4, we see that
the necessity holds.
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ We need only to prove the necessity. By Lemma 3.9,
we get
$\phi^{'}=\phi$ immediately. Suppose $\bar{w}$ (resp.
$\bar{w}^{'}$)
is a cyclic Whittaker vector of $M_{\phi}^a$ (resp.
$M_{\phi^{'}}^{a^{'}}$) and $g: M_{\phi}^a\rightarrow M_{\phi^{'}}^{a^{'}}$ is the module isomorphism such that $g(\bar{w})=g(w)$.
Then we have
$$0=(\mathfrak{c}-a^{'})\bar{w}^{'}=(\mathfrak{c}-a^{'})g(\bar{w})=g((\mathfrak{c}-a^{'})(\bar{w}))=(a-a^{'})\bar{w}^{'},$$
that is $a^{'}=a.$
\end{proof}
\begin{rema}
By Theorem 3.10 and Theorem 3.11, the Whittaker modules of zero
level for Schr\"{o}dinger algebra are classified.
\end{rema}
\noindent{\section{Whittaker modules of nonzero level}}
In this section, we classify the simple Whittaker modules of nonzero
level. Our arguments use the Casimir operator of semisimple Lie
algebra $sl_2$ and the description of simple modules over conformal
Galilei algebras in [24].
\begin{defi}
Let $\mathbb{C}_{\dot{p},\dot{z}}=\mathbb{C}w$ be a one-dimensional
vector space. By the action of
$$pw=\dot{p}w, zw=\dot{z}w,$$ $\mathbb{C}_{\dot{p},\dot{z}}$ can be viewed as a
$\mathbb{C}p\oplus\mathbb{C}z-$module. The induced module
$$M_{\mathfrak{H}}(\dot{p},\dot{z})=U(\mathfrak{H})\otimes_{U(\mathbb{C}p\oplus\mathbb{C}z)}\mathbb{C}_{\dot{p},\dot{z}}$$
is called a Whittaker module for Heisenberg Lie algebra
$\mathfrak{H}.$
\end{defi}
The following proposition is from [15], it can also be checked
easily:
\begin{prop}
For $\dot{z}\neq0,$ the following hold:
$\mathrm{(i)}$ $M_{\mathfrak{H}}(\dot{p},\dot{z})$ is the unique (up
to isomorphism) irreducible Whittaker $\mathfrak{H}-$module on which
$z$ acts by $\dot{z}\neq0$.
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ $M_{\mathfrak{H}}(\dot{p},\dot{z})\cong
M_{\mathfrak{H}}(\dot{p}^{'},\dot{z}^{'})$ if and only if
$\dot{p}=\dot{p}^{'}$ and $\dot{z}=\dot{z}^{'}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{defi}
Suppose $\mathbb{C}_{\dot{e}}=\mathbb{C}w$ be a $\mathbb{C}e-$module
by the action of $ew=\dot{e}w.$ The induced module
$$W_{sl_2}(\dot{e})=U(\mathfrak{H})\otimes_{U(\mathbb{C}e)}\mathbb{C}_{\dot{e}}$$
is called a Whittaker module for complex semisimple Lie algebra
$sl_2.$
\end{defi}
Let $v\in W_{sl_2}(\dot{e})$ be any nonzero vector, then $v$ is of
the form $v=\sum_{i,j}a_{i,j}f^ih^jw.$ Define
$$\mathrm{deg}_f(v)=\mathrm{max}\{i|a_{i,j}\neq0\}$$ and
$$W_{sl_2}^{k}(\dot{e})=\mathrm{span}\{v|v\in W_{sl_2}(\dot{e}),\mathrm{deg}_f(v)\leq k.\}$$
\begin{lemm}
Suppose $\dot{e}\neq0.$
$\mathrm{(i)}$ If $\bar{\Omega}\in U(sl_2)$ is of the form
$\bar{\Omega}=f+\bar{\Omega}_1,$ where $\bar{\Omega}_1\in \mathbb{C}[h],$
such that $\bar{\Omega}w$ is a Whittaker vector, then
$\bar{\Omega}=f+\frac{h}{2\dot{e}}+\frac{h^2}{4\dot{e}}+c$ for some
$c\in\mathbb{C}.$
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ For any $a\in\mathbb{C},$ $i\in\mathbb{N},$ there
exists $\psi_0(x),\psi_1(x),\cdots,\psi_i(x)\in\mathbb{C}[x]$ such
that
$$f^iw=\frac{1}{(4\dot{e})^i}(\Omega-a)^iw+\psi_1(h)(\Omega-a)^{i-1}w+\cdots+\psi_{i-1}(h)(\Omega-a)w+\psi_i(h)w,$$
where $\Omega=4fe+2h+h^2$ is the Casimir element of $sl_2.$
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}$\mathrm{(i)}$ Assume $\bar{\Omega}=f+\sum_{i=0}^na_ih^i, a_n\neq0$
and $\bar{\Omega}w$ is a Whittaker vector. By
$(e-\dot{e})\bar{\Omega}w=0$ and (2.6), we can easily get that
$\bar{\Omega}=f+\frac{h}{2\dot{e}}+\frac{h^2}{4\dot{e}}+c$ for some
$c\in\mathbb{C}.$
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ By $\mathrm{(i)}$ and the fact that $\Omega\in
Z(sl_2),$ the center of $U(sl_2),$ we have
\begin{align*} f^{i+1}w&=
f^{{i}}(f+\frac{h}{2\dot{e}}+\frac{h^2}{4\dot{e}})w(\mathrm{mod}W_{sl_2}^{i}(\dot{e}))
\\
&\equiv f^{{i}}(4fe+2h+h^2)\frac{1}{4\dot{e}}w
(\mathrm{mod}W_{sl_2}^{i}(\dot{e}))
\\
&\equiv f^{{i-1}}(4fe+2h+h^2)f\frac{1}{4\dot{e}}w
(\mathrm{mod}W_{sl_2}^{i}(\dot{e}))\\
&\equiv f^{{i-2}}(4fe+2h+h^2)^2\frac{1}{(4\dot{e})^2}w
(\mathrm{mod}W_{sl_2}^{i}(\dot{e}))\\
&\equiv \cdots\\
&\equiv (4fe+2h+h^2)^{i+1}\frac{1}{(4\dot{e})^{i+1}}w
(\mathrm{mod}W_{sl_2}^{i}(\dot{e})).
\end{align*}
By induction, $\mathrm{(ii)}$ holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemm}
For Whittaker $sl_2-$module $W_{sl_2}(\dot{e}),$ the following hold:
$\mathrm{(i)}$ If $\dot{e}=0,$ the set of Whittaker vectors of
$W_{sl_2}(0)$ is $\mathbb{C}[h]w.$
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If $\dot{e}\neq0,$ the set of Whittaker vectors of
$W_{sl_2}(\dot{e})$ is $\mathbb{C}[\Omega]w.$
\end{lemm}
\begin{proof}
(i) Suppose $\dot{e}=0.$ By (2.6), any nonzero element of
$\mathbb{C}[h]w$ is a Whittaker vector. By (2.5) and (2.6), we see
that $ev\neq0$ if $\mathrm{deg}_f(v)\neq0,$ which means $v$ is not a
Whittaker vector.
(ii) Suppose $\dot{e}\neq0.$ On one hand, every nonzero vector of
$\mathbb{C}[\Omega]w$ is a Whittaker vector since $\Omega\in
Z(sl_2)$.
On the other hand, for any Whittaker vector
$v=\sum_{i=0}^na_i\psi_{i}(h)f^iw\in W_{sl_2}(\dot{e})$ with
$\mathrm{deg}_f(v)=n,$ by Lemma 4.4 (ii), we see that $v$ is of the
form
$$v=\sum_{i=0}^nb_i\varphi_i(h)(\Omega-a)^iw$$
for $\varphi_{x}\in\mathbb{C}[x],
\varphi_n(x)\neq0,b_i\in\mathbb{C},b_n\neq0.$ By (2.6), it is easy
to deduce that either $\varphi_i(x)=0$ or
$\mathrm{deg}(\varphi_i(x))=0.$
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
For Whittaker $sl_2-$module $W_{sl_2}(\dot{e}),$ the following hold:
$\mathrm{(i)}$ If $\dot{e}=0,$ $V$ is a $sl_2-$submodule of
Whittaker module $W_{sl_2}(0),$ then $V$ is a maximal submodule if
and only if there exists a scalar $\alpha$ such that $V$ is
generated by $(h-\alpha)w.$
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If $\dot{e}\neq0,$ for any
$\dot{\Omega}\in\mathbb{C},$ the Whittaker module $W_{sl_2}(\dot{e})$ has the following filtration:
$$W_{sl_2}(\dot{e})=W^0\supset W^1\supset W^2\supset\cdots \supset W^n\supset
\cdots,$$ where $W^i$ is a Whittaker submodule defined by $W^i=U(sl_2)(\Omega-\dot{\Omega})^iw.$ More precisely,
$M_{sl_2}(\dot{e},\dot{\Omega}):=W_{sl_2}(\dot{e})/W^1$
is simple and $W^i/W^{i+1}\cong W_{sl_2}(\dot{e})/W^1$ for all
$i\in\mathbb{N}.$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} We can use the same arguments as in Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 3.8 (ii) to
complete the proof. We omit the details.
\end{proof}
\begin{rema}
It is follows from Proposition 4.6 (i) that if $\dot{e}=0,$ $V$ is a
maximal submodule of $W_{sl_2}(0)$ generated by $(h-\alpha)w,$ then
$W_{sl_2}(0)/V$ is a simple highest weight $sl_2$-module with
highest weight $\alpha$.
\end{rema}
\begin{theo}
Let $V$ be a simple Whittaker module of type $\phi:e \rightarrow
\dot{e}$.
$\mathrm{(i)}$ If $\dot{e}=0,$ then there exists
$\alpha\in\mathbb{C}$ such that $V$ is isomorphic to a simple
highest weight $sl_2$-module with highest weight $\alpha$.
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If $\dot{e}\neq0,$ then $V\cong
M_{sl_2}(\dot{e},\dot{\Omega})$ for some $\dot{\Omega}\in
\mathbb{C}.$
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
$\mathrm{(i)}$ follows from Proposition 4.6 (i) and Remark 4.7. The
proof of $\mathrm{(ii)}$ is similar as that of Theorem 3.8 (ii). We
omit the details.
\end{proof}
\begin{coro}
Let $V$ be a Whittaker $sl_2-$module of type $\phi:e \rightarrow
\dot{e}$.
$\mathrm{(i)}$ If $\dot{e}=0,$ $V$ is simple if and only if $V$ is a
highest weight module.
$\mathrm{(ii)}$ If $\dot{e}\neq0,$ then $V$ is simple if and only if
the Casimir element of $sl_2$ acts as a scalar.
\end{coro}
\begin{theo}
Let $W(\dot{e},\dot{p},\dot{z})$ be a Whittaker
$\mathfrak{S}-$module of type $\phi: e \rightarrow \dot{e}, p
\rightarrow \dot{p}$ of nonzero level $\dot{z}.$ Then
$W(\dot{e},\dot{p},\dot{z})$ is simple if and only if there exists a
simple Whittaker $\mathfrak{H}-$module
$M_{\mathfrak{H}}(\dot{p},\dot{z})$ and a simple Whittaker
$\mathfrak{sl_2}-$module
$M_{\mathfrak{sl_2}}(\dot{e}-\frac{1}{2\dot{z}}\dot{p}^2,\dot{\Omega})$
such that $W(\dot{e},\dot{p},\dot{z})\cong
M_{\mathfrak{H}}^{\mathfrak{S}}(\dot{p},\dot{z})\otimes
M_{sl_2}^{\mathfrak{S}}(\dot{e}-\frac{1}{2\dot{z}}\dot{p}^2,\dot{\Omega}).$
\end{theo}
\begin{proof} Suppose first that $W(\dot{e},\dot{p},\dot{z})$ is
simple Whittaker module of nonzero level.
Denote by
$U(\mathfrak{H})_{(z)}$ the localization of $U(\mathfrak{H})$ with
respect to the multiplicative subset $\{z^{i}|i\in\mathbb{Z}_+\}$.
By Theorem 1 (i) in [26] (here $z$ is opposite to that of in [26]),
we see that there is a unique algebra
homomorphism $\Phi:U(\mathfrak{S})\rightarrow U(\mathfrak{H})_{(z)}$
which is the identity on $U(\mathfrak{H})$ such that
$$\Phi(e)=\frac{1}{2z}p^2,\ \Phi(f)=-\frac{1}{2z}q^2,\
\Phi(h)=-\frac{1}{z}qp-\frac{1}{2}.$$ Then
$\mathrm{Res}_{\mathfrak{H}}^{\mathfrak{S}}W(\dot{e},\dot{p},\dot{z}),$
the restrictive module on $\mathfrak{H}$, contains a simple
Whittaker submodule $M_{\mathfrak{H}}(\dot{p},\dot{z}),$ which can
be viewed as a $\mathfrak{S}-$Whittaker module such that
$$ev=\Phi(e)v,fv=\Phi(f)v,hv=\Phi(h)v.$$
We denote this new $\mathfrak{S}$-module by $W_{\mathfrak{H}}^{\mathfrak{S}}(\dot{p},\dot{z}).$
Then, by Theorem 3 (ii) in [26], we have a simple $sl_2-$Whittaker
module $M_{sl_2}(\dot{e}-\frac{1}{2\dot{z}}\dot{p}^2,\dot{\Omega})$
such that $W\cong
M_{\mathfrak{H}}^{\mathfrak{S}}(\dot{p},\dot{z})\otimes
M_{sl_2}^{\mathfrak{S}}(\dot{e}-\frac{1}{2\dot{z}}\dot{p}^2,\dot{\Omega}),$
where the simple $\mathfrak{S}-$module
$M_{sl_2}^{\mathfrak{S}}(\dot{e}-\frac{1}{2\dot{z}}\dot{p}^2,\dot{\Omega})$
is from simple $sl_2-$module
$M_{sl_2}(\dot{e}-\frac{1}{2\dot{z}}\dot{p}^2,\dot{\Omega})$ by
setting $\mathfrak{H}v=0.$
Conversely, if $M_{\mathfrak{H}}(\dot{p},\dot{z})$ is a simple
Whittaker $\mathfrak{H}$-module of nonzero level $\dot{z}$ and
$M_{sl_2}(\dot{e}-\frac{1}{2\dot{z}}\dot{p}^2,\dot{\Omega})$ is a
simple Whittaker $sl_2-$module. Then we can view
$M_{\mathfrak{H}}(\dot{p},\dot{z})$ as a $\mathfrak{S}-$ module,
denote by $M_{\mathfrak{H}}^{\mathfrak{S}}(\dot{p},\dot{z}),$ by
defining $ev=\Phi(e)v,fv=\Phi(f)v,hv=\Phi(h)v.$ We also can view
$M_{sl_2}(\dot{e}-\frac{1}{2\dot{z}}\dot{p}^2,\dot{\Omega})$ as a
$\mathfrak{S}-$module by defining
$\mathfrak{H}.M_{sl_2}(\dot{e}-\frac{1}{2\dot{z}}\dot{p}^2,\dot{\Omega})=0.$
then $M_{\mathfrak{H}}^{\mathfrak{S}}(\dot{p},\dot{z})\otimes
M_{sl_2}^{\mathfrak{S}}(\dot{e}-\frac{1}{2\dot{z}}\dot{p}^2)$ is a
Whittaker $\mathfrak{S}-$module of type $\phi: e\rightarrow\dot{e},
p\rightarrow\dot{p}$ of nonzero level $\dot{z}.$ By Theorem 3 (i)
in [26], we see that
$M_{\mathfrak{H}}^{\mathfrak{S}}(\dot{p},\dot{z})\otimes
M_{sl_2}^{\mathfrak{S}}(\dot{e}-\frac{1}{2\dot{z}}\dot{p}^2)$ is
simple. This completes the proof of Theorem 3.9.
\end{proof}
\begin{rema}
By Proposition 4.2, Theorem 4.8 and Theorem 4.10, the Whittaker
modules of nonzero level for Schr\"{o}dinger algebra are classified.
\end{rema}
\vskip 5mm |
\section{Introduction}
In this paper, we investigate the long term behavior and asymptotics of small solutions to the \emph{Chern-Simons-Schr\"odinger} \eqref{eq:CSS} system, which is a non-relativistic gauge field theory on $\mathbb R^{1+2}$ taking the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CSS} \tag{CSS}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\bfD_{t} \phi =& i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell} \phi + i g \abs{\phi}^{2} \phi, \\
F_{12} = & - \frac{1}{2} \abs{\phi}^{2}, \\
F_{01} = & - \frac{i}{2} ( \phi \br{\bfD_{2} \phi} - (\bfD_{2} \phi) \br{\phi} ), \\
F_{02} = & \frac{i}{2} ( \phi \br{\bfD_{1} \phi} - (\bfD_{1} \phi) \br{\phi} ).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Here $\phi$ is a $\mathbb C$-valued function (Schr\"odinger field), $A = A_{0} \mathrm{d} x^{0} + A_{1} \mathrm{d} x^{1} + A_{2} \mathrm{d} x^{2}$ is a real-valued 1-form (gauge potential), $F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_{\mu} A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu} A_{\mu}$ (curvature 2-form), $\bfD_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} + i A_{\mu}$ (covariant derivative) and $g \in \mathbb C$.
Our main theorem demonstrates that sufficiently small initial data lead to a global unique solution on $\mathbb R^{1+2}$ which exhibits \emph{linear scattering} to a free Schr\"odinger field in the Coulomb gauge $(\partial_{1} A_{1} + \partial_{2} A_{2} = 0)$; we refer to Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm} for a precise statement.
The \eqref{eq:CSS} system was introduced by Jackiw-Pi \cite{JP-PRL,JP-PRD}, with an emphasis on its self-dual structure (for $g=1$) and existence of (multi-)vortex solitons.
It serves as a basic model for Chern-Simons dynamics on the plane, which is used to analyze various planar phenomena, e.g. anyonic statistics, fractional quantum Hall effect and high $T_{c}$ superconductors. For a more thorough discussion on the physical relevance of \eqref{eq:CSS} and self-duality, we refer the reader to \cite{JP-Rev,Dunne,HZ,Yang} and the references therein.
Recently, there has been some work regarding \eqref{eq:CSS} from the mathematical side. Various authors have contributed to the problem of local well-posedness \cite{BDS,Huh3,LST}; currently, the best result is due to Liu-Smith-Tataru \cite{LST}, who proved
local well-posedness for $\phi(0) \in H^{\varepsilon}_{x}$ for any $\varepsilon > 0$. In the case of focusing self-interaction potential $g > 0$, Berg\'e-de Bouard-Saut \cite{BDS} showed finite time blow-up via a virial argument, and an explicit example was given later by Huh \cite{Huh1}.
Global existence of a weak solution (without uniqueness) with sub-threshold charge was also proved in \cite{BDS}.
We also mention the interesting papers \cite{Demoulini1, Demoulini2} on a closely related system proposed by Manton \cite{Manton}.
On the other hand, to our best knowledge, there has been no prior work concerning the asymptotic behavior of global solutions to \eqref{eq:CSS}.
The major difficulty in studying the asymptotic behavior of solutions to \eqref{eq:CSS} is the apparent long range behavior of the potentials $A_{j}$.
To elaborate, we begin from the fact that \eqref{eq:CSS} is \emph{gauge invariant}, i.e., it is invariant under the gauge transform
\begin{equation*}
A_{\mu} \to A_{\mu} + \partial_{\mu} \chi, \quad
\phi \to e^{- i \chi} \phi
\end{equation*}
where $\chi$ is a real-valued function on $\mathbb R^{1+2}$. Due to this fact, the initial value problem for \eqref{eq:CSS} is well-posed only after fixing a specific representative of $(A_{\mu}, \phi)$, a procedure usually referred to as \emph{gauge fixing}. For concreteness of our discussion, we shall choose the \emph{Coulomb gauge}, which is a gauge defined by the condition
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{1} A_{1} + \partial_{2} A_{2} = 0.
\end{equation*}
Expanding out $\bfD_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} + i A_{\mu}$, \eqref{eq:CSS} in the Coulomb gauge leads to the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:toySch}
(\partial_{t} - i \triangle) \phi = -2 A_{1} \partial_{1} \phi - 2 A_{2} \partial_{2} \phi - i A_{0} \phi + \hbox{(Higher order terms)}.
\end{equation}
Let us focus on the nonlinear terms with the most derivatives on $\phi$, i.e., $- 2 A_{j} \partial_{j} \phi$.
Under the Coulomb condition, $A_{j}$ satisfies the equation $\triangle A_{j} = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{jk} \partial_{k} \abs{\phi}^{2}$,
where $\epsilon_{jk}$ is the unique anti-symmetric 2-form such that $\epsilon_{12} = 1$.
Therefore, $A_j$ is given by the Biot-Savart law
\begin{equation} \label{eq:BiotSavart}
A_{j}(t,x)
= - \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{jk} \partial_{k} (-\triangle)^{-1} \abs{\phi(t,x)}^{2}
= \frac{1}{4 \pi} \epsilon_{jk} \int_{\mathbb R^{2}} \frac{(x - y)^{k}}{\abs{x-y}^{2}} \abs{\phi(t, y)}^{2} \, \mathrm{d} y.
\end{equation}
Then, it is easy to see that the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:BiotSavart} has an $r^{-1}$ tail as $r \to \infty$
for any non-trivial solution $\phi$ to \eqref{eq:CSS}, hence $A_{j}$ is a \emph{long range potential}.
In principle, such long range potentials can lead to complicated asymptotic behaviors for even arbitrarily small solutions, such as modified scattering \cite{HN,KP} or finite time blow-up \cite{John0, John1}.
The preceding discussion applies to other gauges as well, since the divergence-free part of $A_{j}$ (according to the Hodge decomposition of 1-forms on $\mathbb R^{2}$) is always given by the formula \eqref{eq:BiotSavart}.
Indeed, the $r^{-1}$ behavior of (a part of) $A_{j}$ is present in the work \cite{LST}, in which a non-Coulomb gauge (more precisely, the heat gauge $A_{t} = \partial_{\ell} A_{\ell}$) was used.
Nevertheless, in this paper we are able to establish global existence of solutions of \eqref{eq:CSS}
for sufficiently small initial data, and prove \emph{linear scattering}\footnote{By linear scattering, we mean convergence of the solution $\phi$ to some free Schr\"odinger field $e^{i t \triangle} f_{\infty}$ as $t \to \infty$ in an appropriate topology; see \eqref{scattL^2} in Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm} for a more precise statement.}
of such solutions in the Coulomb gauge. Our proof relies on the following two main observations:
\begin{list}{\labelitemi}{\leftmargin=2em
\item[1)] The \eqref{eq:CSS} system does not exhibit any long range behavior when viewed \emph{covariantly}, i.e., when phrased in terms of $\bfD_{t}, \bfD_{j}$ and $F_{\mu \nu}$ as in \eqref{eq:CSS}.
Using the covariant charge identity \eqref{eq:chargeId} and covariant commutators such as $\bfD_{j}$, $\bfJ_{j} := x_{j} + 2 i t \bfD_{j}$, we can establish global apriori $L^{2}$ bounds under the assumption that $\phi$ exhibits the linear decay rate, i.e., $\abs{t}^{-1}$ as $t \to \pm \infty$.
Unfortunately, such a method seems to fall short of retrieving the $\abs{t}^{-1}$ decay rate, and for this purpose we turn to our second observation:
\item[2)] The \eqref{eq:CSS} system exhibits a \emph{strong, genuinely cubic null structure} in the Coulomb gauge.
Remarkably, by (and only by) considering all cubic\footnote{The terms $A_{j} \partial_{j} \phi$ and $A_{0} \phi$ are cubic in $\phi$, as $A_{\mu}$ satisfies a Poisson equation with quadratic (and higher) terms in $\phi$ as a source. See \eqref{eq:CSS-C} in \S \ref{subsec:mainThm}} terms $(-2 A_{j} \partial_{j} \phi - i A_{0} \phi)$ together, we reveal a very strong null structure which effectively cancels out the long range effect of $A_{\mu}$ for the purpose of establishing the desired decay rate of $\phi$. Combined with the apriori $L^{2}$ bounds obtained using covariant methods, we are able to conclude the $\abs{t}^{-1}$ decay via an analysis of \eqref{eq:toySch} in Fourier space.
\end{list}
Broadly speaking, our method may be understood as a mix of two different existing approaches to small data scattering: The use of the covariant charge identity and commutators is akin to the tensor-geometric approach of Christodoulou-Klainerman \cite{CK1,CK2}, whereas the cubic null structure is identified and utilized within the Fourier-analytic framework of the works on space-time resonances
\cite{GMS1} and \cite{nullcondition}.
A more detailed description of our main ideas will be given in Section \ref{sec:mainIdeas}, after we state the main theorem in \S \ref{subsec:mainThm}.
\subsection{Statement of the main theorem} \label{subsec:mainThm}
In the Coulomb gauge $\partial_{1} A_{1} + \partial_{2} A_{2} = 0$, which is the setting of our main theorem, \eqref{eq:CSS} can be reformulated as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CSS-C} \tag{CSS-Coulomb}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\partial_{t} \phi - i \triangle \phi =& - i A_{0} \phi - 2 A_{\ell} \partial_{\ell} \phi - i A_{\ell} A_{\ell} \phi + i g \abs{\phi}^{2} \phi, \\
\triangle A_{1} = & \frac{1}{2} \partial_{2} \abs{\phi}^{2}, \\
\triangle A_{2} = & -\frac{1}{2} \partial_{1} \abs{\phi}^{2}, \\
\triangle A_{0} = & \frac{i}{2} \partial_{1} ( \phi \br{\bfD_{2} \phi} - (\bfD_{2} \phi) \br{\phi} )
- \frac{i}{2} \partial_{2} ( \phi \br{\bfD_{1} \phi} - (\bfD_{1} \phi) \br{\phi} ),
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where repeated indices are assumed to be summed, e.g., $- 2 A_{\ell} \partial_{\ell} \phi = - 2 \sum_{\ell=1}^{2} A_{\ell} \partial_{\ell} \phi$ etc.
We define the initial data set for \eqref{eq:CSS-C} as follows.
\begin{definition}[Coulomb initial data set] \label{def:id}
We say that a pair $(a_{j}, \phi_{0})$ of a 1-form $a_{j}$ and a $\mathbb C$-valued function $\phi$ on $\mathbb R^{2}$ is a \emph{Coulomb initial data set} for \eqref{eq:CSS} if it satisfies
\begin{align}
\partial_{1} a_{1} + \partial_{2} a_{2} =& 0, \label{eq:id:Coulomb} \\
\partial_{1} a_{2} - \partial_{2} a_{1} =& - \frac{1}{2} \abs{\phi_{0}}^{2}. \label{eq:id:constraint}
\end{align}
\end{definition}
The condition \eqref{eq:id:Coulomb} is the Coulomb gauge condition for the initial data, whereas \eqref{eq:id:constraint} is the \emph{constraint equation} imposed by the system \eqref{eq:CSS}. We remark that the div-curl system \eqref{eq:id:Coulomb}--\eqref{eq:id:constraint} is enough to uniquely specify $a_{j}$ (with a mild condition at infinity) in terms of the (gauge invariant) amplitude of $\phi_{0}$, at least under our regularity assumptions below.
We are now ready to state the main theorem of this paper.
\begin{theorem}[Main Theorem] \label{thm:mainThm}
Let $(A_{j}(0), \phi(0))$ be a Coulomb initial data set for \eqref{eq:CSS} satisfying the smallness assumption
\begin{equation} \label{eq:condition4id}
\sum_{m=0}^{2} \nrm{\bfD^{(m)} \phi(0)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
+ \nrm{\abs{x} \, \phi(0)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\abs{x} \, \bfD \phi(0)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\abs{x}^{2} \phi(0)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq \varepsilon_{1} .
\end{equation}
Then, for sufficiently small $\varepsilon_{1}$ there exists a unique global solution $\phi \in C_{t} (\mathbb R; H^{2}_{x})$ of \eqref{eq:CSS-C} such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mainThm:decay}
\nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \lesssim \varepsilon_{1} (1+\abs{t})^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, for each sign $\pm$ and $0 \leq s < 2$, there exists $f_{\pm \infty} \in H^s_x$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{scattL^2}
e^{-it\triangle} \phi(t) \stackrel{t\rightarrow \pm \infty}{\longrightarrow} f_{\pm\infty} \quad \mbox{in} \quad H^s_{x}.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Notations and conventions} \label{subsec:notations}
\begin{list}{\labelitemi}{\leftmargin=1.5em}
\item Unless otherwise specified, we adopt the convention of summing up all repeated indices, e.g., $\bfD_{j} \bfD_{j} = \bfD_{1} \bfD_{1} + \bfD_{2} \bfD_{2}$.
\item $\epsilon_{jk}$ denotes the anti-symmetric 2-form with $\epsilon_{12} = 1$
\item We denote the ordinary and covariant spatial gradients by $D = (\partial_{1}, \partial_{2})$ and $\bfD = (\bfD_{1}, \bfD_{2})$, respectively.
The $m$-fold ordinary and covariant spatial gradients will be denoted by $D^{(m)}$ and $\bfD^{(m)}$, respectively.
\item We define the operators $\bfJ=(\bfJ_{1}, \bfJ_{2})$ and $J = (J_{1}, J_{2})$, where
\begin{equation*}
\bfJ_{k} := x_{k} + 2it \bfD_{k}, \quad
J_{k} := x_{k} + 2 i t \partial_{k}
\end{equation*}
Like $\bfD, D$, we denote the $m$-fold application of $\bfJ, J$
by $\bfJ^{(m)}$, $J^{(m)}$, respectively.
\item We adopt the convention $\mathcal F(\psi)(\xi) = \widehat{\psi}(\xi) := {(2 \pi)}^{-1} \int_{\mathbb R^{2}} e^{- i x \cdot \xi} \psi(x) \, \mathrm{d} x$, for the Fourier transform.
\item We denote the space of Schwartz functions on $\mathbb R^{2}$ by $\mathcal S_{x}$.
\end{list}
\section{Main ideas} \label{sec:mainIdeas}
The purpose of this section is to provide a more detailed description of the main ideas of our proof of Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm}.
In order to establish global existence and scattering for small solutions,
the basic strategy is to prove estimates for Sobolev and weighted $L^{2}$ norms
of $\phi$, and a decay estimate with the same rate of a linear solution, i.e.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mainIdeas:decay}
\nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \lesssim \varepsilon_{1} (1+\abs{t})^{-1}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection*{Covariant charge estimates}
To avoid the long range effect of $A_{\mu}$ in a fixed gauge, we derive apriori $L^{2}$ bounds using covariant methods. Our basic tool is the simple covariant charge identity \eqref{eq:inhomCovSch}-\eqref{eq:chargeId}.
To bound higher derivatives we commute the covariant Schr\"odinger equation with $\bfD_{j}$, and for weighted $L^{2}$ bounds we commute with
\begin{equation*}
\bfJ_k := x_{k} + 2 i t \bfD_{k} ,
\end{equation*}
which is the covariant version of the well-known operator $J_{k} = x_{k} + 2 i t \partial_{k}$ for the Schr\"odinger equation. Such commutations are rather straightforward to perform in the covariant setting, leading to nice (schematic) equations such as
\begin{align*}
(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfD_{j} \phi
&= \phi \cdot \phi \cdot \bfD \phi,
\\
(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfJ_{j} \phi
&= \phi \cdot \phi \cdot \bfJ \phi + t (\phi \cdot \phi \cdot \bfD \phi).
\end{align*}
See \eqref{eq:covSch:phi}--\eqref{eq:covSch:JJphi} for the full list.
Then, assuming the decay \eqref{eq:mainIdeas:decay}, we can bootstrap covariant $L^{2}$ bounds of the form
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\bfD^{(m)} \phi(t)}_{H^{2}_{x}} \lesssim \varepsilon_{1}, \quad
\nrm{\bfJ^{(m)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \lesssim \varepsilon_{1} \big( \log (2+\abs{t}) \big)^{m} \quad (m=0, 1,2),
\end{equation*}
for $\varepsilon_{1}$ sufficiently small.
\subsubsection*{Transition of covariant bounds to gauge-dependent bounds}
The next step consists in deriving $L^{2}$ bounds in the Coulomb gauge, such as
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{D^{(m)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \lesssim \varepsilon_{1}, \quad
\nrm{J^{(m)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \lesssim \varepsilon_{1} \big( \log (2+\abs{t}) \big)^{m} \quad (m=0, 1,2),
\end{equation*}
from the covariant $L^{2}$ bounds.
The execution of this step depends on estimates obtained from the elliptic equation for $A_{\mu}$ in the Coulomb gauge.
To eventually obtain the desired final result, it only remains to retrieve \eqref{eq:mainIdeas:decay}.
\subsubsection*{Asymptotic analysis in the Coulomb gauge}
Combined with the apriori growth bound of the weighted $L^{2}$ norms of $J^{(m)} \phi(t)$,
a standard lemma (Lemma \ref{lem:improvedKS}) reduces the proof of decay \eqref{eq:mainIdeas:decay} to establishing uniform boundedness of $\widehat{\phi}(t)$, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mainIdeas:bddPhiHat}
\nrm{\widehat{\phi}(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}} \lesssim \varepsilon_{1}.
\end{equation}
To achieve this, we shall use the Fourier-analytic framework of Germain-Masmoudi-Shatah \cite{GMS1}:
Defining $f := e^{-it \triangle} \phi$, the Schr\"odinger equation in the Coulomb gauge becomes
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{t} \widehat{f} = e^{i t \abs{\xi}^{2}} \mathcal F[- 2 A_{j} \partial_{j} \phi - i A_{0} \phi + \hbox{(Higher order terms)}]
\end{equation*}
As $\nrm{\widehat{f}}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}} = \nrm{\widehat{\phi}}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}}$,
we simply need to estimate the $L^{\infty}_{\xi}$ norm of the above right-hand side.
The contribution of the higher order terms are easily manageable, and we are only left to consider the cubic terms $- 2 A_{j} \partial_{j} \phi - i A_{0} \phi$.
\subsubsection*{The cubic null structure of \eqref{eq:CSS} in the Coulomb gauge}
We now describe the strong cubic null structure of these cubic terms in the Coulomb gauge, which is crucial to close the whole argument.
According to the framework of space-time resonances \cite{GMS1,nullcondition}, a cubic expression in $f = e^{-it\triangle}\phi$ of the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mainIdea:nf}
\int_{\mathbb R^{2} \times \mathbb R^{2}} e^{i t \varphi(\eta, \sigma, \xi)} a(\eta, \sigma, \xi) \cdot D_{\eta, \sigma} \varphi(\eta, \sigma, \xi)
\, \widehat{f}(t,\eta - \sigma) \widehat{\overline{f}}(t,\sigma) \widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \eta \mathrm{d} \sigma
\end{equation}
for some coefficient $a(\eta, \sigma, \xi)$, is a null structure
(the symbol of the interaction vanishes on the space resonant set).
Indeed, there is a gain of a factor of $t^{-1}$ upon integrating by parts in $\eta$ and/or $\sigma$.
This may be viewed as an alternative interpretation of the classical null condition due to Klainerman \cite{K0,K1}.
It is not difficult to see that the contribution of each $-2A_{j} \partial_{j} \phi$ and $- i A_{0} \phi$ is a null structure of the form \eqref{eq:mainIdea:nf}. However, the long range effect of $A_{\mu}$ is still manifest, in the sense that the coefficient $a(\eta, \sigma, \xi)$ has a singularity of the form $\abs{\eta}^{-2}$ (from the inversion of $\triangle$ in the equation for $A_{\mu}$). Nevertheless, looking at $- 2 A_{j} \partial_{j} \phi - i A_{0} \phi$ as a whole gives (after a change of variables, and up to an irrelevant constant)
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\int_{\mathbb R^{2} \times \mathbb R^{2}} e^{i t \varphi(\xi,\eta,\sigma)} \Big( \mathrm{d}_{\eta} \log \abs{\eta} \wedge \mathrm{d}_{\eta} \varphi(\xi,\eta,\sigma) \Big)
\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\sigma) \widehat{\overline{f}}(t,\sigma+\eta-\xi) \widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where $\mathrm{d}_{\eta} g \wedge \mathrm{d}_{\eta} h$ is a differential-forms notation for $\partial_{\eta_{1}} g \partial_{\eta_{2}} h - \partial_{\eta_{2}} g \partial_{\eta_{1}} h$; see \S \ref{subsec:CSS-CinFourier} for details. This is the claimed \emph{strong cubic null structure}: Not only is the singularity at $\eta = 0$ milder $(\mathrm{d}_{\eta} \log \abs{\eta} \sim \abs{\eta}^{-1}$), but it vanishes completely when an extra $\mathrm{d}_{\eta}$ falls on $\mathrm{d}_{\eta} \log \abs{\eta}$
after integration by parts (this cancellation reduces exactly to the standard fact $\mathrm{d}^{2} = 0$ regarding exterior differential).
Exploiting this null structure, as well as using the apriori $L^{2}$ bounds established earlier, we finally obtain \eqref{eq:mainIdeas:bddPhiHat}
(for $\varepsilon_{1}$ small enough) and close the whole argument.
\subsection*{Structure of the paper}
In Section \ref{sec:mainThmRed}, we reduce the main theorem
(Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm}) to three propositions in accordance to the main ideas sketched above: Propositions \ref{prop:chargeEst}, \ref{prop:transition} and \ref{prop:decay} concerning \emph{covariant charge estimates}, \emph{transition from covariant to gauge-dependent bounds}, and \emph{asymptotic analysis in the Coulomb gauge}, respectively. Then in Sections \ref{sec:chargeEst}, \ref{sec:transition} and \ref{sec:decay}, we give proofs of these propositions in order.
\section{Reduction of the main theorem} \label{sec:mainThmRed}
In this section, we reduce the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm} to establishing three statements, namely Propositions \ref{prop:chargeEst}, \ref{prop:transition} and \ref{prop:decay}. Before we state the propositions, we shall fix a terminology: By an \emph{$H^{2}$ solution to \eqref{eq:CSS} in the Coulomb gauge on $(-T, T)$}, we mean a solution $(A_{\mu}, \phi)$ to \eqref{eq:CSS-C} such that $\phi \in C_{t} ((-T, T); H^{2}_{x})$.
In the first proposition, we prove gauge covariant apriori $L^{2}$ bounds, under bootstrap assumptions which include the critical $L^{\infty}_{x}$ decay assumption \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay}. We remind the reader that $\bfJ_{k} := x_{k} + 2it \bfD_{k}$.
\begin{proposition}[Covariant charge estimates] \label{prop:chargeEst}
Let $(A_{\mu}, \phi)$ be an $H^{2}$ solution to \eqref{eq:CSS} in the Coulomb gauge on $(-T, T)$, which satisfies the initial data estimate \eqref{eq:condition4id} and obeys the bootstrap assumptions
\begin{align}
\nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\bfD \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\bfD^{(2)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & B \varepsilon_{1} \label{eq:btstrp:cov:1} \\
\nrm{\bfJ \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\bfJ \bfD \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & B \varepsilon_{1} \log (2+\abs{t}) \label{eq:btstrp:cov:2} \\
\nrm{\bfJ^{(2)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & B \varepsilon_{1} (\log (2+\abs{t}) )^{2} \label{eq:btstrp:cov:3} \\
\nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq& B \varepsilon_{1} (1+\abs{t})^{-1} \label{eq:btstrp:decay}
\end{align}
for $t \in (-T, T)$ and an absolute constant $B>0$.
Then, for $B$ sufficiently large and $\varepsilon_{1} > 0$ small enough, we improve \eqref{eq:btstrp:cov:1},\eqref{eq:btstrp:cov:2} and \eqref{eq:btstrp:cov:3}
on $(-T, T)$, respectively, to
\begin{align}
\nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\bfD \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\bfD^{(2)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & \frac{B}{200} \varepsilon_{1} \label{eq:btstrp:impCov:1}\\
\nrm{\bfJ \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\bfJ \bfD \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & \frac{B}{200} \varepsilon_{1} \log (2+\abs{t}) \label{eq:btstrp:impCov:2} \\
\nrm{\bfJ^{(2)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & \frac{B}{200} \varepsilon_{1} \big(\log (2+\abs{t}) \big)^{2} \label{eq:btstrp:impCov:3}.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
The second proposition is used to translate the gauge covariant bounds \eqref{eq:btstrp:impCov:1}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:impCov:3} to the corresponding bounds in the Coulomb gauge. Recall that $J_{k} := x_{k} + 2it \partial_{k}$.
\begin{proposition}[Transition from covariant to gauge-dependent bounds] \label{prop:transition}
Let $(A_{\mu}, \phi)$ be an $H^{2}$ solution to \eqref{eq:CSS} in the Coulomb gauge on $(-T, T)$, which obeys the bootstrap assumption \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay} and the improved covariant bounds \eqref{eq:btstrp:impCov:1}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:impCov:3}. Then for $\varepsilon_{1} > 0$ sufficiently small compared to $B$, the following gauge-dependent bounds hold on $(-T, T)$:
\begin{align}
\nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{D \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{D^{(2)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & \frac{B}{100} \varepsilon_{1} \label{eq:btstrp:ord:1} \tag{\ref{eq:btstrp:impCov:1}$'$}\\
\nrm{J \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{J D \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & \frac{B}{100} \varepsilon_{1} \log (2+\abs{t}) \label{eq:btstrp:ord:2} \tag{\ref{eq:btstrp:impCov:2}$'$}\\
\nrm{J^{(2)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & \frac{B}{100} \varepsilon_{1} \big( \log (2+\abs{t}) \big)^{2} \label{eq:btstrp:ord:3} \tag{\ref{eq:btstrp:impCov:3}$'$}.
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
Finally, in the third proposition, we improve the $L^{\infty}_{x}$ decay assumption. The argument takes place entirely in the Coulomb gauge, and relies crucially on the \emph{cubic null structure} of \eqref{eq:CSS} in this gauge.
\begin{proposition}[Asymptotic analysis in the Coulomb gauge] \label{prop:decay}
Let $(A_{\mu}, \phi)$ be an $H^{2}$ solution to \eqref{eq:CSS} in the Coulomb gauge on $(-T, T)$, which satisfies the initial data estimate \eqref{eq:condition4id}. Assume furthermore that $(A_{\mu}, \phi)$ obeys the bootstrap assumption \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay} and the gauge-dependent bounds \eqref{eq:btstrp:ord:1}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:ord:3} for $t \in (-T, T)$.
Then for $B$ sufficiently large and $\varepsilon_{1} > 0$ small enough, we improve \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay} on $(-T, T)$ to
\begin{equation}
\nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq \frac{B}{10} \varepsilon_{1} (1+\abs{t})^{-1}. \label{eq:btstrp:impDecay}
\end{equation}
Moreover, for each sign $\pm$, there exists $\widehat{f_{\pm\infty}} \in L^\infty_\xi$ such that
\begin{align}
\label{scattL^infty}
e^{it{|\xi|}^2} \widehat{\phi}(t) \stackrel{t\rightarrow \pm \infty}{\longrightarrow} \widehat{f_{\pm \infty}} \quad \mbox{in} \quad L^\infty_\xi .
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
For a more precise statement regarding the scattering property \eqref{scattL^infty}, we refer the reader to Proposition \ref{prop:decay:2},
and in particular \eqref{scattest}.
Assuming Propositions \ref{prop:chargeEst}, \ref{prop:transition} and \ref{prop:decay} for the moment, we now prove Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm}.
\begin{proof} [Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm}]
We begin with a few quick reductions.
Let $(A_{j}(0), \phi(0))$ be a Coulomb initial data set satisfying \eqref{eq:condition4id}.
By the $H^{2}$ local well-posedness theorem due to Berg\'e-de~Bouard-Saut \cite{BDS}, there exists a unique solution $\phi$ to the initial value problem for \eqref{eq:CSS} in the Coulomb gauge on some $(-T, T)$ such that $\phi \in C_{t}((-T, T); H^{2}_{x})$.
Note that, by Proposition \ref{prop:transition}, the covariant bounds \eqref{eq:btstrp:cov:1}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:cov:3} and \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay} imply the gauge-dependent estimates \eqref{eq:btstrp:ord:1}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:ord:3}; in particular, this implies that $\sup_{t \in (-T, T)} \nrm{\phi(t)}_{H^{2}_{x}} \lesssim \varepsilon_{1}$ for every $(-T, T)$, for $\varepsilon_{1}$ sufficiently small. This, by the same LWP theorem, establishes the global existence of $\phi$, which is unique in $C_{t} (\mathbb R; H^{2}_{x})$.
Therefore, to prove global existence and the decay rate \eqref{eq:mainThm:decay}, it suffices to prove \eqref{eq:btstrp:cov:1}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:cov:3} and \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay} by a bootstrap argument; as this is rather standard, we will only give a brief sketch. It is obvious to see that the bootstrap assumptions \eqref{eq:btstrp:cov:1}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:cov:3} and \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay} are satisfied for small $\abs{t}$, simply by continuity.
Next, for any $T > 0$, \eqref{eq:btstrp:cov:1}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:cov:3} on $(-T, T)$ are improved to \eqref{eq:btstrp:impCov:1}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:impCov:3} provided that $B > 0$ is chosen sufficiently large and $\varepsilon_{1} > 0$ is small enough, thanks to Proposition \ref{prop:chargeEst}.
Applying Propositions \ref{prop:transition} and \ref{prop:decay} in order, we improve \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay} to \eqref{eq:btstrp:impDecay} as well, choosing $B>0$ larger and $\varepsilon_{1}$ smaller if necessary.
Thus, by a standard continuity argument, we conclude that \eqref{eq:btstrp:cov:1}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:cov:3} and \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay} hold for any $T > 0$, thereby finishing the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm}.
We are now only left to establish the scattering property \eqref{scattL^2}. By symmetry, it suffices to consider the case $t \to +\infty$.
By the preceding bootstrap argument, especially the bound \eqref{eq:btstrp:ord:1}, the $H^{2}_{x}$ norm of $e^{- i t \triangle} \phi(t)$ is uniformly bounded, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:scatt:pf:2}
\sup_{t \in \mathbb R} \nrm{e^{- i t \triangle} \phi(t)}_{H^{2}_{x}} \lesssim B \varepsilon_{1}.
\end{equation}
By compactness in the weak-star topology, there exists $f'_{\infty} \in H^{2}_{x}$ and a sequence $t_{k} \in [0, \infty)$ with $t_{k} \to \infty$ such that, in particular,
\begin{equation*}
e^{- i t \triangle} \phi(t_{k}) \stackrel{k \to \infty}{\rightharpoonup} f'_{\infty} \quad \hbox{in the distribution sense}.
\end{equation*}
Then by \eqref{scattL^infty} and uniqueness of distributional limit, we conclude that $f_{\infty} = f'_{\infty} \in H^{2}_{x}$.
Let $M > 2$ be a parameter to be chosen below.
Given any $0 \leq s < 2$ and $\psi$ such that $\psi \in H^{2}_{x}$ and $\widehat{\psi} \in L^{\infty}_{\xi}$, note that
\begin{align*}
\nrm{\psi}_{H^{s}_{x}} \leq & \nrm{(1+\abs{\xi})^{s} \psi}_{L^{2}_{\xi} (\abs{\xi} \geq M)}
+ \nrm{(1+\abs{\xi})^{s} \psi}_{L^{2}_{\xi} (\abs{\xi} \leq M)}
\\
\lesssim & M^{s-2} \nrm{\psi}_{H^{2}_{x}} + M^{1+s} \nrm{\widehat{\psi}}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}} \, .
\end{align*}
This implies $\psi \in H^{s}_{x}$ and, optimizing the choice of $M$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\psi}_{H^{s}_{x}} \lesssim \nrm{\psi}^{\frac{s+1}{3}}_{H^{2}_{x}} \nrm{\widehat{\psi}}^{\frac{2 - s}{3}}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}} \, .
\end{equation*}
Applying this with $\psi = f_{\infty}$, we first conclude that $f_{\infty} \in H^{s}_{x}$ for any $0 \leq s < 2$. Moreover, another application of the preceding inequality with $\psi = e^{-i t \triangle} \phi(t) - f_{\infty}$, combined with \eqref{eq:scatt:pf:2}, $\nrm{f_{\infty}}_{H^{2}_{x}} < \infty$ and \eqref{scattL^infty}, allow us to conclude \eqref{scattL^2}
as desired.
\end{proof}
\section{Covariant charge estimates}\label{sec:chargeEst}
In this section, we prove Proposition \ref{prop:chargeEst} via covariant techniques to avoid the long-range potentials $A_{0}$, $A_{j}$. In \S \ref{subsec:chargeId}, we formulate and prove the covariant charge estimate, which will be our basic tool. Then in \S \ref{subsec:commutator}, we derive various commutation formulae, which will be used later to derive the covariant Schr\"odinger equations satisfied by the various fields we are interested in, e.g., $\phi, \bfD \phi, \bfD^{(2)} \phi$. In \S \ref{subsec:GN}, we prove covariant versions of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality. Then finally, in \S \ref{subsec:pfOfChargeEst}, we put everything together and give a proof of Proposition \ref{prop:chargeEst}.
\subsection{Covariant charge identity} \label{subsec:chargeId}
Consider an inhomogeneous covariant Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:inhomCovSch}
(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell} ) \psi = N.
\end{equation}
Multiplying the equation by $\overline{\psi}$, taking the real part and integrating by parts, we see that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:chargeId}
\frac{1}{2} \int_{\set{t = T_{2}}} \abs{\psi}^{2} \, \mathrm{d} x - \frac{1}{2} \int_{\set{t = T_{1}}} \abs{\psi}^{2} \, \mathrm{d} x = \iint_{(T_{1}, T_{2}) \times \mathbb R^{2}} \Re(N \overline{\psi}) \, \mathrm{d} t \mathrm{d} x.
\end{equation}
The identity \eqref{eq:chargeId}, which we call the \emph{covariant charge identity}, will be the basis for our proof of Proposition \ref{prop:chargeEst}. From \eqref{eq:chargeId}, the following lemma follows immediately.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:covChargeEst}
Let $\psi$ be a solution to \eqref{eq:inhomCovSch} such that $\psi \in C_{t} L^{2}_{x}$. Then for all $t \geq 0$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:covChargeEst}
\nrm{\psi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \lesssim \nrm{\psi(0)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \int_{0}^{t} \nrm{N(t')}_{L^{2}_{x}} \, \mathrm{d} t'.
\end{equation}
An analogous statement holds for $t \leq 0$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Commutation formulae} \label{subsec:commutator}
The following lemma is the key computation of this section,
and gives formulae for commuting $\bfD_{j}$, $\bfJ_{j}$ and the covariant Schr\"odinger operator of \eqref{eq:CSS}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:comm4Sch}
Let $(A_{\mu}, \phi)$ be a $H^{2}$ solution to \eqref{eq:CSS}. Then the following commutation formulae hold:
\begin{align}
(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell}) \bfD_{k} \psi
= & \bfD_{k} (\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell}) \psi
+ \epsilon_{k \ell} \Big( \abs{\phi}^{2} \bfD_{\ell} \psi + \phi \br{\bfD_{\ell} \phi} \psi \Big), \label{eq:comm4Sch:1} \\
(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell}) \bfJ_{k} \psi
= & \bfJ_{k} (\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell}) \psi
+ 2 i t \epsilon_{k \ell} \Big( \abs{\phi}^{2} \bfD_{\ell} \psi + \phi \br{\bfD_{\ell} \phi} \psi \Big). \label{eq:comm4Sch:2}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We begin with \eqref{eq:comm4Sch:1}. By \eqref{eq:CSS}, we have
\begin{align*}
\bfD_{k} \bfD_{t} \psi -\bfD_{t} \bfD_{k} \psi
=& -\frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{k \ell}( \phi \br{\bfD_{\ell} \phi} - (\bfD_{\ell} \phi) \br{\phi} ) \psi
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\bfD_{k} \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell} \psi
= & \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{k} \bfD_{\ell} \psi + i \tensor{F}{_{k}_{\ell}} \bfD_{\ell} \psi \\
= & \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{k} \psi + i \tensor{F}{_{k}_{\ell}} \bfD_{\ell} \psi + i \bfD_{\ell} (F_{k \ell} \psi) \\
= & \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{k} \psi -i \epsilon_{k \ell} \Big( \abs{\phi}^{2} \bfD_{\ell} \psi + \frac{1}{2} (\phi \br{\bfD_{\ell} \phi} + \bfD_{\ell} \phi \br{\phi}) \psi \Big).
\end{align*}
Thus
\begin{equation*}
\bfD_{k} ( \bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell}) \psi
= (\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell}) ( \bfD_{k} \psi) - \epsilon_{k \ell} \Big( \abs{\phi}^{2} \bfD_{\ell} \psi + \phi \br{\bfD_{\ell} \phi} \psi \Big),
\end{equation*}
which, upon rearranging the terms, gives \eqref{eq:comm4Sch:1}.
Next, we compute the commutator arising form ${\bf J}_{k}$ to prove \eqref{eq:comm4Sch:2}. Using \eqref{eq:comm4Sch:1} and $\bfD_{t} (t \psi) = t \bfD_{t} \psi + \psi$, we see that
\begin{equation*}
2 i t \bfD_{k} ( \bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell}) \psi
= (\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell}) ( 2 i t \bfD_{k} \psi) - 2 i t \epsilon_{k \ell} \Big( \abs{\phi}^{2} \bfD_{\ell} \psi + \phi \br{\bfD_{\ell} \phi} \psi \Big) - 2 i \bfD_{k} \psi.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, we easily compute
\begin{align*}
x_{k} (\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell}) \psi
=& \bfD_{t} (x_{k} \psi) - i \bfD_{\ell} (x_{k} \bfD_{\ell} \psi) + i \bfD_{k} \psi \\
=& (\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD_{\ell})(x_{k} \psi) + 2 i \bfD_{k} \psi.
\end{align*}
Adding these up and rearranging the terms, we obtain \eqref{eq:comm4Sch:2}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
Our next lemma gives a simple formula for the commutator between $\bfJ_{j}$ and $\bfD_{k}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:comm4DJ}
Let $(A_{\mu}, \phi)$ be an $H^{2}$ solution to \eqref{eq:CSS}. Then the following commutation formula holds.
\begin{equation}
\bfJ_{j} \bfD_{k} \psi - \bfD_{k} \bfJ_{j} \psi = \delta_{jk} \psi + t \epsilon_{jk} \abs{\phi}^{2} \psi.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We compute
\begin{align*}
{\bf J}_{j} \bfD_{k} \psi - \bfD_{k} {\bf J}_{j} \psi
= & x_{j} \bfD_{k} \psi - \bfD_{k} (x_{j} \psi) + 2 i t (\bfD_{j} \bfD_{k} \psi - \bfD_{k} \bfD_{j} \psi)
= \delta_{j k} \psi + t \epsilon_{j k} \abs{\phi}^{2} \psi. \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
We end this subsection with a Leibniz rule for the cubic nonlinearity of the form $\psi \br{\psi} \psi$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:comm4cubic}
Let $(A_{\mu}, \phi)$ be an $H^{2}$ solution to \eqref{eq:CSS}. Then the following formulae hold:
\begin{align}
\bfD_{k} (\psi_{1} \br{\psi_{2}} \psi_{3})
=& (\bfD_{k} \psi_{1}) \br{\psi_{2}} \psi_{3}
+ \psi_{1} \br{\bfD_{k} \psi_{2}} \psi_{3}
+ \psi_{1} \br{\psi_{2}} \bfD_{k} \psi_{3} \label{eq:comm4cubic:1} \\
\bfJ_{k} (\psi_{1} \br{\psi_{2}} \psi_{3})
=& (\bfJ_{k} \psi_{1}) \br{\psi_{2}} \psi_{3}
- \psi_{1} \br{\bfJ_{k} \psi_{2}} \psi_{3}
+ \psi_{1} \br{\psi_{2}} \bfJ_{k} \psi_{3} \label{eq:comm4cubic:2}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We shall only give a proof of \eqref{eq:comm4cubic:2}; the other formula \eqref{eq:comm4cubic:1} can be proved similarly.
Decompose ${\bf J}_{k} = (x_{k} - 2 t A_{k}) + 2 i t \partial_{k}$. As the first term is real, we have
\begin{equation*}
(x_{k} - 2 t A_{k}) \psi_{1} \overline{\psi_{2}} \psi_{3}
= (x_{k} - 2 t A_{k}) \psi_{1} \overline{\psi_{2}} \psi_{3} - \psi_{1} \overline{(x_{k} - 2 t A_{k}) \psi_{2}} \psi_{3} + \psi_{1} \overline{\psi_{2}} (x_{k} - 2 t A_{k}) \psi_{3}.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, for the second term, by Leibniz's rule, we have
\begin{equation*}
2it \partial_{k} (\psi_{1} \overline{\psi_{2}} \psi_{3} )
= (2it \partial_{k} \psi_{1}) \overline{\psi_{2}} \psi_{3} - \psi_{1} \overline{(2it \partial_{k} \psi_{2})} \psi_{3} + \psi_{1} \overline{\psi_{2}} (2it \partial_{k} \psi_{3}).
\end{equation*}
Adding these up, we obtain the lemma. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\subsection{Covariant Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities} \label{subsec:GN}
To deal with some of the error terms arising from commutation, we will need the following covariant version of the standard Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality $\nrm{D \psi}_{L^{4}_{x}} \lesssim \nrm{\psi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{\triangle \psi}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:GN4D}
For $\psi \in \mathcal S_{x}$ and $A_{j} \in \mathcal S_{x}$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:GN4D}
\nrm{\bfD \psi}_{L^{4}_{x}} \lesssim \nrm{\psi}^{1/2}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{ \bfD^{(2)} \psi}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Using the identity $\partial_{j} (\psi^{1} \br{\psi^{2}}) = \bfD_{j} \psi^{1} \br{\psi^{2}} + \psi^{1} \br{\bfD_{j} \psi^{2}}$ and integrating by parts, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j = 1,2} \nrm{\bfD_{j} \psi}_{L^{4}_{x}}^{4}
=& \sum_{j = 1,2} \int \bfD_{j} \psi \br{\bfD_{j} \psi} \bfD_{j} \psi \br{\bfD_{j} \psi} \, \mathrm{d} x \\
=& - \sum_{j = 1,2} \int \psi \br{\bfD_{j} \bfD_{j} \psi} \bfD_{j} \psi \br{\bfD_{j} \psi} \, \mathrm{d} x
- 2 \sum_{j = 1,2} \int \psi \br{\bfD_{j} \psi} \Re(\bfD_{j} \psi \br{\bfD_{j} \bfD_{j} \psi}) \, \mathrm{d} x.
\end{align*}
Then using H\"older, we estimate the last line by
\begin{equation*}
\lesssim \nrm{\psi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\bfD^{(2)} \psi}_{L^{2}_{x}} ( \sum_{j=1,2} \nrm{\bfD_{j} \psi}_{L^{4}_{x}}^{4} )^{1/2},
\end{equation*}
from which \eqref{eq:GN4D} follows. \qedhere
\end{proof}
We also need a Gagliardo-Nirenberg-type inequality for ${\bf J}$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:GN4J}
For $\psi \in \mathcal S_{x}$ and $A_{j} \in \mathcal S_{x}$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{estlem:GN4J}
\nrm{\bfJ \psi}_{L^{4}_{x}} \lesssim \nrm{\psi}^{1/2}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{ \bfJ^{(2)} \psi}_{L^{2}_{x}}^{1/2}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Note the identities
\begin{equation*}
{\bf J}_{j}
= 2 i t e^{i {|x|}^{2} / 4t} \bfD_{j} e^{- i {|x|}^{2} / 4t}
,\quad
{\bf J}_{j} {\bf J}_{k} = -4 t^{2} e^{i {|x|}^{2} / 4t} \bfD_{j} \bfD_{k} e^{- i {|x|}^{2} / 4t}.
\end{equation*}
Thus, using Lemma \ref{lem:GN4D}, we estimate
\begin{align*}
\nrm{\bfJ_{j} \psi}_{L^{4}_{x}}^{2}
= & \nrm{2 i t e^{i {|x|}^{2} / 4t} \bfD_{j} e^{- i {|x|}^{2} / 4t} \psi }_{L^{4}_{x}}^{2} \\
\lesssim &\nrm{\psi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{4 t^{2} \bfD^{(2)} e^{- i {|x|}^{2} / 4t} \psi}_{L^{2}_{x}}
= \nrm{\psi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\bfJ^{(2)} \psi}_{L^{2}_{x}}. \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:chargeEst}} \label{subsec:pfOfChargeEst}
Using the lemmas proved so far, it is not difficult to prove Proposition \ref{prop:chargeEst}.
\begin{proof} [Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:chargeEst}]
We restrict our attention to $t \geq 0$; the other case is symmetric.
Furthermore, for notational simplicity, we introduce the following convention: We write $\psi_{1} \cdot \psi_{2} \cdot \psi_{3}$ for a linear combination of products of either $\psi_{j}$ or $\br{\psi_{j}}$ for $j=1,2,3$. If $\psi_{j}$ is vector-valued (e.g. $\bfD \phi$), then it may take any of its components or the corresponding complex conjugate. The constants may depend on $g \in \mathbb C$.
From Lemmas \ref{lem:comm4Sch}, \ref{lem:comm4cubic} and \eqref{eq:CSS}, it is not difficult to derive the following schematic equations\footnote{We remark that the particular structure $\psi_{1} \overline{\psi_{2}} \psi_{3}$ of the cubic nonlinearities arising from Lemma \ref{lem:comm4Sch} is important for applying Lemma \ref{lem:comm4cubic} to derive these equations. However, as it is not needed for applying the charge estimate after the equations are derived, we throw it away for notational simplicity.}:
\begin{align}
(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \phi
=& \phi \cdot \phi \cdot \phi, \label{eq:covSch:phi}\\
(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfD_{j} \phi
=& \phi \cdot \phi \cdot \bfD \phi, \label{eq:covSch:Dphi} \\
(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfD_{j} \bfD_{k} \phi
=& \phi \cdot \phi \cdot \bfD^{(2)} \phi + \phi \cdot \bfD \phi \cdot \bfD \phi, \label{eq:covSch:DDphi}\\
(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfJ_{j} \phi
=& \phi \cdot \phi \cdot \bfJ \phi + t (\phi \cdot \phi \cdot \bfD \phi), \label{eq:covSch:Jphi}\\
(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfJ_{j} \bfD_{k} \phi
=& \phi \cdot \phi \cdot \bfJ \bfD \phi + \phi \cdot \bfD \phi \cdot \bfJ \phi \label{eq:covSch:JDphi} \\
& + t (\phi \cdot \phi \cdot \bfD^{(2)} \phi + \phi \cdot \bfD \phi \cdot \bfD \phi), \notag \\
(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfJ_{j} \bfJ_{k} \phi
=& \phi \cdot \phi \cdot \bfJ^{(2)} \phi + \phi \cdot \bfJ \phi \cdot \bfJ \phi \label{eq:covSch:JJphi} \\
& + t (\phi \cdot \phi \cdot \bfJ \bfD \phi + \phi \cdot \phi \cdot \bfD \bfJ \phi + \phi \cdot \bfD \phi \cdot \bfJ \phi). \notag
\end{align}
We now claim that
\begin{align}
\nrm{(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfJ \phi (t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\lesssim & (1+t)^{-1}B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} \label{eq:chargeEst:pf:1}\\
\nrm{(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfJ \bfD \phi (t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\lesssim & (1+t)^{-1} B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} \label{eq:chargeEst:pf:2}\\
\nrm{(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfJ^{(2)} \phi (t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\lesssim & (1+t)^{-1} \log(2+t) B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3}. \label{eq:chargeEst:pf:3}
\end{align}
Indeed, using H\"older's inequality and Lemmas \ref{lem:GN4D}, \ref{lem:GN4J}, we can estimate:
\begin{align*}
\nrm{(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfJ \phi (t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\lesssim & \nrm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}^{2} \nrm{\bfJ \phi}_{L^{2}_{x}} + t \nrm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}^{2} \nrm{\bfD \phi}_{L^{2}_{x}} \\
\lesssim & B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} (1+t)^{-2} \log(2+t) + B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} \, t (1+t)^{-2} \\
\lesssim & B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} (1+t)^{-1}, \\
\nrm{(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfJ \bfD \phi (t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\lesssim & \nrm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}^{2} \nrm{\bfJ \bfD \phi}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\bfD \phi}_{L^{4}_{x}} \nrm{\bfJ \phi}_{L^{4}_{x}} \\
& + t \nrm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}^{2} \nrm{\bfD^{(2)} \phi}_{L^{2}_{x}} + t \nrm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\bfD \phi}^{2}_{L^{4}_{x}} \\
\lesssim & B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} (1+t)^{-2} \log(2+t) + B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3}\, t (1+t)^{-2} \\
\lesssim & B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} (1+t)^{-1}, \\
\nrm{(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfJ^{(2)}\phi (t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\lesssim & \nrm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}^{2} \nrm{\bfJ^{(2)} \phi}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\bfJ \phi}^{2}_{L^{4}_{x}} \\
& + t \nrm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}^{2} \nrm{\bfJ \bfD \phi}_{L^{2}_{x}}
+ t \nrm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}^{2} \nrm{\bfD \bfJ \phi}_{L^{2}_{x}} \\
& + t \nrm{\phi}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\bfD \phi}_{L^{4}_{x}} \nrm{\bfJ \phi}_{L^{4}_{x}} \\
\lesssim & B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} (1+t)^{-2} \big( \log(2+t) \big)^{2} + B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} \, t (1+t)^{-2} \log(2+t) \\
\lesssim & B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} (1+t)^{-1} \log(2+t).
\end{align*}
Note that we have used $\nrm{\bfD \bfJ \phi}_{L^{2}_{x}} \lesssim B \varepsilon_{1} \log(2+t)$, which follows immediately from Lemma \ref{lem:comm4DJ}.
Proceeding similarly, it is easy to also establish
\begin{equation}
\nrm{(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD_{\ell} \bfD^{\ell}) \bfD^{(m)} \phi (t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\lesssim (1+t)^{-2} B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} \label{eq:chargeEst:pf:4}
\end{equation}
for $m = 0,1,2$.
Then from \eqref{eq:chargeEst:pf:1}--\eqref{eq:chargeEst:pf:4}, Proposition \ref{prop:chargeEst} follows by an application of the charge estimate \eqref{eq:covChargeEst}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\section{From covariant to gauge-dependent bounds}\label{sec:transition}
In this brief section, we prove Proposition \ref{prop:transition} concerning the transition from the covariant estimates \eqref{eq:btstrp:impCov:1}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:impCov:3} to the gauge-dependent estimates \eqref{eq:btstrp:ord:1}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:ord:3} in the Coulomb gauge. Our basic tool is the following set of estimates for the Schr\"odinger field $\phi$ and gauge potential $A_{j}$ in the Coulomb gauge.
\begin{lemma}[Estimates in Coulomb gauge] \label{lem:est4A}
Let $(A_{\mu}, \phi)$ be an $H^{2}$ solution to \eqref{eq:CSS} in the Coulomb gauge on $(-T, T)$, which obeys \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay} and \eqref{eq:btstrp:impCov:1}. Then the following bounds hold for $t \in (-T, T)$:
\begin{align}
\nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{p}_{x}} &\leq B \varepsilon_{1} (1+\abs{t})^{-1+2/p} \quad \hbox{ for } 2 \leq p \leq \infty, \label{eq:LpEst4phi} \\
\nrm{A_{j}(t)}_{L^{p}_{x}} & \lesssim_{p} B^{2} \varepsilon_{1}^{2} (1+\abs{t})^{-1+2/p} \quad \hbox{ for } 2 < p \leq \infty, \label{eq:est4A} \\
\nrm{D A_{j}(t)}_{L^{p}_{x}} & \lesssim_{p} B^{2} \varepsilon_{1}^{2} (1+\abs{t})^{-2+2/p} \quad \hbox{ for } 2 \leq p < \infty. \label{eq:est4DA}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first estimate \eqref{eq:LpEst4phi} is an immediate consequence of interpolation between the $L^{\infty}_{x}$ and $L^{2}_{x}$ bound on $\phi$ in in \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay} and \eqref{eq:btstrp:impCov:1}, respectively. Next, in order to prove estimates for $A_{j}$, recall from \eqref{eq:CSS-C} that $A_{j}$ satisfies the following elliptic equation in the Coulomb gauge:
\begin{equation*}
- \triangle A_{j} = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon_{jk} \partial_{k} \abs{\phi}^{2}.
\end{equation*}
Thus, $\partial_{\ell} A_{j} = (\epsilon_{jk}/2) R_{\ell} R_{k} \abs{\phi}^{2}$, where $R_{j} = \partial_{j}/\sqrt{-\triangle}$ is the Riesz transform.
By the $L^{p}$ boundedness of the Riesz transform, we have for $1 < p < \infty$
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\partial_{\ell} A_{j}}_{L^{p}_{x}} \lesssim_{p} \nrm{\phi}^{2}_{L^{2p}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, by Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev fractional integration, we have for $2 < p < \infty$
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{A_{j}}_{L^{p}_{x}} \lesssim_{p} \nrm{\phi}^{2}_{L^{4p / (2+p)}_{x}}.
\end{equation*}
Thus, the desired estimates \eqref{eq:est4A} and \eqref{eq:est4DA} for $p < \infty$ are an easy consequence of \eqref{eq:LpEst4phi}.
On the other hand, the case $p = \infty$ of \eqref{eq:est4A} follows from the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality $\nrm{A_{j}}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \lesssim \nrm{A_{j}}_{L^{4}_{x}}^{1/2} \nrm{D A_{j}}_{L^{4}_{x}}^{1/2}$ and the case $p=4$ of \eqref{eq:est4A}, \eqref{eq:est4DA}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\begin{proof} [Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:transition}]
For simplicity, we restrict to $t \geq 0$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $B \varepsilon_{1} \leq 1$.
Expanding out the covariant derivatives, we have
\begin{align*}
\bfD_{j} \phi
=& \partial_{j} \phi + i A_{j} \phi, \\
\bfD_{j} \bfD_{k} \phi
=& \partial_{j} \partial_{k} \phi + i (\partial_{j} A_{k}) \phi + i A_{k} \partial_{j} \phi + i A_{j} \partial_{k} \phi - A_{j} A_{k} \phi.
\end{align*}
Using H\"older, \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay}, \eqref{eq:btstrp:impCov:1} and \eqref{eq:LpEst4phi}--\eqref{eq:est4DA} we obtain:
\begin{align*}
\nrm{\bfD \phi(t) - D \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
& \lesssim \nrm{A(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\lesssim B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} (1+t)^{-1}, \\
\nrm{\bfD^{(2)} \phi(t) - D^{(2)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
& \lesssim \nrm{D A(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{\infty}_x}
+ \nrm{A(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{D \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
+ \nrm{A(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}^{2} \nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \\
& \lesssim B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} (1+t)^{-1},
\end{align*}
where on the last line, we additionally used $B \varepsilon_{1} \leq 1$ and the estimate for $\nrm{D \phi(t) - \bfD \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}$ from the first line to estimate $\nrm{D \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}$.
Similarly, expanding out $\bfJ$ and $\bfD$, we have
\begin{align*}
\bfJ_{j} \phi =& J_{j} \phi - 2 t A_{j} \phi, \\
\bfJ_{j} \bfD_{k} \phi
=& J_{j} \partial_{k} \phi + i A_{k} J_{j} \phi - 2 t (\partial_{j} A_{k}) \phi - 2 t A_{j} \partial_{k} \phi - 2 i t A_{j} A_{k} \phi, \\
{\bf J}_{j} {\bf J}_{k} \phi
= & J_{j} J_{k} \phi - 2 t A_{k} J_{j} \phi - 4 i t^{2} (\partial_{j} A_{k}) \phi
- 2 t A_{j} J_{k} \phi + 4 t^{2} A_{j} A_{k} \phi.
\end{align*}
Then, as before, we estimate via H\"older, \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:impCov:3} and \eqref{eq:LpEst4phi}--\eqref{eq:est4DA}:
\begin{align*}
\nrm{\bfJ \phi(t) - J \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
& \lesssim t \nrm{A(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\lesssim B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} , \\
\nrm{\bfJ \bfD \phi(t) - JD \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
& \lesssim \nrm{A(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{J \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + t \nrm{D A(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \\
& \phantom{\lesssim} + t \nrm{A(t)}_{L^{\infty}_x} \nrm{D\phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + t \nrm{A(t)}^{2}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \\
& \lesssim B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3}, \\
\nrm{\bfJ^{(2)} \phi(t) - J^{(2)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
& \lesssim t \nrm{A(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \nrm{J \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + t^{2} \nrm{D A(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \\
& \phantom{\lesssim}
+ t^{2} \nrm{A(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}}^2 \nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \\
& \lesssim B^{3} \varepsilon_1^{3} \log(2+t).
\end{align*}
Taking $\varepsilon_{1} > 0$ sufficiently small
Proposition \ref{prop:transition} follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Decay for the Schr\"odinger field}\label{sec:decay}
In this section, we prove Proposition \ref{prop:decay}, thereby completing the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm}.
In \S \ref{subsec:reductionOfdecay}, we reduce the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:decay} to establishing a uniform bound on $\nrm{\widehat{\phi}(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}}$; see Proposition \ref{prop:decay:2}. Then in \S \ref{subsec:CSS-CinFourier}, we rewrite the Schr\"odinger equation in the Coulomb gauge and reveal the \emph{cubic null structure} of \eqref{eq:CSS} in this gauge. Finally, in \S \ref{subsec:pfOfDecay}, we give a proof of Proposition \ref{prop:decay:2}.
\subsection{Reduction of Proposition \ref{prop:decay}} \label{subsec:reductionOfdecay}
The first step in the proof of the sharp $|t|^{-1}$ decay of $\phi$ is given by the following standard lemma:
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:improvedKS}
For $\psi \in C_{t} \mathcal S_{x}$ and $\abs{t} \geq 1$ we have
\begin{equation}
\nrm{\psi(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \lesssim \frac{1}{\abs{t}} \nrm{\widehat{\psi}(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}} + \frac{1}{\abs{t}^{5/4}} \sum_{m=0}^{2} \nrm{J^{(m)} \psi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
For a proof of the above, we refer to \cite{HN}.
Thanks to this, one can easily see that establishing Proposition \ref{prop:decay} can be reduced to the following proposition:
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:decay:2}
Let $(A_{\mu}, \phi)$ be an $H^{2}$ solution to \eqref{eq:CSS} in the Coulomb gauge which satisfies the initial data estimate
\begin{equation*} \tag{\ref{eq:condition4id}}
\sum_{m=0}^{2} \nrm{\bfD^{(m)} \phi(0)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
+ \nrm{\abs{x} \, \phi(0)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\abs{x} \, \bfD \phi(0)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\abs{x}^{2} \phi(0)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq \varepsilon_{1}.
\end{equation*}
Assume furthermore that $(A_{\mu}, \phi)$ obeys the bootstrap assumption
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{x}} \leq B \varepsilon_{1} (1+\abs{t})^{-1} \tag{\ref{eq:btstrp:decay}} \\
\end{equation*}
and the improved bounds
\begin{align*}
\nrm{\phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{D \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{D^{(2)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & \frac{B}{100} \varepsilon_{1} \tag{\ref{eq:btstrp:impCov:1}$'$}\\
\nrm{J \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{J D \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & \frac{B}{100} \varepsilon_{1} \log (2+\abs{t}) \tag{\ref{eq:btstrp:impCov:2}$'$}\\
\nrm{J^{(2)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\leq & \frac{B}{100} \varepsilon_{1} (\log (2+\abs{t}))^{2} \tag{\ref{eq:btstrp:impCov:3}$'$}
\end{align*}
for $t \geq 0$.
Then, for any $0\leq t_1 \leq t_2$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{scattest}
{\big\| e^{it_2{|\xi|}^2} \widehat{\phi}(t_2,\xi) - e^{it_1{|\xi|}^2} \widehat{\phi}(t_1,\xi) \big\|}_{L^\infty_\xi} \lesssim B^3 \varepsilon_1^3 {(1+t_1)}^{-1/10}.
\end{equation}
In particular, given $\delta > 0$, choosing $B$ sufficiently large and $\varepsilon_{1}$ small enough, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:decay:2}
\nrm{\widehat{\phi}(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}} \leq \delta B \varepsilon_{1},
\end{equation}
and, moreover, there exists $\widehat{f_\infty} \in L^\infty_\xi$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{scattest2}
{\big\| e^{it{|\xi|}^2} \widehat{\phi}(t) - \widehat{f_\infty} \big\|}_{L^\infty_\xi} \lesssim B^3 \varepsilon_1^3 {(1+t)}^{-1/10},
\end{equation}
for all $t\geq 0$. An analogous statement holds for $t \leq 0$.
\end{proposition}
In the rest of this section, we will be concerned with the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:decay:2}
\subsection{Cubic null structure in the Coulomb gauge} \label{subsec:CSS-CinFourier}
We first split $A_{0}$ into its quadratic and quartic parts, i.e., $A_{0} = A_{0,1} + A_{0, 2}$, where
\begin{align*}
A_{0,1} =& \frac{i}{2} (-\triangle)^{-1} \Big( - \partial_{1} (\phi \br{\partial_{2} \phi} - \partial_{2} \phi \br{\phi}) + \partial_{2} (\phi \br{\partial_{1} \phi} - \partial_{1} \phi \br{\phi}) \Big), \\
A_{0,2} =& -(-\triangle)^{-1} \Big(\partial_{1} (A_2 {|\phi|}^2) - \partial_{2} (A_1 {|\phi|}^2) \Big).
\end{align*}
Then we may write the Schr\"odinger equation in the Coulomb gauge as
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{t} \phi - i \triangle \phi = \mathcal{N} + \mathcal{R} + \mathcal T,
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{N} & :=
- i A_{0,1} \phi
- 2 A_{\ell} \partial_{\ell} \phi
\\
\mathcal{R} & := - i A_{0,2} \phi
- i A_{\ell} A_{\ell} \phi,
\\
\mathcal{T} & := i g \abs{\phi}^{2} \phi.
\end{align*}
In words, $\mathcal N$ and $\mathcal R$ are the cubic and quintic terms arising from the covariant Schr\"odinger operator $(\bfD_{t} - i \bfD^{\ell} \bfD_{\ell})$, respectively, and $\mathcal T$ is the cubic self-interaction term $g \abs{\phi}^{2} \phi$.
We may write $\mathcal N$ and $\mathcal R$ more explicitly as follows:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal N =
& (-\triangle)^{-1} \big(-\partial_{1} \phi \br{\partial_{2} \phi} + \partial_{2} \phi \br{\partial_{1} \phi} \, \big) \phi \\
& + (-\triangle)^{-1} (\partial_{2} \abs{\phi}^{2} )\partial_{1} \phi
- (-\triangle)^{-1} (\partial_{1} \abs{\phi}^{2}) \partial_{2} \phi, \\
\mathcal R = & i (-\triangle)^{-1} \Big(\partial_{1} (A_2 {|\phi|}^2) - \partial_{2} (A_1 {|\phi|}^2) \Big) \phi
- i A_{\ell} A_{\ell} \phi.
\end{align*}
Define $ f(t,x) := \big( e^{-it\triangle} \phi(t) \big) (t,x)$. Then
\begin{align*}
\partial_t f(t) = e^{-it\triangle} \big( \mathcal{N}(t) + \mathcal{R}(t) + \mathcal T(t) \big),
\end{align*}
and thus taking the Fourier transform,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:SchInFS}
\partial_{t} \widehat{f}(t) = e^{i t \abs{\xi}^{2}} \big( \widehat{\mathcal N}(t) + \widehat{\mathcal R}(t) + \widehat{\mathcal T}(t) \big).
\end{equation}
Then, in order to estimate $|\widehat{\phi}(t)| = |\widehat{f}(t)|$, we estimate the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:SchInFS}, viz. $\widehat{\mathcal N}$, $\widehat{\mathcal R}$ and $\widehat{\mathcal T}$ in $L^{\infty}_{\xi}$.
With this goal in mind, we shall now demonstrate the \emph{cubic null structure} of $\mathcal N$.
We start by writing $\mathcal{N}$ in the Fourier space as follows:
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
\widehat{\mathcal{N}}(t,\xi)
= & \frac{1}{4\pi^{2}} \int_{\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R^2} {|\eta|}^{-2}\big[ (\eta_1-\sigma_1)\sigma_2 - (\eta_2-\sigma_2)\sigma_1 \big]
\widehat{\phi}(t,\eta-\sigma) \widehat{\overline{\phi}}(t,\sigma) \widehat{\phi}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta
\\
& + \frac{1}{4\pi^{2}} \int_{\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R^2} {|\eta|}^{-2}\big[ -\eta_2(\xi_1-\eta_1) +\eta_1(\xi_2-\eta_2) \big]
\widehat{\phi}(t,\eta-\sigma) \widehat{\overline{\phi}}(t,\sigma) \widehat{\phi}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta
\\
= & \frac{1}{4\pi^{2}} \int_{\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R^2} {|\eta|}^{-2}\big[ (\xi_2+\sigma_2)\eta_1 - (\xi_1+\sigma_1)\eta_2 \big]
\widehat{\phi}(t,\eta-\sigma) \widehat{\overline{\phi}}(t,\sigma) \widehat{\phi}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta.
\end{split}
\end{align*}
Next, we change variables ($\sigma \rightarrow \sigma+\eta-\xi$), and write the above expression in terms of $f$:
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
4\pi^{2} \widehat{\mathcal{N}}(t,\xi)
& = e^{-it{|\xi|^2}} \int_{\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R^2} e^{it \varphi(\eta,\sigma)} {|\eta|}^{-2} m(\eta,\sigma)
\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\sigma) \widehat{\overline{f}}(t,\sigma+\eta-\xi) \widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta,
\\
\mbox{where} & \quad \varphi(\eta,\sigma) := {|\xi|}^2 -{|\xi-\sigma|}^2 + {|\sigma+\eta-\xi|}^2 - {|\xi-\eta|}^2 = 2 \eta \cdot \sigma,
\\
& \quad m(\eta,\sigma) := \sigma_2 \eta_1 - \sigma_1 \eta_2 = \frac{1}{2} \big( \eta_1\partial_{\eta_2}\varphi - \eta_2 \partial_{\eta_1}\varphi \big).
\end{split}
\end{align*}
The identity relating $m$ and $\varphi$ above is a null structure and we can use it to integrate by parts in frequency.
Indeed, using the identities
\begin{equation*}
\partial_{\eta_{j}} (-\log \abs{\eta}) = - \eta_{j} \abs{\eta}^{-2} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\partial_{\eta_{j}} e^{it \varphi(\eta, \sigma)} = i t \partial_{\eta_{j}} \varphi(\eta,\sigma) \, e^{it \varphi(\eta, \sigma)},
\end{equation*}
we see that $e^{i t \abs{\xi}^{2}} \widehat{\mathcal N}(t, \xi)$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:nullStr4N}
\begin{aligned}
- \frac{1}{8\pi^{2} i t}
\int_{\mathbb R^{2} \times \mathbb R^{2}} \big( \mathrm{d}_{\eta} (-\log \abs{\eta}) \wedge \mathrm{d}_{\eta} e^{i t \varphi(\eta, \sigma)} \big)
\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\sigma) \widehat{\overline{f}}(t,\sigma+\eta-\xi) \widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{d}_{\eta} f \wedge \mathrm{d}_{\eta} g$ is a shorthand for $\partial_{\eta_{1}} f \partial_{\eta_{2}} g - \partial_{\eta_{2}} f \partial_{\eta_{1}} g$.
Notice the crucial gain of a power of $t^{-1}$.
Moreover, when $\mathrm{d}_{\eta}$ is integrated by parts off from $e^{i t \varphi(\eta, \sigma)}$, the contribution of $\mathrm{d}_{\eta} (-\log \abs{\eta})$ is zero, thanks to the fact that $\partial_{\eta_{1}} \partial_{\eta_{2}} (- \log \abs{\eta}) - \partial_{\eta_{2}} \partial_{\eta_{1}} (- \log \abs{\eta}) = 0$. This special cancellation is the aforementioned \emph{strong, genuinely cubic null structure} of $\mathcal N$.
\subsection{Uniform boundedness of $\widehat{\phi}$ in the Coulomb gauge} \label{subsec:pfOfDecay}
In this subsection, we prove Proposition \ref{prop:decay:2}, which concludes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:mainThm}.
\begin{proof} [Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:decay:2}]
For simplicity, we again restrict to $t \geq 0$. Under the apriori assumptions \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay}, \eqref{eq:btstrp:ord:1}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:ord:3}, we claim that it suffices to show
\begin{align}
\nrm{\widehat{\mathcal N}(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}} \lesssim & B^{3} \varepsilon_{1}^{3} (1+t)^{-9/8} \label{boundhatNR} \\
\nrm{\widehat{\mathcal R}(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}} \lesssim & B^{5} \varepsilon_{1}^{5} (1+t)^{-11/10} \label{boundhatR} \\
\nrm{\widehat{\mathcal T}(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}} \lesssim & B^{5} \varepsilon_{1}^{5} (1+t)^{-11/10} \label{boundhatT}.
\end{align}
Indeed, integrating in $t$ the identity \eqref{eq:SchInFS}, the bounds \eqref{boundhatNR}-\eqref{boundhatT} immediately imply \eqref{scattest}.
Moreover since the initial data bound \eqref{eq:condition4id} implies
\begin{equation} \label{eq:decay:pf:1}
\nrm{\widehat{\phi}(0)}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}} \lesssim \nrm{\phi(0)}_{L^{1}_{x}} \lesssim \nrm{(1+\abs{x}^{2}) \phi(0)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \lesssim \varepsilon_{1},
\end{equation}
we easily see how \eqref{eq:decay:2} follows.
Before we proceed to establish the claim, we point out a few consequences of our apriori assumptions which will be useful later. Thanks to the logarithmic growth in \eqref{eq:btstrp:ord:2}--\eqref{eq:btstrp:ord:3}, for any $p_{0} > 0$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{J \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{J D \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{J^{(2)} \phi(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \lesssim_{p_{0}} B \varepsilon_{1} (1+t)^{p_{0}}.
\end{equation*}
Since $x_{j}$ conjugates to $J_{j}$ via $e^{i t \triangle}$ (i.e., $J_{j} \phi = e^{i t \triangle} (x_{j} f)$), we have
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{f(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} + \nrm{\abs{x}^{2} f(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}} \lesssim_{p_{0}} B \varepsilon_{1} (1+t)^{p_{0}}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, proceeding as in \eqref{eq:decay:pf:1}, we see that
\begin{equation*}
\nrm{\widehat{\phi}(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}}
= \nrm{\widehat{f}(t)}_{L^{\infty}_{\xi}}
\lesssim \nrm{(1+\abs{x}^{2}) f(t)}_{L^{2}_{x}}
\lesssim_{p_{0}} B \varepsilon_{1} (1+t)^{p_{0}}.
\end{equation*}
In what follows, we fix $0 < p_{0} < 1/20$.
\subsection{Estimate of the cubic null form $\mathcal{N}$}
Here, we shall prove \eqref{boundhatNR}. We begin by integrating \eqref{eq:nullStr4N} by parts in $\eta_{1}$ and $\eta_{2}$.
Then, since
$\partial_{\eta_1} (\eta_2 |\eta|^{-2}) - \partial_{\eta_2} (\eta_1 |\eta|^{-2})=0$,
we can write
\begin{align}
\label{NIBP}
\begin{split}
e^{it{|\xi|^2}} \widehat{\mathcal{N}}(t,\xi) & = \frac{1}{8 \pi^{2} i t} \big( N_1(t,\xi) + N_2(t,\xi) + N_3(t,\xi) + N_4(t,\xi) \big),
\\
N_1(t,\xi) & := - \int_{\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R^2} e^{it \varphi(\eta,\sigma)} {|\eta|}^{-2}
\eta_1 \widehat{f}(t,\xi-\sigma) \partial_{\eta_2} \widehat{\overline{f}}(t,\sigma+\eta-\xi)
\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta,
\\
N_2(t,\xi) & := \int_{\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R^2} e^{it \varphi(\eta,\sigma)} {|\eta|}^{-2} \eta_2 \widehat{f}(t,\xi-\sigma) \partial_{\eta_1} \widehat{\overline{f}}(t,\sigma+\eta-\xi)
\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta,
\\
N_3(t,\xi) & := - \int_{\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R^2} e^{it \varphi(\eta,\sigma)} {|\eta|}^{-2}\eta_1
\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\sigma) \widehat{\overline{f}}(t,\sigma+\eta-\xi)
\partial_{\eta_2} \widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta,
\\
N_4(t,\xi) & := \int_{\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R^2} e^{it \varphi(\eta,\sigma)} {|\eta|}^{-2}\eta_2
\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\sigma) \widehat{\overline{f}}(t,\sigma+\eta-\xi)
\partial_{\eta_1}\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Let us fix $\chi: [0,\infty) \rightarrow [0,1]$ a smooth function supported in $[0,2]$ and equal to $1$ in $[0,1]$.
For $M > 0$ we let $P_{\leq M}$ denote the projection operator defined by the Fourier multiplier $ \xi \rightarrow \chi(|\xi|M^{-1})$,
i.e. $(\mathcal{F} P_{\leq M} f)(\xi) = \chi(|\xi|M^{-1}) \widehat{f}(\xi)$.
We split $N_1$ as $N_{1} = M_{1} + M_{2}$, where
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
M_1(t,\xi) & := -\int e^{it \varphi(\eta,\sigma)} {|\eta|}^{-2} \chi(\eta {(1+t)}^{1/4})
\eta_1 \widehat{f}(t,\xi-\sigma) \partial_{\eta_2}\widehat{\overline{f}}(t,\sigma+\eta-\xi)
\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta,
\\
M_2(t,\xi) & := \int e^{it \varphi(\eta,\sigma)} {|\eta|}^{-2}\big[ \chi(\eta {(1+t)}^{1/4})-1 \big]
\eta_1 \widehat{f}(t,\xi-\sigma) \partial_{\eta_2}\widehat{\overline{f}}(t,\sigma+\eta-\xi)
\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta.
\end{split}
\end{align*}
We then estimate
\begin{align*}
| M_1(t,\xi) | & \lesssim {\| \partial_2 \widehat{f}(t) \|}_{L^2} {\| \widehat{f}(t) \|}_{L^2}
\int {|\eta|}^{-1} \chi(\eta {(1+t)}^{1/4}) |\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta)|\,\mathrm{d} \eta
\\
& \lesssim {\| \partial_2 \widehat{f}(t) \|}_{L^2} {\| \widehat{f}(t) \|}_{L^2} {\| \widehat{f}(t) \|}_{L^\infty} {(1+t)}^{-1/4}
\lesssim B^{3} \varepsilon_1^3 {(1+t)}^{-1/4+2p_0},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
| M_2(t,\xi) | & \lesssim {\Big\| P_{\geq {(1+t)}^{-1/4}} \partial_1\triangle^{-1} \big( e^{-it\triangle} x_2 \overline{f}(t) \phi(t) \big) \Big\|}_{L^2}
{\| f(t) \|}_{L^2}
\\
& \lesssim {(1+t)}^{1/4} {\| x_2 f(t) \|}_{L^2} {\|\phi(t)\|}_{L^\infty} {\| f(t) \|}_{L^2} \lesssim B^{3} \varepsilon_1^3 {(1+t)}^{-3/4+p_0}.
\end{align*}
The term $N_2$ can be estimated in the same way as $N_1$.
To estimate $N_3$ we perform the same splitting as above, but we will need slightly different estimates.
We write $N_3 = M_3 + M_4$, where
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
M_3(t,\xi) & := - \int e^{it \varphi(\eta,\sigma)} {|\eta|}^{-2}\eta_1 \chi(\eta {(1+t)}^{1/4})
\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\sigma)
\widehat{\overline{f}}(t,\sigma+\eta-\xi) \partial_{\eta_2}\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta,
\\
M_4(t,\xi) & := \int e^{it \varphi(\eta,\sigma)} {|\eta|}^{-2}\eta_1\big[ \chi(\eta {(1+t)}^{1/4}) - 1 \big]
\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\sigma)
\widehat{\overline{f}}(t,\sigma+\eta-\xi) \partial_{\eta_2}\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta) \, \mathrm{d} \sigma \mathrm{d} \eta.
\end{split}
\end{align*}
We then estimate
\begin{align*}
| M_3(t,\xi) | & \lesssim {\| \widehat{f}(t) \|}_{L^2} {\| \widehat{f}(t) \|}_{L^2}
\int {|\eta|}^{-1} \chi(\eta {(1+t)}^{1/4}) |\partial_2\widehat{f}(t,\xi-\eta)|\,\mathrm{d} \eta
\\
& \lesssim {\| f(t) \|}_{L^2}^2 {\| \partial_2 \widehat{f}(t) \|}_{L^6} {(1+t)}^{-1/6}
\lesssim B^{2} \varepsilon_1^2 {\| (1+{|x|}^2) f(t) \|}_{L^2} {(1+t)}^{-1/6}
\\
& \lesssim B^{3} \varepsilon_1^3 {(1+t)}^{-1/6+p_0}.
\end{align*}
The second term is bounded as follows:
\begin{align*}
| M_4(t,\xi) | & \lesssim {\Big\| P_{\geq {(1+t)}^{-1/4}} \partial_1\triangle^{-1} \big( \phi(t) \overline{\phi}(t) \big) \Big\|}_{L^2}
{\| \partial_2 \widehat{f}(t) \|}_{L^2}
\\
& \lesssim {(1+t)}^{1/4} {\| \phi(t) \|}_{L^2} {\|\phi(t)\|}_{L^\infty} {\| x_2 f(t) \|}_{L^2} \lesssim B^{3} \varepsilon_1^3 {(1+t)}^{-3/4+p_0}.
\end{align*}
The term $N_4$ can be estimated identically.
We can then conclude that $|N_j| \lesssim {(1+t)}^{-1/8}$, for all $j=1,\dots,4$.
In view of \eqref{NIBP} we obtain the desired bound \eqref{boundhatNR} for $\widehat{\mathcal{N}}(t)$.
\subsection{Estimates for the quintic terms $\mathcal R$}
Under our apriori assumptions we now want to prove:
\begin{align}
\label{quintic1}
& \Big| \mathcal{F} \Big( \triangle^{-1} \big(\partial_{1} (A_2 {|\phi|}^2) - \partial_{2} (A_1 {|\phi|}^2) \big) \phi \Big) \Big| \lesssim B^{5}\varepsilon_1^5 {(1+t)}^{-11/10},
\\
\label{quintic2}
& \big| \mathcal{F} \big( A^{\ell} A_{\ell} \phi \big) \big| \lesssim B^{5} \varepsilon_1^5 {(1+t)}^{-11/10} \,.
\end{align}
Let us start by estimating the first contribution in the right-hand side of \eqref{quintic1}:
\begin{align*}
\Big| \mathcal{F} \Big( \triangle^{-1} \partial_{1} ( A_2 {|\phi|}^2 ) \, \phi \Big) \Big|
& \lesssim \Big| \mathcal{F} \Big(\triangle^{-1} \partial_{1} \big( A_2 {|\phi|}^2\big) \Big)(\xi) \ast \widehat{\phi}(\xi) \Big|
\\
& \lesssim {\Big\| \mathcal{F} \Big(\triangle^{-1} \partial_{1} \big(A_2 {|\phi|}^2\big) \Big) \Big\|}_{L^{6/5}} {\|\widehat{\phi}(\xi) \|}_{L^6}
\\
& \lesssim \big[ I(t) + II(t) \big] B \varepsilon_1 {(1+t)}^{p_0},
\end{align*}
having defined
\begin{align}
I(t) & = {\Big\| \mathcal{F} \Big(\triangle^{-1} \partial_{1} \big(A_2(t) {|\phi(t)|}^2\big) \Big) \Big\|}_{L^{6/5}(|\xi|\geq 1)}
\\
II(t) & = {\Big\| \mathcal{F} \Big(\triangle^{-1} \partial_{1} \big(A_2(t) {|\phi(t)|}^2\big) \Big) \Big\|}_{L^{6/5}(|\xi|\leq 1)}.
\end{align}
Using an $L^3 \times L^2$ H\"older's inequality we can bound
\begin{align*}
I(t) & = {\Big\| \xi_1{|\xi|}^{-2} \mathcal{F} \big(A_2(t) {|\phi(t)|}^2\big) \Big\|}_{L^{6/5}(|\xi|\geq 1)}
\lesssim {\big\| {|\xi|}^{-1} \big\|}_{L^{3}(|\xi|\geq 1)} {\big\| \mathcal{F} \big(A_2(t) {|\phi(t)|}^2\big) \big\|}_{L^2}
\\
& \lesssim {\| A_2(t) \|}_{L^\infty} {\|\phi(t)\|}_{L^2} {\|\phi(t)\|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim B^{4} \varepsilon_1^4 {(1+t)}^{-2}.
\end{align*}
To estimate the contribution coming from low frequencies we use again H\"older
followed by the Hausdorff-Young inequality:
\begin{align*}
II(t) & = {\Big\| \xi_1{|\xi|}^{-2} \mathcal{F} \big(A_2(t) {|\phi(t)|}^2\big) \Big\|}_{L^{6/5}(|\xi|\leq 1)}
\lesssim {\big\| {|\xi|}^{-1} \big\|}_{L^{3/2}(|\xi|\leq 1)} {\Big\| \mathcal{F} \big(A_2(t) {|\phi(t)|}^2\big) \Big\|}_{L^6}
\\
& \lesssim {\Big\| A_2(t) {|\phi(t)|}^2 \Big\|}_{L^{6/5}}
\lesssim {\| A_2(t) \|}_{L^\infty} {\|\phi(t)\|}_{L^2} {\|\phi(t)\|}_{L^3} \lesssim B^{4} \varepsilon_1^4 {(1+t)}^{-4/3}.
\end{align*}
This shows that
\begin{align*}
\Big| \mathcal{F} \Big( \triangle^{-1} \partial_{1} ( A_2 {|\phi|}^2 ) \, \phi \Big) \Big| \lesssim B^{5} \varepsilon_1^5 {(1+t)}^{-11/10}.
\end{align*}
Since an identical estimate can be obtained if we exchange the indices $1$ and $2$, we have shown that \eqref{quintic1} holds.
To prove \eqref{quintic2} we first bound
\begin{align*}
\big| \mathcal{F} \big( A^{\ell} A_{\ell} \phi \big) \big| = \big| \widehat{A^{\ell}} \ast \widehat{A_{\ell}} \ast \widehat{\phi} \big|
\lesssim {\| \widehat{A^{\ell}} \|}_{L^1} {\| \widehat{A_{\ell}} \|}_{L^1} {\| \widehat{\phi} \|}_{L^\infty}.
\end{align*}
To obtain the desired bound it then suffices to show
\begin{align}
\label{quinticA_l}
{\| \widehat{A_\ell}(t) \|}_{L^1} \lesssim B^{2} \varepsilon_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-2/3}.
\end{align}
Since the two cases $\ell=1,2$ are identical we only look at $\ell=2$.
We can estimate
\begin{align*}
{\| \widehat{A_2}(t) \|}_{L^1} \lesssim {\big\| \mathcal{F} \big(\triangle^{-1} \partial_{1} {|\phi|}^2 \big)(t) \big\|}_{L^1} \lesssim III(t) + IV(t),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align}
III(t) & = {\big\| {|\xi|}^{-2} \mathcal{F} \big(\partial_1 {|\phi|}^2 \big)(t) \big\|}_{L^1(|\xi|\geq 1)},
\\
IV(t) & = {\big\| \xi_1{|\xi|}^{-2} \mathcal{F}{|\phi|}^2(t) \big\|}_{L^1(|\xi|\leq 1)}.
\end{align}
It is clear that
\begin{align*}
III(t) & \lesssim {\big\| \mathcal{F} \big(\partial_1 {|\phi(t)|}^2 \big) \big\|}_{L^2}
\lesssim {\| \phi(t) \|}_{H^1} {\| \phi(t) \|}_{L^\infty} \lesssim B^{2} \varepsilon_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-1},
\end{align*}
which is more than sufficient.
Furthermore, using H\"older's inequality we have
\begin{align*}
IV(t) & \lesssim {\big\| {|\xi|}^{-1} \mathcal{F}{|\phi(t)|}^2 \big\|}_{L^1(|\xi|\leq 1)}
\lesssim {\big\| \mathcal{F}{|\phi(t)|}^2 \big\|}_{L^3}
\lesssim {\| \phi(t)^2 \|}_{L^{3/2}} \lesssim B^{2} \varepsilon_1^2 {(1+t)}^{-2/3}.
\end{align*}
This gives us \eqref{quinticA_l} and concludes the proof of \eqref{quintic2}.
\subsection{Estimate for the cubic term $\mathcal T$}
Finally, we shall establish \eqref{boundhatT}. We begin by estimating
\begin{align*}
\abs{\mathcal F( \abs{\phi}^{2} \phi )(t,\xi)} & = \abs{\mathcal F( e^{-it\triangle} \abs{\phi}^{2} \phi )(t,\xi)} \lesssim
{\big\| \mathcal F( e^{-it\triangle} \abs{\phi}^{2} \phi )(t) \big\|}_{H^2_\xi}
\\
& \lesssim {\big\| \abs{\phi}^{2} \phi (t) \big\|}_{L^2} + {\big\| x^2 e^{-it\triangle} (\abs{\phi}^{2} \phi)(t) \big\|}_{L^2} .
\end{align*}
By an $L^2\times L^\infty \times L^\infty$ estimate, the first summand above is easily seen to satisfy a bound of the form $B^3 \varepsilon_1^3 {(1+t)}^{-2}$.
For the second one, we use the fact that $x e^{-it\triangle} = e^{-it\triangle} J $, and the Leibniz rule \eqref{eq:comm4cubic:2} for $J$, to see that
\begin{align*}
{\big\| x^2 e^{-it\triangle} (\abs{\phi}^{2} \phi) \big\|}_{L^2} = {\big\| J^{(2)} (\abs{\phi}^{2} \phi) \big\|}_{L^2}
& \lesssim
{\big\| J^{(2)} \phi \big\|}_{L^2} {\| \phi \|}_{L^\infty}^2 + {\big\| J \phi \big\|}_{L^4}^2 {\| \phi \|}_{L^\infty}
\\& \lesssim B^3 \varepsilon_1^3 {(1+t)}^{-2} \log^2(2+t) ,
\end{align*}
having used the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality \eqref{estlem:GN4J} with $A = 0$
and the apriori bounds \eqref{eq:btstrp:decay}, \eqref{eq:btstrp:ord:2} and \eqref{eq:btstrp:ord:3} in the last inequality.
This completes the proof of \eqref{boundhatT}. \qedhere
\end{proof}
\renewcommand{\bibliofont}{\normalsize}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Bibliography}
|
\section{Introduction}
Neutrinos are among the most elusive particles of the Standard Model
(SM) as they mainly interact through weak processes. Nevertheless, a clear
picture of the structure of the lepton sector has emerged thanks to the
many succesful neutrino and collider experiments over the past
decades.
The leptonic mixing angles,
contrary to the quark mixing angles are large. In fact, the very
recent results from T2K \cite{T2K}, Double Chooz \cite{DChooz},
RENO \cite{RENO} and Daya Bay \cite{DBay} Collaborations confirm that
even the smallest of the observed mixing angles, $\theta_{13}$, of the neutrino mixing
matrix is not that small.
We start this work with the observation that the data from
neutrino oscillations seem to show an approximate symmetry between the
second and third lepton families, also referred to as $\mu-\tau$
symmetry \cite{MUTAU, MUTAU2} (see also \cite{Altarelli}).
Exact $\mu-\tau$ symmetry when implemented at the level of the Majorana
neutrino mass matrix $S_{\nu}$, leads to the following relations
between its elements, namely $S_{12}=S_{13}$ and $S_{22}=S_{33}$. This
special texture of $S_{\nu}$ as well as different types of corrections
to it have been studied largely in the literature
\cite{literature}. Exact $\mu-\tau$ implemented in the charged lepton
basis is also known to lead, among other possibilities, to a vanishing
mixing angle $V_{e3}$ and a maximal atmospheric mixing angle
$|V_{\mu3}|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$.
We would like to put forward some
simple deviations from exact $\mu-\tau$ textures for $S_{\nu}$ in the context of the
simple see-saw mechanism \cite{seesaw}, and we call these $partial$ $\mu-\tau$ textures.
To do so we follow a bottom-up approach and construct textures for the Dirac neutrino mass
matrix $M_{D}$ in the limit in which we relax one of the two previous relations
coming from the exact $\mu-\tau$ symmetry.
Our main goal is to investigate if a small deviation from exact $\mu-\tau$ symmetry is
sufficient to generate the whole mixing structure in the lepton
sector, including ${\cal CP}$ violation, consistent with the existing
experimental data on neutrino oscillations.
We also require that the elements of the light neutrino
mass matrix $S_{\nu}$ and the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $M_{D}$ to be
independent.
As a consequence, we obtain a few allowed
simple textures for the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $M_{D}$ which in
turn leads to simple textures for the light neutrino mass
matrix.
Among the few possibilities allowed, we single out a simple texture
and study fully its phenomenological consequences.
In particular the chosen texture prefers an
inverted spectrum for the three active neutrinos and predicts the
value of the Dirac CP violating phase $\delta_D$. The impact of such
type of textures on leptogenesis and neutrinoless double beta decay will then be
considered as well as the associated relationship between low energy
and high energy CP violating parameters \cite{lowcphighcp}.
\section{Partial $\mu-\tau$ See-Saw}
We consider the most simple and popular mechanism for generating tiny
neutrino masses, namely the see-saw mechanism \cite{seesaw}.
In the case of Dirac neutrinos, the analysis is exactly the same as
quarks. However for the general case of Majorana neutrinos,
one obtains at low energies an effective mass matrix for the light left-handed Majorana
which is complex symmetric related to the Dirac mass matrix, $M_D$, as:
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\nu}= - M_{D}M_{R}^{-1}M_{D}^{T}
\end{eqnarray}
We will work in the basis where the Majorana neutrino mass matrix $M_{R}$ is a diagonal
matrix. So we can parameterize its inverse as
$M_{R}^{-1}=\frac{1}{M_1} diag(1, R_{12},R_{13})$, with the Majorana
hierarchy ratios defined as $R_{12}=M_1/M_2\ $ and $\ R_{13}=M_1/M_3$.
To study the consequences of any symmetry implemented at the Lagrangian level in the
leptonic sector, it is instructive to construct a Dirac mass matrix $M_D$ which leads
naturally to a simple partial $\mu - \tau$ symmetric light neutrinos mass matrix $S_{\nu}$.
In general, $M_D$ is an arbitrary complex matrix:
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{D} =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
a & b & c\\
d& e& f\\
g & h & k\end{array}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
This gives us an $S_{\nu}$ of the form
\begin{equation}
S_{\nu} =-\frac{1}{M_1} \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
a^2+R_{12}\ b^2+R_{13}\ c^2\ \ & ad+R_{12}\ be+R_{13}\ cf\ \ & ag+R_{12}\ bh+R_{13}\ ck\\
ad+R_{12}\ be+R_{13}\ cf\ \ & d^2+R_{12}\ e^2+R_{13}\ f^2\ \ & dg+R_{12}\ eh+R_{13}\ fk\\
ag+R_{12}\ bh+R_{13}\ ck\ \ & dg+R_{12}\ eh+R_{13}\ fk\ \ & g^2+R_{12}\ h^2+R_{13}\ k^2 \end{array}\right) .
\end{equation}
An exact $\mu-\tau$ texture happens when $S_{22}=S_{33}$ and
$S_{12}=S_{13}$. This texture is known to have the $A_4$ and $D_4$
symmetry groups to be their possible underlying family symmetries
\cite{Ma2004,AltarelliA4}.
We therefore evaluate the differences between the elements of $S_\nu$,
$(S_{12}-S_{13})$, $(S_{22}-S_{33})$ as well as $(S_{22}-S_{23})$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!S_{12}\!-\!S_{13}&=&\!\frac{1}{M_1}\! \Big[a(g-d)+R_{12} b(h-e)+R_{13} c(k-f)\Big]\ \label{1213}\\
\!\!S_{22}\!-\!S_{33}&=&\!\frac{1}{M_1}\! \Big[ (g^2-d^2)+R_{12} (h^2-e^2)+R_{13} (k^2-f^2)\Big]\ \ \ \ \label{2233}\\
\!\!S_{23}\!-\!S_{22}&=&\!\frac{1}{M_1}\! \Big[ d(d-g)+R_{12} e(e-h)+R_{13} f(f-k)\Big] \ \label{2223}
\end{eqnarray}
From these equations we note that if we want to reproduce the neutrino
mass matrix $S_{\nu}$ in the limit of exact $\mu - \tau$
without forcing relations between the elements of the Dirac mass
matrix $M_D$ and those of the heavy Majorana neutrino mass $M_{R}$,
then we must have the second row of $M_D$ to be equal to its third
row, i.e
\begin{eqnarray}
g=d,\ \ \ h=e \ \ {\rm and} \ \ k=f. \label{mtmagic}
\end{eqnarray}
However this strong limit forces the determinant of $M_D$ to vanish
which in turn forces the determinant of $S_{\nu}$ to vanish also. This
means that at least one of the eigenvalues of $S_{\nu}$ must vanish.
This can also be understood from Eq.~(\ref{2223}) which
shows that the relations from Eq.~(\ref{mtmagic}) will produce
additional constraints on the symmetric neutrino mass matrix, quite
stronger than $\mu-\tau$ symmetry, namely $S_{12}=S_{13}$ and
$S_{22}=S_{33}=S_{23}$. The possibility of vanishing eigenvalues is
allowed by the data and has been studied by many authors
\cite{0212341,Ibarra,0602084}. Since this limit constrains strongly
our parameter space, we prefer to avoid it and remain as general as possible.
We will therefore consider small deviations from exact $\mu-\tau$ in
this see-saw context. In particular we would like to put forward
minimal textures for the Dirac mass matrix $M_D$ which maintain at
least one of the two $\mu-\tau$ constraints on $S_\nu$, i.e. either
$S_{12}=S_{13}$ is kept, with $S_{33} \neq S_{22}$, or $S_{22}=S_{33}$
is maintained with now $S_{13} \neq S_{12}$.
We call this type of setup {\it ``partial $\mu-\tau$''} as it maintains at least
one of the original $\mu-\tau$ constraints on the elements of the
neutrino mass matrix.
In the following, we will only consider the {\it
``partial $\mu-\tau$''} case $S_{22}=S_{33}$ {\it and} $S_{13} \neq
S_{12}$, for a specific texture. A complete study of all possible
cases with many more examples will be presented elsewhere.
\section{Partial $\mu-\tau$ with $S_{22}=S_{33}$ and $S_{11}+S_{12} = S_{22}+S_{23}$}
By inspection of equations (\ref{1213}) and (\ref{2233}) we note that
to produce the desired deviation from $\mu-\tau$,
we have three natural textures
which we dub texture I, texture II, and texture III respectively.
Each texture is associated with one of the eigenvalues of
$M_{R}^{-1}$, such that the breaking of exact $\mu-\tau$ symmetry is
proportional to $1$ for texture I, to $R_{12}$ for texture II, and to
$R_{13}$ for texture III:
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{D} = \left ( \matrix{a & b & c \cr d & e & f \cr -d & e & f }\right)
, \phantom{pp} M_{D}=\left ( \matrix{
a & b & c \cr d & e & f \cr d
& -e & f }\right)
,\phantom{pp} M_{D}=\left ( \matrix{
a & b & c \cr d & e & f \cr d
& e & -f }\right).
\end{eqnarray}
Note the importance of the minus signs which break the degeneracy of
some of the entries, allowing the vanishing of $(S_{22}-S_{33})$, but
not that of $(S_{13}-S_{12})$.
Of course we are interested in small deviations from $\mu-\tau$
symmetry and this approach allows us to control these with the
Majorana mass hierarchy parameters $R_{12}$ or $R_{13}$. In the light of the recent results from
T2K \cite{T2K}, Double Chooz \cite{DChooz}, RENO \cite{RENO} and Daya
Bay \cite{DBay} Collaborations pointing out to a large $\theta_{13}$,
Texture I being the largest, by definition, and therefore becomes the natural starting
point of our study. So we will concentrate our attention to it in what follows.
If furthermore we implement the tri-bimaximal \cite{Harrison} condition, namely, $S_{11}+S_{12}=S_{22}+S_{23}$,
an interesting texture emerges for the Dirac mass matrix $M_{D}$ which in turn gives us a very
simple form for $S_{\nu}$. Now by avoiding relations between the elements of the Dirac mass
matrix $M_D$ and those of the heavy Majorana neutrino mass $M_{R}$, we obtain two
interesting patterns for $M_D$ which satisfy $Det(M_D)\neq 0$.
Taking into account the above features, for instance, we obtain for the texture I
the following allowed two patterns:
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{D_1}^{I} =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
a & b & c \\
-a & -\frac{b}{2} & c \\
a & -\frac{b}{2} & c \end{array}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{D_2}^{I} =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
a & b & c \\
-a & b & -\frac{c}{2} \\
a & b & -\frac{c}{2} \end{array}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Example Case Study: Texture I}
We now concentrate on the phenomenology of the first special texture
emerging from Texture I. In particular, we start with
the following texture,
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{D_1}^{I} =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
a & b & c \\
-a & -\frac{b}{2} & c \\
a & -\frac{b}{2} & c \end{array}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
Now we put forward a minimal texture for $M_{D}$ with
the additional requirements of non vanishing elements
$(M_D^{\dagger}M_D)_{12}$ (or $(M_D^{\dagger}M_D)_{13}$) and
$(M_D^{\dagger}M_D)_{11}$, necessary for successful leptogenesis as
well as non-vanishing determinant of $M_D$.
The goal is to keep the parameter content as minimal as possible while keeping the main features motivated
by the partial $\mu-\tau$ ansatz in order to fully describe the
neutrino masses, neutrino mixing and ${\cal CP}$ violation, as well as
the additional possibility of leptogenesis. Taking into account all of
this, we further simplify the previous texture by setting $c=b=m_D$ so
that in the basis where $M_{R}$ is diagonal, we have the following
texture (and redefining $z=\frac{a}{b}$)
\begin{eqnarray}\label{MinText}
M_{D}^{I} = m_D\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
z & 1 & 1 \\
-z & -\frac{1}{2} & 1 \\
z & -\frac{1}{2} & 1 \end{array}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
where $m_D$ sets the Dirac mass scale and its phase is a global unphysical
phase. With this parametrization, the resulting light neutrino mass matrix $S_{\nu}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\nu} = -\frac{2}{3} \tilde{m}_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\varepsilon+\frac{(3+\eta_M)}{2} & -\varepsilon+\frac{\eta_M}{2} & \varepsilon+\frac{\eta_M}{2} \\
-\varepsilon+\frac{\eta_M}{2} & \varepsilon+\frac{(3+2\eta_M)}{4} & -\varepsilon+\frac{(3+2\eta_M)}{4} \\
\varepsilon+\frac{\eta_M}{2} & -\varepsilon+\frac{(3+2\eta_M)}{4} &
\varepsilon+\frac{(3+2\eta_M)}{4} \end{array}\right)
\label{Snu}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have introduced the parameters $\varepsilon$ and $\eta_M$ defined by
\bea
\varepsilon=\frac{M_2}{M_1}z^2 \hspace{1cm}
{\rm and} \hspace{1cm}
M_{2}=\frac{M_{3}}{2}(1+\eta_M).
\eea
Both parameters will prove to be important in this ansatz,
and they both depend on the hierarchy between two heavy Majorana
masses. In particular the parameter $\eta_M$ denotes the deviation
from the special relationship $\displaystyle M_2=\frac{M_3}{2}$
between the two heaviest Majorana neutrino masses. Large deviations
from that special relationship will produce physical neutrino mass
splittings too large to be phenomenologically acceptable.
We have also defined the light neutrino mass scale $\tilde{m}_\nu$ as
\bea
\tilde{m}_\nu = \frac{3}{2}\frac{m_D^{2}}{M_2},
\eea
exemplifying the see-saw mechanism at work, since $m_D$ is an
electroweak scale mass parameter and $M_2$ is a heavy Majorana mass of
intermediate scale.
The matrix $S_{\nu}$ is diagonalized as:
\begin{eqnarray}
U_{\nu}^{\dagger}S_{\nu}U_{\nu}^{*}= D_{\nu}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
U_{\nu}=P_{L}V_{CKM}P_{R},
\end{eqnarray}
$P_{L}$ and $P_{R}$ are diagonal phase matrices and $V_{CKM}$ \cite{Cabibbo} is a
{\it CKM-like} mixing matrix with one phase and three angles which can
be parametrized as
\bea
V_{CKM-Like} =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\ \ \times & |V_{e2}| & |V_{e3}| e^{-i \delta_{D}} \\
\ \ \times &\times & |V_{\mu 3}|\ \ \ \ \ \ \\
\ \ \times &\times & \times \ \ \ \ \ \ \end{array}\right).
\eea
The phases in $P_{L}$
can be rotated away in the charged current basis, and the ones in $P_{R}=diag(1, e^{i\alpha}, e^{i\beta})$
describe Majorana ${\cal CP}$ violating phases. The $V_{PMNS}$ \cite{PMNS} mixing matrix is then given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{PMNS}=V^{CKM-Like}P_{R}
\end{eqnarray}
We can now compute the determinant of $S_{\nu}$ in our
ansatz, and obtain the simple exact relation
\begin{eqnarray}
|{m}_1||{m}_2||{m}_3| = \frac{ 4}{3} |\tilde{m}_\nu|^3 (1+\eta_M) |\varepsilon|.
\end{eqnarray}
With it, we obtain approximate analytical expressions for the mixing
angles in the neutrino sector for small enough values of
$|\varepsilon|$ and $\eta_M$.
In particular, we find that
\begin{eqnarray}
V_{e3}&=
-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3} |\varepsilon| e^{-i\theta_\varepsilon} \ \ +\ \ {\cal
O} (|\varepsilon|^2)
\end{eqnarray}
and so, at this expansion order, we can trade the parameter $|\varepsilon|$ by the mixing
angle $|V_{e3}|$, and its phase $\theta_\varepsilon=Arg(z^2)$ is identified
as the dirac phase $\delta_D$, i.e. $\delta_D\simeq
\theta_\varepsilon$. We can now express the rest of the mixing
entries as expansions in powers of $|V_{e3}|$ and $\eta_M$.
We find
\begin{eqnarray}
|V_{\mu3}|^2 &\simeq&
\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}|V_{e3}|^2\
+\ \ {\cal O} \left(\eta_M|V_{e3}|,|V_{e3}|^3\right) \label{vmu3eq}\\
{\rm\hspace{-1cm} and\hspace{2cm} \ \ \ }&&\nonumber\\
|V_{e2}|^2
&\simeq&\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{r}\left[\frac{|V_{e3}|}{\sqrt{2}}\cos{\delta_D}
+ \frac{5}{4}|V_{e3}|^2 -\frac{\eta_M}{3}\right] +\ \
{\cal O} \left(\eta_M|V_{e3}|,|V_{e3}|^3\right) \label{ve2}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have introduced the neutrino mass hierarchy parameter $r$ given by
\bea
r=\frac{\Delta m^2_{21}}{\Delta m^2_{13}} = \frac{|m_2|^2-|m_1|^2}{|m_1|^2-|m_3|^2}
\eea
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=12.2cm,height=8.cm]{Vmu3ve3bis.pdf}\hspace{1cm}
\caption{Parametric plot of $|V_{\mu3}|$ with respect to $|V_{e3}|$
varying $\eta_M$ from $-0.4<\eta_M<0.4$ in the large (blue) triangular shaded area, and
$-0.02<\eta_M<0.02$ in the central thin (red) band (the region where
acceptable $\Delta m^2_{21}$ can be obtained (see Figure
\ref{contplot})). The dotted curve is the approximate expression
obtained in Eq.~(\ref{vmu3eq}). The phase $\theta_{\varepsilon}\simeq\delta_D$ is here allowed the
whole range from $0$ to $2\pi$, although its value fixes $|V_{e2}|$
(see also Figure \ref{contplot}).}
\label{vmu3}
\vspace{.2cm}
\end{figure}
As expected, the value of the atmospheric mixing angle is not far from
the exact $\mu-\tau$ symmetry value $|V^{0}_{\mu3}|^2=\frac{1}{2}$ with the
deviation being suppressed by the smallness of $|V_{e3}|^2$. Also
note that its value must lie in the first octant, i.e. the correction
is negative. We show in Figure 1 the numerical dependence of
$|V_{\mu3}|$ as a function of $|V_{e3}|$, allowing the Dirac phase $\delta_D$ to
take any value and limiting the possible values of $\eta_M$. The
simple analytical approximation of Eq.~(\ref{vmu3eq}) is also shown as a
dotted curve and it proves to be a very good approximation when the
values of $\eta_M$ are small, which as we will shortly see happens to be a
phenomenological requirement.
The physical neutrino masses predicted by the setup are such that
$|m_1|^2 \sim |m_2|^2 \sim |\tilde{m}_\nu|^2$ and
\bea
|m_3|^2 &\simeq& 2 |V_{e3}|^2\ |\tilde{m}_\nu|^2
\eea
so that the spectrum corresponds to an inverted mass hierarchy spectrum, and
the lightness of the lightest neutrino $\nu_3$ is explained by the
smallness of $|V_{e3}|$.
The solar neutrino mass $\Delta m^2_{21}=|m_2|^2-|m_1|^2$ is also small, but its expression is a complicated
admixture of terms of similar order in $\eta_M$, $|V_{e3}| \cos{\delta_D}$ and $|V_{e3}|^2$.
From Eq.~(\ref{ve2}) it might seem that for very small
$\eta_M$ and $|V_{e3}|$ the value of $|V_{e2}|^2$ approaches
$\frac{1}{2}$. This is not so, since the value of $r$ depends itself
on $\eta_M$ and $|V_{e3}|$. The limiting values for $|V_{e2}|^2$ are
\bea
\lim_{\eta_M\to 0}|V_{e2}|^2 &=& 1\ \ \ {or} \ \ \ 0\\
\lim_{|V_{e3}| \to 0}|V_{e2}|^2 &=& \frac{1}{3} \ \ \ \ \ (\eta_M >0) \label{goodlimit}\\
\lim_{|V_{e3}| \to 0}|V_{e2}|^2 &=& \frac{2}{3} \ \ \ \ \ (\eta_M
<0),
\eea
where the choice of $1$ or $0$ in the first limit depends on a flip of
masses $|m_1|$ and $|m_2|$ controlled by the value of $\delta_D$.
The experimentally preferred value of $|V_{e2}|$ is closest to the
limit of Eq.~(\ref{goodlimit}), meaning that the
model naturally produces it when $|V_{e3}|$ is sufficiently small and when $\eta_M$ is
positive. In that limit we have also
\bea
\lim_{|V_{e3}| \to 0} r = 2 |\eta_M| ,
\eea
where $r=\frac{\Delta m^2_{21}}{\Delta m^2_{13}}$, and in that
situation we see that the value of $\eta_M$ (which parameterizes the
deviation from the relationship $\displaystyle M_2=\frac{M_3}{2}\ $)
directly fixes the hierarchy measured between the neutrino mass differences, given by
$r_{exp}= \frac{{\Delta {m^{2}_{21}}}_{exp}}{{\Delta m^2_{13}}_{exp}}
\simeq 0.03$
(which would require that $|\eta_M| \sim 0.015$).\\
Of course, $|V_{e3}|$ does not seem to be so small according to the
recent reactor neutrino experiments results, with a
value sitting around $|V_{e3}|\sim 0.15$ according to global analysis
fits \cite{Valle,Fogli,GonzalezGarcia}. For these larger values of $|V_{e3}|$, the parameters $\eta_M$,
$|V_{e3}|^2$ and/or $(|V_{e3}|\cos\delta_D)$ can be of the same
order and the (nice) tight prediction of $|V_{e2}|$ is lost, as it can now
take almost any value. In Figure 2 we show the
regions allowed by the experimental bounds on $|V_{e2}|$ (the blue
bands) and $r$ (the green ellipses), in terms of the Dirac phase
$\delta_D$ and the Majorana mass parameter $\eta_M$. The viable
regions (the intersections) are quite restricted and point towards small $\eta_M
\sim\pm 0.015$ and pretty well constrained values of $\delta_D$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=7.cm,height=9cm]{contplot13.pdf}\hspace{1cm}
\includegraphics[width=7.cm,height=9cm]{contplot18.pdf}\hspace{1cm}
\caption{Contours in the plane $(\delta_D,\eta_M)$ (where
$\eta_M$ is such that $\displaystyle M_2=\frac{M_3}{2}(1+\eta_M)$) showing the regions where $0.509<|V_{e2}|<0.582$
(blue bands) and where the neutrino mass ratio $r=\frac{\Delta m_{21}^2}{\Delta m^2_{13}}$ is
such that $0.0264<r< 0.036$ (green ellipses). In the left panel we fix $|V_{e3}| =0.13$ and
in the right panel $|V_{e3}|=0.18$. In both panels, the dotted lines
represent the approximation of Eqs.~(\ref{cos1}) and (\ref{cos2}).}
\label{contplot}
\vspace{.2cm}
\end{figure}
This fact pushes us to try and make further approximate analytical
predictions in order to obtain a simple expression for the viable values of $\delta_D$ in
this ansatz. Since we observe in Figure 2 that in the viable region of
parameter space $r \simeq 2\ |\eta_M|$, we will use this approximation
in Eq.~(\ref{ve2}) and enforce the tri-bimaximal value
$|V_{e2}^{tb}|^2=\frac{1}{3}$ as a first order approximation.
We
obtain the following constraints on the value of the CP violating phase $\delta_D$,
\bea
\cos{\delta_D}&\simeq& -\frac{5}{2\sqrt{2}}|V_{e3}| \hspace{3cm} (\eta_M>0) \label{cos1}\\
\cos{\delta_D}&\simeq& -\frac{5}{2\sqrt{2}}|V_{e3}| -
\frac{2}{3}\frac{\eta_M}{|V_{e3}|}\hspace{1.3cm} (\eta_M<0) \label{cos2}
\eea
These approximations appear in Figure 2 in the form of dotted
curves, and it is apparent that they fit the numerical results extremely
well. This tight prediction of the Dirac phase $\delta_D$ as a
function of $|V_{e3}|$ (along with the prediction of an inverted
spectrum) is a most important element of the ansatz as it can be
easily falsified as new neutrino data and global fits further tighten
the bounds on leptonic CP violation.
Finally, we compute the rephasing invariant quantity defined as $J =
Im \{V_{e2} V_{\mu 3}V^*_{e3}V^*_{\mu 2}\}$, which is a measure
${\cal CP}$ violation. In our Ansatz it is given by
\begin{equation}
J \simeq \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}|V_{e3}|\sin(\delta_D)
\end{equation}
where we have used $2|\eta_M| \simeq r$ which is observed to fit nicely in the neighborhood of the tri-bimaximal texture.
\section{Leptogenesis and Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay}
Now, we will discuss leptogenesis in the present model. For that we
will assume that in early universe, the heavy Majorana neutrinos,
$N_i$, were produced via scattering processes and reached thermal
equilibrium at temperature higher than the see-saw scale. Since
the mass term $N_i N_i$ violates the total lepton number by two
units, the out of equilibrium decay of the right handed (RH )
neutrinos\footnote{We will work in the basis where the mass matrix
$M_{R}$ is a diagonal matrix.} into the standard model leptons
can be a natural source of lepton asymmetry \cite{FY}. The CP
asymmetry due to the decay of $N_i$ into a lepton with flavor
$\alpha$ reads
\begin{eqnarray}\
\epsilon_i^{\alpha} = \frac{1}{8\pi v^2}\sum_{j\neq i}\frac{Im
\left[(m^{+}_Dm_D)_{ij}\left(m^{+}_D\right)_{i\alpha}\left(m_D\right)_{\alpha
j}\right]}{(m^{+}_Dm_D)_{ii}}F(M_i, M_j)
\end{eqnarray}
where $F(M_i, M_j) $ is the function containing the one loop
vertex and self-energy corrections \cite{Loop}. For heavy neutrinos
far from almost degenerate its expression is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
F (M_i, M_j) = \frac{M_j}{M_i} \left[\frac{M^2_i}{M^2_i - M^2_j} + 1 - \left(1 + \frac{M^2_j}{M^2_i}\right) \ln{\left(1 + \frac{M^2_i}{M^2_j} \right)}\right]
\end{eqnarray}
As the temperature of the universe cools down to about $100~GeV$, sphaleron
processes \cite{KRS} convert the lepton-anti-lepton asymmetry into a
baryon asymmetry \cite{BPY}. If one takes into account the flavor
effects, and assume that the CP asymmetry is dominated by $N_1$,
then there are three regimes for the generation of the baryon
asymmetry \cite{Flavor-Lepto} (see also \cite{DNN}):
\begin{eqnarray}\label{etab}
|\eta_B| \simeq \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\!\! 1\times10^{-2} \sum_{\alpha =e,\mu, \tau}{\epsilon^{\alpha}_1} W\left(\tilde{m_1}\right) ;
\hspace{6cm} \ \ (M_1 \geq 10^{12} {\rm GeV}) \vphantom{\int^\int_\int}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\\
\!\!3\times10^{-3}(\epsilon^{e}_1 +
\epsilon^{\mu}_1)W(\frac{417}{589}(\tilde{m}^{e}_1 +
\tilde{m}^{\mu}_1 )) +
\epsilon^{\tau}_1W\left(\frac{390}{589}(\tilde{m}^{\tau}_1
)\right);\ (10^9 {\rm GeV}\!\leq\! M_1\! \leq\! 10^{12} {\rm
GeV} \vphantom{\int^\int_\int} )\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\\
\!\!3\times 10^{-3}\epsilon^{e}_1
W\left(\frac{151}{179}(\tilde{m}^{e}_1 )\right) +
\epsilon^{\mu}_1 W\left(\frac{344}{537}(\tilde{m}^{\mu}_1
)\right) +
\epsilon^{\tau}_1W\left(\frac{344}{537}(\tilde{m}^{\tau}_1
)\right);\ \ \ \ \ (M_1 \leq 10^{9} {\rm GeV})\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&
\end{array} \right
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=9cm]{EtaVe3_01.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=9cm]{EtaVe3_001.pdf}
\caption{Baryon asymmetry produced in our specific scenario as
a function of $|V_{e3}|$, in a hierarchical limit for
the masses of the two lightest heavy Majorana
masses, i.e. $M_1/M_2=0.1$ and $M_1/M_2=0.01$ .
The horizontal and vertical bands represent the current experimental
bounds on $|\eta_B|$ and $|V_{e3}|$. Interestingly, we observe that
the higher the value of $|V_{e3}|$, the higher the required mass of
$M_1$ necessary to generate enough baryon asymmetry.
}
\label{leptoplot}
\vspace{.2cm}
\end{figure}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde {m_i}&=& \frac{\left(m^{+}_D m_D\right)_{ii}}{M_i} ; \\
\tilde{m}_i^{\alpha}&=& \frac{\left(m^{+}_D\right)_{i\alpha} \left(m_D\right)_{\alpha i}}{M_1} ; \;\;\; \alpha =e, \mu, \tau\\
W(x) &\simeq& \left[\frac{8\times 10^{-3} eV}{x} + \left(\frac{x}{2\times 10^{-4} eV}\right)^{1.16}\right]^{-1};
\end{eqnarray}
Note that in the above expressions of $\tilde{m}_i$ and
$\tilde{m}_i^{\alpha}$ there is no summation over repeated
indices. The quantity $W(x)$ accounts for the washing out of the total
lepton asymmetry due to $\Delta L = 1$ inverse decays.
If there is a strong hierarchy between the heavy neutrino masses, i.e. $M_1
\ll M_2 \ll M_3 $, the asymmetry is dominated by the out of
equilibrium decay of the lightest one, $N_1$, with $F (M_1,
M_{j\neq 1}) \simeq -\frac{3}{2}R_{1j}$. In this case, by using the
expressions of the mass matrix $M_D^{\dagger}M_D$:
\begin{equation}
M_D^{\dagger}M_D =|m_D|^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
3|z|^2 & z^* & z^* \\
z & \frac{3}{2} & 0 \\
z & 0 & 3 \end{array}\right)
\end{equation}
we find that the individual lepton flavor asymmetries are given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{leptoapprox}
\epsilon_1^{e} &\simeq & \frac{M_1|\tilde{m}_\nu|(3+\eta_M)\sin(\delta_D)}{48\pi v^2}\\
\epsilon_1^{\mu} &=& - \epsilon_1^{\tau} \simeq -\frac{M_1|\tilde{m}_\nu| \eta_M \sin(\delta_D)}{48\pi v^2}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the high energy CP asymmetry is directly proportional to the CP
violating phase of the effective low energy theory of the neutrino
sector.
Note that in the present model, $\delta_D \simeq \pi/2$, which allows
for the possibility that CP violation could be observed in
neutrino ( and anti-neutrino) long baseline oscillation experiments
\cite{CPV1, CPV2, CPV3}.
\\
For the case where two of the RH neutrinos, say $N_1$ and $N_2$, are
almost degenerate, then the function $F (M_i, M_j) $ is dominated by
the contribution of the one loop self energy diagram and it is
given by \cite{Resonant} \begin{eqnarray}\label{Resonant}
F(M_i, M_j) = -\frac{\Delta M^2_{ij}M_iM_j}{\left(\Delta
M^2_{ij}\right)^2 + M^2_i\Gamma_i^2};~~~~~~~i, j = 1, 2 \end{eqnarray}
Here $\Delta M^2_{ij} = \left(M^2_j - M^2_i\right)$ and $\Gamma_i =
\left(m^{+}_Dm_D\right)_{ii}/{8\pi v^2} M_i$ is the decay width of the
$i^{th}$ right-handed neutrino. As a result, the lepton asymmetry
produced from the decay of $N_1$ and $N_2$ can be considerably enhanced
when the mass splitting is of the order of the decay width of
$N_{1,2}$. In the strong wash-out regime, the baryon asymmetry can
be estimated using the analytic expression\cite{BFJN,DP}\footnote{ In
equation (61) in reference \cite{ABD}, the expression of the baryon
asymmetry for $M_1 \simeq M_2$ and without considering the flavor
effect is approximated as
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\eta_B \simeq - 10^{-2} \sum_{\alpha =e, \mu, \tau}{\left(
\epsilon^{\alpha}_1 + \epsilon^{\alpha}_2\right)
\kappa_{\alpha}\left ( K^{\alpha}_1 + K^{\alpha}_2\right)}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\kappa_{{\alpha}}$ is the wash-out factor is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\kappa_{\alpha} (x) \simeq \frac{2}{\left(2 +4x^{0.13}~ e^{-2.5/x}\right) x}
\end{eqnarray}
which is valid in the limit where $N_1$ and $N_2$ are almost
degenerate \cite{BD}. We have checked that the plots of the baryon asymmetry obtained using this expression agree well with the one presented in Fig.~4. }
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_B \simeq - 2.4 \times 10^{-2} \sum_{\alpha =e, \mu, \tau} { \frac{ \sum^2_{i =1}{\epsilon^{\alpha}_i} }{ \sum^2_{i=1} K^{\alpha}_i \ln{(25 K^{\alpha}_i})}}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
K^{\alpha}_i = \frac{\Gamma (N_i \rightarrow L_{\alpha} + H^{\dagger}) + \Gamma (N_i \rightarrow \bar{L}_{\alpha} + H)}{\zeta (3)H_{N_i}} \simeq \left(\frac{\tilde{m}^{\alpha}_i}{10^{-3}~eV}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
with $H_{N_i} \simeq 1.66 \sqrt{g_{*}} M_i^2/{M_{Pl}}$ is the Hubble
parameter at temperature $T = M_i$ , where $M_{Pl} = 1.2 \times
10^{19}~GeV$ is the planck mass, and $g_{*} = 106.75$ is the total
number of degrees of freedom. Here the asymmetries
$\epsilon^{\alpha}_i$ are calculated using the expression of the
function $F (M_i, M_j)$ given in Eq (\ref{Resonant}).
\\
\begin{figure}[t]
\center
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=9cm]{EtaVe3_095.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=9cm]{EtaVe3_0995.pdf}
\caption{Baryon asymmetry produced in our specific scenario as
a function of $|V_{e3}|$, in a limit in which the two lightest heavy
Majorana masses are nearly degenerate, i.e. $M_1/M_2=0.95$ and
$M_1/M_2=0.995$, thus producing a resonant enhancement of the asymmetry. The
horizontal and vertical bands represent the current experimental
bounds on $|\eta_B|$ and $|V_{e3}|$. Note that the dependence on $|V_{e3}|$
is much milder than in the non-degenerate case.
}
\label{leptoplot}
\vspace{.2cm}
\end{figure}
We show in Fig.~3 the dependence of the baryon asymmetry on the
reactor mixing parameter $|V_{e3}|$ for different values of $M_1$,
ranging from $3\times 10^{10}~GeV$ to $3 \times 10^{12}~GeV$ with
$R_{12} = 0.1$ and $R_{12} = 0.01$ (hierarchical mass
limit). We see that successful leptogenesis requires
that $M _1 \simeq 3 \times 10^{11}~GeV$, and also that there is an
interesting dependence on $|V_{e3}|$, due to flavor effects, such that smaller values
correspond to higher asymmetry. Irrespective of the experimentally allowed values of
$|V_{e3}|$, we find that for $M_1 \leq 10^{11}~GeV$, the value of
$\eta_B$ is too small to account for the observed matter-anti matter
asymmetry of the universe, due to the strong wash-out effect.
In Fig. 4, we make a similar plot for the case of almost degenerate right handed neutrino spectrum, where we consider $R_{12} = 0.95$ (left panel) and $R_{12} = 0.995$ (right panel). It shows that it is possible to to generate a baryon asymmetry in agreement with the observation for $M_1$ smaller than $10^{11}~GeV$, thanks to the
resonant effect when the masses of $N_1$ and $N_2$ are sufficiently close. In that limit, the flavor effects are now
different and indeed we observe that the dependence on $|V_{e3}|$ is
much milder obtaining basically flat curves, whose heights are
increased for values of $R_{12}$ closer to $1$. For instance, when $R_{12}=
0.95$, a RH neutrino with mass $M_1 \sim 3\times 10^{10}~GeV$ can produce the correct baryon asymmetry. If the degeneracy between $M_1$
and $M_2$ is made stronger, as for our choice of $R_{12}=0.995$, the
mass for $M_1$ is lowered by an order of magnitude to $M_1 \sim 3\times 10^{9}~GeV$.
\\
Now, we compute the contribution to the effective mass
$m_{\beta\beta}$ which parameterizes the neutrinoless double beta
Decay. Note that $m_{\beta\beta}=|S_{11}|$, with $S_{11}$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{Snu}).
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\beta\beta}^2 \simeq |\Delta m^2_{13}|
\left[1+\frac{|V_{e3}|\cos(\delta_D)}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{5|V_{e3}|^2}{4}+\frac{r}{3}\right],
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used the following expansion for $|\tilde{m}_\nu|^2$
(making use of the approximation $\displaystyle \eta_M \simeq \frac{r}{2}$),
\begin{eqnarray}
|\tilde{m}_\nu|^2 \simeq |\Delta
m^2_{13}|\left[1-\frac{|V_{e3}|\cos(\delta_D)}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{3|V_{e3}|^2}{4}\right]
\end{eqnarray}
Since in this model, the Dirac CP phase is approximately $\pi/2$, we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\beta\beta} \simeq \sqrt{|\Delta m^2_{13}|}\left(1+ \frac{5|V_{e3}|^2}{8}+\frac{r}{6}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, for the mass texture (\ref{MinText}), neutrinoless double beta
mass parameter is predicted to be $m_{\beta\beta} \simeq 5 \times
10^{-2}~eV$, which is smaller than the current bound by about an
order of magnitude. However, experiments such as GERDA, CURO, and
MAJORANA with 1 ton.yr exposure will have sensitivity of about
$0.03~e V$\cite{DBD}, and hence it will be possible to test the above
prediction.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we investigated some of the implications of deviating
from exact $\mu-\tau$ symmetry assuming that neutrino masses are
generated via the see-saw mechanism. A simple parametrization of the
Dirac neutrino mass matrix, $M_D$, with just $3$ parameters, was presented and
studied. The scenario is consistent with all neutrino oscillations data and has interesting
predictions for some of the observable parameters.
We were able to find transparent relations
among the different observables of the setup, and in particular the
value of the Dirac CP phase happens to be highly constrained as a function of the
mixing angle $V_{e3}$. The dependence of the other mixing angles of the $V_{PMNS}$
mixing matrix in terms of $V_{e3}$ was also obtained. The neutrino
masses are also linked directly to the see-saw structure in a very
simple way as well as the lepton asymmetry generated out of the decay of the
lightest right handed neutrino. We find that lepton asymmetry is directly proportional to the mixing
angle $|V_{e3}|$, which thus has to be non vanishing to be in agreement
with the observed baryon asymmetry of the universe. The Dirac phase
happens to be also the relevant phase for leptogenesis, linking low
scale CP violation to high scale CP violation in a transparent
way. Moreover the predicted value for the Dirac phase (close to $\pi/2$)
gives an almost maximal contribution to leptogenesis.
We expect that all the different types of ansatzes that can be considered
in our framework of partial $ \mu-\tau$ will have similar simple
predictions and structures as the one studied here.
A thorough investigation is underway and will be the subject of
future publication.
\section{Acknowledgements}
One of us (C.H.) would like to thank Zhi-Zhong Xing for useful
discussions and acknowledge the support and hospitality of the High Energy
Institute in Beijing. C.H. also wishes to thank Michel Lamothe for discussions..
|
\section{Geometric properties of two--dimensional surface}
First of all we define a set of geometrical parameters of a curvilinear surface which will affect on the physical properties of the magnetic system.
Considering a 2D surface $\mathcal{S}$ embedded in 3D space $\mathbb{R}^3$, we use its parametric representation of general form $\vec{r} = \vec{r}( \xi_1, \xi_2)$, where $\vec{r} = x_i \hat{\vec{x}}_i$ is the 3D position vector defined in Cartesian basis $\hat{\vec x}_i\in\{\hat{\vec x},\,\hat{\vec y},\,\hat{\vec z}\}$, and $\xi_\alpha$ are local curvilinear coordinates on the surface.
Here and below Latin indices $i,j=1,2,3$ describe Cartesian coordinates and Cartesian components of vector fields, whereas Greek indices $\alpha$, $\beta=1,2$ numerate curvilinear coordinates and curvilinear components of vector fields. We also use here the Einstein summation convention.
Let us introduce the local normalized curvilinear basis ${\vec e}_\alpha={\vec g_\alpha}/{| \vec g_\alpha|}$, ${\vec n}=[{\vec e}_1\times {\vec e}_2]$, where $\vec{g}_\alpha = \partial_\alpha\vec{r}$ with $\partial_\alpha=\partial/\partial\xi_\alpha$. All the following analysis is made under an assumption that the basis is orthogonal one or, equivalently, that the metric tensor $g_{\alpha\beta} = \vec{g}_\alpha \cdot \vec{g}_\beta$ is diagonal one. In other words, we choose the parametric definition of the given surface $\mathcal{S}$ in a form which provides orthogonality of the basis. For purpose of convenience of the further discussion we introduce vector $\vec\varpi$ of the spin connection $\varpi_\alpha=({\vec e}_1\cdot\partial_\alpha{\vec e}_2)$, the second fundamental form $b_{\alpha\beta} = {\vec{n}}\cdot \partial_\beta\vec{g}_\alpha$, and matrix $||h_{\alpha\beta}||=||b_{\alpha\beta}/\sqrt{g_{\alpha\alpha}g_{\beta\beta}}||$ which has the properties of the Hessian matrix:
the Gauss curvature $\mathcal{K}=\det(h_{\alpha\beta})$, the mean curvature $\mathcal{H}=\mathrm{Tr}(h_{\alpha\beta})/2$. It is instructive to emphasize that $g_{12}=g_{21}=0$ due to the orthogonality of the local basis and $b_{12}=b_{21}$ as well as $h_{12}=h_{21}$ by the definition.
Physically realizable magnetic nanomembranes are of finite thickness $L$. We model such a nanomembrane as a thin shell with $L\ll\mathcal{R}$ with $\mathcal{R}$ being the minimal curvature radius of the surface $\mathcal{S}$. Then the space domain filled by the shell can be parameterized as $\mathfrak{r}(\xi_1,\xi_2,\eta)=\vec r(\xi_1,\xi_2)+\eta\vec{n}(\xi_1,\xi_2)$, where $\eta\in[-L/2,\,L/2]$. The main assumption is that the thickness $L$ is small enough to ensure the magnetization uniformity along direction of the normal, i.e. we assume that $\vec m=\vec m(\xi_1,\xi_2)$. This assumption is appropriate for the cases when the thickness is much smaller than the characteristic magnetic length. Similarly to \cite{Napoli12,Napoli12a}, we derive an effective 2D magnetic energy of the shell as a limiting case $L\to0$ of the 3D model and considering only linear with respect to the thickness $L$ contributions to the magnetic energy. Finally we consider the surface magnetic energy in form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Energy-gen}
\mathcal{E}=L\int_\mathcal{S}\left[\ell^2\mathscr{E}_{ex}+\lambda (\vec m\cdot\vec n)^2\right]\mathrm{d}\mathcal{S},
\end{equation}
where the integration is over the surface $\mathcal{S}$ with the surface element $\mathrm{d}\mathcal{S}=\sqrt{g}\mathrm{d}\xi_1\mathrm{d}\xi_2$ where $g=\det(g_{\alpha\beta})$. The second term in the integrand is the density of the anisotropy energy, it is of easy-surface or easy-normal type for cases $\lambda>0$ and $\lambda<0$ respectively, here $\lambda$ is the normalized anisotropy coefficient. The exchange energy density is presented by the first term, where $\ell=\sqrt{A/(4\pi M_s^2)}$ is the exchange length and $A$ is the exchange constant.
In a Cartesian frame of reference an exchange energy density $\mathscr{E}_{ex}=(\vec\nabla m_i)(\vec\nabla m_i).$ The Cartesian components of the magnetization vector $m_i$ are expressed in terms of the curvilinear components $m_\alpha$ and $m_n$ as follows $m_i=m_\alpha({\vec e}_\alpha\cdot\hat{\vec x}_i)+m_n({\vec{n}}\cdot\hat{\vec x}_i)$. Then we substitute this expression into $\mathscr{E}_{ex}$ and apply the gradient operator in its curvilinear form $\vec\nabla\equiv(g_{\alpha\alpha})^{-1/2}{\vec e}_\alpha\partial_\alpha$. Everywhere in the text below the $\nabla$-operator is used in its curvilinear sense.
To incorporate the constrain $|\vec m|=1$, we also use the angular parametrization
\begin{equation}\label{eq:angular_repres}
\vec{m} = \sin\theta\cos\phi\, {\vec{e}}_1 + \sin\theta\sin\phi\,{\vec{e}}_2 + \cos\theta\, {\vec{n}},
\end{equation}
where $\theta=\theta(\xi_1,\xi_2)$ is the colatitude and $\phi=\phi(\xi_1,\xi_2)$ is the azimuthal angle in the local frame of reference. Finally, in terms of $\theta$ and $\phi$ the exchange energy density $\mathscr{E}_{ex}$ reads
\begin{equation} \label{eq:main-formula}
\!\!\mathscr{E}_{ex}\!\! = \left[\vec{\nabla}\theta -\vec{\Gamma}(\phi)\right]^2 + \left[\sin\theta\left(\vec{\nabla}\!\phi-\vec{\Omega}\right)\! - \!\cos \theta \frac{\partial \vec{\Gamma}(\phi)}{\partial\phi}\right]^2\!\!\!\!\!.
\end{equation}
Here the vector $\vec\Omega=\left(\varpi_1/\sqrt{g_{11}},\,\varpi_2/\sqrt{g_{22}}\right)$ is a modified spin connection and vector $\vec\Gamma$ is determined as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Gamma-def}
\vec{\Gamma}(\phi)\!=\!||h_{\alpha\beta}||\vec\tau(\phi)=\mathcal{H}\,\vec\tau(\phi)+\sqrt{\mathcal{H}^2-\mathcal{K}}\,\vec\tau(\upsilon-\phi),
\end{equation}
where $\vec\tau(\phi)=\cos\phi\vec e_1+\sin\phi\vec e_2$ and the angle $\upsilon$ is given by $\upsilon=\arctan\Big(2\,b_{12}\sqrt{g}/(g_{22}b_{11}-g_{11}b_{22})\Big)$.
Using the energy expression \eqref{eq:main-formula} one can analyze general static solutions for the case of a strong anisotropy. Let us first consider the case of \underline{easy-surface anisotropy} ($\lambda>0$) and let the anisotropy be strong enough to provide a quasitangential magnetization distribution, in other words $\theta=\pi/2+\vartheta$ with $\vartheta\ll1$. Then the total energy \eqref{eq:Energy-gen} can be expressed as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:En-easy-surf-all}
\begin{split}
&\mathcal{E}\approx L\int\left(\ell^2\mathscr{E}^\mathrm{t}+2\ell^2\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{t}\vartheta +\lambda\vartheta^2\right) \mathrm{d}\mathcal{S},\\
&\mathscr{E}^{\mathrm{t}}=\vec{\Gamma}^2+(\vec\nabla\phi-\vec\Omega)^2\!\!,\quad
\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{t}=\nabla\cdot\vec\Gamma+(\nabla\phi-\vec\Omega)\frac{\partial\vec\Gamma}{\partial\phi}\!,\!
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\mathscr{E}^{\mathrm{t}}$ is the energy density of a strictly tangential distribution ($\theta\equiv\pi/2$ or equivalently $m_n\equiv0$), and $\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{t}$ can be treated as amplitude of a curvature induced effective magnetic field oriented along the normal vector $\vec n$.
Minimization of the energy functional \eqref{eq:En-easy-surf-all} results in
\begin{equation}\label{eq:theta-surf}
\vartheta=-\frac{\ell^2}{\lambda}\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{t}(\phi)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\lambda^2}\right),
\end{equation}
where the equilibrium function $\phi$ is obtained as a solution of the equation $\delta\mathscr{E}^\mathrm{t}/\delta\phi=0$. Accordingly to \eqref{eq:theta-surf} the strictly tangential solution is realized only for a specific case $\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{t}(\phi)\equiv0$.
The expression analogous to $\mathscr{E}^{\mathrm{t}}$ was recently obtained in Refs.~\cite{Napoli12,Napoli12a} for the case of curvilinear nematic shells with purely tangential distribution of the director.
However, as follows from \eqref{eq:theta-surf} the purely tangential solutions are not possible in general case.
For the opposite case of the strong \underline{easy-normal anisotropy} ($\lambda<0$) one has two possibilities, namely $\theta=\vartheta$ or $\theta=\pi-\vartheta$ with $\vartheta\ll1$. In the first case the total energy \eqref{eq:Energy-gen} can be written as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:En-easy-norm-all}
\mathcal{E}\approx L\int\left(2\ell^2\vartheta\,\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{n}+|\lambda|\vartheta^2/2\right)\mathrm{d}\mathcal{S} +\mathrm{const},
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{n} =(\nabla\cdot h)\cdot\vec\tau+\vec\Omega\left(h\, \frac{\partial\vec\tau}{\partial\phi}\right)$ can be treated as amplitude of a curvature induced effective magnetic field oriented along vector $\vec\tau$, here $(\nabla\cdot h)_\alpha=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\partial_\beta\left(h_{\beta\alpha}\sqrt{g/g_{\beta\beta}}\right)$ is tensor generalization of the divergence. Minimization of the energy functional \eqref{eq:En-easy-norm-all} leads to the solution
\begin{equation} \label{eq:easy-normal}
\vartheta=-\frac{2\ell^2}{|\lambda|}\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{n}(\phi)+\mathcal{O}\left(\!\!\frac{1}{\lambda^2}\!\!\right)\!\!,\;
\tan\phi=\frac{(\nabla\cdot h)_2-(h\,\vec\Omega)_1}{(\nabla\cdot h)_1+(h\,\vec\Omega)_2}\!.\!\!
\end{equation}
There are two equilibrium values of the azimuthal angle: $\phi$ and $\phi+\pi$. One should choose that solution which provides $\vartheta>0$.
Similarly to the previous case a solution strictly normal to the surface is realized only for the specific case $\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{n}\equiv0$. For spherical and cylindrical surfaces this condition is satisfied.
As the \textbf{first example} of application of our theory we find possible equilibrium states of cone shells with high anisotropies of different types. We consider here side surface of a right circular truncated cone. Radius of the truncation face is $R$ and length of the cone generatrix is $w$. Varying the generatrix inclination angle $0\le\psi\le\pi/2$ one can continuously proceed from planar ring ($\psi=0$) to the cylinder surface ($\psi=\pi/2$), see Fig.~\ref{fig:onion}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{onion}
\caption{(Color online) Onion state of a cone surface. Geometry of he problem and notations are shown on the inset a). Insets b) and c) demonstrate the onion solution \eqref{eq:onion} for cases $\psi=0$ and $\psi=\pi/4$ respectively. The streamlines demonstrate the in-surface magnetization distribution and the normal component $m_n$ is shown by the color scheme, the normalizing constant $m_n^c=\ell^2/(R^2\lambda)$. Variation of $m_n$ along the azimuth direction $\vec e_\chi$ for a cone with $\psi=\pi/4$ is shown on the plot d). Inset e) schematically demonstrates the magnetization distribution within the cut plane $z0y$.}\label{fig:onion}
\end{figure}
We chose the following parametrization of the cone surface
\begin{equation} \label{eq:cone-param}
x+i y =(R+r\cos\psi)\exp(i\chi),\qquad z=r\sin\psi,
\end{equation}
where the curvilinear coordinates $\chi\in[0,2\pi)$ and $r\in[0,w]$ play roles of $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ respectivelly. Definition \eqref{eq:cone-param} generates the following geometrical properties of the surface: the metric tensor $\begin{Vmatrix}g_{\alpha\beta}\end{Vmatrix}=\mathrm{diag}(g;1)$, the modified spin connection ${\vec\Omega}={\vec e}_\chi\cos\psi/\sqrt{g}$, the second fundamental form $\begin{Vmatrix}b_{\alpha\beta}\end{Vmatrix}=\mathrm{diag}(-\sin\psi\sqrt{g};0)$, and the matrix $\begin{Vmatrix}h_{\alpha\beta}\end{Vmatrix}=\mathrm{diag}(-\sin\psi/\sqrt{g};0)$, where $\sqrt g=R+r\cos\psi$. In accordance to the definition \eqref{eq:Gamma-def} one obtains $\vec\Gamma=-{\vec e}_\chi\sin\psi\cos\phi/\sqrt{g}$.
Let us start with the \underline{easy-surface case}. The solution will consist of two steps: (i) first, by minimizing the energy $\mathscr{E}^\mathrm{t}$ we obtain the main tangential distribution $\phi$, and (ii) using the obtained solution we calculate corrections for the out-of-surface component \eqref{eq:theta-surf}. For the cone surface \eqref{eq:cone-param} the energy $\mathscr{E}^{\mathrm{t}}$ can be written as follows
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Eex-phi}
\mathscr{E}^\mathrm{t} =\frac{1}{g}\left[\sin^2\psi\cos^2\phi+(\partial_\chi\phi-\cos\psi)^2\right]+(\partial_r\phi)^2.
\end{equation}
Accordingly to \eqref{eq:Eex-phi}, one should conclude that $\phi=\phi(\chi)$ for reasons of the energy minimization.
The variation of the total energy \eqref{eq:Energy-gen} with the density \eqref{eq:Eex-phi} results in the pendulum equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:phi}
\phi''+\frac12\sin^2\psi\sin2\phi=0.
\end{equation}
The Eq.~\eqref{eq:phi} has a solution
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:onion}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:phi-sol}&\phi^\mathrm{on}(\chi)=\mathrm{am}(x,k),\qquad x=\frac{2\chi}{\pi}\mathrm{K}(k)
\end{align}
where $\mathrm{am}(x,k)$ is Jacobi amplitude\cite{NIST10} and the modulus $k$ is determined by condition
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mu-sol}
2k\mathrm{K}(k)=\pi\sin\psi,
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
with $\mathrm{K}(k)$ being the complete elliptic integral of the first kind\cite{NIST10}.
The obtained magnetization state is analogous to well known onion-sate with transverse domain walls \cite{Klaui03a}, so we use this name for the solution \eqref{eq:onion}. It should be noted that in the planar limit $\psi\to0$ the onion solution \eqref{eq:onion} is reduced to $\phi^\mathrm{on}=\chi$, that corresponds to uniform magnetization distribution in the Cartesian frame of reference, see Fig.~\ref{fig:onion}b. The solution \eqref{eq:onion} which corresponds to $\psi=\pi/4$ is shown in the Fig.~\ref{fig:onion}c.
To obtain energy of the onion state we substitute the solution \eqref{eq:onion} to \eqref{eq:Eex-phi} and perform the integration over the cone surface in \eqref{eq:Energy-gen}. Finally one can write the onion-state energy as $\mathcal{E}^\mathrm{on}=\mathcal{E}_0(\psi)W^\mathrm{on}$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:onion-energy}
W^\mathrm{on}=1-\frac{\sin^2\psi}{k^2}+\frac{4}{\pi}\frac{\sin\psi}{k}\mathrm{E}(k)-2\cos\psi
\end{equation}
with $\mathcal{E}_0(\psi)=2\pi L\ell^2\ln(1+wR^{-1}\cos\psi)/\cos\psi$, and $\mathrm{E}(k)$ being the complete elliptic integral of the second kind\cite{NIST10}. In \eqref{eq:onion-energy} the function $k=k(\psi)$ is implicitly defined by \eqref{eq:mu-sol}. The dependence of energy \eqref{eq:onion-energy} on the generatrix inclination angle $\psi$ is plotted in the Fig.~\ref{fig:axial}a by the thick line.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{axial}
\caption{(Color online) Energies of the onion (thick line) and axial (thin line) solutions are shown in the plot a). Magnetization distribution of the axial state cone with $\psi=\pi/3$ are shown precisely and schematically on the insets b) and c) respectively. The other notations are the same as in the Fig.~\ref{fig:onion}.}\label{fig:axial}
\end{figure}
On the other hand, the equation \eqref{eq:phi} has another (``axial'') solution $\phi^\mathrm{ax}=\pm\pi/2$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:axial}b,c) which has the energy $\mathcal{E}^\mathrm{ax}=\mathcal{E}_0(\psi)W^\mathrm{ax}$ with $W^\mathrm{ax}=\cos^2\psi$. Equality of the energies $W^\mathrm{on}(\psi)=W^\mathrm{ax}(\psi)$ determines some critical angle $\psi_c\approx0.8741\approx5\pi/18$ which separates onion ($\psi<\psi_c$) and axial ($\psi>\psi_c$) phases, see Fig.\ref{fig:axial}a.
The obtained evolution of the equilibrium states with the curvature changing (increasing of $\psi$) is an example of a general feature and it can be explained quantitatively as follows. The equilibrium function $\phi$ which minimizes the energy $\mathscr{E}^\mathrm{t}$ appears as a result of competition of three effective interactions: the ``standard'' exchange $\mathscr{E}_{0}^\mathrm{t}=(\nabla\phi)^2$, the effective anisotropy $\mathscr{E}_\mathrm{A}^\mathrm{t}=\vec\Gamma^2$, and effective Dzyaloshinskii-like \cite{Dzyaloshinsky57,*Dzyaloshinsky58} $\mathscr{E}_\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{t}=-2(\nabla\phi\cdot\vec\Omega)$ interactions. For a cone surface one obtains $\mathscr{E}_\mathrm{A}^\mathrm{t}=g^{-1}\sin^2\psi\cos^2\phi$, $\mathscr{E}_\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{t}=-2 g^{-1} \cos\psi \partial_\chi\phi$. The anisotropy term $\mathscr{E}_\mathrm{A}^\mathrm{t}$ dominates for case close to the cylinder ($\psi\to\pi/2$) and it prefers the axial solution $\phi=\pm\pi/2$. On the other hand, the Dzyaloshinskii-like term $\mathscr{E}_\mathrm{D}^\mathrm{t}$ dominates for quasiplanar case $\psi\to0$ and it prefers the solution $\phi\approx\chi$. That agrees with the obtained previously behavior.
It should be noted that appearance of the curvature induced Dzyaloshinskii-like term can explain the observed polarity \cite{Chou07,Curcic08a} and chirality \cite{Vansteenkiste09a} symmetry breaking for magnetic vortices caused by the surface roughness.
Now we estimate the small deviations \eqref{eq:theta-surf} from the obtained tangential solutions originated from the curvature induced effective field $\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{t}$ directed along the normal. For a cone surface $\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{t}=\sin\psi\sin\phi(2\partial_\chi\phi-\cos\psi)/g$, and therefore one obtains the following values of the normal components $m_n\approx-\vartheta$
\begin{align} \label{eq:normal-comps}
&m_n^\mathrm{on}\approx m_n^c\frac{\sin\psi\,\mathrm{sn}(x,k)}{\left(1+\frac{r}{R}\cos\psi\right)^2}\left[\frac{4}{\pi}\mathrm{K}(k)\mathrm{dn}(x,k) -\cos\psi\right],\nonumber\\
&m_n^\mathrm{ax}\approx\mp m_n^c\frac{\sin\psi\,\cos\psi}{\left(1+\frac{r}{R}\cos\psi\right)^2}
\end{align}
for the onion \eqref{eq:onion} and axial $\phi^\mathrm{ax}=\pm\pi/2$ solutions respectively. Here the normalizing coefficient $m_n^c=\ell^2/(R^2\lambda)$ determines the order of magnitude of the effect, $\mathrm{sn}(x,k)$ and $\mathrm{dn}(x,k)$ are Jacobian elliptic functions \cite{NIST10}. The normal components \eqref{eq:normal-comps} are shown by the color gradient in the Fig.~\ref{fig:onion}c and Fig.~\ref{fig:axial}b for cases of onion and axial solutions respectively. It is interesting to note that $m_n$ decreases with the distance to the cone vertex and it vanishes in the planar limit $\psi\to0$.
The case of strong \underline{easy-normal anisotropy} is much more trivial, the magnetization is oriented along the normal vector (inward or outward the cone surface) up to the small deviations originated from the curvature induced effective magnetic field $\mathrm{F}^\mathrm{n}$ tangential to the surface. The resulting solution \eqref{eq:easy-normal} can be written as $\vartheta=\ell^2\sin2\psi/(|\lambda|g)$ and $\phi=\pm\pi/2$, where the signs ``+'' and ``--'' correspond to inward and outward magnetization orientation respectively. It is interesting to note that for the cylinder surface ($\psi=\pi/2$) the deviation from the normal distribution vanishes.
As the \textbf{second example} let us consider linear excitations against the obtained equilibrium easy-surface states. Dynamics of a high-anisotropy easy surface shell can be studied using the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:phi-dynamics}
\frac{1}{4\lambda}\ddot{\phi}=\ell^2\left[\nabla\cdot(\nabla\phi-\vec\Omega)-\vec\Gamma\cdot\frac{\partial\vec\Gamma}{\partial\phi}\right],
\end{equation}
which follows from the Landau--Lifshitz equation and \eqref{eq:En-easy-surf-all} under the condition $\lambda\gg\ell^2/\mathcal{R}^2$. For the cone surface \eqref{eq:cone-param} the dynamic equation \eqref{eq:phi-dynamics} takes the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dynamic}
\frac{g}{4\lambda \ell^2}\ddot\phi = \partial_\chi^2\phi + g \partial_r^2 \phi + \sqrt{g}\cos\psi \partial_r\phi + \frac12 \sin^2\psi\sin2\phi.
\end{equation}
The solution of the Eq.~\eqref{eq:dynamic}, linearized on the background of the onion state \eqref{eq:onion} can be presented in the form
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:Lame-Bessel}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linear-sep}
\phi(r,\chi,t) \approx \mathrm{am}\left(x,k\right) + e^{i\omega t}\mathrm{P}(\rho)\mathrm{X}(x),
\end{equation}
where $\rho=1+\frac{r}{R}\cos\psi$ and $x$ is defined in \eqref{eq:phi-sol}. By separating variables one can find that the angular part $\mathrm{X}(x)$ satisfies the Lam\'{e} equation \cite{NIST10}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Lame}
\mathrm{X}'' + \left[h-2k^2\mathrm{sn}^2(x,k) \right]\mathrm{X}=0.
\end{equation}
The periodic solution of \eqref{eq:Lame} which corresponds to the lowest eigenvalue $h=k^2$ \cite{NIST10} coincides (up to the constant) with the following Lam\'{e} function $\mathrm{X}(x) = \mathcal{C}\,\mathrm{Ec}_1^{0}(x,k^2)$. Then the function $\mathrm{P}(\rho)$ appears as the solution $\mathrm{P}(\rho)= \mathcal{C}_1 \mathrm{J}_0(q\rho) + \mathcal{C}_2 \mathrm{N}_0(q\rho)$ of a zero-order Bessel equation, where $q=\omega/(\omega_c\cos\psi)$ with $\omega_c=2\sqrt{\lambda}\ell/R$. Using the boundary conditions
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bc}
\mathrm{P}'(0)= \mathrm{P}'(\rho_0) = 0
\end{equation}
where $\rho_0=1+\frac{w}{R}\cos\psi$ one can determine the eigenvalues from the following equation $\mathrm{J}_1(q) \mathrm{N}_1(q\rho_0) = \mathrm{J}_1(q\rho_0) \mathrm{N}_1(q)$, whose numerical solution is plotted in the Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum} for the case $\psi<\psi_c$.
\end{subequations}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{spectrum}
\caption{The lowest frequencies of linear excitations over the easy-surface ground states depending on the generatrix length $w$ and inclination angle $\psi$.}\label{fig:spectrum}
\end{figure}
Let us analyze now the spin waves on the background of the axial state $\phi^{\mathrm{ax}} = \pm\pi/2$.
Similar to \eqref{eq:Lame-Bessel} one can find that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:linear-sep2}
\phi(r,\chi,t) \approx \pm\frac{\pi}{2} + e^{i\omega t + i\mu\chi}\mathrm{P}(\rho), \qquad \mu\in \mathbb{Z},
\end{equation}
where the radial function $\mathrm{P}(\rho) = \mathcal{C}_1 \mathrm{J}_\nu(q\rho) + \mathcal{C}_2 \mathrm{N}_\nu(q\rho)$, with $\nu=\sqrt{\sin^2\psi + \mu^2}/\cos\psi$. The boundary conditions \eqref{eq:bc} lead to the equation $\mathrm{J}_\nu'(q) \mathrm{N}_\nu'(q\rho_0) = \mathrm{J}_\nu'(q\rho_0) \mathrm{N}_\nu'(q)$ which determines the eigenfrequencies. Its numerical solutions for the lowest mode $\mu=0$ are plotted in the Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum} for the case $\psi>\psi_c$. As well as in the previous case, the lowest frequency becomes arbitrary small with the cone size increasing. Nevertheless it is not so for the cylinder surface where the lowest frequency is fixed and it is equal to $\omega_c$. The case of cylinder ($\psi=\pi/2$) should be considered separately starting from the Eq.~\eqref{eq:dynamic}, whose linear solution against the axial state has the form $\phi=\pm\pi/2+\mathcal{C}e^{i(\omega t+\mu\chi+\kappa r)}$ with $\kappa$ being the wave vector along cylinder axis. The corresponding dispersion relation reads $\omega=\omega_c\sqrt{1+\mu^2+R^2\kappa^2}$. Existence of a gap in spectrum of the cylindrical magnetic shell was already predicted theoretically \cite{Gonzalez10} and checked by numerical simulations \cite{Yan11a}.
In summary we dare to make some remarks about possible perspectives of development of the curvilinear magnetism area. On the one hand, new effects which occur due to the curvature are expected to be of order of magnitude $\ell/\mathcal{R}$. Since the typical values are $\ell\lesssim10$ nm and $\mathcal{R}>10^2$ nm the curvature effects are expected to be small. Nevertheless we can formulate several perspective directions in the studying of the curvilinear nanomagnets: (i) Topological effects. Equilibrium states of a curvilinear shell with high easy-surface (or easy normal) anisotropy are determined by topological properties of the surface, e.g. vortices on a spherical shell appears as a result of the hairy ball theorem \cite{Eisenberg79}. (ii) Nonlocal effects. Being of small magnitude some curvilinear effects can be spatially nonlocal, e.g. the deformation of the in-surface structure of a vortex on spherical shell \cite{Kravchuk12a}. Such nonlocal magnetization deformations can modify the interaction between nonlocalized magnetization structures (e.g. vortices or antivortices). (iii) Chiral effects. The curvature can remove the chirality degeneration, which is typical for planar systems, e.g. chirality-polarity coupling on a spherical shell \cite{Kravchuk12a}, or breaking of chirality symmetry in vortex domain wall on a cylindrical tube \cite{Otalora12,Yan12,Otalora13}.
In this regard, we believe that the proposed general expression for the exchange energy \eqref{eq:main-formula} for an arbitrary curvilinear surface opens a new direction of the theoretical study of the curvilinear magnetic nanoshells.
The authors thank D. Makarov for stimulating discussions and acknowledge the IFW Dresden, where part of this work was performed, for kind hospitality. This work was partially supported by DFG project MA 5144/3-1, and by the Grant of President of Ukraine for support of researches of young scientists (Project No~GP/F49/083).
|
\section{Introduction}
Let~$\Sigma$ be a connected orientable $C^2$ hypersurface
(compact or non-compact) in~$\Real^d$, with $d \geq 2$,
equipped with the Riemannian metric~$g$ induced by the embedding.
The orientation is specified by a globally defined
unit normal vector field $n:\Sigma\to \Sphere^{d-1}$.
Given a small positive parameter~$\eps$,
we consider the tubular neighbourhood
\begin{equation}\label{layer.intro}
\Omega_\eps := \big\{x+\eps\,t\,n(x) \in \Real^d \ \big| \
(x,t) \in \Sigma \times (0,1) \big\}
\,.
\end{equation}
We always assume that the map $(x,t) \mapsto x+\eps\,t\,n(x)$
is injective on $\overline{\Sigma} \times [0,1]$;
in particular, we require that the principal curvatures of~$\Sigma$,
$\kappa_1,\dots,\kappa_{d-1}$, are bounded functions.
Let $-\Delta_\textit{DN}^{\Omega_\eps}$ be the Laplacian on~$\Omega_\eps$,
subject to Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions
on~$\Sigma$ and $\Sigma_\eps:=\Sigma+\eps\,n(\Sigma)$, respectively.
If the boundary~$\partial\Sigma$ is not empty,
we impose Dirichlet boundary conditions on the remaining
part of~$\partial\Omega_\eps$.
We arrange the eigenvalues below the essential spectrum
of $-\Delta_\textit{DN}^{\Omega_\eps}$
in an increasing order and repeat them according to multiplicity,
$
\lambda_1(\eps) \leq \lambda_2(\eps) \leq \lambda_3(\eps) \leq \dots
$,
with the convention that all eigenvalues are included
if the essential spectrum is empty.
In fact, we make the sequence always infinite by defining
$\lambda_n := \inf\sigma_\mathrm{ess}(-\Delta_\textit{DN}^{\Omega_\eps})$
for all $n>N$, if the number of eigenvalues below the essential spectrum
is a finite (possibly zero) natural number~$N$.
The objective of this paper is to show that
the $d$-dimensional differential operator $-\Delta_\textit{DN}^{\Omega_\eps}$
can be approximated in the limit as $\eps \to 0$
by the $(d-1)$-dimensional Schr\"odinger-type operator
\begin{equation}\label{op.comparison}
H_\eps := -\Delta_g + \frac{\kappa}{\eps}
\qquad \mbox{on} \qquad
\sii(\Sigma)
\,.
\end{equation}
Here~$-\Delta_g$ denotes the Laplace-Beltrami operator of~$\Sigma$,
subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions if~$\partial\Sigma$ is not empty,
and
$
\kappa := \kappa_1+\dots+\kappa_{d-1}
$
is a $d-1$ multiple of the mean curvature of~$\Sigma$.
Note that the sign of~$\kappa$ depends on the choice of orientation~$n$,
that is on the direction in which the parallel surface~$\Sigma_\eps$
is constructed with respect to~$\Sigma$,
\cf~Figure~\ref{Fig}.
We arrange the eigenvalues below the essential spectrum
of the operator~$H_\eps$ using the same conventions as above,
$
\mu_1(\eps) \leq \mu_2(\eps) \leq \mu_3(\eps) \leq \dots
$.
In this paper we establish the following spectral asymptotics:
\begin{Theorem}\label{Thm.main}
For all $n \geq 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{expansion}
\lambda_n(\eps)
= \left(\frac{\pi}{2\eps}\right)^2 + \mu_n(\eps) + \mathcal{O}(1)
\qquad \mbox{as} \qquad
\eps \to 0
\,.
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
This asymptotic expansion was proved previously
by the author for~$d=2$ in~\cite{K5}.
Moreover, some form of norm-resolvent convergence of
$-\Delta_\textit{DN}^{\Omega_\eps}$ to~$H_\eps$ was established
and the result~\eqref{expansion} for $d=3$ was announced there.
In the present paper we extend the validity of formula~\eqref{expansion}
to any dimension and provide some details of the variational proof
which were missing in~\cite{K5}.
Using known results about the strong-coupling/semiclassical asymptotics
of eigenvalues of the Schr\"odinger-type operator~\eqref{op.comparison},
one has, for all $n \geq 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{strong}
\mu_n(\eps)
= \frac{\inf\kappa}{\eps} + o(\eps^{-1})
\qquad\mbox{as}\qquad
\eps \to 0
\,.
\end{equation}
This result seems to be well known;
we refer to~\cite[App.~A]{FK1} for a proof in a general Euclidean case,
which extends to the present situation.
Combining~\eqref{expansion} with~\eqref{strong},
we see that the two leading terms
in the $\eps$-expansion of~$\lambda_n(\eps)$ are independent of~$n$.
Furthermore, the geometry of~$\Omega_\eps$ is seen
in these terms only \emph{locally},
through the minimal value of the mean curvature of~$\Sigma$.
In view of the leading role of the mean curvature~$\kappa$
in the surface element of~$\Sigma_\eps$, \cf~\eqref{h.fomula},
we see that the minimal values of the mean curvature on~$\Sigma$
corresponds to points for which, roughly, the Neumann boundary has
``locally the largest area'' with respect to the opposite Dirichlet one;
see also~Figure~\ref{Fig}.
The results \eqref{expansion}--\eqref{strong} are thus consistent
with the physical intuition that ``Dirichlet conditions raise energies
and Neumann conditions lower energies''.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig.eps}
\vspace{-25ex}
\end{center}
\caption{The geometry of the tubular neighbourhood~$\Omega_\eps$
for $d=3$.}\label{Fig}
\end{figure}
The particular form of the thin-width expansions~\eqref{expansion}
has important
physical consequences for spectral properties of quantum waveguides
as explained in~\cite{K5}.
Let us also mention that the local character resembles
situations of Dirichlet tubes of variable radius
\cite{Friedlander-Solomyak_2007,Friedlander-Solomyak_2008a,
Borisov-Freitas_2009,Borisov-Freitas_2010,Lampart-Teufel-Wachsmuth}.
The case of Neumann or Dirichlet tubes of uniform radius
differs from the present situation in many respects.
Let us denote by $\{\lambda_n^N(\eps)\}_{n=1}^\infty$
and $\{\lambda_n^D(\eps)\}_{n=1}^\infty$
the set of eigenvalues below the essential spectrum
of the Neumann and Dirichlet Laplacian
on $\sii(\Omega_\eps)$, respectively,
with the same conventions as used above for $\{\lambda_n(\eps)\}_{n=1}^\infty$.
The case of the Neumann Laplacian is trivial in the sense that
its spectrum is known to converge to the spectrum
of the the underlying manifold~$\Sigma$, \cf~\cite{Schatzman_1996}.
More precisely,
\begin{equation}\label{expansion.Neumann}
\lambda_n^N(\eps)
= 0 + \mu_n^N + o(1)
\qquad \mbox{as} \qquad
\eps \to 0
\,,
\end{equation}
where $\{\mu_n^N\}_{n=1}^\infty$ is the set of eigenvalues
below the essential spectrum (with the aforementioned conventions)
of the Laplace-Beltrami operator~$-\Delta_g$ on~$\sii(\Sigma)$,
subject to Neumann boundary conditions on~$\partial\Sigma$.
In order to consistently compare~\eqref{expansion.Neumann}
with~\eqref{expansion} (and~~\eqref{expansion.Dirichlet} below),
we included into~\eqref{expansion.Neumann}
the vanishing lowest Neumann eigenvalue
of the transverse interval~$(0,\eps)$
and will refer to~$\mu_n^N$ as the ``second term''
in the expansion of~$\lambda_n^N(\eps)$.
In the Dirichlet case, we have~\cite{KRT}
\begin{equation}\label{expansion.Dirichlet}
\lambda_n^D(\eps)
= \left(\frac{\pi}{\eps}\right)^2 + \mu_n^D + \mathcal{O}(1)
\qquad \mbox{as} \qquad
\eps \to 0
\,,
\end{equation}
where $\{\mu_n^D\}_{n=1}^\infty$ is the set of eigenvalues
below the essential spectrum
(again with the aforementioned conventions)
of the Schr\"odinger-type operator
$-\Delta_g + V_\mathrm{eff}$ on~$\sii(\Sigma)$,
subject to Dirichlet boundary conditions on~$\partial\Sigma$.
Here~$V_\mathrm{eff}$ is a purely geometric, $\eps$-independent potential,
expressed solely in terms of the principal curvatures,
\begin{equation}\label{V.eff}
V_{\mathrm{eff}}
:=-\frac{\kappa_1^2+\dots+\kappa_{d-1}^2}{2}
+\frac{(\kappa_1+\dots+\kappa_{d-1})^2}{4}
\,.
\end{equation}
Summing up, contrary to Theorem~\ref{Thm.main},
in the purely Neumann or Dirichlet case
the second term in the asymptotic expansion of eigenvalues
is independent of~$\eps$
and determined by the \emph{global} geometry of~$\Sigma$.
In addition to this introductory part,
the paper consists of Section~\ref{Sec.Pre},
in which we collect some auxiliary material,
and Section~\ref{Sec.proof} devoted
to the proof of Theorem~\ref{Thm.main}.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{Sec.Pre}
We refer to~\cite{KRT} for a necessary geometric background
of tubes about hypersurfaces.
Using the Fermi ``coordinates''~$(x,t)$ that appear in~\eqref{layer.intro},
$\Omega_\eps$~can be identified with the Riemannian manifold $\Sigma\times(0,1)$
equipped with the metric~$G$ of the following block-diagonal structure
$G = G_{\mu\nu} \, dx^\mu dx^\nu + \eps^2 dt^2$.
Here the range of Greek indices is assumed to be $1,\dots,d-1$
and the Einstein summation convention is employed.
We shall not need the explicit formulae for the coefficients~$G_{\mu\nu}$,
just the bounds:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:metric_bound}
(1-C\eps)(g_{\mu\nu})\leq(G_{\mu\nu})\leq (1+C\eps)(g_{\mu\nu})
\,.
\end{equation}
(Of course, we implicitly assume that~$\eps$ is so small
that $1-C\eps$ is positive.)
Here and in the sequel, we adopt the convention that~$C, c$
and the constants involved in the ``big~$\mathcal{O}$'' notation
possibly depend on the supremum norm of the principal curvatures
$\kappa_1,\dots,\kappa_{d-1}$ and may vary from line to line.
On the other hand, we shall need the formula
for the determinant $|G| = \varepsilon^2 \, |g| \, h_\eps^2$,
where
\begin{equation}\label{h.fomula}
h_\eps(\cdot,t) := \prod_{\mu=1}^{d-1}(1-\varepsilon \, \kappa_{\mu} \, t)
= 1 - \eps \, \kappa \, t + \mathcal{O}(\eps^2)
\,.
\end{equation}
The volume element of~$\big(\Sigma\times(0,1),G\big)$
is thus given by $d\Omega_\eps = \eps \, h_\eps \, d\Sigma \wedge dt$,
where $d\Sigma = |g|^{1/2} dx^1 \wedge \dots \wedge dx^{d-1}$
is the surface element of $(\Sigma,g)$.
Using the above geometric preliminaries,
the Hilbert space $\sii(\Omega_\eps)$ can be identified with
$
\mathcal{H}_\eps :=
\sii\big(\Sigma\times(0,1),\eps \, h_\eps \, d\Sigma \wedge dt\big)
$.
The Laplacian $-\Delta_\textit{DN}^{\Omega_\eps}$
can be in turn identified with the self-adjoint operator
on $\mathcal{H}_\eps$ associated with the quadratic form
\begin{align*}
Q_\eps[\psi]
&:= \big\langle
\partial_{x^\mu}\psi,G^{\mu\nu}\partial_{x^\nu}\psi
\big\rangle_{\mathcal{H}_\eps}
+ \eps^{-2} \|\partial_t\psi\|_{\mathcal{H}_\eps}^2
\,,
\\
\psi \in \Dom(Q_\eps) &:=
\left\{
\psi \in W^{1,2}\big(\Sigma \times (0,1)\big) \ | \quad
\psi = 0 \quad \mbox{on} \quad
\partial\big(\Sigma \times (0,1)\big) \setminus \big(\Sigma\times\{1\}\big)
\right\}
\,.
\end{align*}
Here the boundary values of~$\psi$ are understood in the sense of traces.
Similarly, the operator~$H_\eps$ is associated with the form
\begin{align*}
q_\eps[\varphi]
&:= \big\langle
\partial_{x^\mu}\varphi,g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{x^\nu}\varphi
\rangle_{\sii(\Sigma)}
+ \eps^{-1} \langle
\varphi,\kappa\varphi
\rangle_{\sii(\Sigma)}
\,,
\\
\varphi \in \Dom(q_\eps) &:= W_0^{1,2}(\Sigma)
\,.
\end{align*}
The spectral numbers $\{\lambda(\eps)\}_{n=1}^\infty$ as defined above
can be fully characterised by the Rayleigh-Ritz variational
formula~\cite[Sec.~4.5]{Davies}
\begin{equation}\label{minimax}
\lambda_n(\eps) =
\inf_{\mathcal{L}_n}
\sup_{\psi \in \mathcal{L}_n}
\frac{Q_\eps[\psi]}{\ \|\psi\|_{\mathcal{H}_\eps}^2}
\,,
\end{equation}
where the infimum is taken over all $n$-dimensional subspaces
$\mathcal{L}_n\subset\Dom(Q_\eps)$.
An analogous formula holds for the spectral numbers
$\{\mu(\eps)\}_{n=1}^\infty$ of~$H_\eps$.
It follows from~\eqref{minimax} that the presence
of the multiplicative factor~$\eps$ in the weight of~$\mathcal{H}_\eps$
has no effect on the spectrum of~$-\Delta_\textit{DN}^{\Omega_\eps}$ .
Our strategy to prove Theorem~\ref{Thm.main} will be to show
that the forms~$Q_\eps$ and~$q_\eps$ are close to each other
in a sense as $\eps \to 0$.
Since the forms act on different Hilbert spaces,
this requires a suitable identification of~$\mathcal{H}_\eps$ with~$\sii(\Sigma)$.
First, notice that it follows from~\eqref{h.fomula} that~$\mathcal{H}_\eps$
(up to the irrelevant factor~$\eps$)
approaches the $\eps$-independent Hilbert space
$
\mathfrak{H} :=
\sii\big(\Sigma\times(0,1), d\Sigma \wedge dt\big)
$.
For this Hilbert space, we use the orthogonal-sum decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{direct}
\mathfrak{H} = \mathfrak{H}_1 \oplus \mathfrak{H}_1^\bot
\,,
\end{equation}
where the subspace~$\mathfrak{H}_1$ consists of functions~$\psi_1$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{psi1}
\psi_1(x,t) = \varphi(x) \chi_1(t)
\qquad \mbox{with} \qquad
\varphi \in \sii(\Sigma)
\,, \quad
\chi_1(t):=\sqrt{2} \sin\left(\pi t/2\right)
\,.
\end{equation}
Notice that~$\chi_1$ is the first eigenfunction of
the Laplacian on $\sii((0,1))$,
subject to the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary condition
at~$0$ and~$1$, respectively.
This operator has eigenvalues $\{(n\pi/2)^2\}_{n=1}^\infty$,
where the lowest one is of course related
to the leading term in~\eqref{expansion}.
Since~$\chi_1$ is normalised, we clearly have
$
\|\psi_1\|_{\mathfrak{H}}=\|\varphi\|_{\sii(\Sigma)}
$.
Given any $\psi\in\mathfrak{H}$, we have the decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{psi.decomposition}
\psi = \psi_1 + \psi_\bot
\qquad\mbox{with}\qquad
\psi_1 \in \mathfrak{H}_1, \ \psi_\bot\in \mathfrak{H}_1^\bot
\,,
\end{equation}
where~$\psi_1$ has the form~\eqref{psi1}
with $\varphi(x):=\int_0^1 \psi(x,t) \chi_1(t) \;\! dt$.
Note that $\psi_1,\psi_\bot\in\Dom(Q_\eps)$ if $\psi\in\Dom(Q_\eps)$.
The inclusion $\psi_\bot\in\mathfrak{H}_1^\bot$ means that
\begin{equation}\label{orth.identity1}
\int_0^1 \psi_\bot(x,t) \, \chi_1(x) \, dt = 0
\qquad\mbox{for a.e.}\quad x \in \Sigma
\,.
\end{equation}
If in addition $\psi_\bot \in \Dom(Q_\eps)$,
then one can differentiate the last identity to get
\begin{equation}\label{orth.identity2}
\int_0^1 \partial_{x^\mu}\psi_\bot(x,t) \, \chi_1(t) \, dt = 0
\qquad\mbox{for a.e.}\quad x \in \Sigma
\,.
\end{equation}
Since $\mathcal{H}_\eps$ and~$\mathfrak{H}$ can be identified
as vector spaces for any fixed~$\eps>0$,
the decomposition~\eqref{direct}
can be equally used for each function~$\psi \in \mathcal{H}_\eps$.
In view of the isomorphism
$
\sii(\Sigma)\ni\varphi \mapsto \psi_1 \in \mathfrak{H}_1
$,
we may think of~$H_\eps$ as acting on~$\mathfrak{H}_1$ as well.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{Thm.main}}\label{Sec.proof}
Expansion~\eqref{expansion} will follow as a consequence
of upper and lower bounds to~$\lambda_n(\eps)$
that have the same leading order terms in their asymptotics.
It is convenient to define the shifted form
$\tilde{Q}_\eps:=Q_\eps-\pi^2/(2\eps)^2$
and focus on the first non-trivial term~$\mu_n(\eps)$ in~\eqref{expansion}.
Let us decompose any $\psi \in \Dom(Q_\eps)$
according to~\eqref{psi.decomposition}.
A straightforward calculation employing an integration by parts yields
\begin{equation}\label{crucial}
\begin{aligned}
\|\partial_t\psi\|_{\mathcal{H}_\eps}^2
- \left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)^2 \|\psi\|_{\mathcal{H}_\eps}^2
=\ & \|\partial_t\psi_\bot\|_{\mathcal{H}_\eps}^2
- \left(\frac{\pi}{2}\right)^2 \|\psi_\bot\|_{\mathcal{H}_\eps}^2
- 2 \eps \, \Re \int \overline{\varphi}\, \chi_1' \,
\psi_\bot \, \partial_t h_\eps
\\
\ & + \frac{\eps}{2} \int |\varphi|^2 \, \chi_1^2 \, \partial_t^2 h_\eps
- \eps \int_\Sigma |\varphi|^2 \, \partial_t h_\eps |_{t=1}
\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here and in the sequel,
$\int$ and $\int_\Sigma$
abbreviate the integrals over~$\Sigma\times(0,1)$ and $\Sigma$
with the integration measures~$d\Sigma \wedge dt$ and $d\Sigma$, respectively,
and we do not write the variables on which the integrated functions depend.
Using~\eqref{h.fomula} and recalling that~$\chi_1$ is normalised,
we easily verify
\begin{equation}\label{varphi.estimates}
\begin{aligned}
\left|
\frac{1}{\eps^2} \int |\varphi|^2 \, \chi_1^2 \, \partial_t^2 h_\eps
\right|
\leq C \int_\Sigma |\varphi|^2
\,,
\\
\left|
- \frac{1}{\eps^2} \int_\Sigma |\varphi|^2 \, \partial_t h_\eps |_{t=1}
- \eps^{-1} \big\langle
\varphi,\kappa\varphi
\rangle_{\sii(\Sigma)}
\right|
\leq C \int_\Sigma |\varphi|^2
\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which reveals the source of the potential term of~\eqref{op.comparison}.
At the same time, using~\eqref{eq:metric_bound},
\begin{equation}\label{kinetic.estimates}
\begin{aligned}
\pm \, \eps^{-1} \big\langle
\partial_{x^\mu}\psi,G^{\mu\nu}\partial_{x^\nu}\psi
\big\rangle_{\mathcal{H}_\eps}
&\leq \pm (1 \pm C\eps) \,
\big\langle
\partial_{x^\mu}\psi,g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{x^\nu}\psi
\big\rangle_{\mathfrak{H}}
\,,
\\
\pm \, \eps^{-1} \|\psi\|_{\mathcal{H}_\eps}^2
&\leq \pm (1 \pm C\eps) \, \|\psi\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2
\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Here, by the normalisation of~$\chi_1$
and \eqref{orth.identity1}--\eqref{orth.identity2},
\begin{equation}\label{orth.identities}
\begin{aligned}
\big\langle
\partial_{x^\mu}\psi,g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{x^\nu}\psi
\big\rangle_{\mathfrak{H}}
&= \big\langle
\partial_{x^\mu}\varphi,g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{x^\nu}\varphi
\big\rangle_{\sii(\Sigma)}
+ \big\langle
\partial_{x^\mu}\psi_\bot,g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{x^\nu}\psi_\bot
\big\rangle_{\mathfrak{H}}
\,,
\\
\|\psi\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2
&= \|\varphi\|_{\sii(\Sigma)}^2 + \|\psi_\bot\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2
\,.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Upper bound}
Let us restrict the subspaces~$\mathcal{L}_n$ in the formula~\eqref{minimax}
to the decoupled functions~\eqref{psi1}, where $\varphi \in \Dom(q_\eps)$.
Using~\eqref{crucial}--\eqref{orth.identities} with $\psi_\bot=0$,
we get the upper bound
\begin{equation}\label{upper.pre}
\frac{\tilde{Q}_\eps[\psi_1]}{\ \|\psi_1\|_{\mathcal{H}_\eps}^2}
\leq \frac{(1+C\eps) \, q_\eps[\varphi]+C \, \|\varphi\|_{\sii(\Sigma)}^2}
{(1-C\eps) \, \|\varphi\|_{\sii(\Sigma)}^2}
\,,
\end{equation}
which yields
\begin{equation}\label{upper}
\lambda_n(\eps) - \left(\frac{\pi}{2\eps}\right)^2
\leq \frac{1+C\eps}{1-C\eps} \, \mu_n(\eps) + \frac{C}{1-C\eps}
\,.
\end{equation}
Observing that, for each~$n \geq 1$,
\begin{equation}\label{mu.bounds}
- \|\kappa\|_\infty \leq
\eps \, \nu_n - \|\kappa\|_\infty
\leq \eps \, \mu_n(\eps) \leq
\eps \, \nu_n + \|\kappa\|_\infty
\,,
\end{equation}
where~$\nu_n$ are the ``eigenvalues'' of~$-\Delta_g$ as defined by~\eqref{minimax},
we conclude from~\eqref{upper} the desired asymptotic upper bound
\begin{equation}\label{upper.final}
\lambda_n(\eps)
\leq \left(\frac{\pi}{2\eps}\right)^2 + \mu_n(\eps) + \mathcal{O}(1)
\qquad \mbox{as} \qquad \eps \to 0
\,.
\end{equation}
It is worth noticing that the constant~$C$ in~\eqref{upper}
does not depend on~$n$; a possible dependence of the constants
appearing in~$\mathcal{O}(1)$ enters through
the upper bound of~\eqref{mu.bounds} only.
\subsection{Lower bound}
As usual, lower bounds are more difficult to establish.
In our situation, we need to carefully
exploit the Hilbert-space decomposition~\eqref{direct}.
Since $\psi_\bot \in \mathfrak{H}_1^\bot$, we have
$
\int_0^1 |\partial_t \psi_\bot(x,t)|^2 \, dt
\geq \pi^2 \int_0^1 |\psi_\bot(x,t)|^2 \, dt
$
for a.e.\ $x \in \Sigma$. This Poincar\'e-type estimate
extends to~$\mathfrak{H}$ by Fubini's theorem.
Hence, using~\eqref{eq:metric_bound}
to estimate~$h_\eps$ in~$d\Omega_\eps$,
we get
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\|\partial_t\psi_\bot\|_{\mathcal{H}_\eps}^2
- \left(\frac{\pi}{2\eps}\right)^2 \|\psi_\bot\|_{\mathcal{H}_\eps}^2
\geq
\eps \left[
\left(\frac{3\pi^2}{4\eps^2}\right)
- C \left(\frac{5\pi^2}{4\eps}\right)
\right]
\|\psi_\bot\|_\mathfrak{H}^2
\geq
\eps \, \frac{c}{\eps^2} \, \|\psi_\bot\|_\mathfrak{H}^2
\,,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
where the second inequality holds with a positive constant~$c$
for all sufficiently small~$\eps$.
Using~\eqref{h.fomula} and the Young inequality,
the last term on the right hand side of~\eqref{crucial}
can be estimated as follows
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\eps^2} \left|
2 \, \Re \int \overline{\varphi}\, \chi_1' \,
\psi_\bot \, \partial_t h_\eps
\right|
& \leq \frac{C}{\eps} \,
2 \int |\varphi \, \chi_1' \,
\psi_\bot |
\leq
\frac{C^2}{\delta} \|\varphi \, \chi_1'\|_\mathfrak{H}^2
+ \frac{\delta}{\eps^2} \|\psi_\bot\|_\mathfrak{H}^2
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
with any positive~$\delta$.
Here
$
\|\varphi \, \chi_1'\|_\mathfrak{H}
= (\pi/2) \;\! \|\varphi\|_{\sii(\Sigma)}
$.
Choosing~$\delta$ sufficiently small
and using \eqref{crucial}--\eqref{orth.identities},
we thus get the lower bound
\begin{equation}\label{lower.pre}
\frac{\tilde{Q}_\eps[\psi]}{\ \|\psi\|_{\mathcal{H}_\eps}^2}
\geq \frac{(1-C\eps) \, q_\eps[\varphi]-C \, \|\varphi\|_{\sii(\Sigma)}^2
+c \, \eps^{-2} \;\! \|\psi_\bot\|_\mathfrak{H}^2}
{(1+C\eps) \, \big(\|\varphi\|_{\sii(\Sigma)}^2
+\|\psi_\bot\|_{\mathfrak{H}}^2\big)}
\,.
\end{equation}
Here the numerator is in fact the quadratic form of
an operator direct sum
$
T_\eps \oplus T_\eps^\bot
$
with respect to the decomposition~\eqref{direct},
where $T_\eps := (1-C\eps) \, H_\eps - C$
and $T_\eps^\bot := c \, \eps^{-2}$.
In view of~\eqref{mu.bounds}, the spectrum of~$T_\eps^\bot$
diverges faster as $\eps \to 0$ than that of~$T_\eps$.
This enables us to conclude from~\eqref{lower.pre}
with help of~\eqref{minimax} that for any $n \geq 1$
there exist $C,c$ such that for all $\eps \leq c$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{lower}
\lambda_n(\eps) - \left(\frac{\pi}{2\eps}\right)^2
\geq \frac{1-C\eps}{1+C\eps} \, \mu_n(\eps) - \frac{C}{1+C\eps}
\,.
\end{equation}
Using~\eqref{mu.bounds}, we conclude from~\eqref{lower}
the desired asymptotic lower bound
\begin{equation}\label{lower.final}
\lambda_n(\eps)
\geq \left(\frac{\pi}{2\eps}\right)^2 + \mu_n(\eps) + \mathcal{O}(1)
\qquad \mbox{as} \qquad \eps \to 0
\,.
\end{equation}
Combining~\eqref{lower.final} with~\eqref{upper.final},
we complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{Thm.main}.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
In \cite{MSS}, Muro, Schwede and Strickland proved that the category
of finitely generated free modules over a local commutative ring $R$
with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m} = (2) \neq 0$ and $\mathfrak{m}^2 = 0$ is triangulated
with $\Sigma = \id$, where the collection of distinguished triangles
is given by the contractible triangles, the triangle
\begin{equation*}
R \xrightarrow{2} R \xrightarrow{2} R \xrightarrow{2} R
\end{equation*}
and direct sums of these. Moreover, they proved that this particular
triangulated category is neither algebraic nor topological. For a
discussion on algebraic and topological triangulated categories, see
e.g.\ \cite{S1, S2, S3}.
Geiss, Keller and Oppermann recently introduced in \cite{GKO} ``higher
dimensional'' analogues of triangulated categories, called
\emph{$n$-angulated categories}, and showed that certain cluster
tilting subcategories of triangulated categories give rise to
$n$-angulated categories. For $n = 3$, an $n$-angulated category is
the same as a classical triangulated category. The theory of
$n$-angulated categories has since been developed further: an
equivalent set of axioms was given in \cite{BT1}, and a generalization
of Thomason's classification theorem for triangulated subcategories
was proved in \cite{BT2}.
In this paper, we show that for a commutative local ring with
principal maximal ideal squaring to zero, the category of finitely
generated free modules is $n$-angulated for every $n \geq 3$. More
precisely, for such a ring and any integer $n \geq 3$, we construct a
class of $n$-angles in the category of finitely generated free
modules, drawing upon the work of Muro, Schwede and Strickland
mentioned above. In fact, we construct several classes of $n$-angles
on the same suspended category, parametrized in terms of a certain
equivalence relation on the set of units in the local ring. The
different classes arise from global automorphisms on the underlying
category, introduced by Balmer in \cite{Balmer}. Thus we obtain
examples where there are infinitely many classes of $n$-angles,
finitely many classes, and only one class.
In \cite{J}, the second author introduced the notion of algebraic
$n$-angulated categories. In analogy with the case of triangulated
categories, these are the $n$-angulated categories that are equivalent
to stable categories of ``higher dimensional'' Frobenius exact
categories. We show that for certain local rings, the $n$-angulated
categories we construct are not algebraic. As mentioned above, this
was done in \cite{MSS} in the triangulated case, but there it was also
proved that the triangulated category in question is not even
topological. However, at the time of writing, there is no notion of
``topological'' $n$-angulated categories to compare with in the higher
setting.
\sloppy The paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{sec:pre} we
recall the definition of an $n$-angulated category and prove some
elementary results on homotopic $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences, and in Section
\ref{sec:example} we prove our main result. Then in Section
\ref{sec:properties}, we show that there are in general several
$n$-angulations on the underlying suspended category. Finally, in
Section \ref{sec:algebraic}, we show that for certain local rings, the
$n$-angulated categories we construct are not algebraic (for odd
values of $n$).
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:pre}
We recall the definition of an $n$-angulated category from \cite{GKO}.
Let $\mathscr{C}$ be an additive category with an automorphism $\Sigma \colon
\mathscr{C} \to \mathscr{C}$, and $n$ an integer greater than or equal to three. An
\emph{$n$-$\Sigma$-sequence} in $\mathscr{C}$ is a sequence
\begin{equation*}
A_1 \xrightarrow{\alpha_1} A_2 \xrightarrow{\alpha_2} \cdots
\xrightarrow{\alpha_{n - 1}} A_n \xrightarrow{\alpha_n} \Sigma A_1
\end{equation*}
of objects and morphisms in $\mathscr{C}$. We shall often denote such
sequences by $A_\bullet, B_\bullet$ etc. Its left and right
\emph{rotations} are the two $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences
\begin{equation*}
A_2 \xrightarrow{\alpha_2} A_3 \xrightarrow{\alpha_3} \cdots
\xrightarrow{\alpha_n} \Sigma A_1 \xrightarrow{(-1)^n
\Sigma\alpha_1} \Sigma A_2
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\Sigma^{-1}A_n \xrightarrow{(-1)^n \Sigma^{-1} \alpha_n} A_1
\xrightarrow{\alpha_1} \cdots \xrightarrow{\alpha_{n - 2}} A_{n - 1}
\xrightarrow{\alpha_{n - 1}} A_n
\end{equation*}
respectively, and it is \emph{exact} if the induced sequence
\begin{align*}
\cdots \to \Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(B,A_1) & \xrightarrow{(\alpha_1)_*}
\Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(B,A_2) \xrightarrow{(\alpha_2)_*} \cdots\\
& \cdots \xrightarrow{(\alpha_{n - 1})_*} \Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(B,A_n)
\xrightarrow{(\alpha_n)_*} \Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(B, \Sigma A_1) \to \cdots
\end{align*}
of abelian groups is exact for every object $B \in \mathscr{C}$. A
\emph{trivial} $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence is a sequence of the form
\begin{equation*}
A \xrightarrow{1} A \to 0 \to \cdots \to 0 \to \Sigma A
\end{equation*}
or any of its rotations.
A \emph{morphism} $A_{\bullet} \xrightarrow{\varphi} B_{\bullet}$ of
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences is a sequence $\varphi =
(\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\ldots,\varphi_n)$ of morphisms in $\mathscr{C}$ such that
the diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{2.5em}{
A_1 & A_2 & \cdots & A_n & \Sigma A_1\\
B_1 & B_2 & \cdots & B_n & \Sigma B_1\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_1$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$\alpha_2$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_2$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 1}$} (d-1-4)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_n$} (d-1-5)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_n$} (d-2-4)
(d-1-5) edge node[right]{$\Sigma\varphi_{1}$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$\beta_1$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$\beta_2$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 1}$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$\beta_n$} (d-2-5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
commutes. It is an \emph{isomorphism} if
$\varphi_1,\varphi_2,\ldots,\varphi_n$ are all isomorphisms in $\mathscr{C}$,
and a \emph{weak isomorphism} if $\varphi_i$ and $\varphi_{i+1}$ are
isomorphisms for some $i$ (with $\varphi_{n+1} \mathrel{\mathop:}= \Sigma
\varphi_1$).
The category $\mathscr{C}$ is \emph{pre-$n$-angulated} if there exists a
collection $\mathscr{N}$ of $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences satisfying the following
three axioms:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\textbf{(N1)}}]
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $\mathscr{N}$ is closed under direct sums, direct summands and
isomorphisms of $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences.
\item[(b)] For all $A \in \mathscr{C}$, the trivial $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence
\begin{equation*}
A \xrightarrow{1} A \to 0 \to \cdots \to 0 \to \Sigma A
\end{equation*}
belongs to $\mathscr{N}$.
\item[(c)] For each morphism $\alpha \colon A_1 \to A_2$ in $\mathscr{C}$,
there exists an $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence in $\mathscr{N}$ whose first
morphism is $\alpha$.
\end{itemize}
\item[{\textbf{(N2)}}] An $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence belongs to $\mathscr{N}$ if
and only if its left rotation belongs to $\mathscr{N}$.
\item[{\textbf{(N3)}}] Each commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{2.5em}{
A_1 & A_2 & A_3 & \cdots & A_n & \Sigma A_1\\
B_1 & B_2 & B_3 & \cdots & B_n & \Sigma B_1\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_1$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$\alpha_2$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_2$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_3$} (d-1-4)
edge[densely dashed] node[right]{$\varphi_3$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 1}$} (d-1-5)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$\alpha_n$} (d-1-6)
edge[densely dashed] node[right]{$\varphi_n$} (d-2-5)
(d-1-6) edge node[right]{$\Sigma\varphi_{1}$} (d-2-6)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$\beta_1$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$\beta_2$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\beta_3$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 1}$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$\beta_n$} (d-2-6);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
with rows in $\mathscr{N}$ can be completed to a morphism of
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences.
\end{itemize}
The collection $\mathscr{N}$ satisfying the above three axioms is a
\emph{pre-$n$-angulation} of the category $\mathscr{C}$ (relative to the
automorphism $\Sigma$), and the $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences in $\mathscr{N}$ are
called \emph{$n$-angles}. If, in addition, the collection $\mathscr{N}$
satisfies the following axiom, then it is an \emph{$n$-angulation} of
$\mathscr{C}$, and the category is \emph{$n$-angulated}:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\textbf{(N4)}}] In the situation of (N3), the morphisms
$\varphi_3,\varphi_4,\ldots,\varphi_n$ can be chosen such that the
mapping cone
\begin{equation*}
A_2 \oplus B_1 \xrightarrow{\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_2 & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_2 & \beta_1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]} A_3 \oplus B_2 \xrightarrow{\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_3 & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_3 & \beta_2
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]} \cdots \xrightarrow{\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_n & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_n & \beta_{n - 1}
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]} \Sigma A_1 \oplus B_n \xrightarrow{\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\Sigma \alpha_1 & 0\\
\hfill \Sigma \varphi_1 & \beta_n
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]} \Sigma A_2 \oplus \Sigma B_1
\end{equation*}
belongs to $\mathscr{N}$.
\end{itemize}
\sloppy To be precise, one should include all the data when referring
to a (pre-)$n$-angulated category, and therefore write $(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma,
\mathscr{N})$. Note that by \cite[Proposition 1.5(c)]{GKO}, if $(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma,
\mathscr{N}_1)$ and $(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma, \mathscr{N}_2)$ are pre-$n$-angulated categories
(with the same underlying category $\mathscr{C}$ and automorphism $\Sigma$)
with $\mathscr{N}_1 \subseteq \mathscr{N}_2$, then the pre-$n$-angulations must
actually coincide, i.e.\ $\mathscr{N}_1 = \mathscr{N}_2$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:homotopy}
Let $A_\bullet$ and $B_\bullet$ be two $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences and
$\varphi$ and $\psi$ two morphisms from $A_\bullet$ to $B_\bullet$.
A \emph{homotopy} $\Theta$ from $\varphi$ to $\psi$ is given by
diagonal morphisms $\Theta_i$
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{3.5em}{4em}{
A_1 & A_2 & A_3 & \cdots & A_n & \Sigma A_1\\
B_1 & B_2 & B_3 & \cdots & B_n & \Sigma B_1\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-1-2)
([xshift=-1mm] d-1-1.south) edge node[left]{$\varphi_1$}
([xshift=-1mm] d-2-1.north)
([xshift=1mm] d-1-1.south) edge node[right]{$\psi_1$}
([xshift=1mm] d-2-1.north)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$\alpha_2$} (d-1-3)
edge node[above left]{$\Theta_1$} (d-2-1)
([xshift=-1mm] d-1-2.south) edge node[left]{$\varphi_2$}
([xshift=-1mm] d-2-2.north)
([xshift=1mm] d-1-2.south) edge node[right]{$\psi_2$}
([xshift=1mm] d-2-2.north)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_3$} (d-1-4)
edge node[above left]{$\Theta_2$} (d-2-2)
([xshift=-1mm] d-1-3.south) edge node[left]{$\varphi_3$}
([xshift=-1mm] d-2-3.north)
([xshift=1mm] d-1-3.south) edge node[right]{$\psi_3$}
([xshift=1mm] d-2-3.north)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 1}$} (d-1-5)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$\alpha_n$} (d-1-6)
([xshift=-1mm] d-1-5.south) edge node[left]{$\varphi_n$}
([xshift=-1mm] d-2-5.north)
([xshift=1mm] d-1-5.south) edge node[right]{$\psi_n$}
([xshift=1mm] d-2-5.north)
(d-1-6) edge node[above left]{$\Theta_n$} (d-2-5)
([xshift=-1mm] d-1-6.south) edge node[left]{$\Sigma\varphi_1$}
([xshift=-1mm] d-2-6.north)
([xshift=1mm] d-1-6.south) edge node[right]{$\Sigma\psi_1$}
([xshift=1mm] d-2-6.north)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$\beta_1$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$\beta_2$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\beta_3$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 1}$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$\beta_n$} (d-2-6);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
such that
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_i - \psi_i = \Theta_i \circ \alpha_i + \beta_{i - 1} \circ
\Theta_{i - 1} \quad \text{for} \quad i = 2,3,\ldots,n,
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\Sigma \varphi_1 - \Sigma \psi_1 = \Sigma\Theta_1 \circ \Sigma
\alpha_1 + \beta_n \circ \Theta_n.
\end{equation*}
In this case, we say that $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are
\emph{homotopic}. A morphism homotopic to the zero morphism is
called \emph{nullhomotopic}; an $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence is
\emph{contractible} if its identity morphism is nullhomotopic.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:homotopic}
\emph{(1)} Any morphism to or from a contractible
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequence is nullhomotopic.
\emph{(2)} Homotopic morphisms of $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences have
isomorphic mapping cones.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1) This is standard: if $A_\bullet \xrightarrow{f} B_\bullet,
B_\bullet \xrightarrow{\varphi} C_\bullet, B_\bullet
\xrightarrow{\psi} C_\bullet, C_\bullet \xrightarrow{g} D_\bullet$
are morphisms of $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences with $\varphi$ and $\psi$
homotopic, then $g \circ \varphi \circ f$ and $g \circ \psi \circ f$
are homotopic.
(2) We use the notation from the definition above. The diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{3em}{4.75em}{
A_2 \oplus B_1 & A_3 \oplus B_2 & \cdots & \Sigma A_1 \oplus
B_n & \Sigma A_2 \oplus \Sigma B_1\\
A_2 \oplus B_1 & A_3 \oplus B_2 & \cdots & \Sigma A_1 \oplus
B_n & \Sigma A_2 \oplus \Sigma B_1\\
A_2 \oplus B_1 & A_3 \oplus B_2 & \cdots & \Sigma A_1 \oplus
B_n & \Sigma A_2 \oplus \Sigma B_1\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_2 & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_2 & \beta_1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
\Theta_1 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_3 & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_3 & \beta_2
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
\Theta_2 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_n & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_n & \beta_{n - 1}
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-1-4)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\Sigma\alpha_1 & 0\\
\hfill \Sigma\varphi_1 & \beta_n
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-1-5)
edge node[right]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
\Theta_n & 1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-4)
(d-1-5) edge node[right]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
\Sigma\Theta_1 & 0
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_2 & 0\\
\hfill \psi_2 & \beta_1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-2)
edge node[right]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
-\Theta_1 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-3-1)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_3 & 0\\
\hfill \psi_3 & \beta_2
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-3)
edge node[right]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
-\Theta_2 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-3-2)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_n & 0\\
\hfill \psi_n & \beta_{n - 1}
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\Sigma\alpha_1 & 0\\
\hfill \Sigma\psi_1 & \beta_n
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-5)
edge node[right]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
-\Theta_n & 1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-3-4)
(d-2-5) edge node[right]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
-\Sigma\Theta_1 & 0
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-3-5)
(d-3-1) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_2 & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_2 & \beta_1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-3-2)
(d-3-2) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_3 & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_3 & \beta_2
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-3-3)
(d-3-3) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_n & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_n & \beta_{n - 1}
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-3-4)
(d-3-4) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\Sigma\alpha_1 & 0\\
\hfill \Sigma\varphi_1 & \beta_n
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-3-5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
displays inverse isomorphisms between the two mapping cones of
$\varphi$ and $\psi$.
\end{proof}
By \cite[Proposition 1.5(a)]{GKO}, any $n$-angle
\begin{equation*}
A_1 \xrightarrow{\alpha_1} A_2 \xrightarrow{\alpha_2} \cdots
\xrightarrow{\alpha_{n - 1}} A_n \xrightarrow{\alpha_n} \Sigma A_1
\end{equation*}
in a pre-$n$-angulated category $\mathscr{C}$ is necessarily exact, so that
when applying $\Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(B,-)$ for any object $B$, the result is a
long exact sequence of abelian groups. Consequently, the compositions
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_2 \circ \alpha_1, \hspace{2mm} \alpha_3 \circ \alpha_2,\dots,
\alpha_n \circ \alpha_{n - 1}, \hspace{2mm} \Sigma \alpha_1 \circ
\alpha_n
\end{equation*}
are all zero morphisms in $\mathscr{C}$. We call an $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence with
this last property a \emph{candidate $n$-angle}. Thus, exact
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences are candidate $n$-angles. The converse is of
course not true in general, but the following result shows that it
holds for contractible candidate $n$-angles. Moreover, the result
shows that contractible candidate $n$-angles and mapping cones of
isomorphisms automatically belong to \emph{any} pre-$n$-angulation of
the category. For triangulated categories, these results were proved
in \cite[Lemma 1.3.7 and Proposition 1.3.8]{N} and \cite[pp.\
231--232]{N1}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:contractible}
If $(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma, \mathscr{N})$ is a pre-$n$-angulated category and
$A_\bullet$ a candidate $n$-angle in $\mathscr{C}$, then the following hold.
(1) If $A_\bullet$ is contractible, then it is exact and belongs to $\mathscr{N}$.
(2) If $\varphi \colon A_\bullet \to A_\bullet$ is an isomorphism of
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences, then its mapping cone is contractible (and
therefore belongs to $\mathscr{N}$ by (1)).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
(1) Since $A_\bullet$ is contractible, its identity morphism is
homotopic to the zero morphism. Thus there exist diagonal morphisms
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{3em}{4em}{
A_1 & A_2 & A_3 & \cdots & A_n & \Sigma A_1\\
A_1 & A_2 & A_3 & \cdots & A_n & \Sigma A_1\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-1-2)
edge node[left]{$1$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$\alpha_2$} (d-1-3)
edge node[above left]{$\Theta_1$} (d-2-1)
edge node[left]{$1$} (d-2-2.north)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_3$} (d-1-4)
edge node[above left]{$\Theta_2$} (d-2-2)
edge node[left]{$1$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 1}$} (d-1-5)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$\alpha_n$} (d-1-6)
edge node[left]{$1$} (d-2-5)
(d-1-6) edge node[above left]{$\Theta_n$} (d-2-5)
edge node[left]{$1$} (d-2-6)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$\alpha_2$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_3$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 1}$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$\alpha_n$} (d-2-6);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
in $\mathscr{C}$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
1_{A_i} = \Theta_i \circ \alpha_i + \alpha_{i - 1} \circ
\Theta_{i - 1} \quad \text{for} \quad i = 2,3,\ldots,n,
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
1_{\Sigma A_1} = \Sigma\Theta_1 \circ \Sigma
\alpha_1 + \alpha_n \circ \Theta_n.
\end{equation*}
If $B$ is any object in $\mathscr{C}$, then applying $\Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(B,-)$ to
$A_\bullet$ gives a complex $\Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(B, A_\bullet )$ of abelian
groups, since $A_\bullet$ is a candidate $n$-angle. Moreover, this
complex is contractible, as is seen directly by applying
$\Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(B,-)$ to the contracting homotopy above. The complex
$\Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(B, A_\bullet )$ is therefore exact (every contractible
complex of abelian groups is exact), hence $A_\bullet$ is exact.
Next, we show that $A_\bullet$ is an $n$-angle, i.e.\ that
$A_\bullet \in \mathscr{N}$. For $n=3$, that is, when $\mathscr{C}$ is a
pre-triangulated category, this is just \cite[Proposition
1.3.8]{N}. Therefore we may assume that $n \geq 4$.
By axiom (N1)(c), there exists an $n$-angle
\begin{equation*}
B_\bullet\colon \quad A_1 \xrightarrow{\alpha_1} A_2
\xrightarrow{\beta_2} B_3 \xrightarrow{\beta_3} \cdots
\xrightarrow{\beta_{n - 1}} B_n \xrightarrow{\beta_n} \Sigma A_1
\end{equation*}
whose first morphism is $\alpha_1$. Using the contracting homotopy
above, we shall complete the solid part of the diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{2.5em}{
A_1 & A_2 & A_3 & \cdots & A_n & \Sigma A_1\\
A_1 & A_2 & B_3 & \cdots & B_n & \Sigma A_1\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$\alpha_2$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_3$} (d-1-4)
edge[densely dashed] node[right]{$\varphi_3$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 1}$} (d-1-5)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$\alpha_n$} (d-1-6)
edge[densely dashed] node[right]{$\varphi_n$} (d-2-5)
(d-1-6) edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-6.north)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$\beta_2$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\beta_3$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 1}$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$\beta_n$} (d-2-6);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
to a morphism $(1,1, \varphi_3, \dots, \varphi_n)$ of
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences, a weak isomorphism. Then since $B_\bullet$
is an $n$-angle and $A_\bullet$ is exact, the latter must also be an
$n$-angle by \cite[Lemma 1.4]{GKO}.
We start with the two morphisms $\varphi_3$ and $\varphi_n$. Define
$\varphi_3$ by
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_3 \mathrel{\mathop:}= \beta_2 \circ \Theta_2.
\end{equation*}
Then
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_3 \circ \alpha_2 = \beta_2 \circ \Theta_2 \circ \alpha_2 =
\beta_2 \circ ( 1_{A_2} - \alpha_1 \circ \Theta_1) = \beta_2
\end{equation*}
since $\beta_2 \circ \alpha_1 =0$, hence the second square from the
left commutes. To define $\varphi_n$, we use the exactness of
\begin{equation*}
\Hom_{\mathscr{C}}( \Sigma A_1, B_n) \xrightarrow{(\beta_n)_*} \Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(
\Sigma A_1, \Sigma A_1) \xrightarrow{(\Sigma \alpha_1)_*}
\Hom_{\mathscr{C}}( \Sigma A_1, \Sigma A_2)
\end{equation*}
which follows from \cite[Proposition 1.5(a)]{GKO} and the fact that
$B_\bullet$ is an $n$-angle. Consider the morphism $\alpha_n \circ
\Theta_n$ in $\Hom_{\mathscr{C}}( \Sigma A_1, \Sigma A_1)$. When applying
$(\Sigma \alpha_1)_*$ to this morphism, the result is zero since
$\Sigma \alpha_1 \circ \alpha_n =0$. Therefore, by the exactness of
the above sequence, there exists a morphism $\Theta \in \Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(
\Sigma A_1, B_n)$ with $\beta_n \circ \Theta = \alpha_n \circ
\Theta_n$. Now define $\varphi_n$ by
\begin{equation*}
\varphi_n \mathrel{\mathop:}= \Theta \circ \alpha_n.
\end{equation*}
Then
\begin{equation*}
\beta_n \circ \varphi_n = \beta_n \circ \Theta \circ \alpha_n =
\alpha_n \circ \Theta_n \circ \alpha_n = (1_{\Sigma A_1} - \Sigma
\Theta_1 \circ \Sigma \alpha_1 ) \circ \alpha_n = \alpha_n
\end{equation*}
since $\Sigma \alpha_1 \circ \alpha_n$, hence the rightmost square
commutes.
Since $\beta_3 \circ \beta_2 =0$, it follows from the definition of
$\varphi_3$ that $\beta_3 \circ \varphi_3 =0$. Similarly, since
$\alpha_n \circ \alpha_{n - 1} =0$, it follows from the definition of
$\varphi_n$ that $\varphi_n \circ \alpha_{n - 1} =0$. Therefore, if
$n=4$, we have obtained a morphism $(1,1, \varphi_3, \varphi_4)$ of
$4$-$\Sigma$-sequences. If $n \geq 5$, we let $\varphi_4, \dots,
\varphi_{n - 1}$ all be zero morphisms: in this case $(1,1, \varphi_3,
0, \dots, 0, \varphi_n)$ is a morphism of $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences.
(2) The mapping cone of $\varphi$ is the $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence
\begin{equation*}
A_2 \oplus A_1 \xrightarrow{\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_2 & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_2 & \alpha_1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]} A_3 \oplus A_2 \xrightarrow{\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_3 & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_3 & \alpha_2
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]} \cdots \xrightarrow{\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_n & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_n & \alpha_{n - 1}
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]} \Sigma A_1 \oplus A_n \xrightarrow{\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\Sigma \alpha_1 & 0\\
\hfill \Sigma \varphi_1 & \alpha_n
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]} \Sigma A_2 \oplus \Sigma A_1
\end{equation*}
which is easily seen to be a candidate $n$-angle. The diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{4em}{5em}{
A_2 \oplus A_1 & A_3 \oplus A_2 & \cdots & \Sigma A_1 \oplus
A_n & \Sigma A_2 \oplus \Sigma A_1\\
A_2 \oplus A_1 & A_3 \oplus A_2 & \cdots & \Sigma A_1 \oplus
A_n & \Sigma A_2 \oplus \Sigma A_1\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
- \alpha_2 & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_2 & \alpha_1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
- \alpha_3 & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_3 & \alpha_2
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-2.south west) edge node[yshift=-3pt, above left]{$M_2$}
(d-2-1.north east)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
- \alpha_n & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_n & \alpha_{n-1}
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-1-4)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
- \Sigma \alpha_1 & 0\\
\hfill \Sigma \varphi_1 & \alpha_n
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-1-5)
edge node[right]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-4)
(d-1-5) edge node[right]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-5)
(d-1-5.south west) edge node[yshift=-3pt,above left]{$M_1$}
(d-2-4.north east)
(d-2-1) edge node[xshift=2pt, above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
- \alpha_2 & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_2 & \alpha_1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
- \alpha_3 & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_3 & \alpha_2
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
- \alpha_n & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_n & \alpha_{n-1}
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[xshift=4pt, above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
- \Sigma \alpha_1 & 0\\
\hfill \Sigma \varphi_1 & \alpha_n
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
with
\begin{equation*}
M_1 = \left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
0 & \Sigma \varphi_1^{-1} \\
\hfill 0 & 0
\end{smallmatrix}
\right], \hspace{7mm} M_i = \left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
0 & \varphi_i^{-1} \\
\hfill 0 & 0
\end{smallmatrix}
\right] \text{ for } 2 \le i \leq n
\end{equation*}
displays a contracting homotopy.
\end{proof}
The first part of the lemma shows that when one defines a collection
of $n$-angles in a category, in order to endow it with the structure
of a (pre-)$n$-angulated category, then one must include all the
contractible candidate $n$-angles.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:Neeman}
It is easily seen that a direct sum of contractible
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences is again contractible, as is any trivial
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequence. Consequently, a direct sum of trivial
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences is contractible. The converse holds if
idempotents split in the category: in this case every contractible
candidate $n$-angle is automatically a direct sum of trivial
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences. Namely, if
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{3em}{3.4em}{
A_1 & A_2 & A_3 & \cdots & A_n & \Sigma A_1\\
A_1 & A_2 & A_3 & \cdots & A_n & \Sigma A_1\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-1-2)
edge node[left]{$1$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$\alpha_2$} (d-1-3)
edge node[above left]{$\Theta_1$} (d-2-1)
edge node[left]{$1$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_3$} (d-1-4)
edge node[above left]{$\Theta_2$} (d-2-2)
edge node[left]{$1$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 1}$} (d-1-5)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$\alpha_n$} (d-1-6)
edge node[left]{$1$} (d-2-5)
(d-1-6) edge node[above left]{$\Theta_n$} (d-2-5)
edge node[left]{$1$} (d-2-6)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$\alpha_2$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_3$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 1}$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$\alpha_n$} (d-2-6);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
is a contracting homotopy on a candidate $n$-angle $A_\bullet$, then
the equalities
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
1_{A_2} & = & (\Theta_2 \circ \alpha_2) + ( \alpha_1 \circ
\Theta_1)\\
& \vdots &\\
1_{A_n} & = & (\Theta_n \circ \alpha_n) + ( \alpha_{n - 1} \circ
\Theta_{n - 1})\\
1_{\Sigma A_1} & = & (\Sigma\Theta_1 \circ \Sigma \alpha_1) + (
\alpha_n \circ \Theta_n)
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
are idempotent decompositions of the identity morphisms on the
objects. The result is a decomposition of the candidate $n$-angle
into a sum of trivial $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences. However, if it is not
the case that all the idempotents split in the category, then a
contractible candidate $n$-angle need not be a direct sum of trivial
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences.
\end{remark}
\section{Higher $n$-angulations}
\label{sec:example}
In this section we prove our main result: for a commutative local ring
with principal maximal ideal squaring to zero, the category of
finitely generated free modules is $n$-angulated for every $n \geq
3$. The construction of the class of $n$-angles is based on that of a
triangulated category without models in \cite{MSS}, and for odd $n$ we
need the same restrictions on the ring as in that paper. However, for
even $n$ our construction is much more general.
We now fix some notation.
\begin{notation}
(1) Let $R$ be a commutative local ring with a principal nonzero
maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m} =(p)$ satisfying $\mathfrak{m}^2 =0$.
(2) Let $\mathscr{C}$ be the category of finitely generated free $R$-modules,
and $\Sigma \colon \mathscr{C} \to \mathscr{C}$ the identity functor.
(3) Given a free module $F \in \mathscr{C}$, denote by $F(p)_{\bullet}$ the
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequence
\begin{equation*}
F \xrightarrow{p} F \xrightarrow{p} \cdots \xrightarrow{p} F
\xrightarrow{p} \Sigma F
\end{equation*}
in which the maps are just multiplication with the element $p \in R$.
(4) Let $\mathscr{N}$ be the collection of all $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences in
$\mathscr{C}$ isomorphic to a direct sum of the form $C_{\bullet} \oplus
F(p)_{\bullet}$, where $C_{\bullet}$ is a contractible candidate
$n$-angle in $\mathscr{C}$ and $F$ is a free module in $\mathscr{C}$.
\end{notation}
Two standard examples of such a local ring are $\mathbb{Z}/(q^2)$ for a prime
number $q$, and $k[x]/(x+a)^2$ for a field $k$ and any element
$a \in k$. More generally, if $A$ is an integral domain of Krull
dimension one, and $q \in A$ is a prime element, then the ring
$R = A/(q^2)$ satisfies our assumptions.
We now collect some facts about our ring $R$ and its category $\mathscr{C}$ of
finitely generated free modules.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:facts}
(1) Let $a$ be an element of $R$. If $a \notin \mathfrak{m}$ then the element
is a unit. If $a \in \mathfrak{m}$ then $a = pb$ for some element $b \in
R$. Now, either $b$ is a unit, or $b \in \mathfrak{m}$, in which case $a=0$
since $\mathfrak{m}^2 =0$. Consequently, an element of $R$ is either zero, a
unit or of the form $up$ for some unit $u$.
(2) The ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ is the only non-trivial ideal of
$R$. Consequently, the ring has Krull dimension zero, and the
finitely generated $R$-modules have finite length. Moreover, by
applying the Baer Criterion it is easily seen that $R$ is
selfinjective.
(3) Suppose $F_1 \xrightarrow{\alpha} F_2$ is an $R$-homomorphism
between finitely generated free $R$-modules $F_1$ and $F_2$ of ranks
$t_1$ and $t_2$, say. Then $\alpha$ is given by a $t_2 \times t_1$
matrix $(a_{ij})$ with entries in $R$. Performing appropriate row
and column operations on this matrix gives a new matrix of the form
\begin{equation*}
\begin{bmatrix}
pI_u & 0 & 0\\
0 & I_v & 0\\
0 & 0 & Z
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
where $I_u$ and $I_v$ are $u \times u$ and $v \times v$ identity
matrices, and $Z$ is a zero matrix of size $(t_2-u-v) \times
(t_1-u-v)$. Consequently, the map $\alpha$ is isomorphic to the
decomposition
\begin{equation*}
F \oplus G \oplus H_1 \xrightarrow{
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
p & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]}
F \oplus G \oplus H_2
\end{equation*}
for some free $R$-modules $F,G,H_1,H_2$, with $F_1 \simeq F \oplus G
\oplus H_1$ and $F_2 \simeq F \oplus G \oplus H_2$. More precisely,
there exists a commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{3em}{
F_1 & F_2\\
F \oplus G \oplus H_1 & F \oplus G \oplus H_2\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$\alpha$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_1$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[right]{$\varphi_2$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
p & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
in $\mathscr{C}$, in which the vertical maps $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ are
isomorphisms.
(4) If $F$ is a free $R$-module of rank $t$, say, then the
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequence $F(p)_{\bullet}$ in $\mathscr{C}$ is just the direct
sum of $t$ copies of the $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence
\begin{equation*}
R \xrightarrow{p} R \xrightarrow{p} \cdots
\xrightarrow{p} R \xrightarrow{p} \Sigma R
\end{equation*}
i.e.\ $R(p)_{\bullet}$.
(5) The idempotents in the category $\mathscr{C}$ split, hence the
contractible candidate $n$-angles in $\mathscr{C}$ are precisely
the direct sums of trivial $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences (cf.\ Remark
\ref{rem:Neeman}).
(6) Contractible candidate $n$-angles in $\mathscr{C}$ are in
particular exact sequences of free modules, and so are all the
sequences of the form $F(p)_{\bullet}$. Hence every
$n$-angle in $\mathscr{N}$ is exact (and periodic) when viewed as
a sequence of free modules.
(7) The collection $\mathscr{N}$ of $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences in $\mathscr{C}$ depends
on the integer $n$, so one should perhaps be more precise and write
$\mathscr{N}(n)$. However, we will not do this. Also, since the functor
$\Sigma \colon \mathscr{C} \to \mathscr{C}$ is just the identity functor on $\mathscr{C}$, it
may seem a bit superfluous to display it in the
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences. We have chosen to do so because it makes the
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences look more natural.
\end{remark}
We shall now prove that the triple $(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma, \mathscr{N})$ is an
$n$-angulated category for every $n \geq 3$. For odd $n$, we need the
additional assumption that $2p=0$ in $R$, but not for even $n$. We
divide the proof into three steps: axiom (N1), axiom (N2) and axiom
(N3)/(N4).
\begin{proposition}[Axiom (N1)]
\label{prop:N1}
For every $n \geq 3$, the collection $\mathscr{N}$ is closed under direct
sums, direct summands and isomorphisms. Furthermore, it contains all
the trivial $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences, and every morphism in $\mathscr{C}$ is
the first morphism of an $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence in $\mathscr{N}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The collection $\mathscr{N}$ is by definition closed under isomorphisms,
and it contains all the trivial $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences since these
are contractible. The direct sum of two contractible
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences is again contractible, and if $F,G$ are two
free modules, then the $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence $F(p)_{\bullet} \oplus
G(p)_{\bullet}$ equals $(F \oplus G)(p)_{\bullet}$. Hence $\mathscr{N}$ is
closed under direct sums.
Next we show that $\mathscr{N}$ is closed under direct summands. Let
\begin{equation*}
A_{\bullet} \colon \quad A_1 \xrightarrow{\alpha_1} A_2
\xrightarrow{\alpha_2} \cdots \xrightarrow{\alpha_{n - 1}} A_n
\xrightarrow{\alpha_n} \Sigma A_1
\end{equation*}
be a nonzero direct summand of an $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence in
$\mathscr{N}$. If the map $\alpha_1$ is not minimal, i.e.\ if
$\Im \alpha_1 \not\subseteq \mathfrak{m} A_2$, then its matrix must contain a
unit. Remark \ref{rem:facts}(3) then gives the first square in the
commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{3em}{
A_1 & A_2 & A_3 & \cdots & A_n & \Sigma A_1\\
R \oplus A'_1 & R \oplus A'_2 & A_3 & \cdots & A_n & \Sigma R
\oplus \Sigma A'_1\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_1$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$\alpha_2$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_2$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_3$} (d-1-4)
edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 1}$} (d-1-5)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$\alpha_n$} (d-1-6)
edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-5)
(d-1-6) edge node[right]{$\Sigma \varphi_1$} (d-2-6)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & \alpha'_1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
\alpha'_2 & \alpha''_2
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_3$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 1}$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
\alpha'_n\\
\alpha''_n
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]$} (d-2-6);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
whose vertical maps $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ are isomorphisms,
and where
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{r@{\ }c@{\ }l}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
\alpha'_2 & \alpha''_2 \\
\end{smallmatrix}
\right] & = & \alpha_2 \circ \varphi_2^{-1} \\
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
\alpha'_n \\
\alpha''_n
\end{smallmatrix}
\right] & = & \Sigma \varphi_1 \circ \alpha_n.
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
This is an isomorphism of $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences, and so since
$A_{\bullet}$ is a periodic exact sequence of free modules (being a
summand of one), so is the bottom sequence. Therefore the maps
$\alpha'_2$ and $\alpha'_n$ are zero, and the trivial
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequence on $R$, which belongs to $\mathscr{N}$, splits
off. Consequently, we may assume that all the maps in $A_{\bullet}$
are minimal.
Since $A_{\bullet}$ is a complex of free modules, the exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \to R/ \mathfrak{m} \xrightarrow{p} R \to R/ \mathfrak{m} \to 0
\end{equation*}
induces an exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \to R/ \mathfrak{m} \otimes_R A_{\bullet} \to A_{\bullet} \to R/ \mathfrak{m}
\otimes_R A_{\bullet} \to 0
\end{equation*}
of complexes. The exactness of $A_{\bullet}$ then gives isomorphisms
$H_i( R/ \mathfrak{m} \otimes_R A_{\bullet} ) \simeq H_{i+1}( R/ \mathfrak{m} \otimes_R
A_{\bullet})$ of homology for all $i$, and so since the maps in
$A_{\bullet}$ are minimal we see that the free modules $A_1, \dots,
A_n$ are all of the same rank. Combining this (and the minimality of
the maps in $A_{\bullet}$) with Remark \ref{rem:facts}(3), we see that
$A_{\bullet}$ is isomorphic to $F(p)_{\bullet}$ for some free module
$F$. This shows that $A_\bullet$ belongs to the collection $\mathscr{N}$.
It remains to show that every morphism
$A_1 \xrightarrow{\alpha} A_2$ in $\mathscr{C}$ is the first morphism of an
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequence in $\mathscr{N}$. But this is easy: by Remark
\ref{rem:facts}(3) again, the map $\alpha$ is isomorphic to a map
\begin{equation*}
F \oplus G \oplus H_1 \xrightarrow{\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
p & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]}
F \oplus G \oplus H_2
\end{equation*}
in $\mathscr{C}$. This map is the first in the $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence which
is the direct sum of $F(p)_\bullet$ and three trivial
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences involving the modules $G, H_1$ and $H_2$.
\end{proof}
Next we show that axiom (N2) holds. Here we need the additional
assumption that $2p = 0$ in $R$ when $n$ is odd; this was not needed for
axiom (N1) to hold. To see why we need this extra assumption for odd
$n$, consider the triangulated case (i.e.\ $n=3$) and the
$3$-$\Sigma$-sequence
\begin{equation*}
R(p)_\bullet \colon \quad R \xrightarrow{p} R \xrightarrow{p} R
\xrightarrow{p} \Sigma R
\end{equation*}
in $\mathscr{N}$. Its left rotation is the $3$-$\Sigma$-sequence
\begin{equation*}
R \xrightarrow{p} R \xrightarrow{p} \Sigma R \xrightarrow{-p} \Sigma
R
\end{equation*}
and if this is to belong to $\mathscr{N}$ then it is easily seen that it
must be isomorphic to $R(p)_\bullet$. If
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{2.5em}{
R & R & R & \Sigma R\\
R & R & \Sigma R & \Sigma R\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$u$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$v$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-4)
edge node[right]{$w$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[right]{$\Sigma u$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$-p$} (d-2-4);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
is an isomorphism, then the elements $u,v$ and $w$ are units in $R$,
and commutativity of the three squares (from left to right) gives
\begin{equation*}
p = u^{-1}pv = u^{-1}pw = u^{-1}(-p) \Sigma u.
\end{equation*}
Since $\Sigma$ is the identity functor, we see that $p = -p$. This
argument can easily be generalized to all odd $n$.
A natural question arises: could the extra assumption be removed if we
just \emph{defined} the collection $\mathscr{N}$ to contain the left
rotation of the $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence $R(p)_\bullet$ whenever $n$ is
odd? Note that for even $n$ this is irrelevant: in this case
$R(p)_\bullet$ equals its left rotation, since there is no change of
sign. However, for odd $n$ the answer is no: we would still need the
assumption that $2p=0$ in $R$. To see why, consider again the case
$n=3$, and suppose that both $R(p)_\bullet$ and its left rotation
belong to $\mathscr{N}$. Then by axiom (N3), we can complete the solid part
of the diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{2.5em}{
R & R & R & \Sigma R\\
R & R & \Sigma R & \Sigma R\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-4)
edge[densely dashed] node[right]{$w$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$-p$} (d-2-4);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
to a morphism of $3$-$\Sigma$-sequences. The same argument as above
then forces $p$ and $-p$ to be equal in $R$, and this can also be
generalized to all odd $n$.
\begin{proposition}[Axiom (N2)]
\label{prop:N2}
Suppose that $n\geq 3$ is an integer, and that $2p=0$ in $R$
whenever $n$ is odd. Then an $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence belongs to
$\mathscr{N}$ if and only if its left rotation does.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
A candidate $n$-angle is obviously contractible if and only if its
left rotation is, regardless of the extra assumption. For a free
module $F \in \mathscr{C}$, the left rotation of $F(p)_\bullet$ is the
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequence
\begin{equation*}
F \xrightarrow{p} F \xrightarrow{p} \cdots \xrightarrow{p}
\Sigma F \xrightarrow{(-1)^np} \Sigma F.
\end{equation*}
Since the functor $\Sigma$ is the identity, this
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequence equals $F(p)_\bullet$ whenever $n$ is even,
or whenever $n$ is odd and $2p=0$ in $R$.
\end{proof}
Before we show that axioms (N3) and (N4) hold, we show that they hold
if we only consider sequences of the form $F(p)_\bullet$ for a free
module $F$. The proof that the two axioms hold for
\emph{all} sequences in $\mathscr{N}$ reduces to this special case.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:cone}
Suppose that $n\geq 3$ is an integer, and that $2p=0$ in $R$
whenever $n$ is odd. Then for all free modules $F,G \in \mathscr{C}$, the
solid part of each commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{2.5em}{
F & F & F & \cdots & F & \Sigma F \\
G & G & G & \cdots & G & \Sigma G \\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$\psi_1$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$\psi_2$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-4)
edge[densely dashed] node[right]{$\psi_3$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-5)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-6)
edge[densely dashed] node[right]{$\psi_n$} (d-2-5)
(d-1-6) edge node[right]{$\Sigma \psi_{1}$} (d-2-6)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-6);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
can be completed to a morphism of $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences, in such a
way that the mapping cone belongs to $\mathscr{N}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Decompose the matrices $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ as
$\psi_i = \psi_i' + p \theta_i$, where $\psi_i'$ is a matrix whose
entries are just units (if any) and zeros. The equality
$p \psi_1 = p \psi_2$ implies that $p \psi_1' = p \psi_2'$, hence
the matrices $\psi_1'$ and $\psi_2'$ must be equal; we denote this
matrix by $\psi$. Since $p \psi_i = p \psi$, we can complete the
given diagram to a morphism of $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences by taking
$\psi_3 = \psi_2-p \theta_1$ and $\psi_4 = \cdots = \psi_n = \psi$
(if $n \geq 4$), giving the morphism $(\psi_1, \psi_2, \psi_2-p
\theta_1, \psi, \dots, \psi)$. We shall prove that the mapping cone
of this morphism belongs to $\mathscr{N}$.
Consider the even simpler morphism $(\psi, \psi, \dots, \psi)$
between $F(p)_\bullet$ and $G(p)_\bullet$. The diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{4em}{4.5em}{
F & F & F & F & \cdots & F & \Sigma F \\
G & G & G & G & \cdots & G & \Sigma G \\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-2)
([xshift=-1mm] d-1-1.south) edge node[left]{$\psi_1$}
([xshift=-1mm] d-2-1.north)
([xshift=1mm] d-1-1.south) edge node[right]{$\psi$}
([xshift=1mm] d-2-1.north)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-3)
edge node[yshift=-2pt,above left,
pos=0.3]{$\theta_1$} (d-2-1)
([xshift=-1mm] d-1-2.south) edge node[left]{$\psi_2$}
([xshift=-1mm] d-2-2.north)
([xshift=1mm] d-1-2.south) edge node[right]{$\psi$}
([xshift=1mm] d-2-2.north)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-4)
edge node[yshift=-2pt,above left,
pos=0.3]{$\theta_2 - \theta_1$} (d-2-2)
([xshift=-1mm] d-1-3.south) edge
node[left]{$\overline{\psi}_2$}
([xshift=-1mm] d-2-3.north)
([xshift=1mm] d-1-3.south) edge node[right]{$\psi$}
([xshift=1mm] d-2-3.north)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-5)
edge node[yshift=-2pt,above left, pos=0.3]{$0$}
(d-2-3)
([xshift=-1mm] d-1-4.south) edge node[left]{$\psi$}
([xshift=-1mm] d-2-4.north)
([xshift=1mm] d-1-4.south) edge node[right]{$\psi$}
([xshift=1mm] d-2-4.north)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-6)
([xshift=-1mm] d-1-6.south) edge node[left]{$ \psi$}
([xshift=-1mm] d-2-6.north)
([xshift=1mm] d-1-6.south) edge node[right]{$\psi$}
([xshift=1mm] d-2-6.north)
(d-1-6) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-7)
(d-1-7) edge node[yshift=-2pt,above left, pos=0.3]{$0$}
(d-2-6)
([xshift=-1mm] d-1-7.south) edge node[left]{$\Sigma \psi_1$}
([xshift=-1mm] d-2-7.north)
([xshift=1mm] d-1-7.south) edge node[right]{$\Sigma \psi$}
([xshift=1mm] d-2-7.north)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-6)
(d-2-6) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-7);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
displays a homotopy between the two morphisms (where
$\overline{\psi}_2 = \psi_2 -p \theta_1$), hence by Lemma
\ref{lem:homotopic}(2) the mapping cone of $( \psi_1, \psi_2,
\psi_2-p \theta_1, \psi, \dots, \psi )$ is isomorphic to that of $(
\psi, \psi, \dots, \psi )$. It suffices therefore to show that the
mapping cone of $( \psi, \psi, \dots, \psi )$ belongs to $\mathscr{N}$.
If $\psi = 0$, then the mapping cone is just the direct sum of
$G(p)_\bullet$ and $\overline{F(p)}_\bullet$, where the latter is
$F(p)_\bullet$ but with a sign change on all the maps. When $n$ is
odd, the assumption $2p=0$ gives
$\overline{F(p)}_\bullet = F(p)_\bullet$, whereas when $n$ is even,
the diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{2.5em}{
F & F & F & \cdots & F & \Sigma F \\
F & F & F & \cdots & F & \Sigma F \\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$-1$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-4)
edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-5)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-6)
edge node[right]{$-1$} (d-2-5)
(d-1-6) edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-6)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$-p$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$-p$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$-p$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$-p$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$-p$} (d-2-6);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
shows that the $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences $F(p)_\bullet$ and
$\overline{F(p)}_\bullet$ are isomorphic. In either case the
sequence $\overline{F(p)}_\bullet$, and therefore also the mapping
cone of the morphism $(0,0, \dots, 0)$, belongs to $\mathscr{N}$.
Suppose $\psi$ is nonzero, so that it contains at least one unit. As
in Remark \ref{rem:facts}(3), by performing appropriate row and
column operations on $\psi$, we obtain a matrix $\widetilde{\psi}$
of the form
\begin{equation*}
\begin{bmatrix}
I & 0\\
0 & Z
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation*}
where $I$ is a square identity matrix and $Z$ a zero matrix. The
mapping cone of $(\psi, \dots, \psi)$ is then isomorphic to that of
$(\widetilde{\psi}, \dots, \widetilde{\psi})$, hence it suffices to
show that the latter belongs to $\mathscr{N}$.
The form xsof the matrix $\widetilde{\psi}$ implies that the modules
$F$ and $G$ decompose in $\mathscr{C}$ as $F = F_1 \oplus F_2$ and
$G = F_1 \oplus G_2$, such that the map
\begin{equation*}
F_1 \oplus F_2 \xrightarrow{ \left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0\\
0 & 0
\end{smallmatrix}
\right] } F_1 \oplus G_2
\end{equation*}
equals the map $\widetilde{\psi}$. The mapping cone of the morphism
$(\widetilde{\psi}, \dots, \widetilde{\psi} )$ is then the direct
sum of three $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences, two of which are
$G_2(p)_\bullet$ and $\overline{F_2(p)}_\bullet$, where we have used
the same notation as earlier in the proof. As we have seen, the
sequence $\overline{F_2(p)}_\bullet$ (and also $G_2(p)_\bullet$)
belong to $\mathscr{N}$. The third summand is the mapping cone of the
identity morphism on $F_1(p)_{\bullet}$, and by Lemma
\ref{lem:contractible}(2), this $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence is
contractible and belongs to $\mathscr{N}$. This shows that the mapping
cone of $(\widetilde{\psi}, \dots, \widetilde{\psi} )$ belongs to
$\mathscr{N}$.
\end{proof}
Having proved the special case, we now show that axioms (N3) and (N4)
hold for all sequences in $\mathscr{N}$.
\begin{proposition}[Axiom (N3)/(N4)]
\label{prop:N3/N4}
Suppose that $n\geq 3$ is an integer, and that $2p=0$ in $R$
whenever $n$ is odd. Then the solid part of each commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{2.5em}{
A_1 & A_2 & A_3 & \cdots & A_n & \Sigma A_1\\
B_1 & B_2 & B_3 & \cdots & B_n & \Sigma B_1\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_1$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$\alpha_2$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_2$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_3$} (d-1-4)
edge[densely dashed] node[right]{$\varphi_3$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 1}$} (d-1-5)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$\alpha_n$} (d-1-6)
edge[densely dashed] node[right]{$\varphi_n$} (d-2-5)
(d-1-6) edge node[right]{$\Sigma\varphi_{1}$} (d-2-6)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$\beta_1$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$\beta_2$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\beta_3$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 1}$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$\beta_n$} (d-2-6);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
with rows in $\mathscr{N}$ can be completed to a morphism of
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences, in such a way that the mapping cone belongs
to $\mathscr{N}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $A_\bullet$ contains a trivial $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence
$T_\bullet$ as a direct summand, so that $A_\bullet$ is isomorphic
to a direct sum $T_\bullet \oplus A'_\bullet$ for some
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequence $A'_\bullet \in \mathscr{N}$ (both $T_\bullet$ and
$A'_\bullet$ belong to $\mathscr{N}$ by Proposition \ref{prop:N1}). Then
the maps $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ decompose as
$\varphi_i = \left[ \begin{smallmatrix} \varphi_i^T &
\varphi_i' \end{smallmatrix} \right]$,
where $\varphi_i^T \in \Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(T_i,B_i)$ and
$\varphi'_i \in \Hom_{\mathscr{C}}(A'_i,B_i)$. Since $T_\bullet$ is a trivial
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequence, it is easily seen that the two maps
$\varphi_1^T$ and $\varphi_2^T$ can be completed to a morphism
$\varphi^T \colon T_\bullet \to B_\bullet$ of
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences.
Suppose now that the two maps $\varphi'_1$ and $\varphi'_2$ can be
completed to a morphism $\varphi' \colon A'_\bullet \to B_\bullet$
of $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences in such a way that the mapping cone
$C_{\varphi'}$ belongs to $\mathscr{N}$. Together, the two morphisms
$\varphi^T$ and $\varphi'$ form a morphism
\begin{equation*}
\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
\varphi^T & \varphi'
\end{smallmatrix}
\right] \colon T_\bullet \oplus A'_\bullet \to B_\bullet
\end{equation*}
whose first two vertical maps are $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$. Now
since $T_\bullet$ is trivial (and therefore contractible), the
morphism $\varphi^T$ is nullhomotopic by Lemma
\ref{lem:homotopic}(1). But then $\left[ \begin{smallmatrix}
\varphi^T & \varphi' \end{smallmatrix} \right]$ is homotopic to
the morphism $\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} 0 &
\varphi' \end{smallmatrix} \right]$, and so by Lemma
\ref{lem:homotopic}(2) these two morphisms have isomorphic mapping
cones. The mapping cone of $\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} 0 &
\varphi' \end{smallmatrix} \right]$ is the direct sum of
$C_{\varphi'}$ and the left rotation of $T_\bullet$, the latter
possibly with a sign change in the only nonzero map. This is easily
seen to be isomorphic to the left rotation of $T_\bullet$, hence the
mapping cone of $\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} 0 &
\varphi' \end{smallmatrix} \right]$, and therefore also the
mapping cone of $\left[ \begin{smallmatrix} \varphi^T &
\varphi' \end{smallmatrix} \right]$, belongs to $\mathscr{N}$.
The above shows that we can ``remove'' any trivial summands of
$A_\bullet$. Similarly, we can remove trivial summands of
$B_\bullet$; a similar argument holds, or we can use the above
argument together with the duality $\Hom_R(-,R)$ on $\mathscr{C}$ (the ring
$R$ is selfinjective, cf.\ Remark \ref{rem:facts}(2)). Since the
contractible candidate $n$-angles are just direct sums of trivial
ones (cf.\ Remark \ref{rem:facts}(5)), it follows that we can reduce
to the case when $A_\bullet = F(p)_\bullet$ and
$B_\bullet = G(p)_\bullet$ for free modules $F$ and $G$. Then the
result is just the previous one, Lemma \ref{lem:cone}.
\end{proof}
We summarize everything in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main}
Let $R$ be a commutative local ring with maximal principal ideal $\mathfrak{m}
= (p)$ satisfying $\mathfrak{m}^2 =0$, and $\mathscr{C}$ the category of finitely
generated free $R$-modules. Furthermore, let $n \geq 3$ be an
integer and $\Sigma \colon \mathscr{C} \to \mathscr{C}$ the identity functor. Finally,
let $\mathscr{N}$ be the collection of all $n$-$\Sigma$-sequences
isomorphic to a direct sum $C_\bullet \oplus F(p)_\bullet$,
where $C_\bullet$ is a contractible candidate $n$-angle, $F$ is a
free module in $\mathscr{C}$ and $F(p)_\bullet$ is the
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequence
\begin{equation*}
F \xrightarrow{p} F \xrightarrow{p} \cdots \xrightarrow{p} F
\xrightarrow{p} \Sigma F.
\end{equation*}
Then $(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma, \mathscr{N})$ is an $n$-angulated category whenever $n$
is even, or when $n$ is odd and $2p =0$ in $R$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Classes of $n$-angles}
\label{sec:properties}
In this section we explore some properties of the $n$-angulated
categories we have constructed. The question we address is: how
many collections of $n$-angles does the underlying suspended category
$(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma)$ admit? For a general triangulated category, this was
studied in \cite{Balmer}, where an example of an algebraic suspended
category with infinitely many triangulations was given. As Balmer
notes in \emph{loc.\ cit.}, for the (topological) stable homotopy
category this is implicit in \cite{Heller}.
We have already seen a glimpse of what to come. Recall from the
discussion preceding Proposition \ref{prop:N2} that for odd $n$, the
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequence
\begin{equation*}
R \xrightarrow{p} R \xrightarrow{p} \cdots \xrightarrow{p} R
\xrightarrow{-p} \Sigma R
\end{equation*}
cannot belong to the collection of $n$-angles we have defined so far,
unless we require that $p = -p$. On the other hand, it must belong to
the collection if the rotation axiom (N2) is to be satisfied, and this
is precisely why we must require that $p = -p$ for odd $n$. It is
straightforward to show that this $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence is isomorphic
to the sequence
\begin{equation*}
R \xrightarrow{-p} R \xrightarrow{p} \cdots \xrightarrow{p} R
\xrightarrow{p} \Sigma R
\end{equation*}
and that also for even $n$ it cannot belong to the collection of
$n$-angles unless $p = -p$. But what if, for even $n$, we define the
collection of $n$-angles to contain this new sequence \emph{instead}
of the sequence
\begin{equation*}
R \xrightarrow{p} R \xrightarrow{p} \cdots \xrightarrow{p} R
\xrightarrow{p} \Sigma R
\end{equation*}
that we have used so far? The following result shows that we would
still get an $n$-angulated category. In fact, for every unit $u$ in
$R$, the $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence
\begin{equation*}
R \xrightarrow{up} R \xrightarrow{p} \cdots \xrightarrow{p} R
\xrightarrow{p} \Sigma R
\end{equation*}
gives rise to an $n$-angulation of $(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma)$, and every
$n$-angulation is obtained this way. Moreover, two such
$n$-angulations coincide if and only if the defining units $u$ and $v$
satisfy $up = vp$ in the ring $R$. These various $n$-angulations arise
from global automorphisms on the underlying category, introduced by
Balmer in \cite{Balmer}. One can obtain the result by applying
\cite[Proposition 3.4]{GKO}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:several}
Let $R$ be a commutative local ring with maximal principal ideal
$\mathfrak{m} = (p)$ satisfying $\mathfrak{m}^2 =0$, and $\mathscr{C}$ the category of finitely
generated free $R$-modules. Furthermore, let $n \geq 3$ be an
integer and $\Sigma \colon \mathscr{C} \to \mathscr{C}$ the identity functor. Finally,
for each unit $u \in R$, let $\mathscr{N}_u$ be the collection of all
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences isomorphic to a direct sum
$C_\bullet \oplus F(p)_\bullet$, where $C_\bullet$ is a contractible
candidate $n$-angle, $F$ is a free module in $\mathscr{C}$ and $F(p)_\bullet$
is the $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence
\begin{equation*}
F \xrightarrow{up} F \xrightarrow{p} \cdots
\xrightarrow{p} F \xrightarrow{p} \Sigma F
\end{equation*}
Then the following hold:
(1) $(\mathscr{C},\Sigma,\mathscr{N}_u)$ is an $n$-angulated category whenever $n$
is even, or when $n$ is odd and $2p =0$ in $R$.
(2) If $\mathscr{N}$ is any $n$-angulation of $(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma)$, then
$\mathscr{N} = \mathscr{N}_u$ for some unit $u$ in $R$.
(3) $\mathscr{N}_u = \mathscr{N}_v$ if and only if $up=vp$ in $R$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(1) The proofs of Proposition \ref{prop:N1}, Proposition
\ref{prop:N2}, Lemma \ref{lem:cone} and Proposition \ref{prop:N3/N4}
all carry over almost verbatim. Only the proof of the rotation axiom
(N2) needs some clarification.
Rotating (left) the sequence
\begin{equation*}
F \xrightarrow{up} F \xrightarrow{p} \cdots
\xrightarrow{p} F \xrightarrow{p} \Sigma F
\end{equation*}
once gives the sequence
\begin{equation*}
F \xrightarrow{p} F \xrightarrow{p} \cdots
\xrightarrow{p} F \xrightarrow{up} \Sigma F
\end{equation*}
that is, the last map (map $n$) becomes multiplication by $up$
instead of the first one. By rotating twice, map $n - 1$ becomes
multiplication by $up$, and so on. The point is that all these
rotations are isomorphic to the original sequence: the diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{2.5em}{
F & F & \cdots & F & \Sigma F\\
F & F & \cdots & F & \Sigma F\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$up$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$u$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-4)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-5)
edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-4)
(d-1-5) edge node[right]{$u$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$up$} (d-2-5);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
displays an isomorphism after rotating once.
(2) Let $\mathscr{N}$ be an $n$-angulation of $(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma)$. By axiom
(N1)(c), the map $R \xrightarrow{p} R$ in $\mathscr{C}$ is the first map of
some $n$-angle
\begin{equation*}
A_\bullet \colon \quad R \xrightarrow{p} R
\xrightarrow{\alpha_2} A_3 \xrightarrow{\alpha_3} \cdots
\xrightarrow{\alpha_{n - 1}} A_n \xrightarrow{\alpha_n} \Sigma R
\end{equation*}
in $\mathscr{N}$. As in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:N1}, we may
assume that all the maps are minimal (i.e.\ that $\Im \alpha_i
\subseteq \mathfrak{m} A_{i+1}$): otherwise we can split off trivial
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences. Now consider this $n$-angle as a periodic
exact sequence of free $R$-modules. As such, it defines a minimal
free resolution
\begin{equation*}
\cdots \xrightarrow{\alpha_n} R \xrightarrow{p} R
\xrightarrow{\alpha_2} A_3 \xrightarrow{\alpha_3} \cdots
\xrightarrow{\alpha_{n - 1}} A_n \xrightarrow{\alpha_n} R \to k \to
0
\end{equation*}
of the residue field $k = R/\mathfrak{m}$ of $R$, since $k$ is just isomorphic
to the image of the map $R \xrightarrow{p} R$. Consequently, the
residue field $k$ has a minimal free resolution in which the ranks
of the free modules are bounded. By \cite{Avramov, Eisenbud,
Gulliksen}, this can only happen for local rings which are
complete intersections of codimension one, that is, hypersurface
rings. Moreover, the minimal free resolution of $k$ eventually
becomes two-periodic with constant rank. In our situation the
resolution is periodic from the start, and since it contains two
consecutive terms of rank one, we see that \emph{all} the free
modules $A_3, \dots, A_n$ must have rank one. Therefore, the
$n$-angle $A_\bullet$ is of the form
\begin{equation*}
R \xrightarrow{p} R \xrightarrow{u_2p} R \xrightarrow{u_3p} \cdots
\xrightarrow{u_{n - 1}p} R \xrightarrow{u_np} \Sigma R
\end{equation*}
for some units $u_2, \dots, u_n$ in $R$ (the maps cannot be zero or
isomorphisms, since this would contradict exactness and
minimality). The diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{3em}{4em}{
R & R & R & \cdots & R & \Sigma R \\
R & R & R & \cdots & R & \Sigma R \\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$u_2p$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$\prod_{i=2}^n u_i$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$u_3p$} (d-1-4)
edge node[right]{$\prod_{i=3}^n u_i$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$u_{n - 1}p$} (d-1-5)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$u_np$} (d-1-6)
edge node[right]{$u_n$} (d-2-5)
(d-1-6) edge node[right]{$1$} (d-2-6)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$\left( \prod_{i=2}^n u_i \right) p$}
(d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-6);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
shows that the $n$-angle is isomorphic to the $n$-$\Sigma$-sequence
\begin{equation*}
R \xrightarrow{up} R \xrightarrow{p} \cdots \xrightarrow{p} R
\xrightarrow{p} \Sigma R
\end{equation*}
with $u = \prod_{i=2}^n u_i$, hence by axiom (N1)(a) the latter must
also be an $n$-angle in $\mathscr{N}$.
Since $\mathscr{N}$ is closed under direct sums, it must contain all
$n$-$\Sigma$-sequences of the form
\begin{equation*}
F \xrightarrow{up} F \xrightarrow{p} \cdots \xrightarrow{p} F
\xrightarrow{p} \Sigma F
\end{equation*}
where $F$ is a free module in $\mathscr{C}$: this sequence is just the direct
sum of copies of the above $n$-angle. Moreover, we know from Lemma
\ref{lem:contractible} that $\mathscr{N}$ contains all the contractible
candidate $n$-angles. Using axiom (N1)(a) again, we see that the
collection $\mathscr{N}$ must contain the collection $\mathscr{N}_u$, and so
$\mathscr{N} = \mathscr{N}_u$ by \cite[Proposition 1.5(c)]{GKO}.
(3) Let $u$ and $v$ be units in $R$. If $up = vp$ then the
collections $\mathscr{N}_u$ and $\mathscr{N}_v$ are equal by
definition. Conversely, suppose that $\mathscr{N}_u$ equals $\mathscr{N}_v$. By
axiom (N3), the solid part of the commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2em}{2.5em}{
R & R & R & \cdots & R & \Sigma R \\
R & R & R & \cdots & R & \Sigma R \\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$up$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$u$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$v$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-4)
edge[densely dashed] node[right]{$w_3$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-5)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-1-6)
edge[densely dashed] node[right]{$w_n$} (d-2-5)
(d-1-6) edge node[right]{$u$} (d-2-6)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$vp$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$p$} (d-2-6);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
can be completed to a morphism of $n$-angles. Commutativity of the
squares gives (from left to right, say)
\begin{equation*}
u(vp) = u(w_3p) = \cdots = u(w_np) = u(up),
\end{equation*}
hence $vp=up$ in $R$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:equivalence}
With the notation from \emph{Theorem \ref{thm:several}}, define an
equivalence relation on the set of units in $R$ by $u \sim v$ if and
only if $up = vp$. Then the assignment $[u] \mapsto \mathscr{N}_u$ is a
bijective correspondence between the set of equivalence classes and
the set of $n$-angulations of the suspended category $(\mathscr{C},\Sigma)$.
\end{corollary}
Depending on the ring $R$, the number of $n$-angulations of $(\mathscr{C},
\Sigma)$ can vary. We include some examples showing that there could
be infinitely many, finitely many or just one.
\begin{example}
(1) Let $R$ be the ring $\mathbb{Z}/(4)$. This ring has two units,
namely $1$ and $3$, and they are equivalent since $1 \cdot 2 = 3
\cdot 2$ in $R$. Thus for every $n \geq 3$, the suspended category
$(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma)$ admits only one $n$-angulation. The triangulated
case, that is, the case $n=3$, is \cite[Theorem 1]{MSS}.
More generally, let $p$ be a prime number and $R$ the ring
$\mathbb{Z}/(p^2)$. Then $2p \neq 0$ in $R$ unless $p=2$, so when $p \neq 2$
we can only consider $n$-angulations on $(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma)$ for even
$n$. The number of units in $R$ is given by the Euler
$\phi$-function: it is $\phi (p^2) = p(p-1)$, and they are (the
congruence classes modulo $p^2$) of the integers
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l}
$1, \dots, p-1,$\\
$p+1, \dots, 2p-1,$\\[2pt]
\hspace{2mm} \vdots\\[2pt]
$p^2-p+1, \dots, p^2-1.$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
Two units $u,v$ are congruent in $R$ (i.e.\ $up=vp$) if and only if
they are congruent in $\mathbb{Z}$ modulo $p$, and the above list contains
$p-1$ such congruence classes, namely $[1], \dots, [p-1]$.
Consequently, for even $n$ the suspended category $(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma)$
admits precisely $p-1$ different $n$-angulations.
(2) Let $k$ be a field and $R$ the ring $k[x]/(x^2)$. If $k$ is
infinite then $R$ contains infinitely many units, and all such units
of the form $u$ for some $u \in k$ are incongruent. That is, if $u$
and $v$ are nonzero different elements in $k$, then considered as
units in $R$ they satisfy $ux \neq vx$. If in addition the
characteristic of $k$ is two, then $2x=0$ in $R$, hence our
construction gives $n$-angulations of the suspended category $(\mathscr{C},
\Sigma)$ for all $n \geq 3$ (we do not have to restrict to even
$n$). To sum up: when $k$ is infinite and of characteristic two,
then for all $n \geq 3$ the suspended category $(\mathscr{C}, \Sigma)$ admits
infinitely many different $n$-angulations.
\end{example}
\section{Algebraic $n$-angulated categories}
\label{sec:algebraic}
Algebraic $n$-angulated categories where introduced in \cite{J}. These
are, as their name suggests, higher analogs of algebraic triangulated
categories. The aim of this section is to show that, for odd $n$,
some of the $n$-angulated categories constructed in Theorem
\ref{thm:main} are not algebraic.
We recall some definitions and results from \emph{loc.\ cit.}. Let
$\mathscr{E}$ be an additive category. A complex
\begin{equation*}
A_1 \to A_2 \to \cdots \to A_{n - 1} \to A_n\to 0
\end{equation*}
in $\mathscr{E}$ is called a \emph{right $(n - 2)$-exact sequence\footnote{We
borrow this terminology from \cite{L}.}} if for every $A\in\mathscr{E}$ the
induced sequence of abelian groups
\begin{equation*}
0 \to \Hom_\mathscr{E}(A_n,A) \to \Hom_\mathscr{E}(A_{n - 1},A) \to \cdots \to
\Hom_\mathscr{E}(A_2,A) \to \Hom_\mathscr{E}(A_1,A)
\end{equation*}
is exact. We define \emph{left $(n - 2)$-exact sequences} dually. An
\emph{$(n - 2)$-exact sequence} is a complex which is both a right
$(n - 2)$-exact sequence and a left $(n - 2)$-exact sequence. An
$(n - 2)$-exact sequence is \emph{contractible} if it is contractible
as a complex.
A morphism of complexes in $\mathscr{E}$ of the form
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{2.5em}{
A_1 & A_2 & \cdots & A_{n - 1}\\
B_1 & B_2 & \cdots & B_{n - 1}\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-1-2)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_1$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge node[above]{$\alpha_2$} (d-1-3)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_2$} (d-2-2)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 2}$} (d-1-4)
(d-1-4) edge node[right]{$\varphi_{n - 1}$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-1) edge node[above]{$\beta_1$} (d-2-2)
(d-2-2) edge node[above]{$\beta_2$} (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 2}$} (d-2-4);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
is called an \emph{$(n - 2)$-pushout diagram} if the mapping cone
\begin{equation*}
A_1\xrightarrow{\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_1\\
\hfill \varphi_1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]} A_2 \oplus B_1 \xrightarrow{\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_2 & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_2 & \beta_1
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]} \cdots \xrightarrow{\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
-\alpha_{n - 2} & 0\\
\hfill \varphi_{n - 2} & \beta_{n - 3}
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]} A_{n - 1} \oplus B_{n - 2} \xrightarrow{\left[
\begin{smallmatrix}
\hfill \varphi_{n - 1} & \beta_{n - 2}
\end{smallmatrix}
\right]} B_{n - 1}\to 0
\end{equation*}
is a right $(n - 2)$-exact sequence.
An \emph{$(n - 2)$-exact structure} on $\mathscr{E}$ is a class $\mathcal{X}$
of $(n - 2)$-exact sequences, whose members are called
\emph{admissible $(n - 2)$-exact sequences}, satisfying axioms similar
to those of exact categories. The pair $(\mathscr{E},\mathcal{X})$ is then
called an \emph{$(n - 2)$-exact category}.
An $(n - 2)$-exact category $(\mathscr{E},\mathcal{X})$ is \emph{Frobenius} if
the following properties are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item For each $A\in\mathscr{E}$ there exist admissible $(n - 2)$-exact
sequences
\begin{equation*}
0 \to A \to I_1 \to \cdots \to I_{n - 2} \to B \to 0
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
0 \to C \to P_1 \to \cdots \to P_{n - 2} \to A \to 0
\end{equation*}
such that $I_1,\dots,I_{n - 2}$ are $\mathcal{X}$-injective and
$P_1,\dots,P_{n - 2}$ are $\mathcal{X}$-projective (note that
$\mathcal{X}$-projectives and $\mathcal{X}$-injectives are defined as usual).
\item The classes of $\mathcal{X}$-projectives and of $\mathcal{X}$-injectives coincide.
\end{itemize}
It is shown in \cite[Theorem 5.11]{J} that the stable category of a
Frobenius $(n - 2)$-exact category $\mathscr{E}$ has a natural $n$-angulation
induced by the admissible $(n - 2)$-sequences in $\mathscr{E}$. This motivates
the following definition.
\begin{definition}
An $n$-angulated category is \emph{algebraic} if it is equivalent to
the stable category of a Frobenius $(n - 2)$-exact category with its
natural $n$-angulation.
\end{definition}
Let $\mathscr{C}$ be a category. When convenient, we denote by $d \cdot A$ the
$d$-fold multiple of the identity morphism of $A\in\mathscr{C}$. If $\mathscr{C}$ is an
$n$-angulated category, then for each $d\neq0$ and each $A\in \mathscr{C}$
there is an $n$-angle
\begin{equation*}
A \xrightarrow{d\cdot 1} A \to (A/d)_1 \to \cdots \to (A/d)_{n - 2}
\to \Sigma A.
\end{equation*}
Note that the complex $(A/d)_\bullet$ is well-defined up to homotopy
equivalence since $n$-angles are exact.
It is known that if $\mathscr{C}$ is an algebraic triangulated category, then
we have $d\cdot(A/d) = 0$ for all $d\neq0$ and for all $A\in \mathscr{C}$. This
is shown by Schwede in \cite[Proposition 1]{S1} by using the fact that
algebraic triangulated categories are tensored over
$\der^{\mathrm{b}}(\mod \mathbb{Z})$. We now give an elementary proof of a
higher analog of this property.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:n-order}
Let $\mathscr{E}$ be a Frobenius $(n - 2)$-exact category. Then, for all
$d\neq 0$ the morphism $d\cdot (A/d)_\bullet$ is null-homotopic as a
morphism of complexes in the $n$-angulated category $\underline{\E}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Firstly, by construction there is an $(n - 2)$-pushout diagram of
admissible $(n - 2)$-exact sequences
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{2.5em}{
I(A)_\bullet & 0 & A & I_1 & \cdots & I_{n - 2} & \Sigma A & 0 \\
B_\bullet & 0 & A & (A/d)_1 & \cdots & (A/d)_{n - 2} & \Sigma
A & 0 \\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[right]{$\varphi_\bullet$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge (d-1-3)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_0$} (d-1-4)
edge node[right]{$d \cdot 1$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-1-5)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_1$} (d-2-4)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 3}$} (d-1-6)
(d-1-6) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 2}$} (d-1-7)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_{n - 2}$} (d-2-6)
([xshift=-0.025cm] d-1-7.south) edge[-] ([xshift=-0.025cm]
d-2-7.north)
([xshift=0.025cm] d-1-7.south) edge[-] ([xshift=0.025cm]
d-2-7.north)
(d-1-7) edge (d-1-8)
(d-2-2) edge (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\beta_0$} (d-2-4)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$\beta_1$} (d-2-5)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 3}$} (d-2-6)
(d-2-6) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 2}$} (d-2-7)
(d-2-7) edge (d-2-8);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
which induces the $n$-angle
\begin{equation*}
A \xrightarrow{d\cdot 1} A \to (A/d)_1 \to \cdots \to (A/d)_{n -
2} \to \Sigma A
\end{equation*}
in $\underline{\E}$, see \cite[Section~5]{J}.
Secondly, by adding to the bottom the contractible $(n - 2)$-exact
sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \to 0 \to I_2 \to I_2 \oplus I_3 \to \cdots \to I_{n - 3} \oplus
I_{n - 2} \to I_{n - 2} \to 0 \to 0,
\end{equation*}
we may assume that the above diagram is a good $(n - 2)$-pushout
diagram in the sense of \cite[Defition-Proposition 2.14]{J}. By the
factorization property of good $(n - 2)$-pushout diagrams there is a
commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{2.5em}{
I(A)_\bullet & 0 & A & I_1 & \cdots & I_{n - 2} & \Sigma A &
0 \\
B_\bullet & 0 & A & (A/d)_1 & \cdots & (A/d)_{n - 2} & \Sigma
A & 0 \\
I(A)_\bullet & 0 & A & I_1 & \cdots & I_n & \Sigma A & 0 \\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-1) edge node[right]{$\varphi_\bullet$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-2) edge (d-1-3)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_0$} (d-1-4)
edge node[right]{$d \cdot 1$} (d-2-3)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-1-5)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_1$} (d-2-4)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 3}$} (d-1-6)
(d-1-6) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 2}$} (d-1-7)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_{n - 2}$} (d-2-6)
([xshift=-0.025cm] d-1-7.south) edge[-] ([xshift=-0.025cm]
d-2-7.north)
([xshift=0.025cm] d-1-7.south) edge[-] ([xshift=0.025cm]
d-2-7.north)
(d-1-7) edge (d-1-8)
(d-2-2) edge (d-2-3)
(d-2-1) edge node[right]{$\psi_\bullet$} (d-3-1)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\beta_0$} (d-2-4)
([xshift=-0.025cm] d-2-3.south) edge[-] ([xshift=-0.025cm]
d-3-3.north)
([xshift=0.025cm] d-2-3.south) edge[-] ([xshift=0.025cm]
d-3-3.north)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$\beta_1$} (d-2-5)
edge node[right]{$\psi_1$} (d-3-4)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 3}$} (d-2-6)
(d-2-6) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 2}$} (d-2-7)
edge node[right]{$\psi_{n - 2}$} (d-3-6)
(d-2-7) edge[densely dashed] node[right]{$d \cdot 1$} (d-3-7)
(d-2-7) edge (d-2-8)
(d-3-2) edge (d-3-3)
(d-3-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_0$} (d-3-4)
(d-3-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-3-5)
(d-3-5) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 3}$} (d-3-6)
(d-3-6) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 2}$} (d-3-7)
(d-3-7) edge (d-3-8);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
such that for all $k\in \{1,\dots,n - 2\}$ we have
$\psi^k\circ\varphi^k = d\cdot 1$. We only need to check that the
bottom right square commutes. Indeed, we have
\begin{align*}
(d\cdot\beta_{n - 2})\circ\varphi_{n - 2} &= d\cdot \alpha_{n - 2},\\
(\alpha_{n - 2}\circ\psi_{n - 2})\circ\varphi_{n - 2} &=d\cdot
\alpha_{n - 2},\\
(\alpha_{n - 2}\circ \psi_{n - 2})\circ \beta_{n - 3} &= \alpha_{n
- 2}\circ(\alpha_{n - 3}\circ\psi_{n - 3}) = 0,\intertext{and}
(d\cdot\beta_{n - 2})\circ \beta_{n - 3} &= 0.
\end{align*}
Since $[\varphi_{n - 2}\ \beta_{n-3}]\colon I_{n - 2} \oplus
(A/d)_{n - 3}\to (A/d)_{n - 2}$ is an epimorphism, the claim
follows. Note that if $n = 3$ this shows that $d\cdot (A/d) = 0$ (by
convention, $(A/d)_0 \mathrel{\mathop:}= A$). In the rest of the proof we assume
$n\geq 4$.
Thirdly, we deuce from the commutative diagram
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\diagram{d}{2.5em}{2.5em}{
B_\bullet & 0 & A & (A/d)_1 & \cdots & (A/d)_{n - 2} & \Sigma
A & 0 \\
I(A)_\bullet & 0 & A & I_1 & \cdots & I_{n - 2} & \Sigma A &
0 \\
B_\bullet & 0 & A & (A/d)_1 & \cdots & (A/d)_{n - 2} & \Sigma
A & 0\\
};
\path[->,midway,font=\scriptsize]
(d-1-2) edge (d-1-3)
(d-1-1) edge node[right]{$\psi_\bullet$} (d-2-1)
(d-1-3) edge node[above]{$\beta_0$} (d-1-4)
([xshift=-0.025cm] d-1-3.south) edge[-] ([xshift=-0.025cm]
d-2-3.north)
([xshift=0.025cm] d-1-3.south) edge[-] ([xshift=0.025cm]
d-2-3.north)
(d-1-4) edge node[above]{$\beta_1$} (d-1-5)
edge node[right]{$\psi_1$} (d-2-4)
(d-1-5) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 3}$} (d-1-6)
(d-1-6) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 2}$} (d-1-7)
edge node[right]{$\psi_{n - 2}$} (d-2-6)
(d-1-7) edge node[right]{$d \cdot 1$} (d-2-7)
(d-1-7) edge (d-1-8)
(d-2-1) edge node[right]{$\varphi_\bullet$} (d-3-1)
(d-2-2) edge (d-2-3)
(d-2-3) edge node[above]{$\alpha_0$} (d-2-4)
edge node[right]{$d \cdot 1$} (d-3-3)
(d-2-4) edge node[above]{$\alpha_1$} (d-2-5)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_1$} (d-3-4)
(d-2-5) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 3}$} (d-2-6)
(d-2-6) edge node[above]{$\alpha_{n - 2}$} (d-2-7)
edge node[right]{$\varphi_{n - 2}$} (d-3-6)
([xshift=-0.025cm] d-2-7.south) edge[-] ([xshift=-0.025cm]
d-3-7.north)
([xshift=0.025cm] d-2-7.south) edge[-] ([xshift=0.025cm]
d-3-7.north)
(d-2-7) edge (d-2-8)
(d-3-2) edge (d-3-3)
(d-3-3) edge node[above]{$\beta_0$} (d-3-4)
(d-3-4) edge node[above]{$\beta_1$} (d-3-5)
(d-3-5) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 3}$} (d-3-6)
(d-3-6) edge node[above]{$\beta_{n - 2}$} (d-3-7)
(d-3-7) edge (d-3-8);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
and the dual of \cite[Comparison Lemma 2.1]{J} that there exist a
homotopy $h_\bullet\colon d\cdot B_\bullet\to\varphi_\bullet \circ
\psi_\bullet$ with $h_{n - 1}\colon \Sigma A\to (A/d)_{n - 2}$ equal
to 0. Next, observe that $h_1 \circ \beta_0 = 0$, hence $h_1$ factors
through $\beta_1$ as $\gamma \circ \beta_1$, say. Thus, by replacing
$h_2$ by $h_2 + \beta_0 \circ \gamma$, we may assume that $h_1 =
0$. Therefore $h_\bullet$ induces a homotopy $d\cdot (A/d)_\bullet
\to \varphi_\bullet \circ\psi_\bullet$. This shows that $d\cdot
(A/d)_\bullet$ is null-homotopic as a morphism of complexes in
$\underline{\E}$.
\end{proof}
We now prove the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:not_algebraic}
Let $R$ be a commutative local ring with principal maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}
= (p) \neq 0$ such that $\mathfrak{m}^2 = 0$ and $\mathscr{C}$ the category of finitely
generated free $R$-modules. Suppose moreover that $2p=0$. If $n$ is
odd and there exists $d\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $d\cdot 1_R\in \mathfrak{m} \setminus
\{0\}$, then the $n$-angulated category $(\mathscr{C},\Sigma,\mathscr{N})$
constructed in Theorem \ref{thm:main} is \emph{not} algebraic.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $d\in \mathbb{Z}$ be such that $d\cdot 1_R \in\mathfrak{m}\setminus\{0\}$. Hence
$d\cdot 1_R = up$ from some unit $u$ in $R$. The case $n = 3$ is
clear since $d\cdot 1_R = up\neq 0$.
Let $n\geq 4$. Since $up$ is not a unit, every $n$-angle having
$up\colon R\to R$ as first morphism is isomorphic to the $n$-angle
\begin{equation*}
R\xrightarrow{p} R\xrightarrow{p} R\xrightarrow{p} \cdots
\xrightarrow{p} R\xrightarrow{p}R.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, up to a contractible summand, we have
\begin{equation*}
(R/d)_\bullet = (R\xrightarrow{p} \cdots
\xrightarrow{p} R).
\end{equation*}
Suppose that there exists a null-homotopy of $d\cdot (R/d)_\bullet =
(up,\dots,up)$. Thus, there exist $q_1,\dots,q_{n-3}\in R$ such that
\begin{equation*}
up = pq_1 = q_1p + pq_2 = \cdots = q_{n - 4}p + pq_{n - 3} = q_{n
- 3}p.
\end{equation*}
Given that $2p = 0$ and that $n$ is odd, by adding the above
equalities we have $(n - 2)up = up = 0$, a contradiction. Hence the
$n$-angulated category $(\mathscr{C},\Sigma,\mathscr{N})$ is not algebraic by
Proposition \ref{prop:n-order}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Note that if $n$ is even, then the sequence
$(u,0,u,\dots,0,u)\in R^{n - 3}$ gives a null-homotopy of
$d\cdot(R/d)_\bullet = (up,\dots,up)$ in the setting of Theorem
\ref{thm:not_algebraic}. Hence we cannot deduce from Proposition
\ref{prop:n-order} that the $n$-angulated category
$(\mathscr{C},\Sigma,\mathscr{N})$ is not algebraic in this case.
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
Let $R$ be the ring $\mathbb{Z}/(4)$. Then, the assumptions of Theorem
\ref{thm:not_algebraic} are satisfied since we have $0\neq2\in
(2)$. Thus, for odd $n$, the corresponding $n$-angulated category is
not algebraic.
\end{example}
\section{Acknowledgements}
We thank Amnon Neeman for pointing out Remark \ref{rem:Neeman}, and an
anonymous referee for major improvements in the paper.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Let $(X, 0)$ be a (germ of a) normal complex surface singularity. A \emph{smoothing} of $(X, 0)$ is a flat surjective map $\pi\colon (\mathcal{X}, 0) \to (\Delta, 0)$, where $(\mathcal{X}, 0)$ has an
isolated 3-dimensional singularity and $\Delta = \{t \in \mathbb{C}
\mid \abs{t} < \epsilon \}$, such that $(\pi^{-1}(0), 0)$ is
isomorphic to $(X, 0)$ and $\pi^{-1}(t)$ is smooth for every $t \in
\Delta \setminus \{0\}$. Assume that $(X,0)$ is embedded in $(\mathbb{C}^N,
0)$. Then there exists an embedding of $(\mathcal{X}, 0)$ in
$(\mathbb{C}^N \times \Delta, 0)$ such that the map $\pi$ is induced
by the projection $\mathbb{C}^N \times \Delta \to \Delta$ to the
second factor. The \emph{Milnor fiber} $M$ of a smoothing $\pi$ of
$(X,0)$ is defined by the intersection of a fiber $\pi^{-1}(t)$ ($t
\neq 0$) near the origin with a small ball about the origin, that
is, $M = \pi^{-1}(t) \cap B_{\delta}(0)$ ($0 < \abs{t} \ll \delta \ll
\epsilon$).
According to the general theory of Milnor fibrations (see
Looijenga~\cite{Looijenga-1984}), $M$ is a compact 4-manifold, with the
\emph{link} $L$ of the singularity $(X,0)$ as its boundary. In particular, the
diffeomorphism type of $M$ depends only on the smoothing $\pi$; hence, the
topological invariants of $M$ are invariants of the smoothing $\pi$. The
4-manifold $M$ has the homotopy type of a two-dimensional CW complex, thus we
have $H_i(M, \mathbb{Z})=0$ for $i > 2$. Furthermore, by
Greuel--Steenbrink~\cite[Theorem~2]{Greuel-Steenbrink-1983}, the first Betti
number $b_1(M)$ is zero. Therefore, an important invariant of $M$ (hence, of
the smoothing $\pi$) is $H_2(M, \mathbb{Z})$, which is a finitely generated
free abelian group. The \emph{Milnor number} $\mu$ of the smoothing $\pi$ is
given by the second Betti number $\mu=\dim {H_2(M, \mathbb{Q})}$.
If $\mu=0$, that is, $H_i(M, \mathbb{Q})=H_i(D^4,\mathbb{Q})=0$ for
$i>0$, we say that $M$ is a \emph{rational homology disk} (\QHD for
short). Correspondingly, a smoothing $\pi$ with $\mu=0$ is called a
\emph{rational homology disk smoothing} (`\QHDS' for short). For
example, any cyclic quotient singularity of type $\frac{1}{p^2}(1,
pq-1)$ with two relatively prime integers $p>q$ admits a
\QHDS. Indeed, according to
Looijenga--Wahl~\cite[(5.10)]{Looijenga-Wahl-1986} and
Wahl~\cite[(5.9.1)]{Wahl-1981}, among cyclic quotient singularities
these are the only ones having a
\QHDS. Koll\'ar--Shepherd-Barron~\cite{Kollar-Shepherd-Barron-1988}
made substantial use of the fact that the \QHDS of a singularity of
type $\frac{1}{p^2}(1, pq-1)$ is a quotient of a smoothing of its
index one cover; they invented the term ``$\mathbb{Q}$-Gorenstein
smoothing''.
Singularities of type $\frac{1}{p^2}(1, pq-1)$ play an important role in the
Koll\'ar--Shepherd-Barron--Alexeev (KSBA) compactification of moduli spaces of
complex surfaces of general type. For instance,
Y.~Lee--J.~Park~\cite{Lee-Park-K^2=2} constructed a singular surface with
singularities of type $\frac{1}{p^2}(1, pq-1)$. Since the Milnor fibers of
these singularities are topologically very simple, it is easy to control
(topological) invariants of the smoothing of the singular surface. Hence, by
smoothing the singular surface, they constructed examples of complex surfaces
of general type with prescribed topological invariants. In particular, they
constructed a point lying on the boundary of the KSBA compactification of a
moduli space of complex surfaces of general type. Using similar ideas, many
important examples of complex surfaces of general type have been constructed;
see, for example, \cite{Keum-Lee-Park, PPS-K3, PPS-K4, PPS-pg1, PPS-H1Z4,
PSU}. These constructions were
motivated by the \emph{rational blow-down} construction of
Fintushel--Stern~\cite{Fintushel-Stern-1997}, and its generalization by
J. Park~\cite{JPark-1997}:
in this smooth construction one substitutes the
tubular neighbourhood of a configuration of surfaces in a 4-manifold
intersecting each other according to the resolution graph of a singularity
with a \QHDS of the same singularity.
These constructions played a crucial role in
constructing exotic differentiable structures on many 4-manifolds,
cf.\ for example~\cite{Fintushel-Stern-1997, JPark-2005, PSSz, SSz}.
Therefore it is an interesting problem to classify all normal surface
singularities admitting a \QHDS. Such a singularity
$(X, 0)$ must be rational; in particular the resolution dual graph is
a tree and the vertices correspond to rational curves. Besides the cyclic quotient ones, further such examples were described by
Wahl~\cite{Wahl-1981}, and a list of such singularities (compiled by Wahl) was
known to the experts, cf.\ the remark on the bottom of page 505 of de Jong--van
Straten~\cite{deJong-VanStraten-1998}.
Using smooth topological ideas, in
Stipsicz--Szab\'o--Wahl~\cite{Stipsicz-Szabo-Wahl-2008} strong
necessary combinatorial conditions for the resolution graphs of
singularities with a \QHDS has been derived. Besides the linear graphs
(that is, the resolution graphs of cyclic quotient singularities of
type $\frac{1}{p^2}(1, pq-1)$) the potential graphs were classified
into six classes $\typeW, \typeM, \typeN$ and $\typeA, \typeB,
\typeC$. In the first three classes the resolution graphs are all
star-shaped (i.e.\ each admits a unique node), with the node having
valency 3, and all these graphs are taut in the sense of
Laufer~\cite{Laufer-1973-Taut}. (Recall that a singularity is called
\emph{taut} if it is determined analytically by its resolution graph.)
The singularities corresponding to the graphs in $\typeW,
\typeM$ and $\typeN$ all admit \QHDS.
The further three types $\typeA, \typeB$ and $\typeC$ are defined by the
following construction. Let $\Gamma_{\typeA}$, $\Gamma_{\typeB}$,
$\Gamma_{\typeC}$ be the graphs given as follows.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node[bullet] (00) at (0,0) [label=below:$-3$] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=below:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (11) at (1,1) [label=above:$-3$] {};
\node[bullet] (20) at (2,0) [label=below:$-3$] {};
\node (01) at (-0.5,1) {$\Gamma_{\typeA}$:};
\draw [-] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (11);
\draw [-] (10) -- (20);
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node[bullet] (00) at (0,0) [label=below:$-4$] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=below:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (11) at (1,1) [label=above:$-4$] {};
\node[bullet] (20) at (2,0) [label=below:$-2$] {};
\node (01) at (-0.5,1) {$\Gamma_{\typeB}$:};
\draw [-] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (11);
\draw [-] (10) -- (20);
\end{tikzpicture}
\qquad
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node[bullet] (00) at (0,0) [label=below:$-6$] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=below:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (11) at (1,1) [label=above:$-3$] {};
\node[bullet] (20) at (2,0) [label=below:$-2$] {};
\node (01) at (-0.5,1) {$\Gamma_{\typeC}$:};
\draw [-] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (11);
\draw [-] (10) -- (20);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
A \emph{non-minimal graph of type $\typeA$ (or $\typeB$ or $\typeC$)}
is a graph obtained as follows: Starting with the graph
$\Gamma_{\typeA}$ (respectively, $\Gamma_{\typeB}$ or
$\Gamma_{\typeC}$), apply the following two \emph{blowing up
operations}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(B-1)] blow up the ($-1$)-vertex\\
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node (00) at (0,0) [] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=below:$-1$] {};
\node (20) at (2,0) [] {};
\draw [dotted] (00) -- (10);
\draw [dotted] (10) -- (20);
\node (250) at (2.5,0) {};
\node (350) at (3.5,0) {};
\draw [->,decorate,decoration={snake,amplitude=.4mm,segment length=2mm,post length=1mm}] (250) -- (350);
\node (40) at (4,0) [] {};
\node[bullet] (50) at (5,0) [label=below:$-2$] {};
\node[bullet] (51) at (5,1) [label=right:$-1$] {};
\node (60) at (6,0) [] {};
\draw [dotted] (40) -- (50);
\draw [-] (50) -- (51);
\draw [dotted] (50) -- (60);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\item[(B-2)] or blow up any edge emanating from the ($-1$)-vertex\\
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node (00) at (0,0) [] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=below:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (20) at (2,0) [label=below:$-a$] {};
\node (30) at (3,0) [] {};
\draw [dotted] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (20);
\draw [dotted] (20) -- (30);
\node (350) at (3.5,0) {};
\node (450) at (4.5,0) {};
\draw [->,decorate,decoration={snake,amplitude=.4mm,segment length=2mm,post length=1mm}] (350) -- (450);
\node (50) at (5,0) [] {};
\node[bullet] (60) at (6,0) [label=below:$-2$] {};
\node[bullet] (70) at (7,0) [label=below:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (80) at (8,0) [label=below:$-a-1$] {};
\node (90) at (9,0) [] {};
\draw [dotted] (50) -- (60);
\draw [-] (60) -- (70);
\draw [-] (70) -- (80);
\draw [dotted] (80) -- (90);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\end{enumerate}
and repeat these procedures of blowing up (either the new
($-1$)-vertex or an edge emanating from it) finitely many times. The
result is a non-minimal graph $\Gamma$.
A \emph{minimal graph $\overline{\Gamma}$ of type $\typeA$ (or $\typeB$ or
$\typeC$)} corresponding to a non-minimal graph $\Gamma$ of type $\typeA$
(respectively, $\typeB$ or $\typeC$) is a graph obtained by
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(M)] \emph{modifying} the unique ($-1$)-decoration of a non-minimal
graph $\Gamma$ of type $\typeA$ (respectively, $\typeB$ or $\typeC$) to
($-4$) (respectively, ($-3$) or ($-2$)).
\end{enumerate}
The classes $\typeA, \typeB$ and $\typeC$ are the collections of minimal
graphs of the respective types. It is not hard to see that a graph in
$\typeA\cup \typeB\cup \typeC$ has at most one node of valency 4
(corresponding to the node of $\Gamma _{\typeA}, \Gamma _{\typeB}$ or $\Gamma
_{\typeC}$) and all the others are of valency 3.
Using methods of symplectic topology, in
Bhupal--Stipsicz~\cite{Bhupal-Stipsicz-2011} star-shaped graphs
admitting a \QHDS have been completely
classified. In particular, it has been shown that if a minimal good
resolution graph ${\overline {\Gamma}} $ is star-shaped and corresponds to a singularity with a \QHDS, then
${\overline {\Gamma}}$ is one of the graphs given by
Figures~\ref{fig:fig1} or~\ref{fig:fig2}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig1}
\caption{Star-shaped graphs with one node of degree 3 corresponding to
singularities with a \QHDS. We assume that $p,q,r\geq 0$.}
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[scale=1]{fig2}
\caption{Star-shaped graphs with one node of degree 4 corresponding to
singularities with a \QHDS. The quadruple $(a,b,c;d)$ is one of
$\{ (3,3,3;4), (2,4,4;3), (2,3,6;2)\}$; furthermore $p \ge 0$.}
\label{fig:fig2}
\end{figure}
In fact, in~\cite{Wahl-2011} Wahl conjectured that the only complex
surface singularities admitting a \QHDS are the formerly known
examples, which are all weighted homogeneous (hence, in particular,
have resolution graphs with at most one node). In supporting this
conjecture, Wahl showed that many graphs with exactly two nodes do not
correspond to singularities with a \QHDS,
cf.\ \cite[Theorem~8.6]{Wahl-2011}. The aim of this paper is to prove
Wahl's conjecture:
\begin{maintheorem
\label{thm:maintheorem}
Suppose that $\overline{\Gamma}$ is a minimal negative definite graph
with at least two nodes. Then there is no complex surface singularity
with resolution graph $\overline{\Gamma}$ which admits a \QHDS.
\end{maintheorem}
This result, with the aforementioned result of Bhupal--Stipsicz~\cite{Bhupal-Stipsicz-2011}
provides the following classification result:
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:ClassificationOfGraphs}
Suppose that ${\overline{\Gamma}}$ is a minimal negative definite graph with
the property that there is a singularity which admits a \QHDS and has
${\overline{\Gamma}}$ as a resolution graph. Then ${\overline{\Gamma}}$ is
either the linear graph corresponding to one of the cyclic quotient
singularities of type $\frac{1}{p^2}(1,pq-1)$ (with $p>q>0$ relatively
prime) or ${\overline{\Gamma}}$ is one of the graphs of
Figures~\ref{fig:fig1} or~\ref{fig:fig2}. \qed
\end{corollary}
Indeed, the above result leads to the complete classification of
complex normal surface singularities with \QHDS. Since the resolution
graphs of cyclic quotient singularities and the graphs of
Figure~\ref{fig:fig1} are all taut by Laufer~\cite{Laufer-1973-Taut},
for these cases the singularities themselves are determined by the
resolution graph. A graph of Figure~\ref{fig:fig2} does not determine
a unique singularity --- the analytic type depends on a complex
number, the cross ratio of the four intersection points on the
rational curve corresponding to the node of valency $4$ with its four
neighbours. According to a recent result of J. Fowler
\cite[Theorem 5(a)]{Fowler-2013}, for any graph in Figure~\ref{fig:fig2} exactly one
cross ratio determines a singularity admitting a \QHD smoothing. This
value of the cross ratio is also determined by
Fowler~\cite{Fowler-2013}: it is anharmonic for $(a,b,c;d)=(3,3,3;4)$,
harmonic for $(a,b,c;d)=(2,4,4;3)$, and $9$ for
$(a,b,c;d)=(2,3,6;2)$. Therefore, as a combination of
Corollary~\ref{cor:ClassificationOfGraphs} and the result of
Fowler~\cite{Fowler-2013} we get the classification of singularities
admitting a \QHDS:
\begin{corollary}
The set of complex normal surface singularities admitting a \QHDS
is equal to the set of singularities we get by considering
\begin{itemize}
\item the cyclic quotient singularities of type
$\frac{1}{p^2}(1,pq-1)$ (with $p>q>0$ relatively prime),
\item the weighted homogeneous singularities corresponding to the taut graphs of
Figure~\ref{fig:fig1}, and
\item the weighted homogeneous singularities with resolution graphs of Figure~\ref{fig:fig2},
together with the cross ratios: anharmonic for $(a,b,c;d)=(3,3,3;4)$,
harmonic for $(a,b,c;d)=(2,4,4;3)$, and $9$ for $(a,b,c;d)=(2,3,6;2)$. \qed
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
It is known that a \QHDS component of a cyclic quotient singularity of
type $\frac{1}{p^2}(1,pq-1)$ (with $p>q>0$ relatively prime) has
dimension one, and the \QHDS can always be chosen to be a
$\mathbb{Q}$-Gorenstein smoothing. In \cite{Wahl-2011, Wahl-2011-log}
Wahl verified the same properties for any weighted homogeneous surface
singularity admitting a \QHDS. Hence, combined with Main
Theorem~\ref{thm:maintheorem}, we conclude that any \QHDS of a
normal surface singularity is $\mathbb{Q}$-Gorenstein occurring over a
one-dimensional smoothing component.
\end{remark}
One of the main ideas of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:maintheorem} is an
extension of the result of Wahl in \cite[\S8]{Wahl-2011} about graphs
of two nodes. Let $(X, 0)$ be a germ of a rational surface
singularity, and let $\pi\colon V \to X$ be the minimal good
resolution of $X$ near $0$ with $E=\pi^{-1}(0)$ the exceptional
set. Let $E=\sum_{i=1}^{n} E_i$ be the decomposition of the
exceptional divisor $E$ into irreducible components $E_i$ with
$E_i^2=-d_i$. An irreducible component of the base space of the
semi-universal deformation of $(X,0)$ is called a \emph{smoothing
component} if a generic fiber over such a component is smooth. Every
component of the base space of the semi-universal deformation of a
rational surface singularity is a smoothing component, but their
dimensions may vary. By Wahl~\cite[Theorem~8.1]{Wahl-2011} a \QHDS
component (i.e.\ a component containing a \QHDS, if any) of $(X,0)$ has
dimension
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dimension}
h^1(V, \Theta_V(-\log{E}))+\sum_{i=1}^{n}{(d_i-3)},
\end{equation}
where $\Theta_V(-\log{E})$ is the sheaf of logarithmic vector fields (i.e.\ the dual of the sheaf $\Omega_V(\log{E})$ of logarithmic differentials); that is, it is the kernel of the natural surjection $\Theta_V \to \bigoplus \sheaf{N}_{E_i/V}$. In particular, if the above expression is nonpositive
for a particular singularity, then it admits no \QHDS.
The proof of our Main Theorem~\ref{thm:maintheorem} will rest on the
following technical result.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:nonexist}
Suppose that $(X,0)$ is a rational surface singularity with resolution
graph $\overline{\Gamma}$. Assume furthermore that $\overline{\Gamma}$
is of type $\typeA$, $\typeB$, or $\typeC$ and has at least two nodes. Then
\begin{equation}\label{equation:h1+(d-3)}
h^1(V, \Theta_V(-\log{E}))+\sum_{i=1}^{n}{(d_i-3)} \le 0.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
This result immediately implies the main result of the paper:
\begin{proof}[Proof of Main Theorem~\ref{thm:maintheorem}]
Suppose that $\overline{\Gamma}$ is a minimal negative definite graph with
at least two nodes. Suppose furthermore that the singularity $(X,0)$ has
$\overline{\Gamma}$ as the resolution graph, and $(X, 0)$ admits a
\QHDS. By
Stipsicz--Szab\'o--Wahl~\cite{Stipsicz-Szabo-Wahl-2008} then
$\overline{\Gamma}$ is of type $\typeA, \typeB$, or $\typeC$. By
Wahl~\cite[Theorem~8.1]{Wahl-2011} a \QHDS component has
dimension given by Equation~\eqref{eq:dimension}, which expression, by
Theorem~\ref{thm:nonexist} is nonpositive. Consequently the smoothing
component does not exist, concluding the proof.
\end{proof}
The difficulty in proving Theorem~\ref{thm:nonexist} is that singularities
with resolution graphs having at least two nodes are usually non-taut. Indeed,
there may exist many a\-na\-ly\-ti\-cal\-ly different singularities with the
same resolution graph, and the dimension $h^1(V, \Theta_V(-\log{E}))$ in
Formula~\eqref{eq:dimension} depends on the analytic structure of the
singularity $(X,0)$.
In dealing with this difficulty, in Section~\ref{sec:plumbing} we
prove that there exists a `natural' singularity $(X_0, 0)$ with
minimal good resolution $(V_0, E_0) \to (X_0,0)$ that has the same
weighted resolution graph (and the same cross ratio if any) as $(X,0)$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{equation:h1(V)<=h1(V_0)}
h^1(V, \Theta_V(-\log{E})) \le h^1(V_0, \Theta_{V_0}(-\log{E_0})).
\end{equation}
That is, the singularity $(X_0, 0)$ has maximal dimension $h^1(V,
\Theta_V(-\log{E}))$ among singularities having the same weighted
resolution graph. So we may call $(X_0, 0)$ a `maximal'
singularity. By controlling how the expression of
Formula~\eqref{eq:dimension} changes under the construction of the
graphs in $\typeA, \typeB$ and $\typeC$, we verify
Inequality~\eqref{equation:h1+(d-3)} for the maximal singularities,
eventually providing the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:nonexist}.
The singularity with the maximal dimension property has been already
introduced by Laufer~\cite[Theorem~3.9]{Laufer-1973} using the
plumbing construction. In the last paragraph of
Laufer~\cite[p.~93]{Laufer-1973}, he observed that $h^1(V,
\Theta_V(-\log{E}))$ is \emph{usually} maximal for the maximal
singularity among singularities with the same resolution
graph. Indeed, in \cite[Theorem~3.1]{Laufer-1973-Taut} Laufer proved
the maximality property given by
Inequality~\eqref{equation:h1(V)<=h1(V_0)} for (pseudo) taut
singularities, and used this fact to obtain a complete list of
resolution graphs of such singularities~\cite{Laufer-1973-Taut}. In
Theorem~\ref{theorem:maximality} we generalize Laufer's observation
for any rational surface singularity for which the resolution graph
has nodes of valency 3 with at most one exception which is of valency
4.
Let us set up some more notation. Suppose that $\Gamma$ is a
non-minimal graph of type $\typeA, \typeB$, or $\typeC$,
and define the \emph{augmented graph}
$\Gamma^{\sharp}$ as the graph obtained from $\Gamma$ by
blowing up once the ($-1$)-vertex and (if needed) by (successively) blowing up an edge emanating from the ($-1$)-vertex according to its type as below:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$\bullet$] type $\typeA$ \\
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node (A) at (-0.5,0) {$\Gamma=$};
\node (01) at (0,0) {};
\node (00) at (0,0) {};
\node (0-1) at (1,-1) {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=above:$-1$] {};
\draw (01) -- (10);
\draw [dotted] (0-1) -- (10);
\node (150) at (1.5,0) {};
\node (30) at (3,0) {};
\draw [->,decorate,decoration={snake,amplitude=.4mm,segment length=2mm,post length=1mm}] (150) -- (30);
\node (B) at (3.5,0) {$\Gamma^{\sharp}=$};
\node (41) at (4,0) {};
\node (40) at (4,0) {};
\node (4-1) at (5,-1) {};
\node[bullet] (50) at (5,0) [label=above:$-4$] {};
\node[bullet] (60) at (6,0) [label=above:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (70) at (7,0) [label=above:$-2$] {};
\node[bullet] (80) at (8,0) [label=above:$-2$] {};
\draw (41) -- (50);
\draw [dotted] (4-1) -- (50);
\draw [-] (50)--(60)--(70)--(80);
\end{tikzpicture}
\item[$\bullet$] type $\typeB$ \\
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node (A) at (-0.5,0) {$\Gamma=$};
\node (01) at (0,0) {};
\node (00) at (0,0) {};
\node (0-1) at (1,-1) {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=above:$-1$] {};
\draw (01) -- (10);
\draw [dotted] (0-1) -- (10);
\node (150) at (1.5,0) {};
\node (30) at (3,0) {};
\draw [->,decorate,decoration={snake,amplitude=.4mm,segment length=2mm,post length=1mm}] (150) -- (30);
\node (B) at (3.5,0) {$\Gamma^{\sharp}=$};
\node (41) at (4,0) {};
\node (40) at (4,0) {};
\node (4-1) at (5,-1) {};
\node[bullet] (50) at (5,0) [label=above:$-3$] {};
\node[bullet] (60) at (6,0) [label=above:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (70) at (7,0) [label=above:$-2$] {};
\draw (41) -- (50);
\draw [dotted] (4-1) -- (50);
\draw [-] (50)--(60)--(70);
\end{tikzpicture}
\item[$\bullet$] type $\typeC$ \\
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node (A) at (-0.5,0) {$\Gamma=$};
\node (01) at (0,0) {};
\node (00) at (0,0) {};
\node (0-1) at (1,-1) {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=above:$-1$] {};
\draw (01) -- (10);
\draw [dotted] (0-1) -- (10);
\node (150) at (1.5,0) {};
\node (30) at (3,0) {};
\draw [->,decorate,decoration={snake,amplitude=.4mm,segment length=2mm,post length=1mm}] (150) -- (30);
\node (B) at (3.5,0) {$\Gamma^{\sharp}=$};
\node (41) at (4,0) {};
\node (40) at (4,0) {};
\node (4-1) at (5,-1) {};
\node[bullet] (50) at (5,0) [label=above:$-2$] {};
\node[bullet] (60) at (6,0) [label=above:$-1$] {};
\draw (41) -- (50);
\draw [dotted] (4-1) -- (50);
\draw [-] (50)--(60);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{enumerate}
Note that the minimal graph $\overline{\Gamma}$ corresponding to
$\Gamma$ can be obtained by deleting the redundant vertices and
edges from $\Gamma^{\sharp}$ (three vertices and edges for type $\typeA$,
two for type $\typeB$ and one for type $\typeC$).
The paper is organized as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec:plumbing} we prove that for a given resolution
graph $\overline{\Gamma}$ there is a natural singularity with
$\overline{\Gamma}$ as its resolution graph such that the $h^1$
appearing in the dimension formula of Equation~\eqref{eq:dimension} is
maximal (among singularities with the same resolution graph
$\overline{\Gamma}$). For this we review the construction of some
specific surfaces (called the \emph{plumbing surface}). In
Section~\ref{sec:cohomological-properties} we verify some
cohomological properties of these specific surfaces. Then, in
Section~\ref{sec:fourth} we provide formulae for the change of the
dimension of Equation~\eqref{eq:dimension} under blow-ups and provide
the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:nonexist}, which ultimately implies the
main result of the paper.
Throughout this paper we work over the field of complex
numbers.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank J. Wahl for his careful reading and
valuable comments, and for pointing out an error in the proof of
Proposition~\ref{proposition:independent} of the first draft of this
paper. HP was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean
Government (2011-0012111). DS was supported by Basic Science Research
Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant
funded by the Korean Government (2013R1A1A2010613). He thanks KIAS for
warm hospitality when he was an associate member in KIAS. AS was
partially supported by OTKA NK81203, by the \emph{Lend\"ulet program}
of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and by ERC LDTBud. The present
work is part of the authors' activities within CAST, a Research
Network Program of the European Science Foundation.
\section{The plumbing schemes}
\label{sec:plumbing}
In this section we prove that for a given negative definite weighted
graph $\overline{\Gamma}$ with certain properties, there is a normal
surface singularity $(X_0, 0)$ (with minimal good resolution $(V_0,
E_0) \to (X_0,0)$) that has $\overline{\Gamma}$ as its resolution
graph and that $h^1(V_0, \Theta_{V_0}(-\log{E_0}))$ is maximal among
singularities having the same weighted resolution graph
(Corollary~\ref{corollary:maximality}). For this we recall the
definitions of \emph{plumbing surfaces} and \emph{plumbing curves}
associated to a weighted graph, and we investigate their
properties. (We refer to Laufer~\cite[Theorem~3.9]{Laufer-1973} and
Sch\"uller~\cite{Schuller-2012} for constructions of these schemes.)
Let $\Gamma$ be a weighted graph which is a tree consisting of
$(-d_i)$-vertices $E_i$ ($i=1,\dotsc,n$) with $d_i \ge 1$. Assume furthermore
that the valencies of the nodes of $\Gamma$ are all equal to $3$ possibly
except exactly one node with valency $4$. It is known that the analytic type
of a singularity whose resolution graph has a node of valency $4$ depends on
the cross ratio of the node of valency $4$. Throughout this paper a
graph with a unique node of valency $4$ (and all other nodes of valency $3$)
is always assumed to be given with a complex number $c \in \mathbb{C}$ ($c
\neq 0, 1$), called the \emph{cross ratio} of the graph.
\subsection{Plumbing surfaces}
For $i=1, \dotsc, n$, let $U_{ik} = \mathbb{C}^2$ ($k=1,2$) with
coordinates $(x_{ik}, y_{ik})$. We glue $U_{i1}$ and $U_{i2}$ via the
isomorphism
\[\phi_i\colon U_{i2} \setminus \{x_{i2}=0\} \to U_{i1} \setminus \{x_{i1}=0\}, \quad (x_{i2}, y_{i2}) \mapsto (1/x_{i2}, x_{i2}^{d_i} y_{i2}),\]
and obtain $V_i = U_{i1} \cup_{\phi_i} U_{i2}$. The
($-d_i$)-vertex $E_i$ is realized as the zero section
\[E_i = \{y_{i1}=0\} \cup \{y_{i2}=0\} (\cong \mathbb{CP}^1) \subset V_i\]
of the $\mathbb{C}$-bundle $V_i$ over $\mathbb{CP}^1$ with $y_{ik}$
($k=1,2$) as fiber coordinates.
We first define a two-dimensional (complex) analytic space
$V_{\Gamma}$ associated to $\Gamma$, by gluing neighborhoods of the
zero sections $E_i$'s of $V_i$'s together as explained below. If $E_i
\cap E_j \neq \varnothing$ for $i \neq j$ (that is, if the two
vertices $E_i$ and $E_j$ are connected by an edge in $\Gamma$), we
glue a neighborhood of $E_i \subset V_i$ and that of $E_j \subset V_j$
as follows: For a fixed $i$, we place the (at most four) points $\{E_j
\cap E_i \mid j \neq i \} \subset E_i$ at $x_{i1}=0$, $x_{i2}=0$,
$x_{i1}=1$, $x_{i1}=c$ ($c \neq 0, 1$), where $c$ is the cross ratio
of the graph (if given). Choose $(x_{i1}, y_{i1})$, $(x_{i2},
y_{i2})$, $(x_{i1}-1, y_{i1})$, $(x_{i1}-c, y_{i1})$ as local base
coordinates of $V_i$ near $x_{i1}=0$, $x_{i2}=0$, $x_{i1}=1$ and
$x_{i1}=c$, respectively. Near a point of $E_i \cap E_j$ we glue a
neighborhood of $E_i \subset V_i$ and that of $E_j \subset V_j$ by
interchanging the above chosen base coordinates and fiber coordinates
for $V_i$ and $V_j$.
\begin{definition}
The \emph{plumbing surface $S_{\Gamma}$ associated to $\Gamma$} is a germ of
the two-dimensional analytic space $V_{\Gamma}$ along the one-dimensional
curves $E=\cup E_i$.
\end{definition}
We will show that some relevant cohomological properties of plumbing
surfaces are independent of the choice of the cross ratio $c$. So, by
slight abuse of notation, we denote the plumbing surface associated to
$\Gamma$ by $S_{\Gamma}$ for simplicity, instead of recording also $c$
in the notation.
\begin{remark}
Let $\Gamma$ be a weighted graph and let $\Gamma'$ be a graph
obtained by blowing up a vertex or an edge of $\Gamma$ in a way that
$\Gamma '$ has the same number of valency 4 nodes as $\Gamma$. It
is not hard to show that the plumbing surface $S_{\Gamma'}$
associated to $\Gamma'$ is equal to the surface $S_{\Gamma}'$
blown up at the appropriate point on $S_{\Gamma}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
For a non-minimal weighted graph $\Gamma$ of type $\typeA$, $\typeB$, or
$\typeC$, a model for the plumbing surface $S_{\Gamma}$ can be obtained as
follows: Let $C_{\infty}$ be the negative section of the Hirzebruch surface
$\mathbb{F}_1 = \mathbb{P}(\sheaf{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1} \oplus
\sheaf{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(-1))$, i.e.\ $C_{\infty}$ is a section with
$C_{\infty} \cdot C_{\infty}=-1$. Choose three distinct fibers $F_1$, $F_2$,
$F_3$ of $\mathbb{F}_1$ intersecting $C_{\infty}$ at $0$, $1$, $\infty$,
respectively. Then a concrete model for the plumbing surface $S_{\Gamma}$
can be obtained by appropriately blowing up a small neighborhood of the
negative section $C_{\infty}$ and three distinct fibers $F_i$. Indeed, let
$\Gamma_0$ be one of the weighted graphs $\Gamma_{\typeA}$,
$\Gamma_{\typeB}$, or $\Gamma_{\typeC}$. After the appropriate sequence of
blow-ups we can identify a configuration of curves (in the proper transform
of the section $C_{\infty}$ and the three fibers $F_i$) which intersect each
other according to $\Gamma_0$ in the resulting rational surface. The
plumbing surface $S_{\Gamma_0}$ is a germ of the resulting rational surface
along the curves. By further blowing up the curves at appropriate points, we
can find a configuration of curves in the proper transform intersecting each
other according to the given graph $\Gamma$. The germ of the surface along
these curves then provides the plumbing surface $S_{\Gamma}$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Plumbing curves}
Let $s=(s_1, \dotsc, s_n) \in \mathbb{N}^n$ and let $\sheaf{I}_i$ be
the ideal sheaf of $E_i$ in $S_{\Gamma}$. We define the \emph{plumbing
curve $Z_{\Gamma}(s)$ associated to $\Gamma$ and $s$} as a
non-reduced one-dimensional scheme defined by the ideal sheaf
$\prod_{i=1}^{n} \sheaf{I_i}^{s_i}$, which is the same as the
\emph{plumbing construction} of
Laufer~\cite[Theorem~3.9]{Laufer-1973}. For brevity, in case of
$s=(1,\dotsc,1)$, we denote $Z_{\Gamma}(s)$ by $Z_{\Gamma}$.
Here we briefly recall a more detailed construction of the plumbing
curve $Z_{\Gamma}(s)$ given in Sch\"uller~\cite[\S3]{Schuller-2012}
and \cite[\S4]{Schuller-2012-thesis}. Let $t_i=\sharp \{j \mid E_j
\cap E_i \neq \varnothing \}$, and let $E_{i_\ell}$ ($1 \le \ell \le
t_i$) be the $t_i$ curves with $E_i \cap E_{i_\ell} \neq
\varnothing$. We first define a $1$-dimensional scheme $W_i$. Each
$W_i$ consists of the following three affine open subschemes of
$Z_{\Gamma}(s)$. (In what follows, if there is no node with valency
$4$, then one may remove the terms $y_{i1}=c, y_{i2}=c$ ($c$ is the
cross ratio) in the formulae): If $t_i=1$ then
\begin{align*}\allowdisplaybreaks
W_{i1} &= \Spec(\mathbb{C}[x_{i1}, y_{i1}]/\langle x_{i1}^{s_{i_1}}y_{i1}^{s_i}\rangle) \setminus \{y_{i1}=1, y_{i1}=c\} \\
W_{i2} &= \Spec(\mathbb{C}[x_{i2}, y_{i2}]/\langle y_{i2}^{s_i}\rangle) \\
W_{i,12} &= \Spec\left(\frac{\mathbb{C}[x_{i1}, y_{i1}, x_{i2}, y_{i2}]}{\langle x_{i1}x_{i2}-1, y_{i1}-x_{i2}^{d_i}y_{i2}, y_{i2}^{s_i}\rangle}\right) \\
&\qquad \setminus \{y_{i1}=1, y_{i1}=c\}.
\end{align*}
If $t_i=2$ then
\begin{align*}\allowdisplaybreaks
W_{i1} &= \Spec(\mathbb{C}[x_{i1}, y_{i1}]/\langle x_{i1}^{s_{i_1}}y_{i1}^{s_i}\rangle) \setminus \{y_{i1}=1, y_{i1}=c\} \\
W_{i2} &= \Spec(\mathbb{C}[x_{i2}, y_{i2}]/\langle x_{i2}^{s_{i_2}} y_{i2}^{s_i}\rangle) \setminus \{y_{i2}=1, y_{i2}=c\} \\
W_{i,12} &= \Spec\left(\frac{\mathbb{C}[x_{i1}, y_{i1}, x_{i2}, y_{i2}]}{\langle x_{i1}x_{i2}-1, y_{i1}-x_{i2}^{d_i}y_{i2}, y_{i2}^{s_i}\rangle}\right) \\
&\qquad \setminus\{y_{i1}=1, y_{i1}=c, y_{i2}=1, y_{i2}=c\}.
\end{align*}
If $t_i=3$ then
\begin{align*}\allowdisplaybreaks
W_{i1} &= \Spec(\mathbb{C}[x_{i1}, y_{i1}]/\langle x_{i1}^{s_{i_1}}(x_{i1}-1)^{s_{i_3}} y_{i1}^{s_i}\rangle) \setminus \{y_{i1}=1, y_{i1}=c\}\\
W_{i2} &= \Spec(\mathbb{C}[x_{i2}, y_{i2}]/((x_{i1}-1)^{s_{i_3}} x_{i2}^{s_{i_2}} y_{i2}^{s_i})) \setminus \{y_{i2}=1, y_{i2}=c\}\\
W_{i,12} &= \Spec\left(\frac{\mathbb{C}[x_{i1}, y_{i1}, x_{i2}, y_{i2}]}{\langle x_{i1}x_{i2}-1, y_{i1}-x_{i2}^{d_i}y_{i2}, (x_{i1}-1)^{s_{i_3}}y_{i2}^{s_i}\rangle}\right) \\
&\qquad \setminus \{y_{i1}=1, y_{i1}=c, y_{i2}=1, y_{i2}=c\}.
\end{align*}
If $t_i=4$ then
\begin{align*}\allowdisplaybreaks
W_{i1} &= \Spec(\mathbb{C}[x_{i1}, y_{i1}]/\langle x_{i1}^{s_{i_1}}(x_{i1}-1)^{s_{i_3}}(x_{i1}-c)^{s_{i_4}}y_{i1}^{s_i}\rangle) \setminus \{y_{i1}=1\} \\
W_{i2} &= \Spec(\mathbb{C}[x_{i2}, y_{i2}]/\langle (x_{i2}-1)^{s_{i_3}} (cx_{i2}-1)^{s_{i_4}} x_{i2}^{s_{i_2}} y_{i2}^{s_i}\rangle) \setminus \{y_{i2}=1\} \\
W_{i,12} &= \Spec\left(\frac{\mathbb{C}[x_{i1}, y_{i1}, x_{i2}, y_{i2}]}{\langle x_{i1}x_{i2}-1, y_{i1}-x_{i2}^{d_i}y_{i2}, (x_{i1}-1)^{s_{i_3}}(x_{i1}-c)^{s_{i_4}}y_{i2}^{s_i}
\rangle}\right) \\
&\qquad \setminus\{y_{i1}=1, y_{i2}=1\}.
\end{align*}
The plumbing curve $Z_{\Gamma}(s)$ is given by gluing $W_i$ and $W_j$ in case
$E_i \cap E_j \neq \varnothing$ by interchanging the base coordinates and the
fiber coordinates for $W_i$ and $W_j$. That is, if $W_i \cap W_j = W_{im_i}
\cap W_{jm_j}$ for $1 \le m_i, m_j \le 2$, then we glue $W_i$ and $W_j$ by the
relation
\begin{equation}\label{equation:gluing-map-maximal}
\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{x}_{im_i} &= y_{jm_j}, \\
y_{im_i} &= \widetilde{x}_{jm_j}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with $\widetilde{x}_{im_i}=x_{im_i}-c$ if $W_j=W_{i_4}$ with respect to $W_i$, or $\widetilde{x}_{im_i}=x_{im_i}-1$ if $W_j=W_{i_3}$ with respect to $W_i$, or $\widetilde{x}_{im_i}=x_{im_i}$ else, and analogously for $\widetilde{x}_{jm_j}$.
\subsection{Plumbing schemes and effective exceptional cycles}
Let $(X, 0)$ be a germ of a rational surface singularity. Let
$\pi\colon V \to X$ be the minimal good resolution of $X$ with
$E=\pi^{-1}(0)$ the exceptional set. Let $E= \sum_{i=1}^{n} E_i$ be
the decomposition of the exceptional set $E$ into irreducible
components. Then the $E_i$'s have only normal crossings and $E_i \cong
\mathbb{P}^1$. For $s=(s_1, \dotsc, s_n) \in \mathbb{N}^n$ let
$Z(s)=\sum_{i=1}^{n} s_i E_i$ ($s_i \ge 1$) be an effective
exceptional cycle supported on $E$. Let $\overline{\Gamma}$ be the
weighted graph corresponding to $E$.
In what follows we assume that the valencies of the vertices of
$\overline{\Gamma}$ are $\le 3$ possibly except one node with valency
$4$ (as it is satisfied by graphs of type $\typeA$, $\typeB$, or
$\typeC$), although the same method would give the results for more
general graphs. Furthermore, if there is a node of valency $4$, say
$E_n$, then we assume that the cross ratio $c$ of the graph
$\overline{\Gamma}$ is given as that of the four intersection points
in $E_n$ by its four neighbours.
\begin{proposition}[{Laufer~\cite[Theorem~3.9]{Laufer-1973}, Sch\"uller~\cite[Lemma~3.2]{Schuller-2012}}]\label{proposition:Z-via-gluing-W}
The scheme $Z(s)$ can be obtained by gluing the open subsets $W_i$ of
the plumbing curve $Z_{\Gamma}(s)$ with $s=(s_1,\dotsc,s_n)$ by using
various gluing maps.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof is given in the proof of Laufer~\cite[Theorem~3.9]{Laufer-1973} or
in that of Sch\"uller~\cite[Lemma~3.2]{Schuller-2012}. Here we briefly
recall how to glue $W_i$ (for details see
Sch\"uller~\cite[Lemma~3.2]{Schuller-2012}). There are open neighborhoods of
$E_i$ in $Z$ isomorphic to $W_i$ for every $E_i$. For $E_i \cap E_j \neq \varnothing$, letting $m_i$, $m_j$,
$\widetilde{x}_{im_i}$, $\widetilde{x}_{jm_j}$ as before, we glue $W_i$ and $W_j$ by the
relations
\begin{equation}\label{equation:gluing-map}
\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{x}_{jm_j} &= y_{im_i}(a_{y,ij} + \widetilde{x}_{im_i} y_{im_i} p_{y,ij})\\
y_{jm_j} &= \widetilde{x}_{im_i}(a_{x,ij} + \widetilde{x}_{im_i} y_{im_i} p_{x,ij})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for some $a_{x,ij}, a_{y,ij} \in \mathbb{C} \setminus \{0\}$ and $p_{x,ij}, p_{y,ij} \in \mathbb{C}[x_{im_i}, y_{im_i}]$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}[{Sch\"uller~\cite[Proposition~3.14]{Schuller-2012}}]
\label{proposition:deformation-Z-C}
Let $Z(s)=\sum_{i=1}^{n} s_i E_i$ ($s_i \ge 1$) be an effective exceptional
cycle supported on $E$. Then there exist an integral affine scheme $T$ and a locally trivial flat surjective map $f\colon
\mathcal{X} \to T$ such that $Z_{\Gamma}(s)=f^{-1}(t_0)$ for some closed point $t_0 \in T$ and $Z(s) \cong f^{-1}(t_1)$ for some $t_1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We briefly sketch the proof of
Sch\"uller~\cite[Proposition~3.14]{Schuller-2012} for the convenience
of the reader. Suppose that $Z(s)$ is defined by the relations in
\eqref{equation:gluing-map}. Let
\begin{equation}\label{equation:A}
A = \mathbb{C}[u_{x,ij}, u_{y,ij}, u_{x,ij}^{-1}, u_{y,ij}^{-1}, u_x, u_y]
\end{equation}
with $ij$ running over all $ij$ such that $W_i \cap W_j \neq
\varnothing$. Here we put $u_{x,ij}^{-1}$ and $u_{y,ij}^{-1}$ in $A$
because $a_{x,ij}, a_{y,ij} \neq 0$ in the gluing map
\eqref{equation:gluing-map}. Let $T=\Spec{A}$. Then $\mathcal{X}$ is
defined as follows: $W_i \times T$ and $W_j \times T$ can be glued
along $(W_i \cap W_j) \times T$ via
\begin{align*}
x_{jk_j} &= y_{ik_i}(u_{y,ij} + x_{ik_i}y_{ik_i}p_{y,ij}u_y) \\
y_{jk_j} &= x_{ik_i}(u_{x,ij} + x_{ik_i}y_{ik_i}p_{x,ij}u_x).
\end{align*}
Then it is not difficult to show that the second projection $f\colon
\mathcal{X} \to T$ is flat, $Z(s) =
f^{-1}(a_{x,12},a_{y,12},\dotsc,a_{x,in},a_{y,in}, 1,1)$, and $Z_{\Gamma}(s) = f^{-1}(1,1,\dotsc,1,1,0,0)$.
\end{proof}
Next we compare $h^1(Z(s), \Theta_{Z(s)})$ and $h^1(Z_{\Gamma}(s),
\Theta_{Z_{\Gamma}(s)})$:
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:maximality}
Let $(V, E) \to (X, 0)$ be the minimal good resolution of a rational
surface singularity. Let $E = \sum_{i=1}^{n} E_i$ be the decomposition
of the exceptional set $E$ into irreducible components. For $s=(s_1,
\dotsc, s_n) \in \mathbb{N}^n$ let $Z(s)=\sum_{i=1}^{n} s_i E_i$ ($s_i
\ge 1$) be an effective exceptional cycle supported on $E$. Let
$\overline{\Gamma}$ be the weighted dual graph corresponding to $E$
(given with the same cross ratio of the node of valency $4$ of $E$, if
any). Then we have
\[
h^1(Z(s), \Theta_{Z(s)}) \le h^1(Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s),
\Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)}).\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By the Mayer-Vietoris sequence (cf.\ Laufer~\cite[(3.10)]{Laufer-1973}
or Sch\"uller~\cite[Lemma~3.4]{Schuller-2012}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{equation:matrix-rank}
\begin{aligned}
H^1(Z(s), \Theta_{Z(s)}) &= \left(\bigoplus_{i \neq j} \Gamma(W_i \cap
W_j, \Theta_{Z(s)})\right) / \rho_{Z(s)}\left(\bigoplus_{i}
\Gamma(W_i, \Theta_{Z(s)})\right) \\ H^1(Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s),
\Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)}) &= \left(\bigoplus_{i \neq j}
\Gamma(W_i \cap W_j, \Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)})\right) /
\rho_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)}\left(\bigoplus_{i} \Gamma(W_i,
\Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)})\right)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{Z(s)}$ and $\rho_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)}$ are
restriction maps. Furthermore, in computing them, by
Laufer~\cite[(3.11)]{Laufer-1973} or
Sch\"uller~\cite[(4.16)]{Schuller-2012} it is enough to consider
only elements of $\bigoplus_{i \neq j} \Gamma(W_i \cap W_j, \Theta_{Z(s)})$
of the form
\begin{equation}\label{equation:matrix-row}
\sum_{a=1}^{s_j-1} \sum_{b=0}^{s_i-1} \alpha_{ab} x_{i1}^a y_{i1}^b
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i1}} + \sum_{c=0}^{s_j-1}
\sum_{d=1}^{s_i-1} \beta_{cd} x_{i1}^c y_{i1}^d
\frac{\partial}{\partial y_{i1}} .
\end{equation}
We now consider the elements in $\Gamma(W_i, \Theta_{Z(s)})$ and
$\Gamma(W_i, \Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)})$. At first, note that
$\Gamma(W_i, \Theta_{Z(s)}) = \Gamma(W_i,
\Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)})$. Let $t_i=\sharp \{j \mid E_j \cap
E_i \neq \varnothing \}$ as before. Depending on $t_i$, the elements
of $\Gamma(W_i, \Theta_{Z(s)}) = \Gamma(W_i,
\Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)})$ are given as follows
(cf.\ Laufer~\cite[pp.~86--87]{Laufer-1973} and
Laufer~\cite[(4.4)]{Laufer-1973-Taut}; or
Sch\"uller~\cite[p.~68]{Schuller-2012}): For any $t_i$,
\begin{equation}\label{equation:partial-y}
x_{i1}^a y_{i1}^b \frac{\partial}{\partial y_{i1}}
\end{equation}
with $0 \le a \le v_i(b-1)$, $b > 0$.
For $t_i=1, 2$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{equation:partial-x-1-2}
x_{i1}^a y_{i1}^b \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i1}}
\end{equation}
with $0 < a \le v_ib+1$, $b \ge 0$. Additionally, for $t_i=1$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{equation:partial-x-1}
y_{i2}^b \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i1}}
\end{equation}
with $b \ge 0$. For $t_i=3$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{equation:partial-x-3}
x_{i1}^a y_{i1}^b (x_{i1}-1) \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i1}}
\end{equation}
with $0 < a \le v_ib$, $b > 0$. Finally for $t_i=4$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{equation:partial-x-4}
x_{i1}^ay_{i1}^b (x_{i1}-1)(x_{i1}-c) \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i1}}
\end{equation}
with $0 < a \le v_ib-1$, $b > 0$, where $c$ is the cross ratio.
According to Sch\"uller~\cite[Corollary~3.9]{Schuller-2012}, in order
to compute $h^1(Z(s), \Theta_{Z(s)})$ and
$h^1(Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s), \Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)})$, we
first construct matrices $M_{Z(s)}$ and $M_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)}$
in the following way: For every intersection point $x_{ij}$ of $E_i
\cap E_j$ and every element of Equation~\eqref{equation:matrix-row} we
add one row to $M_{Z(s)}$ and $M_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)}$,
respectively. Then for every $W_i$ and for every element of
\eqref{equation:partial-y},~\eqref{equation:partial-x-1-2},~\eqref{equation:partial-x-1},~\eqref{equation:partial-x-3},
or~\eqref{equation:partial-x-4}, we add one column to $M_{Z(s)}$ and
$M_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)}$, respectively. The entries of the
matrices $M_{Z(s)}$ and $M_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)}$ are the
coefficients of the element associated to the column as an expression
in the element associated to the row. Note that the two matrices
$M_{Z(s)}$ and $M_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)}$ have the same number of
rows, say $r$. The entries of $M_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)}$ are
complex numbers determined by $\overline{\Gamma}$ (and the cross ratio
$c$, if given) and $s=(s_1,\dotsc,s_n)$. On the other hand, the
entries of $M_{Z(s)}$ are polynomials in $A$ of
Equation~\eqref{equation:A}. The difference between
$M_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)}$ and $M_{Z(s)}$ is coming from the
gluing data of Equations~\eqref{equation:gluing-map-maximal} and
\eqref{equation:gluing-map}. Then it follows by
\eqref{equation:matrix-rank} that
\begin{align*}
h^1(Z(s), \Theta_{Z(s)}) &= r - \rank{M_{Z(s)}}
\\ h^1(Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s), \Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)}) &=
r - \rank{M_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)}}.
\end{align*}
Therefore, if $Z'$ is a nearby fiber of the deformation $f$ in
Proposition~\ref{proposition:deformation-Z-C}, then we have
$\rank{M_{Z(s)}}=\rank{M_{Z'}}$ because the $\rank$ is locally
constant on the base space $T$. Therefore $h^1(Z(s), \Theta_{Z(s)})$
remains constant for the general fiber $Z'$ of the deformation
$f$. The assertion then follows by upper semicontinuity.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:W<-E>=TZ}
For $s \gg 0$, we have
\begin{equation*}
h^1(V, \Theta_V(-\log{E}))=h^1(Z(s), \Theta_{Z(s)}).
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is a well-known fact; here we give a proof for the convenience of
the reader. According to Burns--Wahl~\cite[Subsection~(1.6)]{Burns-Wahl-1974},
there is an exact sequence
\begin{equation}\label{equation:TZ}
0 \to \Theta_{Z(s)} \to \Theta_V \otimes \sheaf{O_{Z(s)}} \to \bigoplus_{i=1}^{n} \sheaf{N_{E_i/V}} \to 0.
\end{equation}
Then we have the following commutative diagram:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{
& & & 0 \ar[d] & \\
0 \ar[r] & \Theta_V(-Z(s)) \ar[r]^{\text{id}} & \Theta_V(-Z(s)) \ar[d] \ar[r] & 0 \ar[d] \ar[r] & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & \Theta_V(-\log{E}) \ar[r] & \Theta_V \ar[r] \ar[d] & \bigoplus_{i=1}^{n} \sheaf{N_{E_i/V}} \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\text{id}} & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & \Theta_{Z(s)} \ar[r] & \Theta_V \otimes \sheaf{O_{Z(s)}} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \bigoplus_{i=1}^{n} \sheaf{N_{E_i/V}} \ar[r] & 0\\
& & 0 & &
}
\end{equation*}
By the snake lemma, we get an exact sequence
\begin{equation}\label{equation:T(-Z)-T<-Z>-TZ}
0 \to \Theta_V(-Z(s)) \to \Theta_V(-\log{E}) \to \Theta_{Z(s)} \to 0.
\end{equation}
Since $\overline{\Gamma}$ is negative definite, one may choose $Z_0$
so that $Z_0 \cdot E_i < 0$ for all $i$ (that is, $-Z_0$ is ample). We
have $H^i(V, \Theta_V(-Z_0))=0$ ($i=1,2$) by Kodaira vanishing, hence
there is an isomorphism
\[H^1(V, \Theta_V(-\log{E})) \to H^1(Z_0, \Theta_{Z_0}).\]
On the other hand, for any $Z(s) \ge Z_0$, the above isomorphism $H^1(V,
\Theta_V(-\log{E})) \to H^1(Z_0, \Theta_{Z_0})$ factors through
\[
H^1(V, \Theta_V(-\log{E})) \to H^1(Z(s), \Theta_{Z(s)}) \to H^1(Z_0,
\Theta_{Z_0}).
\]
Note that the first map is surjective; therefore it is an
isomorphism. Hence we have
\begin{equation*}
h^1(V, \Theta_V(-\log{E}))=h^1(Z(s), \Theta_{Z(s)}). \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
The combination of Theorem~\ref{theorem:maximality} and
Lemma~\ref{lemma:W<-E>=TZ} immediately implies:
\begin{corollary}\label{corollary:maximality}
With the notation as in Theorem~\ref{theorem:maximality},
\[
h^1(V, \Theta_V(-\log{E})) \le h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}},
\Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}})).
\]
\qed
\end{corollary}
\section{Cohomological properties of plumbing schemes}
\label{sec:cohomological-properties}
Let $\Gamma$ be a non-minimal graph of type $\typeA$, $\typeB$, or
$\typeC$. Let $\overline{\Gamma}$ be the corresponding minimal graph,
and let $\Gamma^{\sharp}$ be the augmented graph corresponding to
$\Gamma$. The goal of this section is to compare
$h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}},
\Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}}))$ to
$h^1(S_{\Gamma^{\sharp}},
\Theta_{S_{\Gamma^{\sharp}}}(-\log{Z_{\Gamma^{\sharp}}}))$ (see
Theorem~\ref{theorem:independent-alpha}).
Suppose that $Z_{\overline{\Gamma}} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} E_i$ is the decomposition of the exceptional divisor $Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}$ in $S_{\overline{\Gamma}}$. Since $\overline{\Gamma}$ is negative definite, there is $s_0=(s_1,\dotsc,s_n) \in \mathbb{N}^n$ such that
\[Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s_0)\cdot E_i < 0\]
for all $i=1,\dotsc,n$, that is, $-Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s_0)$ is
ample in $S_{\overline{\Gamma}}$. Set $s = ms_0=(ms_1, \dotsc, ms_n)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:easy-vanishing}
For $m \gg 0$, we have
\[H^1_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}}(\Theta_{S_{\Gamma^{\sharp}}}(-Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s))) =0,\]
where $H^1_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}}$ means the cohomology with support on $Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\sheaf{F}=\Theta_{S_{\Gamma^{\sharp}}}(-Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s))$.
In the following, for simplicity, we will denote
$S_{\Gamma^{\sharp}}$, $S_{\overline{\Gamma}}$,
$\Theta_{S_{\Gamma^{\sharp}}}$, $\Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}}}$,
$Z_{\Gamma^{\sharp}}$, $Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}$ by $S^{\sharp}$,
$\overline{S}$, $\Theta^{\sharp}$, $\overline{\Theta}$, $Z^{\sharp}$,
$\overline{Z}$, respectively.
Let $\pi: \overline{S} \to \overline{X}$ be the map contracting $\overline{Z}$ to a point, say $P$. Since $H^1(\overline{S}, \sheaf{F})=0$ by Kodaira vanishing, we have the following commutative diagram with exact rows:
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & \Gamma(\overline{X}, \pi_{\ast}{\sheaf{F}}) \ar@{=}[d] \ar[r] & \Gamma(\overline{X}-P, \pi_{\ast}{\sheaf{F}}) \ar[r] \ar@{=}[d] & H^1_P(\pi_{\ast}{\sheaf{F}}) \\
0 \ar[r] & \Gamma(\overline{S}, \sheaf{F}) \ar[r] & \Gamma(\overline{S}-\overline{Z}, \sheaf{F}) \ar[r] & H^1_{\overline{Z}}(\sheaf{F}) \to 0
}
\end{equation*}
By Laufer~\cite[Lemma~5.2]{Laufer-1971}, $\pi_{\ast}{\sheaf{F}}$ is coherent. Since $V$ is Cohen-Macaulay at $P$ (being two-dimensional and normal), $\dep_P(\pi_{\ast}{\sheaf{F}})=2$ by Schlessinger~\cite[Lemma~1]{Schlessinger-1971}; hence $H^1_P(\pi_{\ast}{\sheaf{F}})=0$. Therefore $\Gamma(\overline{X}, \pi_{\ast}{\sheaf{F}}) \cong \Gamma(\overline{X}-P, \pi_{\ast}{\sheaf{F}})$; thus,
\begin{equation}\label{equation:S-vs-S-Z}
\Gamma(\overline{S}, \sheaf{F}) \cong \Gamma(\overline{S}-\overline{Z}, \sheaf{F}),
\end{equation}
hence the assertion follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The above lemma may be proved by a general result, the
\textit{easy vanishing theorem} of Wahl~\cite{Wahl-2014}.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:TZbar}
For $m \gg 0$, we have $H^0(Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}, \Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)})=0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We use the same notations as in the proof of
Lemma~~\ref{lemma:easy-vanishing} for simplicity. From the short exact
sequence \eqref{equation:T(-Z)-T<-Z>-TZ}, we have
\begin{equation*}
0 \to H^0(\overline{S}, \overline{\Theta}(-\overline{Z}(s))) \to
H^0(\overline{S}, \overline{\Theta}(-\log{\overline{Z}})) \to
H^0(\Theta_{\overline{Z}(s)}) \to H^1(\overline{S},
\overline{\Theta}(-\overline{Z}(s))).
\end{equation*}
Since $H^1(\overline{S}, \overline{\Theta}(-\overline{Z}(s)))=0$ by
Kodaira vanishing, it is enough to show that
\[
H^0(\overline{S}, \overline{\Theta}(-\overline{Z}(s))) \to
H^0(\overline{S}, \overline{\Theta}(-\log{\overline{Z}}))
\]
is an isomorphism.
By the definition of $\overline{\Theta}(-\log{\overline{Z}})$, we have the short exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \to \overline{\Theta}(-\log{\overline{Z}}) \to \overline{\Theta} \to
\oplus \sheaf{N}_{\overline{Z}_i/\overline{S}} \to 0
\end{equation*}
where $\overline{Z} = \sum _i\overline{Z}_i$. So we have
\[H^0(\overline{S}, \overline{\Theta}(-\log{\overline{Z}})) = H^0(\overline{S}, \overline{\Theta}).\]
On the other hand, by Equation~\eqref{equation:S-vs-S-Z}, we have
\[
H^0(\overline{S}, \overline{\Theta}(-\overline{Z}(s))) =
H^0(\overline{S} \setminus \overline{Z},
\overline{\Theta}(-\overline{Z}(s))) = H^0(\overline{S} \setminus
\overline{Z}, \overline{\Theta}).
\]
Using the depth argument as in the proof of
Lemma~\ref{lemma:easy-vanishing}, we have
\[H^0(\overline{S} \setminus \overline{Z}, \overline{\Theta})=H^0(\overline{S}, \overline{\Theta});\]
hence the assertion follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{proposition:independent}
For $m \gg 0$, the cohomology group $H^1(S_{\Gamma^{\sharp}},
\Theta_{S_{\Gamma^{\sharp}}}(-Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)))$ depends only on the type ($\typeA$, $\typeB$, or $\typeC$) of the graph
$\overline{\Gamma}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
With the same notations as in the proof of
Lemma~~\ref{lemma:easy-vanishing}, we have the following exact sequence:
\begin{equation}\label{equation:the-exact-sequence}
0=H^1_{\overline{Z}}(\sheaf{F}) \to
H^1(S^{\sharp}, \sheaf{F}) \to
H^1(S^{\sharp} \setminus \overline{Z}, \sheaf{F}) \xrightarrow{\phi}
H^2_{\overline{Z}}(\sheaf{F}) \to
H^2(S^{\sharp}, \sheaf{F})=0,
\end{equation}
where $H^1_{\overline{Z}}(\sheaf{F})=0$ by
Lemma~\ref{lemma:easy-vanishing} and $H^2(S^{\sharp}, \sheaf{F})=0$
because $\sheaf{F}$ is a locally free sheaf on the germ $S^{\sharp}$
of an analytic space along a one-dimensional curve
(cf.\ Grauert~\cite[Satz 1, p.~355]{Grauert-1962}). We first prove
that $H^1(S^{\sharp} \setminus \overline{Z}, \sheaf{F})$ and
$H^2_{\overline{Z}}(\sheaf{F})$ in the above sequence depend only on
the type of the graph $\overline{\Gamma}$.
At first, we will show that $S^{\sharp} \setminus \overline{Z}$ depends only on the type of the graph $\overline{\Gamma}$; then, it is clear that $H^1(S^{\sharp} \setminus \overline{Z}, \sheaf{F})$ depends only on the type of the graph $\overline{\Gamma}$. This follows from the observation that
\[S^{\sharp} \setminus \overline{Z} = (S^{\sharp} \setminus Z^{\sharp}) \cup C_0,\]
where $C_0 = \Supp(Z^{\sharp}) \setminus \Supp(\overline{Z})$. Since
$S^{\sharp}$ is obtained by blowing up (several times) the plumbing
surface corresponding to the graph $\Gamma_{\typeA}$,
$\Gamma_{\typeB}$, or $\Gamma_{\typeC}$ according to its type, the complement
$S^{\sharp} \setminus Z^{\sharp}$ depends only on the type of the graph
$\overline{\Gamma}$. Furthermore $C_0$ depends only on the type of the graph
$\overline{\Gamma}$. Therefore $S^{\sharp} \setminus \overline{Z}$ depends only on the type of the graph $\overline{\Gamma}$ as asserted.
Next we prove that $H^2_{\overline{Z}}(\sheaf{F})$ depends only
on the type of the graph $\overline{\Gamma}$. In the following exact
sequence
\begin{equation*}
\xymatrix{ H^1(\overline{S}, \sheaf{F}) \ar[r] & H^1(\overline{S}
\setminus \overline{Z}, \sheaf{F}) \ar[r] &
H^2_{\overline{Z}}(\sheaf{F}) \ar[r] & H^2(\overline{S},
\sheaf{F}),}
\end{equation*}
we have $H^1(\overline{S}, \sheaf{F})=H^2(\overline{S}, \sheaf{F})=0$ by
Kodaira vanishing; hence
\begin{equation}\label{equation:H^2_Z(F)=H^1(SZ,F)}
H^2_{\overline{Z}}(\sheaf{F}) \cong H^1(\overline{S} \setminus \overline{Z}, \sheaf{F}).
\end{equation}
Therefore it is enough to show that $\overline{S} \setminus
\overline{Z}$ depends only on the type of the graph. For
$C_1=S^{\sharp} \setminus \overline{S}$, which depends only on the type
of the graph, we have
\begin{equation*}
S^{\sharp} \setminus \overline{Z} = (\overline{S} \setminus \overline{Z}) \cup (C_1 \setminus \overline{Z}).
\end{equation*}
Since $S^{\sharp} \setminus \overline{Z}$ depends only on the type of the
graph as we seen above, so does $\overline{S} \setminus \overline{Z}$. Hence
$H^2_{\overline{Z}}(\sheaf{F})$ depends only on the type of the graph $\overline{\Gamma}$.
Finally, the cohomology group $H^1(S^{\sharp}, \sheaf{F})$ is the kernel of the connecting homomorphism
\begin{equation*}
\phi: H^1(S^{\sharp} \setminus \overline{Z}, \sheaf{F}) \to
H^2_{\overline{Z}}(\sheaf{F})
\end{equation*}
in the exact sequence Equation~\eqref{equation:the-exact-sequence},
which is just a restriction map because $H^2_{\overline{Z}}(\sheaf{F})
\cong H^1(\overline{S} \setminus \overline{Z}, \sheaf{F})$ by
Equation~\eqref{equation:H^2_Z(F)=H^1(SZ,F)}. Since the two spaces
$S^{\sharp} \setminus \overline{Z}$ and $\overline{S} \setminus
\overline{Z}$ depend only on the type of the graph, so does
$\phi$. Therefore $H^1(S^{\sharp}, \sheaf{F})$ in the exact sequence
of Equation~\eqref{equation:the-exact-sequence} also depends only on
the type of the graph $\overline{\Gamma}$ as asserted.
\end{proof}
The following result of Flenner-Zaidenberg shows how the cohomologies of
logarithmic tangent sheaves change under blow-ups:
\begin{proposition}[{Flenner--Zaidenberg~\cite[Lemma~1.5]{Flenner-Zaidenberg-1994}}]
\label{proposition:Flenner-Zaidenberg}
Let $S$ be a nonsingular surface, and let $D$ be a simple normal
crossing divisor on $S$. Let $\pi \colon S' \to S$ be the blow-up of
$S$ at a point $p$ of $D$. Let $D'=f^{*}(D)_{\text{red}}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] If $p$ is a smooth point of $D$, then there is an exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \to \pi_{\ast}{\Theta_{S'}(-\log{D'})} \to \Theta_{S}(-\log{D}) \to \mathbb{C} \to 0
\end{equation*}
where the constant sheaf $\mathbb{C}$ is supported on $p$. Hence we have
\begin{gather*}
\mathbb{C} \to H^1(S', \Theta_{S'}(-\log{D'})) \to H^1(S, \Theta_{S}(-\log{D})) \to 0
\intertext{and}
H^2(S', \Theta_{S'}(-\log{D'})) \cong H^2(S, \Theta_{S}(-\log{D})).
\end{gather*}
\item[(b)] If $p$ is on two components of $D$, then
\begin{equation*}
H^i(S', \Theta_{S'}(-\log{D'})) \cong H^i(S, \Theta_S(-\log{D}))
\end{equation*}
for $i=1,2$. \qed
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
After these preparations, we are ready to turn to the proof of the
main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:independent-alpha}
Let $\Gamma$ be a non-minimal graph of type $\typeA$, $\typeB$, or
$\typeC$. Let $\overline{\Gamma}$ be the corresponding minimal graph,
and let $\Gamma^{\sharp}$ be the augmented graph corresponding to
$\Gamma$. There is a constant $\alpha$ which depends only on the type
of $\Gamma$ (not on the graph $\Gamma$ itself and the cross ratio, if
any) such that
\begin{equation*}
h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}},
\Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}})) =
h^1(S_{\Gamma^{\sharp}},
\Theta_{S_{\Gamma^{\sharp}}}(-\log{Z_{\Gamma^{\sharp}}})) - \alpha.
\end{equation*}
We then have
\begin{equation*}
h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}},
\Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}})) \le
h^1(S_{\Gamma}, \Theta_{S_{\Gamma}}(-\log{Z_{\Gamma}})) - \alpha + 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As in Equation~\eqref{equation:T(-Z)-T<-Z>-TZ}, we have a short exact
sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \to \Theta^{\sharp}(-\overline{Z}(s)) \to \Theta^{\sharp}(-\log{\overline{Z}}) \to \Theta_{\overline{Z}(s)} \to 0.
\end{equation*}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:W<-E>=TZ}, $H^1(\Theta_{\overline{Z}(s)}) \cong H^1(\overline{S}, \overline{\Theta}(-\log{\overline{Z}}))$, and by
Lemma~\ref{lemma:TZbar} we have that $H^0(Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}, \Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}(s)})=0$. Therefore we have an exact sequence
\begin{equation}\label{equation:main-exact-sequence}
0 \to H^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\overline{Z}(s))) \to
H^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\log{\overline{Z}})) \to
H^1(\overline{S}, \overline{\Theta}(-\log{\overline{Z}})) \to
\end{equation}
where $H^2(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\overline{Z}(s)))=0$ by
Grauert~\cite[Satz 1, p.~355]{Grauert-1962} (as in the proof of
Proposition~\ref{proposition:independent}). By the above
Equation~\eqref{equation:main-exact-sequence} we have
\begin{equation}\label{equation:first-reduction}
h^1(\overline{S}, \overline{\Theta}(-\log{\overline{Z}}))
= h^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\log{\overline{Z}}))
-h^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\overline{Z}(s))).
\end{equation}
Here $H^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\log{\overline{Z}}))$ and $H^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\overline{Z}(s)))$ are finite dimensional because $S^{\sharp}$ is a germ of an analytic space along one-dimensional curves (cf.\ Grauert~\cite[Satz 1, p.~355]{Grauert-1962}).
On the other hand, consider the short exact sequence
\begin{equation*}
0 \to \Theta^{\sharp}(-\log{Z^{\sharp}}) \to \Theta^{\sharp}(-\log{\overline{Z}}) \to \sheaf{N}_F \to 0,
\end{equation*}
where $F$ is the redundant divisor, i.e.\ $F = Z^{\sharp} -\overline{Z}$ and $\sheaf{N}_F = \oplus \sheaf{N}_{F_i/S^{\sharp}}$ for $F = \sum F_i$. Since $H^0(\sheaf{N}_F)=0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{equation:Z-sharp-Z-bar}
0 \to H^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\log{Z^{\sharp}})) \to
H^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\log{\overline{Z}})) \to
H^1(\sheaf{N}_F) \to
\end{equation}
where $H^2(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\log{Z^{\sharp}}))=0$ by Grauert~\cite[Satz 1, p.~355]{Grauert-1962} as before. Then
\begin{equation}\label{equation:second-reduction}
h^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\log{\overline{Z}}))
= h^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\log{Z^{\sharp}}))
+ h^1(\sheaf{N}_F).
\end{equation}
From Equations~\eqref{equation:first-reduction} and
\eqref{equation:second-reduction} we have
\begin{equation}\label{equation:third-reduction}
h^1(\overline{S}, \overline{\Theta}(-\log{\overline{Z}})) = h^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\log{Z^{\sharp}})) + h^1(\sheaf{N}_F) - h^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\overline{Z}(s)))
\end{equation}
Set
\begin{equation*}
\alpha = - h^1(\sheaf{N}_F) + h^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\overline{Z}(s))).
\end{equation*}
The redundant divisor $F$ depends only on the type of the graph. By
Proposition~\ref{proposition:independent}, the quantity $h^1(S^{\sharp},
\Theta^{\sharp}(-\overline{Z}(s)))$ also depends only on the type of
the graph $\overline{\Gamma}$. Therefore the constant $\alpha$ depends
only on the type of the graph $\overline{\Gamma}$, and so the first
assertion of the proposition follows.
For the second assertion, since $S^{\sharp}$ is obtained from $S_{\Gamma}$ by blowing up once the ($-1$)-vertex of $\Gamma$ and (if needed) blowing up edges emanating from the ($-1$)-vertex, it follows by Proposition~\ref{proposition:Flenner-Zaidenberg} that
\begin{equation*}
h^1(S^{\sharp}, \Theta^{\sharp}(-\log{Z^{\sharp}})) \le h^1(S_{\Gamma}, \Theta_{S_{\Gamma}}(-\log{Z_{\Gamma}})) + 1.
\end{equation*}
Therefore the second inequality follows.
\end{proof}
\section{Singularities with no rational homology disk smoothings}
\label{sec:fourth}
In this section we prove the main technical result,
Theorem~\ref{thm:nonexist} of the paper. The proof will rest on the
following two lemmas, where we treat the case of zero or one node
of valency 4. Recall that a graph $\Gamma $ is called
\emph{$H$-shaped} if it admits two nodes, both with valency 3, and we
say that a graph $\Gamma$ is \emph{key-shaped} if it admits two nodes with
valencies $3$ and $4$, respectively. Recall that if a graph with
a node $E$ of valency $4$ is a resolution graph of a rational surface
singularity, then $E^2 \le -3$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:H-taut}
Let $\Gamma_1$ be one of the following non-minimal $H$-shaped graphs of type
$\typeA$, $\typeB$, or $\typeC$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] \hfill
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner
sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}] \node (-105) at (-1,0.5)
{$\Gamma_1=$};
\node[bullet] (00) at (0,0) [label=below:$-a$] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=below:$-d$] {};
\node[bullet] (11) at (1,1) [label=left:$-b$] {};
\node[bullet] (40) at (4,0) [label=below:$-e$] {};
\node[bullet] (41) at (4,1) [label=left:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (42) at (4,2) {};
\node[bullet] (60) at (6,0) {};
\draw [-] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (11);
\draw [dashed] (10) -- (40);
\draw [dashed] (40) -- (60);
\draw [dashed] (40) -- (41);
\draw [dashed] (41) -- (42);
\end{tikzpicture}
for $e \ge 3$; or
\item[(b)] \hfill
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner
sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}] \node (-105) at (-1,0.5)
{$\Gamma_1=$};
\node[bullet] (00) at (0,0) [label=below:$-a$] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=below:$-d$] {};
\node[bullet] (11) at (1,1) [label=left:$-b$] {};
\node[bullet] (40) at (4,0) [label=below:$-2$] {};
\node[bullet] (41) at (4,1) [label=left:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (60) at (6,0) {};
\draw [-] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (11);
\draw [dashed] (10) -- (40);
\draw [dashed] (40) -- (60);
\draw [-] (40) -- (41);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{enumerate}
where $a$ and $b$ are two of the integers in one of the triples $(3,
3, 3)$, $(4, 4, 2)$, $(6, 3, 2)$. Then the corresponding minimal graph
$\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is taut and we have
\[h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}_1},
\Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}}))=0.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is taut, it follows by
Laufer~\cite[Therorem~3.10]{Laufer-1973} that
\begin{equation*}
h^1(Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}(s), \Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}(s)})=0
\end{equation*}
for $s \gg 0$. Hence, by Lemma~\ref{lemma:W<-E>=TZ}, we have
\begin{equation*}
h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}_1},
\Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}}))=h^1(Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}(s),
\Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}(s)})=0.
\end{equation*}
Therefore it remains to prove the tautness of ${\overline{\Gamma}_1}$.
For Case~(a), the graph $\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is of type $L_1-J_1-R_1$ for $d
\ge 3$, and of type $L_2-J_1-R_1$ for $d=2$ in the list of taut graphs
of Laufer~\cite[Table~IV, p.~139]{Laufer-1973-Taut}.
For Case~(b), let $\Gamma_0$ be the blown-down graph of $\Gamma_1$:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node (-105) at (-1,0.5) {$\Gamma_0=$};
\node[bullet] (00) at (0,0) [label=below:$-a$] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=below:$-d$] {};
\node[bullet] (11) at (1,1) [label=left:$-b$] {};
\node[bullet] (40) at (4,0) [label=below:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (60) at (6,0) {};
\draw [-] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (11);
\draw [dashed] (10) -- (40);
\draw [dashed] (40) -- (60);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
By the definition of the classes $\typeA, \typeB$, and $\typeC$, one
of the neighbours of the $(-1)$-vertex is a $(-2)$-vertex, while the
other one is a $(-e)$-vertex with $e \ge 3$. We distinguish two cases
according to whether the $(-2)$-vertex is between the $(-1)$-vertex
and the node (motivated by the diagram above, we say that the $(-2)$-vertex
is to the \emph{left} of the $(-1)$-vertex), or the $(-2)$-vertex is
on the other side of the $(-1)$-vertex (it is to the \emph{right} of
the $(-1)$-vertex).
\textbf{Case 1:} Suppose that the ($-2$)-vertex of
$\Gamma_0$ is to the right of the ($-1$)-vertex, that is, $\Gamma_0$
is given as follows:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node (-105) at (-1,0.5) {$\Gamma_0=$};
\node[bullet] (00) at (0,0) [label=below:$-a$] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=below:$-d$, label=45:$D$] {};
\node[bullet] (11) at (1,1) [label=left:$-b$] {};
\node[bullet] (30) at (3,0) [label=below:$-e$, label=above:$E$] {};
\node[bullet] (40) at (4,0) [label=below:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (50) at (5,0) [label=below:$-2$, label=above:$A$] {};
\node (60) at (6,0) {};
\draw [-] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (11);
\draw [dashed] (10) -- (30);
\draw [-] (30) -- (40);
\draw [-] (40) -- (50);
\draw [dashed] (50) -- (60);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
where $e \ge 3$. Note that the ($-e$)-vertex $E$ and the ($-d$)-vertex
$D$ (the node) may coincide.
If we blow down the ($-1$)-vertex of $\Gamma_0$ then the ($-2$)-vertex $A$ of $\Gamma_0$
becomes the ($-1$)-vertex of the new graph. Since a ($-1$)-vertex in a
star-shaped graph of $\typeA$, $\typeB$, or $\typeC$ with valencies $\le 3$ is
not a leaf, there must be a vertex attached to the right side of the
($-2$)-vertex $A$ of $\Gamma_0$. In summary, the non-minimal graph $\Gamma_1$
is of the form:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node (-105) at (-1,0.5) {$\Gamma_1=$};
\node[bullet] (00) at (0,0) [label=below:$-a$] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=below:$-d$, label=45:$D$] {};
\node[bullet] (11) at (1,1) [label=left:$-b$] {};
\node[bullet] (30) at (3,0) [label=below:$-e$, label=above:$E$] {};
\node[bullet] (40) at (4,0) [label=below:$-2$] {};
\node[bullet] (41) at (4,1) [label=left:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (50) at (5,0) [label=below:$-2$] {};
\node[bullet] (60) at (6,0) {};
\node (70) at (7,0) {};
\draw [-] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (11);
\draw [dashed] (10) -- (30);
\draw [-] (30) -- (40);
\draw [-] (40) -- (50);
\draw [-] (40) -- (41);
\draw [-] (50) -- (60);
\draw [dashed] (60) -- (70);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
where $e \ge 3$. If $E=D$, then the minimal graph
$\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is of type $L_1-J_1-R_8$ using the contraction
$C_4$. If $E \neq D$, the graph
$\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is of type $L_1-J_1-R_8$ for $d \ge 3$ or
$L_2-J_1-R_8$ for $d=2$, concluding the argument in this subcase.
\textbf{Case 2:} Suppose now that the ($-2$)-vertex of $\Gamma_0$ is
to the left of the ($-1$)-vertex. Then the non-minimal graph
$\Gamma_1$ is given as follows:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node (-105) at (-1,0.5) {$\Gamma_1=$};
\node[bullet] (00) at (0,0) [label=below:$-a$] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=below:$-d$, label=45:$D$] {};
\node[bullet] (11) at (1,1) [label=left:$-b$] {};
\node[bullet] (30) at (3,0) [label=below:$-2$, label=above:$A$] {};
\node[bullet] (40) at (4,0) [label=below:$-2$] {};
\node[bullet] (41) at (4,1) [label=left:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (50) at (5,0) [label=below:$-e$, label=above:$E$] {};
\node (60) at (6,0) {};
\draw [-] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (11);
\draw [dashed] (10) -- (30);
\draw [-] (30) -- (40);
\draw [-] (40) -- (50);
\draw [-] (40) -- (41);
\draw [dashed] (50) -- (60);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
where $e \ge 3$. If $D=A$, then the minimal graph
$\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is of type $L_2-J_1-R_2$. Suppose that $D \neq
A$. If there is a ($-d$)-vertex with $d \ge 3$ between $D$ and $A$,
then $\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is of type $L_1-J_2-R_3$ for $d \ge 3$,
and, of type $L_2-J_2-R_3$ for $d=2$. Assume that there is no
($-d$)-vertex with $d \ge 3$ between $D$ and $A$. If $d \ge 3$, then
$\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is of type $L_1-J_2-R_3$ using the contraction
$C_3$. If $d=2$, then $E$ is a leaf of the graph and
$\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is of type $L_2-J_1-R_2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
J. Wahl informed us that
the example in~\cite[Remark~8.9]{Wahl-2011} was erroneously
claimed to be non-taut. The graph can be presented as $L_1-J_1-R_8$ using a contraction $C_4$ as we have seen above.
\end{remark}
We have a similar result for key-shaped graphs.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:key-shaped}
Let $\Gamma_1$ be a non-minimal key-shaped graph of type $\typeA$,
$\typeB$, or $\typeC$ given by:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] \hfill
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner
sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}] \node (-105) at (-1,0.5)
{$\Gamma_1=$};
\node[bullet] (00) at (0,0) [label=below:$-a$] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=315:$-d$] {};
\node[bullet] (11) at (1,1) [label=left:$-b$] {};
\node[bullet] (1-1) at (1,-1) [label=left:$-c$] {};
\node[bullet] (40) at (4,0) [label=below:$-e$] {};
\node[bullet] (41) at (4,1) [label=left:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (42) at (4,2) {};
\node[bullet] (60) at (6,0) {};
\draw [-] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (11);
\draw [-] (10) -- (1-1);
\draw [dashed] (10) -- (40);
\draw [dashed] (40) -- (60);
\draw [dashed] (40) -- (41);
\draw [dashed] (41) -- (42);
\end{tikzpicture}
for $e \ge 3$; or
\item[(b)] \hfill
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner
sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}] \node (-105) at (-1,0.5)
{$\Gamma_1=$};
\node[bullet] (00) at (0,0) [label=below:$-a$] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=315:$-d$] {};
\node[bullet] (11) at (1,1) [label=left:$-b$] {};
\node[bullet] (1-1) at (1,-1) [label=left:$-c$] {};
\node[bullet] (40) at (4,0) [label=below:$-2$] {};
\node[bullet] (41) at (4,1) [label=left:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (60) at (6,0) {};
\draw [-] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (11);
\draw [-] (10) -- (1-1);
\draw [dashed] (10) -- (40);
\draw [dashed] (40) -- (60);
\draw [-] (40) -- (41);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{enumerate}
where $(a, b, c)$ is one of the triples $(3, 3, 3)$, $(2, 4, 4)$, $(2,
3, 6)$ and $d \ge 3$. Let $\overline{\Gamma}_1$ be the corresponding minimal
graph. Then we have
\[h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}, \Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}}))=1.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that the analytic structure of the singularity
$X_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}$ (obtained by contracting
$Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}$ in $S_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}$) is determined
by the graph $\overline{\Gamma}_1$ and the analytic structure on the
reduced exceptional set $Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}$. By
Laufer~\cite[Theorem~3.2]{Laufer-1973-Taut} and
Laufer~\cite[(4.1)]{Laufer-1973-Taut}, a necessary and sufficient
condition for $\overline{\Gamma}_1$ and $Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}$ to
determine the singularity $X_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}$ is that the
restriction map
\begin{equation*}
H^1(Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}(s), \Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}(s)}) \to H^1(Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}, \Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}})
\end{equation*}
is an isomorphism. Since the analytic structure on
$Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}$ is uniquely determined by the cross ratio of
the 4 intersection points on the ($-d$)-curve with valency $4$, we
have
\[h^1(Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}, \Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}})=1.\]
Hence it follows by Lemma~\ref{lemma:W<-E>=TZ} that
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}, \Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}})) &= h^1(Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}(s), \Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}(s)})= h^1(Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}, \Theta_{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}})=1.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Therefore it is enough to show that the analytic structure of the
singularity $X_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}$ is determined by
$\overline{\Gamma}_1$ and $Z_{\overline{\Gamma}_1}$. For this we will
use the list in Laufer~\cite[Theorem~4.1]{Laufer-1973-Taut} of all
dual graphs for singularities which are determined by the graph and
the analytic structure on the reduced exceptional set. The proof is
similar to that of Lemma~\ref{lemma:H-taut}.
In Case (a) the graph $\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is of type $L_1'-J_1-R_1$
for $d \ge 5$, of type $L_1''-J_1-R_1$ for $d=4$, and of type
$L_2'-J_1-R_1$ for $d=3$ in the list of
Laufer~\cite[Theorem~4.1]{Laufer-1973-Taut}.
For Case (b), as in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lemma:H-taut}, we have two
cases:
\textbf{Case 1:} $\Gamma_1$ is given as follows:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node (-105) at (-1,0.5) {$\Gamma_1=$};
\node[bullet] (00) at (0,0) [label=below:$-a$] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=315:$-d$, label=45:$D$] {};
\node[bullet] (11) at (1,1) [label=left:$-b$] {};
\node[bullet] (1-1) at (1,-1) [label=left:$-c$] {};
\node[bullet] (30) at (3,0) [label=below:$-e$, label=above:$E$] {};
\node[bullet] (40) at (4,0) [label=below:$-2$] {};
\node[bullet] (50) at (5,0) [label=below:$-2$] {};
\node[bullet] (41) at (4,1) [label=left:$-1$] {};
\node (60) at (6,0) {};
\draw [-] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (11);
\draw [-] (10) -- (1-1);
\draw [dashed] (10) -- (30);
\draw [-] (30) -- (40);
\draw [-] (40) -- (50);
\draw [dashed] (50) -- (60);
\draw [-] (40) -- (41);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
where $e \ge 3$. Notice that since $d\geq 3$ (for $\overline{\Gamma}_1$ being a resolution graph of a rational surface singularity), the $(-1)$-framed vertex in a
star-shaped graph with valency 4 node and of type $\typeA, \typeB$, or $\typeC$
cannot be a leaf. For $d \ge 5$, $\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is of type
$L_1'-J_1-R_8$ possibly using the contraction $C_3$. For $d=4$, $\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is of type
$L_1''-J_1-R_8$ possibly using the contraction $C_4$. For $d=3$, if $D=E$ then $\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is of type $L_2'-J_1-R_2$, or if $D \neq E$ then $\overline{\Gamma}_1$ is of type $L_2'-J_1-R_8$.
\textbf{Case 2:} $\Gamma_1$ is given as follows:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
[bullet/.style={circle,draw=black!100,fill=black!100,thick,inner sep=0pt,minimum size=0.4em}]
\node (-105) at (-1,0.5) {$\Gamma_1=$};
\node[bullet] (00) at (0,0) [label=below:$-a$] {};
\node[bullet] (10) at (1,0) [label=315:$-d$] {};
\node[bullet] (11) at (1,1) [label=left:$-b$] {};
\node[bullet] (1-1) at (1,-1) [label=left:$-c$] {};
\node[bullet] (30) at (3,0) [label=below:$-2$] {};
\node[bullet] (40) at (4,0) [label=below:$-2$] {};
\node[bullet] (41) at (4,1) [label=left:$-1$] {};
\node[bullet] (50) at (5,0) [label=below:$-e$] {};
\node (60) at (6,0) {};
\draw [-] (00) -- (10);
\draw [-] (10) -- (11);
\draw [-] (10) -- (1-1);
\draw [dashed] (10) -- (30);
\draw [-] (30) -- (40);
\draw [-] (40) -- (50);
\draw [-] (40) -- (41);
\draw [dashed] (50) -- (60);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
where $e \ge 3$. For $d \ge 5$, $\overline{\Gamma}$ is of the form
$L_1'-J_2-R_3$ using the contraction $C_3$. For $d=4$, $\overline{\Gamma}$ is
of the form $L_1''-J_2-R_3$ using the contraction $C_3$. For $d=3$, $\overline{\Gamma}$ is of the form $L_2'-J_1-R_2$ if there are only ($-2$)-vertices between two nodes, or $\overline{\Gamma}$ is of the form $L_2'-J_2-R_3$ otherwise.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:Gamma0}
Let $\Gamma_1$ be a non-minimal graph in Lemma~\ref{lemma:H-taut} or
Lemma~\ref{lemma:key-shaped}, and let $\Gamma_2$ be the non-minimal graph
obtained by blowing up once the ($-1$)-vertex of $\Gamma_1$. Then
\begin{equation*}
h^1(S_{\Gamma_2}, \Theta_{S_{\Gamma_2}}(-\log{Z_{\Gamma_2}})) = \alpha + \epsilon ,
\end{equation*}
where $\epsilon=0$ if $\Gamma_1$ is a graph in Lemma~\ref{lemma:H-taut},
$\epsilon=1$ if $\Gamma_1$ is a graph in Lemma~\ref{lemma:key-shaped}, and
$\alpha$ is given by Theorem~\ref{theorem:independent-alpha} (and it
depends only on the type of $\Gamma_1$).
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows from Theorem~\ref{theorem:independent-alpha} that
\begin{equation*}
h^1(S_{\Gamma_1^{\sharp}}, \Theta_{S_{\Gamma_1^{\sharp}}}(-\log{Z_{\Gamma_1^{\sharp}}}))=\alpha + \epsilon.
\end{equation*}
Since $S_{\Gamma_1^{\sharp}}$ is obtained from $S_{\Gamma_2}$ by
blowing up edges emanating from the ($-1$)-curve (if needed), it follows by
Proposition~\ref{proposition:Flenner-Zaidenberg} that
\begin{equation*}
h^1(S_{\Gamma_2}, \Theta_{S_{\Gamma_2}}(-\log{Z_{\Gamma_2}}))=h^1(S_{\Gamma_1^{\sharp}}, \Theta_{S_{\Gamma_1^{\sharp}}}(-\log{Z_{\Gamma_1^{\sharp}}}))=\alpha + \epsilon. \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:Technical-Main}
Let $\Gamma_1$ be a non-minimal graph in Lemma~\ref{lemma:H-taut} or
Lemma~\ref{lemma:key-shaped} and let $\Gamma_2$ be the non-minimal
graph obtained by blowing up once the ($-1$)-vertex of $\Gamma_1$. Let
$\Gamma$ be a non-minimal graph obtained from $\Gamma_2$ by applying
the blow-ups (B-1) and (B-2) (described in Section~\ref{sec:intro})
finitely many times. Suppose that $(X,0)$ is a rational surface
singularity with a resolution $(V,E)$ which admits the minimal graph
$\overline{\Gamma}$ as the resolution graph. Let $E=\sum_{i=1}^{n}
E_i$ be the decomposition of the exceptional divisor into
irreducible components $E_i$ with $E_i^2=-d_i$. Then
\[
h^1(V, \Theta_{V}(-\log{E})) + \sum_{i=1}^{n} (d_i-3)\leq 0.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Corollary~\ref{corollary:maximality} we have
\[h^1(V, \Theta_{V}(-\log{E})) \le
h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}},
\Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}})).\]
Hence it is enough to show that
\begin{equation*}
h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}}, \Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}})) + \sum_{i=1}^{n} (d_i-3) \le 0.
\end{equation*}
Let $m$ be the number of blow-ups of the ($-1$)-vertices to obtain the
non-minimal graph $\Gamma$ from $\Gamma_2$. Since $h^1(S_{\Gamma_2},
\Theta_{S_{\Gamma_2}}(-\log{Z_{\Gamma_2}})) = \alpha + \epsilon$ by
Lemma~\ref{lemma:Gamma0},
using Proposition~\ref{proposition:Flenner-Zaidenberg} it follows that
\begin{equation*}
h^1(S_{\Gamma}, \Theta_{S_{\Gamma}}(-\log{Z_{\Gamma}})) \le \alpha + \epsilon + m.
\end{equation*}
Then Theorem~\ref{theorem:independent-alpha} implies that
\begin{equation}\label{equation:h1<=n}
h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}},
\Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}})) \le \epsilon + m + 1.
\end{equation}
Note that for any minimal graph consisting of ($-e_i$)-vertices, the
blow-up procedure (B-1) with the modification (M) lowers the sum $\sum_{i=1}^{t} (e_i-3)$ by
$1$, while the procedure (B-2) with (M) leaves it unchanged; cf.\ the
proof of Wahl~\cite[Theorem~8.6]{Wahl-2011}. Since these sums for the
starting graphs $\overline{\Gamma}_{\typeA}$,
$\overline{\Gamma}_{\typeB}$, $\overline{\Gamma}_{\typeC}$ are equal to $1$,
this sum for $\overline{\Gamma}_2$ is $-\epsilon-1$. Since we blow up the ($-1$)-vertices $m$ times to obtain $\overline{\Gamma}$ from
$\overline{\Gamma}_2$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{equation:d-3}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} (d_i-3) = -\epsilon-1-m.
\end{equation}
From Equation~\eqref{equation:h1<=n} and Equation~\eqref{equation:d-3}
it follows that
\begin{equation*}
h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}},
\Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}})) +
\sum_{i=1}^{n} (d_i-3) \le 0,
\end{equation*}
concluding the proof.
\end{proof}
Now we are in the position of giving the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:nonexist},
which then implies the Main Theorem of the paper.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:nonexist}]
Suppose first that $\overline{\Gamma}$ is of the form
$\overline{\Gamma}_1$ where $\Gamma_1$ is a non-minimal graph in
Lemma~\ref{lemma:H-taut} or Lemma~\ref{lemma:key-shaped}. If
$\Gamma_1$ is a non-minimal graph in Lemma~\ref{lemma:H-taut}, then we
have $h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}},
\Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}})) =0$ by
Lemma~\ref{lemma:H-taut} and it is easy to see that $\sum_{i=1}^{n}
(d_i-3)=0$. Therefore, as in the proof of
Wahl~\cite[Theorem~8.6]{Wahl-2011}, we have
\begin{equation*}
h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}},
\Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}})) +
\sum_{i=1}^{n} (d_i-3) = 0.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, if $\Gamma_1$ is a non-minimal graph in Lemma~\ref{lemma:key-shaped}, then we have $h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}}, \Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}})) = 1$ by Lemma~\ref{lemma:key-shaped}. But, since $\sum_{i=1}^{n} (d_i-3) = -1$, we have
\begin{equation*}
h^1(S_{\overline{\Gamma}}, \Theta_{S_{\overline{\Gamma}}}(-\log{Z_{\overline{\Gamma}}})) + \sum_{i=1}^{n} (d_i-3) = 0.
\end{equation*}
Suppose now that $\overline{\Gamma}$ is not of the form
$\overline{\Gamma}_1$ of Lemma~\ref{lemma:H-taut} or
Lemma~\ref{lemma:key-shaped}. Let $\Gamma_2$ be the non-minimal graph
obtained by blowing up the ($-1$)-vertex of $\Gamma_1$ once (as in
Theorem~\ref{theorem:Technical-Main}). Then $\overline{\Gamma}$ is
obtained by applying the blow-ups (B-1) and (B-2) to $\Gamma_2$
finitely many times, and finally the modification (M). The assertion
of the theorem now follows from Theorem~\ref{theorem:Technical-Main}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Power decoding was originally developed by Schmidt, Sidorenko and Bossert for low-rate Reed--Solomon codes (RS) \cite{schmidt_syndrome_2010}, and is usually capable of decoding almost as many errors as the Sudan decoder \cite{sudan_decoding_1997} though it is a unique decoder.
If an answer is found, this is always the closest codeword, but in some cases the method will fail; in particular, this happens if two codewords are equally close to the received.
With random errors this seems to happen exceedingly rarely, though a bound for the probability has only been shown for the simplest case of powering degree 2 \cite{schmidt_syndrome_2010,zeh_unambiguous_2012}.
The algorithm rests on the surprising fact that a received word coming from a low-rate RS code can be ``powered'' to give received words of higher-rate RS codes having the same error positions.
For each of these received words, one constructs a classical key equation by calculating the corresponding syndromes and solves them simultaneously for the same error locator polynomial.
Gao gave a variant of unique decoding up to half the minimum distance \cite{gao_new_2003}: in essence, his algorithm uses a different key equation and with this finds the information polynomial directly.
We here show how to easily derive a variant of Power decoding for Generalised RS (GRS) codes, Power Gao, where we obtain multiple of Gao's type of key equation, and we solve these simultaneously.
We then show that Power Gao is \emph{equivalent} to Power syndromes in the sense that they will either both fail or both succeed for a given received word.
Power Gao has some ``practical'' advantages, though: it extends Power decoding to the case of using 0 as an evaluation point (which Power syndromes does not support); and the information is obtained directly when solving the key equations, so finding roots of the error locator and Forney's formula is not necessary.
The main theoretical advantage is that Power Gao seems easier to analyse: in particular, we show two new properties of Power decoding: 1) that whether Power decoding fails or not depends only on the error and not on the sent codeword; and 2) a new bound on the failure probability when the powering degree is 3.
We briefly sketched Power Gao already in \cite{nielsen_generalised_2013}, but its behaviour was not well analysed and its relation to Power syndromes not examined.
In \cref{sec:keyeq} we derive the powered Gao key equations, and in \cref{sec:solving} we describe the complete algorithm and discuss computational complexity issues.
In \cref{sec:props} we show the behavioural equivalence to Power syndromes as well as the new properties on Power decoding.
\section{The Key Equations}
\label{sec:keyeq}
Consider some finite field $\F$.
The $[n,k,d]$ Generalised Reed-Solomon (GRS) code is the set
\[
\mathcal C = \big\{ \big( \beta_1f(\alpha_1), \ldots, \beta_nf(\alpha_n) \big) \mid f \in \F[x] \land \deg f < k \big\}
\]
where $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n \in \F$ are distinct, and the $\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_n \in \F$ are non-zero (not necessarily distinct).
The $\alpha_i$ are called \emph{evaluation points} and the $\beta_i$ \emph{column multipliers}.
$\mathcal C$ has minimum distance $d = n-k+1$ and the code is therefore MDS.
Consider now that some $\vec c = (c_1,\ldots, c_n)$ was sent, resulting from evaluating some $f \in \F[x]$, and that $\vec r = (\beta_1 r_1,\ldots, \beta_n r_n) = \vec c + (\beta_1 e_1, \ldots, \beta_n e_n)$ was the received word with (normalised) error $\vec e = (e_1,\ldots, e_n)$.
Let $\Errs = \{ i \mid e_i \neq 0 \}$ and $\errs = |\Errs|$.
In failure probability considerations, we consider the $|\F|$-ary symmetric channel.
Introduce $G \defeq \prod_{i=1}^n(x-\alpha_i)$, and for any integer $t \geq 1$, let $R\T t$ be the Lagrangian polynomial through the ``powered'' $\vec r$, i.e.~the minimal degree polynomial satisfying $R\T t(\alpha_i) = r_i^t$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$.
Naturally, we have $\deg R\T t \leq n-1$ and $R\T t$ can be directly calculated by the receiver.
As usual for key equation decoders, the algorithm will revolve around the notion of error locator: $\Lambda = \prod_{j\in\Errs}(x-\alpha_j)$.
Choose now some $\ell \in \NN$ subject to $\ell(k-1) < n$.
Then we easily derive the powered Gao key equations:
\begin{proposition}
\label{power_gao}
$\Lambda R\T t \equiv \Lambda f^t \mod G$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Polynomials are equivalent modulo $G$ if and only if they have the same evaluation at $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n$.
For $\alpha_i$ where $e_i \neq 0$, both sides of the above evaluate to zero, while for the remaining $\alpha_i$ they give $\Lambda(\alpha_i){r_i}^t = \Lambda(\alpha_i)f(\alpha_i)^t$.
\end{proof}
\section{The Decoding Algorithm}
\label{sec:solving}
The key equations of \cref{power_gao} are non-linear in $\Lambda$ and $f$, so the approach for solving them is to relax the equations into a linear system, similarly to classical key equation decoding.
We will ignore the structure of the right hand-sides and therefore seek polynomials $\lambda$ and $\psi\T 1,\ldots,\psi\T \ell$ such that $\lambda R\T t \equiv \psi\T t \mod G$ as well as $\deg \lambda + t(k-1) \geq \deg \psi\T t$ for $t=1,\ldots,\ell$.
We will call such $(\lambda,\psi\T 1,\ldots, \psi\T \ell)$ \emph{a solution} to the key equations.
Clearly $(\Lambda, \Lambda f, \ldots, \Lambda f^\ell)$ is a solution.
There are, however, infinitely many more, so the strategy is to find a solution such that $\deg \lambda$ is minimal; we will call this the \emph{minimal solution}.
Thus decoding can only succeed when $\Lambda$ has minimal degree of all solutions.
The probability of this occurring will be discussed in \cref{sec:props}.
Conceptually, Power Gao decoding is then straightforward: pre-calculate $G$ and from the received word, calculate $R\T 1, \ldots, R\T \ell$.
Find then a minimal solution $(\lambda,\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_\ell)$ with $\lambda$ monic.
If this has the valid structure of $(\Lambda, \Lambda f, \ldots, \Lambda f^\ell)$, then return $f$.
Otherwise, declare decoding failure.
For Power syndromes, the key equations are similar to ours except that the modulo polynomials are just powers of $x$.
In this case, finding a minimal solution is known as multi-sequence shift-register synthesis, and the fastest known algorithm is an extension of the Berlekamp--Massey algorithm \cite{schmidt_syndrome_2010} or the Divide-\&-Conquer variant of this \cite{sidorenko_fast_2011}.
These can not handle the modulus $G$ that we need, however.
A generalised form of multi-sequence shift-register synthesis was considered in \cite{nielsen_generalised_2013}, and several algorithms for finding a minimal solution were presented.
The key equations for our case fit into this framework.
We refer the reader to \cite{nielsen_generalised_2013} for the details on these algorithms, but the asymptotic complexities when applied to Power Gao decoding are given in \vref{tab:compl}.
The same complexities would apply to Power syndromes and also match the algorithms \cite{schmidt_syndrome_2010,sidorenko_fast_2011} mentioned before.
The other steps of the decoding are easily seen to be cheaper than this; e.g.~the calculation of $R\T 1, \ldots, R\T \ell$ by Lagrangian interpolation can be done trivially in $O(\ell n^2)$ or using fast Fourier techniques in $O(\ell n \log^2 n)$ \cite[p. 231]{von_zur_gathen_modern_2012}.
Thus Power Gao decoding is asymptotically as fast as Power syndromes.
\section{Properties of the Algorithm}
\label{sec:props}
Power Gao will fail if $(\Lambda, \Lambda f, \ldots, \Lambda f^\ell)$ is not the found minimal solution, so the question is when one can expect this to occur.
Since the algorithm returns at most one codeword, it \emph{must} fail for some received words whenever $\errs \geq d/2$.
Whenever an answer is found, however, this must correspond to a closest codeword: any closer codeword would have its own corresponding error locator and information polynomial, and these would yield a smaller solution to the key equations.
We first show that Power syndromes is behaviourally equivalent to Power Gao.
We will need to assume that the evaluation points $\alpha_i \neq 0$ for all $i$, which is a condition for Power syndromes decoding.
This implies $x \nmid G$.
We will use a ``coefficient reversal'' operator defined for any $p \in \F[x]$ as $\rev p = x^{\deg p}p(x^\mo)$.
In Power syndromes decoding, one considers $\vec r\T t = (\beta_1 r_1^t,\ldots,\beta_n r_n^t)$ for $t=1,\ldots,\ell$ as received words of GRS codes with parameters $[n, t(k-1)+1, n-t(k-1)]$, resulting from evaluating $f^t$; these ``virtual'' codes have the same evaluation points and column multipliers as $\mathcal C$.
The $\vec r\T t$ will therefore have the same error positions as $\vec r$, so the same error locator applies.
For each $t$, we can calculate the syndrome $S\T t$ corresponding to $\vec r\T t$, which can be written as
\[
S\T t = \Big(\sum_{i=1}^n \frac {r^t_i \zeta_i} {1 - x\alpha_i} \modop x^{n-t(k-1)+1} \Big)
\]
where $\zeta_i = \prod_{j \neq i}(\alpha_i-\alpha_j)^\mo$; see e.g.~\cite[p. 185]{roth_introduction_2006}.
By insertion one sees that
\[
\rev \Lambda S\T t \equiv \Omega\T t \mod x^{n-t(k-1)+1} ,\quad t=1,\ldots, \ell
\]
where $\Omega\T t$ is a certain polynomial satisfying $\deg \Omega\T t < \deg \Lambda$.
Note that we are using $\Lambda$ reversed; indeed, one often defines error-locator as $\prod_{i \in \Errs}(1-x\alpha_i) = \rev \Lambda$ when considering the syndrome key equation.
The decoding algorithm follows simply from finding a minimal degree polynomial $\rev \lambda$ such that $\omega\T t = (\rev \lambda S\T t \modop x^{n-t(k-1)+1})$ satisfies $\deg \lambda > \deg \omega\T t$ for all $t$.
The decoding method fails if $\rev\lambda \neq \gamma \rev\Lambda, \forall\gamma \in \F$.
We now have:
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\caption{Complexities of solving the key equations for the three approaches discussed in \cite{nielsen_generalised_2013}.
}
\label{tab:compl}
\newdimen\height
\def\thetable{%
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{\hspace{1em}}l@{}}
Algorithm & $O$-complexity \\ \midrule
Mulders--Storjohann & $\ell^2 n^2$ \\
Alekhnovich & $\ell^3 n \log^2 n \log\log n$ \\
Demand--Driven* & $\ell n^2[\log n \log\log n]$
\end{tabular}
}
\setbox0=\vbox{\thetable}
\height=\ht0 \advance\height by \dp0
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{@{}X@{\hspace{2em}}p{5cm}@{\quad}}
\centering
\thetable
&
\footnotesize{
\vspace*{-.5\height}
*: If $\mathcal C$ is cyclic, then $G = x^n - 1$ since the $\alpha_i$ form a multiplicative group, and in this case the log-factors in square brackets can be removed.
}
\end{tabularx}
\end{table}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:power_syn_fail_gao}
Decoding using Power Gao fails if and only if decoding using Power syndromes fails.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Note first that $R\T t = \sum_{i=1}^n r_i^t \zeta_i \prod_{j \neq i}(x-\alpha_j)$.
By insertion we get $S\T t \equiv \rev R\T t \rev G^\mo \mod x^{n-t(k-1)+1}$ (since $x \nmid G$).
Power Gao fails if there is some $\lambda \in \F[x]$ which is not a constant times $\Lambda$ and such that $\deg \lambda \leq \deg \Lambda$ and $\psi\T t = (\lambda R\T t \modop G)$ has $\deg \psi\T t < \deg \lambda + t(k-1) + 1$ for each $t = 1,\ldots,\ell$.
This means there must be some $\omega\T t$ with $\deg \omega\T t \leq \deg \lambda-1$ such that
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl+c}
\lambda R\T t - \omega\T t G & = & \psi & \iff \\
\rev \lambda \, \rev R\T t - \rev \omega\T t \rev G & = & \rev\psi\T t x^{\deg G + \deg \lambda - 1 - (\deg \lambda+t(k-1))} & \implies \\
\rev \lambda \, \rev R\T t &\equiv& \rev \omega\T t \rev G \mod x^{n-t(k-1)-1}
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
Dividing by $\rev G$, we see that $\rev \lambda$ and the $\rev \omega\T t$ satisfy the congruences necessary to form a solution to the Power syndromes key equation, and they also satisfy the degree bounds.
Showing the proposition in the other direction runs analogously.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}[Combining \cite{schmidt_syndrome_2010} and \cref{prop:power_syn_fail_gao}]
\label{dec_radius}
\def{\hat\ell}{{\hat\ell}}
Power Gao decoding succeeds if $\errs < d/2$. Let
\[
\tau(\ell) = \tfrac \ell {\ell+1} n - \half\ell(k-1) - \tfrac \ell {\ell+1}
\]
Then decoding will fail with high probability if $\errs > \tau({\hat\ell})$, where $1 \leq{\hat\ell} \leq \ell$ is chosen to maximise $\tau(\ell)$.
\footnote{%
Decoding may succeed in certain degenerate cases, see \cite[Proposition 2.39]{nielsen_list_2013}.
Failure is certain when using the method of \cite{schmidt_syndrome_2010} since what it considers ``solutions'' are subtly different than here.
}
\end{corollary}
Between the above two bounds, Power decoding will sometimes succeed and sometimes fail.
Simulations indicate that failure occurs with quite small probability.
The only proven bound so far is for $\ell = 2$ where for exactly $\errs$ errors occurring, we have
$P_f(\errs) < (\nicefrac q {q-1})^\errs q^{3(\errs - \tau(2))}/(q-1)$, \cite{schmidt_syndrome_2010,zeh_unambiguous_2012}.
We will give a new bound for $P_f(\errs)$ when $\ell = 3$, but we will first show a property which allows a major simplification in all subsequent analyses.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:power_gao_inv}
Power Gao decoding fails for some received word $\vec r$ if and only if it fails for $\vec r + \hat{\vec c}$ where $\hat{\vec c}$ is any codeword.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We will show that Power Gao decoding fails for $\vec r = \vec c + \vec e$ if and only if it fails for $\vec e$ as received word; since $\vec c$ was arbitrary, that implies the proposition.
Let $R_e\T t$ be the power Lagrangians for $\vec e$ as received word, i.e.~$R_e\T t(\alpha_i) = e_i^t$ for each $i$ and $t$, and let $R_e = R_e\T 1$.
Consider a solution to the corresponding key equations $(\lambda, \psi_1,\ldots,\psi_\ell)$; i.e.~$\lambda R_e\T t \equiv \psi_t \mod G$ and $\deg \lambda + t(k-1) + 1 > \deg \psi_t$.
Let as usual $R\T t$ be the power Lagrangians for $\vec r$ as received word and $R = R\T 1$.
Note now that $R\T t \equiv R^t \mod G$ since both sides of the congruence evaluate to the same at all $\alpha_i$; similarly $R_e\T t \equiv R_e^t \mod G$.
Since $r_i = f(\alpha_i) + e_i$ linearity implies that $R = f + R_e$.
Define $\psi_0 = \lambda$ and note that then also for $t=0$ we have $\deg \lambda + t(k-1) + 1 > \deg \psi_t$.
We then have the chain of congruences modulo $G$:
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{l}
\lambda R\T t \equiv \lambda R^t \equiv \lambda (f + R_e)^t \equiv \textstyle \lambda \sum_{s=0}^t \tbinom t s f^s R_e^{t-s}
\equiv \textstyle \sum_{s=0}^t \tbinom t s f^s \psi_{t-s} \mod G
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
Each term in the last sum has degree $s\deg f + \deg \psi_{t-s} < s(k-1) + \deg \lambda + (t-s)(k-1) + 1 = \deg \lambda + t(k-1) + 1$, which means that
\[
\textstyle
\Big(\lambda,\ \sum_{s=0}^1 \tbinom 1 s f^s \psi_{1-s},\ \ldots\ ,\ \sum_{s=0}^\ell \tbinom \ell s f^s \psi_{\ell-s} \Big)
\]
is a solution to the key equations with $\vec r$ as a received word.
The same argument holds in the other direction, so any solution to one of the key equations induces a solution to the other with the same first component; obviously then, their minimal solutions must be in bijection, which directly implies that they either both fail or neither of them fail.
\end{proof}
For the new bound on the failure probability, we first need a technical lemma:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:poly_triple}
Let $U \in \F[x]$ of degree $N$, and let $K_1 < K_2 < K_3 < N$ be integers.
Let $S = \{ (f_1,f_2,f_3) \mid f_1f_3 \equiv f_2^2 \mod U,\ f_2 \textrm{ monic },\ \forall t . \deg f_t < K_t\}$.
Then
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl+l}
|S| & \leq & 3^{K_2-1}q^{K_2} & \textrm{if } K_1 + K_3 - 2 < N \\
|S| & \leq & 2^{K_1+K_3-2}q^{K_1+K_2+K_3 - N-2} & \textrm{if } K_1 + K_3 -2 \geq N
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If $K_1 + K_3 - 2 < N$, then $f_1 f_3 \equiv f_2^2 \mod U$ implies $f_1 f_3 = f_2^2$.
We can choose a monic $f_2$ in $(q^{K_2}-1)/(q-1)$ ways.
For each choice, then $f_2$ has at most $K_2-1$ prime factors, so the factors of $f_2^2$
can be distributed among $f_1$ and $f_3$ in at most $3^{K_2-1}$ ways.
Lastly, the leading coefficient of $f_1$ can be chosen in $q-1$ ways.
If $K_1 + K_3 - 2 \geq N$, then for each choice of $f_2$, the product $f_1f_3$ can be among $\{ f_2^2 + gU \mid \deg g \leq K_1 + K_3 - 2 - N \}$.
This yields at most $q^{K_1+K_2+K_3-N-2}/(q-1)$ candidates for $f_1f_2$; each of these has at most $K_1+K_3-2$ unique prime factors, which can then be distributed among $f_1$ and $f_2$ in at most $2^{K_1+K_3-2}$ ways.
Again, the leading coefficient of $f_1$ leads to a factor $q-1$ more.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:power_syn_fail_prob}
For $\ell=3$, the probability that Power decoding (Gao or Syndrome) fails when $\errs > d/2$ is at most
\def\tfrac 1 3{\tfrac 1 3}
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{r+l}
(\nicefrac q {(q-1)})^\errs (\nicefrac 3 q)^{2\errs - (n-2k+1)} q^{3(\errs - \tau(2)) + k-1} & \textrm{ if } \errs < \tau(2) - \tfrac 1 3 k + 1 \\
(\nicefrac q {(q-1)})^\errs 2^{2(2\errs-d) + 2(k-1)}q^{4(\errs - \tau(3))-2} & \textrm{ if } \errs \geq \tau(2) - \tfrac 1 3 k + 1
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By \cref{prop:power_gao_inv}, we can assume that $\vec c = 0$, i.e.~that $\vec r = \vec e$.
That means $R\T t(\alpha_i) = 0$ for $i \notin \Errs$, so we can write $R\T t = E\T t \Upsilon$ for some $E\T t$ with $\deg E\T t< \errs$, where $\Upsilon = G/\Lambda$ is the ``truth-locator''.
Power Gao decoding fails if and only if there exists $(\lambda, \psi_1,\psi_2, \psi_3)$ such that $\lambda \neq \Lambda$, $\deg \lambda \leq \deg \Lambda$, $\deg \lambda + t(k-1) + 1 > \deg \psi_t$ for $t=1,2,3$ as well as
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl+c+rCl}
\lambda R\T t &\equiv& \psi_t \mod G &\iff &
\lambda E\T t &\equiv& \hat\psi_t \mod \Lambda
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
where $\hat\psi_t = \psi_t/\Upsilon$.
Note that $\psi_t$ must be divisible by $\Upsilon$ since both the modulus and the left-hand side of the first congruence is.
Denote by $E$ the unique polynomial with degree less than $\errs$ having $E(\alpha_i) = e_i$ for $i \in \Errs$.
For any $i \in \Errs$ then $(\lambda E\T t)(\alpha_i) = \lambda(\alpha_i)\Upsilon(\alpha_i)^\mo e_i^t$, which means $\lambda E\T t \equiv \hat \lambda E^t \mod \Lambda$ for some polynomial $\hat \lambda$.
After having chosen error positions, drawing error values uniformly at random is the same as drawing uniformly at random from possible $E$.
So given the error positions, the probability that Power decoding will fail is $T_\Lambda/(q-1)^\errs$, where $T_\Lambda$ is the number of choices of $E$ such that there exist $\hat \lambda, \hat \psi_1, \hat\psi_2, \hat \psi_3$ having
\[
\hat \lambda E^t \equiv \hat \psi_t \mod \Lambda, \quad t=1,2,3
\]
as well as $\deg \hat \psi_t < \deg \Lambda + t(k-1) + 1 - (n-\deg \Lambda) = 2\errs - (n-t(k-1)-1)$.
Note that these congruences imply $\hat\psi_1 \hat\psi_3 \equiv \hat\psi_2^2 \mod \Lambda$.
Denote by $\hat T_\Lambda$ the number of triples $(\hat\psi_1, \hat\psi_2, \hat\psi_3) \in \F[x]^3$ satisfying just this congruence as well as the above degree bounds.
Then $\hat T_\Lambda \geq T_\Lambda$: for if $\gcd(\hat \lambda, \Lambda) = 1$ then two different values of $E$ could not yield the same triple since $E \equiv \hat\psi_2/\hat\psi_1 \mod \Lambda$ uniquely determines $E$.
Alternatively, if $\gcd(\hat \lambda, \Lambda) = g \neq 1$ then the congruences imply $g \mid \hat\psi_t$ for all $t$, so that $E \equiv (\hat\psi_2/g)/(\hat\psi_1/g) \mod \Lambda/g$.
This leaves a potential $q^{\deg g}$ possible other choices of $E$ yielding the same triple; but all these possibilities are counted in the triples since $(t\psi_1/g, t\psi_2/g, t\psi_3/g)$ will be counted for any $t \in \F[x]$ with $\deg t < \deg g$.
In fact, we have $\hat T_\Lambda \geq (q-1)T_\Lambda$, since whenever $(\hat\psi_1,\hat\psi_2,\hat\psi_3)$ is counted, so is $(\beta\hat\psi_1,\beta^2\hat\psi_2, \hat\psi_3)$, and this doesn't change the fraction $\hat\psi_1/\hat\psi_2$.
Thus, we over-estimate instead $\hat T_\Lambda/(q-1)$ by counting the number of triples where $\hat\psi_2$ is monic.
\cref{lem:poly_triple} gives an upper bound for exactly this number, setting $N=\errs$ and $K_t = 2\errs - (n-t(k-1)-1)$.
Divided by $(q-1)^\errs$, this is then an upper bound on the failure probability given the error positions.
But since this probability is independent of the choice of $\Lambda$, it is also the failure probability over all errors vectors of weight $\errs$.
\end{proof}
By experimentation, one can demonstrate that the bound can not be tight: for instance, for a $[250, 30, 221]$ GRS code, the bound is greater than 1 for $\errs > 143$, while simulation indicate almost flawless decoding up to $147$ errors.
However, in a relative and asymptotic sense the above bound is strong enough to show that up to $\tau(3)$ errors can be corrected with arbitrary low failure probability:
\begin{corollary}
Having $\ell = 3$, then for any $\delta > 0$, with $n \rightarrow \infty$ while keeping $q/n$, $k/n$ and $\errs/n$ constant, the probability that Power decoding fails goes to 0 when $\errs/n < \tau(3)/n - \delta$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch]
We consider only the high-error failure probability of \cref{prop:power_syn_fail_prob}.
For $n \rightarrow \infty$, the failure probability bound will approach
\begin{IEEEeqnarray*}{rCl}
2^{2(2\errs-d) + 2(k-1)} q^{4(\errs - \tau(3))} &\leq& (q^n)^{4(\errs/n - \tau(3)/n) + (2(2\errs/n-d/n) + 2k/n)/\log q}
\end{IEEEeqnarray*}
The contribution $(2(2\errs/n-d/n) + 2k/n)/\log q$ goes to $0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$, leaving $(q^n)^{-a}$ for $a = 4(\errs/n - \tau(3)/n) < -4\delta$.
\end{proof}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Throughout this paper $K$ denotes an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. By a variety we mean a seperated, integral scheme of finite type over $K$. Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over $K$ and $\mathfrak{g}$ be its Lie algebra. Then $G$ acts on $\mathfrak{g}$ via the adjoint representation. A $G$-orbit $\mathbb{O} = G.x$ is called nilpotent if $\text{ad}(x) : \mathfrak{g} \to \mathfrak{g}$ is nilpotent as a linear map. Now fix a Borel subgroup $B \subseteq G$ and restrict the $G$-action on $\mathbb{O}$ to $B$. A normal $G$-variety $X$ is called spherical if it contains an open $B$-orbit. By a result of F. Knop \cite[Corollary 2.6]{Knop}, this is known to be equivalent to $B$ acting on the normal variety $X$ with finitely many orbits, in arbitrary characteristic. In \cite[Theorem]{Panyushev} D. Panyushev has shown that $B$ acts on $\mathbb{O}$ with finitely many orbits iff $\mathbb{O}$ is of height not greater than $3$. Here the height of $\mathbb{O}$ is the maximum non-zero degree of $\mathfrak{g}$, for the $\mathbb{Z}$-grading of $\mathfrak{g}$ induced by a $\mathfrak{sl}_2$-triple containing $x$ (so $\deg x = 2$). For $G = \text{Gl}_n$ the height of $\mathbb{O}$ is always even. Therefore $\mathbb{O}$ is a spherical homogeneous space iff $\text{ht}(\mathbb{O}) = 2$. This turns out to be equivalent to $x$ being $2$-nilpotent. By the Jordan normal form $\mathbb{O}$ therefore is equal to $\mathbb{O}_k = \{ x \in \mathfrak{gl}_n \mid x^2 = 0 , \quad \text{rk}(x) = k \}$, for some $k$ with $0 \leq 2k \leq n$.\\
In this paper we are (with the exception of section $4$) interested in the singularities of $B$-orbit closures $Z \subseteq \mathbb{O}_k$. The Bruhat order on $\mathbb{O}_k$ was already determined by M. Boos and M. Reineke \cite{Boos-Reineke} in terms of \textit{oriented link patterns}, extending A. Melnikov's results on $B$-orbits of $2$-nilpotent upper-triangular matrices (cf. \cite{Melnikov}). We obtain the Bruhat order on $\mathbb{O}_k = \text{Gl}_n /C_k$ by considering the set of left cosets $S_n / W(C_k)$, where $W(C_k)$ is the Weyl group of the reductive part of the stabilizer $C_k$ (Corollary \ref{crlBruhatOrder}), following closely D. Panyushev \cite{Panyushev}. We are then able to construct a resolution of singularities of $Z$ (Theorem \ref{thrResolution}). Following \cite{Brion}, this will lead to our main result.
\begin{thr*}\ref{thrRational}
Closures of Borel conjugacy classes in $\mathbb{O}_k$ have rational singularities. In particular, they are normal and Cohen-Macaulay.
\end{thr*}
In section $4$ we extend the resolution from Theorem \ref{thrResolution} and obtain resolutions of singularities for the closures $\mathfrak{Z}=\overline{Z}\subset\mathcal{N}$, where $\mathcal{N}$ is the nilpotent cone of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$. All closures of $B$-conjugacy classes of $2$-nilpotent matrices are of this form.\\
In order to formulate this result in terms of flags and linear maps, denote by $\widetilde{X} \subseteq (G/B)^r$ a \textit{Bott-Samelson variety} of an element $\tau \in S_n$ of Bruhat length $l(\tau)=r$ (cf. Proposition \ref{prpProductBottSamelson}). For a complete flag of $K$-spaces $V^{\bullet}=(V^1 \subset \ldots \subset V^n )\in G/B$, we say that $u \in \mathfrak{gl}_n$ is $V^\bullet$-\textit{compatible}, if $u$ as a linear map fullfills
\begin{equation*}
u (V^i ) \subseteq \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\{0\} & \text{if } i= 1 , \ldots , n-k\\
V^{i-(n-k)} & \text{if } i = n-k+1 , \ldots , n
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
\begin{thr*}\ref{thrBottSamelsonSpringer}
Let $\tau \in S_n$ be a minimal length representative of the left coset of $W(C_k)$ in $S_n$ corresponding to the $B$-orbit closure $Z \subseteq \mathbb{O}_k$. Further, denote by $r=l(\tau)$ the Bruhat length of $\tau$, and define a closed subvariety of $\mathcal{N} \times \tilde{X}$ by
$$\widetilde{\mathfrak{Z}} = \{ (u,(V_i^{\bullet})_i ) \mid u \text{ is } V_r^{\bullet}-\text{compatible}\}.$$
Then, $\mathfrak{Z}$ is the image of the morphism $\widetilde{\mathfrak{Z}} \to \mathcal{N}$, $(u, (V_i^{\bullet})_i ) \mapsto u$, and
$$\widetilde{\mathfrak{Z}} \to \mathfrak{Z},\quad (u, (V_i^{\bullet})_i ) \mapsto u $$
is a resolution of singularities.
\end{thr*}
The remaining sections of this paper are dedicated to finding singularity criteria for $B$-orbit closures $Z \subseteq\mathbb{O}_k$. We start with relating certain orbit closures in $\mathbb{O}_k$ to fibre bundles on Schubert varieties. By doing so we gain insight into the singular locus of these orbit closures (Proposition \ref{prpSmooth}). For general $Z$ we define $T_k$-\textit{lines} in $Z$ which contain the $T_k$-fixed point $p= \text{id}C_k$ of the minimal $B$-orbit, where $T_k$ denotes a maximal torus in the stabilizer of $\mathbb{O}_k$. Although for general $Z$ this turns out to be insufficient for computing tangent space dimensions (see Example \ref{exm2}), in the case of $Z$ being contained in the affine space of upper-triangular matrices, the number of these lines determines the dimension of the tangent space $T_p (Z)$:
\begin{crl*}\ref{thrUppercaseTangent} Let $Y^0$ be the minimal $B$-orbit in $\mathbb{O}_k$ and $t_k (Z)$ the number of $T_k$-lines in $Z$ through $p$ (cf. Definition \ref{dfnroots}). If $Z$ is contained in the affine space of upper-triangular matrices, then the dimension of the tangent space of $Z$ at $p$ is
$$\dim Y^0 + t_k (Z).$$
\end{crl*}
This result is a translation of L. Fresse's recent result \cite[Theorem 1]{Fresse} on the tangent spaces of certain subvarieties of Springer fiber components in the $2$-column case.\\
$T_k$-lines can be identified with \textit{positive roots} (cf. Definition \ref{dfnroots}) of the stabilizer $C_k$, and them being contained in $Z$ can be checked by using the Bruhat order on $\mathbb{O}_k$ (cf. Proposition \ref{prpcurvecontainment}, part \textit{1.}). As this allows us to compute tangent space dimensions in a way similar to the case of Schubert varieties in $\text{GL}_n / B$, I speculate that there is a \textit{pattern avoidance} singularity criterion. It might be related to the singularity criterion for orbital varieties of $\mathbb{O}_k$ in terms of \textit{minimal arcs of link patterns} given by L. Fresse and A. Melnikov \cite[Theorem 5.2]{FresseMelnikov13}.\\
As well, we reason why Theorem \ref{thrRational} generalizes a result of N. Perrin and E. Smirnov (\cite{Smirnov-Perrin}) on the Springer fiber components in the $2$-column case (Theorem \ref{thrPerrinSmirnoff}).
\medskip
\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgements.} First of all I thank Magdalena Boos for stimulating my interest in spherical nilpotent orbits and for explaining to me her work in \cite{Boos}. Furthermore I wish to thank Lucas Fresse and Wiang Yee Ling for providing me with their preprints \cite{Fresse} and \cite{PSY}, and Sascha Orlik for useful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
\section{$B$-orbits in $\mathbb{O}_k$}
Unless stated otherwise, $G$ denotes $\text{GL}_n (K)$, $B \subseteq G$ the Borel subgroup of upper-triangular matrices and $T \subseteq B$ the maximal torus of diagonal matrices. By $W$ we denote the symmetric group on $n$ letters and by $s_i$ the transposition switching $i$ and $i+1$, for $1 \leq i \leq n-1$. $W$ identifies with $N(T)/T$, the Weyl group of $G$. By $\prec$ we denote the usual Bruhat order on $W$. The subgroup of $W$ generated by $\{s_1 , \ldots , s_{k-1} \}$ will be denoted by $W_k$.\\
Once and for all, we fix an ordered $K$-basis $(e_1 , \ldots , e_n )$ of $K^n$.
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnrankx_k}
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\textbf{(\alph{enumi})}}
\item For $0 \leq 2k \leq n$ we define an element $x_k \in \mathfrak{gl}_n$ by
\begin{equation*}
x_k (e_i) = \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
0 & \text{if } i= 1 , \ldots , n-k\\
e_{i-(n-k)} & \text{if } i = n-k+1 , \ldots , n
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
\item $\mathbb{O}_k := G . x_k =\{u \in \mathfrak{gl}_n \mid u^2 = 0 , \text{rk}(u)=k \}$, the $G$-conjugacy class of $x_k$.
\item We denote the stabilizer of $x_k$ in $G$ by $C_k$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{dfn}
With this notation $\mathbb{O}_k$ can be identified with the quasi-projective variety $G/C_k$, via the isomorphism
$$G/C_k \to \mathbb{O}_k , \quad gC_k \mapsto g x_k g^{-1} .$$
\begin{dfn}\label{associatedFibreBundle} Let $H$ be an subgroup of an algebraic group $A$, acting algebraically on a quasi-projective variety $Z$. Then $H$ acts freely on $A \times Z$ by $h(a,z) = (ah^{-1},hz)$. The $A$-action on $A \times Z$ given by left-translation on the first component induces an $A$-action on the quotient $A \times_H Z := (A \times Z)/H$. Therefore, $A \times_H Z$ is an $A$-variety. The principal fibre bundle $A \to A/H$ is an \'{e}tale locally trivial $H$-fibration.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}\label{specialgroup} An algebraic group $A$ is called special if for all subgroups $H \subseteq A$ the principal fibre bundle $A \to A/H$ is a Zariski-locally trivial $H$-fibration.
\end{dfn}
\begin{thr}\label{GLspecial}\cite[Th\'{e}or\`{e}me 1 et 2]{SerreEFA} Special groups are linear and connected. A subgroup $H \subseteq \text{GL}_n$ is special if $\text{GL}_n \to \text{GL}_n / H$ is a Zariski locally trivial $H$-fibration. In particular, $\text{GL}_n$ is special.
\end{thr}
\begin{prp}\label{prps=1}
\begin{enumerate}
\item We have
$$C_k = \left\{ \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
g & \star & \star \\
0 & h & \star \\
0 & 0 & g
\end{array}\right) \mid g \in \mathrm{GL}_k , \quad h \in\mathrm{GL}_{n-2k} \right\}.$$
Therefore $C_k$ is a closed subgroup of the parabolic subgroup $P_k \supseteq B$ corresponding to the set of simple reflections $\{ s_i \mid i \notin \{k,n-k\} \}$.
\item The morphism
$$\varphi: \mathbb{O}_k \to G/P_k , \quad g C_k \mapsto g P_k $$
is a Zariski locally trivial fibration with fibre $P_k / C_k \simeq \mathrm{GL}_k$.
\item We have a ``Bruhat decomposition''
$$P_k / C_k = \coprod_{\alpha \in W_k} B \dot\alpha C_k / C_k , $$
where $\dot\alpha$ is a representative of $\alpha$ in $N(T)$. Further, the isomorphism $P_k /C_k \simeq \text{GL}_k$ identifies $(B \dot\alpha C_k )/ C_k$ with $B' \dot\alpha B'$, where $B' \subseteq \text{GL}_k$ is the Borel subgroup of upper-triangular matrices.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
\textbf{ad}\textit{ 1.}: We write an element $d \in G$ in the form
$$d=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
A_1 & H_1 & H_2\\
G_1 & A_2 & H_3\\
G_2 & G_3 & A_3
\end{array}\right),$$
with $A_1 ,A_3 \in \mathfrak{gl}_k$, $A_2 \in \mathfrak{gl}_{n-2k}$ and suitable matrices $H_i$ and $G_j$. Then the first statement follows from the computations
$$
d \cdot x_k =
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0&0&A_1\\
0&0&G_1\\
0&0&G_2
\end{array}\right) \text{ and } x_k \cdot
d =
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
G_2&G_3&A_3\\
0&0&0\\
0&0&0
\end{array}\right)$$
\textbf{ad}\textit{ 2.}: $\varphi$ is $G$-equivariant with fibre $P_k / C_k$. So $\varphi$ is isomorphic to the associated fibre bundle $G \times_{P_k} P_k /C_k \to G / P_k$. As $G= \text{GL}_n$ is a special group, $\varphi$ is a Zariski locally trivial $P_k / C_k$-fibration. For the last statement, write an element $p \in P_k$ in the form
$$p= \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
p_1 & \star & \star \\
0 & p_2 & \star \\
0 & 0 & p_3
\end{array}
\right), $$
with $p_1 , p_3 \in \text{GL}_k$, $p_2 \in \text{GL}_{n-2k}$. Then $P_k$ acts on $\text{GL}_k$ by
$$p.g = p_1 \cdot g \cdot p_3^{-1}.$$
This action is transitive and $C_k = \text{Stab}_{P_k}(\text{id})$, so $P_k /C_k \simeq \text{Gl}_k$.\\
\textbf{ad}\textit{ 3.}: As $B \subseteq P_k$, the $P_k$-action on $\text{GL}_k$ restricts to an $B$-action. If $B'$ is the Borel subgroup of upper-triangular matrices in $\text{GL}_k$ and $\alpha\in W_k$, then $B . \dot\alpha = B' \dot\alpha B'$. So $B . \dot\alpha$ is a usual Bruhat cell in $\text{GL}_k$ and we obtain by Bruhat decomposition of $\text{GL}_k$ that
$$P_k / C_k = \coprod_{\alpha \in W_k} B \dot\alpha C_k/C_k .$$
\end{proof}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrmixed}
$C_k$ is an example for a \textit{mixed subgroup} of $\text{GL}_n$ in the sense of A. Paul, S. Sahi and W. L. Yee (cf. \cite{PSY}): For a reductive group $G$, a parabolic subgroup $P= L U$ with Levi factor $L$ and unipotent radical $U$, consider an involution $\theta \in\text{Aut}(L)$ not necessarily extending to $G$. The subgroup
$$M = L^{\theta} \cdot U , \quad\text{where } L^{\theta} := \{ g \in L \mid \theta(g)=g \},$$
of $P$ is then called a mixed subgroup. In \cite[Proposition 3.3]{PSY} it is shown that $B \backslash G / M$ is finite i.e. mixed subgroups are spherical. In our situation, $P = P_k$ and
$$\theta : L \to L , \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
A_1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & A_2 & 0\\
0 & 0 & A_3
\end{array}\right) \mapsto \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
A_3 & 0 & 0\\
0 & A_2 & 0\\
0 & 0 & A_1
\end{array}\right), $$
so it holds that $C_k = L^{\theta} U$.
\end{rmr}
\begin{thr}\label{throrbits} Let $\mathcal{R}\subseteq W$ be any set of representatives of $W/ W(L)$, where $W(L)$ is the Weyl group of the Levi factor of $P_k$. Then the map
$$\mathcal{C}(-,-): \mathcal{R} \times W_k \mapsto B \backslash \mathbb{O}_k$$
$$(\sigma , \alpha ) \mapsto \mathcal{C}(\sigma , \alpha) := B \dot\sigma\dot\alpha C_k / C_k $$
is a bijection.
\end{thr}
\begin{proof}
It is well-known that
$$\mathcal{R} \to B \backslash G \slash P_k , \quad \sigma \mapsto B \dot\sigma P_k / P_k$$
is a bijection. In order to finish the proof, it therefore suffices to show that
$$B \dot\sigma P_k /C_k = \coprod_{\alpha \in W_k} B\dot\sigma\dot\alpha C_k /C_k .$$
Let $\rho \in W$. Then $B \dot \sigma B \dot \rho B$ consists of $B \dot\sigma\dot\rho B$ and possibly of some $B \dot\sigma \dot \rho' B$, for certain $\rho' \prec \rho$. Furthermore, we have that $B \dot \rho B C_k / C_k = B \dot \rho C_k / C_k$; identify both $B \dot\rho C_k / C_k$ and $B \dot\rho B C_k / C_k$ with subsets of $\mathbb{O}_k$. We may compute that in both cases we obtain the set consisting of those $u$ such that there exists $gB \in B \dot\rho B/B$ with
$$u(g(K^{n-k+i})) = g(K^{i}), \quad \text{for all } i=0, \ldots ,k,$$
where $K^j := \langle e_0 , e_1 , \ldots ,e_j \rangle$ and $e_0 := 0$. So, using Proposition \ref{prps=1} \textit{3.}, we can conclude that
$$B \dot\sigma P_k /C_k = \bigcup_{\alpha \in W_k} B\dot\sigma B\dot\alpha C_k /C_k = \bigcup_{\alpha \in W_k} B\dot\sigma \dot\alpha C_k /C_k .$$
For the proof, it remains to be shown that this union is disjoint. We have bijections
\begin{align*}
B\backslash B\dot\sigma P_k / C_k \mathop{\longleftrightarrow}^{1:1} B^{\sigma} \backslash B^\sigma P_k / C_k &\mathop{\longleftrightarrow}^{1:1} B_L^{\sigma} \backslash L / L^{\theta},\\
B \dot\sigma p C_k \longleftrightarrow\quad B^\sigma p C_k &\longleftrightarrow\quad B_L^{\sigma} l_p L^{\theta},
\end{align*}
where we use the notation from Remark \ref{rmrmixed} and where $B^\sigma := \dot\sigma^{-1} B \dot\sigma$, $L^{\theta}$ is the Levi factor of $C_k$, $B_L^{\sigma} := B^\sigma \cap L$ and $p = l_p u_p$, with $l_p \in L$ and $u_p \in U$. Since $B^\sigma \subseteq G$ is a Borel subgroup containing the maximal torus $\dot \sigma^{-1} T \dot \sigma = T$ of $L$, by \cite[Proposition 2.2 , (i)]{Digne-Michel} $B_L^\sigma \subseteq L$ is a Borel subgroup. Therefore $B_L^\sigma$ is conjugated to the standard Borel subgroup $B \cap L \subseteq L$. We then have bijections
$$B_L^\sigma \backslash L / L^\theta \mathop{\longleftrightarrow}^{1:1} (B \cap L) \backslash L / L^\theta \mathop{\longleftrightarrow}^{1:1} B\backslash P_k / C_k .$$
By composing all bijections, we see with Proposition \ref{prps=1} \textit{3.} that $B \dot \sigma P_k/C_k $ consists of $\mid W_k \mid$ many $B$-orbits of $G/C_k$, finishing the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrolps}
Let $(s,r) \in \{1, \ldots ,n\}^2$. Define the elementary matrix $E_{r,s} \in \mathfrak{gl}_n$ by $E_{r,s}(e_k):= \delta_{s,k}e_r$. For a pair $( \sigma , \alpha ) \in \mathcal{R} \times W_k$ we then compute
$$\dot\sigma\dot\alpha C_k = (\dot\sigma\dot\alpha) \cdot x_k \cdot (\dot\sigma\dot\alpha)^{-1} = \sum_{j=1}^k E_{\sigma\alpha(j),\sigma(n-k+j)} \in \mathbb{O}_k .$$
This is the $2$-\textit{nilpotent matrix associated to the oriented link pattern on the $k$ arcs}
$$(\sigma(n-k+1) , \sigma\alpha(1)), \ldots , (\sigma(n),\sigma\alpha(k)), $$
as in \cite{Boos-Reineke}. It was there shown that oriented link patterns on $k$ arcs parametrize $B$-orbits in $\mathbb{O}_k$ by using representation theory of quivers. The term \textit{oriented link pattern} refers to an extension of A. Melnikov's \cite{Melnikov} \textit{link patterns} which give a normal form for $B$-orbits of $2$-nilpotent upper-triangular matrices.
\end{rmr}
\section{Bruhat order on $B\backslash\mathbb{O}_k$}
We start with some generalities about the (weak) Bruhat order on spherical homogeneous spaces. References for more details are \cite{Brion},\cite{Knop} and \cite{RS}.\\
Denote by $G$ a reductive group and by $B$ a Borel subgroup. For a spherical $G$-homogeneous space $X$ denote by $Z(X)$ the set of $B$-orbit closures in $X$. The \textit{Bruhat order on} $Z(X)$ is defined as the inclusion order of $B$-orbit closures. Denote furthermore by $\Delta$ the set of simple reflections in the Weyl group of $G$. Then the set of minimal parabolic subgroups $\Delta(P)=\{P_{\alpha} \supseteq B \mid \alpha\in\Delta\}$ acts on $Z(X)$. If $P_{\alpha}Z \neq Z$, then $\text{codim}(Z , P_{\alpha}Z)=1$ and one writes $Z \xto{\alpha} P_{\alpha}Z$. The relations $\xto{\alpha}$ generate a partial order on $Z(X)$ called the \textit{weak} Bruhat order. It has been defined and investigated by F. Knop in \cite{Knop}. We will need more results from \cite{Knop} in Section 3 (see Remark \ref{rmrTypesOfEdges}).
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnz_k} For $\tau\in W$ denote by $l(\tau)$ the Bruhat length of $\tau$. Let
$$Z_k := \{ \sigma \in W \mid l(\sigma s_i) = l(\sigma) + 1 , \quad\forall i \notin \{k,n-k\} \}$$
$$= \{ \sigma \in W \mid l(\sigma \tau) = l(\sigma)+l(\tau), \quad\forall \tau \in W(L) \}, $$
the set of unique minimal length coset representatives of $W/W(L)$. Further, we set $T_k := T \cap C_k$, a maximal torus of $C_k$, and define
$$W(C_k):= W(L^\theta )= N(T_k )/T_k \subseteq W(L),$$
the Weyl group of the reductive part of $C_k$ (cf. Remark \ref{rmrmixed}). Then
$$W(L) = \langle s_i \mid i \notin \{k,n-k\} \rangle = \coprod_{\alpha \in W_k} \alpha W(C_k ).$$
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrW(C_k)Parametrization}
By Theorem \ref{throrbits}, $W/W(C_k )$ parametrizes the set of $B$-orbits in $\mathbb{O}_k$, as
$$Z_k \times W_k \to W/W(C_k ) , \quad (\sigma , \alpha)\mapsto \sigma\alpha W(C_k )$$
is a bijection.
\end{rmr}
\begin{lmm}\label{lmmminimal}
A set of minimal length representatives of $W/W(C_k)$ is given by
$$\{ \sigma \alpha \mid (\sigma , \alpha) \in Z_k \times W_k \}.$$
\end{lmm}
\begin{proof}
If $i \notin \{ k , n-k \}$, then $l(\sigma \alpha s_i) = l(\sigma) + l(\alpha s_i)$, since $\sigma\in Z_k$ and $\alpha s_i \in W(L)$. If furthermore $i \geq k+1$ then $l(\alpha s_i) = l(\alpha) + 1$, since $\alpha\in W_k$. It remains to show that $l(\sigma\alpha (s_j s_{n-k+j})) \geq l(\sigma\alpha)$, for all $j \in \{1 , \ldots , k-1 \}$. Because $\sigma \in Z_k$ this is equivalent to $l(\alpha s_j s_{n-k+j}) \geq l(\alpha)$. Now, since $\alpha s_j \in W_k$ one has $l(\alpha s_j s_{n-k+j}) = l(\alpha s_j ) +1 \geq l(\alpha)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrBAD}
In general, minimal length representatives of $W/W(C_k )$ are not unique. For example, if $(n,k)=(4,2)$ then $s_1 W(C_k ) = \{ s_1 , s_3 \}$ consists of two elements of Bruhat length $1$.
\end{rmr}
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnZ(s,a)}
Let $(\sigma , \alpha ) \in Z_k \times W_k$ and $s_i \in W$. We denote by
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\textbf{(\alph{enumi})}}
\item $Z(\sigma , \alpha)\subseteq \mathbb{O}_k$ the closure of $\mathcal{C}(\sigma , \alpha)$, and by
\item $P_i = B \coprod B \dot s_i B \subseteq G$ the parabolic subgroup corresponding to $s_i$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{dfn}
\begin{lmm}\label{lmmclosedorbit}
The $B$-orbit $Y^0 := \mathcal{C}(\text{id},\text{id}) \subseteq \mathbb{O}_k$ is closed.
\end{lmm}
\begin{proof}
One computes that a matrix $u \in \mathbb{O}_k$ belongs to $Y^0 = B .x_k$ if and only if
$$\langle e_1 , \ldots , e_{n-k} \rangle = \text{Ker}(u) \text{ and } u(\langle e_{n-k+1} , \ldots , e_{n-k+j} \rangle) = \langle e_1 , \ldots , e_j \rangle ,$$
for all $j=1, \ldots ,k$. We conclude that $Y^0$ is closed in $\mathbb{O}_k$, since all matrices in $\mathbb{O}_k$ are of rank equal to $k$.
\end{proof}
\begin{thr}\label{thrBruhat}
Choose for $(\sigma , \alpha ) \in Z_k \times W_k$ reduced expressions\\
$\sigma = s_{i_1} \cdot \ldots \cdot s_{i_r}$ and $\alpha = s_{i_{r+1}} \cdot \ldots \cdot s_{i_l}$. Then the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $Z(\sigma , \alpha )= P_{i_1}\ldots P_{i_l} Y^0$.
\item $\dim Z(\sigma , \alpha) = l + \dim Y^0$.
\item $Z(\sigma , \alpha) = \bigcup_{ \epsilon \prec \sigma \alpha} B \dot\epsilon C_k / C_k .$
\end{enumerate}
\end{thr}
\begin{proof}
Induction on $l = l(\sigma \alpha)$. If $l=0$ then $\sigma \alpha = \text{id}$ and $Z(\sigma , \alpha) = Y^0$ is a closed $B$-orbit. Now assume that the claim is true for all $l' \leq l$, and let
$$\sigma\alpha = s_{i_1} \ldots s_{i_{l+1}}$$
be a reduced expression of an element $(\sigma , \alpha) \in Z_k \times W_k$. Then, $\beta : = s_{i_2} \cdot \ldots \cdot s_{i_{l+1}}$ is reduced of Bruhat length $l$ because $s_{i_1} \beta = \sigma\alpha$ is reduced of length $l+1$. It is furthermore of the form $\rho \delta$, for a pair $(\rho,\delta) \in Z_k \times W_k$: If $\sigma = \text{id}$ then $\beta \prec \alpha \in W_k$. So $(\rho , \delta)=(\text{id}, \beta) \in Z_k \times W_k$. If $\sigma \neq \text{id}$ then $\beta = \rho \alpha$ where $\rho \in Z_k$. To see this note that for all $i \notin\{k,n-k\}$,
$$l(s_{i_1}\rho s_i) = l(s_{i_1}\rho)+1 = l(\rho) + 2,$$
where the first equality is due to $\sigma = s_{i_1}\rho \in Z_k$ and the second holds due to $s_{i_1} \rho$ being reduced. It follows that $l(\rho s_i ) = l(\rho) +1$ i.e. $\rho \in Z_k$. So we can apply the induction hypotheses:
$$Z(\rho , \delta) = P_{i_2} \cdot \ldots P_{i_{l+1}} Y^0 , \dim Z(\rho , \delta) = l + \dim Y^0 ,\quad Z(\rho ,\delta) = \bigcup_{\epsilon \prec \rho\delta} B \dot\epsilon C_k / C_k .$$
We now show $Z(\sigma , \alpha) = P_{i_1} Z(\rho , \delta )$: We have that
$$P_{i_1} Z(\rho , \delta) = Z(\rho , \delta ) \cup B\dot{s_{i_1}}Z(\rho , \delta).$$
We conclude that $P_{i_1} Z(\rho , \delta) \neq Z(\rho , \delta ) $, because otherwise $B \dot s_{i_1} Z(\rho ,\delta) \subseteq Z(\rho , \delta)$, and then $\mathcal{C}(\sigma , \alpha) = B \dot \epsilon C_k / C_k$, for some $\epsilon \prec \rho\delta$, which contradicts Lemma \ref{lmmminimal}. We therefore have that $P_{i_1} Z(\rho , \delta ) \subseteq\mathbb{O}_k$ is a $B$-orbit closure of $\dim P_{i_1} Z(\rho , \delta ) = \dim Z(\rho , \delta) +1$. The open orbit $\mathcal{C}(\sigma' , \alpha')\subseteq P_{i_1} Z(\rho , \delta )$ is contained in $B\dot{s_{i_1}}Z(\rho , \delta)$. Then, due to the induction hypothesis, there exists $\epsilon \prec \rho \delta$ such that
$$\mathcal{C}(\sigma' , \alpha') \subseteq B \dot s_{i_1} B \dot\epsilon C_k / C_k \subseteq B \dot\epsilon C_k / C_k \cup B \dot s_{i_1}\dot\epsilon C_k / C_k .$$
By Lemma \ref{lmmminimal} it follows that $\sigma' \alpha' = s_{i_1}\rho\delta = \sigma \alpha$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}
We can now describe the Bruhat order on $B\backslash\mathbb{O}_k$.
\begin{crl}\label{crlBruhatOrder} Let $(\sigma' , \alpha' ),(\sigma , \alpha) \in Z_k \times W_k$. Then $Z(\sigma' , \alpha' ) \subseteq Z(\sigma , \alpha )$ iff there exists $\tau \in W$ such that $\tau \prec \sigma \alpha$ with respect to the ordinary Bruhat order on $W$ and $\overline{\sigma' \alpha'} = \overline{\tau} \in W/W(C(k))$.\\
In this case we use the notation $\sigma' \alpha' W(C_k ) \prec \sigma\alpha W(C_k )$.
\end{crl}
\begin{proof}
$Z(\sigma' , \alpha' ) \subseteq Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ iff $\mathcal{C}(\sigma' , \alpha') \subseteq Z(\sigma , \alpha)$. By Theorem \ref{thrBruhat} \textit{3.}, the latter holds iff there exists $\tau \in W$ such that
$$\mathcal{C}(\sigma' , \alpha' ) = B \dot\tau C_k / C_k \text{ and } \tau \prec \sigma \alpha .$$
By Remark \ref{rmrW(C_k)Parametrization} this is the case iff $\sigma' \alpha'$ and $\tau$ are elements of the same left coset of $W(C_k )$ in $W$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrLenaDeg}
M. Boos in \cite{Boos} describes the Bruhat order on $B\backslash\mathbb{O}_k$ in terms of oriented link patterns on $k$ arcs. Moreover, she describes as well the Bruhat order on $B\backslash\overline{\mathbb{O}_k}$, where $\overline{\mathbb{O}_k} = \cup_{s \leq k} \mathbb{O}_{s}$ is the closure of $\mathbb{O}_k$ in $\mathfrak{gl}_n$, extending results of A. Melnikov in \cite{Melnikov}.
\end{rmr}
\section{$B$-orbit closures in $\mathbb{O}_k$ have rational singularities}
Let $Y$ be a variety over $K$ and $f : Z \to Y$ a resolution of singularities. Then the sheaves $R^i f_{*} \mathcal{O}_Z , i \geq 0$, are independent of the choice of the resolution. If $f_{*}\mathcal{O}_Z = \mathcal{O}_Y$ and $R^{i}f_{*}\mathcal{O}_Z = 0$, for all $i > 0$, the variety $Y$ is said to have rational singularities. In this case $Y$ is necessarily normal and Cohen-Macaulay. In this section we show that any $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ has rational singularities. This will rely on the following Lemma \ref{lmmKey} that states that any $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ is \textit{multiplicity-free} (cf. \cite{Brion}). The rationality of singularities of $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ is then part of a result in \cite{Brion}.
\paragraph{Bott-Samelson resolutions of $Z(\sigma, \alpha)$.}
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnRankofOrbit}
Let $G$ be any reductive group and $B\subseteq G$ a Borel subgroup. For an irreducible $B$-variety $X$, we define the \textit{rank of} $X$, $\text{rk}(X)$, as the rank of the abelian group
$$\chi (X)= \{\lambda \in\chi(B ) \mid \exists f \in K(X)^* \quad\forall b \in B : bf = \lambda(b)\cdot f \},$$
where $\chi (B)$ is the group of characters of $B$, and $K(X)$ denotes the field of rational functions on $X$.\\
\noindent Any $B$-orbit $Y$ is isomorphic to $( K^* )^r \times \mathbb{A}^s$, for suitable $r,s \geq 0$. If $Y \subseteq X$ is an open $B$-orbit, then it holds that $\text{rk}(X)= r$ (cf. \cite[Lemma 1]{Brion}).
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrRankO_k} By \cite[(4.2), part (a)]{Panyushev} one has
$$\text{rk}(\mathbb{O}_k) = k,$$
the rank of the matrix $x_k$; by \cite[(1.2), Theorem, part (ii)]{Panyushev} one has
$$\text{rk}( \mathbb{O}_k ) = \text{rk}_{P_k} (P_k / C_k ).$$
By Proposition \ref{prps=1}, $P_k / C_k \simeq \text{GL}_k$, and the open $B$-orbit in $\text{GL}_k$ equals the open $(B'-B')$-double coset $B' \omega_k B' \subseteq \text{GL}_k$, where $B' \subseteq \text{GL}_k$ is the Borel subgroup of upper-triangular matrices, and $\omega_k \in W_k$ is the element of maximal Bruhat length. Now $B' \omega_k B' \simeq (K^* )^k \times \mathbb{A}^{\binom{k}{2}}$, so
$$\text{rk}(\mathbb{O}_k) = \text{rk}_{ P_k } (\text{GL}_k ) = k.$$
\end{rmr}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrTypesOfEdges} For a reductive group $G$ and $X $ a spherical $G$-homogeneous space, denote by $Z = \overline{B.x} \subseteq X$ a $B$-orbit closure, and by $P_{\alpha} \supseteq B$ a minimal parabolic group corresponding to a simple root $\alpha$. Then $P_{\alpha} Z = \overline{B.y}$ is again a $B$-orbit closure. Consider the morphism
$$\pi_{\alpha , Z}: P_{\alpha} \times_B Z \to P_{\alpha} Z , \quad [p,x] \mapsto p.x.$$
Then, $\pi_{\alpha , Z}$ restricts to a morphism
$$p_{Z , \alpha}: P_{\alpha} \times_B B.x \to P_{\alpha} .x .$$
For $P_{\alpha}Z \neq Z$, F. Knop has shown in \cite[Lemma 3.2]{Knop} that one of the three following cases occurs:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{Type U}: $P_{\alpha}.x = B.x \coprod B.y$,\\
$p_{Z , \alpha}$ is an isomorphism and $\text{rk}(P_{\alpha} Z)= \text{rk}(Z)$.
\item \textit{Type T}: $P_{\alpha}.x = Bx \coprod B.y \coprod B.y'$,\\
$p_{Z , \alpha}$ is an isomorphism and $\text{rk}(Z) = \text{rk}(\overline{B.y'}) = \text{rk}(P_{\alpha}Z)-1$.
\item \textit{Type N}: $P_{\alpha}.x = B.x \coprod B.y$,\\
$p_{Z , \alpha}$ is of degree $2$ and $\text{rk}(Z)= \text{rk}(P_{\alpha}Z)-1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{rmr}
\begin{lmm}\label{lmmKey} Let $(\sigma , \alpha ) \in Z_k \times W_k$ and $i \in \{1, \ldots ,n-1\}$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathrm{rk}(Z(\sigma , \alpha)) = k$.
\item If $P_i Z(\sigma , \alpha) \neq Z(\sigma , \alpha)$, then the morphism
$$\kappa : P_i \times_B Z(\sigma , \alpha ) \to P_i Z(\sigma , \alpha ), \quad [p,g C_k] \mapsto pg C_k $$
is birational.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lmm}
\begin{proof}
\textbf{ad} \textit{1.}: Let $\sigma\alpha = s_{i_1}\ldots s_{i_r}$ be a reduced expression. By Theorem \ref{thrBruhat} \textit{1.}, we have $Z(\sigma , \alpha) = P_{i_1} \cdot \ldots \cdot P_{i_r}Y^0$. Further, by \cite[Proposition 5, (ii)]{Brion} there exists a sequence $(s_{j_1} \ldots s_{j_k})$ such that $G/C_k = P_{j_1} \cdot\ldots\cdot P_{j_k}Z(\sigma , \alpha)$. With \cite[Theorem 2.3]{Knop} we then conclude that
$$\text{rk}(Y^0 ) \leq \text{rk}(Z(\sigma , \alpha )) \leq \text{rk}(\mathbb{O}_k )=k.$$
Now
$$\mathbb{O}_k \supseteq Y^0 = \left\{ \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0&0&a\\
0&0&0\\
0&0&0
\end{array}\right)\mid a \in B'\right\} \simeq (K^* )^k \times \mathbb{A}_K^{\binom{k}{2}},$$
where $B' \subseteq \text{GL}_k$ is the Borel subgroup of upper-triangular matrices. Therefore $\text{rk}(Y^0 )=k$, and we obtain that $\text{rk}(Z(\sigma , \alpha )) = k$.\\
\textbf{ad} \textit{2.} By Remark \ref{rmrTypesOfEdges}, statement \textit{1.} implies that all edges in the weak Bruhat graph of $\mathbb{O}_k$ \textit{are of Type} $U$, wherefore
$$B \dot s_i B \times_B \mathcal{C}(\sigma , \alpha) \to B \dot s_i \mathcal{C}(\sigma , \alpha) , \quad [p,g C_k] \mapsto pg C_k$$
is an isomorphism. Therefore $\kappa$ is birational.
\end{proof}
\begin{crl}\label{crlIso}
For $(\sigma , \alpha) \in Z_k \times W_k$ one has an isomorphism of varieties
$$\mathcal{C}(\sigma , \alpha) \simeq (K^* )^k \times \mathbb{A}_K^{\binom{k}{2} + l(\sigma) + l(\alpha)} .$$
\end{crl}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lmmKey} we have $\text{rk}(Z(\sigma , \alpha))=k$. As $\mathcal{C}(\sigma , \alpha)$ is a $B$-orbit, the claim follows now from $\dim Z(\sigma , \alpha) = \dim Y^0 + l(\sigma) + l(\alpha)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnBottSamelson}
For $(\sigma , \alpha ) \in Z_k \times W_k$ and a reduced expression $\sigma \alpha = s_{i_1} \cdot \ldots \cdot s_{i_l}$ we define a variety
$$\tilde{Z} = P_{i_1} \times_B \ldots \times_B P_{i_l} \times_B Y^0 := (P_{i_1} \times\ldots\times P_{i_l} \times Y^0 )/ B^l$$
where $B^l$ acts freely on $P_{i_1} \times\ldots\times P_{i_l} \times Y^0$ by
$$\underline{b}.(p_1, \ldots , p_l , bC_k ):=(p_1 b_1^{-1}, \ldots , b_{l-1}p_l b_l^{-1}, b_l b C_k ).$$
Due to Theorem \ref{thrBruhat} the multiplication map
\begin{align*}
\varphi:& \quad\quad\tilde{Z}\to Z(\sigma , \alpha),\\
&[p_1 , \ldots , p_l , bC_k] \mapsto p_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot p_l \cdot b C_k ,
\end{align*}
is then a well-defined morphism of varieties.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrBottSamelsonExpression}
$\tilde{Z}$ depends on the choice of a reduced expression for $\sigma \alpha$.
\end{rmr}
\noindent The presence of Lemma \ref{lmmKey} assures that $\varphi$ plays the same role for $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ as \textit{Bott-Samelson resolutions} play for Schubert varieties. The following result has been pointed out in \cite{Brion}. For the sake of completeness, we give the proof.
\begin{thr}\label{thrResolution}
$\varphi : \tilde{Z} \to Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ is a resolution of singularities.
\end{thr}
\begin{proof}
\textit{$\tilde{Z}$ is smooth}: Let $l=1$. Then $P_{i_1} \times_B Y^0 \to P_{i_1}/B , [p,bC_k ] \mapsto pB$ is a Zariski locally trivial fibration over $P_{i_1}/B \simeq \mathbb{P}_K^1$ with fiber being the homogeneous space $Y^0$. For $l > 1$ we consider
\begin{align*}
\psi :\tilde{Z} & \to P_{i_1}\times_B \ldots \times_B P_{i_{l-1}}\times_B (P_{i_l}/B)\\
[p_1, \ldots , p_l , bC_k ] & \mapsto [p_1 , \ldots ,p_{l-1}, p_l B]
\end{align*}
$\psi$ is a Zariski locally trivial $Y^0$-fibration over $P_{i_1}\times_B \ldots \times_B P_{i_{l-1}}\times_B (P_{i_l}/B)$. The base is locally isomorphic to $(\mathbb{P}^1)^l$. We conclude that $\tilde{Z}$ is a smooth variety.\\
\textit{$\varphi$ is a projective morphism}: $\varphi = \pi \circ \iota$, where $\iota$ is the closed embedding
\begin{align*}
\tilde{Z} &\to (P_{i_1}\ldots P_{i_l})/B \times Z( \sigma , \alpha),\\
[p_1 , \ldots , p_l ,bC_k ] &\mapsto (p_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot p_l B , p_1 \ldots p_l b C_k )
\end{align*}
and $\pi$ is the projection $(P_{i_1}\ldots P_{i_l})/B \times Z(\sigma , \alpha) \to Z( \sigma , \alpha)$.\\
Since $(P_{i_1} \ldots P_{i_l})/B = X(\sigma \alpha) \subseteq G/B$ is a Schubert variety, it is projective. We conclude that $\varphi $ is a projective morphism.\\
\textit{$\varphi$ is birational}: Induction on $l = l(\sigma \alpha)$. For $l=1$, $\varphi$ is birational because of Lemma \ref{lmmKey}. For $l > 1$ recall that $s_{i_2} \ldots s_{i_l} = \rho \delta$, for a pair $(\rho , \delta) \in Z_k \times W_k$. Then $\varphi = \overline{\kappa}\circ \zeta$, where
\begin{align*}
\zeta :& \tilde{Z} \to P_{i_1} \times_B Z(\rho , \delta)\\
&[p_1 ,p_2 , \ldots , p_l , bC_k ] \mapsto [p_1 ,p_2 \cdot\ldots\cdot p_l b C_k ]
\end{align*}
is birational by induction hypothesis and
$$\overline{\kappa}: P_{i_1} \times_B Z(\rho , \delta ) \to P_{i_1} Z(\rho , \delta ), [p_1 , xC_k] \mapsto p_1 xC_k$$
is birational due to Lemma \ref{lmmKey}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrRothbach}
Theorem \ref{thrResolution} was already prooved in \cite{Rothbach} with other methods.
\end{rmr}
\paragraph{Rationality of singularities.}
\begin{thr}\label{thrRational}
Let $(\sigma , \alpha) \in Z_k \times W_k$. Then $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ has at most rational singularities. In particular, $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ is normal and Cohen-Macaulay.
\end{thr}
\begin{proof}
Lemma \ref{lmmKey} means that $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ is multiplicity-free. Therefore the claims are part of \cite[Theorem 5]{Brion}.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrRessayre}
$\mathbb{O}_k$ is an example of what N.Ressayre \cite{Ressayre09} calls a \textit{spherical homogeneous space of minimal rank} equal to $k$, i.e. all $B$-orbit closures are of rank equal to $k$. It follows then from the work of M. Brion \cite{Brion} that $B$-orbit closures in a spherical homogeneous space of minimal rank have Bott-Samelson resolutions, and that their singularities are at most rational. So, the Theorems \ref{thrRational} and \ref{thrResolution} can be extended to the situation of a spherical homogeneous space of minimal rank.
\end{rmr}
\section{Resolving singularities of $B$-orbit closures in the nilpotent cone}
In this section we extend Theorem \ref{thrResolution} in order to resolve singularities of the closures of $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ in the nilpotent cone of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$. Afterwards, we describe these resolutions in terms of complete flags and linear maps.
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnBigClosure} For a $B$-orbit closure $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ in
$$\mathbb{O}_k = \text{GL}_n . x_k = \{u \in \mathfrak{gl}_n \mid u^2 = 0 , \text{rk}(u) = k \},$$
we define the closure of $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ in $\mathfrak{gl}_n $,
$$\mathfrak{Z}(\sigma ,\alpha) := \overline{Z(\sigma , \alpha)} \subseteq \mathfrak{gl}_n .$$
\end{dfn}
$\mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha)$ is contained in
$$\overline{\mathbb{O}_k} = \overline{\text{GL}_n . x_k } = \coprod_{s= 0}^k \text{GL}_n . x_s = \{u ^2 = 0 , \quad \text{rk}(u) \leq k\} =: \mathcal{N}_k^2 .$$
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrTheseAreAll}
Any closure of a $B$-conjugacy classes of a $2$-nilpotent matrix $u$ is of the form $\mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha)$: For $s = \text{rk}(u)$ we have $B.u \subseteq \mathbb{O}_s$, and according to Theorem \ref{throrbits}, $B . u = \mathcal{C}(\sigma , \alpha)$, for suitable $(\sigma , \alpha) \in Z_s \times W_s$. We therewith obtain that
$$\mathcal{N}_s^2 \supseteq \overline{B.u} = \mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha).$$
\end{rmr}
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnFlagCompability} Let $u \in \mathcal{N}_k^2$ and $V^{\bullet} = (V^1 \subset \ldots \subset V^n ) \in G/B$ be a complete flag of $K$-vector spaces. Recall that $K^\bullet$ denotes the standard flag.
\begin{enumerate}
\renewcommand{\labelenumi}{\textbf{(\alph{enumi})}}
\item $u$ is said to be $V^\bullet$-\textit{compatible} if and only if as a linear map
\begin{equation*}
u (V^i ) \subseteq \left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\{0\} & \text{if } i= 1 , \ldots , n-k\\
V^{i-(n-k)} & \text{if } i = n-k+1 , \ldots , n
\end{array}\right.
\end{equation*}
\item The set of $K^\bullet$-compatible elements of $\mathcal{N}_k^2$ we denote by $\mathfrak{Y}^0$.
\end{enumerate}
Obviously, $\mathfrak{Y}^0$ is stable under $B$-conjugation.
\end{dfn}
\begin{thr}\label{thrBigClosureResolution} Let $(\sigma , \alpha ) \in Z_k \times W_k$, $\sigma \alpha = s_{i_1} \cdot \ldots \cdot s_{i_r}$ a reduced expression and $Y^0$ the minimal $B$-orbit in $\mathbb{O}_k$. Then, the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mathfrak{Y}^0$ is the closure of $Y^0$ in $\mathcal{N}_k^2$.
\item $\mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha) = P_{i_1} \cdot \ldots \cdot P_{i_r} . \mathfrak{Y}^0 \subseteq \mathcal{N}_k^2$.
\item The multiplication map
\begin{align*}
P_{i_1} \times_B \ldots \times_B P_{i_r} \times_B \mathfrak{Y}^0 &\to \mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha),\\
[p_1 , \ldots , p_r , u] &\mapsto (p_1 \cdot\ldots\cdot p_r). u ,
\end{align*}
is a resolution of singularities.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thr}
\begin{proof}
\textbf{ad} \textit{1.}: Observe that $Y^0 = \mathfrak{Y}^0 \cap \mathbb{O}_k$, so $Y^0$ is open in $\mathfrak{Y}^0$. Further $\mathfrak{Y}^0$ is irreducible, as it is isomorphic to an affine space. Finally, flag compatibility is a closed condition, hence $\mathfrak{Y}^0 \subseteq \mathcal{N}_k^2$ is closed and the claim follows.\\
In order to proof \textit{2.} and \textit{3.}, we consider the diagram
$$
\begin{diagram}
\node{P_{i_1}\times_B \ldots P_{i_r} \times_B \mathfrak{Y}^0}\arrow{s,l}{p'}\arrow{e,t}{q'}\node{P_{i_1} \cdot \ldots \cdot P_{i_r} \times_B \mathfrak{Y^0}}\arrow{s,l}{p}\arrow{e,t}{q}\node{\mathcal{N}_k^2}\\
\node{P_{i_1} \times_B \ldots \times_B P_{i_r}/B}\arrow{e,t}{\pi}\node{P_{i_1} \cdot\ldots\cdot P_{i_r}/B = X(\sigma\alpha)}
\end{diagram},
$$
where $p([g,y])=gB$, $q([g,y])= g.y$, $\pi$ is a Bott-Samelson resolution of $X(\sigma\alpha)$ and the square is cartesian.\\
\textbf{ad} \textit{2.}: We start with the following observation:
$$Z(\sigma , \alpha ) = P_{i_1} \cdot \ldots \cdot P_{i_r}. Y^0 = \mathbb{O}_k \cap P_{i_1} \cdot \ldots \cdot P_{i_r}. \mathfrak{Y}^0 .$$
The first equality is Theorem \ref{thrBruhat} and the second equality holds since the rank of a linear map is invariant under conjugation. Therefore $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ is open in $P_{i_1} \cdot \ldots \cdot P_{i_r}. \mathfrak{Y}^0$. The claim will now follow because $P_{i_1} \cdot\ldots\cdot P_{i_r} . \mathfrak{Y^0}$ is $B$-stable, irreducible and closed in $\mathcal{N}_k^2$. The $B$-stability is obvious. To see irreducibility, note that $p$ is a Zariski locally trivial $\mathfrak{Y}^0$-fibration. Therefore, as $X(\sigma \alpha)$ is irreducible, $P_{i_1} \cdot\ldots\cdot P_{i_r} \times_B \mathfrak{Y}^0$ is as well irreducible. Hence, the image of $q$, $P_{i_1} \cdot \ldots \cdot P_{i_r} . \mathfrak{Y}^0$ is irreducible. Further, $q$ is a projective morphism: $X(\sigma\alpha)$ is a projective variety and $(q,p)$ is an embedding with image being the closed subscheme
$$\mathfrak{X}(\sigma , \alpha):=\{(u,V^{\bullet}) \mid u \text{ is } V^\bullet \text{-compatible}\} \subseteq \mathcal{N}_k^2 \times X(\sigma \alpha).$$
To see this note that a linear map $u$ is $K\bullet$-compatible if and only if $g.u = gug^{-1}$ is $g(K^{\bullet})$-compatible. This means that
$$P_{i_1} \cdot\ldots\cdot P_{i_r} \times_B \mathfrak{Y}^0 \to \mathfrak{X}(\sigma , \alpha),\quad [g,u] \mapsto (g.u,gB) $$
is an isomorphism of varieties. We conclude that the image of $q$, $P_{i_1} \cdot\ldots\cdot P_{i_r} \mathfrak{Y}^0$, is closed in $\mathcal{N}_k^2$.\\
\textbf{ad} \textit{3.}: We have to show that
$$q \circ q' : P_{i_1} \times_B \ldots \times_B P_{i_r} \times_B \mathfrak{Y}^0 \to P_{i_1} \cdot\ldots\cdot P_{i_r}. \mathfrak{Y}^0$$
is a resolution of singularities. $q \circ q'$ is clearly birational, as it extends the resolution of the open subvariety $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ from Theorem \ref{thrResolution}. Because the square in the diagram is cartesian and $\pi$ is projective, we deduce that $q'$ is a projective morphism. Since we have seen that $q$ is projective, we conclude that $q \circ q'$ is a projective morphism. As $p'$ is a Zariski locally trivial fibration on a Bott-Samelson variety with smooth fiber $\mathfrak{Y}^0$, we obtain that $P_{i_1} \times_B \ldots \times_B P_{i_r} \times_B \mathfrak{Y}^0$ is a smooth variety.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{$B$-orbit closures as sets of linear maps.} We proceed with describing $\mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha)$ as a set of linear maps. Denote by $X(\sigma \alpha) \subseteq G/B$ the Schubert variety corresponding to the permutation $\sigma \alpha$.
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnSchubertFlagCompability} Let $u \in \mathcal{N}_k^2$. We say that $u$ is $X(\sigma\alpha)$-compatible if there exists $V^{\bullet} \in X(\sigma\alpha)$ such that $u$ is $V^\bullet$-compatible. Further set
$$\mathfrak{X}(\sigma , \alpha) := \{ (u,V^{\bullet}) \mid u \text{ is } V^\bullet \text{-compatible} \} \subseteq \mathcal{N}_k^2 \times X(\sigma\alpha).$$
\end{dfn}
\begin{lmm}\label{lmmClosureAsSet} The following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $Z(\sigma , \alpha) = \{u \in \mathbb{O}_k \mid u \text{ is } X(\sigma\alpha)-\text{compatible}\}$.
\item $\mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha) = \{u \in \mathcal{N}_k^2 \mid u \text{ is } X(\sigma\alpha)-\text{compatible}\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lmm}
\begin{proof} The first statement clearly follows from the second one. In the proof of Theorem \ref{thrBigClosureResolution}, \textit{2.}, we have seen that $\mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha)$ is the image of the morphism $q: P_{i_1} \cdot\ldots\cdot P_{i_r} \times_B \mathfrak{Y}^0 \to \mathcal{N}_k^2$ and that $P_{i_1} \cdot\ldots\cdot P_{i_r} \times_B \mathfrak{Y}^0 \simeq \mathfrak{X}(\sigma , \alpha)$. This proves the second statement.
\end{proof}
\begin{exm}\label{exmEquations} Let $(n,k)=(4,2)$, $\alpha= \text{id}$ and $\sigma = s_1 s_3 s_2 = (2,4,1,3)$. It is well known, that as a set of complete flags, a Schubert variety $X(\tau) \in G/B$ is given by
$$X(\tau) = \{ V^{\bullet} \mid \dim (V^i + K^j) \leq \dim ( E_{\tau}^i + K^j ) , \text{for all } i,j \in [n] \},$$
where $K^{\bullet} \simeq \text{id} B$ denotes the standard flag. Therewith, we may compute that a flag $V^{\bullet} = V^1 \subset V^2 \subset V^3 \subset K^4$ belongs to $X(\sigma\alpha)$ iff
$$V^1 \subset K^2 \subset V^3 .$$
We now may conclude, that
$$Z(s_1 s_3 s_2 , \text{id}) = \{u \in \mathbb{O}_2 \mid u(K^2 ) \subseteq K^2 \}:$$
$\subseteq :$ There exists a flag $V^\bullet$ s.t.r. $V^1 \subset K^2 \subset V^3$ such that $\text{Im}(u) \subseteq V^2 \subseteq \text{Ker}(u)$ and $u(V^3 ) \subseteq V^1$. We obtain that $u^2 = 0$ and $u(K^2 ) \subseteq u(V^3 ) \subseteq V^1 \subseteq K^2$.\\
\noindent $\supseteq$: $u \in\mathbb{O}_2$ if and only if $\text{Im}(u) = \text{Ker}(u)$ and this $K$-space is $2$-dimensional. Further, nilpotency of $u$ implies $u(K^2 ) \neq K^2$. We distinguish between two cases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\dim u(K^2 ) = 0$: Choose $v \in K^4$ with $u(v) = w \neq 0$. Then
$$V^{\bullet}=(\langle w \rangle \subset K^2 \subset K^2 \oplus \langle v \rangle \subset K^4 )\in X(\sigma\alpha),$$
and $u$ is $V^\bullet$-compatible.
\item $\dim u(K^2 ) =1$: Choose $v \in \text{Im}(u) - K^2$. Then
$$V^{\bullet}=( u(K^2 ) \subset \text{Im}(u) \subset K^2 \oplus \langle v \rangle \subset K^4 ) \in X(\sigma\alpha),$$
and $u$ is $V^\bullet$-compatible.
\end{enumerate}
As $u(K^2 ) \subseteq K^2$ is a closed condition we immediately obtain that
$$\mathfrak{Z}(s_1 s_3 s_2 , \text{id}) = \{u \in \mathcal{N}_2^2 \mid u(K^2 ) \subseteq K^2 \}.$$
\end{exm}
\paragraph{Bott-Samelson-Varieties as subvarieties of $(G/B)^r$.} For more details on the following confer \cite{Magyar}. Let
$$\tilde{X} = P_{i_1} \times_B \ldots \times_B P_{i_r}$$
be the Bott-Samelson variety associated to $\sigma \alpha \in W$ and $\sigma \alpha = s_{i_1} \ldots s_{i_r}$, the choice of a reduced expression for $\sigma\alpha$. Denote by $p_{i_s} : G/B \to G/ P_{i_s}$ the projection to the partial flag variety $G/P_{i_s}$.
\begin{prp}\label{prpProductBottSamelson}\cite{Magyar} We define a subvariety of $(G/B)^r$ by
$$Y := \{(g_{j}B )_{j \in [r]} \mid g_1 \in P_{i_1} , p_{i_s} (g_s B) = p_{i_s} (g_{s-1}B) , \text{for all } s = 2, \ldots , k \}.$$
Then, $Y$ is the $B$-orbit closure of $B (\dot s_{i_1}B , \ldots , \dot s_{i_1}\cdot\ldots \cdot\dot s_{i_r}B)$, where $B$ acts diagonally on $(G/B)^r$. Moreover, we have a $B$-equivariant isomorphism of varieties
$$\psi: \tilde{X} \to Y , \quad [p_1 , \ldots , p_r] \mapsto (p_1 B , \ldots , p_1 \ldots p_r B).$$
\end{prp}
\begin{rmr}
In the sequel we will use this identification of $\tilde{X}$ as a subvariety of $(G/B)^r$. We have a (product) Bott-Samelson resolution given by
$$\phi : \tilde{X} \to X(\sigma\alpha) , \quad (g_j B)_{j \in [r]} \mapsto g_r B .$$
\end{rmr}
\paragraph{Resolutions for $B$-orbit closures in terms of flags and linear maps.}
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnBottSamelsonSpringer} We define a closed subscheme $\tilde{\mathfrak{Z}}$ of $\mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha)\times\tilde{X}$ by
$$\tilde{\mathfrak{Z}} := \{ (u,(V_i^{\bullet})_{i \in [r]}) \mid u \text{ is } V_r^{\bullet}-\text{compatible} \} \subseteq\mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha)\times\tilde{X}.$$
\end{dfn}
\begin{thr}\label{thrBottSamelsonSpringer}
The morphism
$$f:\tilde{\mathfrak{Z}} \to \mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha) , \quad (u,(V_i^{\bullet} )_i ) \mapsto u,$$
is a resolution of singularities.
\end{thr}
\begin{proof} Consider the diagram we dealt with in the proof of Theorem \ref{thrBigClosureResolution}. Using the isomorphisms $P_{i_1} \times_B \ldots \times_B P_{i_r}/B \simeq \tilde{X}$ and $P_{i_1} \cdot\ldots\cdot P_{i_r} \times_B \mathfrak{Y}^0 \simeq \mathfrak{X}(\sigma , \alpha)$ this diagram becomes
$$
\begin{diagram}
\node{\tilde{\mathfrak{Z}}}\arrow{s,l}{q_2}\arrow{e,t}{q_1}\node{\mathfrak{X}(\sigma ,\alpha)}\arrow{s,l}{p_2}\arrow{e,t}{p_1}\node{\mathfrak{Z}(\sigma ,\alpha)}\\
\node{\tilde{X}}\arrow{e,t}{\phi}\node{X(\sigma\alpha)}
\end{diagram},
$$
where $\phi$ is the (product) Bott-Samelson resolution, and $p_1$, $p_2$ are the projections to the first resp. second factor. As in the proof of Theorem \ref{thrBigClosureResolution} we obtain that $\tilde{\mathfrak{Z}}$ is smooth and that $f=p_1 \circ q_1$ is a projective and birational morphism.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrEasyCase} The projective morphism
$$p_1: \mathfrak{X}(\sigma , \alpha) \to \mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha),\quad (u , V^{\bullet} ) \mapsto u .$$
is birational as well: As $\phi$ is birational, so is $q_1$. Now $p_1 \circ q_1$ is birational, and the birationality of $p_1$ follows. Therefore $p_1$ is a resolution of singularities if and only if $\mathfrak{X}(\sigma , \alpha)$ is smooth. Because $p_2 :\mathfrak{X}(\sigma , \alpha) \to X(\sigma\alpha)$ is a Zariski locally trivial $\mathfrak{Y}^0$-fibration, the smoothness of $\mathfrak{X}(\sigma , \alpha)$ is equivalent to the smoothness of the Schubert variety $X(\sigma\alpha)$. For instance, this is the case in Example \ref{exmEquations}(in Remark \ref{rmrPattern} we will refer to a singularity criterion for Schubert varieties), and we compute:
\begin{multline*}
\mathfrak{X}(s_1 s_3 s_2 , \text{id})=\{(V^{\bullet} , u) \in G/B \times \mathfrak{gl}_4 \mid \\
V^1 \subseteq K^2 \subseteq V^3 ,\quad\text{Im}(u) \subseteq V^2 \subseteq \text{Kern}(u),\quad u(V^3 )\subseteq V^1\}.
\end{multline*}
\end{rmr}
\begin{exm}\label{exmSingSchubertNilpotent}
Let $(n,k)=(4,2)$ and $(\sigma , \alpha ) = (s_2 s_1 s_3 s_2 , \text{id})$. Then $\sigma\alpha= (3,4,1,2)$, and we conclude that a flag $V^\bullet$ belongs to the Schubert variety $X(\sigma\alpha)$ if and only if
$$V^1 \subset K^3 \text{ and } K^1 \subset V^3 .$$
Using the method from Example \ref{exmEquations} we may compute that
$$\mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha) = \{ u \in \mathcal{N}_2^2 \mid u(K^1 ) \subseteq K^3 \}.$$
In Example \ref{exm2} we will see that $\mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha)$ is singular, and even contains singular points corresponding to matrices of rank $2$.\\
Now $X(\sigma\alpha)$ is singular (cf. Remark \ref{rmrPattern}), hence $\mathfrak{X}(\sigma , \alpha)$ is singular and therewith does not resolve the singularities of $\mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha)$.\\
The Bott-Samelson variety $\tilde{X}$ associated to the reduced expression $s_2 s_1 s_3 s_2$ is cut out from $(G/B)^4$ by the relations
\begin{align*}
K^1 \subset U \subset K^3 \subset K^4 ,\\
W^1 \subset U \subset K^3 \subset K^4 ,\\
W^1 \subset U \subset W^3 \subset K^4 ,\\
W^1 \subset W^2 \subset W^3 \subset K^4 .
\end{align*}
We obtain that $\tilde{\mathfrak{Z}}$ is the variety given by the relations
\begin{align*}
K^1 \subset U \subset K^3 &,\quad W^1 \subset U \subset W^3 ,\\
u( W^3 ) \subset W^1 &,\quad \text{Im}(u) \subset W^2 \subset \text{Ker}(u) ,\\
U \in \text{Gr}(2,4) &, \quad u \in \mathfrak{gl}_4 ,\quad W^{\bullet} \in G/B .
\end{align*}
\end{exm}
\section{Singular $B$-orbit closures in $\mathbb{O}_k$}
This section deals with the question when a $B$-orbit closure $Z(\sigma , \alpha )$ in the homogeneous space $\mathbb{O}_k$ is singular or equivalently, when a closure of a $B$-conjugacy class in $\mathcal{N}_k^2$ has singular points corresponding to matrices of rank $k$. We will \underline{not} find a singularity criterion for $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ in general. The cases for which we will detect singular $B$-orbit closures are if $\sigma = \text{id}$ or $\alpha =\omega_k$, the longest element of $W_k$. Then, we can relate local properties of $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ to local properties of the Schubert varieties $X_P (\sigma) \subseteq G/ P_k$ and $X_k (\alpha) \subseteq \text{GL}_k / B'$. We are then done since singularity criteria for Schubert varieties are known (cf. the book \cite{Billey-Lakshmibai}). For a general $B$-orbit closure in $\mathbb{O}_k$, we determine $T_k$-stable lines lying in it and containing the unique $B_k$-fixed point $\text{id}C_k$, where $B_k = B \cap C_k$ and $T_
k = T \cap C_k$. That is, we mimic an approach used to compute the tangent spaces of Schubert varieties. But, in contrast to the situation of Schubert varieties in $G/B$, the number of these curves in general is strictly smaller than the dimension of the tangent space at $\text{id}C_k$.\\
\paragraph{Orbit closures related to Schubert varieties.}
Recall that
$$\mathbb{O}_k = G \times_{P_k} P_k / C_k \to G/ P_k ,$$
is a Zariski locally trivial $P_k / C_k \simeq \text{GL}_k$-fibration over $G/P_k$ (Proposition \ref{prps=1}).
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnSchubert}
Let $(\sigma , \alpha) \in Z_k \times W_k$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Define $X_P (\sigma)$ to be the closure of $B \dot\sigma P_k / P_k$ in $G/P_k$, so\\
$$X_P (\sigma) = \coprod_{\stackrel{\sigma' \in Z_k}{\sigma' \prec \sigma}} B \dot\sigma' P_k / P_k \subseteq G/P_k .$$
\item $M(\alpha):= \coprod_{\alpha' \prec\alpha} (B\dot\alpha' C_k / C_k) \subseteq P_k / C_k$ identifies with the \textit{quasi-matrix Schubert variety} corresponding to $\alpha$ in $\text{GL}_k$ under the isomorphism $P_k / C_k \simeq \text{GL}_k$ i.e.
$$M(\alpha) \simeq \coprod_{\alpha' \prec \alpha} B' \dot\alpha' B' \subseteq \text{GL}_k ,$$
where $B'$ denotes the Borel subgroup of upper-triangular matrices in $\text{GL}_k$.
\item $X_k (\alpha) := \overline{B' \dot\alpha B' / B'} \subseteq \text{GL}_k /B'$ the Schubert variety corresponding to $\alpha$, being the image of $M(\alpha)$ under the principal bundle $\text{GL}_k \to \text{GL}_k / B'$.
\item $o_k := (k,\ldots ,1,n-k,\ldots ,k+1,n,\ldots ,n-k+1) \in W(L)$ the longest element in the Weyl group of the Levi factor of $P_k$.
\item $\omega_k = (k , \ldots , 1) \in W_k$ the longest element of $W_k$.
\end{itemize}
\end{dfn}
\begin{prp}\label{prpSmooth} Let $(\sigma , \alpha) \in Z_k \times W_k$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\alpha = \omega_k$, then $Z(\sigma , \omega_k )$ is a Zariski locally trivial $\text{GL}_k$-fibration over the Schubert variety $X_P (\sigma) \subseteq G/P_k$. Therefore the singular locus of $Z(\sigma , \omega_k)$ is the union of $B$-orbits $\mathcal{C}(\sigma' , \alpha)$, with $\sigma' P_k \in X_P (\sigma)$ a singular point.
\item If $\sigma = \text{id}$, then $Z(\textit{id} , \alpha)=M(\alpha)$ is a Zariski locally trivial $B'$-fibration over $X_k (\alpha)$. Therefore the singular locus of $Z(\text{id},\alpha)$ is the union of $B$-orbits $\mathcal{C}(\text{id},\alpha)$, with $\alpha' B' \in X_k (\alpha)$ a singular point.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
\textbf{ad}\textit{ 1.}: $Z(\sigma ,\omega_k )$ is the preimage of $X_P (\sigma)$ under the map $G/ C_k \to G/ P_k$. The restriction $Z(\sigma , \omega_k ) \to X_P (\sigma)$ therefore is a Zariski locally trivial $\text{GL}_k$-fibration. Since $\text{GL}_k$ is smooth as a variety, the claim follows.\\
\textbf{ad}\text{ 2.}: $\mathcal{C}(\sigma , \alpha') \subseteq Z(\text{id},\alpha)$ implies that $B \dot\sigma P_k / P_k \subseteq BP_k /P_k$. Whence $\sigma = \text{id}$ and then $\alpha' \prec \alpha$ by Proposition \ref{prps=1}. This shows $Z(\text{id},\alpha)=M(\alpha)$. The principal $B'$-fibre bundle $\text{GL}_k \to \text{GL}_k /B'$ induces a Zariski locally trivial $B'$-fibration $M(\alpha) \to X_k (\alpha)$. We conclude that the statement on the singular locus of $M(\alpha)$ is true.
\end{proof}
\begin{dfnrmr}\label{dfnrmrMatrixSchubert}
Set $\mathfrak{M}(\alpha):= \mathfrak{Z}(\text{id},\alpha)$. Via the isomorphism $P_k / C_k \simeq \text{GL}_k$, we see that $\mathfrak{M}(\alpha)$ identifies with a closed subvariety $\overline{X_\alpha}$ of $\text{Mat}_k ( K )$, called the \textit{matrix Schubert variety corresponding to the permutation} $\alpha \in S_k = W_k$. Using Lemma \ref{lmmClosureAsSet} we obtain that, as a subset of $\text{Mat}_k (K)$ , $\overline{X_\alpha}$ consists of matrices $A$ such that there exists a flag $(V^1 \subset \ldots \subset V^k ) \in X_k (\alpha)$ with
$$A ( K^i ) \subseteq V^i ,$$
for all $i = 1 , \ldots ,k$. W. Fulton has shown in \cite{Fulton} that $\overline{X_\alpha}$ is Cohen-Macaulay.
\end{dfnrmr}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrPattern}
A Schubert variety $X(\sigma)\in\text{GL}_n / B$ is singular if and only if the corresponding element $\sigma \in S_n$ contains sequence $(4,2,3,1)$ or sequence $(3,4,1,2)$ as \textit{a pattern} i.e. there exists $1 \leq i_1 < i_2 < i_3 < i_4 \leq n$ such that
$$\sigma (i_1 ) > \sigma (i_3 ) > \sigma (i_2 ) > \sigma (i_4 ) \text{ or } \sigma (i_2 ) > \sigma (i_1 ) > \sigma (i_4 ) > \sigma (i_3 ).$$
The set $Z_k o_k \subseteq W$ is the set of maximal length representatives of $W/W(L)$. It consists of those $\rho\in W$ fullfilling the property
\begin{align*}
\rho(k)<\ldots < \rho(1),\\
\rho(n-k)<\ldots <\rho(k+1),\\
\rho(n)<\ldots <\rho(n-k+1).
\end{align*}
Likewise, the set of minimal length representatives of $W/W(L)$, $Z_k$, consists of permutations fullfilling the reversed inequalities from above.
\end{rmr}
\begin{crl}\label{crlk=1}
Let $k=1$. Then, $Z(\sigma , \alpha)\subseteq\mathbb{O}_k$ is singular if and only if $\sigma$ contains $(3,1,4,2)$ as a pattern.
\end{crl}
\begin{proof}
For $k=1$, $Z(\sigma , \alpha) = Z(\sigma , \text{id}) \to X_P (\sigma )$ is a Zariski locally trivial $K^*$-fibration. Now, $X_P (\sigma)$ is smooth iff $\sigma o_1$ contains neither $(4,2,3,1)$ nor $(3,4,1,2)$ as a pattern. Due to the description of $Z_k o_k$ given in Remark \ref{rmrPattern}, an element of $Z_1 o_1$ can not contain $(4,2,3,1)$ as a pattern. So $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ is singular iff $\sigma o_1$ contains $(3,4,1,2)$ as a pattern. And this is equivalent to $\sigma$ containing $(3,1,4,2)$ as a pattern.
\end{proof}
\begin{exm}\label{exm1}
Consider $(n,k)=(4,1)$ and $\sigma= (3,1,4,2)= s_2 s_1 s_3 \in Z_1 $. By Corollary \ref{crlk=1}, $Z:=Z(\sigma , \text{id})\subseteq \mathbb{O}_1$ is singular. Indeed, $\dim Z = l(s_2 s_1 s_3) + \dim Y^0 = 4$ and using Lemma \ref{lmmClosureAsSet} we may compute
$$Z = \{u \in \mathbb{O}_1 \mid K^1 \subset \text{Ker}(u) ,\quad \text{Im}(u) \subset K^3 \}.$$
Now, set $I = \{(1,2),(1,3),(1,4),(2,4),(3,4)\}$. Then, for any $(i,j) \in I$ the affine line
$$\mathcal{L}_{i,j} := \{x_1 + t E_{i,j} \mid t \in K \} \simeq \mathbb{A}_K^1$$
is a subvariety of $Z$, and taking derivatives at $t=0$ we obtain that
$$T_{x_1}(Z) \supseteq \sum_{(i,j) \in I} T_{x_1} (\mathcal{L}_{i,j}) \simeq \bigoplus_{(i,j)\in I} K \cdot E_{i,j} = K^5 ,$$
wherefore $Z$ is singular in $x_1$.
\end{exm}
\paragraph{$T_k$-lines in orbit closures.} The motivation for this paragraph comes from the following: Consider a Schubert variety $X(\tau) \subseteq G/B$. As $X(\tau)$ is $B$-stable, it is singular if and only if it is singular in the unique $B$-fixed point $x:= \text{id}B$. Set $V(\tau):= T_x (X(\tau))$ and $V := T_x (G/B)$. Then $V(\tau)$ is a $T$-subrepresentation of $V$, as $x$ is fixed by $T$. One may show that $V \simeq T_{\text{id}}(U^{-}) =\mathfrak{u}^-$, where $U^{-} \subseteq G$ is the subgroup of lower-triangular unipotent matrices, $\mathfrak{u}^-$ is the underlying vector space of the Lie algebra of $U^-$, and $T$ acts on $\mathfrak{u}^-$ as
$$t. A := t \cdot A \cdot t^{-1} , \quad t \in T , A \in \mathfrak{u}^{-}.$$
One concludes that the decomposition of $V$ in $T$-eigenspaces is
$$V =\bigoplus_{\epsilon \in \phi^{+}} V_{-\epsilon}, \quad V_{-\epsilon} = \langle E_{j,i} \rangle ,$$
where $\phi^+$ is the set of positive roots with respect to $B$, and $\epsilon : T \to \mathbb{G}_m , \epsilon (t) = t_i \cdot t_j^{-1}$. On the other hand we have the $1$-dimensional $T$-orbit
$$C_\epsilon^0 := T (\text{id} + E_{j,i})B/B \subseteq G/B .$$
The closure $C_\epsilon := \overline{C_\epsilon^0}\subseteq G/B$ is a projective line obtained by adding the $T$-fixed points $x$ and $\dot r_\epsilon B$ to $C_\epsilon^0$. Here, $r_\epsilon \in W$ is the transposition switching $i$ with $j$. So, the tangent space $T_\epsilon :=T_x (C_\epsilon )$ is a $1$-dimensional $T$-representation. It turns out to be isomorphic to $V_{-\epsilon}$. Further, it can be seen that $C_\epsilon \subseteq X(\tau)$ if and only if $r_\epsilon \prec \tau$. All together, we derive the containment of $T$-representations
$$\bigoplus_{r_\epsilon \prec \tau} V_{-\epsilon} \subseteq V(\tau).$$
This is indeed an equality of $T$-representations. For a proof we refer to \cite[Theorem 3.4]{LakshmibaiTangent} or \cite[Theorem I]{Ryan}. Consequently, $X(\tau)$ is smooth if and only if
$$l(\tau) = \mid \{\epsilon \in \phi^{+} \mid r_\epsilon \prec \tau \} \mid . $$
It is natural to ask, whether there is an analogous way to compute tangent space dimensions of $B$-orbit closures in $\mathbb{O}_k =G/C_k$.
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrBigTorusNoFixed}
If $k \neq 0$, the maximal torus $T \subseteq B$ acts on $G/C_k$ without fixed points: A point $g C_k$ is fixed by $T$ if and only if $g^{-1} T g \subseteq C_k$. Therefore the reductive ranks of $G$ and $C_k$ coincide, as $g^{-1} T g $ is a maximal torus of $G$. Because the reductive part of $C_k$ is isomorphic to $\text{GL}_k \times \text{GL}_{n-2k}$, we obtain
$$n=\text{rk}( \text{GL}_n ) = \text{rk}(\text{GL}_k \times \text{GL}_{n-2k}) = n-k,$$
so $k = 0$. Then $\mathbb{O}_k = G . x_0 = \{0\}$, which is an uninteresting case. We therefore rather consider the action of $T_k = T \cap C_k$ on $G/C_k$. Then, $p:= \text{id}C_k$ is fixed by $T_k$, so the tangent space $T_p (Z(\sigma , \alpha))$ is a $T_k$-representation. The point $p$ lies in the minimal $B$-orbit of $G/C_k$, so a $B$-orbit closure $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ is singular if and only if $p \in Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ is a singular point.
\end{rmr}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrTangentSpaceY^0}
The group $T_k$ acts on $\text{End}(K^n)$ via conjugation. As $G/C_k =\mathbb{O}_k \subseteq \text{End}(K^n ) \simeq \mathbb{A}^{n^2}$ is locally closed, we may identify $T_p ( G / C_k ) = T_{x_k}(\mathbb{O}_k )$ with a $T_k$-subrepresentation of
$$T_{x_k} (\mathbb{A}^{n^2}) \simeq \langle E_{i,j} \mid (i,j) \in [n]^2 \rangle ,$$
where $T_k$ acts via
$$t . E_{i,j} := t E_{i,j} t^{-1} = t_i t_j^{-1} E_{i,j}.$$
For the tangent space at $p$ of the minimal $B$-orbit of $\mathbb{O}_k$ we have that
$$T_p (Y^0 ) \simeq \mathfrak{Y}^0 = \langle E_{r,s} \mid (r,s) \in \{1, \ldots ,k\}\times\{n-k+1 , \ldots ,n\} \rangle ,$$
because $Y^0$ is open in the vector space $\mathfrak{Y}^0 \subseteq \text{End}(K^n )$. As $Y^0$ is contained in any $B$-orbit closure $Z$, we are only interested in the numbers
$$\text{codim}(T_p (Y^0) , T_p (Z)).$$
\end{rmr}
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnroots}
Define $\phi^+$ as the set of positive roots of $G$ with respect to $B$. We can identify $\phi^+$ with $\{ (i,j) \mid 1 \leq i < j \leq n \}$. $\epsilon \in \phi^+$ corresponds to a transposition in $W$ which we denote by $r_{\epsilon}$. Further, $\epsilon$ defines two unipotent subgroups $U_{\pm\epsilon}\subseteq G$, which both are isomorphic to the additive group $(\mathbb{G}_a , +)$:
$$u_{\pm \epsilon} : (\mathbb{G}_a , +) \xto{\simeq} U_{\pm\epsilon}, \quad t \mapsto \text{id} + t E_{\pm\epsilon},$$
where $E_{+\epsilon} = E_{i,j}$ and $E_{-\epsilon} = E_{j,i}$. Now, set
\begin{itemize}
\item $\phi^+ (\text{GL}_k ) = \{ (i,j) \mid 1 \leq i<j \leq k \} \subseteq \phi^+$,
\item $\phi^+ (P_k ) = \{\epsilon\in \phi^+ \mid U_{-\epsilon} \nsubseteq P_k \}$,
\item $\phi^+ (C_k ) := \phi^+ (\text{GL}_k ) \coprod \phi^+ (P_k)$, the set of \textit{positive roots of} $C_k$.
\end{itemize}
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}\label{T_kLines}
For $\epsilon \in \phi^+ (C_k )$ we define a $T_k$-stable subset of $G/C_k$ by
$$C(\epsilon) := \{ u_{-\epsilon}(t)C_k \mid t \in K \}.$$
The next Proposition suggests to call them $T_k$-\textit{lines}.
\end{dfn}
\begin{prp}\label{prpcurvecontainment} Let $\epsilon \in \phi^+ (C_k )$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The set $C(\epsilon)$ is contained in $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ if and only if
$$ r_{\epsilon} W(C_k) \prec \sigma\alpha W(C_k).$$
\item Each $C(\epsilon)$ is isomorphic to an affine line in $\mathbb{O}_k$. Explicitly, isomorphisms are given as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item For $\epsilon =(i,j) \in \phi^+ (\mathrm{GL}_k )$:
$$\mathbb{A}^1 \xto{\simeq} C(\epsilon), \quad t \mapsto x_k +t E_{j,i+n-k},$$
so $T_p (C(\epsilon)) = <E_{j,i+n-k}>$.
\item For $\epsilon = (i,i+n-k) \in \Delta:=\{(1,n-k+1), \ldots , (k,n)\}\subseteq \phi^+ (P_k )$:
$$\mathbb{A}^1 \xto{\simeq} C(\epsilon), \quad t \mapsto x_k + t E_{i+n-k , i+n-k} - t E_{i,i} - t^2 E_{i+n-k , i},$$
so $T_p (C(\epsilon)) = < E_{i+n-k,i+n-k}-E_{i,i} >$.
\item For $\epsilon = (i,j) \in (\{1,\ldots , k\} \times \{n-k+1 , \ldots , n\}) - \Delta \subseteq\phi^+ (P_k )$:
$$\mathbb{A}^1 \xto{\simeq} C(\epsilon), \quad t \mapsto x_k + t E_{j,i+n-k} - t E_{j-n+k , i},$$
so $T_p (C(\epsilon)) = <E_{j,i+n-k}-E_{j-n+k,i}>$.
\item For $\epsilon = (i,j) \in\{1,\ldots ,k\}\times\{k+1 , \ldots , n-k\} \subseteq \phi^+ (P_k )$:
$$\mathbb{A}^1 \xto{\simeq} C(\epsilon), \quad t \mapsto x_k + t E_{j,i+n-k},$$
so $T_p (C(\epsilon)) = <E_{j,i+n-k}>$.
\item For $\epsilon = (i,j) \in\{k+1 , \ldots , n-k\}\times \{n-k+1,\ldots ,n\}\subseteq \phi^+ (P_k )$:
$$\mathbb{A}^1 \xto{\simeq} C(\epsilon), \quad t \mapsto x_k - t E_{j-n+k,i},$$
so $T_p (C(\epsilon)) = <E_{j-n+k,i}>$.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{prp}
\begin{proof}
\textbf{ad} \textit{1.}: Clearly, $u_{-\epsilon}(0)C_k = \text{id}C_k$ is contained in any $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$. For $t \neq 0$ we compute that
$$u_{-\epsilon}(t)=(\dot r_{\epsilon} + t E_{j,j} - t^{-1}E_{i,i} - E_{j,i})\dot r_{\epsilon} u_{\epsilon}(t^{-1}) \in B \dot r_{\epsilon} B .$$
Consequently, $u_{-\epsilon}(t)C_k \in B \dot r_{\epsilon} B C_k /C_k = B \dot r_{\epsilon} C_k / C_k$. The claim now follows from the Corollary \ref{crlBruhatOrder} describing the Bruhat order on $B \backslash \mathbb{O}_k$. \\
\textbf{ad} \textit{2.}: Using the isomorphism $G/ C_k \to \mathbb{O}_k ,\quad gC_k \mapsto g x_k g^{-1}$, we obtain for arbitrary $\epsilon \in \phi^+$ the equation
$$
u_{-\epsilon}(t)C_k \simeq u_{-\epsilon}(t)x_k u_{-\epsilon}(-t)= x_k + t E_{j,i}x_k - t x_k E_{j,i}-t^2 E_{j,i}x_k E_{j,i}.
$$
Now, use $x_k = \sum_{r=1}^k E_{r,r+n-k}$ and note that $\phi^+ (C_k )$ decomposes into the five specified sets. The descriptions of the tangent spaces $T_p (C(\epsilon))$ are obtained by taking differentials at $t=0$ of the isomorphisms $\mathbb{A}^1 \to C(\epsilon)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmr}
$C(\epsilon)$ is the closure of the $1$-dimensional $T_k$-orbit $T_k u_{-\epsilon}(1) C_k / C_k$, if $\epsilon \in \phi^+ (C_k ) - \Delta$. $C(\epsilon)$ consists entirely of $T_k$-fixed points, if $\epsilon \in \Delta$.
\end{rmr}
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnorbitcurves} For $(\sigma , \alpha) \in Z_k \times W_k$ define
$$t_k (\sigma , \alpha ) := \{ \epsilon \in \phi^+ (C_k ) \mid r_{\epsilon} W(C_k ) \prec \sigma\alpha W(C_k )\}.$$
Further, we define a Borel subgroup of $C_k$ by $B_k := B \cap C_k \subseteq C_k$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{crl}\label{crltangent_T_k}
\begin{enumerate}
\item As a $T_k$-representation $T_p (G/C_k )$ decomposes into $T_k$-subrepresentations
$$T_p (G/C_k ) = T_p (Y^0) \oplus \bigoplus_{\epsilon \in \phi^+ (C_k )} T_p (C(\epsilon)).$$
\item One has that
$$T_k (\sigma , \alpha):= T_p (Y^0) \oplus \bigoplus_{\epsilon\in t_k (\sigma , \alpha)} T_p (C(\epsilon)) \subseteq T_p (Z(\sigma , \alpha))$$
is a $T_k$-subrepresentation.
\end{enumerate}
\end{crl}
\begin{proof}
As $G/C_k$ is homogeneous, it is smooth hence $\dim T_p (G / C_k) = \dim G - \dim C_k$. With Proposition \ref{prpcurvecontainment}, \textit{2.}, one checks that the sum over all vector spaces $T_p (C(\epsilon))$, $\epsilon \in \phi^+ (C_k )$, is direct. From the description of $T_p (Y^0 )$ given in Remark \ref{rmrTangentSpaceY^0} we obtain that the vector space sum on the RHS is direct. Now the claim follows, since $\phi^+ (C_k )$ has cardinality $\dim G - \dim C_k - \dim Y^0$.\\
The second statement follows now from Proposition \ref{prpcurvecontainment}, \textit{1.}
\end{proof}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrT_kWeights}
As $T_p (G/C_k )$ is a $T_k$-representation it decomposes into $T_k$-eigenspaces. If a $T_k$-eigenspace is non-zero, it is not $1$-dimensional in general: For a weight $\lambda : T_k \to K^* , \underline{t} \mapsto t_j t_i^{-1}$ with $1 \leq i \neq j \leq k$ we derive from Proposition \ref{prpcurvecontainment} that
$$(T_p (G/C_k ))_\lambda = \langle E_{j,i+n-k} \rangle \oplus T_p (C(i,j+n-k)) \simeq K^2 .$$
The $T_k$-eigenspace of the trivial character $\lambda = 1_{ T_k }$ is
$$(T_p (G/C_k ))_{1_{T_k}} = \langle E_{r,r+n-k} \mid r \in [k] \rangle \oplus \bigoplus_{\epsilon \in \Delta} T_p (C(\epsilon)) \simeq K^{2k}.$$
\end{rmr}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrmodulestructure}
Since $p$ is a $B_k$-fixed point and $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ is $B$-stable hence $B_k$-stable, the algebraic group $B_k$ acts on the tangent space $T_p (Z(\sigma , \alpha))$.
\end{rmr}
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnCurve_T_k-B_k}
The $T_k$-subrepresentation $T_k (\sigma , \alpha) \subseteq T_p (Z(\sigma , \alpha))$ generates a $B_k$-subrepresentation of $T_p (Z(\sigma , \alpha))$, which we denote by $B_k (\sigma , \alpha)$.
\end{dfn}
The next example shows that in general $B_k (\sigma , \alpha) \neq T_k (\sigma , \alpha)$.
\begin{exm}\label{exm2} Let $(n,k)=(4,2)$. We have
$$W_k = \langle s_1 \rangle, \quad Z_k = \{\sigma \in W \mid \sigma(1)<\sigma(2),\sigma(3)<\sigma(4)\},\quad W(C_k )= \langle s_1 s_3 \rangle .$$
The next figure shows the Bruhat graph of $B \backslash \mathbb{O}_2$.
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\input{Bruhat4-2.latex}\\
\caption{Bruhat graph for $(n,k)=(4,2)$}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Edges that are drawn in light-blue correspond to minimal degenerations
$$\sigma' \alpha' W(C_k ) \prec \sigma \alpha W(C_k )$$
with $\alpha'$ not smaller than $\alpha$ with respect to the Bruhat order on $W$. The existence of these edges shows that $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ is not a $M(\alpha)$-fibration over $X_P (\sigma)$ in general.\\
There are 3 singular orbit closures, indicated by red colour:
\begin{itemize}
\item $Z=Z(s_1 s_3 s_2 , s_1 )$: We have $s_1 s_3 s_2 o_2 = (4,2,3,1) \in W$. Since $X((4,2,3,1))$ $\subseteq G/B$ is a singular Schubert variety (Remark \ref{rmrPattern}), $X_P (s_1 s_3 s_2) \subseteq G/P_2$ is singular, so $Z$ is singular by Proposition \ref{prpSmooth}.
\item $Z=Z(s_2 s_1 s_3 s_2 , \text{id})$: One computes, that $t_k (s_2 s_1 s_3 s_2 , \text{id})$ equals $\phi^+ (C_2)$, so by Corollary \ref{crltangent_T_k} $T_p (Z) = T_p (G/C_2 ) = K^8$. So, $Z$ is singular since $\dim Z = l(s_2 s_1 s_3 s_2 ) + \dim Y^0 = 7$.
\item $Z=Z(s_1 s_3 s_2 ,\text{id})$: We compute $t_k (s_1 s_3 s_2 , \text{id}) = \phi^+ (C_k ) - \{(1,3),(2,4)\}$. So $T_k (s_1 s_3 s_2 , \text{id})$ is $6$-dimensional. Set $v:= E_{1,1}- E_{3,3}$, $w:= E_{2,2} - E_{4,4}$. Then by Proposition \ref{prpcurvecontainment} $T_p (C(1,3))= K v$, $T_p (C(2,4))= Kw$. One computes now that $B_k (s_1 s_3 s_2 ,\text{id})$ as a vector space is generated by $T_k (s_1 s_3 s_2 , \text{id})$ and $K(v-w)$, and therefore is $7$-dimensional. So, $Z$ is singular since $\dim Z = 6$. (Using equations for the variety $Z$ one may compute that $B_k (\sigma , \alpha)=T_p (Z(\sigma , \alpha))$).
\end{itemize}
The remaining $B$-orbit closures $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ are all smooth and it holds that
\begin{formula}\label{tangent}
$$\boxed{T_k (\sigma , \alpha ) = T_p (Z(\sigma , \alpha )).}$$
\end{formula}
The case of $Z=Z(s_1 s_3 s_2 , \text{id})$ shows that in general the formula \ref{tangent} is false. (Instead, in this example it holds that $B_k (\sigma ,\alpha)=T_p (Z(\sigma ,\alpha))$).
\medskip
Nonetheless, in the next section we will see that results of L. Fresse \cite{FressePhd} imply that formula \ref{tangent} holds whenever $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ is contained in $\mathfrak{n}$, where $\mathfrak{n} \subseteq\mathfrak{gl}_n$ is the affine space of upper-triangular matrices.
\end{exm}
\section{Comparison to results on components of Springer fibers}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrSpringerResolution}
Denote by $\mathcal{N} \subseteq\mathfrak{gl}_n$ the nilpotent cone of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$, and by
$$\tilde{\mathcal{N}} := \{ (x , V^{\bullet}) \in\mathcal{N}\times G/B \mid \forall i\geq 1:\quad x(V^i ) \subseteq V^{i-1} \} \quad (V^0 := \{ 0 \}).$$
Then the map $\pi: \tilde{\mathcal{N}} \to \mathcal{N},\quad (x, V^{\bullet}) \mapsto x$ is a resolution of singularities called \textit{Springer resolution of} $\mathcal{N}$ \cite[Proposition 3.2.14, Definition 3.2.4 ]{Chriss-Ginzburg}. The fibre of $x_k$, $\mathcal{F}_k := \pi^{-1}(x_k )$, identifies with a $C_k$-stable subscheme of $G/B$. Its irreducible components are the $C_k$-orbit closures in $\mathcal{F}_k$. We will refer to them as \textit{Springer fiber components in the $2$-column case}, since the Young diagram associated with the nilpotent orbit $\mathbb{O}_k$ has two columns.
\end{rmr}
\begin{dfnrmr}\label{dfntypesing}
Let $(X,x)$ and $(Y,y)$ be pointed $K$-varieties. $(X,x)$ and $(Y,y)$ are said to be smoothly equivalent if there exists a pointed $K$-variety $(Z,z)$ and smooth morphisms $f: Z \to X$ and $g : Z \to Y$ such that $f(z)=x$ and $g(z)=y$. Using that smoothness of a morphism is stable under base change, one obtains that smooth equivalence is an equivalence relation on the set of pointed $K$-varieties. The equivalence classes are called types of singularities. In the sequel, we take advantage of \cite[Lemma 5.16]{Bongartz}: If an algebraic group $H$ acts on a variety $Z$, then $(Z,z)$ and $(Z ,h.z)$ are smoothly equivalent, for all $(h,z) \in H \times Z$, as $Z \to Z , z \mapsto h.z$ is an isomorphism. Furthermore, if $H \subseteq G$ is a subgroup, the map
$$\psi: H \backslash Z \to G \backslash (G \times_H Z) , \quad H.z \mapsto G.[1,z] = G \times_H H.z$$
is a bijection that preserves orbit closures. It preserves codimensions, because $\text{Stab}_H (z) = \text{Stab}_G ([1,z])$. Now, for an $H$-orbit closure $Z' \subseteq Z$, consider the morphisms
\begin{align*}
Z' \xleftarrow{p} G \times Z' \xrightarrow{q} G \times_H Z' , \quad p(g,z)=z , \quad q(g,z) = [g,z].
\end{align*}
As $G$ is smooth, $p$ is a $H$-equivariant smooth morphism. Now consider the cartesian square
$$
\begin{diagram}
\node{G \times Z'} \arrow{s,l}{q}\arrow{e,t}{} \node{G}\arrow{s,r}{\pi}\\
\node{G \times_H Z'} \arrow{e,t}{} \node{G/H}
\end{diagram}.
$$
Since $G=\text{GL}_n$ is a special group, $\pi$ is a Zariski locally trivial $H$-fibration and therefore a smooth morphism. Hence, $q$ is a $G$-equivariant smooth morphism. We conclude, that $\psi$ preserves the singularity types of orbit closures.
\end{dfnrmr}
\begin{lmm}\label{lmmcorrespondence}
The map
$$B\backslash\mathbb{O}_k \to C_k \backslash G/B , \quad \mathcal{C}(\sigma , \alpha ) \mapsto (C_k \dot\alpha^{-1}\dot\sigma^{-1} B)/B$$
is a bijection that preserves codimensions, orbit closures and their types of singularities.
\end{lmm}
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ act on $G/C_k \times G/B$ diagonally. Consider the isomorphisms of $G$-varieties
$$\begin{diagram}
\node{G \times_{B} G/C_k} \arrow{e,t}{\sim} \node{G/B \times G/C_k} \arrow{e,t}{\sim} \node{G \times_{C_k} G/B}\\
\node{[g,h C_k ]} \arrow{e,t}{\sim} \node{(g B , gh C_k)} \arrow{e,t}{\sim} \node{[gh , h^{-1} B]}
\end{diagram}$$
Now, consider the two associated fibre bundles $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ given by
$$G/B \mathop{\longleftarrow}^{\pi_1} G \times_{B} G/C_k \simeq G/B \times G/C_k \simeq G \times_{C_k} G/B \mathop{\longrightarrow}^{\pi_2} G/C_k .$$
By applying Remark \ref{dfntypesing} we obtain a bijection
$$B \backslash \mathbb{O}_k \to C_k \backslash G/ C_k , \quad B g C_k /C_k \mapsto C_k g^{-1} B / B ,$$
that preserves codimensions, orbit closures and their types of singularities. Since $Z_k \times W_k$ parametrizes $B \backslash \mathbb{O}_k$, the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnC_kOrbitClosure}
For a pair $(\sigma , \alpha) \in Z_k \times W_k$ we denote
$$S(\alpha^{-1}, \sigma^{-1}) := \overline{C_k \dot\alpha^{-1}\dot\sigma^{-1}B/B} \subseteq G/B .$$
By Lemma \ref{lmmcorrespondence} these are all $C_k$-orbit closures. Furthermore we denote $q = \text{id}B$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{lmm}\label{lmmTangentCorrespondence} Denote by $\mathfrak{b}$ (resp. by $\mathfrak{c}_k$) the Lie algebra of $B$ (resp. of $C_k$). Then, for all $(\sigma , \alpha) \in Z_k \times W_k$ there is an isomorphism of $K$-vector spaces
$$\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{b} \oplus T_p (Z(\sigma , \alpha)) \simeq \mathfrak{g}/ \mathfrak{c}_k \oplus T_q (S(\alpha^{-1},\sigma^{-1})).$$
\end{lmm}
\begin{proof} Let $(\sigma,\alpha)\in Z_k \times W_k$. The isomorphism of $G$-varieties $G \times_{C_k} G/B \to G \times_B G/C_k$ given in the proof of Lemma \ref{lmmcorrespondence} restricts to an isomorphism of $G$-varieties
$$G \times_{C_k} S({\alpha}^{-1} , {\sigma}^{-1}) \xrightarrow{\sim} G \times_B Z(\sigma,\alpha) , \quad [\text{id},q] \mapsto [\text{id}, p].$$
Because $B$ is a solvable group, $G \times_B Z(\sigma , \alpha) \to G/B$ is a Zariski locally trivial $Z(\sigma,\alpha)$-fibration. Since $G=\text{GL}_n$ is special, the fibre bundle $G \times_{C_k} S(\alpha^{-1},\sigma^{-1}) \to G/C_k$ is a Zariski locally trivial $S(\alpha^{-1},\sigma^{-1})$-fibration. Therefore, the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Comparison with work of Perrin/Smirnov \cite{Smirnov-Perrin}.\\}
\noindent In \cite[Theorem 1.1, Corollary 1.4]{Smirnov-Perrin} it is shown that Springer fibre components in the two-column case have at most rational singularities. Furthermore, they remain normal in positive characteristic.\\
By using Lemma \ref{lmmcorrespondence}, Theorem \ref{thrRational} gives (for $\text{char}(K)=0$) an extension to the situation of an arbitrary $C_k$-orbit closure in $G/B$:
\begin{thr}\label{thrPerrinSmirnoff}
The $C_k$-orbit closures in $G/B$ have rational singularities.\\
Hence also the irreducible components of $\mathcal{F}_k$ have rational singularities.
\end{thr}
\begin{proof}The bijection from Lemma \ref{lmmcorrespondence} preserves types of singularities. Now, smooth equivalence preserves rationality of singularities (cf. \cite[Corollary 3.2]{SkowronskiZwara}).
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Comparison with work of Fresse \cite{FressePhd}, \cite{Fresse}.}
\begin{lmm}\label{lmmuppertriang}
$(C_k (\dot\sigma\dot\alpha)^{-1} B)/B \subseteq \mathcal{F}_k$ if and only if $(\dot\sigma\dot\alpha) . x_k$ is a strictly upper-triangular matrix.
\end{lmm}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $(\dot\sigma\dot\alpha) . x_k = (\dot\sigma\dot\alpha) \cdot x_k \cdot(\dot\sigma\dot\alpha)^{-1} \in\mathbb{O}_k$. The claim now follows from the Definition of the Springer fiber $\mathcal{F}_k$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrOrbital}
By Lemma \ref{lmmuppertriang} the correspondence from Lemma \ref{lmmcorrespondence} restricts to a bijection $$B\backslash(\mathbb{O}_k \cap\mathfrak{n}) \mathop{\longleftrightarrow}^{1:1} C_k \backslash \mathcal{F}_k ,$$
where $\mathfrak{n} \subseteq\mathfrak{gl}_n$ is the Lie algebra of strictly upper-triangular matrices (cf. \cite[Proposition 3.2]{FresseMelnikov13} where arbitrary nilpotent orbits of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$ are considered). The irreducible components of $\mathbb{O}_k \cap\mathfrak{n}$ are called \textit{orbital varieties of the nilpotent orbit} $\mathbb{O}_k$. They are among the $B$-orbit closures in $\mathbb{O}_k \cap\mathfrak{n}$. The irreducible components of $\mathcal{F}_k$(and therefore the orbital varieties of $\mathbb{O}_k$) are known to be equidimensional. (cf. \cite{Spaltenstein} where the case of an arbitrary nilpotent orbit is considered). They are indexed by numberings $T$ of the Young diagram of the nilpotent orbit $Y$ with $\{1,\ldots ,n\}$ such that numbers in each row increase from left to right and in each column from the top to the bottom. One calls these numberings \textit{standard Young tableaux of shape} $Y$ and denotes the corresponding Springer fiber component by $
K^T$. In our case, the Young diagram of $\mathbb{O}_k$ has two columns of length $n-k$ and $k$ (the \textit{$2$-column case}) and the components of $\mathcal{F}_k$ are of dimension
$$\frac{k (k-1) + (n-k)(n-k-1)}{2}.$$
\end{rmr}
L. Fresse established in \cite{FressePhd} a singularity criterion for Springer fiber components in the $2$-column-case. Recently, in \cite{Fresse} he computed the tangent spaces of $C_k$-orbit closures $S(\alpha^{-1},\sigma^{-1}) \subseteq \mathcal{F}_k$ at arbitrary points. This will allow us to show that formula \ref{tangent} holds in the case where a $B$-orbit closure is contained in $\mathfrak{n}$. In contrast to our normal form given by $Z_k \times W_k$, L. Fresse uses A. Melnikov's link patterns ( cf. \cite{Melnikov} or Remark \ref{rmrolps}). So, there is something left to translate for us.
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnInvolutionsTauFlags}
Define $S_n^2 (k) \subset S_n$ as the set of involutions fixing exactly $n-2k$ elements of $\{1,\ldots ,n\}$, and $(Z_k \times W_k )^{\text{up}}$ as the subset of $Z_k \times W_k$ consisting of those $(\sigma,\alpha)$ such that $\dot \sigma \dot\alpha . x_k$ is upper-triangular. We then have a bijection
$$(Z_k \times W_k )^{\text{up}} \to S_n^2 (k), \quad (\sigma,\alpha)\mapsto \tau_{\sigma\alpha}:=\prod_{i=1}^k (\sigma \alpha (i) \quad \sigma (n-k+i) ).$$
Let $\tau \in S_n^2 (k)$. A complete flag $((f_1 , \ldots , f_s ))_{s = 1, \ldots ,n}$ is said to be a $\tau$-flag if
$$x_k (f_i ) =
\begin{cases}
f_{\tau(i)}, & \mbox{if } \tau(i)< i ,\\
0, & \mbox{else.}
\end{cases}$$
We denote the set of $\tau$-flags by $\mathcal{Z}_{\tau}$. Its closure in $G/B$ is denoted by $\overline{\mathcal{Z}_{\tau}}$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrC_kFlagsOrbits}(cf. \cite[Remark 2]{Fresse})
Let $(\sigma , \alpha) \in (Z_k \times W_k )^{\text{up}}$. It holds that
$$\mathcal{Z}_{\tau_{\sigma\alpha}} = C_k \dot\alpha^{-1}\dot\sigma^{-1} B/B .$$
Consequently, we have $\overline{\mathcal{Z}_{\tau_{\sigma\alpha}}} = S(\alpha^{-1} ,\sigma^{-1}) \subseteq G/B$.
\end{rmr}
Rephrasing the definition of \textit{adjacent link patterns} for the special case of a link pattern adjacenct to the minimal link pattern, we obtain
\begin{dfn}\label{dfnAdjacency}(cf. \cite[Definition 3]{Fresse}) Let $(\sigma , \alpha) , (\sigma' , \alpha') \in Z_k \times W_k$.
\begin{itemize}
\item $\phi_{\mathfrak{n}}^+ (C_k ) := \phi^+ (C_k ) - \{(i,j)\in\{1, \ldots ,k\} \times \{n-k+1,\ldots ,n\}\mid i+n-k \geq j\}$.
\item $\tau_{\sigma' \alpha'} \in S_n^2 (k)$ is said to be adjacent to $\tau_{\text{id}}$ if $\sigma' \alpha' W(C_k ) = \epsilon W(C_k)$, for some
$\epsilon \in \phi_{\mathfrak{n}}^+ (C_k )$.
\item $s(\sigma ,\alpha ):= \{\epsilon W(C_k) \mid \epsilon W(C_k ) \prec \sigma\alpha W(C_k ) \text{ and } \tau_{\epsilon} \text{ is adjacent to } \tau_{\text{id}} \}.$
\end{itemize}
\end{dfn}
Now, we can see that another version of (a part of) \cite[Theorem 1]{Fresse} is to say that formula \ref{tangent} holds if a $B$-orbit closure $Z(\sigma,\alpha)$ is contained in $\mathfrak{n}$:
\begin{crl}\label{thrUppercaseTangent}
Let $(\sigma , \alpha) \in Z_k \times W_k$ such that $Z(\sigma , \alpha) \subseteq \mathfrak{n}$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $T_k (\sigma , \alpha) = T_p (Z(\sigma , \alpha))$.
\item $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ is regular iff $\mid t_k (\sigma , \alpha )\mid = l(\sigma)+l(\alpha)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{crl}
\begin{proof}
Statement \textit{2.} follows from statement \textit{1.}, since
$$\dim T_k (\sigma , \alpha ) = \dim Y^0 + \mid t_k (\sigma , \alpha ) \mid ,\quad \dim Z(\sigma , \alpha) = \dim Y^0 + l(\sigma) + l(\alpha).$$
Now, in order to proof Statement \textit{1.} note that $Z(\sigma , \alpha ) \subseteq \mathfrak{n}$ implies $t_k (\sigma , \alpha) \subseteq \phi_{\mathfrak{n}}^+ (C_k )$. (cf. Proposition \ref{prpcurvecontainment}, part \textit{2.}). We have thus
$$s(\sigma , \alpha) = t_k (\sigma , \alpha).$$
\cite[Theorem 1, (a)]{Fresse} states that
$$\dim T_q (S(\alpha^{-1}, \sigma^{-1})) = \dim (C_k / B \cap C_k ) + \mid s(\sigma , \alpha) \mid .$$
Using $Y^0 = B/B \cap C_k$ and Lemma \ref{lmmTangentCorrespondence} we obtain
$$\dim T_p (Z(\sigma , \alpha)) = \dim Y^0 + \mid s(\sigma , \alpha) \mid = \dim Y^0 + \mid t_k (\sigma , \alpha) \mid = \dim T_k (\sigma , \alpha),$$
showing that the claim is true.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmr}\label{rmrRowStandard}
A numbering of a Young diagram is said to be \textit{row-standard} if the numbers increase in each row from left to right. Due to Lemma \ref{lmmuppertriang} and Remark \ref{rmrolps} we can deduce from Theorem \ref{throrbits} that $B$-orbit closures in $\mathbb{O}_k \cap n$ are indexed by row-standard tableaux
$$T_\tau =\tiny{\ytableausetup{mathmode , boxsize=4.5em}
\begin{ytableau}
\tau_1 & \tau_{n-k+1} \\
\vdots & \vdots \\
\tau_{k} & \tau_{n} \\
\vdots \\
\tau_{n-k}
\end{ytableau}}\quad ,$$
where $\tau = \sigma \alpha$, for a pair $(\sigma , \alpha) \in Z_k \times W_k$: $T_\tau$ is row-standard iff $\dot\tau . x_k \in\mathfrak{n}$.\\
By the description of $Z_k$ given in Remark \ref{rmrPattern} we then obtain that $B$-orbit closures in $\mathbb{O}_k \cap\mathfrak{n}$ are parametrized by those row-standard tableaux $T_\tau$ where the numbers in the second column increase from the top to the bottom, and in addition $\tau_{k+1} < \ldots < \tau_{n-k}$ if $2k < n$.\\
A standard tableau $T$ corresponds to an irreducible component $K^T$ of $\mathcal{F}_k$. In \cite[Discussion after Lemma 2.2]{FressePhd} it is shown how to obtain from a standard tableau $T$ a row-standard tableau $T_{\sigma\alpha}$ by renumbering the labels in the first column of $T$, such that the $C_k$-orbit closure $ S(\alpha^{-1},\sigma^{-1})$ equals the irreducible component $K^T$. We will demonstrate this and Corollary \ref{thrUppercaseTangent} in the next example.
\end{rmr}
\begin{exm}\label{exm3}
Let $(n,k)=(6,2)$. We consider a standard tableau $T$ with corresponding singular Springer fiber component $K^T$. The discussion before \cite[Lemma 2.2]{FressePhd} shows how to obtain a row-standard tableau $T_{\sigma\alpha}$, for $(\sigma ,\alpha)\in Z_2 \times W_2$ such that $Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ equals the orbital variety of $\mathbb{O}_k$ corresponding to $K^T$, under the bijection from Lemma \ref{lmmcorrespondence}.
$$T =\tiny{\ytableausetup{mathmode , boxsize=2em}
\begin{ytableau}
1&3\\
2&5\\
4\\
6
\end{ytableau} \quad\rightsquigarrow\quad
T_{\sigma\alpha} =\ytableausetup{mathmode , boxsize=2em}
\begin{ytableau}
2&3\\
4&5\\
1\\
6
\end{ytableau} \quad\rightsquigarrow\quad \sigma = (2,4,1,6,3,5), \quad\alpha = \mathrm{id}}.$$
We compute $\sigma = s_1 s_3 s_2 s_5 s_4$ and $W(C_k )= <s_1 s_5 , s_3 >$. Denote by $\equiv$ congruence modulo $W(C_k )$. In the next tabular we check whether a transposition from $\phi^+ (C_k )$ belongs to $t_k (\sigma , \alpha)$ or not.
\bigskip
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
$(12)= s_1 \prec \sigma$ & $(13) \equiv s_1 s_2 s_5 \prec \sigma$ & $(14) \equiv s_3 s_1 s_2 s_5 \prec \sigma$ \\
\hline
$(15)\notin \phi_{\mathfrak{n}}^+ (C_k )$ & $(16) \not\equiv \tau\prec\sigma$ & $(23) = s_2 \prec\sigma$ \\
\hline
$(24) \equiv s_3 s_2 \prec \sigma$ & $(25) \notin \phi_{\mathfrak{n}}^+ (C_k )$ & $(26) \notin \phi_{\mathfrak{n}}^+ (C_k )$\\
\hline
$(35) \equiv s_3 s_4 \prec \sigma$ & $(36) \equiv s_1 s_3 s_5 s_4 \prec \sigma$ & $(45) = s_4 \prec \sigma$ \\
\hline
$(46) \equiv s_1 s_5 s_4 \prec \sigma$ & &\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\bigskip
So $t_k (\sigma , \text{id})$ has $9 > l(\sigma) = 5$ elements wherefore $Z(\sigma , \text{id})$ is singular. This was the first example of a singular Springer fiber component in the two-column case.\cite{Vargas}. For $(n,k)=(6,2)$ it is the only singular component of $\mathcal{F}_k$ \cite{FressePhd}.
\end{exm}
\section{Concluding Questions}
Let $Z=Z(\sigma , \alpha)$ and $\mathfrak{Z} = \mathfrak{Z}(\sigma , \alpha)$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Computing $t_k (\sigma , \alpha)$ is a bad job. Is there a \textit{pattern avoidance} singularity criterion for $Z \subseteq \mathfrak{n}$? Could it be possibly related to Fresse's and Melnikov's singularity criterion for orbital varieties of $\mathbb{O}_k$ given in terms of \textit{minimal arcs} of link patterns \cite[Theorem 5.2]{FresseMelnikov13}?
\item \cite[Theorem 1]{Fresse} actually describes all tangent spaces of $S(\alpha^{-1}, \sigma^{-1})$, making it possible to determine the singular locus of $S(\alpha^{-1},\sigma^{-1})$. Can Corollary \ref{thrUppercaseTangent} be extended to tangent spaces at arbitrary points by considering translates of $T_k$-lines $C(\epsilon)$, where $\epsilon \in \phi^+ (C_k )$ ?
\item In Example \ref{exm2} we have seen, that the tangent spaces of $T_k$-lines contained in $Z$ do not span $T_p (Z)$, if $Z \not\subseteq \mathfrak{n}$. Do they at least generate $T_p (Z)$ as a $(B \cap C_k )$-module?
\item The Bruhat order on $B \backslash \mathfrak{Z}$ has been determined by Boos and Reineke \cite{Boos-Reineke}. Theorem \ref{thrBottSamelsonSpringer} shows how to resolve the singularities of $\mathfrak{Z}$. What are reduced equations for $\mathfrak{Z}$? When is $\mathfrak{Z}$ singular? When is $\mathfrak{Z}$ normal?
\item What can be said about the geometry of $B$-orbit closures in spherical nilpotent orbits of Lie algebras which are different from $\mathfrak{gl}_n$? Does one get more examples of spherical homogeneous spaces \textit{of minimal rank} in the sense of N. Ressayre \cite{Ressayre09}?
\end{itemize}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
Exact Lagrangian submanifolds of exact symplectic manifolds are an important class of objects because they often say interesting things about the symplectic manifold.
For example, the trivial symplectic manifold $(\rr^{2n},\omega_0)$ does not have any exact Lagrangian submanifolds.
As another example, the existence of an exact Lagrangian submanifold in a Liouville manifold $M$ implies the non-vanishing of the symplectic cohomology of $M$.
Symplectic cohomology in turn has many applications, such as to the existence of Reeb orbits on the boundary of $M$.
One way to generalize the study of exact Lagrangian submanifolds is to consider \textit{immersed} exact Lagrangians.
These objects should also have interesting applications to symplectic geometry.
In this paper we study the Floer cohomology of a family of immersed Lagrangian spheres in the smoothing of an $A_n$ surface.
We now introduce the objects we will study and state the main theorems of the paper.
Let
\begin{displaymath}
\poly = \za\zb-(\zc-1)(\zc-2)\cdots(\zc-N)
\end{displaymath}
and
\begin{displaymath}
\mnfld=\sett{\poly=0}\subset\cc^3.
\end{displaymath}
We equip $\mnfld$ with the standard symplectic form $\sympl$, standard complex structure $\acs$, standard one form $\oneform$ with $d\oneform=\omega$, and standard holomorphic volume form $\holvf = \mathrm{Res}(d \za \wedge d\zb \wedge d\zc/\poly)$.
All of this structure makes $\mnfld$ an exact graded K\"ahler manifold.
The functions $\hamone=\frac{1}{2}|\za|^2-\frac{1}{2}|\zb|^2$, $\hamtwo=|\zc|^2$ define a singular Lagrangian torus fibration on $\mnfld$.
The fibers which contain focus-focus singularities are immersed Lagrangian spheres.
These are precisely the fibers where $\hamone=0$ and $\hamtwo\in\sett{1,\ldots,N}$; we denote these fibers by $\lagstd$.
The main result of this paper is a calculation of the Floer cohomology of these immersed spheres.
The result is
\begin{theorem}[Theorem \ref{thm:1}]
\label{thm:3}
The self-Floer cohomology (with $\zz_2$-coefficients) of $\lagstd$ is $0$ if $r=1$, and isomorphic to $(\zz_2)^4$ if $r>1$.
More precisely, in the latter case the Floer cohomology has dimension one in degrees $-1,0,2,3$ and is $0$ elsewhere.
\end{theorem}
More generally, we can calculate the Floer cohomology of many other immersed Lagrangian spheres.
To describe these Lagrangians, note that the map
\begin{displaymath}
\leffib:\mnfld\to\cc,\quad (\za,\zb,\zc)\mapsto\zc
\end{displaymath}
is a Lefschetz fibration.
If $\gamma$ is an embedded loop in the base that passes through exactly one critical value, then the union of vanishing cycles over $\gamma$ forms an immersed sphere which we denote as $\Sigma_\gamma$.
The result is
\begin{theorem}[Theorem \ref{thm:2}]
\label{thm:4}
If the interior of $\gamma$ contains no critical values of $\leffib$, then the Floer cohomology of $\Sigma_\gamma$ is trivial.
Otherwise, the Floer cohomology of $\Sigma_\gamma$ is isomorphic to $(\zz_2)^4$.
More precisely, it has dimension $1$ in degrees $-1,0,2,3$.
\end{theorem}
Floer cohomology for immersed Lagrangians was developed by Akaho and Joyce in \cite{MR2785840}.
In their setup, they construct a filtered $A_\infty$-algebra associated to a compact immersed Lagrangian $\iota:L\to M$ with transverse self-intersection points (here $L$ is a smooth manifold, $\iota(L)$ is Lagrangian, and $M$ is a symplectic manifold).
The underlying vector space (over a Novikov ring $\Lambda$) for the $A_\infty$-algebra can be thought of as $H^*(L;\Lambda)\oplus \Lambda R$ where $R$ is a finite set that has two elements for each self-intersection point of $\iota$.
If $b$ is a solution of the Maurer-Cartan equation for the $A_\infty$-algebra then the Floer cohomology of $(\iota,b)$ is defined.
The full $A_\infty$-algebra of a Lagrangian is difficult to calculate, and hence it is difficult to compute Floer cohomology from this definition.
We therefore use a different definition of Floer cohomology in this paper.
We give a brief overview here; see Section \ref{sec:floer-cohom-lagstd} for more details and \cite{alston-fciegl} for complete details.
First, for the underlying chain complex we will take
\begin{displaymath}
\cm(f;\zz_2)\oplus\zz_2R
\end{displaymath}
where $R$ is as above, $f$ is a Morse function on $L$, and $\cm(f;\zz_2)$ is the Morse complex.
Motivated by \cite{MR2555932} and \cite{MR2863919}, we define the Floer differential by counting pearly trajectories, which are strings of Morse flow lines and holomorphic discs.
In our formulation we use holomorphic strips instead of discs, and allow time dependent almost complex structures.
The $\pm\infty$ ends of the strips converge to either branch points\footnote{I.e.\ self-intersection points of the immersed Lagrangian.} of the immersed Lagrangian or smooth points (non-branch points).
Exactness precludes existence of strips with no branch jumps, hence strips will only appear in pearly trajectories that start or stop on generators coming from $R$.
Thus, our pearly trajectories will consist of one (maybe partial) Morse flow line and at most two discs, each of which has a branch jump.
See Figure \ref{fig:trajectories}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\label{fig:trajectories}
\centering
\input{./Figure1.pdf_tex}
\caption{The five types of pearly trajectories. Lines are (maybe partial) Morse flow lines. Lines connect to the $\pm\infty$ ends of the strips. Closed dots at the ends of trajectories are critical points. Open circles represent branch jumps. Branch jumps correspond to elements of $R$. All other points on the boundary of the strips are smooth. The positivity assumption implies that the fourth type actually does not contribute for dimension reasons (we show it for completeness).}
\end{figure}
See Theorem \ref{thm:5} for a precise statement of what is proved in \cite{alston-fciegl} and Section 7.1 for the precise definition of Floer cohomology.
Note that the positivity assumption in Theorem \ref{thm:5} can be thought of as an unobstructedness assumption for the immersed Lagrangian---it is needed to rule out problems arising from disc bubbling.
The definition of Floer cohomology used in this paper agrees with the more standard definition---namely, taking two copies of the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian perturbing one, and then counting strips connecting intersection points.
In Sections \ref{sec:discs-strips}, \ref{sec:analytic-setup} and \ref{sec:moduli-spac-holom} we explain the construction of the moduli spaces of strips and discs.
The strips are used to define the pearly trajectories and the discs are used to help model possible degenerations.
A time dependent complex structure $\depj{t}{t}$ is generic (and hence is a valid choice to define the Floer cohomology) if all the moduli spaces of strips with all possible boundary punctures are regular and tranverse to the stable and unstable manifolds of the Morse function.
In Section \ref{sec:class-holom-curv} we classify all strips with boundaries on the Lagrangians $\lagstd$ with respect to the standard time independent complex structure.
This classification follows relatively easily from Lefschetz fibration considerations; compare for example to the calculation in Example 17.3 of \cite{seidel-fcpclt}.
We then show that all these moduli spaces are regular, hence can be used to calculate Floer cohomology as defined above.
The main lemma that is used to calculate Floer cohomology is Lemma \ref{lemma:1}, which in turn is based on the classification in Section \ref{sec:class-holom-curv}.
We end this introduction with some remarks on possible further work.
First, it would be interesting to find the product structure and full $A_\infty$-structure on the Lagrangians.
We conjecture that the only non-trivial products, other than the products involving the unit, are
\begin{displaymath}
[(\q,\p)]\cdot[(\p,\q)]=[(\p,\q)]\cdot [(\q,\p)] = [\pmax].
\end{displaymath}
Here, $[(\p,\q)], [(\p,\q)], [\pmax]$ are generators of the Floer cohomology in degrees $-1,3,2$ respectively.
See Section \ref{sec:calc-floer-cohom} for a full explanation of the notation.
The product can likely be defined by counting a combination of holomorphic discs and Morse flow lines, as in \cite{MR2555932} or \cite{MR2863919}.
It seems that the only thing that contributes to the product in this example is a constant disc (with branch jumps\footnote{That is, the map $\ell$ in Definition \ref{dfn:9} takes different values on the components of the boundary of the disc minus the marked points.}) connected to a Morse flow line emanating from $\pmax$.
However, we have not yet proved that this correctly computes the product.
Second, the immersed Lagrangians can be constructed from embedded Lagrangian spheres using the construction described in Section (16h) of \cite{seidel-fcpclt}.
In the terminology of Lefschetz fibrations (see Section \ref{sec:geom-lefsch-fibr}), the immersed spheres are matching cycles over loops in the base that start and stop at a critical value of the fibration.
Such loops can be obtained as perturbations of concatenations of two paths connecting two critical values of the fibration.
See Figure \ref{fig:curves}.
The matching cycles over the paths are embedded spheres that intersect over the critical values.
Doing appropriate Lagrangian surgery on the spheres at one of the intersection points will result in the immersed sphere.
It would be interesting to explicitly describe the relationship between all of these objects in the twisted Fukaya category.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\label{fig:curves}
\centering
\input{./curves.pdf_tex}
\caption{Two paths and a loop in the base of the Lefschetz fibration. The dots represent critical values of the fibration.}
\end{figure}
\section{Immersed Lagrangian spheres}
\label{sec:torus-fibration}
In this section we define the Lagrangian spheres $\lagstd$ that we will study, and explain how to see them from the point of view of Lagrangian torus fibrations and Lefschetz fibrations.
Later on when we classify holomorphic discs the Lefschetz fibration point of view will be very useful.
The self-intersection point of $\lagstd$ has a special role to play in immersed Floer theory and we fix some notation regarding it.
We also write down explicit coordinates on $\lagstd$, as well as fix a grading and discuss exactness of $\lagstd$.
Our grading conventions agree with those in \cite{seidel-fcpclt}.
\subsection{Torus fibration perspective}
Consider the functions
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:2}
\nonumber \hamone:\mnfld\to\rr,\quad& (\za,\zb,\zc)\mapsto \frac{1}{2}|\za|^2-\frac{1}{2}|\zb|^2,\\
\hamtwo:\mnfld\to\rr,\quad & (\za,\zb,\zc)\mapsto |\zc|^2.
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{lemma}
$\hamone$ and $\hamtwo$ Poisson commute, that is
\begin{displaymath}
\{\hamone,\hamtwo\}=0.
\end{displaymath}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It is easy to check that the Hamiltonian vector field\footnote{Our convention is that $\sympl(\hamvf{\hamone},\cdot)=d\hamone(\cdot)$.}
of $\hamone$ is
\begin{displaymath}
\hamvf{\hamone}=-i\za\pd{}{\za}+i\zb\pd{}{\zb}.
\end{displaymath}
Thus
\begin{displaymath}
\{\hamone,\hamtwo\}=-d\hamtwo(\hamvf{\hamone})=\hamvf{\hamone}(\hamtwo)=0.
\end{displaymath}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The map
\begin{displaymath}
(\hamone,\hamtwo):\mnfld \to \base:=\rr\times\rr_{\geq0}
\end{displaymath}
is a Lagrangian torus fibration (with singularities).
The singular locus is the subset
\begin{displaymath}
\rr\times\sett{0}\cup\sett{(0,1^2),\ldots,(0,N^2)}\subset B.
\end{displaymath}
The fibers over $(0,1^2),\ldots,(0,N^2)$ are focus-focus fibers; hence they are immersed Lagrangian spheres.
Topologically, they can also be viewed as tori with a cycle collapsed to a point.
\end{corollary}
The fibers that are immersed spheres will be the main subject of study in this paper.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:28}
For $r\in\sett{1,\ldots,N}$ let
\begin{displaymath}
\lagstd = \sett{\hamone=0,\ \hamtwo=r^2}\subset\mnfld
\end{displaymath}
denote the Lagrangian torus fiber over $(0,r^2)\in\base$.
Each $\lagstd$ is an immersed Lagrangian sphere.
\end{definition}
We will need explicit formulas for the immersions of these Lagrangian spheres.
Let $S^2\subset\rr^3$ denote the standard sphere.
Define cylindrical coordinates on $S^2$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:1}
(a,e^{ib})\in(-\pi,\pi)\times S^1 \mapsto (\cos (a/2)\cos (b),\cos(a/2)\sin(b),\sin(a/2))\in S^2.
\end{equation}
We also define (two patches of) rectangular coordinates on $S^2$ by
\begin{displaymath}
(x,y)\mapsto (x,y,\pm\sqrt{1-x^2-y^2}).
\end{displaymath}
The relationship between the coordinates is
\begin{displaymath}
x=x(a)=\cos(a/2)\cos(b),\quad y=y(a)=\cos(a/2)\sin(b).
\end{displaymath}
Let $\rho=\rho(a)=x^2+y^2$ and let $f:(-\pi,\pi)\to(-\pi,\pi)$ be a function such that $f'>0$, $f(a)=a$ near $a=0$, $f(a)=\pi-\rho$ near $a=\pi$, and $f(a)=-\pi+\rho$ near $a=-\pi$.
Note that $f$ can be viewed as a smooth function on $S^2$ (it does not depend on $e^{ib}$).
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:29}
For $r\in\sett{1,\ldots,N}$ let $\imm:S^2\to \lagstd$ be the immersion defined in cylindrical coordinates on $S^2$ by the formula
\begin{displaymath}
\imm:(a,e^{ib})\mapsto (e^{ib}\xi(a),e^{-ib}\xi(a),-re^{if(a)}),
\end{displaymath}
with
\begin{displaymath}
\xi(a)=\sqrt{-re^{if(a)}-1}\sqrt{-re^{if(a)}-2}\cdots\sqrt{-re^{if(a)}-N}.
\end{displaymath}
Here we define the square root function by setting $\sqrt{-1}=i$ and using analytic continuation.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:2}
$\imm$ is a smooth immersion with one transverse self-intersection.
The preimage of the self intersection points correspond to $a=\pm\pi$ in spherical coordinates.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The only nontrivial thing to check is that the formula for $\imm$ extends smoothly over the two points $a=\pm\pi$ (which are not technically in the cylindrical coordinate chart), and is an embedding at these points.
Let us concentrate near $a=\pi$; the calculation near $a=-\pi$ is similar.
Let $\eta(x,y)=\sqrt{e^{if(a)}+1}$.
Near $(x,y)=(0,0)$,
\begin{displaymath}
e^{if(a)}+1=\rho(i+O(\rho)),\quad \eta=\rho^{1/2}\sqrt{i+O(\rho)}.
\end{displaymath}
Also, $\cos b =x\rho^{-1/2}$ and $\sin b=y\rho^{-1/2}$, and hence
\begin{displaymath}
e^{ib}\eta=(x+iy)\sqrt{i+O(\rho)},\quad e^{-ib}\eta=(x-iy)\sqrt{i+O(\rho)}.
\end{displaymath}
Thus $e^{\pm i b}\eta$ is a smooth function of $(x,y)$ near $(0,0)$.
It is clear that $\xi/\eta$ is smooth, hence
\begin{displaymath}
e^{\pm i b}\xi=\frac{\xi}{\eta}\cdot e^{\pm i b}\eta
\end{displaymath}
is smooth.
An easy computation shows that the derivative at $(0,0)$ is invertible, thus proving the lemma.
\end{proof}
The preimages of the self-intersection point will have a special role to play, so we give names to these points.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:3}
Let $\p\in S^2$ be the point that corresponds to $a=\pi$ and let $\q\in S^2$ be the point that corresponds to $a=-\pi$.
\end{definition}
Near the self-intersection point in the image $\lagstd=\imm(S^2)$, the Lagrangian has two branches; we call these branches the $\p$-branch and the $\q$-branch depending on whether $\p$ or $\q$ is in the lift to $S^2$ of the branch.
\subsection{Lefschetz fibration perspective}
\label{sec:lefsch-fibr-persp}
It is also possible to see the Lagrangian torus fibration from the point of view of Lefschetz fibrations.
In fact, this point of view is better for the purpose of studying holomorphic curves.
The Lefschetz fibration we will use is the map
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:4}
\leffib:\mnfld\to\cc,\quad (\za,\zb,\zc)\mapsto \zc.
\end{equation}
The set of critical values of $\leffib$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:5}
\critv=\sett{1,2,\ldots,n}.
\end{equation}
The fibers of $\leffib$ over non-critical values are isomorphic to $\cc^*$, and the fibers over the critical values are $\sett{\za\zb=0,\zc\in\critv}$.
The Hamiltonian flow of $\hamone$ preserves the Lefschetz fibers and foliates them into circles.
The Lagrangian torus fiber $L_{(b_1,b_2)}$ over $(b_1,b_2)\in B$ consists of the circles with $\hamone=b_1$ in all the Lefschetz fibers that lie over points $z$ in the circle $\sett{|z|^2= b_2}\subset\cc$ in the base of the Lefschetz fibration.
For the immersed Lagrangian spheres $\lagstd$,
\begin{displaymath}
\pi(\lagstd)=\sett{|z|=r}
\end{displaymath}
and the singular point of $\lagstd$ coincides with the singular point of the Lefschetz fiber over $z=r$.
The intersection of $\lagstd$ and a smooth Lefschetz fiber is a circle which is a vanishing cycle for the singular point.
Near the singular point, the image under $\leffib$ of the $\p$-branch of $\lagstd$ is an arc that lies in the lower half-plane with one endpoint $z=r$, and the image of the $\q$-branch is an arc lying in the upper half-plane with one endpoint $z=r$.
\subsection{Special Lagrangian property and gradings}
Recall that $\poly=\za\zb-(\zc-1)\cdots(\zc-n)$ is the polynomial that cuts out $\mnfld$ and $\holvf$ is the Poincar\'e residue of $d\za\wedge d\zb \wedge d\zc/\poly\in\Omega^3_{\cc^3}(\mnfld)$.
More explicitly, $\holvf$ can be described as follows:
Given a point $p\in \mnfld$, choose any vector $V\in T_p\cc^3$ such that $d\poly(V)=1$.
Then at the point $p$
\begin{displaymath}
\holvf(\cdot)=d\za\wedge d\zb\wedge d\zc(V,\cdot).
\end{displaymath}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:4}
Let $L_b$ be a torus fiber.
Then
\begin{displaymath}
\mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{\holvf}{\zc}\right)\bigg|L_b=0.
\end{displaymath}
That is, $L_b$ is a special Lagrangian with respect to the meromorphic volume form $\holvf/\zc$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Fix a point $p\in\mnfld$ and let $V=(0,0,\alpha)\in T_p\cc^3$ with $\alpha=(\pd{\poly}{\zc})^{-1}$, so $d\poly(V)=1$.
Then
\begin{displaymath}
\holvf=d\za\wedge d\zb\wedge d\zc(V,\cdot,\cdot)=\alpha d\za\wedge d\zb.
\end{displaymath}
Hence
\begin{displaymath}
\holvf(\hamvf{\hamone},\cdot)=-i \alpha \za d\za -i \alpha \zb d\za=-i\alpha d\poly+i\alpha\pd{\poly}{\zc}d\zc=i\alpha\pd{\poly}{\zc}d\zc=id\zc.
\end{displaymath}
Then
\begin{displaymath}
\frac{\holvf}{\zc}(\hamvf{\hamone},\hamvf{\hamtwo})=i\frac{d\zc}{\zc}(\hamvf{\hamtwo})=id\log \zc(\hamvf{\hamtwo}),
\end{displaymath}
and hence
\begin{displaymath}
\mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{\holvf}{\zc}(\hamvf{\hamone},\hamvf{\hamtwo})\right)=d\log|\zc|(\hamvf{\hamtwo})=0.
\end{displaymath}
Since $\hamvf{\hamone},\hamvf{\hamtwo}$ span the tangent space of the Lagrangian torus fibers, it follows that they are special Lagrangian with respect to $\holvf/\zc$.
\end{proof}
We briefly recall the notion of a grading in the context of almost Calabi-Yau manifolds.
Suppose $M$ is a symplectic manifold with almost complex structure $J$, $L$ is an embedded Lagrangian, and $\Omega$ is a nowhere vanishing section of $\Lambda^{top}(TM,J)$.
There is a canonical map $s_L:L\to \mathcal {G}$, where $\mathcal G$ is the bundle over $M$ whose fiber over a point $p$ is the set of Lagrangian planes in $T_pM$.
$\Omega$ determines a (squared) phase map
\begin{displaymath}
\mathrm{Det}^2_\Omega:\mathcal G\to S^1.
\end{displaymath}
Then a grading for $L$ is a map $\gr{L}:L\to\rr$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3}
e^{2\pi i\gr{L}}=\mathrm{Det}^2_\Omega\circ s_L.
\end{equation}
In case $L$ is only immersed, i.e.\ there is an immersion $i:L\to M$ with $i(L)$ Lagrangian, then a natural map $s_L:L\to\mathcal G$ still exists, and a grading is defined to be a function $\gr{L}:L\to\rr$ that satisfies \eqref{eq:3}.
Now consider the immersed Lagrangian spheres $\lagstd$.
Lemma \ref{lemma:4} shows that any function $\theta:S^2\to \rr$ that satisfies
\begin{displaymath}
e^{2\pi i \theta}=\frac{\zc^2}{|\zc^2|}\circ\imm
\end{displaymath}
is a grading for the Lagrangian sphere.
We pick one such choice:
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:7}
We grade $\imm:S^2\to\lagstd$ with respect to $\holvf$ by the function
\begin{displaymath}
\grstd(a,e^{ib})=\frac{f(a)}{\pi}.
\end{displaymath}
Here, $(a,e^{ib})$ are cylindrical coordinates on $S^2$ as in \eqref{eq:1}.
\end{definition}
The grading allows us to assign an index to a self-intersection point, or more precisely to pairs of branches (see the discussion following Definition \ref{dfn:3}).
Actually, because $S^2$ is connected, the index is independent of the choice of grading.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:35}
Let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bjstd& = &\set{(p,q)\in S^2\times S^2}{\imm(p)=\imm(q),\ p\neq q}\\
&=& \sett{(\p,\q),(\q,\p)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For each element $(p,q)\in\bjstd$, we define an index by the formula
\begin{displaymath}
\ind (p,q)=n+\grstd(q)-\grstd(p)-2\cdot\ang(\immpf T_pS^2,\immpf T_q S^2).
\end{displaymath}
Here, $\ang(\immpf T_pS^2,\immpf T_qS^2)=a+b$ where
\begin{displaymath}
\immpf T_qS^2 =\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
e^{2\pi i a} & 0 \\
0 & e^{2\pi i b}
\end{array}
\right]\cdot \immpf T_pS^2
\end{displaymath}
in an appropriate unitary basis.
\end{definition}
Equivalently, $\ind (p,q)$ can be defined in the following way:
In the Lagrangian Grassmannian, start with $T_qS^2$.
Move in the positive definite direction from $T_qS^2$ to $T_pS^2$, while simultaneously changing the real number $\grstd(q)$ to match the phase of the moving Lagrangian plane.
This will result in a new real number $\theta'$ when the moving plane reaches $T_pS^2$.
The index is then
\begin{displaymath}
\ind (p,q)=\theta'-\grstd(p).
\end{displaymath}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:10}
The indices of the elements of $\bjstd$ are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\ind (\p,\q) &= &-1,\\
\ind (\q,\p) &=& 3.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
The definitions and conventions given above agree with those in \cite{seidel-fcpclt}.
\subsection{Exactness}
Recall that $(\mnfld,\sympl,\oneform)$ is an exact symplectic manifold with $\sympl=d\lambda$.
Since $H^1(S^2)=0$, $\imm^*\oneform$ is exact.
Thus each $\lagstd$ is an exact immersed Lagrangian.
We fix a primitive $\exactprim:S^2\to\rr$ of $\imm^*\oneform$, so
\begin{displaymath}
d\exactprim=\imm^*\oneform.
\end{displaymath}
The exact choice of $\exactprim$ is not important for our purposes.
\section{Discs and strips}
\label{sec:discs-strips}
In this section we discuss the notion of (boundary) marked discs and strips with boundary on $\lagstd$.
These discs and strips are allowed (but not required) to jump branches of $\lagstd$ only at marked points.
From a topological point of view there is not much difference between a disc and a strip.
However, they will have different roles to play in Floer cohomology.
Holomorphic strips will be used to define the Floer differential; we use strips because in general time dependent almost complex structures are needed to achieve transversality.
The discs play an auxiliary role---their main purpose is to help precisely describe the compactification of the moduli space of holomorphic strips.
Since the technical details of the variant of Floer cohomology used in this paper are relegated to \cite{alston-fciegl}, we do not really need discs, but we prefer to include an exposition for completeness.
A key point is that the Lagrangians $\lagstd$ are immersed so disc bubbles that connect via branch jumps can appear.
To help deal with this, we add extra structure to the definition of marked discs and strips:
Following \cite{MR2785840}, we include a lift of the boundary of the disc to $S^2$ as part of the data.
In this section we concentrate on the topology of discs and strips, including a discussion of the Maslov index.
Our conventions follow \cite{seidel-fcpclt}.
The analytic theory of discs and strips will be described in Sections \ref{sec:analytic-setup} and \ref{sec:moduli-spac-holom}.
\subsection{Marked discs}
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:9}
A \textit{marked disc}
\begin{displaymath}
\disc{u}=(u,\dmp{\disc{u}},\ell)
\end{displaymath}
with boundary on $\imm:S^2\to\lagstd$ consists of the following data:
\begin{itemize}
\item A continuous map $u:(\dd,\bdy\dd)\to(\mnfld,\lagstd)$.
\item A list (possibly empty) of marked boundary points $\dmp{\disc{u}}=(z_0,\ldots,z_k)$.
Moreover, each marked point is labeled as incoming ($-$) or outgoing ($+$).
We will generally suppress the labeling from the notation.
\item A continuous map $\ell:\bdy\dd\setminus \dmp{\disc{u}}\to S^2$.
\end{itemize}
The maps are required to satisfy
\begin{displaymath}
\imm\circ \ell = u | \bdy \dd\setminus \dmp{\disc{u}}.
\end{displaymath}
If $C$ is a component of $\bdy \dd\setminus \dmp{\disc{u}}$, then we also require that $\ell$ extends continuously to $\overline{C}$.\footnote{In case $C=\bdy\dd\setminus\sett{pt}$, we think of $\overline{C}$ as being a closed interval instead of a circle.}
We also define $\dmp{\disc{u}}^-=\set{z_i\in\dmp{\disc{u}}}{z_i\text{ is incoming}}$ and $\dmp{\disc{u}}^+=\set{z_i\in\dmp{\disc{u}}}{z_i\text{ is outgoing}}$.
\end{definition}
The map $\ell$ is discontinuous at a marked point if and only if $u$ switches branches of $\lagstd$ at the marked point.
We will refer to such behavior as a \textit{branch jump}, and call the marked point a \textit{branch jump point}, or \textit{branch point} for short.
Recall from Definition \ref{dfn:35} that
\begin{displaymath}
\bjstd=\set{(p,q)\in S^2\times S^2}{\imm(p)=\imm(q),\ p\neq q}.
\end{displaymath}
$\bjstd$ can be thought of as the set of possible branch jump types.
More precisely, let the marked point $z_i\in\bdy \dd$ be a branch point.
As $z$ moves along $\bdy \dd$ in the counterclockwise direction towards $z_i$, $\ell(z)$ converges to a point $p\in S^2$.
Likewise, as $z$ moves along $\bdy\dd$ in the clockwise direction towards $z_i$, $\ell(z)$ converges to a point $q\in S^2$.
Since $z_i$ is a branch point, $p\neq q$.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:2}
With the above notation, if $z_i$ is an incoming point then the \textit{branch jump type} of $\disc{u}$ at $z_i$ is
\begin{displaymath}
(q,p)\in \bjstd;
\end{displaymath}
and if $z_i$ is an outgoing point then the \textit{branch jump type} is
\begin{displaymath}
(p,q)\in\bjstd.
\end{displaymath}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:15}
Given a marked disc $\disc{u}=(u,\dmp{\disc{u}},\ell)$, let
\begin{displaymath}
\brindices{\pm}{\disc{u}}=\set{i}{z_i\in\dmp{\disc{u}}^\pm\text{ is a branch point}}.
\end{displaymath}
Let
\begin{displaymath}
\brjumps{\pm}{\disc{u}} : \brindices{\pm}{\disc{u}} \to R
\end{displaymath}
be the function that assigns to $i\in \brindices{\pm}{\disc{u}}$ the branch jump type of the point $z_i$.
We say that the branch jumps of $\disc{u}$ are of \textit{type} $\brjumps{\pm}{\disc{u}}$.
\end{definition}
\subsection{Marked strips}
Let $\str=\rr\times[0,1]$ and $\bdy\str=\rr\times\sett{0,1}$ with coordinates $s+it=(s,t)$.
Let $\bdyb\str=\rr\times\sett{0}$, $\bdyt\str=\rr\times\sett{1}$.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:5}
A \textit{marked strip}
\begin{displaymath}
\strip{u}=(u,\smp{0,\strip{u}},\smp{1,\strip{u}},\ell)
\end{displaymath}
with boundary on $\imm:S^2\to\lagstd$ consists of the following data:
\begin{itemize}
\item A continuous map $u:(\str,\bdy\str)\to (\mnfld,\lagstd)$ such $\lim_{s\to\pm\infty}u(s,\cdot)=\text{constant}$, uniformly in $t$.
\item Two lists $\smp{i,\strip{u}}=(z^i_1,\ldots,z^i_{k_i})\subset\bdy_i\str$, $i=0,1$ of marked boundary points.
Moreover, each marked point is labeled as incoming or outgoing.
\item A continuous map $\ell:\bdy\str\setminus \smp{0,\strip{u}}\cup\smp{1,\strip{u}}\to S^2$
\end{itemize}
The maps are required to satisfy
\begin{displaymath}
\imm\circ\ell=u|\bdy\str\setminus \smp{0,\strip{u}}\cup\smp{1,\strip{u}}.
\end{displaymath}
For $i=0,1$ let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\smp{i,\strip{u}}^+&=&\set{z_j\in\smp{i,\strip{u}}}{z_j\text{ is outgoing}},\\
\smp{i,\strip{u}}^-&=&\set{z_j\in\smp{i,\strip{u}}}{z_j\text{ is incoming}},\\
\brindices{\pm}{i,\strip{u}}&=&\set{j}{z_j\in\smp{i,\strip{u}}^\pm\text{ is a branch point}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $\brjumps{\pm}{i,\strip{u}}:\brindices{\pm}{i,\strip{u}}\to\bjstd$ denote the types of the branch jumps.
Also, we view $s=-\infty$ as an additional incoming marked point and $s=+\infty$ as an additional outgoing marked point (although we do not include them in the lists $\smp{i,\strip{u}}^\pm$), and let $\brjumps{\pm\infty}{\strip{u}}\in \bjstd\amalg\sett{\emptyset}$ denote the branch jump types of $s=\pm\infty$ (if $s=\pm\infty$ is not a branch jump then $\brjumps{\pm\infty}{\disc{u}}=\emptyset$).
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
\label{rmk:5}
Pick a biholomorphism $\phi:\dd\setminus\sett{-1,1}\to\str$.
Then the marked strip $(u,\Sigma_0,\Sigma_1,\ell)$ naturally corresponds to the marked disc
\begin{displaymath}
(u\circ\phi,\Sigma=\Sigma_0\cup\Sigma_1\cup\sett{-\infty,+\infty},\ell\circ\phi).
\end{displaymath}
The only ambiguity is in the choice of the biholomorphism and the ordering of the marked points.
Despite the ambiguity, many properties of marked discs carry over to give analogous properties of marked strips.
For example, the notion of a branch jump and branch jump type carries over.
We will take advantage of this similarity to avoid repeating similar definitions and lemmas.
On the other hand, keep in mind that discs and strips will have different roles to play when we get to Floer theory.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Maslov index}
\label{sec:maslov-index-theory}
Recall that a bundle pair $(E,F)$ consists of the data
\begin{itemize}
\item a symplectic vector bundle $E\to \dd$,
\item a Lagrangian subbundle $F$ of $E|\bdy \dd$.
\end{itemize}
Let $\mu(E,F)$ denote the Maslov index of the bundle pair $(E,F)$.
Let $V$ be a symplectic vector space and $\Lambda_0$, $\Lambda_1$ two Lagrangian planes.
Let $J$ be a compatible almost complex structure such that $J\cdot\Lambda_0=\Lambda_1$.
The path of Lagrangian planes
\begin{displaymath}
t\mapsto e^{\pi Jt/2}\cdot \Lambda_0,\qquad 0\leq t\leq 1
\end{displaymath}
is called the \textit{positive definite path} from $\Lambda_0$ to $\Lambda_1$.
It is well-defined up to homotopy.
Similarly, the path
\begin{displaymath}
t\mapsto e^{-\pi Jt/2}\cdot\Lambda_0
\end{displaymath}
is the \textit{negative definite path} from $\Lambda_0$ to $\Lambda_1$.
Let $\disc{u}=(u,\dmp{\disc{u}},\ell)$ be a marked disc with boundary on $\lagstd$ as in Definition \ref{dfn:9}.
Associated to $\disc{u}$ we define a bundle pair as follows:
First, $E=u^*T\mnfld$.
Second, $F|\bdy \dd\setminus\dmp{\disc{u}}=\iota_*(\ell^*TS^2)$.
If a marked point is not a branch point, then $F$ extends over the marked point.
To extend $F$ over the branch points, we proceed as follows:
Homotope $F$ slightly so that it is constant on each side of the marked point.
This gives two Lagrangian planes; call the one that occurs before the marked point (in counterclockwise order) the first plane and the one that occurs after the marked point the second plane.
If the marked point is an incoming point then we extend $F$ by moving along the negative definite path from the first plane to the second plane.
If the marked point is an outgoing point then we extend $F$ by moving along the positive definite path from the first plane to the second plane.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:8}
The \textit{Maslov index} $\mu(\disc{u})$ of a marked disc $\disc{u}$ is defined to be the Maslov index of the bundle pair $(E,F)$ constructed above.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}[\cite{seidel-fcpclt} Proposition 11.13]
\label{prop:13}
Let $\disc{u}$ be a marked disc.
Then
\begin{displaymath}
\mu(\disc{u})=\sum_{i\in\brindices{-}{\disc{u}}} \ind \brjumps{-}{\disc{u}}(i)-\sum_{i\in\brindices{+}{\disc{u}}}\ind\brjumps{+}{\disc{u}}(i)+2(1-|\brindices{-}{\disc{u}}|).
\end{displaymath}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
More generally, if the $2$ in the above formula is replaced by $n$, then formula holds for a graded immersed Lagrangian of dimension $n$.
If $\dd$ is replaced by a Riemann surface $S$, then the $1$ needs to be replaced by $\chi(S)$.
\end{remark}
The Maslov index is additive in the sense that if an outgoing marked point of one disc is glued to an incoming marked point of another disc then the Maslov index of the glued disc is the sum of the Maslov indices of the two discs.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:30}
By Remark \ref{rmk:5}, a marked strip can be viewed as a marked disc, with the $-\infty$ end of the strip an incoming marked point and the $+\infty$ end an outgoing marked point.
The \textit{Maslov index} $\mu(\strip{u})$ of the marked strip is defined to be the Maslov index of $\strip{u}$ as a marked disc.
\end{definition}
This agrees with the usual notion of the Maslov index of a strip.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:14}
Let $\disc{u}$ be a marked strip.
If $-\infty$ is a branch jump let $\delta=1$, otherwise let $\delta=0$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mu(\disc{u})&=&\ind\brjumps{-\infty}{\strip{u}}-\ind\brjumps{+\infty}{\strip{u}}+
\sum_{j=0,1;\ i\in\brindices{-}{j,\disc{u}}} \ind \brjumps{-}{j,\disc{u}}(i)-\sum_{j=0,1;\ i\in\brindices{+}{j,\disc{u}}}\ind\brjumps{+}{j,\disc{u}}(i)\\
&&+2(1-\delta-|\brindices{-}{\strip{u}}|).
\end{eqnarray*}
Here, $\ind \brjumps{\pm\infty}{\strip{u}}$ is defined to be $0$ if $\pm\infty$ is not a branch jump.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Proposition \ref{prop:13} by applying Remark \ref{rmk:5}.
Recall also that $\brindices{-}{j,\strip{u}}$ include only branch points along top and bottom boundaries (i.e. not $\pm\infty$).
\end{proof}
\section{Analytic setup}
\label{sec:analytic-setup}
In this section we describe the Banach manifold structure on the space of discs and strips of a certain Sobolev regularity.
This will allow us, in Section \ref{sec:moduli-spac-holom}, to talk more precisely about holomorphic strips and discs, which are ultimately things we are interested in.
Much of the material in this section is standard so some of the details are skipped (full details will be given in \cite{alston-fciegl}).
Other references are \cite{seidel-fcpclt}, \cite{fooo} and \cite{MR2785840}.
However, since in this paper we are only concerned with Floer cohomology and these other references deal more generally with $A_\infty$-algebras, our point of view is a little different.
Let us explain this difference a little bit by comparing to \cite{seidel-fcpclt}.
In \cite{seidel-fcpclt}, Seidel first constructs the moduli space of discs with marked points, and then a universal bundle over it and then adds extra structure to it (perturbation data and strip like ends).
The holomorphic curves he studies are then the curves that have as domain one of the fibers in the universal bundle.
He describes the compactification of this moduli space, and then explains how transversality can be achieved.
In our setup, since we are only doing Floer cohomology, we only need strips (with no extra marked points).
However to show things are well-defined it is necessary to consider strips with extra marked points.
The reason is that by Gromov's compactness theorem a sequence of strips will degenerate to a (possibly broken) strip, possibly with some disc bubbles attached (a priori at branch points).
We can show that the broken strip with marked points (but not the disc bubbles) generically has the expected dimension, and then by the positivity assumption on the discs, this dimension must be negative and hence cannot exist (see \cite{alston-fciegl}).
Therefore the most important issue for us is to describe the space of strips with marked points, in particular transversality for strips with marked points, and it is towards this that our analytic setup is geared.
We include some details on the analytic setup for marked discs since this will be important for the purpose of describing Gromov compactification.
However, our methods allow us to not concern ourselves with the question of whether or not this space is a smooth manifold.
\subsection{Analytic setup of discs}
Suppose given the following data:
\begin{itemize}
\item An ordered list $\dmp{}=(z_0,\ldots,z_k)\subset\bdy\dd$ of boundary points such that the points are listed in counterclockwise cyclic order.
\item A decomposition $\dmp{}=\dmp{}^-\cup\dmp{}^+$ into incoming and outgoing points.
\item Sets $\brindices{\pm}{}\subset\set{i}{z_i\in\dmp{}^\pm}$ and functions $\brjumps{\pm}{}:\brindices{\pm}{}\to\bjstd$.
\end{itemize}
To simplify notation we abbreviate this data as $\metadmp,\metabrjumps$, and call it \textit{marked point data}.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:31}
A marked disc $\disc{u}=(u,\dmp{\disc{u}},\ell)$ \textit{has marked point data}
\begin{displaymath}
\metadmp=(\dmp{},\dmp{}^-,\dmp{}^+),\quad\metabrjumps=(\brjumps{-}{},\brjumps{+}{})
\end{displaymath}
if
\begin{displaymath}
\dmp{\disc{u}}=\dmp{},\quad \dmp{\disc{u}}^\pm=\dmp{}^\pm,\quad \brjumps{\pm}{\disc{u}}=\brjumps{\pm}{}.
\end{displaymath}
\end{definition}
Suppose given $\metadmp$ as above.
Let $\dsurf{\metadmp}=\dd\setminus \dmp{}$.
Let $\strn=(-\infty,0)\times[0,1]$ and $\strp=(0,\infty)\times[0,1]$.
A choice of \textit{strip-like ends} for $\dsurf{\metadmp}$ consists of a biholomorphism
\begin{eqnarray*}
\epsilon^-_i&:&\strn\to U_i^-\subset \dsurf{\metadmp},\text{ or}\\
\epsilon^+_i&:&\strp\to U_i^+\subset \dsurf{\metadmp}\\
\end{eqnarray*}
for each point $z_i\in\dmp{}^\pm$.\footnote{If $z_i\in\dmp{}^-$ then we are given $\epsilon_i^-$, if $z_i\in\dmp{}^+$ we are given $\epsilon_i^+$.}
Here each $U_i^\pm$ is an open subset of $\dsurf{\metadmp}$ that is obtained by taking an open neighborhood in $\dd$ of $z_i$ and removing $z_i$, and $\epsilon^\pm_i$ is a biholomorphism onto $U_i^\pm$ such that $\lim_{s\to\pm\infty}\epsilon^\pm_i(s,\cdot)=z_i$.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:18}
Let $\disc{u}$ be a marked disc with marked point data $\metadmp,\metabrjumps$.
Assume that $u$ is smooth, and constant near $\pm\infty$ on the strip like ends.
Fix a choice of strip like ends for $\metadmp$, and a metric on $\mnfld$.\footnote{
Since $\mnfld$ is not compact, $\wkp{\disc{u}}$ will depend on the choice of metric.
To be explicit, we assume that we choose a metric that agrees with the standard metric coming from the embedding $\mnfld\subset\cc^3$ outside of some compact set.}
For $\delta>0$ and $p>2$, we let
\begin{displaymath}
\wkp{\disc{u}}.
\end{displaymath}
denote the set of all sections $\xi$ over $\dsurf{\metadmp}$ of $u^*T\mnfld$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\xi$ is in $\wkpcust_{loc}$,
\item On each strip like end $\epsilon_i^\pm$,
\begin{displaymath}
\int_{\strpn}|\xi\circ\epsilon_i^\pm|^pe^{\delta|s|}dsdt<\infty.
\end{displaymath}
\item $\xi|\bdy\str$ lies in $\immpf(\ell^*T\lagstd)$.\footnote{What is meant here is that for $z\in\bdy\dd$, $\xi(z)\in \immpf(T_{\ell(z)}S^2)$.}
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:34}
Given $\disc{u}$, define
\begin{displaymath}
\tldisc{\disc{u}}=\bigoplus_{i\notin \brindices{\pm}{\disc{u}} }T_{\ell(z_i)}S^2.
\end{displaymath}
Note that $\ell(z_i)$ is well-defined because $z_i$ is not a branch point.
\end{definition}
By the integrability over the strip-like ends and the Sobolev embedding theorem, a vector field $\xi\in\wkp{\disc{u}}$ extends continuously to $\dd$ and vanishes at the marked points.
Also, $\xi|\bdy\dsurf{\metadmp}$ defines a section $\xi_{bdy}$ of $\ell^*T\lagstd$.
The metric on $\mnfld$ induces a metric on $S^2$, and if $\lagstd$ is totally geodesic then exponentiation defines a map from $\wkp{\disc{u}}\oplus \tldisc{\disc{u}}$ to the space of marked discs with marked point data $\metadmp,\metabrjumps$.
The map is
\begin{displaymath}
(\xi,V)\mapsto \exp_{\disc{u}}(\xi+\tilde V)=\disc{u_{\xi,V}}=(u_{\xi,V},\dmp{\disc{u_{\xi,V}}},\ell_{\xi,V}),
\end{displaymath}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $V=(V_{i_1},\ldots,V_{i_m})\in\tldisc{\disc{u}}$,
\item $\tilde V$ is a section of $u^*T\mnfld$ that agrees with parallel translations of $\immpf V_{i_j}$ along rays $t=\text{constant}$ near $\pm\infty$ in strip-like ends, and is $0$ far away from $\pm\infty$ (choosing cutoff functions on the strip-like ends gives a way of constructing $\tilde V$),
\item $u_{\xi,V}=\exp_{u}(\xi+\tilde V)$,
\item $\ell_{\xi,V}=\exp_{\ell}(\xi_{bdy}+\tilde V_{bdy})$, and
\item $\disc{u_{\xi,V}}$ has the same marked point data as $\disc{u}$.
\end{itemize}
We think of these types of marked discs as having regularity $\wkpcust$, and we will always restrict our attention to these types of discs.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:32}
Define
\begin{displaymath}
\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)=\bigcup_{\disc{u}}\set{\exp_{\disc{u}}(\xi+\tilde V)}{\xi\in\wkp{\disc{u}},\ V\in \tldisc{\disc{u}}},
\end{displaymath}
where the union\footnote{Note that the union is not a disjoint union.} is over all smooth marked discs $\disc{u}$ that are constant near infinity on the strip-like ends.
\end{definition}
Now we want to allow the marked point data $\metadmp$ to vary.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:33}
Given $k\geq 0$, define $\conf(k+1)$ to be the set of all ordered lists
\begin{displaymath}
(z_0,\ldots,z_k)
\end{displaymath}
of distinct points in $\bdy\dd$ which are counterclockwise cyclically ordered, along with a labeling of incoming or outgoing for each point in the list.
$\conf(k+1)$ can be identified with the set of all $\metadmp$ such that the underlying $\dmp{}$ has $k+1$ elements.
We view $\conf(k+1)$ as a smooth manifold with several components; different labelings of any given list lie in different components.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:19}
Given $\metabrjumps$, define
\begin{displaymath}
\spacemd_{k+1}(\metabrjumps)=\bigcup_{\metadmp}\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps).
\end{displaymath}
The union is over all $\metadmp\in\conf(k+1)$.
We assume that $\metabrjumps$ is compatible with $\metadmp$ in the sense that $\metadmp$, $\metabrjumps$ is valid marked point data.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:12}
$\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)$ has the structure of a smooth Banach manifold such that
\begin{displaymath}
T_{\disc{u}}\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)\cong \wkp{\disc{u}}\oplus \tldisc{\disc{u}}.
\end{displaymath}
$\spacemd_{k+1}(\metabrjumps)$ has the structure of a $C^0$-Banach manifold.
Locally it is modeled on open neighborhoods of $0$ in the Banach space
\begin{displaymath}
T_{\disc{u}}\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)\oplus T_{\metadmp{}}\conf(k+1).
\end{displaymath}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Analytic setup for strips}
Suppose given the following data:
\begin{itemize}
\item Ordered lists $\dmp{i}=(z^i_1,\ldots,z^i_{k_i})\subset\bdy_i\str$ of boundary points such that the points are listed in counterclockwise cyclic order.
\item A decomposition $\dmp{i}=\dmp{i}^-\cup\dmp{i}^+$ into incoming and outgoing points.
\item Sets $\brindices{\pm}{i}\subset\set{i}{z_i\in\dmp{}^\pm}$ and functions $\brjumps{\pm}{i}:\brindices{\pm}{i}\to\bjstd$.
\item Elements $\alpha^{\pm\infty}\in \bjstd\cup\sett{\emptyset}$.
\end{itemize}
To simplify notation we abbreviate this data as $\metadmp,\metabrjumps$, and call it \textit{marked point data for a strip}.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:6}
A marked strip $\strip{u}=(u,\smp{0,\strip{u}},\smp{1,\strip{u}},\ell)$ \textit{has marked point data}
\begin{displaymath}
\metadmp=(\smp{0},\smp{1},\smp{0}^\pm,\smp{1}^\pm),\quad\metabrjumps=(\brjumps{\pm}{0},\brjumps{\pm}{1},\brjumps{\pm\infty}{})
\end{displaymath}
if
\begin{displaymath}
\smp{i,\disc{u}}=\smp{i},\quad \smp{i,\strip{u}}^\pm=\smp{i}^\pm,\quad \brjumps{\pm}{i,\strip{u}}=\brjumps{\pm}{i},\quad \brjumps{\pm\infty}{\disc{u}}=\brjumps{\pm\infty}{}\quad i=0,1.
\end{displaymath}
\end{definition}
Suppose given $\metadmp$ as above.
Recall that $\ssurf{\metadmp}=\str\setminus (\dmp{0}\cup\dmp{1})$.
Let $\strn=(-\infty,0)\times[0,1]$ and $\strp=(0,\infty)\times[0,1]$.
A choice of \textit{strip-like ends} for $\ssurf{\metadmp}$ consists of a biholomorphism
\begin{eqnarray*}
\epsilon^-_i&:&\strn\to U_i^-\subset \ssurf{\metadmp},\text{ or}\\
\epsilon^+_i&:&\strp\to U_i^+\subset \ssurf{\metadmp}\\
\end{eqnarray*}
for each point $z^i_j\in\dmp{i}^\pm$, with the same properties as in the case of discs.
We also view $-\infty$ as an incoming marked point, and $+\infty$ as an outgoing marked point, both with the obvious strip like end structures (i.e.\ coming from $\str$ itself).
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:37}
Let $\strip{u}$ be a marked strip with marked point data $\metadmp,\metabrjumps$.
Assume that $u$ is smooth, and constant near $\pm\infty$ on the strip like ends.
Fix a choice of strip like ends for $\metadmp$, and a metric on $\mnfld$.
For $\delta>0$ and $p>2$, we let
\begin{displaymath}
\wkp{\strip{u}}.
\end{displaymath}
denote the set of all sections $\xi$ over $\ssurf{\metadmp}$ of $u^*T\mnfld$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\xi$ is in $\wkpcust_{loc}$.
\item On each strip like end $\epsilon_i^\pm$,
\begin{displaymath}
\int_{\strpn}|\xi\circ\epsilon_i^\pm|^pe^{\delta|s|}dsdt<\infty.
\end{displaymath}
\item For $R$ large enough\footnote{More precisely: $\sett{|s|>R}$ does not contain any marked points.}
\begin{displaymath}
\int_{|s|>R}|\xi|^pe^{\delta|s|}dsdt<\infty.
\end{displaymath}
\item $\xi|\bdy\ssurf{\metadmp}$ lies in $\immpf(\ell^*T\lagstd)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:36}
Given $\disc{u}$ a strip, define
\begin{displaymath}
\tldisc{\disc{u}}=W^{-\infty}\oplus W^{+\infty}\oplus\bigoplus_{i\notin \brindices{\pm}{0,\disc{u}} }T_{\ell(z^0_i)}S^2\oplus\bigoplus_{i\notin \brindices{\pm}{1,\disc{u}} }T_{\ell(z^1_i)}S^2,
\end{displaymath}
where
\begin{displaymath}
W^{\pm\infty}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\sett{0} & \brjumps{\pm\infty}{\strip{u}}\in\bjstd,\\
T_{\ell(\pm\infty)}S^2 & \brjumps{\pm\infty}{\strip{u}}=\emptyset.
\end{array}\right.
\end{displaymath}
\end{definition}
As before, exponentiation defines a map from $\wkp{\strip{u}}\oplus \tldisc{\strip{u}}$ to the space of marked strips with marked point data $\metadmp,\metabrjumps$.
The map is
\begin{displaymath}
(\xi,V)\mapsto \exp_{\disc{u}}(\xi+\tilde V)=\strip{u_{\xi,V}}=(u_{\xi,V},\dmp{\disc{u_{\xi,V}}},\ell_{\xi,V}),
\end{displaymath}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $V=(V_{-\infty},V_{+\infty},V^0_{i_1},\ldots,V^1_{i_m})\in\tldisc{\disc{u}}$,
\item $\tilde V$ is a section of $u^*T\mnfld$ that agrees with parallel translations of $\immpf V_{i_j}$ along rays $t=\text{constant}$ near $\pm\infty$ in strip-like ends, and is $0$ far away from $\pm\infty$ (choosing cutoff functions on the strip-like ends gives a way of constructing $\tilde V$),
\item $u_{\xi,V}=\exp_{u}(\xi+\tilde V)$,
\item $\ell_{\xi,V}=\exp_{\ell}(\xi_{bdy}+\tilde V_{bdy})$, and
\item $\disc{u_{\xi,V}}$ has the same marked point data as $\disc{u}$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:1}
Define
\begin{displaymath}
\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)=\bigcup_{\disc{u}}\set{\exp_{\disc{u}}(\xi+\tilde V)}{\xi\in\wkp{\disc{u}},\ V\in \tldisc{\disc{u}}},
\end{displaymath}
where the union is over all smooth marked strips $\disc{u}$ that are constant near infinity on the strip-like ends.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:11}
Given $k_0,k_1\geq 0$, define $\conf(k_0,k_1)$ to be the set of all pairs of ordered lists
\begin{displaymath}
(z^0_1,\ldots,z^0_{k_0}),\ (z^1_1,\ldots,z^1_{k_1})
\end{displaymath}
of distinct points in $\bdy_0\str,\bdy_1\str$ which are counterclockwise cyclically ordered, along with a labeling of incoming or outgoing for each point in the list.
$\conf(k_0,k_1)$ can be identified with the set of all $\metadmp$ such that the underlying $\dmp{i}$ have $k_i$ elements.
We view $\conf(k_0,k_1)$ as a smooth manifold with several components; different labelings of any given list lie in different components.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:14}
Given $\metabrjumps$, define
\begin{displaymath}
\spacemd_{k_0,k_1}(\metabrjumps)=\bigcup_{\metadmp}\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps).
\end{displaymath}
The union is over all $\metadmp\in\conf(k_0,k_1)$.
We assume that $\metabrjumps$ is compatible with $\metadmp$ in the sense that $\metadmp$, $\metabrjumps$ is valid marked point data.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:2}
$\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)$ has the structure of a smooth Banach manifold such that
\begin{displaymath}
T_{\disc{u}}\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)\cong \wkp{\disc{u}}\oplus \tldisc{\disc{u}}.
\end{displaymath}
$\spacemd_{k_0,k_1}(\metabrjumps)$ has the structure of a $C^0$-Banach manifold.
Locally it is modeled on the Banach space
\begin{displaymath}
T_{\disc{u}}\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)\oplus T_{\metadmp{}}\conf(k_0,k_1).
\end{displaymath}
\end{proposition}
\section{Moduli spaces of holomorphic curves}
\label{sec:moduli-spac-holom}
\subsection{Holomorphic discs}
Let $J$ be a compatible complex structure which agrees with $\acs$ outside of a compact set.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:38}
For $k\geq 0$, let
\begin{displaymath}
\parmodmdstd
\end{displaymath}
denote the set of all pairs $(\disc{u},\metadmp)$ such that $\disc{u}\in\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)$ and $u$ satisfies
\begin{displaymath}
du+J\circ du\circ j_\dd=0,
\end{displaymath}
and $|\metadmp|=k$ (i.e.\ there are $k$ marked points).
In case $k\leq 2$ we require that $\disc{u}$ has non-constant $u$.
Let
\begin{displaymath}
\modmdstd=\parmodmdstd/\Aut(\dd,\bdy\dd).
\end{displaymath}
These spaces have natural evaluation maps
\begin{displaymath}
\ev_j:\modmdstd\to S^2\amalg\bjstd.
\end{displaymath}
\end{definition}
We now describe the Fredholm theory of these moduli spaces.
Let
\begin{displaymath}
\bbundle(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)\to\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)
\end{displaymath}
be the smooth Banach bundle over $\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)$ whose fiber over $\disc{u}$,
\begin{displaymath}
\bbundle(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)_{\disc u}=\lp(\Lambda^{0,1}\otimes\disc{u}^*TM),
\end{displaymath}
consists of all $L^p_{loc}$ sections that are also in $L^p$ over the strip-like ends.
This bundle comes equipped with the smooth section
\begin{displaymath}
\dbar_{\metadmp,\metabrjumps,J}:\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)\to\bbundle(\metadmp,\metabrjumps),\quad u\mapsto du+J\circ du \circ j_{\dd}.
\end{displaymath}
Likewise, let
\begin{displaymath}
\bbundle_k(\metabrjumps)\to\spacemd_k(\metabrjumps)
\end{displaymath}
be the $C^0$-Banach bundle over $\spacemd_k(\metabrjumps)$ defined in a similar way.
It comes equipped with the continuous section
\begin{displaymath}
\dbar_{k,\metabrjumps,J}:\spacemd_k(\metabrjumps)\to\bbundle_k(\metabrjumps).
\end{displaymath}
Restricted to the local coordinate charts referenced in Proposition \ref{prop:12}, the Banach bundles have trivializations in which the section $\dbar_{k,\metabrjumps}$ becomes smooth.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:15}
The moduli space of (parameterized) holomorphic discs equals the zero set of the section $\dbar_{k,\metabrjumps,J}$,
\begin{displaymath}
\parmodmdstd=\dbar_{k,\metabrjumps,J}^{-1}(0) .
\end{displaymath}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:17}
Let $\delta>0$ be sufficiently small.
For $(\disc{u},\metadmp)\in\parmodmdstd$, local trivializations of the Banach manifold and bundle can be chosen so that $\dbar_{k,\metabrjumps}$ is smooth and the linearization
\begin{displaymath}
D_{\disc{u},\metadmp}\dbar_{k,\metabrjumps,J}:\wkp{\disc{u}}\oplus \tldisc{\disc{u}} \oplus T_{\metadmp}\conf(k)\to \lp(\Lambda^{0,1}\otimes\disc{u}^*T\mnfld)
\end{displaymath}
is Fredholm.
The index is
\begin{eqnarray*}
\ind D_{\disc{u},\metadmp}\dbar_{k,\metabrjumps,J} &=& \mu(\disc{u})+2(1-\brindices{+}{\disc{u}})+k\\
&=&\sum_{i\in\brindices{-}{\disc{u}}}\ind\brjumps{-}{\disc{u}}(i)-\sum_{i\in\brindices{+}{\disc{u}}}\ind\brjumps{+}{\disc{u}}(i)+2(1-\brindices{-}{\disc{u}})+k.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Holomorphic strips}
The story for holomorphic strips is very similar; the main difference is that we consider a $t$-dependent complex structure
\begin{displaymath}
\J=\jstd.
\end{displaymath}
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:39}
For $k_0,k_1\geq0$, let
\begin{displaymath}
\parmodmsstd
\end{displaymath}
denote the set of all pairs $(\disc{u},\metadmp)$ such that $\disc{u}\in\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)$, $\metadmp\in\conf(k_0,k_1)$ and
\begin{displaymath}
du+J_t\circ du\circ j_\str=0.
\end{displaymath}
In case $k_0=k_1=0$, we require that $\disc{u}$ has non-constant $u$.
Also, define
\begin{displaymath}
\modmsstd=\parmodmsstd/\rr.
\end{displaymath}
These spaces have natural evaluation maps
\begin{displaymath}
\ev_j,\ev_{\pm\infty}:\modmsstd\to S^2\amalg\bjstd.
\end{displaymath}
\end{definition}
Banach bundles and $\dbar$-sections can be constructed in the same way as for discs.
This leads to smooth bundle
\begin{displaymath}
\bbundle(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)\to\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)
\end{displaymath}
and smooth section
\begin{displaymath}
\dbar_{\metadmp,\metabrjumps,\J}:\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)\to\bbundle(\metadmp,\metabrjumps),\quad u\mapsto du+J_t\circ du \circ j_{\str}.
\end{displaymath}
Also there is a $C^0$-bundle
\begin{displaymath}
\bbundle_{k_0,k_1}(\metabrjumps)\to\spacemd_{k_0,k_1}(\metabrjumps)
\end{displaymath}
and $C^0$-section
\begin{displaymath}
\dbar_{k_0,k_1,\metabrjumps,\J}:\spacemd_{k_0,k_1}(\metabrjumps)\to\bbundle_{k_0,k_1}(\metabrjumps).
\end{displaymath}
The analog of Proposition \ref{prop:17} is
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:16}
Let $\delta>0$ be sufficiently small.
For $(\disc{u},\metadmp)\in\parmodmsstd$, local trivializations of the Banach manifold and bundle can be chosen so that $\dbar_{k_0,k_1,\metabrjumps,\J}$ is smooth and the linearization
\begin{displaymath}
D_{\disc{u},\metadmp}\dbar_{k_0,k_1,\metabrjumps,\J}:\wkp{\disc{u}}\oplus \tldisc{\disc{u}} \oplus T_{\metadmp}\conf(k_0,k_1)\to \lp(\Lambda^{0,1}_{\ssurf{\metadmp}}\otimes\disc{u}^*TM)
\end{displaymath}
is Fredholm.
The index is
\begin{eqnarray*}
\ind D_{\disc{u},\metadmp}\dbar_{k_0,k_1,\metabrjumps,\J} &=& \mu(\disc{u})-2|\brindices{+}{\disc{u}}|+k_0+k_1\\
&=&\ind\brjumps{-\infty}{\strip{u}}-\ind\brjumps{+\infty}{\strip{u}}\\
&&+\sum_{j=0,1;\ i\in\brindices{-}{j,\disc{u}}} \ind \brjumps{-}{j,\disc{u}}(i)-\sum_{j=0,1;\ i\in\brindices{+}{j,\disc{u}}}\ind\brjumps{+}{j,\disc{u}}(i)\\
&&+2(1-\delta-|\brindices{-}{\strip{u}}|)+k_0+k_1.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $\delta=1$ if $-\infty$ is a branch point, otherwise $\delta=0$.
\end{proposition}
\section{Classifying holomorphic curves}
\label{sec:class-holom-curv}
In this section we classify all holomorphic discs and strips in $\mnfld$ with boundary on $\lagstd$.
The complex structure we use is the standard one $\acs$.
We also prove that all the discs and strips are regular.
\subsection{Classifying discs}
Consider the Lefschetz fibration
\begin{displaymath}
\leffib:\mnfld\to\cc,\quad (\za,\zb,\zc)\mapsto \zc.
\end{displaymath}
The key fact is the following:
If $u=(f,g,h)$ is a holomorphic disc with boundary on $\lagstd$, then $\pi\circ u=h$ is a holomorphic disc with boundary on $\pi(\lagstd)=\sett{z=r}$.
By the maximum principle, if $u$ has a branch jump at some marked point, and the marked point is outgoing, then the branch jump must be of type $(\p,\q)$.\footnote{If the marked point is incoming then the type must be $(\q,\p)$.}
See Definition \ref{dfn:2} and the discussion at the end of Section \ref{sec:lefsch-fibr-persp}.
We first consider discs on $\lag{N,1}\subset\mnfldspec{N}$.
By exactness, there are no non-constant discs without branch jumps.
Suppose that $\disc{u}=(u,\dmp{\disc{u}},\ell)$ is a marked disc with
\begin{displaymath}
\dmp{\disc{u}}=\dmp{\disc{u}}^+=(z_0,\ldots,z_{k}),\quad \brjumps{+}{\disc{u}}(i)=(\p,\q)\ \forall i.
\end{displaymath}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:13}
For $\disc{u}=(u,\dmp{\disc{u}},\ell)$ as above, $u$ must be of the form
\begin{displaymath}
u:z\mapsto (e^{i\theta}\xi,e^{-i\theta}\xi,h)
\end{displaymath}
where
\begin{displaymath}
\xi=\sqrt{h-1}\sqrt{h-2}\cdots\sqrt{h-N}
\end{displaymath}
and $h:\dd\to\dd$ is a Blaschke product of the form
\begin{displaymath}
h:z\mapsto \lambda\prod_{j=0}^{k} \frac{z-\alpha_j}{\bar\alpha_j z -1}
\end{displaymath}
with $|\lambda|=1$, $|\alpha_j|<1$ and
\begin{displaymath}
h^{-1}(1)=\sett{z_0,\ldots,z_{k}}.
\end{displaymath}
To be precise, we define the square root function by taking a branch cut along the positive real axis and letting $\sqrt{-1}=i$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $h=\pi\circ u$.
Then $h:\dd\to\dd$ is holomorphic and hence must be a Blaschke product.
In particular, when restricted to $\bdy\dd$, $h$ induces a map $S^1\to S^1$ that is strictly increasing, and hence the winding number is equal to the number of points in the preimage of any point.
Branch jumps occur precisely at the points $z$ on the boundary where $h(z)=1$, which proves
\begin{displaymath}
h^{-1}(1)=\sett{z_0,\ldots,z_k}.
\end{displaymath}
Now suppose $u=(f,g,h)$.
It remains to prove that
\begin{displaymath}
f=e^{i\theta}\xi,\quad g=e^{-i\theta}\xi
\end{displaymath}
for some $\theta$.
Note that $\xi$ is holomorphic and non-zero on the interior of $\dd$ and continuous up to the boundary.
Let $F=f/\xi$, so $F$ is a holomorphic function on the interior of $\dd$ and extends continuously to $\dd\setminus\sett{z_0,\ldots,z_k}$.
The defining equation of $\mnfld$ implies
\begin{displaymath}
F=\frac{f}{\xi}=\frac{\xi}{g}.
\end{displaymath}
The second equality implies that $F$ has no zeroes on the interior of $\dd$.
Also, by the Lagrangian boundary conditions, $|f|=|g|$ on the boundary of $\dd$, and hence $|F|=1$ on the boundary.
$F$ can be viewed as a holomorphic map $\dd\setminus\sett{z_0,\ldots,z_{k}}\to\cc$ with boundary in the Lagrangian $S^1\to\cc$.
By the removable singularities theorem, $F$ must extend to smoothly to a map $\dd\to\dd$.
Coupled with the fact that $F$ has no zeroes on the interior, this implies that $F$ is constant, and hence $F=e^{i\theta}$ for some $\theta$.
Thus
\begin{displaymath}
u=(f,g,h)=(e^{i\theta}\xi,e^{-i\theta}\xi,h).
\end{displaymath}
\end{proof}
More generally, we have
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:4}
Let $\disc{u}$ be a holomorphic disc with boundary on $\lag{N,r}\subset\mnfld$ with $r\in\sett{1,\ldots,N}$.
Assume that all marked points are branch points.
Write
\begin{displaymath}
\dmp{\disc{u}}=\dmp{\disc{u}}^+=\brindices{+}{\disc{u}}=(z_0,\ldots,z_k),\quad \brjumps{+}{\disc{u}}(i)=(\p,\q)\ \forall i.
\end{displaymath}
Then $u=(f,g,rh)$, where $h$ is a Blaschke product such that
\begin{displaymath}
h^{-1}(1)=\sett{z_0,\ldots,z_k}
\end{displaymath}
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
f&=&e^{i\theta}\xi_1\xi_2\cdots\xi_{r-1}\sqrt{h-r}\sqrt{2h-r}\cdots\sqrt{rh-r}\sqrt{rh-(r+1)}\cdots\sqrt{rh-N},\\
g&=&e^{-i\theta}\eta_1\eta_2\cdots\eta_{r-1}\sqrt{h-r}\sqrt{2h-r}\cdots\sqrt{rh-r}\sqrt{rh-(r+1)}\cdots\sqrt{rh-N}.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $\xi_j$ and $\eta_j$ are Blaschke products that satisfy
\begin{displaymath}
\xi_j\eta_j=\frac{rh-j}{jh-r}.
\end{displaymath}
We define the square root function by taking a branch cut along the positive real axis and setting $\sqrt{-1}=i$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof is very similar to the proof of the previous lemma.
First, the above $u$ is a holomorphic disc on $\lagstd$ with the stated properties.
Second, suppose $u=(f,g,rh)$ is any disc satisfying the hypotheses of the proposition.
Let $u_0=(f_0,g_0,rh)$ with
\begin{eqnarray*}
f_0&=&\xi_1\cdots\xi_{r-1}\sqrt{h-r}\sqrt{2h-r}\cdots\sqrt{rh-r}\sqrt{rh-(r+1)}\cdots\sqrt{rh-N},\\
g_0&=&\sqrt{h-r}\sqrt{2h-r}\cdots\sqrt{rh-r}\sqrt{rh-(r+1)}\cdots\sqrt{rh-N},\\
\xi_j&=&\frac{rh-j}{jh-r}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Write $f=Ff_0$, $g=\frac{1}{F}g_0$.
Then it is easy to see that $|F|=1$ on the boundary of $\dd$, and $1/F$ is a Blaschke product dividing $\xi_1\cdots \xi_{r-1}$.
The proposition follows.
\end{proof}
As a sanity check, let us calculate the dimension of the space of marked discs using the previous proposition.
$h$ is a Blaschke product of order $k+1$, hence can be written uniquely in the form
\begin{displaymath}
h=\lambda\prod_{j=0}^k\frac{z-\alpha_j}{\bar\alpha_j z-1}
\end{displaymath}
with $\lambda\in S^1$ and $|\alpha_j|<1$.
Note that $\lambda$ is determined by the condition that $h(z_0)=1$.
Thus the choice of $h$ contributes $2(k+1)=2k+2$ to the dimension.
Next, choosing different $\xi_j$ and $\eta_j$ such that $\xi_j\eta_j=(rh-j)/(jh-r)$ just changes the component of the moduli space.
The only remaining choice is changing $e^{i\theta}$.
Thus the dimension is
\begin{displaymath}
2k+3.
\end{displaymath}
By Proposition \ref{prop:17}, we also get that the dimension is
\begin{displaymath}
-(k+1)(-1)+2+k=2k+3.
\end{displaymath}
The next corollary follows from the removable singularities theorem.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:2}
Any marked disc is obtained by taking a disc as in Proposition \ref{prop:4} and then adding some non-branch marked points to it.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Classifying strips}
\label{sec:classifying-strips}
Let $J_t=\acs$ for all $t$ and $\J=\depj{t}{t}$.
Then, using Remark \ref{rmk:5}, we can think of a holomorphic strip as a holomorphic disc.
Thus the results of the previous section can be used to classify all holomorphic strips.
For example, we have
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:5}
Let $\strip{u}=(u,\dmp{0,\strip{u}},\dmp{1,\strip{u}},\ell)$ with $\dmp{0,\strip{u}}=\dmp{1,\strip{u}}=\emptyset$ be a holomorphic strip with boundary on $\lagstd$.
Then $\strip{u}$ has $1$ or $2$ branch jumps; if $-\infty$ is a branch jump it is of type $(\q,\p)$ and if $+\infty$ is a branch jump it is of type $(\p,\q)$.
Moreover, there exists a marked disc $\disc{v}$ with $\dmp{\disc{v}}=\sett{z_0,z_1}$ and a biholomorphism $\phi:\str\to\dd\setminus\sett{z_0,z_1}$ such that $u=v\circ\phi$.
The converse is also true in the sense that any such $v\circ\phi$ gives rise to a holomorphic strip.
(However, there may be many ways to write any given $u$ in such a way.)
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Regularity}
We prove that the discs in Proposition \ref{prop:4} are regular.
Let $\disc{u}$ be a disc from the proposition, with $k+1$ marked boundary points each of which is a branch jump of type $(\p,\q)$ (thinking of the marked points as outgoing).
Let $\metadmp,\metabrjumps$ be the marked point data for $\disc{u}$, so $\disc{u}\in\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)$.
To show that $\disc{u}$ is regular we need to show that the linearization of
\begin{displaymath}
\dbar_{k+1,\metabrjumps,J}:\spacemd_{k+1}(\metabrjumps)\to\bbundle_{k+1}(\metabrjumps)
\end{displaymath}
at $(\disc{u},\metadmp)$ is surjective.
The linearization is the map
\begin{displaymath}
D_{\disc{u},\metadmp}\dbar_{k+1,\metabrjumps,J}:\wkp{\disc{u}}\oplus\tldisc{\disc{u}}\oplus T_{\metadmp}\conf(k+1)\to \lp(\Lambda^{0,1}_{\dsurf{\metadmp}}\otimes\disc{u}^*T\mnfld).
\end{displaymath}
Clearly it suffices to show that the linearization of
\begin{displaymath}
\dbar_{\metadmp,\metabrjumps,J}:\spacemd(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)\to\bbundle(\metadmp,\metabrjumps)
\end{displaymath}
at $\disc{u}$ is surjective, i.e.\ that we can get surjectivity without varying the marked points.
The linearization of this operator is the map
\begin{displaymath}
D_{\disc{u}}\dbar_{\metadmp,\metabrjumps,J}:\wkp{\disc{u}}\oplus\tldisc{\disc{u}}\to\lp(\Lambda^{0,1}_{\dsurf{\metadmp}}\otimes\disc{u}^*T\mnfld).
\end{displaymath}
All marked points are branch jumps so $\tldisc{\disc{u}}=\sett{0}$.
Since $(\mnfld,\sympl,\acs)$ is K\"ahler, the linearization is the Dolbeault operator.
Thus it suffices to show that the Dolbeault operator
\begin{displaymath}
\dbar:\wkp{\disc{u}}\to\lp(\Lambda^{0,1}_{\dsurf{\metadmp}}\otimes\disc{u}^*T\mnfld)
\end{displaymath}
is surjective.
We can write $u=(e^{i\theta}\xi\sqrt{rh-r}F,e^{-i\theta}\eta\sqrt{rh-r}F)$ where $F$ is a non-vanishing holomorphic function on the disc, $\xi=\xi_1\cdots\xi_{r-1}$, $\eta=\eta_1\cdots\eta_{r-1}$, and $h$ is a Blaschke product with $h^{-1}(1)=\sett{z_0,\ldots,z_k}$.
Thinking of $u$ as a family of discs, differentiating with respect to $\theta$ gives
\begin{displaymath}
\pd{u}{\theta}=(ie^{i\theta}\xi\sqrt{rh-r}F,-ie^{-i\theta}\eta\sqrt{rh-r}F,0).
\end{displaymath}
This is a holomorphic section of $u^*T\mnfld$.
It follows that
\begin{displaymath}
S=(ie^{i\theta}\xi F,-ie^{-i\theta}\eta F,0)
\end{displaymath}
is also a holomorphic section and hence defines a holomorphic line bundle
\begin{displaymath}
\linebundle\subset u^*T\mnfld.
\end{displaymath}
Define Lagrangian boundary conditions $\lambda$ for this line bundle by
\begin{displaymath}
\lambda(z)=\sqrt{rh-r}\rr\cdot S(z),\quad z\in\bdy\dsurf{\metadmp}.
\end{displaymath}
Since $\linebundle$ is holomorphic, we get a commutative diagram of operators
\begin{displaymath}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\wkpcust(\linebundle,\lambda) & \to & \wkp{\disc{u}} & \to & X\\
\downarrow &&\downarrow &&\downarrow\\
\lp(\Lambda^{0,1}\otimes\linebundle) &\to & \lp(\Lambda^{0,1}\otimes\disc{u}^*T\mnfld) &\to &Y.
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
Here $X$ and $Y$ are quotients so that the rows are exact.
The first two vertical arrows are Dolbeault operators and the last vertical arrow is the operator induced by the second vertical arrow.
It is well-defined because $\linebundle$ is holomorphic.
Thinking of all the marked points as outgoing, the Maslov index of the first operator is $k+1$.
This is because as $z$ varies on an arc of $\bdy\dsurf{\metadmp}$ from the marked point $z_j$ to $z_{j+1}$, the phase of $\sqrt{rh-r}$ varies from $e^{i\pi/4}$ to $e^{3i\pi/4}$.
By an obvious modification of Proposition \ref{prop:17}\footnote{
Start with the formula $\ind=\mu(\disc{u})+2(1-\brindices{+}{\disc{u}})+k+1$.
Subtract $k+1$ because the marked points are not varying, and change the $2$ to a $1$ because $\linebundle$ has rank 1.
}, the index of the first operator is $(k+1)+1(1-(k+1))=1$.
By automatic regularity in dimension one it follows that the first operator is surjective.
The middle operator has index $k+2$, and hence the last operator has index $k+1$.
Since it is one dimensional, it is again surjective.
The snake lemma then implies that the middle operator is surjective as well.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:1}
All $\acs$-holomorphic discs with boundary on $\lagstd$ are regular.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We proved the case when all marked points are branch jumps above.
Any disc can be obtained from a disc with all branch jumps by adding some non-branch marked points.
Adding non-branch marked points does not affect regularity.
Thus all discs are regular.
\end{proof}
For strips the same result holds because we are considering $\J=\depj{t}{t}$ with $J_t=\acs$ for all $t$.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:1}
All $\J$-holomorphic strips are regular.
\end{corollary}
\section{Floer cohomology of $\lagstd$}
\label{sec:floer-cohom-lagstd}
In this section we calculate the self-Floer cohomology of the immersed Lagrangian spheres $\lagstd$ with $\zz_2$-coefficients.
We use a version of Floer cohomology that combines Morse theory and holomorphic curves.
A precise definition is given in Section \ref{sec:immers-self-lagr}.
The calculation is given in Section \ref{sec:calc-floer-cohom}.
Before getting to the details, we explain the idea behind the version of Floer cohomology that we use.
As auxiliary data we need a Morse function and time-dependent almost complex structure.
The Floer cochain complex is defined to be the Morse complex, plus two extra generators for each self-intersection point of the Lagrangian.
The Floer differential is defined by counting pearly trajectories, which are strings of holomorphic strips and Morse flow lines.
Actually because the Lagrangians are exact (and hence there are no holomorphic strips without branch jumps), there are not many types of pearly trajectories that need to be counted.
See Figure \ref{fig:trajectories} in Section \ref{sec:introduction} for the types of trajectories.
In \cite{alston-fciegl} it is proved that the Floer cohomology defined by counting pearly trajectories is well-defined and does not depend on the choice of auxiliary data.
More precisely, the following theorem is proven:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:5}
Let $\iota:L\to \bar L$ be a compact immersed exact graded Lagrangian submanifold of the exact graded symplectic manifold $(M,\omega,\lambda,\Omega)$.
Let
\begin{displaymath}
R=\set{(p,q)\in L\times L}{\iota(p)=\iota(q),\ p\neq q}.
\end{displaymath}
Assume $\dim L\geq 2$.
Let $J$ be an almost complex structure on $M$ such that there exists a compact set $K\subset M$ with the property that any holomorphic disc with boundary on $\bar L$ is contained in $K$.
Let $f:L\to\rr$ satisfy $df=\iota^*L$.
Assume $L$ satisfies the following positivity condition:
\begin{displaymath}
\text{If $(p,q)\in R$ and $f(p)-f(q)>0$ then $\ind(p,q)\geq \frac{n+3}{2}$.}
\end{displaymath}
Then the self-Floer cohomology of $L$ is well-defined and can be computed by counting pearly trajectories for a generic time dependent almost complex structure that agrees with $J$ outside some compact set.
\end{theorem}
See Section \ref{sec:immers-self-lagr} for the precise definition of the Floer cohomology.
Moreover, in \cite{alston-fciegl}, it is proved that this version of Floer cohomology agrees with the more standard version (at least standard for embedded Lagrangians); namely, Floer cohomology defined by taking two copies of the Lagrangian, Hamiltonian perturbing one copy, and then counting holomorphic strips connecting intersection points.
We end our preparatory remarks by saying a few words about how transversality and bubbling are dealt with in \cite{alston-fciegl}.
The strips that appear in the pearly trajectories are holomorphic with respect to a time-dependent almost complex structure $\J=\depj{t}{t}$.
The time-dependence of $\J$ allows transversality to be achieved using classical methods (essentially Section 7 of \cite{MR1360618}).
A sequence of such strips can degenerate into broken strips plus disc bubbles.
Dealing with the disc bubbles is the main difficulty.
They attach to the strips via branch points (because of exactness), and they are $J_t$-holomorphic for $t=0$ or $1$.
However, the positivity assumption in Theorem \ref{thm:5} implies that the strip component must have negative index.
Hence generically it cannot exist and disc bubbling is ruled out.
In the terminology of \cite{fooo} and \cite{MR2785840}, the positivity assumption should be thought of as implying that the Lagrangian is unobstructed.
\subsection{Immersed self-Lagrangian Floer cohomology}
\label{sec:immers-self-lagr}
Let $\morsefun:S^2\to \rr$ be a smooth function and $\metric$ a smooth metric on $S^2$ such that the pair $\morsefun,\metric$ is Morse-Smale.
Let
\begin{displaymath}
\morsecpx{}=\bigoplus_k\morsecpx{k}
\end{displaymath}
denote the Morse complex of $\morsefun$ with $\zz_2$-coefficients.
The degree $k$ piece is generated by the critical points of $f$ with Morse index $k$ (the negative definite space of $D^2f$ has dimension $k$).
We define the Floer chain complex of the immersion $\imm:S^2\to\lagstd$ with $\zz_2$-coefficients to be the vector space
\begin{equation}
\floercpx{}=\morsecpx{}\oplus \zz_2\bjstd.
\end{equation}
Here $\bjstd$ is as in Definition \ref{dfn:35}.
$\floercpx{}$ has canonical generators corresponding to the critical points of $\morsefun$ and the elements of $\bjstd$.
The generators corresponding to the elements of $\bjstd$ are graded by their indices, which by Lemma \ref{lemma:10} are
\begin{eqnarray*}
\ind (\p,\q)&=&-1,\\
\ind (\q,\p)&=&3.
\end{eqnarray*}
$\floercpx{}$ is the graded vector space
\begin{displaymath}
\floercpx{}=\bigoplus_{k}\floercpx{k}.
\end{displaymath}
We turn to defining the differential.
We need some preliminary definitions first.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:20}
Given the Morse-Smale pair $\morsefun,\metric$ on $S^2$ as above, let $\flow{\morsefun}{s}$ denote the time $s$ negative gradient flow of $\morsefun$, so
\begin{displaymath}
\pd{}{s} \flow{\morsefun}{s} +\nabla f \circ\flow{\morsefun}{s}=0.
\end{displaymath}
For $x$ a critical point of $f$, let
\begin{displaymath}
\unst(x)=\set{y\in S^2}{\lim_{s\to-\infty}\flow{\morsefun}{s}(y)=x}.
\end{displaymath}
denote the \textit{unstable manifold} of $x$, and
\begin{displaymath}
\st(x)=\set{y\in S^2}{\lim_{s\to\infty}\flow{\morsefun}{s}(y)=x}.
\end{displaymath}
denote the \textit{stable manifold}.
\end{definition}
We will generally denote generators of $\floercpx{}$ using bold letters, for example $\gen{x_\pm}$ or $\gen{x}$.
We also view generators as elements of $\crit(\morsefun)\amalg\bjstd$.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:10}
For $\gen{x_\pm}$ generators of $\floercpx{}$, we define the moduli space $\connorbitstd$ as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\gen{x_\pm}\in\crit(\morsefun)$ then $\connorbit(\gen{x_-},\gen{x_+})$ is the set of (unparameterized) Morse trajectories,
\begin{displaymath}
\connorbit(\gen{x_-},\gen{x_+})=\left(\unst(\gen{x_-})\cap \st(\gen{x_+})\right)/\rr.
\end{displaymath}
(If $\gen{x_-}=\gen{x_+}$, we do not mod out by $\rr$.)
\item If $\gen{x_-}\in \bjstd$ and $\gen{x_+}\in\crit(\morsefun)$ we let
\begin{displaymath}
\connorbitstd= \modms{0,0}\times_{\ev_{+\infty}}\st(\gen{x_+}),
\end{displaymath}
with $\brjumps{-\infty}{}=\gen{x_-}$, $\brjumps{+\infty}{}=\emptyset$.
\item If $\gen{x_-}\in\crit(\morsefun)$ and $\gen{x_+}\in \bjstd$ we let
\begin{displaymath}
\connorbitstd= \unst(\gen{x_-})\times_{\ev_{-\infty}}\modms{0,0}
\end{displaymath}
with $\brjumps{-\infty}{}=\emptyset$, $\brjumps{+\infty}{}=\gen{x_+}$.
\item If $\gen{x_\pm}\in \bjstd$, we let $\connorbitstd$ be the union of the following two sets:
\begin{itemize}
\item the set $\modms{0,0}$, with $\brjumps{\pm\infty}{}=\gen{x_\pm}$; and
\item the set of all pairs $(\disc{u_1},\disc{u_2})$ with
\begin{displaymath}
\disc{u_1}\in\modms{0,0}
\end{displaymath}
where $\brjumps{-\infty}{}=\gen{x_-}$ and $\brjumps{+\infty}{}=\emptyset$, and
\begin{displaymath}
\disc{u_2}\in\modms{0,0}
\end{displaymath}
where $\brjumps{-\infty}{}=\emptyset$ and $\brjumps{+\infty}{}=\gen{x_+}$, and such that
\begin{displaymath}
\flow{\morsefun}{s}(\ev_{+\infty}(\disc{u_1}))=ev_{-\infty}(\disc{u_2})
\end{displaymath}
for some $s>0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
\label{rmk:1}
The positivity assumption in Theorem \ref{thm:5} (which the immersed spheres $\lagstd$ satisfy) rules out the existence of the latter types of trajectories in item 4.\ when $\deg(\gen{x_-})-\deg(\gen{x_+})=1$.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}(See \cite{alston-fciegl})
\label{lemma:30}
For generic $(\morsefun,\metric,\J=\depj{t}{t})$, $\connorbitstd$ is a smooth manifold of dimension $\deg(\gen{x_-})-\deg(\gen{x_+})-1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:13}
The \textit{Floer differential}
\begin{displaymath}
\floerdiff:\floercpx{}\to\floercpx{}
\end{displaymath}
is defined on generators $\gen{x_+}$ by the formula
\begin{displaymath}
\floerdiff(\gen{x_+})=\sum_{\gen{x_-}}\# \connorbitstd \cdot \gen{x_-},
\end{displaymath}
where the sum is over all $\gen{x_-}$ such that $\dim \connorbitstd = 0$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:12}
The \textit{Floer cohomology} $\floercoh{}$ of $\imm$ with $\zz_2$-coefficients is the cohomology of the complex $(\floercpx{},\floerdiff)$.
\end{definition}
By Theorem \ref{thm:5}, $\floercoh{}$ is well-defined and independent of the generic choice of data used to define it.
The following definition specifies what it means for data to be generic.
\begin{definition}
\label{dfn:4}
The data $\morsefun,\metric,\J=\depj{t}{t}$ is generic if the following conditions are satisfied:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\morsefun,\metric$ is Morse-Smale.
\item $\p,\q\in S^2$ are contained in the top-dimensional stable and unstable manifolds of $(\morsefun,\metric)$.
\item For all $k_0,k_1,\metabrjumps$, $\modms{k_0,k_1}$ is regular at non-constant strips.
\item For all $k_0,k_1,\metabrjumps$, $\ev_{\pm\infty}:\modms{k_0,k_1}\to S^2\amalg \bjstd$ is transverse at non-constant strips to all stable and unstable manifolds of $(\morsefun,\metric)$.
\item For all $k_0,k_1,\metabrjumps,k_0',k_1',\metabrjumps'$, $\ev_{+\infty}:\modms{k_0,k_1}\to S^2\amalg\bjstd$ is transverse to $\ev_{-\infty}:\modmscust{k_0',k_1'}{\str;\metabrjumps';\J}\to S^2\amalg\bjstd$ at non-constant strips.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
By the results of Section \ref{sec:class-holom-curv}, taking $\J=\depj{t}{t}$ with $J_t=\acs$ for all $t$ and $\morsefun,\metric$ generic will satisfy the conditions of the definition.
\subsection{Calculation of Floer cohomology}
\label{sec:calc-floer-cohom}
Let
\begin{displaymath}
f:S^2\to \rr
\end{displaymath}
be a function with two critical points, one at $(s,e^{i\theta})=(0,1)=:\pmax$ which is a global max and one at $(s,e^{i\theta})=(0,-1):=\pmin$ which is a global min.
Here, $(s,e^{i\theta})$ are cylindrical coordinates from equation \eqref{eq:5}.
Let $\metric$ be the standard metric induced by the embedding $S^2\subset\rr^3$ from \eqref{eq:5}; we may assume $(f,\metric)$ is Morse-Smale.
The Floer cochain complex with this data becomes
\begin{displaymath}
\floercpx{}=\floercpx{-1}\oplus \floercpx{0} \oplus \floercpx{2} \oplus \floercpx{3}
\end{displaymath}
with
\begin{eqnarray*}
\label{eq:6}
\floercpx{-1} &=& \zz_2\cdot (\p,\q),\\
\floercpx{0} &=& \zz_2\cdot \pmin,\\
\floercpx{2} &=& \zz_2\cdot \pmax,\\
\floercpx{3} &=& \zz_2 \cdot (\q,\p).
\end{eqnarray*}
For degree reasons, the only nontrivial things to calculate are $\floerdiff((\p,\q))$ and $\delta(\pmax)$.
By Definitions \ref{dfn:10} and \ref{dfn:12}, $\floerdiff((\p,\q))$ counts elements of
\begin{displaymath}
\connorbit(\pmin,(\p,\q))= \unst(\pmin)\times_{\ev_{-\infty}}\modms{0,0}.
\end{displaymath}
Since $\unst(\pmin)=\sett{\pmin}$, the $-\infty$ end of the strip must pass through $\pmin$.
The $+\infty$ end of the strip must have a branch jump of type $(\p,\q)$.
Propositions \ref{prop:4} and \ref{prop:5} can be used to find all such strips.
Similarly, $\floerdiff(\pmax)$ is defined by counting elements of
\begin{displaymath}
\connorbit((\q,\p),\pmax)= \modms{0,0}\times_{ev_{+\infty}}\st(\pmax).
\end{displaymath}
This space consists of holomorphic strips such that the $-\infty$ end has a branch jump of type $(\q,\p)$ and the $+\infty$ end passes through $\pmax$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:1}
For the immersion $\imm:S^2\to\lagstd$ with $r\in\sett{1,\ldots,N}$,
\begin{displaymath}
\#\connorbit(\pmin,(\p,\q))=\#\connorbit((\p,\q),\pmax)=2^{r-1}.
\end{displaymath}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $\strip{u}$ be a strip contributing to $\connorbit(\pmin,(\p,\q))$.
Think of the domain of $u$ as $\dd\setminus\sett{z_0,z_1}$, with $z_0=1$ corresponding to $+\infty$ and $z_1$ corresponding to $-\infty$.
Write $u=(f,g,rh)$ with respect to this identification.
The only branch point is at $1$, so $h^{-1}(1)=1$.
Proposition \ref{prop:5} then implies that up to reparameterization $h(z)=z$ and the moduli space $\modms{0,0}$ has $2^{r-1}$ components, each diffeomorphic $S^1\times\rr$.
The $S^1$ corresponds to changing $e^{i\theta}$ in the proposition, and the $\rr$ corresponds to where the marked point $z_1$ is located on the boundary arc $\bdy\dd\setminus\sett{1}$.
In fact, the map
\begin{displaymath}
\ev_{-\infty}:\modms{0,0}\to S^2
\end{displaymath}
restricts to a diffeomorphism from each component onto the cylindrical coordinate patch in $S^2$ defined in \eqref{eq:1}.
Thus exactly one element of each component of $\modms{0,0}$ satisfies $\ev_{-\infty}(\strip{u})=\pmin$, and hence
\begin{displaymath}
\#\connorbit(\pmin,(\p,\q))=2^{r-1}.
\end{displaymath}
The proof that $\#\connorbit((\p,\q),\pmax)=2^{r-1}$ is similar.
\end{proof}
An immediate corollary is the main theorem of this paper.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:1}
The self-Floer cohomology with $\zz_2$-coefficients of the immersion
\begin{displaymath}
\imm:\lagstd\to\mnfld,\quad r\in\sett{1,\ldots,N}
\end{displaymath}
is
\begin{displaymath}
\floercoh{}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & r=1,\\
(\zz_2)^4 & r>1.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
More precisely, in case $r>1$, the cohomology is one-dimensional in degrees $-1,0,2,3$; and $0$ elsewhere.
\end{theorem}
\section{Generalization to other immersed spheres}
In Section \ref{sec:geom-lefsch-fibr} we use the geometry of Lefschetz fibrations to construct a wider class of immersed Lagrangian spheres in $\mnfld$.
In Section \ref{sec:floer-cohom-immers} we explain how the calculations used to prove Theorem \ref{thm:1} can be generalized to calculate the self-Floer cohomology for spheres in this larger class.
\subsection{Geometry of the Lefschetz fibration}
\label{sec:geom-lefsch-fibr}
Recall that we have a Lefschetz fibration
\begin{displaymath}
\leffib:\mnfld\to\cc,\ (\za,\zb,\zc)\mapsto\zc.
\end{displaymath}
Let $\text{Critv}(\pi)=\sett{1,\ldots,N}$ be the critical values of $\pi$ and let $\text{Crit}(\pi)\subset \mnfld$ be the critical points.
Away from $\text{Crit}(\pi)$, $\mnfld$ has a canonical vertical tangent bundle $T^v\mnfld$, and a canonical horizontal tangent bundle $T^h\mnfld$ defined by
\begin{displaymath}
T_p^h\mnfld=\set{V\in T_p\mnfld}{\iota_V\sympl|T_p^v\mnfld=0}.
\end{displaymath}
The horizontal tangent space defines parallel translation maps
\begin{displaymath}
PT_\gamma: \mnfldcust{\gamma(a)}\to \mnfldcust{\gamma(b)},
\end{displaymath}
where $\gamma:[a,b]\to\cc$ is a piece-wise smooth map.
Let $\gamma:[a,b]\to \cc$ be a smooth embedded path with $\gamma^{-1}(\text{Critv}(\pi))=\sett{b}$, and let $q\in\text{Crit}(\pi)$ be the unique critical point in $\mnfldcust{\gamma(b)}$; $\gamma$ is called a \textit{vanishing path}.
Let
\begin{displaymath}
V_{\gamma}=\set{p\in \mnfldcust{\gamma(a)}}{\lim_{t\to b}{PT}_{\gamma|[a,t]}(p)=q}.
\end{displaymath}
$V_{\gamma}$ is the \textit{vanishing cycle} associated to the path $\gamma$, and $V_{\gamma}$ is a Lagrangian sphere in the symplectic submanifold $\mnfldcust{\gamma(a)}$.
Let
\begin{displaymath}
\Delta_\gamma=\bigcup_{a\leq t<b} V_{\gamma|[t,b]}\bigcup \sett{q}.
\end{displaymath}
$\Delta_\gamma$ is the \textit{Lefschetz thimble} associated to $\gamma$ and it is a Lagrangian disk in $\mnfld$.
The following is a standard fact, see for example \cite{seidel-fcpclt}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:11}
Let $L\subset \mnfld$ be a submanifold, and assume that $\pi|L:L\to \cc$ is a fibration over some embedded curve $C\subset\cc$.
Assume furthermore that $L_c=L\cap \mnfldcust{c}$ is a Lagrangian submanifold of $\mnfldcust{c}$ for every $c\in C$.
Then $L$ is Lagrangian if and only if the parallel transport maps over $C$ map the $L_c$'s into the $L_c$'s.
\end{lemma}
Note that the hypothesis that $L_c$ is Lagrangian is always true because the real dimension of $\mnfldcust{c}$ is 2.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:18}
$\hamone=\frac{1}{2}(|\za|^2-|\zb|^2)$ is invariant under parallel transport; in other words, if $X$ is a horizontal vector field then $X(\hamone)=0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
$\hamvf{\hamone}(\za,\zb,\zc)=(i\za,-i\zb,0)$ is a vertical vector field.
Hence
\begin{displaymath}
X(\hamone)=d\hamone(X)=\omega(\hamvf{\hamone},X)=0
\end{displaymath}
for any horizontal $X$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
Let $\gamma:[a,b]\to\cc$ be a vanishing path.
Then
\begin{displaymath}
\Delta_\gamma=\set{(\za,\zb,\gamma(t))\in \mnfld}{t\in[a,b],\ |\za|=|\zb|}.
\end{displaymath}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
$\hamone=0$ on $\text{Crit}(\pi)$, so $\hamone|\Delta_\gamma=0$ by Lemma \ref{lemma:18}.
The intersection of the hypersurface $\hamone=0$ with a fiber $\mnfldcust{\gamma(t)}$ is precisely the set of points in $\mnfld$ of the form
\begin{displaymath}
(\za,\zb,\gamma(t))
\end{displaymath}
with $|\za|=|\zb|$.
This is a circle, and hence must be the vanishing cycle in the fiber $\mnfldcust{\gamma(t)}$.
Since $\Delta_{\gamma}$ is the union of all vanishing cycles over all points in the image of $\gamma$, the result follows.
\end{proof}
Now let $\gamma:[a,b]\to\cc$ be a smooth path with $\gamma^{-1}(\text{Critv}(\pi))=\sett{a,b}$.
Assume $\gamma$ is embedded, except possibly with $\gamma(a)=\gamma(b)$, in which case we require $-\dot\gamma(a)$ and $\dot\gamma(b)$ to not be positive multiples of each other.
The previous lemma implies that $\gamma$ is a \textit{matching path}, meaning that the vanishing cycles coming from the critical value $\gamma(a)$ are the same as the vanishing cycles coming from the critical value $\gamma(b)$.
The Lagrangian submanifold
\begin{displaymath}
\Sigma_\gamma=\set{(\za,\zb,\gamma(t))\in \mnfld}{t\in[a,b],\ |\za|=|\zb|}
\end{displaymath}
is the \textit{matching cycle} associated to the matching path $\gamma$.
Clearly, if $\gamma(a)\neq \gamma(b)$ then $\Sigma_\gamma$ is an embedded Lagrangian sphere.
If $\gamma(a)=\gamma(b)$ then we get an immersed Lagrangian sphere:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:17}
Let $\gamma$ be a matching path with $\gamma(a)=\gamma(b)$ and such that $-\dot\gamma(a)$ and $\dot\gamma(b)$ are not positive real multiples of each other.
Then the matching cycle $\Sigma_\gamma$ is an immersed Lagrangian sphere with one transverse self-intersection point.
\end{lemma}
The fact that the image intersects itself transversely at the self-intersection point follows from the next lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:19}
Let $\gamma:[0,1]\to\cc$ be a vanishing path.
Let $j=\gamma(1)$ be the critical value and let $q\in \mnfld$ be the critical point with $\pi(q)=j$.
Let
\begin{displaymath}
\xi=\sqrt{\dot\gamma(1)}\sqrt{j-1}\cdots\sqrt{j-(j-1)}\sqrt{j-(j+1)}\cdots\sqrt{j-N}\in\cc.
\end{displaymath}
Then
\begin{displaymath}
T_q\Delta_{\gamma}=\Span_\rr\sett{(\xi,\xi,0),\ (i\xi,-i\xi,0)}.
\end{displaymath}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Parameterize $\Delta_\gamma\setminus\sett{q}$ as
\begin{gather*}
(0,1)\times S^1\to \mnfld,\\
(t,\theta)\mapsto (e^{i\theta}\sqrt{\gamma-1}\cdots\sqrt{\gamma-N},e^{-i\theta}\sqrt{\gamma-1}\cdots\sqrt{\gamma-N},\gamma).
\end{gather*}
Let $f=\sqrt{\gamma-1}\cdots\sqrt{\gamma-N}/\sqrt{\gamma-j}$, so $f$ is smooth.
Then
\begin{displaymath}
(f\sqrt{\gamma-j})^{-1}\pd{}{\theta} = (ie^{i\theta},-ie^{-i\theta},0).
\end{displaymath}
Also
\begin{displaymath}
\lim_{t\to1}\frac{f\sqrt{\gamma-1}}{|f\sqrt{\gamma-1}|}=\frac{\xi}{|\xi|}.
\end{displaymath}
Thus
\begin{displaymath}
\lim_{t\to1} |f\sqrt{\gamma-1}|^{-1}\pd{}{\theta}=\lim_{t\to 1} \frac{f\sqrt{\gamma-1}}{|f\sqrt{\gamma-1}|}(f\sqrt{\gamma-1})^{-1}\pd{}{\theta}=\frac{\xi}{|\xi|}(ie^{i\theta},-ie^{-i\theta},0).
\end{displaymath}
Plugging in $\theta=0,\pi/2$ gives the result.
\end{proof}
The immersed spheres $\lagstd$ are of course the matching cycles for the paths
\begin{displaymath}
\gamma_{N,r}(t)=re^{2\pi i t},\quad 0\leq t\leq 1.
\end{displaymath}
We record here a useful lemma about horizontal vectors.
The proof is a straightforward calculation.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:25}
Let $\zc\in\cc$, $\lambda\in T_{\zc}\cc=\cc$, and $p=(\za,\zb,\zc)\in\mnfld$.
Then the horizontal lift of $\lambda$ to $T_p^h\mnfld$ is
\begin{displaymath}
\tilde\lambda=\left(\frac{c\lambda\bar \zb}{|\za|^2+|\zb|^2},\frac{c\lambda\bar\za}{|\za|^2+|\zb|^2},\lambda\right),
\end{displaymath}
where
\begin{displaymath}
c=\sum_{j=1}^N\prod_{k\neq j}(\zc-k).
\end{displaymath}
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Floer cohomology of immersed spheres}
\label{sec:floer-cohom-immers}
Let $L=\Sigma_\gamma$ be an immersed Lagrangian sphere as in Lemma \ref{lemma:17}, and $\iota:S^2\to L$ an immersion.
Parameterize $\gamma$ so that the domain of $\gamma$ is $[0,1]$ and $\gamma(t)$ moves around the image of $\gamma$ in the counterclockwise direction as $t$ increases.
Let $\q\in S^2$ be such that $\leffib(\iota(\q))=\gamma(0)$ and $\p\in S^2$ such that $\leffib(\iota(\p))=\gamma(1)$.
$\iota$ is an exact immersion because the domain $S^2$ satisfies $H^1(S^2)=0$, and $\iota$ can be graded because $\pi_1(S^2)=0$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:5}
Let $p\in L$ with $\leffib(p)=\gamma(t)$.
Then
\begin{displaymath}
\Det^2_{\holvf}(T_pL)=\frac{i\dot\gamma(t)^2}{|\dot\gamma(t)^2|}.
\end{displaymath}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is very similar to the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:4}, except that $\hamvf{\hamtwo}$ needs to be replaced with the horizontal vector field $\tilde \lambda$ that is a lift of $\dot\gamma(t)$.
Lemma \ref{lemma:25} gives a formula for $\tilde\lambda$.
Then, picking up near the end of the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:4}, we get
\begin{displaymath}
\holvf(\hamvf{\hamone},\tilde\lambda)=i\dot\gamma.
\end{displaymath}
Thus
\begin{displaymath}
\Det^2_{\holvf}(T_PL)=\frac{i\dot\gamma(t)^2}{|\dot\gamma(t)^2|}.
\end{displaymath}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:3}
With respect to any grading for $L$, we have
\begin{displaymath}
\ind(\p,\q)=-1,\quad \ind(\q,\p)=3.
\end{displaymath}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The index is invariant under deformations of $\gamma$ that do not pass through critical points, and are such that $\dot\gamma(0)$ is always different from $-\dot\gamma(1)$.
Thus we can assume that the image of $\gamma$ is a circle and $\dot\gamma(0)=\dot\gamma(1)$.
The corollary is then a simple calculation using Lemma \ref{lemma:5} and Definition \ref{dfn:35}.
\end{proof}
Now pick a Morse function $f:S^2\to \rr$ such that $f$ has two critical points; call them $\pmin$ and $\pmax$.
Assume also that $\leffib\circ\iota(\pmin)\neq\leffib\circ\iota(\pmax)$, and also that neither $\pmin$ nor $\pmax$ is a singular point of $L$.
With this data, the Floer cochain complex $\cf(\iota)$ has four generators, one each in degrees $-1,0,2,3$.
To calculate the differential we need to know the holomorphic strips bounded by $L$.
Examination of the classification of discs on $\lagstd$ carried out in Section \ref{sec:classifying-strips} shows that similar results hold for $L$.
The main differences are the following.
First, let $\phi$ be a biholomorphism from $D^2$ to the closure of the interior of the image of $\gamma$ such that $\phi(1)=\gamma(0)=\gamma(1)$.
Then if $u=(f,g,h)$ is a strip with boundary on $\lagstd$, then $\phi\circ h \circ \phi^{-1}:D^2\to D^2$ is a Blaschke product.
Second, the key thing that determines the number of discs bounded by $L$ is the number of critical values of $\leffib$ contained in the interior of the image of $\gamma$.
This can be seen in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:4}: In the equation $fg=(rh-1)\cdots(rh-N)$, the term $rh-j$ can be factored (factors of which contribute to $f$ and $g$) in multiple ways if and only $j$ is in the interior of $\gamma$.\footnote{In the notation of Proposition \ref{prop:4}, if $j\geq r$ then $rh-j$ contributes $\sqrt{rh-j}$ to both $f$ and $g$. If $j<r$, then $rh-j$ can factor as
\begin{displaymath}
rh-j=(\xi_j\sqrt{jh-r})(\eta_j\sqrt{jh-r}),
\end{displaymath}
with the first factor contributing to $f$ and the second factor contributing to $g$.
}
We thus get the following generalization of Lemma \ref{lemma:1}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:6}
Let $C$ be the number of critical values of $\leffib:\mnfld\to\cc$ contained in the interior of the image of $\gamma$.
Then
\begin{displaymath}
\#\connorbit(\pmin,(\p,\q))=\#\connorbit((\p,\q),\pmax)=2^{C}.
\end{displaymath}
\end{lemma}
An immediate corollary is a generalization of Theorem \ref{thm:1}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:2}
Let $\iota:S^2\to L=\Delta_\gamma$ be the immersed sphere over the matching path $\gamma$ as above.
Let $C$ be the number of critical values of $\leffib$ contained in the interior of the image of $\gamma$.
If $C=0$ then
\begin{displaymath}
\floercohcust{}{\iota}\cong0;
\end{displaymath}
if $C\geq 1$ then
\begin{displaymath}
\floercohcust{}{\iota}\cong (\zz_2)^4.
\end{displaymath}
More precisely, in the latter case, the Floer cohomology has dimension $1$ in degrees $-1,0,2,3$.
\end{theorem}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
|
\section{ Statement of the problem. Notations. Definitions. }
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf A.} There exist many characterizations of a two-dimensional, or, more generally, multidimensional Gaussian (normal)
distributions, with independent coordinates, for example, a characterization by means of independence of linear functionals or through the
distribution of sums of coordinates, see the famous text - \cite{Feller1}, chapter III, p. 77 and chapter XV, p. 498-500; by means of the
properties of conditional distributions \cite{Albajar1}, \cite{Kotlarski1}; a characterization by means of the properties of order statistics
\cite{Jian1}; a characterization by means of some inequalities \cite{Bobkov1}, \cite{Kac1} etc., see also the reference therein.\par
The classical monograph of Kagan, Linnik, Rao \cite{Kagan1} is completely devoted to the characterisation problems
in Mathematical Statistics.\par
Usually, these characterizations are stable (robust) \cite{Meshalkin1}, \cite{Zolotarev1}. \par
\vspace{3mm}
Notice that the characterization by means of independence of linear functionals reduced as a rule to the following functional
equation:
$$
f_1(x) + f_2(y) = g_1(x+y) + g_2(x-y), \ x,y \in R, \ f_i, g_j: R \to R \eqno(1.1)
$$
with unique solution up to multiplicative and additive constants \cite{Feller1}, chapter XV, p. 498 - 500:
$$
f_i(z) = C_i \ z + D_i , \ g_j(z) = K_j z + L_j, \ C_i, D_i, K_j, L_j = \const, \ i,j = 1,2; \eqno(1.2)
$$
evidently, $ C_1 = K_1 + K_2, \ C_2 = K_1 - K_2, \ D_1 + D_2 = L_1 + L_2. $
\vspace{3mm}
{\it The immediate predecessors of the present paper are the articles of Tamhankar \cite{Tamhankar1} and
Flusser \cite{Flusser1}, in which the two-dimensional Gaussian distribution with independent coordinates
is characterized by means of independence as well as in polar coordinates. } \par
\vspace{3mm}
It was assumed in the aforementioned paper \cite{Tamhankar1}, \cite{Flusser1} that the considered r.v. $ \xi, \eta $
have continuous strictly positive densities $ f(x), \ g(y). $\par
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf Our purpose is to show that if the technical conditions of positivity and continuity are not satisfied, and the
Cartesian (Descartes) and polar coordinates are pairwise independent, the random variable
may be not Gaussian; also we're trying to find the general form of these distributions. }\par
\vspace{3mm}
We also offer applications for the obtained distributions. \par
\vspace{4mm}
{\bf B.} Let us consider the following examples.\\
{\bf Example 1.} Define the ordinary centered Gaussian non-degenerate density with variance $ \sigma^2, \ \sigma > 0 $ by
$$
f_{\sigma}(x) = (2 \pi)^{-1/2} \ \sigma^{-1} \ \exp \left(-x^2/(2 \sigma^2) \right), \ x \in R. \eqno(1.3)
$$
Define for two numerical r.v. $ (\xi, \eta) $ their polar coordinates
$$
\rho = \rho(\xi, \eta) = \sqrt{\xi^2 + \eta^2}, \hspace{5mm} \theta = \theta(\xi, \eta) = \arctan(\eta/\xi). \eqno(1.4)
$$
Suppose the r.v. $ \xi, \eta $ are centered independent identical distributed with normal density $ f_{\sigma}(x):
\Law (\xi) = \Law(\eta) = N(0, \sigma^2). $ Then the r.v. $ \rho(\xi, \eta) $ and $ \theta(\xi, \eta) $ are also independent.
Actually, we have for these values $ r = \const > 0, \phi \in (0, \pi/2) $ using polar coordinates
$$
{\bf P} (\rho <r, \ \theta < \phi) = (2 \pi)^{-1} \ \sigma^{-2} \int_{ v < r } \int_{\beta < \phi}
v \ \exp(-v^2/(2 \sigma^2) ) \ dv \ d \beta =
$$
$$
(\phi/(2 \pi)) \times (1 - \exp(-r^2/(2 \sigma^2)). \eqno(1.5)
$$
The case $ \theta > \pi/2 $ is considered analogously.\\
Note in addition that if the random vector $ (\xi, \eta) $ has multivariate centered normal distribution with non-zero
correlation, then their polar coordinates are dependent. \par
\vspace{3mm}
{\it At first glance it may seem that this property characterizes unambiguously the two-dimensional normal distribution with
independent coordinates.}\par
\vspace{3mm}
To ensure that the reverse, we consider the second example (counterexample).\\
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf Example 2.} We denote as trivial for any measurable set $ A, \ A \subset R $ its indicator function by
$ I(A) = I_A(x): $\par
$$
I_A(x) = 1, \ x \in A; \hspace{5mm} I_A(x) = 0, \ x \notin A.
$$
Introduce a {\it family} of functions
$$
\omega_{\alpha}(x) = \omega_{\alpha}(x; C_1, C_2) := C_1 \ |x|^{\alpha(1)} \ I_{(-\infty,0)}(x) + C_2 \ x^{\alpha(2)} \ I_{ (0,\infty)}(x),
$$
$$
x \in R, \ C_{1,2}= \const \ge 0, \ \alpha = \vec{\alpha} = (\alpha(1), \alpha(2)), \ \alpha(1), \alpha(2) = \const > -1, \eqno(1.6)
$$
so that $ \omega_{\alpha}(0) = 0, $ and a family of a correspondent probability densities of a view
$$
g_{\alpha, \sigma}(x) = g_{\alpha, \sigma}(x; C_1, C_2) \stackrel{def}{=} \omega_{\alpha}(x; C_1, C_2) \ f_{\sigma}(x). \eqno(1.7)
$$
Since
$$
I_{\alpha(k)}(\sigma) := \int_0^{\infty} x^{\alpha(k)} \exp \left( -x^2/(2 \sigma^2) \right) \ dx = 2^{(\alpha(k) - 1)/2 } \
\sigma^{(\alpha(k) + 1)} \ \Gamma((\alpha(k) + 1)/2),
$$
where $ \Gamma(\cdot) $ is ordinary Gamma function, there is the interrelation between the constants $ C_1, C_2 $ in (1.7):
$$
C_1 \ I_{\alpha(1)}(\sigma) + C_2 \ I_{\alpha(2)}(\sigma) = \sigma \ (2 \pi)^{1/2}, \eqno(1.8)
$$
has only one degree of freedom. In particular, the constant $ C_1 $ may be equal to zero;
in this case the r.v. $ \xi $ possess only non-negative values.\par
\vspace{3mm}
{\it We will denote by $ C_i, K_j $ some finite non-negative constants that are not necessary to be
the same in different places. }\\
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf C. \ Definition 1.1. } The distribution of a r.v. $ \xi $ with density function of a view
$ x \to g_{\alpha, \sigma}(x - a; C_1, C_2), \ a = \const \in R $ is said to be quasi-Gaussian or equally quasi-normal. Notation:
$$
\Law(\xi) = QN(a,\alpha,\sigma, C_1, C_2). \eqno(1.9)
$$
\vspace{3mm}
The value $ "a" $ in (1.9) may be called {\it quasi-center } by analogy with normal distribution and value
$ "\sigma" $ which is called {\it quasi-standard } of the r.v. $ \xi. $ \\
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf D. Remark 1.1. Moments and tail behavior.} \\
Denote $ \xi^p_+ = \xi^p \ I_{(0,\infty)}(\xi), \ \xi^p_- = \xi^p \ I_{(-\infty, 0)}(\xi). $ Evidently,
$$
|\xi|^p = \xi^p_+ + \xi^p_-, \ p \in R; \ \xi^n = |\xi|^n, \ n = 0, \pm 2, \pm 4, \ldots;
$$
$$
\xi^m = \xi^m_+ - \xi^m_-, \ m = \pm 1, \pm 3, \pm 5 \ldots.
$$
We have for the quasi-centered quasi-Gaussian distribution $ \Law(\xi) = QN(0, \vec{\alpha},\sigma, C_1, C_2): $
$$
{\bf E} \xi^p_+ = C_2 \ I_{\alpha(2) + p}(\sigma), \ \alpha(2) + p > -1; \ {\bf E} \xi^q_- = C_1 \ I_{\alpha(1) + q}(\sigma),
\alpha(1) + q > -1.
$$
Therefore
$$
{\bf E} |\xi| = C_2 \ I_{\alpha(2) + 1}(\sigma)+ C_1 \ I_{\alpha(1) + 1}(\sigma),
$$
$$
{\bf E} \xi = C_2 \ I_{\alpha(2) + 1}(\sigma) - C_1 \ I_{\alpha(1) + 1}(\sigma),
$$
$$
{\bf E} \xi^2 = C_2 \ I_{\alpha(2) + 2}(\sigma)+ C_1 \ I_{\alpha(1) + 2}(\sigma).
$$
\vspace{3mm}
Let us consider now the tail behavior of the r.v. $ \xi. $ We find using the Hospital's rule as $ y \to +\infty: $
$$
{\bf P} (\xi > y) \sim \frac{C_2 \ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \ y^{\alpha(2) - 1} \ e^{- y^2/(2 \sigma^2) },
$$
$$
{\bf P} (\xi < - y) \sim \frac{C_1 \ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} \ y^{\alpha(1) - 1} \ e^{- y^2/(2 \sigma^2) }.
$$
\vspace{4mm}
{\bf E. } \ It is easy to verify that if the r.v. $ (\xi, \eta) $ are independent and both have the quasi-Gaussian distribution
with parameters $ a = 0, \ b = 0 $ ("quasi-centered" case):
$$
\Law(\xi) = QN(0,\alpha,\sigma, C_1, C_2), \hspace{5mm} \Law(\eta) = QN(0,\beta,\sigma, C_3, C_4)\eqno(1.10)
$$
may be with different parameters $ \alpha \ne \beta, \ C_1 \ne C_3, C_2 \ne C_4 $ but with the same value of the standard
$ \sigma, \ \sigma > 0, $ then their polar coordinates $ (\rho, \theta) $ are also independent.\par
\vspace{3mm}
We'll show further that the inverse proposition under simple natural conditions is true. \par
\vspace{3mm}
\section{Main result.}
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf Definition 2.1.} The distribution on the real axis of a random variable $ \xi $ is said to be regular
(at the origin), write: $ \Law(\xi) \in Reg, $ if it has a density $ f(x) = f_{\xi}(x) $ such that there exists a constant $ \mu $
for which
$$
0 < \inf_{x \in (-1,1) } \frac{f(x)}{|x|^{\mu}} \le \sup_{x \in (-1,1) } \frac{f(x)}{|x|^{\mu}} < \infty. \eqno(2.0)
$$
We write $ \mu = \deg{\xi} $ ("degree"). Of course, $ \mu > -1. $ Evidently, the constants $ " -1", \ "1" $ in (2.0)
may be replaced on other positive finite value. \\
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf Theorem.} {\it Let's suppose that the random variables $ (\xi, \eta) $ are independent, both have the regular distribution,
may be with different degree, and their polar coordinates $ (\rho, \theta) $ are also independent. \par
Then both the r.v. $ (\xi, \eta) $ have a quasi-centered quasi-Gaussian distribution as in (1.10). } \par
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf Remark 2.1.} We do not suppose here the continuity and strictly positivity of the densities of distributions of the r.v.
$ (\xi, \eta), $ in contradiction to the articles \cite{Tamhankar1}, \cite{Flusser1}.\par
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf Proof.} \par
{\bf 1.} Denote by $ f(x), \ g(y) $ correspondingly the densities of the r.v. $ (\xi, \eta); $ then the common
density $ h(r, \phi) $ of their polar coordinates $ (\rho, \theta) $ may be written as follows:
$$
h(r, \phi) = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} \ f(x) \ g(y). \eqno(2.1)
$$
Evidently, the functions $ f,g,h $ are non - negative, measurable and integrable. \par
Because of the independence the function $ h(r, \phi) $ is factorable:
$$
h(r, \phi) = h_1(r) \ h_2(\phi).
$$
We come to the following key functional equation of a view
$$
f(x) \ g(y) = M \left(\sqrt{x^2 + y^2} \right) \ L(y/x). \eqno(2.2)
$$
for some positive local integrable functions $ f,g,M,L. $ \par
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf 2.} It suffices to consider the equation (2.2) only for positive values $ (x,y); $ other cases may be
investigated in a similar way. Then, we can rewrite (2.2) after permutation $ (x,y) \to (y,x) $
$$
f(y) \ g(x) = M \left(\sqrt{x^2 + y^2} \right) \ L(x/y) \eqno(2.3)
$$
and we obtain after dividing (2.2) term by term by (2.3)
$$
\frac{f(x)}{g(x)} : \frac{f(y)}{g(y)} = \frac{L(y/x)}{L(x/y)}, \eqno(2.4)
$$
or equally
$$
p(x) = p(y) \cdot \psi(x/y), \eqno(2.5)
$$
where we denote
$$
p(x) = \frac{f(x)}{g(x)}, \hspace{5mm} \psi(z) = \frac{L(1/z)}{L(z)}.
$$
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf 3.} The next substitution $ p(x) = P( x) = \log p(x), \ \Psi(x) = \log \psi(\exp x) $
leads us to the equation
$$
P(x) = P(y) + \Psi(x-y), \eqno(2.6)
$$
with solution: $ P(x) = C \cdot x. $ Therefore
$$
f(x) = x^{\gamma} \cdot g(x), \ \gamma = \const, \ x > 0. \eqno(2.7)
$$
and we conclude substituting into (2.2)
$$
x^{\gamma} \cdot g(x) \cdot g(y) = M \left(\sqrt{x^2 + y^2} \right) \ L(y/x). \eqno(2.8)
$$
The example 2 shows that the constant $ \gamma $ may be non-zero. \par
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf 4.} The next substitution $ g(x) = x^{\lambda} w(x) $ into (2.8) give us the following equation
$$
x^{\gamma + \lambda} \ y^{\lambda} \ w(x) \ w(y) = M \left(\sqrt{x^2 + y^2} \right) \ L(y/x). \eqno(2.9)
$$
If in (2.9) we choose $ \gamma + \lambda = - \lambda, $ i.e. $ \lambda = -\gamma/2, $ we get
instead (2.8) the equation
$$
w(x) \cdot w(y) = M \left(\sqrt{x^2 + y^2} \right) \ L_1(y/x) \eqno(2.10)
$$
with another in general case homogeneous function $ L_1(y/x). $ \par
Thus, we reduce the general case to the possibility when the r.v. $ \xi, \eta $ are in addition identically distributed.\par
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf 5.} The another change of variables $ w(x) = x^{\nu} \ w(x), \nu = \const $ leads us to the functional equation of a view
$$
v(x) \cdot v(y) = M_1 \left(\sqrt{x^2 + y^2} \right) \ L_2(y/x), \eqno(2.11)
$$
however due to the proper selection of parameter $ \nu $ it can be achieved that
$$
0 < \inf_{x \in (0,1) } v(x) \le \sup_{x \in (0,1) } v(x) < \infty. \eqno(2.12)
$$
The solution of (2.11) having a probabilistic sense under the condition (2.12) looks like
\cite{Tamhankar1}, \cite{Flusser1}:
$$
v(x) = C_6 \cdot \exp(- C_7 x^2), \ C_6, C_7 = \const > 0. \eqno(2.13)
$$
We should return to the source functions $ f(x), \ g(y). $ \par
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf 6.} Suppose in addition that all the functions in (2.11) are positive and continuous differentiable almost everywhere. Then
$$
v_1(x) + v_1(y) = M_2 \left(\sqrt{x^2 + y^2} \right) + L_3(y/x), \eqno(2.14)
$$
where
$$
v_1(x) = \log v(x), \ M_2(x) = \log M_1(x), \ L_3(x) = \log L_2(x).
$$
Denote $ z(x) = v_1(x^2), $ then
$$
z(x) + z(y) = M_2(x + y) + L_4(y/x). \eqno(2.15)
$$
Without loss of generality we can adopt $ z(0) = M_2(0) = L_4(0) = 0, \ 0/0 = 0, \ L_4(0/0) = L_4(0) = 0. $ Putting in (2.15)
the value $ y = 0, $ we deduce $ M_2(x) = z(x); $ therefore
$$
z(x+y) - z(x) = z(y) + L_5(y/x). \eqno(2.16)
$$
We choose in (2.16) $ y = \Delta x, \ \Delta x \to 0: $
$$
z(x + \Delta x) - z(x) = C_1 \ \Delta x + L_5 (\Delta x/x) = C_2 \Delta x + o(\Delta x), \ dz /dx = C_2 = \const.
$$
Thus, $ z(x) = C_2 x + C_3. $ The proof of the theorem is completed. \par
\vspace{4mm}
\section{Concluding remarks.}
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf A. Multidimensional case.}\par
It is possible to generalize our theorem on the multidimensional case. Actually, let us consider the random vector
$ \xi = \vec{\xi} = (\xi_1, \xi_2, \ldots, \xi_d) $ with the density
$$
f_{\xi}(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_d) = G( x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_d; \vec{\alpha}, \vec{\sigma}, \vec{ C_1 }, \vec{C_2 } ) \stackrel{def}{=}
$$
$$
\prod_{j=1}^d g_{\alpha_j, \sigma_l}(x_j; C_1^{(j)}, C_2^{(j)}), \eqno(3.1)
$$
where $ \alpha_j > -1, \ \sigma_j = \const > 0, \ C_i^{(j)} = \const \ge 0, $
$$
C_1^{(j)} \ I_{\alpha^{(j)}(1)}(\sigma_j) + C_2^{(j)} \ I_{\alpha^{(j)}(2)}(\sigma_j) = \sigma_j \ (2 \pi)^{1/2}, \eqno(3.2)
$$
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf Proposition 3.1.} \par
{\it Assume that all the standards $ \sigma_j = \sigma $ do not dependent on the number $ j. $ Then
the (Cartesian) coordinates of the vector $ \vec{\xi}, $ i.e. the random variables $ \{ \xi_j \} $ are common independent
and so are their polar coordinates. \par
The contrary is also true: if
the Cartesian and polar coordinates of the vector $ \vec{\xi} $ are common independent and the random variables $ \{ \xi_j \} $
are regular distributed, then it density has a view (3.1), with the same standards } $ \sigma. $ \par
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf B. Weight quasi-Gaussian distributions. } \par
\vspace{3mm}
Let $ W_k, \ k = 1,2, \ldots, N $ be positive numbers (weights) such that $ \sum_{k=1}^N W_k = 1. $ We define the {\it weight}
or {\it mixed} quasi-Gaussian distribution by means of multivariate density of a view
$$
G^{(W)}( x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_d) = G^{(W)} \left( x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_d; \{ a_j^{(k)} \}, \{ \alpha_j^{(k)} \}, \{ \sigma_j^{(k)} \}, \{ C_1^{(k)} \}\right) \stackrel{def}{=}
$$
$$
\sum_{k=1}^N W_k \ G \left( x_1-a_1^{(k)}, x_2-a_2^{(k)}, \ldots, x_d-a_d^{(k)}; \vec{\alpha}^{(k)}, \ \{ \sigma_j^{(k)} \}, \ \vec{ C_1 }^{(k)} \right).
\eqno(3.3)
$$
\vspace{3mm}
More general view of similar distribution has a discrete component:
$$
G_0^{(W)}( \vec{x}) := W_0 \delta(\vec{x} - \vec{a_0}) +
$$
$$
\sum_{k=1}^N W_k \ G \left( x_1-a_1^{(k)}, x_2-a_2^{(k)}, \ldots, x_d-a_d^{(k)}; \vec{\alpha}^{(k)}, \vec{\sigma}^{(k)}, \ \vec{ C_1 }^{(k)} \right), \eqno(3.4)
$$
$$
W_0, W_1, \ldots, W_N > 0, \ \sum_{k=0}^N W_K = 1,
$$
$ \delta(\vec{x}) $ is the classical Dirac delta function; so that
$$
{\bf P} (\vec{\xi} = \vec{a_0}) = W_0 > 0.
$$
{\bf C. Possible applications. } \par
\vspace{3mm}
The classic application of ordinary characterization theorem in Statistical Physics is described, e.g. in the book \cite{Kagan1},
chapter 3, section 3.5. \par
\vspace{3mm}
By our opinion, the weighted quasi-Gaussian distribution may be used as a first approximation in the {\it demography,} where $ (\xi_1, \xi_2) $
may be coordinates of a place of residence of a random person, and $ W_k $ is a share of $ k^{th} $ city in the general population of some
country. \par
\vspace{3mm}
Another possible application is in the realm of {\it philology,} where $ \vec{\xi} = (\xi_1, \xi_2, \ldots, \xi_d) $ may denote the parameters of a certain word, for instance, phonetic and/or semantic values,
and $ N; \{ a_j^{(k)} \} $ may be estimated by means of cluster analysis and by methods of
parametrical statistics: maximum likelihood, chi-square test etc.\par
Thus a lexical unit can be analyzed either as an independent entity by itself, or being compared to (a). other units from the same language/other related or unrelated languages of the same epoch (synchronic view); (b) historically related words of the similar semantic layer (diachronic view). The described method might prove to be very useful also in lexicostatistics.
The quasi - centers $ \{ a_j^{(k)} \} $ may be interpreted as a coordinates of fundamental human notions: food, policy, medicine, economic etc. \par
The classification based on the mixed quasi-Gaussian distribution
may be useful in learning a foreign language.\par
\vspace{3mm}
Needless to say, this approach requires an experimental verification.\par
\vspace{4mm}
|
\section{Stochastic excitation of pulsations in Be stars}
Be stars are massive stars with a decretion disk that are known to pulsate
thanks to the $\kappa$ mechanism. The correlation between pulsations and the
ejections of matter into the circumstellar disk was first proposed by
\cite[Rivinius et al. (2001)]{rivinius2001} and firmly established by \cite[Huat
et al. (2009)]{huat2009} thanks to CoRoT observations.
Sub-inertial gravito-inertial modes (below twice the rotation frequency) have
recently been detected in the early Be star HD\,51452 with CoRoT \cite[(Neiner
et al. 2012)]{neiner2012}. These modes cannot be excited by the $\kappa$
mechanism usually invoked for those stars, because HD\,51452 is too hot (B0\,IVe)
to be in the $\kappa$-driven g-mode instability strip. Since the observed modes
have very low frequency and a short lifetime, we have proposed that they are
excited stochastically in the convective core and at its interface with the
surrounding radiative envelope.
In addition, low-frequency g modes have been observed with CoRoT in another
early Be star, HD\,49330, during an outburst \cite[(Huat et al.
2009)]{huat2009}. We propose that these modes are also stochastically excited,
as suggested by their short lifetime. Indeed, these modes are only visible
during the outburst, while the $\kappa$-driven p modes get destabilized during
the outburst. However, in this case, the stochastic modes we observed are
probably those excited just below the surface during the outburst rather than
the ones excited in the convective core.
It was not expected that stochastically excited gravito-inertial modes could be
observed in massive stars \cite[(Samadi et al. 2010)]{samadi2010}. However, Be
stars are very rapid rotators and stochastic excitation is enhanced in the
presence of rapid rotation, through the Coriolis acceleration which modifies
gravity waves. This has been demonstrated analytically by \cite[Mathis et al.
(2013)]{mathis2013} and observed in numerical simulations by \cite[Rogers et al.
(2013)]{rogers2013} (see also \cite[Browning et al. 2004]{browning2004}).
Indeed, in the convective zones, when rotation is rapid, gravity modes become
less evanescent in the super-inertial regime and propagative inertial modes in
the sub-inertial regime.
Such stochastic modes are thus probably present in all rapidly rotating massive
stars. Therefore, in the case of rapid rotators, the identification of low-frequency modes should be considered carefully and not systematically attributed
to the $\kappa$ mechanism as has been done until recently.
\section{Transport of angular momentum from the core to the surface}
\cite[Lee (2013)]{lee2013} showed that gravito-inertial modes excited by the
$\kappa$ mechanism transport angular momentum and could play a role in the Be
phenomenon. However, in the sub-inertial regime, the transport of angular
momentum was believed to become less efficient because of
gravito-inertial waves equatorial trapping \cite[(Mathis et al. 2008, Mathis
2009)]{mathis2008,mathis2009}. Our recent work shows that transport by trapped
sub-inertial waves may be sustained in rapidly rotating stars thanks to the
stronger stochastic excitation by turbulent convective flows. Moreover,
sub-inertial gravito-inertial modes have very low frequencies and therefore they
transport more angular momentum than modes with higher frequencies.
We thus propose that this mechanism allows to transport angular momentum from
the convective core of Be stars, where sub-inertial gravito-inertial modes are
excited, to their surface. The accumulation of angular momentum just below the
surface of Be stars increases the surface velocity. The surface then reaches
the critical velocity so that material gets ejected from the star.
\section{Conclusions}
Thanks to the discovery of stochastically excited gravito-inertial modes in the
hot Be star HD\,51452 and to the observation of the correlation between these
pulsations and a Be outburst in HD\,49330, both with the CoRoT satellite, we
have shown that stochastic gravito-inertial waves play an important role in Be
stars. We demonstrated analytically that it is rapid rotation that enhances
those modes in Be stars. This is also confirmed in numerical simulations. Since
sub-inertial gravito-inertial modes efficiently transport angular momentum, we
propose that they could be the key to the Be phenomenon, i.e. to the ejection of
material from the surface of Be stars into a circumstellar Keplerian disk.
|
\section{Introduction}
Solar-like oscillations are oscillations stochastically excited in the
outer convective layers of low-mass stars on the main-sequence (such
as the Sun), subgiants and red-giant stars (e.g. \cite[Goldreich \&
Keeley 1977]{goldreich1977}, \cite[Goldreich \& Kumar
1988]{goldreich1988}). Effectively, some of the convective energy is
converted into energy of global oscillations. The main characteristics
of these oscillations are that a) essentially all modes are excited
albeit with different amplitudes; b) the stochastic driving and
damping results in a finite mode lifetime.
In Fourier space the solar-like oscillation characteristics yield a
regular pattern of oscillation frequencies with a roughly Gaussian
envelope, where each frequency peak has a width inversely proportional
to the mode lifetime. Hence, resolved individual
frequency peaks can be fitted using a Lorentzian profile to determine
height, width and frequency of the oscillation mode (see inset in
Fig.~\ref{ps}). The regular pattern of the frequencies in the Fourier
spectrum can be described asymptotically (\cite[Tassoul
1980]{tassoul1980}, \cite[Gough 1986]{gough1986}):
\begin{equation}
\nu_{n,\ell} \simeq \Delta\nu\left(n+\frac{\ell}{2}+\epsilon\right)-\delta\nu_{n,\ell},
\label{tassoul}
\end{equation}
where $\nu$ is frequency and $\epsilon$ is a phase term. $\Delta\nu$ is the regular spacing in frequency of oscillations with the same angular degree $\ell$ and consecutive orders $n$ (large frequency separation, horizontal dashed-dotted line in Fig.~\ref{ps}). $\delta\nu_{n,\ell}$ is the so-called small frequency separation between pairs of odd or even modes.
The large frequency separation, $\Delta\nu$, is proportional to the square root of the mean density of the star. Another characteristic of the Fourier spectrum is the frequency of maximum oscillation power, $\nu_{\rm max}$, which depends on the surface gravity and effective temperature of the star.
For a full overview of solar-like oscillations we refer to \cite[Aerts et al.~(2010)]{aerts2010}, \cite[Chaplin \& Miglio (2013)]{chaplin2013} and \cite[Hekker (2013)]{hekker2013}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Hekker_MS_fig1.eps}
\caption{Fourier power density spectrum of a main-sequence star (KIC 3656479, \cite[Hekker 2013]{hekker2013}). The angular degree ($\ell$) of the modes are indicated. The horizontal dashed-dotted line indicates $\Delta\nu$ (see Eq.~\ref{tassoul}). The inset shows a zoom of the radial mode at $\sim$1999 $\mu$Hz with a Lorentzian profile overplotted.}
\label{ps}
\end{figure}
\section{Mixed modes}
\subsection{Cavities}
The oscillations described above are pure acoustic pressure (p)
modes. Non-radial p-modes reside in a cavity in the outer parts of the
star bound at the bottom by the Lamb frequency ($S_{\ell}$), where the
horizontal phase speed of the wave equals the local sound speed. At
the top the cavity is limited by the cut-off frequency $\nu_{\rm ac} \propto
g / \sqrt{T_{\rm eff}}$ (\cite[Brown et al.~1991]{brown1991}) above
which the atmosphere is not able to trap the modes and the
oscillations become traveling waves, so called high-frequency or
pseudo-modes (e.g., \cite[Karoff 2007]{karoff2007}). When stars evolve
the p-mode frequencies decrease, mostly due to the decrease in surface
gravity (increase in radius) and hence decrease in cut-off
frequency. At the same time oscillations that reside in the inner
radiative region of the star have increasing frequencies with
evolution. These so-called gravity (g) modes have buoyancy as their
restoring force. These modes reside in a cavity defined by
finite values of the Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a or buoyancy frequency
$N$. This is the frequency at which a vertically displaced parcel will
oscillate within a statically stable environment. The peak of the
Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a frequency increases with evolution due to the
increase in the core gravity. Oscillations can only be sustained when
$\nu < S_{\ell},N$ (g mode) or $\nu > S_{\ell},N$ (p mode). A region
where either of these conditions is not satisfied is an evanescent
zone for the respective mode at a particular frequency. See
Fig.~\ref{cavs} for the dipole Lamb frequency and Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a
frequency as a function of stellar radius defining the respective p-
and g-mode cavities of a main-sequence star (top panel), subgiant
(middle panel) and a red giant (bottom panel).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Hekker_propag_fig2.eps}
\caption{The Brunt-V\"ais\"al\"a ($N$, red solid line) and the Lamb frequency for $\ell=1$ modes ($S_1$, blue dashed line) are shown as functions of fractional radius ($r/R$) for models of a $1\,M_{\odot}$ star in the main sequence (top panel), subgiant (middle panel) and red-giant (bottom panel) phases.}
\label{cavs}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Avoided crossings}
In subgiants and red giants the frequencies in both p- and g-mode cavities have similar values and a coupling between these frequencies can persist if the evanescent zone is narrow, i.e., the oscillation is not damped out. In that case a p and g mode with similar frequencies and same spherical degree undergo a so-called avoided crossing. The interactions between the modes will affect (or bump) the frequencies. This bumping can be described as a resonance interaction of two oscillators (e.g. \cite[Aizenman et al.~1977]{aizenman1977}, \cite[Deheuvels \& Michel 2010]{deheuvels2010}, \cite[Benomar et al.~2013]{benomar2013}).
In short the avoided crossings can be viewed using a system of two coupled oscillators $y_1(t)$ and $y_2(t)$ with a time dependence:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2y_1(t)}{dt^2} = -\omega_1^2y_1 + \alpha_{1,2}y_2
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2y_2(t)}{dt^2} = -\omega_2^2y_1 + \alpha_{1,2}y_1
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{1,2}$ is the coupling term between the two oscillators, and $\omega_1$, $\omega_2$ are the eigenfrequencies of the uncoupled oscillators ($\alpha_{1,2} = 0$). In the case of uncoupled oscillators the eigenfrequencies can cross at $\omega_0$ where $\omega_1=\omega_2$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Hekker_avoidedcrossings_fig3.eps}
\caption{The evolution of frequencies of a $1M_{\odot}$ star with age in the red-giant phase. The blue continuous lines depict the $\ell=1$ modes while the red dashed lines represent the $\ell=0$ modes of different radial orders.}
\label{bump}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Hekker_SG_fig4.eps}
\caption{Fourier power density spectrum of a subgiant (KIC 11395018, \cite[Hekker 2013]{hekker2013}). The degree ($\ell$) of the modes is indicated. A mixed mode pair is present at 740.3 and 764.0~$\mu$Hz highlighted by the (red) oval.}
\label{pssubgiant}
\end{figure}
If the coupling term $\alpha_{1,2}$ is very small compared to the difference between the eigenfrequencies ($\alpha_{1,2} \ll |\omega_1^2 - \omega_2^2|$), then the eigenfrequencies of the system are hardly perturbed and have values close to $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$. However, if the difference between the eigenfunctions is small compared to the coupling term ($|\omega_1^2 - \omega_2^2| \ll \alpha_{1,2}$), then the eigenfrequencies can be approximated by $\omega^2 = \omega_0^2 \pm \alpha_{1,2}$. These two eigenmodes behave as mixed modes, one with dominant features from $\omega_1$ and the other one with dominant features from $\omega_2$.
For a $1M_{\odot}$ star, Fig.~\ref{bump} shows the variation of frequencies with evolution. The general trend of the p-mode frequencies is to decrease with age, while g-mode frequencies increase with age (see section 2.1). Therefore at a particular age, a g mode and a p mode of the same angular degree and similar frequencies can exist, which would --- instead of crossing each other to continue these opposite trends --- interact to produce a pair of mixed modes with close frequencies, as explained above. This is visible in Fig.~\ref{bump} as a series of bumps in the $\ell =1$ modes, where each bump is located at an avoided crossing. One of these mixed modes will have dominant features from the underlying p mode, while the other mixed mode will have dominant features from the underlying g mode. Fig.~\ref{pssubgiant} shows a Fourier power density spectrum of a subgiant with a mixed-mode pair.
As evident from Fig.~\ref{bump} an avoided crossing can occur at a specific frequency only at a specific age. Thus observations of mixed modes allows for a precise estimate of the age. However, the age determination is model dependent and the actual value of the stellar age might differ as a function of physical processes included in the model.
In more evolved stars the density of g modes around a given frequency can be high and multiple g modes can interact with different coupling terms with a single p mode to produce multiple mixed modes. Fig.~\ref{psgiant} shows a Fourier power density spectrum of a red-giant star with multiple mixed dipole modes.
\subsection{Period spacing}
The high-order g modes in the inner radiative region have (in an asymptotic approximation) a typical spacing in period ($\Delta\Pi$, e.g. \cite[Tassoul 1980]{tassoul1980}). Since the regular pattern of the frequencies is broken by the avoided crossings, the period spacing will also be affected. For red giants with multiple mixed modes per p-mode order, this results in smaller observed $\Delta\Pi$ for pressure-dominated mixed modes (lying close to the underlying p mode) and increasing values of $\Delta\Pi$ for mixed modes with more g-dominated character, i.e., with frequencies further away from the underlying p mode. The least coupled, i.e. most g-dominated, modes have a $\Delta\Pi$ close to the asymptotic value. However these modes are the hardest to detect due to their low heights in the Fourier power spectrum (\cite[Dupret et al.~2009]{dupret 2009}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Hekker_RG_fig5.eps}
\caption{Fourier power density spectrum of a red-giant star (KIC 9145955, \cite[Hekker 2013]{hekker2013}). The degree ($\ell$) of the modes is indicated. For the dipole modes the approximate range of the observed mixed modes is indicated.}
\label{psgiant}
\end{figure}
\section{Recent results}
\subsection{Subgiants}
For subgiants a recent highlight is the detection of radial differential rotation \cite[(Deheuvels et al. 2012)]{deheuvels2012}. Due to the different sensitivities of mixed modes to different parts of the star (either the internal or the outer region of the star depending on their predominant g- or p-mode nature) it is possible to study stellar properties, such as rotation, as a function of radius. \cite[Deheuvels et al.~(2012)]{deheuvels2012} were able to detect rotational splittings in 17 $\ell =1$ mixed modes in a subgiant, which have different pressure-gravity mode sensitivity. They concluded that the core rotates approximately five times faster than the surface.
\subsection{Red giants}
Gravity-dominated mixed modes in red-giant stars have recently been discovered observationally for $\ell = 1$ modes by \cite[Beck et al.~(2011)]{beck2011}. From these mixed modes the period spacings can be derived. \cite[Bedding et al.~(2011)]{bedding2011} and \cite[Mosser et al.~(2011)]{mosser2011mm} showed that the observed period spacings of red giants in the hydrogen-shell-burning phase ascending the red-giant branch are significantly different from the period spacing for red giants also burning helium in the core. This provides a clear separation into these two groups of stars that are superficially very similar. This effect was explained by \cite[Christensen-Dalsgaard (2011)]{jcd2011} as being due to convection in the central regions of the core in the helium-burning stars. The buoyancy frequency is nearly zero in the convective region. As the period spacing is inversely proportional to the integral over $N$, the period spacing of stars with convection in the core is higher compared to the period spacing of stars without a convective region in the core.
Similar to the subgiant mentioned in the previous subsection, the rotational splittings of dipole mixed modes with different p/g nature have been measured for a red-giant star (\cite[Beck et al.~2012]{beck2012}), which revealed that the core rotates approximately ten times faster than the surface.
Subsequently, \cite[Mosser et al.~(2012)]{mosser2012rot} showed that stars ascending the red-giant branch experience a small increase of the core rotation followed by a significant slow-down in the later stages of the red-giant branch resulting in slower rotating cores in red-clump (or horizontal-branch) stars compared to faster rotating cores in stars on the red-giant branch.
\section{Future}
With the long term datasets currently available from \textit{Kepler}, mixed modes can be detected in many stars. This allows for further studies of the radial differential rotation (see Section 3 and Di Mauro et al., these proceedings). Furthermore, mixed modes will also allow for further studies of the internal structure of subgiants and red-giant stars, possibly including core overshoot, and the presence of secondary Helium flashes. The latter are present in stellar evolution models of low-mass stars which ignite Helium in a degenerate core, but it is still unclear whether this is a realistic representation. Therefore, it is evident that mixed modes have great diagnostic potential especially for subgiants and red-giant stars.
\begin{acknowledgements}
SH acknowledges financial support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). AM acknowledges support from the NIUS programme of HBCSE.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Mathematically optimized schedules have huge practical roles as they often have a large impact both economically and environmentally and one area where they provide significant results is in sports league scheduling. Professional sports leagues exists as big businesses all over the world and many of these popular leagues are of huge economic importance due to the vast amounts of revenue they generate. While economic importance is one of the reasons the Traveling Tournament Problem (TTP) has received much attention in recent years, one other major reason is the extremely challenging scheduling problems they generate. In fact while the general complexity of TTP is still an open question, some instances of it have been proved to be NP-complete \cite{Westphal, Rishi}. \newline
The TTP was introduced by Easton et.al in 2001 \cite{Easton} and the problem, given the number of teams $n$ (even) and the pairwise distance between their home venues, is concerned with arriving at a schedule for a double round robin tournament that minimizes the sum of the distances traveled by all the participating teams. While arriving at an optimized schedule, $S$, for the double round robin tournament, TTP places two additional constraints on the schedule called the AtMost and the NonRepeat constraint. The AtMost constraint mandates that each team must play no more than $k$ ($k$ is usually taken as 3) consecutive matches at home or away and the NonRepeat constraint states that two teams should not play each other in consecutive rounds. \newline
In this paper we consider an important variant of the TTP called the Mirrored Traveling Tournament Problem (mTTP). mTTP was introduced by Ribeiro and Urrutia in \cite{mTTP} and here in place of the NonRepeat constraint we have a Mirror constraint. The Mirror constraint requires that the games played in round $r$ are exactly the same as those played in round $r + (n - 1)$, for $r = 1, 2, \cdots, n - 1$, with reversed venues. While there have been many attempts at arriving at optimized schedules for both the TTP and mTTP \cite{Anag, mTTP, Lim, Easton}, here we suggest a parallel simulated annealing approach for solving the mTTP and we show that this approach is superior especially with respect to the number of solution instances it can probe per unit time. Additionally, based on an implementation on OpenMP, we also show that there is significant speed up of 1.5x - 2.2x in terms of number of solutions it can explore per unit time.
\section{Methodology}
Simulated Annealing is a local search meta-heuristic used to address global
optimization problems, especially when the search space is discrete. The name
comes from the process of annealing in metallurgy which involves the heating and
controlled cooling of a metal to increase the size of its crystals and to reduce
their defects. If the cooling schedule is sufficiently slow, the final
configuration results in a solid with superior structural integrity which in
turn represents a state with minimum energy.Simulated annealing emulates the physical process described above and in this
method, each point $s$ of the search space is analogous to a state of some
physical system, and the function $E(s)$ that is to be minimized is analogous to
the internal energy of the system in that state.
In the following subsections, we explain the serial version of mTTP and then we discuss the parallelization of this algorithm.
\subsection{The SA algorithm for mTTP} \label{sa}
The simulated annealing algorithm starts with an initial random schedule, $S$ and at each basic step it probabilistically decides between making a transition to a schedule $S'$ in its neighborhood, or staying at $S$. The neighborhood of a schedule $S$ is defined as the set of all schedules that can be generated by applying any one of the $5$ five moves : swap-teams, column-swap, row-swap, swap-rounds, interchange-home-away. These $5$ moves are the same as those suggested in \cite{Anag}.
Once the neighbouring schedule $S'$ is determined, the probability of making the transition to the new configuration $S'$ is dependent on the on the variation, $\Delta$, in the objective function produced by
the move. The system moves to $S'$ with a probability 1 if $\Delta < 0$. If
$\Delta > 0$, then the transition to the new state $S'$ happens with a
probability $\exp({-\Delta}/{T})$. The rationale behind this is that, here as the temperature decreases over time
the probability, $\exp({-\Delta}/{T})$, of accepting non-improving solutions
decreases.
\subsection{The Parallel SA algorithm for mTTP} \label{psa}
In order to overcome the restrictive nature of the serial SA algorithm presented in \ref{sa} in terms of the number of solutions being explored, in this paper we explore the possibility of parallelism in the SA algorithm. Since the nature of the SA algorithm allows only for work level parallelism, we the exploit work level parallelism offered by shared memory multi core CPU's using openmp (omp) threads and we present the parallel simulated annealing algorithm ( PSA(T) ) below, where T is the number of threads used. The main rationale behind choosing this model comes from the intuition that as the number of threads increases the solutions explored by them, collectively, will be significantly larger and hence would help us in obtaining the optimal solutions faster.
\newpage
\begin{algorithm}[htbp]
\label{alg2}
\caption{: PSA(T)}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{do in parallel} for each thread $1, 2 \cdots T$
\STATE start with a random schedule $S$
\STATE curr$\_$dist $=$ best$\_$dist $=$ distance($S$)
\STATE curr$\_$schedule $=$ best$\_$schedule $= S$
\STATE initialize n$\_$iterations, $T_{\text{initial}}$, $T_{\text{final}}$ and
$\alpha$
\STATE set count$\_$itr $= 0$
\WHILE{(count$\_$itr $<$ n$\_$iterations)}
\STATE temp$\_$curr $=$ $T_{\text{initial}}$
\STATE temp$\_$end = $T_{\text{final}}$
\STATE curr$\_$dist = best$\_$dist;
\STATE curr$\_$schedule = best$\_$schedule
\WHILE{(temp$\_$curr $>$ temp$\_$end)}
\STATE S' = select$\_$random$\_$schedule()
\STATE total$\_$dist $=$ distance(S')
\STATE $\Delta =$ total$\_$dist $-$ curr$\_$dist
\IF{($\Delta < 0$ \OR $\exp(-\Delta /$ temp$\_$curr) $>$ random()) }
\STATE curr$\_$dist $=$ total$\_$dist
\STATE curr$\_$schedule $=$ S'
\IF{(total$\_$dist $<$ best$\_$dist)}
\STATE acc $=$ check$\_$schedule()
\IF{(acc is \TRUE)}
\STATE best$\_$dist $=$ curr$\_$dist
\STATE best$\_$schedule $=$
curr$\_$schedule
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\ENDIF
\STATE temp$\_$curr $=$ temp$\_$curr $ * \alpha$;
\ENDWHILE
\STATE count$\_$itr++
\ENDWHILE
\STATE \textbf{end do in parallel}
\STATE synchronizeThreads()
\STATE Pick least distance schedule from all the threads
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Computational Experiments and Results} \label{results}
The proposed parallel simulated annealing algorithm was tested on a number of mTTP instances given in \cite{Web} and it was seen that this algorithm, in addition to finding optimized solutions for these instances (all of which were within 10\% of the known lower bounds), was superior especially in terms of the number of solutions that could be explored in a second. This is particularly significant since one of the main objectives of a simulated annealing approach is to explore as much of the solution space as possible. Figure 1 demonstrates the variation in the number of solutions explored using the serial SA, PSA(2) and PSA(4) for instances NL06, NL08, CIRC08, NL10 and CIRC10. Figure 2 provides the corresponding speed up graph for these instances. It is evident from the figure that a significant speedup of upto 2.2X was achieved.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{minipage}{16pc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{omp_ttp1.png}
\caption{\label{fig4} Variations in the number of solutions explored.}
\end{minipage}\hspace{2pc}%
\begin{minipage}{16pc}
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{omp_ttp2.png}
\caption{\label{fig4} Threads Versus Speed Up of Annealing on mTTP.}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
Annealing belongs to class of sub optimal algorithms which depends heavily on randomization. In order to improve the solution, we need to explore more number of solutions at each basic step. The proposed parallel SA achieves this objective by utilizing multi core omp threads. Parallel SA will thus help in converging faster towards the optimal solution.
As for the future work, we plan to extend the proposed parallel version to incorporate synchronization and communication points between the threads for faster convergence towards the global optimum. We also plan to port the parallel SA to GPGPU's to achieve better performance using streaming multicore processors of NVIDIA's Compute Unified Device Architecture (CUDA) technology.
|
\section{Introduction}
The SU(2) gauge theory with two adjoint Dirac fermions, known as Minimal Walking Technicolor (MWT)~\cite{Sannino:2004qp,Luty:2004ye}, has been the subject of many lattice studies, all of which have found it to be a conformal theory with a fairly small mass anomalous dimension~\cite{Bursa:2009we,DelDebbio:2010hx,DeGrand:2011qd,Catterall:2011zf}. The most recent measurement obtained by fitting the mode number of the Dirac operator gave a very precise value~\cite{Patella:2012da}. The mode number method has also been used to follow the running of $\gamma$ over a range of energy scales for the SU(3) theory with many light fundamental fermions~\cite{Cheng:2013eu}.
The large N version of MWT, the SU(N) gauge theory with two adjoint fermions, is interesting for several reasons. From a phenomenological point of view, it is expected to be similar to the SU(2) theory, for example the first two universal orders of perturbation theory predict an infrared fixed point with a mass anomalous dimension that is independent of $N$. From a numerical point of view, simulating the theory on a single site lattice using large N twisted volume reduction~\cite{GonzalezArroyo:1982hz,GonzalezArroyo:2010ss} makes it feasible to simulate at values of N that would be prohibitively expensive on a conventional $L^4$ lattice. We use the action described in Refs.~\cite{Gonzalez-Arroyo:2013bta,Gonzalez-Arroyo:2013proc} to simulate a single site lattice at N up to 289, which is equivalent to a lattice of size $L^4=17^4$. We then extract a measurement of the mass anomalous dimension from a fit to the mode number of the Dirac operator.
\section{Method}
In a mass--deformed conformal field theory (mCFT), the spectral density $\rho$ of the Dirac operator at small eigenvalues $\omega$ scales as~\cite{DelDebbio:2010ze}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rho}
\lim_{m\rightarrow 0}\lim_{V\rightarrow\infty}\rho(\omega) \propto \omega^{\frac{3-\gamma_*}{1+\gamma_*}},
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_*$ is the mass anomalous dimension at the infrared fixed point (IRFP), $V$ is the lattice volume, and $m$ is the mass.
On the lattice we measure the eigenvalues $\Omega^2$ of the massive hermitian Dirac operator $M=m^2 - \slashed{D}^2$, which are related to $\omega$ by $\omega = \sqrt{\Omega^2 - m^2}$. The mode number $\overline{\nu}(\Omega)$ is simply the number of eigenvalues of this operator below some value $\Omega^2$ divided by the volume (the volume being $N^2$ in this case), and can be written as
\begin{equation}
\overline{\nu}(\Omega) = 2 \int_0^{\sqrt{\Omega_{IR}^2-m^2}}\rho(\omega)\,\, d\omega + 2\int_{\sqrt{\Omega_{IR}^2-m^2}}^{\sqrt{\Omega^2-m^2}}\rho(\omega)\,\, d\omega,
\end{equation}
where the integral has been split into two parts. The first part will be affected by finite volume and/or finite mass effects, but we can insert Eq.~\ref{eq:rho} in the second term. Integrating and writing in lattice units gives the fit function
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fitIII}
a^{-4}\overline{\nu}(\Omega) \simeq a^{-4}\overline{\nu}(\Omega_{IR})-A\left[(a\Omega_{IR})^2-(am)^2\right]^{\frac{2}{1+\gamma_*}} + A\left[(a\Omega)^2-(am)^2\right]^{\frac{2}{1+\gamma_*}}.
\end{equation}
From this one can extract $\gamma_*$ by fitting the three free parameters of this fit, $A,am,\gamma_*$, in some intermediate range of eigenvalues $\Omega_{IR}<\Omega<\Omega_{UV}$, whilst maintaining the separation of scales on the lattice,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{a\sqrt{\mathrm{N}}} \ll m \ll \Omega_{IR} < \Omega < \Omega_{UV} \ll \frac{1}{a}.
\label{eq:scales}
\end{equation}
\section{Simulation Details}
Full details of the action and the implementation are given in Refs.~\cite{Gonzalez-Arroyo:2013bta,Gonzalez-Arroyo:2013proc}. Here we use 20-40 configurations for $b=0.35,0.36$ and $N=121,289$, each separated by 125 molecular dynamics updates. We measure the lowest 1000 eigenvalues on the N=121 configurations, and the lowest 2000 eigenvalues on the N=289 configurations. For $b=0.36$ we also do simulations with higher statistics for $N=16,25,49$, to investigate the $1/N$ corrections. We cannot do the same for $b=0.35$ because there is a strong coupling phase at small $b$, and the simulations at $b=0.35$ for smaller $N$ fall into this wrong phase.
Physical quantities in the twisted reduced model depend on $b$, $\kappa$, $N$ and $k$. In the large $N$ limit, reduction implies that the results should be independent of $k$ provided the center symmetry is not broken. According to Ref.~\cite{GonzalezArroyo:2010ss}, this demands that the limit has to be taken keeping $k/\sqrt{N}>1/9$ and $\tilde{\theta}=\bar{k}/\sqrt{N}>\tilde{\theta}_c$. The integer $\bar{k}$ is defined by the relation $\bar{k}k=1 \bmod \sqrt{N}$. The $1/N$ corrections are expected to depend slightly on $\tilde{\theta}$, so that extrapolations are better done keeping $\tilde{\theta}$ as constant as possible, which is not always easy to do for small $N$. Tab.~\ref{tab:k} shows the values
of $N$, $k$ and $\tilde{\theta}$ used in this work.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
& $N=16$ & $N=25$ & $N=49$ & $N=121$ & $N=289$ \\
\hline
$k$ & 1 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 5 \\
$\tilde\theta$ & 0.25 & 0.40 & 0.29 & 0.36 & 0.41 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Value of the flux $k$ used for each $N$, along with the corresponding value of $\tilde\theta = \bar k / \sqrt{N}$}
\label{tab:k}
\end{table}
\section{Results}
\subsection{Reduction}
For reduction to hold center symmetry must be preserved, which means that the modulus of the Polyakov loop must go to zero in the $N\rightarrow\infty$ limit. Fig.~\ref{fig:poly} shows the modulus squared of the Polyakov loop vs $1/N^2$, confirming that reduction holds in the large N limit.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7.0cm]{figs/poly_log.pdf}
\caption{Polyakov loop $\left|Tr[U]\right|^2$ vs $1/N^2$, showing that center symmetry is preserved, and thus that reduction holds, in the large N limit.}
\label{fig:poly}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Lowest Eigenvalue}
In twisted reduction the boundary conditions prohibit a zero momentum state, and for a trivial background gauge field and to leading order in $1/N$, the lowest eigenvalue scales as
\begin{equation}
(a\Omega_0)^2 = (am)^2 + (ap)^2,
\end{equation}
where $ap = 2\pi/L = 2\pi/\sqrt{N}$. It turns out this form also fits the non--perturbative data fairly well, with the substitution $(ap)^2=c/N$ where $c$ is a free fit parameter, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:msqvsN}. In the infinite--N limit the lowest eigenvalue corresponds to the parameter $am$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:fitIII}. The values for $am$ determined from Fig.~\ref{fig:msqvsN} in this way are shown in Tab.~\ref{tab:am}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
b & $\kappa$ & $(am)^2$\\
\hline
0.35 & 0.160 & 0.070(1)\\
0.36 & 0.160 & 0.040(1)
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{$(am)^2$ as determined from an extrapolation of the lowest eigenvalue in $1/N$. The quoted error is statistical only. There is an additional systematic error due to $\tilde{\theta}$ varying slightly with $N$.}
\label{tab:am}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7.0cm]{figs/msqvsN_b35.pdf}\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7.0cm]{figs/msqvsN_b36.pdf}
\caption{Lowest eigenvalue squared for $b=0.35$ (left), $b=0.36$ (right), $(a\Omega_0)^2$, vs $1/N$. The fitting form used is $(a\Omega_0)^2 = (am)^2 + c/N$.}
\label{fig:msqvsN}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Eigenvalue Spectrum}
Fig.~\ref{fig:histogram} shows a histogram of the number of eigenvalues as a function of $(a\Omega)^2$, for $b=0.35,0.36$, $\kappa=0.160$. Comparing different values of N, we see agreement between N=289 and N=121 in all but the first two bins. For N=49, for $(a\Omega)^2 \lesssim 0.4$ the behaviour is qualitatively different, but for higher eigenvalues we again see agreement with larger values of N. For N=25 and N=16 there is no agreement, except possibly at the largest eigenvalues shown, and there is also a clear oscillation, or clumping of the eigenvalues, which is a finite N effect.
The main point is that, even if low eigenvalues are affected by finite volume effects, for sufficiently large eigenvalues the eigenvalue density should agree between different N. The mode number, which is the integral of this density, will differ by some constant term due to the difference in the contribution from the small eigenvalues. However, a fit to Eq.~(\ref{eq:fitIII}) in the region where the densities agree should still give consistent values for $A$, $am$ and $\gamma$. Based on this observation we choose to use $\kappa=0.160$ for the mode number fits, as it is the lightest mass for which we have data at $N=289$, and after excluding the lowest eigenvalues finite volume effects for the mode number are under control.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7cm]{figs/histogram_b35.pdf}\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7cm]{figs/histogram_b36.pdf}
\caption{Eigenvalue spectrum histogram for $b=0.35$ (left), $b=0.36$ (right), $\kappa=0.16$, for various $N$. For the smaller values of $N$ there is a region of small eigenvalues that is clearly dominated by finite--N effects, but as N is increased this region is pushed to lower eigenvalues, and above this region there is agreement between different values of N.}
\label{fig:histogram}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Mode number fit}
Fig.~\ref{fig:fit} shows a fit to Eq.~\ref{eq:fitIII}, with $am$ fixed to the values determined in Tab.~\protect\ref{tab:am}, in the range $0.12 < (a\Omega)^2 < 0.40$. The lower bound is chosen to exclude the region of low eigenvalues which suffer from finite volume effects, and the upper bound is chosen to use all the available eigenvalues for $N=289$. The resulting values for $\gamma_*$ are shown in Tab.~\ref{tab:gamma}.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
b & $\kappa$ & $N$ & $\gamma_*$\\
\hline
0.35 & 0.160 & 289 & 0.262(2)\\
& & 121 & 0.274(5)\\
\hline
0.36 & 0.160 & 289 & 0.222(2)\\
& & 121 & 0.244(10)
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{$\gamma_*$ as determined from a fit to the mode number in the range $0.12 < (a\Omega)^2 < 0.40$. The error is only statistical, and does not include the systematic uncertainty due to the choice of range in which to fit.}
\label{tab:gamma}
\end{table}
In order to investigate the dependence of these results on the chosen fit range, Fig.~\ref{fig:fit_2param} shows the value of $\gamma_*$ found for many different fit ranges. In this plot the x error bar shows the fit range, the y error bar shows the statistical error. By taking a much smaller fit range, the statistical errors increase, but for all the fit ranges $\gamma_*$ is broadly consistent with the determination using a wide fit range, and there is no sign of it becoming systematically smaller or larger as we go to larger eigenvalues.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7.0cm]{figs/modefit_b35.pdf}\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7.0cm]{figs/modefit_b36.pdf}
\caption{Mode number fit for $b=0.35$ (left) and $b=0.36$ (right), $\kappa=0.160$, $N=121$ and $N=289$ in the range $0.12 < (a\Omega)^2 < 0.40$.}
\label{fig:fit}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7.0cm]{figs/gamma_b35.pdf}\includegraphics[angle=270,width=7.0cm]{figs/gamma_b36.pdf}
\caption{Fitted values for $\gamma_*$ for $b=0.35,0.36$, $\kappa=0.160$, $N=121$ and $N=289$, determined from fits to Eq.~\protect\ref{eq:fitIII}, with $am$ fixed to the values determined in Tab.~\protect\ref{tab:am}. The x error bar shows the fit range, the y error bar shows the statistical error. As there is little apparent dependence on the fit range or $b$, we average over all the $N=289$ data to determine a single value of $\gamma_*=0.267(10)$, shown as the dotted line.}
\label{fig:fit_2param}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We simulated the SU(N) gauge theory with two adjoint fermions on a single site lattice using twisted reduction, and from a fit to the mode number of the Dirac operator find $\gamma_*=0.267(10)$. We use two values of the bare coupling, $b=0.35,0.36$, and two values of $N=121,289$. We see agreement between the two bare couplings and values of $N$, and little dependence on the chosen fit range, all of which is consistent with being close to the IRFP.
There is of course no guarantee that we are sufficiently close to the IRFP (i.e. that we have a sufficiently large enough volume and a small enough mass) such that what we measure is actually $\gamma_*$ at the IRFP. It would be interesting to investigate how $\gamma$ changes for a range of values of $b$. We are prevented from going to stronger coupling by the strong coupling phase transition, so investigating larger physical volumes and smaller masses will require larger values of $N$, or possibly using a $2^4$ lattice instead of a single site.
|
\section{Introduction}
A function $\mathfrak{A} \colon \bigcup_{n=1}^{\infty} I^n \rightarrow I$ is a
\emph{Mean} ($I$ -- an interval) if
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]$\mathfrak{A}$ is non-decreasing with respect to each variable,
\item[(ii)]$\mathfrak{A}(\underbrace{a,\ldots,a}_{n})=a$ for any $a \in I$ and $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
\end{itemize}
In 2004 P\'ales and Persson, \cite{PaPe04}, proposed the following definition for a mean to be \emph{Hardy}:
Let $I \subset \mathbb{R}_{+}$ be an interval, $\inf I=0$. A mean $\mathfrak{A}$ defined on an interval $I$ is \emph{Hardy} if there exists a constant $C$ such that for any $a \in l^1(I)$
$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \mathfrak{A}(a_1,\ldots,a_n)<C\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n.$$
In fact, such a definition had been felt in the air since the year 1920 when it was proved that the power mean
$$\srpot{\lambda}(a_1,\ldots,a_n):=
\begin{cases}
\min(a_1,\ldots,a_n) & \textrm{if\ } \lambda = - \infty\,,\\
\Big(\frac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n} a_k^\lambda\Big)^{1/\lambda} & \textrm{if\ } \lambda \ne 0\,,\\
\Big(\prod_{k=1}^{n} a_k\Big)^{1/n} & \textrm{if\ } \lambda = 0\,,\\
\max(a_1,\ldots,a_n) & \textrm{if\ } \lambda = + \infty
\end{cases}$$
($I=\mathbb{R}_{+}$) was Hardy if and only if $\lambda<1$ (cf. \cite{Hardy20}).
During the last hundred years many results where obtained in the field of Hardy Means. The reader may find them in catching surveys \cite{PS,DMcG,OP}, and in a recent book \cite{KMP}. In the present paper we are going to give a necessary condition for a mean to be Hardy. Namely we are going to prove the following
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main}
Let $\mathfrak{A}$ be a mean defined on an interval $I$, $(a_n)$ be a sequence of positive numbers in $I$ satisfying $\sum a_n = + \infty$ and \,$\lim a_n=0$.
If\, $\lim a_n^{-1} \mathfrak{A}(a_1,\ldots a_n) = \infty$ then $\mathfrak{A}$ is not Hardy.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let us suppose conversely that $\mathfrak{A}$ is a Hardy mean with a constant $C>0$.
Let us fix $n_0$ and $n_1>n_0$ such that
\begin{align}
a_n^{-1} \mathfrak{A}(a_1,\ldots a_n) &> 2\,C \textrm{ for any }n>n_0, \nonumber \\
\sum_{i=n_0+1}^{n_1-1} a_n &>\sum_{i=1}^{n_0} a_n. \nonumber
\end{align}
Let $b_n=\begin{cases} a_n &\textrm{, for }n\le n_1, \\ a_{n_1}2^{-n} &\textrm{, for }n> n_1\end{cases}.$
The sequence $(b_n) \in l^1(I)$ will give a contradiction. Indeed,
\begin{align}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \mathfrak{A}(b_1,\ldots,b_n) &> \sum_{n=n_0+1}^{n_1} \mathfrak{A}(b_1,\ldots,b_n) \nonumber \\
&\ge \sum_{n=n_0+1}^{n_1} 2\,C a_n \nonumber \\
&= C \left( \sum_{n=n_0+1}^{n_1-1} a_n + a_{n_1} + \sum_{n=n_0+1}^{n_1} a_n \right) \nonumber \\
&> C \left( \sum_{n=1}^{n_0} a_n + \sum_{n=n_1+1}^{\infty} b_n + \sum_{n=n_0+1}^{n_1} a_n \right) \nonumber \\
&= C \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} b_n. \nonumber
\end{align}
\end{proof}
\section{Applications}
In a moment we are going to present applications of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} to two fairly famous families of means.
In both cases necessary and sufficient conditions will be presented. The relevant proofs will be postponed till the next section.
\subsection{Gaussian Product}
Power means were generalized in different ways by many authors (cf., e.g., \cite[chap. III-VI]{bullen} for details).
In particular, in 1947, Gustin \cite{Gustin47} proposed an extension of an earlier Gauss' concept \cite[pp. 361--403]{Gauss}.
Namely, let $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_p) \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $v$ be an all-positive-components vector. One defines a sequence
\begin{align}
v^{(0)}&=v, \nonumber \\
v^{(i+1)}&=\left(\srpot{\lambda_1}(v^{(i)}),\srpot{\lambda_2}(v^{(i)}),\ldots,\srpot{\lambda_p}(v^{(i)})\right). \nonumber
\end{align}
Then it is known that the limit $\lim_{i \rightarrow \infty} \srpot{\lambda_k}(v^{(i)})$ exists and does not depend on $k$.
This common limit is denoted by $\srpot{\lambda_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \srpot{\lambda_p}$.
Because of various Gauss' results on $\srpot{1} \otimes \srpot{0}$, such means are called Gaussian Means (or, more descriptively, the Gaussian product of Power Means).
We are going to give a necessary and sufficient condition for Gaussian Means to be Hardy. More precisely we are going to prove
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:gaussian}
Let $p \in \mathbb{N}$ and $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}^p$.
,Then $\srpot{\lambda_0}\otimes \srpot{\lambda_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \srpot{\lambda_p}$ is Hardy if and only if\,$\max(\lambda_0,\ldots,\lambda_p)<1$.
\end{thm}
\subsection{Gini Means}
Let $\mathfrak{G}_{p,q}(a_1,\ldots,a_n):=\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n a_i^p}{\sum_{i=1}^n a_i^q}\right)^{1/(p-q)}$(cf. \cite{Gini} and \cite[p. 248]{bullen}).
In 2004 P\'ales and Persson proved the following
\begin{prop}[\cite{PaPe04},Theorem 2]
\label{prop:PaPe04Thm2}
Let $p,q \in \mathbb{R}$. If $\mathfrak{G}_{p,q}$ is a Hardy mean, then
$$\min(p,q) \le 0 \textrm{ and } \max(p,q) \le 1.$$
Conversely, if
$$\min(p,q) \le 0 \textrm{ and } \max(p,q) < 1.$$
then $\mathfrak{G}_{p,q}$ is a Hardy mean.
\end{prop}
They also put forward a conjecture \cite[Open Problem 3.]{PaPe04} that the sufficient condition in proposition above is also a necessary one. We will justify this conjecture. Namely, we will prove the following
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:gini}
Let $p,q \in \mathbb{R}$. Then $\mathfrak{G}_{p,q}$ is a Hardy mean if and only if $\min(p,q)\le0$ and $\max(p,q)<1$ .
\end{thm}
\section{Proofs of Theorem~\ref{thm:gaussian} and Theorem~\ref{thm:gini}}
In both proofs used will the elementary estimations
\begin{align}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} i^k &\le n^{k+1} \quad \textrm{ for any } n \in \mathbb{N}, \label{eq:nk}\\
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \tfrac{1}{i} &\ge \ln n \quad \textrm{ for any } n \in \mathbb{N}. \label{eq:n-1}
\end{align}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:gaussian}}
Before we begin the proof, let us note that if $\lambda_i\le \lambda_i'$ for every $i=0,1,2,\ldots,p$, then
\begin{equation}
\srpot{\lambda_0}\otimes \srpot{\lambda_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \srpot{\lambda_p} \le \srpot{\lambda_0'}\otimes \srpot{\lambda_1'} \otimes \cdots \otimes \srpot{\lambda_p'}. \label{eq:majotimes}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the $(\Leftarrow)$ part is simply implied by the fact that
the mean $\srpot{\lambda_0}\otimes \srpot{\lambda_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes \srpot{\lambda_p}$ is
majorized by a Hardy mean $\srpot{\max(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_p)}$, so it is Hardy too (recall that
$\max(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_p)<1$).
Now we are going to prove the $(\Rightarrow)$ implication. One may assume that $i \mapsto \lambda_i$ is non-increasing.
Moreover, by \eqref{eq:majotimes}, having $\lambda_0\ge 1$ we estimate from below: $\lambda_0$ by $1$ and $\lambda_1,\,\lambda_2,\ldots,\,\lambda_p$ by $-\lambda$ for certain $\lambda>0$ and we are going to prove that
$$\mathfrak{A}:=\srpot{1}\otimes \underbrace{\srpot{-\lambda} \otimes \cdots \otimes \srpot{-\lambda}}_p$$
is not Hardy.
To this end, let us consider a two variable function $F(a,b):=\mathfrak{A}(a,\underbrace{b,\ldots,b}_{p})$ and fix $\theta>1$.
Then, for $a>\theta b$,
\begin{align}
F(a,b)&=
\mathfrak{A}\Bigg(\frac{a+pb}{p+1},\underbrace{\left( \frac{p+1}{a^{-\lambda}+pb^{-\lambda}}\right)^{1/\lambda},\ldots,\left( \frac{p+1}{a^{-\lambda}+pb^{-\lambda}}\right)^{1/\lambda}}_{p} \Bigg)\nonumber \\
&\ge \mathfrak{A}\Bigg(\tfrac{1}{p+1}a,\underbrace{\left( \frac{p+1}{(\theta b)^{-\lambda}+pb^{-\lambda}}\right)^{1/\lambda},\ldots,\left( \frac{p+1}{(\theta b)^{-\lambda}+pb^{-\lambda}}\right)^{1/\lambda}}_{p} \Bigg)\nonumber \\
&= \mathfrak{A}\Bigg(\tfrac{1}{p+1}a,\underbrace{\left( \frac{p+1}{\theta^{-\lambda}+p}\right)^{1/\lambda}b,\ldots,\left( \frac{p+1}{\theta^{-\lambda}+p}\right)^{1/\lambda}b}_{p}\Bigg) \nonumber \\
&= F\Bigg(\tfrac{1}{p+1}a,\left( \frac{p+1}{\theta^{-\lambda}+p}\right)^{1/\lambda}b\Bigg) \label{eq:FpropB}
\end{align}
Introduce two more mappings
\begin{align}
\tau \colon (a,b) &\mapsto \left(\tfrac{1}{p+1}a,\left( \frac{p+1}{\theta^{-\lambda}+p}\right)^{1/\lambda}b\right), \nonumber \\
G \colon (a,b) &\mapsto \left( a^{\log_{p+1} \left( \tfrac{p+1}{\theta^{-\lambda}+p} \right)} b ^\lambda \right) ^{1/\left(\lambda+\log_{p+1} \left( \tfrac{p+1}{\theta^{-\lambda}+p} \right) \right)}. \nonumber
\end{align}
With this notations there clearly hold
\begin{itemize}
\item $G(a,b) \in (\min(a,b),\max(a,b))$,
\item $F(a,b) \in (\min(a,b),\max(a,b))$,
\item $ G \circ \tau(a,b) =G(a,b)$,
\item $F$, $G$ and $\tau$ are homogeneous.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, inequality \eqref{eq:FpropB} assumes now a compact form
$$ F \circ \tau(a,b) \le F(a,b) \textrm{, for } a>\theta b.$$
We will prove that
\begin{equation}
F(a,b) > \tfrac{1}{\theta(p+1)}G(a,b) \textrm{ for any }a>b. \label{eq:F>G}
\end{equation}
The case when $\tfrac{a}{b}<\theta(p+1)$ is simply implied by first and second property.
Otherwise, let $a_0=a$, $a_0=b$, $(a_{i+1},b_{i+1})=\tau(a_i,b_i)$. By the definition of $\tau$, $a_n \rightarrow 0$ and $b_n \rightarrow +\infty$. Denote by $N$ the smallest natural number such that $a_N\le \theta b_N$.
Obviously $a_{N-1}>\theta b_{N-1}$, thus
\begin{align}
a_N = \tfrac{1}{p+1} a_{N-1}&>\tfrac{\theta}{p+1} b_{N-1}=\tfrac{\theta}{p+1} \left( \frac{\theta^{-\lambda}+p}{p+1} \right)^{1/\lambda} b_N \nonumber \\
&>\tfrac{\theta}{p+1} \left( \frac{\theta^{-\lambda}+\theta^{-\lambda}p}{p+1} \right)^{1/\lambda} b_N = \tfrac{1}{p+1} b_N. \nonumber
\end{align}
Hence
\begin{align}
F(a,b)&=F(a_0,b_0) \ge F\circ \tau^N (a_0,b_0)
= F(a_N,b_N)
\ge \min(a_N,b_N) \nonumber \\
&> \tfrac{1}{\theta}a_N
\ge \tfrac{1}{\theta (p+1)} \max(a_N,b_N)
\ge \tfrac{1}{\theta (p+1)} G(a_N,b_N) \nonumber \\
&=\tfrac{1}{\theta (p+1)} G \circ \tau^N(a_0,b_0)
=\tfrac{1}{\theta (p+1)} G(a_0,b_0)=\tfrac{1}{\theta (p+1)} G(a,b). \nonumber
\end{align}
Lastly, using: -the fact that the mean $\mathfrak{A}$ is greater then its minimal argument, -homogeneity of $F$, -inequality \eqref{eq:n-1}, -inequality \eqref{eq:F>G}, one obtains
\begin{align}
(\tfrac1n)^{-1} \mathfrak{A}(1,\tfrac12,\tfrac13,\ldots,\tfrac1n)
&= n F(\srpot{1}(1,\tfrac12,\tfrac13,\ldots,\tfrac1n),\srpot{-\lambda}(1,\tfrac12,\tfrac13,\ldots,\tfrac1n)) \nonumber \\
&\ge n F\left(\frac{\ln n}{n},\frac1n\right)=F(\ln n,1)
\ge \tfrac1{\theta(p+1)} G(\ln n,1) \nonumber \\
&\ge \tfrac1{\theta(p+1)} (\ln n)^{\frac{\log_{p+1} \left( \tfrac{p+1}{\theta ^{-\lambda}+p} \right) }{\lambda+\log_{p+1} \left( \tfrac{p+1}{\theta^{-\lambda}+p} \right)}}. \nonumber
\end{align}
But, for any $\theta >1$ and $\lambda>0$, the right-most term tends to infinity when $n \rightarrow \infty$. So, by Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, $\mathfrak{A}$ is not Hardy.
\begin{xrem} Often the right-most term tends to infinity very slowly. For example ($\lambda=5$ and $p=3$) one obtains ($\theta=\tfrac{3}{2}$)
$$(\tfrac1n)^{-1} \srpot{1}\otimes \srpot{-5}\otimes \srpot{-5}\otimes \srpot{-5}(1,\tfrac12,\tfrac13,\ldots,\tfrac1n) > \tfrac16 (\ln n)^{0.0341}.$$
In particular it implies that the left hand side is greater than $1$ (a trivial estimation) for $n>10^{2.86\cdot 10^{22}}$.
\end{xrem}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:gini}}
The $(\Leftarrow)$ implication is implied by Proposition~\ref{prop:PaPe04Thm2}.
Working towards $(\Rightarrow)$ implication, let us assume that $\max(p,q)\ge 1$. We will prove that $\mathfrak{G}_{p,q}$ in not Hardy.
We know that if $p\le p'$ and $q\le q'$ then $\mathfrak{G}_{p,q} \le \mathfrak{G}_{p',q'}$ (cf. \cite[pp.249--250]{bullen}).
Moreover, $\mathfrak{G}_{p,q}=\mathfrak{G}_{q,p}$, hence
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{G}_{p,q} \ge \mathfrak{G}_{1,-k}\textrm{ for some }k \in \mathbb{N}. \label{eq:majorGini}
\end{equation}
From now on we assume that $p=1$ and $q=-k$ for some $k \in \mathbb{N}$.
Upon taking the sequence $a_i=\tfrac{1}{i}$, by \eqref{eq:nk} and \eqref{eq:n-1}, one obtains
$$a_n^{-1}\mathfrak{G}_{1,-k}(a_1,\ldots,a_n)
=n \left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n \tfrac{1}{i}}{\sum_{i=1}^n i^k}\right)^{1/(k+1)}
\ge n\left(\frac{\ln n}{n^{k+1}}\right)^{1/(k+1)}=(\ln n)^{1/(k+1)}.$$
But $(\ln n)^{1/(k+1)} \rightarrow +\infty$ so, by Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, the Gini mean $\mathfrak{G}_{1,-k}$ is Hardy for no $k \in \mathbb{N}$. Hence, by~\eqref{eq:majorGini}, $\max(p,q) \ge1$ implies $\mathfrak{G}_{p,q}$ not being Hardy.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\label{sec:intro}
\vspace*{0.2cm}
Distributed compressed sensing (DCS) has recently attracted great interest as an efficient technique for acquiring data in a distributed fashion \cite{UniversalProjectionsDCS,distributedCS,DCS_InfoTheory}. DCS relies on the theory of compressed sensing (CS) to reduce the dimensionality of the signal acquired by each node of the distributed network, supposed to be sparse under some basis, by means of random projections. On the other hand, it also exploits the inter-correlation among the different signals in the ensemble to lower the number of measurements that each node needs to acquire, without requiring cooperation among nodes. Sensor networks represent the foremost application that can benefit from this technique because of their need of simple signal representations while meeting strict low complexity constraints (\emph{e.g.}, see \cite{NowakSensor}).
A joint reconstruction algorithm can outperform separate recovery of the sensors' signals exploiting the correlation among them. Joint sparsity models have been proposed to account for sparsity patterns appearing in an ensemble of signals, e.g. signals acquired by nodes of a sensor network. According to the correlation model different algorithms have been proposed, such as the \emph{Texas Hold 'Em} \cite{texas}, and the \emph{Sort} and \emph{Intersect} algorithms \cite{Coluccia} for the JSM-1 model, in which signals are composed of a sparse common component plus a sparse innovation component. Concerning other models, we can find the DCS-SOMP \cite{distributedCS} method for JSM-2 (common sparse supports) and the TECC and ACIE algorithms for JSM-3 \cite{distributedCS} (nonsparse common component, sparse innovations).
This paper proposes two novel joint reconstruction algorithms. The algorithms are based on the idea of using one signal in the ensemble as side information. This allows to devise recovery schemes that attempt to reconstruct the difference between a signal and the side information, rather than an individual signal. In particular, we show that the proposed algorithms obtain lower reconstruction error with respect to other existing algorithms \cite{texas}\cite{Coluccia}, and minimize the number of measurements that have to be collected by each node.
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\section{BACKGROUND}
\label{sec:bkg}
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\subsection{Compressed sensing}
Compressed sensing is a novel theory for signal sampling and acquisition \cite{CandesIntro,CS_donoho}. It is able to acquire signals in an already compressed fashion, i.e., using fewer coefficients than is dictated by the classical Nyquist-Shannon theory. Let us consider a signal $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n$, having a sparse representation under basis $\Psi \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$:
$\mathbf{x} = \Psi\boldsymbol{\theta} \hspace{0.2cm} \mathrm{with} \hspace{0.2cm} \left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta} \right\Vert_0 = k \ll n$, being $\left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta} \right\Vert_0$ the $l_0$ norm of $\boldsymbol{\theta}$, \emph{i.e.}, the number of its nonzero entries.
We acquire measurements as a vector of random projections $\mathbf{y} = \Phi\mathbf{x} = \Phi\Psi\boldsymbol{\theta}$, $\mathbf{y} \in \mathbb{R}^m$, using a sensing matrix $\Phi \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$.
The best way to recover the original signal from its measurements is by solving an optimization problem trying to minimize the $l_0$ norm of the signal in the sparsity domain.
However, this problem is computationally intractable due to its NP-hard complexity, so it is common to consider a relaxed form using the $l_1$ norm, which can be solved by means of linear programming techniques:
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}} = \arg \underset{\boldsymbol{\theta}}{\text{min}} \left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta} \right\Vert_1 \hspace{.2cm} \text{subject to} \hspace{.2cm} \mathbf{y} = \Phi\Psi\boldsymbol{\theta} .
\end{equation*}
This method is equivalent to $l_0$ norm minimization provided that the sensing matrix satisfies the Restricted Isometry Property (RIP) with constant $\delta_{2k}<\sqrt{2}-1$ \cite{CandesRIP}. The number of measurements to be acquired is typically $m = O\left( k\log \frac{n}{k} \right)$. A quadratically-constrained variant of the previous optimization problem is often used when dealing with noise with norm bounded by $\varepsilon$ affecting the measurements:
\begin{align}
\label{BPDN}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}} = \arg \underset{\boldsymbol{\theta}}{\text{min}} \left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta} \right\Vert_1 \hspace{.2cm} \text{subject to} \hspace{.2cm} \left\Vert \Phi\Psi\boldsymbol{\theta} -\mathbf{y} \right\Vert_2 \leq \varepsilon .
\end{align}
\vspace*{0.1cm}
\subsection{Distributed compressed sensing}
\vspace*{0.1cm}
\label{sec:dcs}
In a distributed scenario, an ensemble of signals with both intra- and inter-sensor correlations is considered. The notion of joint sparsity has been introduced in \cite{distributedCS} for the framework of DCS. Among the joint sparsity models discussed in \cite{distributedCS}, we focus on the JSM-1 and JSM-3 models, according to which the $J$ signals in the ensemble have sparse innovation components and sparse or nonsparse common component, respectively.
\begin{equation*}
\boldsymbol{\theta}_j = \boldsymbol{\theta}_C + \boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j} \hspace{.2cm} \forall j \in \left[1,J\right]
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
\left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta}_C \right\Vert_0 = k_C \hspace{.2cm} \text{and} \hspace{.2cm} \left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j} \right\Vert_0 = k_{I,j} \hspace{.2cm} \forall j \in \left[1,J\right]
\end{equation*}
A joint reconstruction algorithm can leverage the structure of the joint sparsity model to improve performance, namely to achieve higher quality for the same number of measurements or decrease the number of measurements needed to achieve the same quality.
Some of the existing joint reconstruction algorithms for the JSM-1 model include the \emph{weighted} $l_1$ \emph{minimization} proposed in \cite{distributedCS}, which requires numerical optimization of the weights, the \emph{Texas Hold 'Em} \cite{texas} and the \emph{Sort} and \emph{Intersect} algorithms \cite{Coluccia}. \emph{Texas Hold 'Em} averages a subset of the measurements of all the sensors to estimate the common component, which is then subtracted from the measurements to recover the innovations. \emph{Sort} and \emph{Intersect} also estimate the common component, in a nonlinear way. In particular, in \emph{Sort} the coefficients of a first estimate of the signal are sorted by decreasing magnitude and compared to ones of the side information to decide which positions belong to the common support, while in \emph{Intersect} the supports of a first estimate of the signal and of the side information are intersected to find the support of the common component.
As far as the JSM-3 model is concerned, the common component is not sparse, hence a joint recovery algorithm must be used in order to acquire fewer than $n$ measurements per signal. The Transpose Estimation of Common Component (TECC) algorithm described in \cite{distributedCS} estimates the common component by stacking all the measurements from all nodes in a single problem and then recover the innovations alone by cancelling the measurements of the estimated common component. A key requirement for TECC to work is having different sensing matrices $\Phi_j$ so that, when stacked, they span the whole $\mathbb{R}^n$. The Alternating Common and Innovation Estimation (ACIE) algorithm \cite{distributedCS} is an improvement over TECC, based on an iterative scheme that alternates improvements on the estimate of the common component with improvements in the estimate of the innovations, at the expense of a great computational complexity. As in TECC, each node must have a different sensing matrix in order to work properly. This is different from the scenario we are considering, in which all nodes use the same sensing matrix.
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\section{PROPOSED ALGORITHMS}
\label{proposed}
\vspace*{0.2cm}
The proposed algorithms focus on the JSM-1 and JSM-3 models discussed in section \ref{sec:dcs}. We also suppose that side information is available at the decoder in the form of perfect knowledge of one of the signals. From now on we suppose, without loss of generality, that the known signal is $\mathbf{x}_1$. From a practical perspective, the requirement of side information is not a limitation; under the JSM-1 model the SI signal is sparse, so we can acquire $m_1<n$ measurements, with $m_1$ large enough to get the desired accuracy. Under the JSM-3 model the SI signal is not sparse and has to be acquired uncompressed or compressed using a standard technique. However, as the number of nodes increases, the overhead due to side information becomes negligible. The savings in the number of measurements to be acquired by the other nodes outweigh the small overhead due to the acquisition of side information, thus making the framework interesting even for the JSM-3 model, where the SI signal is not compressed.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{minipage}[b]{.48\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{Diff.pdf}}
\centerline{(a) \emph{DOI} algorithm}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.48\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{TexasDiff.pdf}}
\centerline{(b) \emph{Texas DOI} algorithm}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\caption{Joint reconstruction algorithms}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\label{alg_schem}
\end{figure*}
\vspace*{0.1cm}
\subsection{Difference-Of-Innovations (DOI) algorithm}
\vspace*{0.1cm}
\begin{algorithm}
\label{diff_algo}
\caption{\emph{DOI} algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Require $A=\Phi\Psi$
\For {$j$ in $2:J$}
\State Compute $\mathbf{y}_{\text{diff,$j$}}=\mathbf{y}_j-\mathbf{y}_1$
\State Recover $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\text{diff,$j$}}$ from $\mathbf{y}_{\text{diff,$j$}}$
\State $\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j=\boldsymbol{\theta}_1 + \boldsymbol{\theta}_{\text{diff,$j$}}$
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The underlying idea of this first algorithm is to exploit side information to eliminate the need to recover the common component. Figure \ref{alg_schem}(a) presents a schematic representation of the algorithm, also outlined in Alg.1. Proceeding pairwise by using the side information and each of the $J$ signals in the ensemble, it is possible to compute the difference between the measurements of the side information and those of signal $j$. This removes exactly any component that is common to the two signals, so we are left with measurements of the difference of the innovation components. It is then possible to recover the difference signal from these measurements using any recovery procedure such as $l_1$ minimization. Once the difference signal is recovered, it is then sufficient to add the side information to fully recover signal $j$. It is interesting to notice that, unlike \cite{texas}, this algorithm does not introduce any error due to an inexact estimation of the common component. However, the difference signal is, in general, less sparse than the individual innovation component, so we can expect performance gains only when innovations are significantly sparser than the common component. In particular, as a rule of thumb, we expect gains for $k_C \geq 2k_{I,j}$. This condition is easily satisfied for highly correlated ensembles where there is a dominant common component and much sparser innovations.
Also note that the \emph{DOI} algorithm can be readily implemented in a parallel manner since any recovery only involves the side information and the measurements of the signal to be recovered.
\vspace*{0.1cm}
\subsection{Performance bound}
\vspace*{0.1cm}
\label{diff_pb}
In this section we evaluate a bound to the reconstruction error of the \emph{DOI} algorithm. In particular, it can be shown that:
\begin{align}
\left\Vert \hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{j}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_{j}\right\Vert_2
& = \left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,1}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j}+\boldsymbol{\theta}_{\text{diff,$j$}}\right\Vert_2 \notag \\
& = \left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta}_{\text{diff,$j$}}-\left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,1}\right)\right\Vert_2 \leq C\varepsilon
\end{align}
where $\varepsilon = \left\Vert \mathbf{y}_\text{diff,$j$} - \Phi\left(\mathbf{x}_{I,1} - \mathbf{x}_{I,j} \right)\right\Vert_2$ is the norm of the noise affecting the measurements of the difference signal and $C$ is a constant that depends on the method used for reconstruction and on the RIP constant of the sensing matrix. When there is no quantization, or other sources of noise, we have $\varepsilon=0$ and, provided that there are enough measurements available, reconstruction is perfect. This means that the \emph{DOI} algorithm can achieve perfect reconstruction, unlike \cite{texas} which is limited by the residual noise in the averaging procedure.
\vspace*{0.1cm}
\subsection{\emph{Texas DOI} algorithm}
\vspace*{0.1cm}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{\emph{Texas DOI} algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Require $J$,$A=\Phi\Psi$, $k_I$
\State $\hat{\mathbf{y}}_C = \frac{1}{J}\underset{j=1}{\overset{J}{\sum}}\mathbf{y}_{j} $
\State $\hat{\mathbf{y}}_{I,1} = \mathbf{y}_1 - \hat{\mathbf{y}}_C$
\State Recover $\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,1}$ from $\hat{\mathbf{y}}_{I,1}$
\For {$j$ in $2:J$}
\State $\mathbf{y}_{\text{diff,$j$}} = \mathbf{y}_j - \mathbf{y}_1$
\State $\hat{\mathbf{y}}_{I,j} = \mathbf{y}_{\text{diff,$j$}} + \hat{\mathbf{y}}_{I,1}$
\State Recover $\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,j}$ from $\hat{\mathbf{y}}_{I,j}$
\State $\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_j = \theta_1 - \hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,1} + \hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,j}$
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The second proposed algorithm, called \emph{Texas DOI}, attempts at overcoming the drawbacks of \emph{DOI} and \cite{texas}. Figure \ref{alg_schem}(b) presents a schematic representation of the algorithm, also outlined in Alg.2. Albeit it maintains the idea of \cite{texas} of averaging a fraction of the collected measurements, it avoids any explicit reconstruction of the common component, but rather employs the measurements of the common component, and combines this with the use of side information in a fashion similar to the \emph{DOI} algorithm. In particular, side information is used to get differences of innovation components, but the measurements of the innovation component of the side information ($y_{I,1}$) can be obtained subtracting the output of the averaging procedure from the original SI measurements. This allows to perform recovery on the innovation component of a single signal by removing $y_{I,1}$.
The algorithm can be implemented in a parallel manner if the averaging procedure and the recovery of $x_{I,1}$ are computed first. In fact all the remaining operations for the recovery of the signals only involve the available quantities related to the side information and the measurements of the signal to be recovered.
\vspace*{0.1cm}
\subsection{Performance bound}
\vspace*{0.1cm}
In this section we show a bound to the reconstruction error of the \emph{Texas DOI} algorithm, whose proof is reported in the appendix. In particular, it can be shown that:
\begin{align}
\label{pbTexasFinal}
\left\Vert \hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{j}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_{j}\right\Vert_2 \leq 2C\cdot\frac{\sqrt{1+\delta_k}}{\sqrt{J}}\eta ,
\end{align}
being $\delta_k$ the RIP constant of matrix $A=\Phi\Psi$, and $\left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j}\right\Vert_2 = \eta$ for all $j\in\left[1,J\right]$.
This analysis points out some interesting properties of the algorithm. Even if quantization or other sources of noise are not considered by the analysis, the algorithm is still affected by a certain reconstruction error, in the same way as \cite{texas}. This does not happen with \emph{DOI}, which we showed in section \ref{diff_pb} to be exact. Here, and in \cite{texas}, the limiting factor lies in the averaging procedure that imposes a floor on the reconstruction error, which cannot be overcome by adjustments on the rate. However, this error floor decreases as $\frac{1}{\sqrt{J}}$, so the performance of an ensemble with a large number of signals may indeed be limited by the quantization rate or other sources of noise rather than the averaging procedure.
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\section{EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS}
\vspace*{0.2cm}
We compared the two proposed algorithms with some of the existing joint reconstruction algorithms in the literature for the JSM-1 model such as \emph{Texas Hold 'Em}\cite{texas}, \emph{Intersection} and \emph{Sort}\cite{Coluccia}.
The simulations have been performed using a sensing matrix with i.i.d. zero-mean Gaussian entries with unit-norm columns and a JSM-1 ensemble of signals sparse in the identity basis. The amplitude of the nonzero entries of the signal is randomly generated according to a standard Gaussian distribution. Each measurement is quantized using $R$ bits. For the \emph{Texas Hold 'Em} algorithm all the measurements of each node are considered community measurements, thus contributing to the estimation of the common component. Figure \ref{err_vs_m} shows that the proposed algorithms achieve lower MSE when few measurements are available. \emph{Texas DOI} can achieve the best performance but is not able to improve when $m$ increases due to the error floor in \eqref{pbTexasFinal}. The \emph{DOI} algorithm leverages the side information to remove the common component, but the recovery step is performed on the difference of measurements of the innovation components, hence it is outperformed by \emph{Texas DOI} for low $m$. In fact, \emph{Texas DOI} is able to run the compressed sensing recovery procedures only for the individual innovation components, whereas \emph{DOI} has to recover the difference between two innovation signals, which is typically less sparse. When few measurements are available the algorithms in \cite{Coluccia} may have trouble in recovering the common component because they rely on an initial estimate of the unknown signals. Hence the greatest gains are achieved when a limited number of measurements is available. The \emph{Texas DOI} algorithm borrows ideas from both the \emph{Texas Hold 'Em} strategy and the \emph{DOI} procedure. \emph{Texas DOI} inherits the averaging procedure from \emph{Texas Hold 'Em}, which is very efficient when the number of nodes is large. However exploiting side information allows to improve over \emph{Texas Hold 'Em} when the signals are highly correlated and few measurements are available because \emph{Texas Hold 'Em} may have difficulties in recovering the common component. This allows each node to work closer to the minimum number of measurements needed by CS reconstruction for successful recovery.
It should be noted that \emph{Texas Hold 'Em} does not use side information. However, the overhead due to acquiring more measurements to recover the side information with the desired accuracy is negligible in our simulations. As an example, in the case of $J=100$, the side information can be recovered from $m_1 \cong 5k=125$ measurements quantized with rate $R_1 = 8$. This means that the total number of bits is $(J-1)mR+m_1R_1$ for \emph{DOI} and \emph{Texas DOI} and $Jm'R$ for \emph{Texas Hold 'Em}, with $m' > m$ in order to achieve $Jm'R=(J-1)mR+m_1R_1$. However, typically $m'-m < 1$, so no extra measurement has to be assigned to \emph{Texas Hold 'Em} to compensate for the overhead of SI, which is completely negligible.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}[t]{1.0\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{err_vs_m.pdf}}
\caption{JSM-1. Mean square error vs. number of measurements. $J=100$, $k_C=20$, $k_I=5$, $n=256$, $R=8bps$}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\label{err_vs_m}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
The algorithms have also been tested on the JSM-3 model of distributed compressed sensing and compared against the TECC algorithm presented in \cite{distributedCS}. As explained in section \ref{proposed} the proposed algorithms rely on the usage of the same sensing matrix for all nodes, while TECC requires different matrices. Figure \ref{jsm3} shows the MSE as a function of the number of measurements acquired by each node. The proposed algorithms are able to outperform TECC and confirm the behaviour presented for the JSM-1 model.
\vspace*{0.2cm}
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
\vspace*{0.2cm}
We proposed two novel joint reconstruction algorithms for the JSM-1 and JSM-3 models in distributed compressed sensing. Thanks to the use of side information, it is possible to devise methods that avoid the need to reconstruct the common component, thus allowing to deal with the case of a non-sparse common component in a straightforward manner. The algorithms provide performance gains over other existing techniques, especially when few measurements are available, thus allowing to decrease the number of measurements needed to achieve a target quality in the reconstruction or to improve quality for the same number of measurements.
\vspace*{-0.1cm}
\section{APPENDIX \\ Proof of the performance bound of \emph{Texas DOI}}
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\begin{align}
\label{pbTexas}
\left\Vert \hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{j}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_{j}\right\Vert_2 & = \left\Vert \left( \boldsymbol{\theta}_{1}-\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,1}+\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,j} \right)-\boldsymbol{\theta}_{j}\right\Vert_2 \notag \\
&=\left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,1}-\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,1}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j}+\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,j}\right\Vert_2 \notag \\
& = \left\Vert \left(\boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,1}-\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,1}\right)+\left(\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,j}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j}\right)\right\Vert_2 \notag \\
& \leq \left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,1}-\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,1}\right\Vert_2 +\left\Vert \hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,j}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j}\right\Vert_2
\end{align}
Let us analyse how the innovation components are recovered.
\begin{align*}
\hat{\mathbf{y}}_{I,1} &= \mathbf{y}_1 - \hat{\mathbf{y}}_C = \mathbf{y}_{I,1} - \frac{1}{J}\underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{\sum}}\mathbf{y}_{I,l}
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
\hat{\mathbf{y}}_{I,j} &= \mathbf{y}_j - \mathbf{y}_1 + \hat{\mathbf{y}}_{I,1} = \mathbf{y}_{I,j} - \frac{1}{J}\underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{\sum}}\mathbf{y}_{I,l}
\end{align*}
Let $\mathbf{n} = \frac{1}{J}\underset{l=1}{\overset{J}{\sum}}\mathbf{y}_{I,l}$ denote the error in the estimation of the common component, due to imperfect cancellation of the innovations. Hence, $\hat{\mathbf{y}}_{I,j} = A\boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j} -\mathbf{n}$ for $j\in\left[1,J\right]$. Suppose that we use a reconstruction procedure (e.g. BPDN \eqref{BPDN}) from noisy measurements that has a performance guarantee ensuring that the reconstruction error is proportional to the noise norm with a constant $C$ depending on the reconstruction method and on the RIP constant of $A$. Assuming that enough measurements have been acquired so that $A$ satisfies the RIP of order $k$ with constant $\delta_k$ with high probability, that $\left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j}\right\Vert_2 = \eta$ for all $j\in\left[1,J\right]$ and that the $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j}$'s are pairwise orthogonal (i.e. $\boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j}^T\boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,k} = 0$ for $j\neq k$), we can write:
\begin{align}
\left\Vert \hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,j}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j}\right\Vert_2 & \leq C\left\Vert \mathbf{n}\right\Vert_2 = C\left\Vert \frac{1}{J}\underset{j=1}{\overset{J}{\sum}}A \boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j}\right\Vert_2 \notag \\
& \leq C\frac{\sqrt{1+\delta_k}}{\sqrt{J}}\left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j}\right\Vert_2 =C\frac{\sqrt{1+\delta_k}}{\sqrt{J}}\eta
\end{align}
where $\delta_k$ is the RIP constant of matrix $A=\Phi\Psi$.
Finally, we can plug this result in \eqref{pbTexas} and we obtain:
\begin{align}
\left\Vert \hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{j}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_{j}\right\Vert_2 & \leq \left\Vert \boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,1}-\hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,1}\right\Vert_2 +\left\Vert \hat{\boldsymbol{\theta}}_{I,j}-\boldsymbol{\theta}_{I,j}\right\Vert_2 \notag \\
& \leq 2C\cdot\frac{\sqrt{1+\delta_k}}{\sqrt{J}}\eta
\end{align}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}[t]{1.0\linewidth}
\centering
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{jsm3.pdf}}
\caption{JSM-3. Mean square error vs. number of measurements. $J=100$, $k_I=20$, $n=256$, $R=8bps$}\medskip
\end{minipage}
\label{jsm3}
\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Motivation and overview}
We study the Hamilton-Jacobi equation
\begin{equation} \label{e.pde}
u^\varepsilon_t + \left( \left| Du^\varepsilon\right|^2 - 1 \right)^2 - V\!\left( \frac x\varepsilon \right) = 0 \quad \mbox{in} \ \mathbb{R}^d \times (0,\infty), \quad d \geq 1.
\end{equation}
The potential $V$ is assumed to be a bounded, stationary--ergodic random potential. We prove that, in the limit as the length scale $\varepsilon > 0$ of the correlations tends to zero, the solution $u^\varepsilon$ of~\eqref{e.pde}, subject to an appropriate initial condition, converges to the solution $u$ of the effective, deterministic equation
\begin{equation} \label{e.pdehom}
u_t + \overline H(Du) = 0 \quad \mbox{in} \ \mathbb{R}^d\times (0,\infty).
\end{equation}
The effective Hamiltonian $\overline H$ is, in general, a non-radial, nonconvex function whose graph inherits the basic ``mexican hat" shape of that of the spatially independent Hamiltonian $p\mapsto (|p|^2-1)^2$. As we will show, it typically has two ``flat spots" (regions in which it is constant), with one a neighborhood of the origin and at which $\overline H$ attains a local maximum and the other a neighborhood of $\{ |p| = 1\}$ and at which $\overline H$ attains its global minimum. See Figure~\ref{fig.effham1}.
\smallskip
Qualitative stochastic homogenization results for convex Hamilton-Jacobi equations were first obtained independently by~Rezakhanlou and Tarver~\cite{RT} and~Souganidis~\cite{S} and subsequent qualitative results were obtained by Lions and Souganidis~\cite{LS1,LS2,LS3}, Kosygina, Rezakhanlou and Varadhan~\cite{KRV}, Kosygina and Varadhan~\cite{KV}, Schwab~\cite{Sch}, Armstrong and Souganidis~\cite{AS1,AS2} and Armstrong and Tran~\cite{AT1}. Quantitative homogenization results were proved in Armstrong, Cardaliaguet and Souganidis~\cite{ACS} (see also Matic and Nolen~\cite{MN}).
\smallskip
In contrast to the periodic setting, in which nonconvex Hamiltonians are not more difficult to handle than convex Hamiltonians (c.f.~\cite{E2,LPV}), extending the results of~\cite{RT,S} to the nonconvex case has remained, until now, completely open (except for the quite modest extension to \emph{level-set convex} Hamiltonians~\cite{AS2} and the forthcoming work~\cite{CST}, which considers a first-order motion with a sign-changing velocity). The issue of whether convexity is necessary for homogenization in the random setting is mentioned prominently as an open problem for example in~\cite{Kosy,LS2,LS3}. As far as we know, in this paper we present the first stochastic homogenization result for a genuinely non-convex Hamilton-Jacobi equation.
\smallskip
A new proof of qualitative homogenization for convex Hamilton-Jacobi equations in random environments was introduced in~\cite{AS2}, based on comparison arguments which demonstrate that \emph{maximal subsolutions} of the equation (also called solutions of the \emph{metric problem}) control solutions of the \emph{approximate cell problem}. This new argument is applicable to merely level-set convex Hamiltonians and lead to the quantitative results of~\cite{AS2}, among other developments. Several of the comparison arguments we make in the proofs of Lemmas~\ref{l.below.+1}--\ref{l.above-hilltop}, below, which are at the core of the argument for our main result, rely on some of the ideas introduced in~\cite{AS2}. The metric problem was also used to obtain dynamical information in Davini and Siconolfi~\cite{DS1,DS2} and as the basis of numerical schemes for computing~$\overline H$ in Oberman,~Takei and Vladimirsky~\cite{OTV} and Luo, Yu and Zhao~\cite{LYZ}.
\begin{figure}
\label{fig.effham1}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[yscale=1.6,xscale = 2
\draw[<->] (-2,0) -- (3,0) node[right] {$p$};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,3) node[above] {};
\draw[black,dashed] plot [smooth] coordinates {(-1.635,2.8) (-1.6,2.434) (-1.52,1.717) (-1.44,1.153) (-1.36,0.722) (-1.28,0.408) (-1.2,0.194) (-1.12,0.065)(-1.04,0.007) (-1,0) (-0.96,0.006) (-0.88,0.051) (-0.8,0.13) (-0.72,0.232)(-0.64,0.349)(-0.56,0.471)(-0.48,0.592)(-0.4,0.706)(-0.32,0.806)(-0.24,0.888)(-0.16,0.949)(-0.08,0.987)(0,1)(0.08,0.987)(0.16,0.949)(0.24,0.888)(0.32,0.806)(0.4,0.706)(0.48,0.592)(0.56,0.471)(0.64,0.349)(0.72,0.232)(0.8,0.13)(0.88,0.051)(0.96,0.006)(1,0)(1.04,0.007)(1.12,0.065)(1.2,0.194)(1.28,0.408)(1.36,0.722)(1.44,1.153)(1.52,1.717)(1.6,2.434) (1.635,2.8)}node[right] {$h(p)=\left( |p|^2-1 \right)^2$};
\draw[black, very thick] (-0.3,0.6)--(0.3,0.6);
\draw[black, very thick] (-0.8,0)--(-1.3,0);
\draw[black, very thick] (0.8,0)--(1.3,0);
\draw[black, very thick] plot [smooth] coordinates { (0.3,0.6)
(0.31,0.599)(0.34,0.589)(0.38,0.559)(0.42,0.513)(0.48,0.423)(0.55,0.3)(0.6,0.211)(0.64,0.145)(0.68,0.087)(0.71,0.052)(0.74,0.024)(0.77,0.006)(0.79,0.001)(0.8,0) } ;
\draw[black, very thick] plot [smooth] coordinates { (-0.3,0.6)
(-0.31,0.599)(-0.34,0.589)(-0.38,0.559)(-0.42,0.513)(-0.48,0.423)(-0.55,0.3)(-0.6,0.211)(-0.64,0.145)(-0.68,0.087)(-0.71,0.052)(-0.74,0.024)(-0.77,0.006)(-0.79,0.001)(-0.8,0) } ;
\draw[black,very thick] plot [smooth] coordinates { (1.3,0) (1.31,0.001)
(1.33,0.008) (1.36,0.033) (1.4,0.094) (1.46,0.247) (1.54,0.577) (1.62,1.063) (1.7,1.722) (1.725,1.965)} node[right]{$\overline H(p)$};
\draw[black,very thick] plot [smooth] coordinates { (-1.3,0) (-1.31,0.001)
(-1.33,0.008) (-1.36,0.033) (-1.4,0.094) (-1.46,0.247) (-1.54,0.577) (-1.62,1.063) (-1.7,1.722) (-1.725,1.965)};
\draw[dotted] (-0.3,0.6)--(-0.3,-0.35);
\draw[dotted] (0.3,0.6)--(0.3,-0.35);
\draw[dotted] (0.8,0)--(0.8,-0.35);
\draw[dotted] (1.3,0)--(1.3,-0.35);
\draw (0,0) node[below]
{$K_1$};
\draw (0.55,0) node[below]
{$K_2$};
\draw (1.05,0) node[below]
{$K_3$};
\draw (1.55,0) node[below]
{$K_4$};
\draw[dotted] (0,1) -- (2.35,1);
\draw[dotted] (0,0.6) -- (2.35,0.6);
\draw[thick,|<->|] (2.35,1)--(2.35,0.6);
\draw (2.4,0.8) node[right] {$\sup V$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A cross section of the graph of $\overline H$, illustrated in the case $\inf V = 0$ and $\sup V = \frac25$. The difference $h(0) - (\overline H(0) - \inf V)$ is precisely $\max\{ 1, \sup V\}$. The regions $K_i$ are defined below in~\eqref{e.Ki}. While $\overline H$ is even, it is not radial, in general, unless for example the law of $V$ is invariant under rotations.}
\end{figure}
\smallskip
The proof of our main result is based on comparison arguments, in which we control the solution $v^\delta$ of the approximate cell problem
\begin{equation} \label{e.approxcellprob}
\delta v^\delta + \left( \left| p+Dv^\delta \right|^2 - 1 \right)^2 - V(y) = 0 \quad \mbox{in} \ \mathbb{R}^d
\end{equation}
by the maximal subsolutions of the following family of ``sub-equations"
\begin{equation} \label{e.subequation}
\left|Du\right|^2 = 1 + \sigma \sqrt{\mu + V(y) },
\end{equation}
where the real parameters $\mu$ and $\sigma$ range over $-\inf V \leq \mu < \infty$ and $\sigma \in [-1,1]$. Notice that~\eqref{e.subequation} for $\sigma = \pm 1$ can be formally derived from the \emph{metric problem} associated to~\eqref{e.pde}, which is roughly
\begin{equation} \label{e.metricproblem}
\left( \left| Du \right|^2 - 1 \right)^2 - V(y) = \mu,
\end{equation}
by taking the square root of~\eqref{e.metricproblem}. As it turns out that we must consider~\eqref{e.subequation} also for $-1<\sigma<1$, in order to ``connect" the branches of the square root function. The key insight is that, while the solutions of both~\eqref{e.subequation} and~\eqref{e.metricproblem} have a subadditive structure and thus deterministic limits by the ergodic theorem, there is more information contained in the former than the latter. Indeed, as we show, there is just enough information in~\eqref{e.subequation} to allow us to deduce that~\eqref{e.pde} homogenizes.
\smallskip
The method we introduce here is applicable to somewhat more general nonconvex equations than~\eqref{e.pde} and, in particular, applies to any equation of the form
\begin{equation} \label{e.moregen}
u_t^\varepsilon + \Phi\!\left(K\!\left(Du^\varepsilon\right) \right) - V\left( \frac x\varepsilon \right) = 0,
\end{equation}
where $\Phi:\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is continuous, $\Phi(s) \rightarrow +\infty$ as $s\to \infty$, the function $K:\mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$ is convex and $K(p) \rightarrow +\infty$ as $|p| \to \infty$. In dimension $d=1$, the geometry allows us to take $K(p) =p$ (even though this is not coercive) and we therefore get a general result for any coercive Hamiltonian which is the sum of a deterministic, coercive energy profile and a random potential. Our arguments do not require the dependence of the equation on the gradient variable to be radial or even. The reason we focus on~\eqref{e.pde} rather than~\eqref{e.moregen} is because all of the major difficulties are encountered in the analysis of the former, and that of the latter leads to more complicated notation and bookkeeping issues which distract from the main points. Since~\eqref{e.moregen} is far from a complete class of equations, the problem of homogenizing general coercive, possibly nonconvex Hamilton-Jacobi equations remains open.
\subsection{Precise statement of the main result}
The random potential is modeled by a probability measure on the set of all potentials. To make this precise, we take~
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\Omega:=\BUC(\mathbb{R}^d)
\end{equation*}
to be the space of real-valued, bounded and uniformly continuous functions on~$\mathbb{R}^d$. We define~$\mathcal{F}$ to be the~$\sigma$-algebra on~$\Omega$ generated by pointwise evaluations, that is
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\mathcal{F} := \, \mbox{$\sigma$--algebra generated by the family of maps} \quad \left\{ V \mapsto V(x) \,:\, x\in \mathbb{R}^d \right\}.
\end{equation*}
The translation group action of $\mathbb{R}^d$ on $\Omega$ is denoted by $\{ T_y\}_{y\in \mathbb{R}^d}$, that is, $T_y:\Omega \to \Omega$ is defined by
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\left( T_y V\right)(x) := V(x+y).
\end{equation*}
We consider a probability measure $\P$ on $(\Omega,\mathcal{F})$ satisfying the following properties: there exists $K_0>0$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{e.pub}
\P \left[ \sup_{x\in \mathbb{R}^d} \left| V(x) \right| \leq K_0\right] =1 \quad \mbox{(uniform boundedness),}
\end{equation}
for every $E \in \mathcal{F}$ and $y\in \mathbb{R}^d$,
\begin{equation} \label{e.pstat}
\P \left[ E \right] = \P \left[ T_yE \right] \quad \mbox{(stationarity)}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{e.perg}
\P \big[ \cap_{z\in \mathbb{R}^d} T_zE \big] \in \{ 0,1 \} \quad \mbox{(ergodicity).}
\end{equation}
We now present the main result. Recall that, for each~$\varepsilon > 0 $ and~$g\in \BUC(\mathbb{R}^d)$, there exists a unique solution~$u^\varepsilon(\cdot,g)\in C(\mathbb{R}^d \times[0,\infty))$ of~\eqref{e.pde} in~$\mathbb{R}^d \times (0,\infty)$, subject to the initial condition $u^\varepsilon(x,0,g) = g(x)$. All differential equations and inequalities in this paper are to be interpreted in the viscosity sense (see~\cite{EBook}).
\begin{theorem}
\label{t.main}
Assume~$\P$ is a probability measure on~$(\Omega,\mathcal{F})$ satisfying~\eqref{e.pub},~\eqref{e.pstat} and~\eqref{e.perg}. Then there exists $\overline H \in C(\mathbb{R}^d)$ satisfying
\begin{equation} \label{e.Hbarcoer}
\overline H(p) \rightarrow +\infty \quad \mbox{as} \ |p| \to \infty
\end{equation}
such that, if we denote, for each $g\in \BUC(\mathbb{R}^d)$, the unique solution of~\eqref{e.pdehom} subject to the initial condition $u(x,0) = g(x)$ by $u(x,t,g)$, then
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\P \left[ \forall g\in \BUC(\mathbb{R}^d), \ \forall k>0, \ \limsup_{\varepsilon \to 0} \sup_{(x,t) \in B_{k} \times [0,k]} \left| u^\varepsilon(x,t,g) - u(x,t,g) \right| = 0 \right] = 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
Some qualitative properties of $\overline H$, including the confirmation that its basic shape resembles that of Figure~\ref{fig.effham1}, are presented in Section~\ref{ss.Hbar}.
\subsection{Outline of the paper}
In Section~\ref{ss.subeq}, we introduce the maximal subsolutions of~\eqref{e.subequation}, study their relationship to~\eqref{e.metricproblem} and show that they homogenize. We construct $\overline H$ in Section~\ref{ss.Hbar} and study some of its qualitative features. The proof of~Theorem~\ref{t.main} is the focus of~Section~\ref{s.homog}, where we compare the maximal subsolutions of~\eqref{e.subequation} to the solutions of~\eqref{e.approxcellprob}.
\section{Identification of the effective Hamiltonian}
Following the metric problem approach to homogenization introduced in~\cite{AS2}, one is motivated to consider, for~$\mu \in \mathbb{R}$, maximal subsolutions of the equation
\begin{equation} \label{e.naiveMP}
\left( \left| D u \right|^2 - 1 \right)^2 - V( y ) = \mu \quad \mbox{in} \ \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
Unfortunately, unlike the convex setting, it turns out (as is well-known) that the maximal subsolutions of~\eqref{e.naiveMP} do not encode enough information to identify~$\overline H$, much less prove homogenization. This is not surprising since, by the subadditive nature of the maximal subsolutions, if they could identify~$\overline H$ then the latter would necessarily be convex. Instead, we consider maximal subsolutions of the ``sub-equation"
\begin{equation} \label{e.subpde}
\left|Du\right|^2 = 1 + \sigma \sqrt{\mu + V(y) }\quad \mbox{in} \ \mathbb{R}^d,
\end{equation}
with we take the parameters~$\mu \geq -\inf_{\mathbb{R}^d} V$ and~$\sigma\in [-1,1]$. The idea is that we can control solutions of~\eqref{e.pde} by the maximal subsolutions of~\eqref{e.subpde}, varying the parameters~$\mu$ and~$\sigma$ in an appropriate way. Observe that we may formally derive~\eqref{e.subpde} with~$\sigma=\pm1$ from~\eqref{e.naiveMP} by taking the square root of the equation.
\smallskip
\subsection{The maximal subsolutions of~\eqref{e.subpde}}
\label{ss.subeq}
We define the maximal subsolutions of~\eqref{e.subpde} and review their deterministic properties. Throughout this subsection we suppose for convenience that
\begin{equation} \label{e.infVzero}
\inf_{\mathbb{R}^d} V = 0.
\end{equation}
For every $\mu \geq 0$, $-1 \leq \sigma \leq 1$ and $z\in \mathbb{R}^d$, we define
\begin{equation} \label{e.mmudef}
m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z) := \sup\left\{ u(y) - u(z) \,:\, u \in \USC(\mathbb{R}^d) \ \mbox{is a subsolution of~\eqref{e.subpde}} \right\}.
\end{equation}
Clearly this definition is void if~\eqref{e.subpde} possesses no subsolutions, which occurs if and only if the right-hand side is not nonnegative, that is, if and only if
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\sigma\left( \mu + \sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V \right)^{1/2} < -1.
\end{equation*}
In this case, we simply take $m_{\mu,\sigma} \equiv -\infty$. Otherwise, we note that $m_{\mu,\sigma} \geq 0$.
\smallskip
In the next proposition, we summarize some basic properties of~$m_{\mu,\sigma}$ and relate it to the equation
\begin{equation} \label{e.cousin}
\left( \left| Dw \right|^2 - 1 \right)^2 = \sigma^2 \left( \mu+V(y)\right).
\end{equation}
Note that~\eqref{e.cousin} is the same as~\eqref{e.naiveMP} in the case that $\sigma \in \{ -1, 1\}$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{p.mmurho}
Fix $V \in \Omega$ satisfying~\eqref{e.infVzero}, $\mu \geq 0$ and $\sigma \in [-1,1]$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{e.admin}
\sigma \left( \mu + \sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V \right)^{1/2} \geq -1.
\end{equation}
For every $y,z\in \mathbb{R}^d$,
\begin{equation} \label{e.mmusym}
m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z) = m_{\mu,\sigma}(z,y).
\end{equation}
For every $x,y,z\in \mathbb{R}^d$,
\begin{equation} \label{e.subadd}
m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z) \leq m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,x) + m_{\mu,\sigma}(x,z).
\end{equation}
For every $z\in \mathbb{R}^d$, $m_\mu(\cdot,z) \in C^{0,1}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and
\begin{equation} \label{e.sub}
-m_{\mu,\sigma}(\cdot,z) \quad \mbox{is a subsolution of~\eqref{e.cousin} in}\quad \mathbb{R}^d \setminus \{ z \},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{e.super}
m_{\mu,\sigma}(\cdot,z) \quad \mbox{is a supersolution of~\eqref{e.cousin} in}\quad \mathbb{R}^d \setminus \{ z \}
\end{equation}
and, moreover,
\begin{equation} \label{e.super.global}
\mbox{if} \ \sigma \leq 0, \ \mbox{then} \quad m_{\mu,\sigma}(\cdot,z) \quad \mbox{is a supersolution of~\eqref{e.cousin} in}\quad \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since~\eqref{e.subpde} is a convex equation, a function~$u\in \USC(\mathbb{R}^d)$ is a subsolution of~\eqref{e.subpde} if and only if~$u\in C^{0,1}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ (and thus $u$ is differentiable almost everywhere) and~$u$ satisfies~\eqref{e.subpde} at almost every point of~$\mathbb{R}^d$. See e.g.~\cite{BJ} or~\cite[Lemma 2.1]{AS2}. Since $V$ is uniformly bounded, a subsolution must in fact be globally Lipschitz, i.e., $u\in C^{0,1}(\mathbb{R}^d)$. Thus, for each $z\in \mathbb{R}^d$, $m_{\mu,\sigma}(\cdot,z)$ is the supremum of a family of equi-Lipschitz functions on $\mathbb{R}^d$ and hence belongs to $C^{0,1}(\mathbb{R}^d)$. As $u$ is the supremum of a family of subsolutions of~\eqref{e.subpde}, we have
\begin{equation} \label{e.subsub}
m_{\mu,\sigma}(\cdot,z) \quad \mbox{is a subsolution of~\eqref{e.subpde} in}\quad \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
We also obtain from the above characterization of subsolution of~\eqref{e.subpde} that $u \in \USC(\mathbb{R}^d)$ is a subsolution of~\eqref{e.subpde} if and only if $-u$ is also a subsolution of~\eqref{e.subpde}. This together with the definition of $m_{\mu,\sigma}$ yields~\eqref{e.mmusym} as well as that
\begin{equation} \label{e.subsubneg}
-m_{\mu,\sigma}(\cdot,z) \quad \mbox{is a subsolution of~\eqref{e.subpde} in}\quad \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
Finally, by the maximality of $m_{\mu,\sigma}(\cdot,z)$, the Perron method yields that
\begin{equation} \label{e.supersub}
m_{\mu,\sigma}(\cdot,z) \quad \mbox{is a supersolution of~\eqref{e.subpde} in}\quad \mathbb{R}^d \setminus\{ z \}.
\end{equation}
A proof of~\eqref{e.supersub} can also be found in~\cite[Proposition~3.2]{AS2}.
\smallskip
The subadditivity~\eqref{e.subadd} of $m_{\mu,\sigma}$ is immediate from maximality. Indeed, since $m_{\mu,\sigma}(\cdot,z) - m_{\mu,\sigma}(x,z)$ is a subsolution of~\eqref{e.subpde} in $\mathbb{R}^d$, we may use it as an admissible function in the definition of $m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,x)$. This yields~\eqref{e.subadd}.
\smallskip
Proceeding with the demonstration of~\eqref{e.sub},~\eqref{e.super} and~\eqref{e.super.global}, we select a smooth test function $\phi \in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^d$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{e.test1}
y\mapsto m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z) - \phi(y) \quad \mbox{has a local minimum at} \ y=y_0
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to
\begin{equation} \label{e.test2}
y\mapsto -m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z) - (-\phi(y)) \quad \mbox{has a local maximum at} \ y=y_0.
\end{equation}
According to~\eqref{e.subsubneg} and~\eqref{e.test2},
\begin{equation} \label{e.testphi1}
\left|D\phi(y_0) \right|^2 \leq 1 + \sigma \sqrt{\mu + V(y_0) }.
\end{equation}
If $\sigma \leq 0$, then~\eqref{e.testphi1} implies that
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\left( \left|D\phi(y_0) \right|^2 - 1 \right)^2 \geq \sigma^2 \left( \mu + V(y_0) \right).
\end{equation*}
This completes the proof of~\eqref{e.super.global}. If $y_0 \neq z$, then~\eqref{e.supersub} and~\eqref{e.test1} yield
\begin{equation*}
\left|D\phi(y_0) \right|^2 \geq 1 + \sigma \sqrt{\mu + V(y_0) }
\end{equation*}
which, together with~\eqref{e.testphi1}, gives
\begin{equation*}
\left|D\phi(y_0) \right|^2 = 1 + \sigma \sqrt{\mu + V(y_0) }.
\end{equation*}
Rearranging the equation and squaring the previous line, we get
\begin{equation} \label{e.testphi2}
\left( \left|D\phi(y_0) \right|^2 - 1 \right)^2 = \sigma^2 \left( \mu + V(y_0) \right).
\end{equation}
In view of the fact that~\eqref{e.test1} and~\eqref{e.test2} are equivalent, and that~\eqref{e.testphi2} is symmetric in $\phi$ and $-\phi$, we have proved both~\eqref{e.sub} and~\eqref{e.super}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Limiting shapes of $m_{\mu,\sigma}$ and identification of $\overline H$}
\label{ss.Hbar}
Since $m_{\mu,\sigma}$ is defined to be maximal , the subadditive ergodic theorem implies that $m_{\mu,\sigma}$ is deterministic in the rescaled macroscopic limit. The precise statement we need is summarized in Proposition~\ref{p.shape}. Before presenting it, we first observe that $\inf_{\mathbb{R}^d} V$ and $\sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V$ are deterministic quantities, thanks to the ergodicity hypothesis.
\begin{lemma}
\label{l.detm}
There exist $\overline v,\underline v\in \mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\P\left[ \sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V = \overline v \right] = \P\left[ \inf_{\mathbb{R}^d} V = \underline v \right] = 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For each $t\in \mathbb{R}$, the events $\left\{ V \in \Omega\,:\, \inf_{\mathbb{R}^d} V < t \right\}$ and $\left\{ V \in \Omega\,:\, \sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V > t \right\}$ are invariant under translations and therefore have probability either 0 or 1 by~\eqref{e.perg}.
We take $\overline v$ to be the largest value of $t$ for which $\P \left[\sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V > t \right] = 1$ and $\underline v$ to be the smallest value of $t$ for which $\P \left[\inf_{\mathbb{R}^d} V < t \right] = 1$. In view of~\eqref{e.pub}, we have $-K_0\leq \underline v \leq \overline v \leq K_0$. The statement of the lemma follows.
\end{proof}
We assume throughout the rest of the paper that~$\underline v = 0$. Note that we may, without loss of generality, subtract any constant we like from the random potential~$V$ without altering the statement of~Theorem~\ref{t.main}.
\smallskip
The value of $\overline v$ prescribes, almost surely, the set of parameters $(\mu,\sigma)$ for which~$m_{\mu,\sigma}$ is finite, i.e., for which~\eqref{e.admin} holds. We denote this by
\begin{equation} \label{e.admindef}
\mathcal{A}:= \left\{ (\mu,\sigma) \in [0,\infty) \times [-1,1] \,:\, \sigma(\mu+\overline v)^{1/2} \geq -1 \right\}.
\end{equation}
It is convenient to set
\begin{equation} \label{e.kappa}
\kappa:= 1-\overline v.
\end{equation}
Note that if $\kappa \geq 0$, then $(\kappa,-1) \in \mathcal{A}$ and $\kappa$ is the largest value of $\mu$ for which $(\mu,-1) \in \mathcal{A}$. If on the other hand $\kappa < 0$, then $(\mu,-1) \not\in\mathcal{A}$ for every $\mu \geq 0$.
We also define the following subset $\mathcal{A}'$ of $\mathcal{A}$, which consists of those parameters which play a role in the proof of~Theorem~\ref{t.main}:
\begin{equation} \label{e.Aprime}
\mathcal{A}':= \big\{ (\mu,\sigma) \in \mathcal{A}\,:\, \mu = 0 \ \mbox{or} \ \sigma \in \{ -1,1\} \big\}
\end{equation}
Observe that there exists a unique element $(\mu_*,\sigma_*)\in \mathcal{A}'$ for which
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\sigma_*\left( \mu_* + \overline v \right)^{1/2} = -1.
\end{equation*}
In fact, with $\kappa$ as above, we have
\begin{equation} \label{e.minelem}
(\mu_*,\sigma_*) = \left\{ \begin{aligned}
& (\kappa,-1) && \mbox{if} \ \kappa \geq 0, \\
& (0,-\overline v^{\,-1/2}) && \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
We next establish some simple bounds on the growth of $m_{\mu,\sigma}$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{l.easybnds}
Assume $(\mu,\sigma)\in \mathcal{A}$ and $V\in \Omega$ satisfies $\inf_{\mathbb{R}^d} V = 0$ and $\sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V = \overline v$. Then, for every $y,z\in \mathbb{R}^d$, we have the following: in the case that $\sigma \leq 0$,
\begin{equation} \label{e.mmuyz.-1}
\left( 1 +\sigma (\mu + \overline v)^{1/2} \right)^{1/2} |y-z| \leq m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z) \leq \left( 1 +\sigma \mu^{1/2} \right)^{1/2} |y-z|
\end{equation}
and, in the case that $\sigma \geq 0$,
\begin{equation} \label{e.mmuyz.+1}
\left( 1 +\sigma \mu^{1/2} \right)^{1/2} |y-z|\leq m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z) \leq \left( 1 +\sigma (\mu + \overline v)^{1/2} \right)^{1/2} |y-z|.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The arguments for~\eqref{e.mmuyz.-1} and~\eqref{e.mmuyz.+1} are almost the same, so we only give the proof of~\eqref{e.mmuyz.-1}. The lower bound is immediate from the definition of $m_{\mu,\sigma}(\cdot,z)$ and the fact that the left side of~\eqref{e.mmuyz.-1}, as a function of $y$, is a subsolution of~\eqref{e.subpde} in~$\mathbb{R}^d$. To get the upper bound, we observe that any subsolution $u \in \USC(\mathbb{R}^d)$ of~\eqref{e.subpde} satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{e.uppbndgrbg}
|Du|^2 \leq \left( 1 +\sigma \mu^{1/2} \right) \quad \mbox{in} \ \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
In particular, by the characterization of subsolutions mentioned in the first paragraph of the proof of~Proposition~\ref{p.mmurho}, we deduce that~\eqref{e.uppbndgrbg} holds at almost every point of~$\mathbb{R}^d$. This implies that~$u$ is Lipschitz with constant $\left( 1 +\sigma \mu^{1/2} \right)^{1/2}$. This argument applies to~$m_{\mu,\sigma}(\cdot,z)$ by~\eqref{e.subsub}. Since $m_{\mu,\sigma}(z,z) = 0$, we obtain the upper bound of~\eqref{e.mmuyz.-1}.
\end{proof}
We next prove some continuity and monotonicity properties for the function $(\mu,\sigma) \mapsto m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z)$ on $\mathcal{A}$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{l.contmono}
Fix $V\in \Omega$ for which $\inf_{\mathbb{R}^d} V= 0$ and $\sup_{ \mathbb{R}^d}V = \overline v$ and suppose that $(\mu,\sigma) \in \mathcal{A}$ is such that $\sigma (\mu+\overline v)^{1/2} > -1$. Then
\begin{equation} \label{e.cont}
\lim_{\mathcal{A} \ni (\nu,\tau) \to (\mu,\sigma)} \ \sup_{y,z\in\mathbb{R}^d,\, y\neq z} \frac{\left| m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z) - m_{\nu,\tau}(y,z) \right|}{|y-z|} = 0.
\end{equation}
For every pair $(\mu,\sigma) , (\nu,\tau) \in \mathcal{A}$ and $y,z\in \mathbb{R}^d$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{e.mono}
m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z) \leq m_{\nu,\tau}(y,z) \qquad \mbox{provided that} \qquad \left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \mu = \nu \quad \mbox{and} \quad \sigma \leq \tau, \\ & \qquad \mbox{or} \\
& \sigma = \tau \quad \mbox{and} \quad \sigma \mu \leq \sigma \nu.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
Moreover, for every $(\mu,\sigma), (\nu,\tau) \in \mathcal{A}$ with $\sigma \mu < \tau \nu$, there exists $c>0$ such that, for all $y,z\in \mathbb{R}^d$,
\begin{equation} \label{e.mono-strict}
m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z) \leq m_{\nu,\tau}(y,z) - c|y-z|.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $0< \varepsilon < 1$, and observe that, by~\eqref{e.subsub}, for $\lambda:= 1-\varepsilon$, the function $w:= \lambda m_{\mu,\sigma}(\cdot,z)$ is a subsolution of the equation
\begin{equation*} \label{}
|Dw|^2 \leq \lambda^2 \left( 1 + \sigma \sqrt{ \mu +V(y)} \right) \quad \mbox{in} \ \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation*}
Observe that the infimum over $\mathbb{R}^d$ of the term in parentheses on the right-hand side is positive by assumption. Thus if $(\nu,\tau)$ is sufficiently close to $(\mu,\sigma)$, we have that for all $y\in \mathbb{R}^d$,
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\lambda^2 \left( 1 + \sigma \sqrt{ \mu +V(y)} \right) < 1 + \tau \sqrt{ \nu +V(y)}.
\end{equation*}
By maximality, we deduce that $w \leq m_{\nu,\tau}(\cdot,z)$ for all $(\nu,\tau)$ sufficiently close to $(\mu,\sigma)$, depending on~$\varepsilon$. According to the bounds in Lemma~\ref{l.easybnds}, we obtain, for a constant $C>0$ depending only on $(\mu,\sigma,\overline v)$, the estimate
\begin{equation*} \label{}
m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z) \leq m_{\nu,\tau}(y,z) + C\varepsilon|y-z|
\end{equation*}
Reversing the roles of $(\mu,\sigma)$ and $(\nu,\tau)$, using that $\tau(\nu+\overline v) >-1$ for $(\nu,\tau)$ close to $(\mu,\sigma)$, and arguing similarly, we get, for all $(\nu,\tau)$ sufficiently close to $(\mu,\sigma)$, that
\begin{equation*} \label{}
m_{\nu,\tau}(y,z) \leq m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z) + C\varepsilon|y-z|.
\end{equation*}
This completes the proof of~\eqref{e.cont}.
The monotonicity property~\eqref{e.mono} is immediate from the definition~\eqref{e.mmudef} since the condition on the right of~\eqref{e.mono} implies that the right side of~\eqref{e.subpde} is larger for $(\nu,\tau)$ than for $(\mu,\sigma)$, and hence the admissible class of subsolutions in~\eqref{e.mmudef} is larger.
The strict monotonicity property in the last statement of the lemma follows from the fact, which is easy to check from the characterization of subsolutions mentioned in the proof of Proposition~\ref{p.mmurho}, that $y \mapsto m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,z) + c|y-z|$ is a subsolution of
\begin{equation*} \label{}
|Dw|^2 \leq 1 + \sigma \sqrt{\nu + V(y)} \quad \mbox{in} \ \mathbb{R}^d,
\end{equation*}
provided $c>0$ is sufficiently small, depending on a lower bound for $\sigma(\nu-\mu)$.
\end{proof}
The following proposition is a special case of, for example,~\cite[Proposition 4.1]{AS2} or~\cite[Proposition 2.5]{AT1}), and so we do not present the proof. The argument is an application of the subadditive ergodic theorem, using the subadditivity of $m_{\mu,\sigma}$,~\eqref{e.subadd}.
\begin{proposition}
For each $(\mu,\sigma)\in \mathcal{A}$, there exists a convex, positively homogeneous function $\overline m_{\mu,\sigma} \in C(\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that
\label{p.shape}
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\P \left[ \forall (\mu,\sigma) \in \mathcal A, \ \forall R>0, \ \limsup_{t\to \infty} \sup_{y,z\in B_{R}} \left| \frac{m_{\mu,\sigma}(ty,tz)}{t} - \overline m_{\mu,\sigma}(y-z) \right| = 0 \right] = 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
We are now ready to construct $\overline H$. We continue by introducing two functions
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\overline H^{\,-} : \mathbb{R}^d \to \{ -\infty \} \cup [0,\infty) \quad \mbox{and} \quad \overline H^{\,+}: \mathbb{R}^d \to [0,\infty).
\end{equation*}
defined by
\begin{align*}
\overline H^{\,-}\!(p) & := \sup\left\{ \mu \geq 0 \,:\, \forall y\in \mathbb{R}^d, \ \overline m_{\mu,-1} (y) \geq p\cdot y \right\},\\
\overline H^{\,+}\!(p) & := \inf\left\{ \mu \geq 0 \,:\, \forall y\in \mathbb{R}^d, \ \overline m_{\mu,+1}(y) \geq p\cdot y \right\}.
\end{align*}
We take $\overline H^{\,-}\!(p):= -\infty$ if the admissible set in its definition is empty. Since $\mu \mapsto \overline m_{\mu,-1}(\cdot)$ is decreasing, we see that $\overline H^-(p) = -\infty$ if and only if there exists $y \in \mathbb{R}^d$ such that $\overline m_{0,-1}(y) < p\cdot y$. We define the effective Hamiltonian to be the maximum of these:
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\overline H(p) := \max\left\{ \overline H^{\,-}\!(p) , \overline H^{\,+}\!(p) \right\}.
\end{equation*}
Observe that since, for all $\mu,\nu\geq 0$,
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\overline m_{\mu,-1} \leq \overline m_{\nu,1},
\end{equation*}
we have that
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\left\{ p\in \mathbb{R}^d \,:\, \overline H^{\,+}\!(p) > 0 \right\} \subseteq \left\{ p\in \mathbb{R}^d \,:\, \overline H^{\,-}\!(p)= -\infty \right\}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore we can also write
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\overline H(p) = \left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \overline H^{\,-}\!(p) && \mbox{if} \ \overline H^{\,-}\!(p) \neq -\infty,\\
& \overline H^{\,+}\!(p) && \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation*}
We next check that $\overline H$ is coercive, i.e., that~\eqref{e.Hbarcoer} holds.
\begin{lemma}
\label{l.coercivity}
For every $p\in \mathbb{R}^d$,
\begin{equation} \label{e.Hbarcoercive}
\left( |p|^2 -1 \right)^2 - \overline v \leq \overline H(p) \leq \left( |p|^2 - 1\right)^2.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
According to Proposition~\ref{p.shape} and Lemmas~\ref{l.detm} and~\ref{l.easybnds}, for every $\mu\geq 0$,
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\left( 1 - (\mu + \overline v)^{1/2} \right) |y| \leq \overline m_{\mu,-1}(y) \leq \left( 1 - \mu^{1/2} \right) |y|,
\end{equation*}
provided that $(\mu,-1)\in\mathcal{A}$, and
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\left( 1 + \mu^{1/2} \right) |y| \leq \overline m_{\mu,+1}(y) \leq \left( 1 + (\mu + \overline v)^{1/2} \right) |y|.
\end{equation*}
In view of the definition of $\overline H$, this yields the estimate~\eqref{e.Hbarcoercive}.
\end{proof}
In order to describe $\overline H$ further, we partition $\mathbb{R}^d$ into four regions, generally corresponding to the following features in the graph of $\overline H$: the flat hilltop, the flat valley, the slope between the latter two, and the unbounded region outside the flat valley (see Figure~\ref{fig.effham1}). We define
\begin{equation} \label{e.Ki}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
K_1 & := \bigcap_{(\mu,\sigma) \in \mathcal{A}' \setminus\{ (\mu_*,\sigma_*)\} } \partial \overline m_{\mu,\sigma}(0), & K_2 & := \bigcup_{(\mu,-1) \in \mathcal{A}', \, 0< \mu < \mu_*} \partial \overline m_{\mu,-1}(\partial B_1), \\
K_3 & := \bigcup_{(0,\sigma) \in \mathcal{A}' \setminus\{ (\mu_*,\sigma_*)\}} \partial \overline m_{0,\sigma}(\partial B_1), & K_4 & := \bigcup_{\mu > 0} \partial \overline m_{\mu,1}(\partial B_1).
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
Here $\partial \phi(x_0)$ denotes the subdifferential of a convex function $\phi:\mathbb{R}^d \to \mathbb{R}$ at~$x_0\in \mathbb{R}^d$,
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\partial \phi(x_0) := \left\{ q\in\mathbb{R}^d\,:\, \phi(y) \geq \phi(x_0) + q \cdot (y-x_0) \right\},
\end{equation*}
and we write $\partial \phi(E) := \cup\left\{ \partial \phi(x)\,:\, x\in \mathbb{E}\right\}$ for $E\subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$.
We remark that~$0 \in K_1$ by the nonnegativity of~$m_{\mu,\sigma}$ and~$K_2 = \emptyset$ if and only if~$\mu_* = 0$. Since $m_{\mu,0}(y,0) = \overline m_{\mu,0}(y) = |y|$ for every $\mu\geq 0$, we see that $\partial B_1 \subseteq K_3$. Finally, we note that~$K_4$ is unbounded, while~$K_1\cup K_2 \cup K_3$ is bounded.
\smallskip
The following proposition gives us a representation of $\overline H$ which is convenient for the proof of Theorem~\ref{t.main}. It also confirms that the basic features of $\overline H$ are portrayed accurately in Figure~\ref{fig.effham1}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{p.partition}
For each $p\in \mathbb{R}^d \setminus K_1$, there exists a unique $\mu \geq 0$ such that, for some $(\mu,\sigma) \in \mathcal{A}'$, we have $p \in \partial \overline m_{\mu,\sigma}(\partial B_1)$. In particular,~$\{ K_1,K_2,K_3,K_4\}$ is a disjoint partition of~$\mathbb{R}^d$. Moreover, with $\mu_*$ as defined in~\eqref{e.minelem}, we have
\begin{equation} \label{e.Hbargoodform}
\overline H(p) = \left\{ \begin{aligned}
& \mu_* && \mbox{for} \ p\in K_1,\\
& \mu && \mbox{for} \ p \in \partial \overline m_{\mu,\sigma}(\partial B_1),\ (\mu,\sigma) \in \mathcal{A}'.
\end{aligned} \right.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We move along the path $\mathcal{A}'$ starting at $(\mu_*,\sigma_*)$. If $\mu_*>0$ and hence $\sigma_*=-1$, then we move in straight line segments from $(\mu_*,-1)$ to $(0,-1)$ to $(0,1)$ to $(\infty,1)$; otherwise, if $\mu_*=0$, then we move first from $(0,\sigma_*)$ to $(0,1)$ and then to $(\infty,1)$.
By Lemma~\ref{l.contmono}, the graph of the positively homogeneous, convex function $\overline m_{\mu,\sigma}$ is continuous and increasing as we move along the path. Therefore, given $p\in \mathbb{R}^d\setminus K_1$, we can stop at the first point $(\mu,\sigma)\in \mathcal{A}'\setminus \{ (\mu_*,\sigma_*) \}$ in the path at which the graph of $\overline m_{\mu,\sigma}$ is tangent to that of the plane $y\mapsto p\cdot y$. Indeed, $p\not\in K_1$ ensures that the plane $p\cdot y$ is not below the graph of $\overline m_{\mu,\sigma}$ for every $(\mu,\sigma)\in \mathcal{A}'\setminus \{ (\mu_*,\sigma_*) \}$, and this point must be reached at or before $((|p|^2-1)^2,1)$, by the estimate~\eqref{e.mmuyz.+1}. The uniqueness of $\mu$ follows from the last statement of Lemma~\ref{l.contmono}. This completes the proof of the first statement. The formula~\eqref{e.Hbargoodform} is then immediate from the definition of $\overline H$ and Lemma~\ref{l.contmono}.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of homogenization}
\label{s.homog}
We consider, for each $p\in \mathbb{R}^d$ and $\delta > 0$, the \emph{approximate cell problem}
\begin{equation} \label{e.appcell}
\delta v^\delta + \left( \left| p+Dv^\delta \right|^2 - 1 \right)^2 - V(y) = 0 \quad \mbox{in} \ \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
It is classical that, for every $p\in\mathbb{R}^d$ and $\delta > 0$, there exists a unique viscosity solution~$v^\delta=v^\delta(\cdot,p) \in C(\mathbb{R}^d)$ of~\eqref{e.appcell} subject to the growth condition
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\limsup_{|y| \to \infty} \frac{v^\delta(y)}{|y|} = 0.
\end{equation*}
In fact, by comparing $v^\delta(\cdot,p)$ to constant functions we immediately obtain that $v^\delta(\cdot,p)$ is bounded and
\begin{equation} \label{e.dvdbnd}
-\frac1\delta \left( (|p|^2 -1)^2 - \inf_{\mathbb{R}^d} V(y) \right) \leq v^\delta(\cdot,p) \leq -\frac1\delta \left( (|p|^2 -1)^2 - \sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V(y) \right).
\end{equation}
It follows from~\eqref{e.dvdbnd} and the coercivity of the equation that $v^\delta$ is Lipschitz and, for $C>0$ depending only on an upper bound for $|p|$ and $\sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{e.dvdLip}
\sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} \left|Dv^\delta(\cdot,p)\right| \leq C
\end{equation}
Using~\eqref{e.dvdLip} and comparing $v^\delta(\cdot,p)$ to $v^\delta(\cdot,q) \pm C\delta^{-1}|p-q|$, we obtain, for a constant $C> 0$ depending only on an upper bound for $\max\{ |p|,|q| \}$ and $\sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V$, the estimate
\begin{equation} \label{e.dvdcontp}
\sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} \left| \delta v^\delta(\cdot,p) - \delta v^\delta(\cdot,q) \right| \leq C|p-q|.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
By the perturbed test function method, Theorem~\ref{t.main} can be reduced to the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}
\label{p.cell}
\begin{equation} \label{e.cell}
\P \left[ \forall R>0, \ \limsup_{\delta \to 0} \sup_{p\in B_R} \sup_{B_{R/\delta}} \left| \delta v^\delta(\cdot,p) + \overline H(p) \right| =0 \right] = 1.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
We omit the demonstration that Proposition~\ref{p.cell} implies Theorem~\ref{t.main}, since it is classical and can also be obtained for example by applying~\cite[Lemma 7.1]{ACS}. The argument for Proposition~\ref{p.cell} is broken into the following five lemmas. Recall that $\mathcal{A}$ is the set of admissible parameters $(\mu,\sigma)$ defined in~\eqref{e.admindef}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{l.below.+1}
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\P \bigg[ \forall (\mu,1) \in \mathcal A,\ \forall p\in \partial \overline m_{\mu,1}(\partial B_1), \ \liminf_{\delta \to 0} \, -\delta v^\delta (0,p) \geq \mu \bigg] = 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{l.below.-1}
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\P \bigg[ \forall (\mu,-1) \in \mathcal A,\ \forall p\in \partial \overline m_{\mu,-1}(0), \ \liminf_{\delta \to 0} \, -\delta v^\delta (0,p) \geq \mu \bigg] = 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{l.below-valley}
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\P \bigg[ \forall p\in \mathbb{R}^d, \ \liminf_{\delta \to 0} \, -\delta v^\delta (0,p) \geq 0 \bigg] = 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{l.above}
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\P \bigg[ \forall (\mu,\sigma) \in \mathcal A, \ \forall p\in \partial \overline m_{\mu,\sigma}(\partial B_1), \ \limsup_{\delta \to 0} \, -\delta v^\delta (0,p) \leq \mu \bigg] = 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}
\label{l.above-hilltop}
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\P \bigg[ \forall p\in B_1, \ \limsup_{\delta \to 0} \, -\delta v^\delta (0,p) \leq \mu_* \bigg] = 1.
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}
Postponing the proof of the lemmas, we show first that they imply Proposition~\ref{p.cell}.
\begin{proof}[{\bf Proof of Proposition~\ref{p.cell}}]
According to~\eqref{e.dvdcontp}, using also Lemma~\ref{l.detm} to control the constant in~\eqref{e.dvdcontp} on an event of full probability, it suffices to prove that
\begin{equation} \label{e.cell2}
\P \left[ \forall p\in \mathbb{R}^d,\ \forall R>0, \ \limsup_{\delta \to 0} \sup_{B_{R/\delta}} \left| \delta v^\delta(\cdot,p) + \overline H(p) \right| =0 \right] = 1.
\end{equation}
By~\cite[Lemma~5.1]{AS2}, to obtain~\eqref{e.cell2}, it suffices to show that
\begin{equation} \label{e.cell0}
\P \left[ \forall p\in\mathbb{R}^d, \ \limsup_{\delta \to 0} \left| \delta v^\delta(0,p) + \overline H(p) \right| =0 \right] = 1.
\end{equation}
Indeed, while the Hamiltonian in~\cite{AS2} is assumed to be convex in~$p$, the argument for~\cite[Lemma 5.1]{AS2} relies only on a $\P$-almost sure, uniform Lipschitz bound on $v^\delta(\cdot,p)$ (which we have in~\eqref{e.dvdLip}, using again Lemma~\ref{l.detm} to control the constant), and therefore the lemma holds in our situation notwithstanding the lack of convexity.
\smallskip
To obtain~\eqref{e.cell0}, we consider the partition $\{ K_1,K_2,K_3,K_4\}$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$ given by~\eqref{e.Ki} and Proposition~\ref{p.partition} and check that, for each $i \in \{ 1,2,3,4\}$,
\begin{equation} \label{e.check.Ki}
\P \left[ \forall p\in K_i, \ \limsup_{\delta \to 0} \left| \delta v^\delta(0,p) + \overline H(p) \right| =0 \right] = 1.
\end{equation}
In view of the formula~\eqref{e.Hbargoodform}, we see that:
\begin{itemize}
\item For~$i=1$, we consider two cases. If $\kappa \leq 0$, then $\mu_* = 0$ and, in view of the fact that $K_1 \subseteq B_1$, we obtain~\eqref{e.check.Ki} for $i=1$ from Lemmas~\ref{l.below-valley} and~\ref{l.above-hilltop}. If $\kappa > 0$, then~$\mu_*=\kappa>0$ and $\sigma_*=-1$ and we have $(\mu,-1) \in \mathcal{A}$ for all $0\leq \mu < \mu_*$, and thus~\eqref{e.check.Ki} for $i=1$ follows from~Lemmas~\ref{l.below.-1} and~\ref{l.above-hilltop}.
\item For $i=2$,~\eqref{e.check.Ki} is immediate from Lemmas~\ref{l.below.-1} and~\ref{l.above}.
\item For $i=3$, we get~\eqref{e.check.Ki} immediately from~Lemmas~\ref{l.below-valley} and~\ref{l.above}.
\item For $i=4$, the claim~\eqref{e.check.Ki} is a consequence of Lemmas~\ref{l.below.+1} and~\ref{l.above}.
\end{itemize}
This completes the argument.
\end{proof}
We obtain each of the five auxiliary lemmas stated above by a comparison between the functions~$m_{\mu,\sigma}$ and~$v^\delta$, with the exception of Lemma~\ref{l.below-valley}, which is much simpler.
\begin{proof}[{\bf Proof of Lemma~\ref{l.below.+1}}]
Fix $(\mu,1) \in \mathcal A$ and $p\in \partial \overline m_{\mu,1}(\partial B_1)$. Select $e\in \partial B_1$ such that $p\in \partial \overline m_{\mu,1}(e)$. This implies that, for every $y\in \mathbb{R}^d$,
\begin{equation} \label{e.ptouchm}
\overline m_{\mu,1}(e) - p\cdot e = 0 \leq \overline m_{\mu,1}(y) - p\cdot y.
\end{equation}
Suppose that $V\in \Omega$ and $\delta >0$ are such that
\begin{equation} \label{e.upass}
\theta:= \mu + \delta v^\delta (0,p) > 0.
\end{equation}
If $c>0$ is sufficiently small, then the function
\begin{equation*} \label{}
w(y) := v^\delta(y,p)-v^\delta(0,p) - c\theta \left(\left(1+|y|^2\right)^{1/2}-1\right)
\end{equation*}
satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{e.selc}
\left(\left| p+Dw \right|^2-1\right)^2-V(y) \leq -\delta v^\delta(y,p) + \frac14 \theta \quad \text{in} \ \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
Due to~\eqref{e.dvdbnd}, there exists $s>0$, independent of $\delta$, such that
\begin{equation} \label{e.Udeltout}
U := \left \{y\in \mathbb{R}^d\,:\, w(y) \geq -\frac{\theta}{4\delta} \right\} \subseteq B_{s/\delta}
\end{equation}
and specializing~\eqref{e.selc} to the domain $U$ yields, in view of the definition of $\theta$, that
\begin{equation}\label{e.wsub}
\left(\left| p+Dw \right|^2-1\right)^2-V(y) \leq \mu-\frac{\theta}{2} \quad \text{in} \ U.
\end{equation}
We observe next that, due to~\eqref{e.super} and~\eqref{e.Udeltout}, the function
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\tilde m(y):= m_{\mu,1}\left(y, -se/\delta \right) - p\cdot y
\end{equation*}
is a supersolution of the equation
\begin{equation}\label{e.tildmsup}
\left(\left|p+D\tilde m\right|^2-1\right)^2-V(y) \geq \mu \quad \text{in} \ U.
\end{equation}
In view of $0\in U$,~\eqref{e.Udeltout},~\eqref{e.wsub} and~\eqref{e.tildmsup}, the comparison principle yields
\begin{equation*}
-\tilde m(0) = w(0)-\tilde m(0) \leq \max_{\partial U} \left ( w-\tilde m \right) = - \frac{\theta}{4\delta} + \max_{\partial U} \left (-\tilde m \right).
\end{equation*}
Rearranging the previous inequality and using~\eqref{e.Udeltout}, we find that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{y\in B_s} \left(p\cdot y + \delta m_{\mu,1}\left(0,\frac{-se}{\delta}\right)-\delta m_{\mu,1}\left(\frac{y}{\delta},\frac{-se}{\delta}\right)\right) \geq \frac{1}{4}\theta.
\end{equation*}
Notice that~\eqref{e.ptouchm} and the positive homogeneity of $\overline m_{\mu,1}$ implies that
\begin{equation*} \label{}
p\cdot y \leq \overline m_{\mu,1}(y+se) - \overline m_{\mu,1}(se).
\end{equation*}
Combining the previous two lines, we obtain
\begin{multline} \label{e.bgreps}
\sup_{y\in B_s} \left( - \overline m_{\mu,1}(se) + \delta m_{\mu,1}\left(0,\frac{-se}{\delta}\right)\right)\\ +\sup_{y\in B_s} \left(\overline m_{\mu,1}(y+se) -\delta m_{\mu,1}\left(\frac{y}{\delta},\frac{-se}{\delta}\right)\right) \geq \frac{1}{4}\theta.
\end{multline}
We have shown that~\eqref{e.upass} implies~\eqref{e.bgreps}. We therefore obtain the conclusion of the lemma by applying Proposition~\ref{p.shape}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[{\bf Proof of Lemma~\ref{l.below.-1}}]
The proof is similar to Lemma~\ref{l.below.+1}. The difference is that we use~\eqref{e.super.global} rather than~\eqref{e.super}, which means that we do not have to take the vertex of $m_{\mu,\sigma}$ to be far away from the origin in the definition of the function $\tilde m$. The argument is therefore easier and the statement of the lemma is stronger.
\smallskip
Fix $(\mu,-1) \in \mathcal A$ and $p\in \partial \overline m_{\mu,-1}(0)$. This implies that, for every $y\in \mathbb{R}^d$,
\begin{equation} \label{e.ptouchm.-1}
\overline m_{\mu,-1}(y) \geq p\cdot y.
\end{equation}
Suppose that $V\in \Omega$ and $\delta >0$ are such that
\begin{equation} \label{e.upass.-1}
\theta:= \mu + \delta v^\delta (0,p) > 0.
\end{equation}
If $c>0$ is sufficiently small, then the function
\begin{equation*} \label{}
w(y) := v^\delta(y,p)-v^\delta(0,p) - c\theta \left(\left(1+|y|^2\right)^{1/2}-1\right)
\end{equation*}
satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{e.selc.-1}
\left(\left| p+Dw \right|^2-1\right)^2-V(y) \leq -\delta v^\delta(y,p) - \frac14 \theta \quad \text{in} \ \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
Due to~\eqref{e.dvdbnd}, there exists $s>0$, independent of $\delta$, such that
\begin{equation} \label{e.Udeltout.-1}
U := \left \{y\in \mathbb{R}^d\,:\, w(y) \geq -\frac{\theta}{4\delta} \right\} \subseteq B_{s/\delta}
\end{equation}
and restricting~\eqref{e.selc.-1} to the domain $U$ we obtain, in view of the definition of $\theta$, that
\begin{equation}\label{e.wsub.-1}
\left(\left| p+Dw \right|^2-1\right)^2-V(y) \leq \mu-\frac{\theta}{2} \quad \text{in} \ U.
\end{equation}
According to~\eqref{e.super}, the function
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\tilde m(y):= m_{\mu,-1}\left(y, 0 \right) - p\cdot y
\end{equation*}
is a supersolution of the equation
\begin{equation}\label{e.tildmsup.-1}
\left(\left|p+D\tilde m\right|^2-1\right)^2-V(y) \geq \mu \quad \text{in} \ \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
In view of $0\in U$,~\eqref{e.Udeltout.-1},~\eqref{e.wsub.-1} and~\eqref{e.tildmsup.-1}, the comparison principle yields
\begin{equation*}
0= w(0)-\tilde m(0) \leq \max_{\partial U} \left ( w-\tilde m \right) = - \frac{\theta}{4\delta} + \max_{\partial U} \left (-\tilde m \right).
\end{equation*}
Rearranging the previous inequality and using~\eqref{e.Udeltout.-1}, we find that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{y\in B_s} \left(p\cdot y -\delta m_{\mu,-1}\left(\frac{y}{\delta},0\right)\right) \geq \frac{1}{4}\theta.
\end{equation*}
Using~\eqref{e.ptouchm.-1}, we get
\begin{equation} \label{e.bgreps.-1}
\sup_{y\in B_s} \left( \overline m_{\mu,-1}(y) -\delta m_{\mu,-1}\left(\frac{y}{\delta},0\right) \right) \geq \frac{1}{4}\theta.
\end{equation}
We have shown that~\eqref{e.upass.-1} implies~\eqref{e.bgreps.-1}. We therefore obtain the conclusion of the lemma from Proposition~\ref{p.shape}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[{\bf Proof of Lemma~\ref{l.below-valley}}]
Fix $p\in \mathbb{R}^d$, $V\in \Omega$ for which $\inf_{\mathbb{R}^d} V = 0$ and $\sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V = \overline v$ and let $\theta > 0$. Select $y_\theta\in \mathbb{R}^d$ and a number $r>0$ such that $\sup_{B_r(y_\theta)} V \leq \theta$. Let $\varphi$ be any smooth function on $B_r(y_\theta)$ such that $\varphi(x)\rightarrow +\infty$ as $x \to \partial B_r(y_\theta)$. Then $v^\delta(\cdot,p) - \varphi$ attains a local maximum at some point $y \in B_r(y_\theta)$. The equation~\eqref{e.appcell} then gives
\begin{equation}\label{e.belowthe}
\delta v^\delta(y,p)\leq \delta v^\delta(y,p) + \left(\left| p+D\varphi(y) \right|^2 -1 \right)^2 \leq V(y) \leq \theta.
\end{equation}
Letting $r\to 0$, we obtain that
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\delta v^\delta (y_\theta,p) \leq \theta.
\end{equation*}
In view of~\eqref{e.dvdLip}, we have
\begin{equation*}
-\delta v^\delta(0,p) \geq -\theta -\delta \left|v^\delta(y_\theta,p)-v^\delta(0,p)\right|\geq -\theta - C\delta |y_\theta|
\end{equation*}
where $C>0$ depends only on an upper bound for $|p|$ and $\overline v$. Sending first $\delta \to 0$ and then $\theta \to 0$ yields
\begin{equation} \label{e.belowzero}
\liminf_{\delta \to 0} -\delta v^\delta(0,p) \geq 0.
\end{equation}
We have shown that $\inf_{\mathbb{R}^d} V = 0$ and $\sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V =\overline v$ imply~\eqref{e.belowzero} for all $p\in \mathbb{R}^d$. We therefore obtain the conclusion of the lemma by an appeal to~Lemma~\ref{l.detm}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[{\bf Proof of Lemma~\ref{l.above}}]
The argument is similar to that of Lemma~\ref{l.below.+1}. We fix $(\mu,\sigma) \in \mathcal A$ and $p\in \partial \overline m_\mu(\partial B_1)$. Select $e\in \partial B_1$ such that $p \in \partial \overline m_{\mu,\sigma}(e)$. Since $\overline m_{\mu,\sigma}$ is positively homogeneous, this means that, for every $y\in \mathbb{R}^d$,
\begin{equation} \label{e.cripp}
\overline m_{\mu,\sigma}(e) - p\cdot e = 0 \leq \overline m_{\mu,\sigma}(y) - p\cdot y.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
We suppose that for fixed $V\in \Omega$ and $\delta>0$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{e.downass}
-\theta:=\mu+\delta v^\delta(0,p) <0.
\end{equation}
We define
$$
w(y):=v^\delta(y,p)-v^\delta(0,p)+c\theta\left( \left(1+|y|^2\right)^{1/2}-1\right),
$$
and notice that, for $c>0$ sufficiently small, $w$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{e.supc}
\left(|p+Dw|^2-1\right)^2-V(y) \geq -\delta v^\delta(y,p)-\frac14 \theta \quad \text{in}\ \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
By \eqref{e.dvdbnd}, there exists $s>0$, which independent of $\delta$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{e.Udoagain}
U:=\left\{y\in \mathbb{R}^d\,:\,w(y) \leq \frac{\theta}{4\delta}\right\} \subseteq B_{s/\delta}.
\end{equation}
In view of~\eqref{e.downass},~\eqref{e.supc} and~\eqref{e.Udoagain}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e.wsup}
\left(|p+Dw|^2-1\right)^2-V(y) \geq \mu+\frac{\theta}{2} \quad \text{in}\ U.
\end{equation}
We next employ \eqref{e.sub}, \eqref{e.Udoagain}, and the fact that $\sigma^2 \leq 1$ to deduce that the function
$$
\tilde m(y):=-m_{\mu,\sigma}(y,se/\delta)-p\cdot y
$$
is a subsolution of the equation
\begin{equation}\label{e.mtildesub}
\left(|p+D\tilde m|^2-1\right)^2-V(y) \leq \mu \quad \text{in}\ U.
\end{equation}
The usual comparison hence implies
$$
\tilde m(0)=\tilde m(0)-w(0) \leq \max_{\partial U}(\tilde m - w)
$$
Rearranging the above and using \eqref{e.Udoagain} to achieve that
\begin{equation}\label{e.above.re}
\sup_{y\in B_s}\left(-p\cdot y - \delta m_{\mu,\sigma}\left(\frac{y}{\delta},\frac{se}{\delta}\right)+\delta m_{\mu,\sigma}\left(0,\frac{se}{\delta}\right)\right) \geq \frac14 \theta.
\end{equation}
By the symmetric property~\eqref{e.mmusym} of $m_{\mu,\sigma}$ and~\eqref{e.cripp}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{e.supcont}
\sup_{y\in B_s}\left(- \left(\delta m_{\mu,\sigma}\left(\frac{se}{\delta},\frac{y}{\delta}\right)-\overline m_{\mu,\sigma}(se-y)\right)
+\left( \delta m_{\mu,\sigma}\left(\frac{se}{\delta},0\right)-\overline m_{\mu,\sigma}(se)\right) \right) \geq \frac14 \theta.
\end{equation}
We have shown that~\eqref{e.downass} implies~\eqref{e.supcont}. The conclusion of the lemma therefore follows from~Proposition~\ref{p.shape}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[{\bf Proof of Lemma~\ref{l.above-hilltop}}]
Fix $p\in \overline B_1$ and $V\in \Omega$ for which $\sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V = \overline v$. Suppose $\theta,\delta > 0$ are such that
\begin{equation}\label{e.downhillass}
\delta v^\delta(0,p) \leq -\mu_* - \theta.
\end{equation}
Define
\begin{equation*} \label{}
w(y):=v^\delta(y,p)-v^\delta(0,p)+c\theta\left( \left(1+|y|^2\right)^{1/2}-1\right),
\end{equation*}
and check that, if $c>0$ is sufficiently small, then $w$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{e.hillsupc}
\left(\left|p+Dw\right|^2-1\right)^2-V(y) \geq -\delta v^\delta(y,p)-\frac14 \theta \quad \text{in}\ \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
By \eqref{e.dvdbnd}, there exists $s>0$, which is independent of $\delta$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{e.Uinagain}
U:=\left\{y\in \mathbb{R}^d\,:\,w(y) \leq \frac{\theta}{4\delta}\right\} \subseteq B_{s/\delta}.
\end{equation}
In view of~\eqref{e.downhillass},~\eqref{e.hillsupc} and~\eqref{e.Uinagain}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e.hillwsup}
\left(|p+Dw|^2-1\right)^2-V(y) \geq \mu_*+\frac{1}{2}\theta \quad \text{in}\ U.
\end{equation}
Set $\eta:= \frac14 \min\{\theta,1\}$, select $y_\theta \in \mathbb{R}^d$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{e.ytheta}
V(y_\theta) \geq \overline v - \eta = 1 - \kappa - \eta.
\end{equation}
According to~\eqref{e.mmuyz.-1} and~\eqref{e.mmuyz.+1}, $m_{\mu,0}(y,z) = |y-z|$ for every $\mu\geq 0$ and $y,z\in \mathbb{R}^d$. Define
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\tilde m(y):=-m_{0,0}(y,y_\theta)-p\cdot y=-|y-y_\theta|-p\cdot y.
\end{equation*}
We claim that $\tilde m$ is a subsolution of the equation
\begin{equation}\label{e.hillmsub}
\left(|p+D\tilde m|^2-1\right)^2-V(y) \leq \mu_*+\frac{1}{4}\theta \quad \text{in}\ \mathbb{R}^d.
\end{equation}
In view of \eqref{e.sub}, it suffices to check~\eqref{e.hillmsub} at the vertex point $y_\theta$. We consider a smooth test function $\phi$ such that
\begin{equation*} \label{}
y\mapsto \tilde m(y) - \phi(y) = -|y-y_\theta|- \left( \phi(y) + p\cdot y \right) \ \ \mbox{has a local maximum at} \ y = y_\theta.
\end{equation*}
It is evident that
\begin{equation*} \label{}
|p+D\phi(y_\theta)|^2 \leq 1.
\end{equation*}
Thus $\left( |p+D\phi(y_\theta)|^2 - 1\right)^2\leq 1$ and so we deduce from~\eqref{e.ytheta} that
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\left( |p+D\phi(y_\theta)|^2 - 1\right)^2 - V(y_\theta) \leq 1 - V(y_\theta) \leq \kappa + \eta \leq \mu_* + \frac14\theta.
\end{equation*}
This completes the proof of~\eqref{e.hillmsub}.
\smallskip
Applying the comparison principle, in view of $0\in U$,~ \eqref{e.hillwsup} and~\eqref{e.hillmsub}, we obtain
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\tilde m(0)=\tilde m(0)-w(0) \leq \max_{\partial U}(\tilde m - w)
\end{equation*}
Rearranging the above expression and using \eqref{e.Uinagain}, we deduce that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{y\in B_s}\left(-p\cdot y - \delta \left|\frac{y}{\delta}-y_\theta\right|+\delta |y_\theta|\right) \geq \frac14 \theta.
\end{equation*}
By the usual triangle inequality, this yields
\begin{equation} \label{e.hillsupcont}
\sup_{y\in B_s} \left(p\cdot (-y) -|y|\right) \geq \frac14\theta - 2\delta |y_\theta|.
\end{equation}
We have shown that~\eqref{e.downhillass} and $\sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V = \overline v$ implies~\eqref{e.hillsupcont}. As $p\in \overline B_1$,~\eqref{e.hillsupcont} is impossible for $\delta < \theta/(8|y_\theta|)$.
\smallskip
We have shown that $\sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V = \overline v$ implies that, for every $p\in\overline B_1$ and $\theta > 0$,
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\delta v^\delta(0,p) \geq -\mu_* - \theta \quad \mbox{for all} \quad 0<\delta < \theta/(8|y_\theta|).
\end{equation*}
Thus $\sup_{\mathbb{R}^d} V = \overline v$ implies
\begin{equation*} \label{}
\limsup_{\delta \to 0} \sup_{|p|\leq 1} - \delta v^\delta(0,p) \leq \mu_*.
\end{equation*}
We therefore obtain the statement of the lemma after an appeal to Lemma~\ref{l.detm}.
\end{proof}
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements.}
The third author was partially supported by NSF CAREER award \#1151919.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
Perturbation theory is a class of mathematical methods used to find approximations of solutions of dynamical systems which cannot be solved directly, see \cite{Kha, sand, Holmes}. Averaging is a powerful perturbation based tool that has applications in the study of time-varying linear and nonlinear dynamical systems. Where applicable, averaging can provide closeness of solutions results for the solutions of trajectories of such systems related to those of a corresponding averaged system. As the trajectories of this averaged system can be substantially simpler than those of the original time-varying system, stability analysis can be simplified by exploiting closeness of solutions results provided by the averaging, see \cite{nes3, nes4,Bullo,volo, Bai, Per}. Averaging results have been developed for numerous classes of dynamical systems and differential inclusions (see \cite{Bit,Don, nes1, nes2, Sus}) including dynamical systems on Lie groups, see \cite{Leo1, Leo2, Leo3, Gur}.
The state spaces of many dynamical systems constitute Riemannian manifolds (see \cite{Lewis, Bloch, Arnold, mar1, Sastry}) and consequently their analyses require differential geometric tools. Examples of such systems can be found in many mechanical settings, see \cite{Lewis, Bloch}.
In this paper, averaging is extended to a particular class of dynamical systems evolving on Riemannian manifolds. Such systems arise naturally in classical mechanics (see \cite{Lewis, Bloch, Arnold}) where the state space of the dynamical system is restricted to such a manifold. A version of averaging methods for dynamical systems on Lie groups is introduced in \cite{Leo1, Leo2, Leo3}. We address the problem of closeness of solutions on finite and infinite time horizons on Riemannian manifolds. These results generalize those presented in \cite{Kha}, Chapter 10. In the case of compact time intervals, the analyses are presented for dynamical systems on compact Riemannian manifolds.
By employing the notion of \textit{Levi-Civita} connection on Riemannian manifolds, we study the closeness of solutions of vector fields where the closeness is exploited with respect to the Riemannian distance function, see \cite{Lee4}. Using a version of stability theory for systems evolving on Riemannian manifolds (see \cite{forni,Ang, Lewis}) we extend the closeness of solutions results (\cite{Kha, nes, sand}) to the infinite time interval where average systems are assumed to be locally asymptotically or exponentially stable. We use the scaling technique to bound the Riemannian metric by the Euclidean one (see \cite{Lee3, jost, Pet}) on a precompact (see \cite{Lee3}) neighborhood of an equilibrium of the average system in its uniform normal neighborhood and invoke some of the standard results of the stability theory presented in \cite{Kha}. Geometric features of the normal neighborhoods such as existence of unique length minimizing geodesics and their local representations enable us to closely relate the results obtained for dynamical systems in $\mathds{R}^{n}$ to those in Riemannian manifolds.
In terms of exposition, Section 2 presents some mathematical preliminaries needed for the analyses of the paper. Section 3 presents the main averaging results for dynamical systems on Riemannian manifolds on finite time horizon together with some numerical examples. The results of Section 3 are strengthened to the infinite time horizon limit in Sections 4 and 5 by employing a notion of stability on Riemannian manifolds.
\section{Preliminaries}In this section we provide the differential geometric material which is necessary for the analyses presented in the rest of the paper. Table I summarizes key notation used throughout:\\
\begin{table}[ht]
\caption{Notation and descriptions}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\hline\hline
Symbol& Description \\ [0.5ex]
\hline
$M$ & Riemannian manifold \\
$\mathfrak{X}(M)$ & space of smooth time-invariant\\ &vector fields on $M$\\
$\mathfrak{X}(M\times \mathds{R})$ & space of smooth time-varying\\ &vector fields on $M$\\
$\mathfrak{X}(\mathds{R}\times M)$ & space of smooth parameter-varying\\ &vector fields on $M$\\
$C^{\infty}(M)$ & space of smooth functions on $M$\\
$T_{x}M$ & tangent space at $x\in M$ \\
$T^{*}_{x}M$ & cotangent space at $x\in M$ \\
$TM$ & tangent bundle of $M$\\
$T^{*}M$ & cotangent bundle of $M$\\
$\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i}}$ & basis tangent vectors at $x\in M$\\
$dx_{i}$ & basis cotangent vectors at $x\in M$\\
$f(x,t)$ & time-varying vector fields on $M$ \\
$||f||_{g}$ & Riemannian norm of $f$\\
$||f||_{e}$ & Euclidean norm of $f$\\
$g(.,.)$ & Riemannian metric on $M$ \\
$d(.,.)$ & Riemannian distance on $M$\\
$\nabla$ & (Levi-Civita) Connection on $M$\\
$\Phi_{f}$ & flow associated with $f$\\
$T\Phi_{f}$ & push-forward of $\Phi_{f}$\\
$T^{*}\Phi_{f}$ & pull-back of $\Phi_{f}$\\
$\mathds{R}_{>0}$& $(0,\infty)$\\
$\mathds{R}_{\geq 0}$& $[0,\infty)$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:nonlin}
\end{table}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\begin{definition}
A Riemannian manifold $M$ is a differentiable manifold together with a Riemannian metric $g, \hspace{.2cm}x\in M$, where $g:T_{x}M\times T_{x}M\rightarrow \mathds{R}$ is symmetric and positive definite where $T_{x}M$ is the tangent space at $x\in M$ (see \cite{Lee2}, Chapter 3). For $M=\mathds{R}^{n}$, the Riemannian metric $g$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray} g\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i}},\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}\right)=\delta_{ij},\hspace{.2cm}i,j=1,...,n,\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker delta.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
For a given smooth mapping $F:M\rightarrow N$ from manifold $M$ to manifold $N$ the pushforward $TF$ is defined as a generalization of the Jacobian of smooth maps in Euclidean spaces as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} TF:T_{x}M\rightarrow T_{F(x)}N,\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray} TF(X_{x})\circ f=X_{x}(f\circ F),\hspace{.2cm}X_{x}\in T_{x}M, f\in C^{\infty}(N).\nonumber\\\end{eqnarray}
The pullback $T^{*}F$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray} T^{*}F:T^{*}_{F(x)}N\rightarrow T^{*}_{x}M,\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray} T^{*}F(\omega)\circ X_{x}=\omega(TF(X_{x})),\hspace{.2cm}X_{x}\in T_{x}M, \omega\in T^{*}_{F(x)}N,\nonumber\\\end{eqnarray}
where $T^{*}M$ is the cotangent bundle of $M$ (see \cite{Lee2} Chapters 3 and 6).
\end{definition}
In this paper we restrict the analysis to connected finite dimensional Riemannian manifolds.
On an $n$ dimensional Riemannian manifold $M$, the length function of a smooth curve $\gamma:[a,b]\rightarrow M$ is defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} \ell(\gamma)=\int^{b}_{a}\big(g(\dot{\gamma}(t),\dot{\gamma}(t))\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}dt,\end{eqnarray}
in which $g$ denotes the Riemannian metric on $M$.
Consequently we can define a metric (distance) $d$ on an $n$ dimensional Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{l} &&d:M\times M\rightarrow \mathds{R},\hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\&& d(x,y)=\inf_{\gamma:[a,b]\rightarrow M}\int^{b}_{a}\big(g(\dot{\gamma}(t),\dot{\gamma}(t))\big)^{\frac{1}{2}}dt,\nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray} where $\gamma:[a,b]\rightarrow M$ is a piecewise smooth path and $\gamma(a)=x,\gamma(b)=y$.
For $M=\mathds{R}^{n}$ we have
\begin{eqnarray} d(x,y)=\left(\sum^{n}_{i=1}(x_{i}-y_{i})^{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{eqnarray}
The following theorem ensures that for any connected Riemannian manifold $M$, any pair of points $x,y\in M$ can be connected by a piecewise smooth path $\gamma$. This notion is used to construct a family of curves in the proof of one of the main results of the paper.\\
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\begin{theorem}[\hspace{-.025cm}\cite{Lee3}, Page 94]
\label{t1}
Suppose $(M,g)$ is an $n$ dimensional connected Riemannian manifold. Then, for any pair $p,q\in M$, there exists a piecewise smooth path which connects $p$ to $q$.
\end{theorem}
Employing the distance function above it can be shown that $(M,d)$ is a metric space. This is formalized by the next theorem.\\
\begin{theorem}[\hspace{-.02cm}\cite{Lee3}, Page 94]
\label{t2}
With the distance function $d$ defined in (\ref{l}), any connected Riemannian manifold is a metric space where the induced topology is same as the manifold topology.
\end{theorem}
For a smooth $n$ dimensional Riemannian manifold $M$, a \textit{linear connection} is defined by the following map (see \cite{Lee3})
\begin{eqnarray} \nabla:TM\times TM\rightarrow TM,\end{eqnarray}
where for all $a,b\in \mathds{R}$, $f,h\in C^{\infty}(M)$ and $X,Y,Z\in \mathfrak{X}(M)$,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{kos1}\nabla_{fX+hY}Z=f\nabla_{X}Z+h\nabla_{Y}Z,\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \nabla_{X}(aY+bZ)=a\nabla_{X}Y+b\nabla_{X}Z,\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{lev}\nabla_{X}(fY)=f\nabla_{X}Y+X(f)Y.\end{eqnarray}
The \textit{Levi-Civita} connection $\nabla:\mathfrak{X}(M)\times \mathfrak{X}(M)\rightarrow\mathfrak{X}(M)$ is the unique linear connection on $M$ (see \cite{Lee3}, Theorem 5.4) which is torsion free and compatible with the Riemannian metric $g$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{kir3}&&\mbox{compatibility with}\hspace{.2cm} g\nonumber\\&&Xg(Y,Z)=g(\nabla_{X}Y,Z)+g(Y,\nabla_{X}Z),\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{levi} \hspace{-.5cm}&&(i)(\mbox{torsion free}): \nabla_{X}Y-\nabla_{Y}X=[X,Y],\hspace{.5cm}\nonumber\\\hspace{-.2cm}&&(ii): \nabla_{X}f=X(f),\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray} [X,Y](f)=X(Y(f))-Y(X(f)).\end{eqnarray}
For $M=\mathds{R}^{n}$ we have
\begin{eqnarray} \nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{i}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}}=0,\hspace{.2cm}i,j=1,...,n.\end{eqnarray}
\begin{definition}[\hspace{-.02cm}\cite{Lee3}, Page 96]
\label{kir}
An \textit{admissible family} of curves on $M$ is a continuous map \\$\Gamma:(\epsilon_{0},\epsilon_{f})\times [\tau_{0},\tau_{f}]\rightarrow M,\hspace{.2cm}\epsilon\in(\epsilon_{0},\epsilon_{f}) ,\tau\in [\tau_{0},\tau_{f}],\\ \epsilon_{0},\epsilon_{f},\tau_{0},\tau_{f}\in \mathds{R}$ such that $\Gamma$ is smooth with respect to $\epsilon$ and $\tau$ (see Figure \ref{ff2}).
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\vspace*{-1.25cm}\hspace*{-.25cm}\includegraphics[scale=.28]{p2}
\vspace*{-2.25cm}\caption{Admissible family of curves (Definition \ref{kir})}
\label{ff2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Let us denote the tangent vectors obtained by differentiating $\Gamma$ with respect to $\epsilon$ and $\tau$ by
\begin{eqnarray} \partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\epsilon,\tau)\doteq\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\Gamma(\epsilon,\tau),\hspace{.2cm}\partial_{\epsilon}\Gamma(\epsilon,\tau)\doteq\frac{\partial}{\partial\epsilon}\Gamma(\epsilon,\tau).\end{eqnarray}
Note that in general $\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\epsilon,\tau)$ and $\partial_{\epsilon}\Gamma(\epsilon,\tau)$ do not necessarily define vector fields on $M$ since the image of $\Gamma$ may not cover $M$. However, the following lemma enables us to employ the Levi-Civita connection $\nabla$ of $M$ in order to analyze the variation of $\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\epsilon,\tau)$ and $\partial_{\epsilon}\Gamma(\epsilon,\tau)$ with respect to vector fields on $M$.
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\begin{lemma}[\hspace{-.02cm}\cite{Lee3}, Page 50, Lemma 4.1]
\label{l1}
Consider $\gamma:(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\rightarrow M,\hspace{.2cm}\epsilon\in \mathds{R}_{>0}$ such that $\gamma(0)=p\in M$ and $\dot{\gamma}(0)=X_{p}\in T_{p}M$. If two vector fields $Y$ and $\tilde{Y}$ agree along $\gamma$, then
\begin{eqnarray}\nabla_{X_{p}}Y|_{p}= \nabla_{X_{p}}\tilde{Y}|_{p}.\end{eqnarray}\hspace*{7.8cm}\qed
\end{lemma}
Note that by (\ref{levi}), $\nabla$ is torsion free, i.e. $\nabla_{X}Y-\nabla_{Y}X=[X,Y]$. Also note that $[\frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon},\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}]=0$, then we have
\begin{eqnarray} \label{kir4}\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \epsilon}}\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\epsilon,\tau)=\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\partial_{\epsilon}\Gamma(\epsilon,\tau).\end{eqnarray}
The property above will be used to extend standard averaging techniques to dynamical systems defined on Riemannian manifolds.
In particular, this paper focuses on dynamical systems governed by differential equations on $M$ defined by
\begin{eqnarray} &&\hspace{-0cm}\dot{x}(t)=f(x(t),t),\hspace{.2cm} \nonumber\\&&\hspace{-0cm}f(x(t),t)\in T_{x(t)}M,\hspace{.2cm} x(0)=x_{0}\in M, t\in[t_{0},t_{f}],\end{eqnarray}
where $x(t)$ denotes the state at time $t\in[t_0, t_f]$.
The time dependent flow associated with a differentiable time dependent vector field $f$ is a map $\Phi_{f(x,t)}$ satisfying
\begin{eqnarray} &&\Phi_{f}:[t_0, t_{f}]\times [t_{0}, t_{f}]\times M\rightarrow M, \nonumber\\&& (t_{0},s,x)\mapsto \Phi_{f}(s,t_{0},x)\in M,\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \left.\frac{d\Phi_{f}(s,t_{0},x)}{ds}\right|_{s=t}=f(x(t),t)\in T_{x(t)}M.\end{eqnarray}
One may show that, for a smooth vector field $f$, the integral flow $\Phi_{f}(s,t_{0},.)$ is a local diffeomorphism, see \cite{Lee2}.
In this paper, on non compact manifolds, we assume that the vector field $f$ is smooth and \textit{complete}, i.e. $\Phi_{f}$ exists for all $t\in [t_{0},\infty)$.
\subsection{Geodesic Curves}
As known geodesics are defined as length minimizing curves on Riemannian manifolds \cite{jost}. The solution of the Euler-Lagrange variational problem associated with the length minimizing problem shows that all geodesics on $M$ must locally satisfy the system of ordinary differential equations given by (see \cite{Lee3}, Theorem 4.10)
\begin{eqnarray} \label{geo}\ddot{x}_{i}(t)+\sum^{n}_{j,k=1}\Gamma^{i}_{j,k}\dot{x}_{j}(t)\dot{x}_{k}(t)=0,\quad i=1,...,n,\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{cris} \Gamma^{i}_{j,k}\doteq\frac{1}{2}\sum^{n}_{l=1}g^{il}(g_{jl,k}+g_{kl,j}-g_{jk,l}),\quad g_{jl,k}\doteq\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{k}}g_{jl},\nonumber\\\end{eqnarray}
in which $g$ denotes the Riemannian metric on $M$, and $i,j,k\in[1,...,n]$, $n\doteq \dim(M)$. Note
that $[g^{ij}] = [g_{ij}]^{-1}$.
\begin{definition}[\hspace{-.02cm}\cite{Lee3}, Page 72]
The restricted exponential map is defined by
$ \exp_{x}:T_{x}M\rightarrow M,\hspace{.2cm}\exp_{x}(v)=\gamma_{v}(1), v\in T_{x}M,$
where $\gamma_v:[0,1]\rightarrow M$ is the unique maximal geodesic satisfying $\gamma_v(0)=x\in M$,
$\dot\gamma_v(0) = v\in T_x M$, see \cite{Lee3}, Theorem 4.10.
\end{definition}
For the economy of notation, in this paper we refer the restricted exponential maps as exponential maps.
For $x\in M$, consider a $\delta$ ball in $T_{x}M$ such that $B_{\delta}(0)\doteq\{v\in T_{x}M \hspace{.1cm}|\hspace{.1cm} ||v||_{g}<\delta\}$. Then the geodesic ball is defined by the following definition.
\begin{lemma}[\hspace{-.02cm}\cite{Lee3}]
\label{eun}
For any $x\in M$ there exists a neighborhood $B_{\delta}(0)$ in $T_{x}M$ on which $\exp_{x}$ is a diffeomorphism.
\end{lemma}
\begin{definition}[\hspace{-.02cm}\cite{Lee3}]
In a neighbourhood of $x\in M$ where $\exp$ is a local diffeomorphism (this neighborhood always exits by Lemma \ref{eun}), a geodesic ball of radius $0<\delta$ is $\exp_{x}(B_{\delta}(0))\subset M$. Also, we call $\exp_{x}(\overline{B}_{\delta}(0))$ a closed geodesic ball of radius $\delta$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
For a vector space $V$, a \textit{star-shaped neighborhood} of $0\in V$ is any open set $U$ such that if $u\in U$ then $\alpha u\in U, \alpha\in[0,1]$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[\hspace{-.02cm}\cite{Lee3}]
A normal neighborhood around $x\in M$ is any open neighborhood of $x$ which is a diffeomorphic preimage of a star shaped neighborhood of $0\in T_{x}M$ under $\exp$ map. A uniform normal neighborhood of $x$ is any open set which is contained in a geodesic ball of radius $\delta>0$ for all its points.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}[\hspace{-.02cm}\cite{Lee3}]
\label{un}
For any $x\in M$ and any neighborhood $\mathcal{U}_{x}$, there exists a uniformly normal neighborhood $\mathcal{V}_{x}$ such that $\mathcal{V}_{x}\subset \mathcal{U}_{x}$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Averaging on Riemannian Manifolds}
In this section we present the analysis of the averaging methods for nonlinear dynamical systems on Riemannian manifolds.
We derive the propagation equations for a single point under two different vector fields in order to bound the variation of the distance function between different state trajectories.
\subsection{Closeness of Solutions}
Consider the following time-varying dynamical systems on $M$:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{1}&&\dot{x}(t)=f_{1}(x(t),t),\dot{y}(t)=f_{2}(y(t),t),\nonumber\\&& x(t_{0})=y(t_{0})=x_{0}\in M, f_{1},f_{2}\in \mathfrak{X}(M\times \mathds{R}),\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathfrak{X}(M\times \mathds{R})$ is the space of smooth time-varying vector fields on $M$.
\begin{theorem}[Closeness of Solutions]
\label{tp}
Consider the system of dynamical equations given by (\ref{1}) on the time interval $[t_{0},t_{1}]$. Then,
\begin{eqnarray} &&d(\Phi_{f_{1}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{f_{2}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))\nonumber\\&&\leq K(t_{1}-t_{0})\exp [C(t-t_{0})],t\in[t_{0},t_{1}],\end{eqnarray}
for some $K,C\geq 0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
Consider a piecewise smooth path $\gamma(\tau)\in M,\tau\in[0,1]$ as follows (Theorem \ref{t1} guarantees the existence of $\gamma$):
\begin{eqnarray} \gamma:[0,1]\rightarrow M, \gamma(0)=\gamma(1)=x_{0}.\end{eqnarray}
Define a time and parameter varying vector field $X\in\mathfrak{X}(\mathds{R}\times\mathds{R}\times M)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{moj} &&X(\tau,t,x)=f_{2}(x,t)+\tau(f_{1}(x,t)-f_{2}(x,t)),\nonumber\\&& \tau\in[0,1],t\in[0,\infty)\subset\mathds{R},x\in M.\end{eqnarray}
It is clear that $X(0,t,x)=f_{2}(x,t)$, $X(1,t,x)=f_{1}(x,t)$, while $X$ is smooth with respect to $\tau,t$ and $x$.
Hence, $\Phi_{X(0,t,x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0})=\Phi_{f_{2}(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0})$ and $\Phi_{X(1,t,x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0})=\Phi_{f_{1}(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0})$.
An admissible family of curves, $\Gamma$, corresponding to $\Phi_{X(\tau,t,x)}(t,t_{0},\gamma(\tau))$ is given by (see Figure \ref{fff2})
\begin{eqnarray}\label{af} \Gamma:[0,1]\times \mathds{R}\rightarrow M,\hspace{.2cm} \Gamma(\tau,t)\doteq\Phi_{X(\tau,t,x)}(t,t_{0},\gamma(\tau)).\nonumber\\\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-.5cm}\includegraphics[scale=.25]{p1}
\caption{Admissible family of curves}
\label{fff2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Here we analyze the variation of $\ell(\Gamma(\cdot,t))$ with respect to $t$ where $\ell$ is the length function on $M$ where $\ell(\Gamma(t))\doteq \ell(\Gamma(\cdot,t))=\int^{1}_{0}||\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,t)||_{g}d\tau$ (for the sake of simplicity in our notation for this proof we drop the subscript $g$ from $||\cdot||_{g}$ in the following equations). In particular, note that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{miri} \frac{d}{dt}\ell(\Gamma(t))&=&\frac{d}{dt}\int^{1}_{0}||\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,t)||d\tau\nonumber\\&=&\frac{d}{dt}\int^{1}_{0}g(\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\Gamma(\tau,t), \nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\Gamma(\tau,t))^{\frac{1}{2}}d\tau,\end{eqnarray}
where the second equality is implied by (\ref{levi}) (ii). Also note that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{kir2}\frac{\partial}{\partial t} g(\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\Gamma(\tau,t), \nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\Gamma(\tau,t))^{\frac{1}{2}}&=&\frac{\partial}{\partial t}||\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,t)||\nonumber\\&=&\frac{\frac{\partial}{\partial t}||\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,t)||2||\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,t)||}{2||\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,t)||}\nonumber\\&=&\frac{\frac{\partial}{\partial t}||\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,t)||^{2}}{2||\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,t)||}.\end{eqnarray}
Hence, interchanging the order of differentiation and integration in (\ref{miri}) and applying (\ref{kir2}),
\begin{eqnarray} \frac{d}{dt}\ell(\Gamma(t)) &=&\int^{1}_{0}\frac{\frac{\partial}{\partial t}g(\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\Gamma(\tau,t), \nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\Gamma(\tau,t))}{2||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\Gamma(\tau,t)||}d\tau\nonumber\\&=&\int^{1}_{0}\frac{g(\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial t}}\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\Gamma(\tau,t), \nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\Gamma(\tau,t))}{||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\Gamma(\tau,t)||}d\tau\nonumber\\&=&\int^{1}_{0}\frac{g(\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\partial_{t}\Gamma(\tau,t), \nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\Gamma(\tau,t))}{||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\Gamma(\tau,t)||}d\tau\nonumber\\&\leq &\int^{1}_{0}||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\partial_{t}\Gamma(\tau,t)||d\tau\nonumber\\&=&\int^{1}_{0}||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}X(\tau,t,\Gamma(\tau,t))||d\tau,\end{eqnarray}
where the second equality is by applying (\ref{kir4}) and (\ref{kir3}) together and the inequality above is obtained by a direct application of Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. Hence, applying (\ref{moj}),
\begin{eqnarray} \frac{d}{dt}\ell(\Gamma(t))&\leq& \int^{1}_{0}||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\big[f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)+\nonumber\\&&\tau(f_{1}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)-f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t))\big]||d\tau\nonumber\\&=&\int^{1}_{0}||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t))+\nonumber\\&&\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\tau(f_{1}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)-f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t))||d\tau\nonumber\\&\leq&\int^{1}_{0}\big(||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)||+\nonumber\\&&||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\tau(f_{1}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)-f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t))||\big)d\tau,\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
where the last inequality follows by an application of the triangle inequality.
Employing (\ref{lev}),
\begin{eqnarray} &&\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}\tau(f_{1}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)-f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t))=\nonumber\\&&+\tau\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}(f_{1}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)-f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t))\nonumber\\&&(f_{1}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)-f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)),\end{eqnarray}
so that another application of the triangle inequality yields
\begin{eqnarray} \frac{d}{dt}\ell(\Gamma(t))&\leq&\int^{1}_{0}||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)||d\tau+\nonumber\\&&\int^{1}_{0}||(f_{1}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)-f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t))||d\tau+\nonumber\\&&\int^{1}_{0}\tau||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}(f_{1}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)-f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t))||d\tau.\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
Hence,
\begin{eqnarray} &&\ell(\Gamma(t))\leq \ell(\Gamma(t_{0}))+\int^{t}_{t_{0}}\int^{1}_{0}||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,s),s)||d\tau ds+\nonumber\\&&\int^{t}_{t_{0}}\int^{1}_{0}||(f_{1}(\Gamma(\tau,s),s)-f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,s),s))||d\tau ds+\nonumber\\&& \int^{t}_{t_{0}}\int^{1}_{0}\tau||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}(f_{1}(\Gamma(\tau,s),s)-f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,s),s))||d\tau ds.\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
We note that since $\ell(\Gamma(t_{0}))=\ell(\gamma)$, we can choose the trivial path defined by $\gamma(\tau)=x_{0}, \tau\in[0,1]$. Hence, $\ell(\Gamma(t_{0}))=0$. Hence, without loss of generality, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{d} &&d(\Phi_{f_{1}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{f_{2}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))\leq \ell(\Gamma(t))\leq\nonumber\\& &\int^{t}_{t_{0}}\int^{1}_{0}||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,s),s)||d\tau ds\nonumber\\&&+\int^{t}_{t_{0}}\int^{1}_{0}||(f_{1}(\Gamma(\tau,s),s)-f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,s),s))||d\tau ds\nonumber\\&&+ \int^{t}_{t_{0}}\int^{1}_{0}\tau||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}(f_{1}(\Gamma(\tau,s),s)-f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,s),s))||d\tau ds.\nonumber\\\end{eqnarray}
Define
\begin{eqnarray} D_{\Gamma}\doteq\bigcup_{\tau\in[0,1], s\in[t_{0},t_{1}]}\Gamma(\tau,s)\subset M. \end{eqnarray}
Since $\Gamma$ is continuous on $[0,1],\times[t_{0},t_{1}]$, $D_{\Gamma}$ is compact in the topology of $M$. By our hypotheses $f_{1},f_{2}$ are smooth mappings and $\Gamma$ is continuous by construction. Therefore, $||f_{1}(x,t)-f_{2}(x,t)||$ attains its maximum on $D_{\Gamma}\times[t_{0},t_{1}],$ which is denoted by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{tan}K_{\Gamma}\doteq\max_{(x,t)\in D_{\Gamma}\times[t_{0},t_{1}]}||f_{1}(x,t)-f_{2}(x,t)||.\end{eqnarray}
As is shown by (\ref{kos1}), the covariant differential of a vector field $X\in \mathfrak{X}(M)$, i.e. $\nabla X(x),\hspace{.2cm} x\in M$, is a linear operator as (see \cite{Lee3}, Chapter 4)
\begin{eqnarray} \nabla X(x):(T_{x}M,||.||)\rightarrow (T_{x}M,||.||).\end{eqnarray}
We denote the norm of this bounded linear operator by $||\nabla X(x)||$, so that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{kos4}&&\exists C_{i}\in (0,\infty),\hspace{.2cm}s.t.\hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\&& C_{i}\doteq\sup_{x\in D_{\Gamma},t\in[t_{0},t_{1}]}||\nabla f_{i}(x,t)||,\hspace{.2cm}i=1,2.\end{eqnarray}
It is shown in \cite{Lee3}, Lemma 4.2, that $\nabla_{X}Y(x),\hspace{.2cm} X,Y\in \mathfrak{X}(M),x\in M$, only depends on $X(x)\in T_{x}M$. Therefore,
\begin{eqnarray} \nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}f_{i}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)=\nabla_{\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,t)}f_{i}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t),\nonumber\\ \tau\in[0,1],t\in[t_{0},t_{1}],i=1,2,\end{eqnarray}
since $\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}|_{(\tau,t)}=\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,t)$.
Hence,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{ying}||\nabla_{\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau}}f_{i}(\Gamma(\tau,t),t)||\leq C_{i}||\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,t)||.\end{eqnarray}
Applying (\ref{ying}) to (\ref{d}) yields
\begin{eqnarray} \label{jq}\ell(\Gamma(t))&\leq &\int^{t}_{t_{0}}\int^{1}_{0}C_{2}||\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,t)||d\tau ds\nonumber\\&+&\int^{t}_{t_{0}}\int^{1}_{0}||(f_{1}(\Gamma(\tau,s),s)-f_{2}(\Gamma(\tau,s),s))||d\tau ds\nonumber\\&+& \int^{t}_{t_{0}}\int^{1}_{0}\tau \big(C_{1}||\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,s)||+C_{2}||\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,s)||\big)d\tau ds\nonumber\\&\leq &K_{\Gamma}(t-t_{0})+ \int^{t}_{t_{0}} \big(C_{1}+2C_{2}\big)\ell(\Gamma(s))ds\hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\&\leq&K_{\Gamma}(t_{1}-t_{0})+ \int^{t}_{t_{0}} \big(C_{1}+2C_{2}\big)\ell(\Gamma(s))ds,\end{eqnarray}
where to obtain the second inequality we employed (\ref{tan}),(\ref{ying}) and $\int^{1}_{0}||\partial_{\tau}\Gamma(\tau,s)||d\tau=\ell(\Gamma(s))$.
The inequality (\ref{jq}) is in an appropriate form for an application of the Gronwall inequality, which yields
\begin{eqnarray}\label{amy} &&d(\Phi_{f_{1}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{f_{2}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))\leq \ell(\Gamma(t))\leq\nonumber\\&& K_{\Gamma}(t_{1}-t_{0})\exp[(C_{1}+2C_{2})(t-t_{0})],\end{eqnarray}
with $K=K_{\Gamma}$ and $C=(C_{1}+2C_{2})$.\qed
\end{pf}
\subsection{Averaging on Perturbed Dynamical Systems}
Using the closeness of solutions Theorem \ref{tp}, averaging can be introduced for systems evolving on a
manifold $M$ (see Chapters 9 and 10 of \cite{Lewis} and \cite{Kha} respectively). In particular, we consider closeness
of solutions of two perturbed periodic systems of the form (\ref{1}), leading to the study of closeness of
solutions with respect to an averaged system. The resulting averaging Theorem is illustrated via a
subsequent application to a simple example. To this end, consider the following dynamical equations on a Riemannian manifold $M$:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{kos2}&&\dot{x}(t)=f^{\epsilon}_{1}(x,t)=\epsilon f_{1}(x,t),\hspace{.2cm} \nonumber\\&&\dot{y}(t)=f^{\epsilon}_{2}(y,t)=\epsilon f_{2}(y,t),\nonumber\\&&f_{1},f_{2}\in \mathfrak{X}(M\times \mathds{R}),\nonumber\\&& x(t_{0})=y(t_{0})=x_{0}\in M \hspace{.2cm}x(t),y(t)\in M,0\leq\epsilon. \end{eqnarray}
The following lemma extends the closeness of solutions Theorem \ref{tp} to perturbed dynamical systems on $M$. We note that the analyses presented in this paper can be extended to general non-periodic vector fields on Riemannian manifolds. In this case, the averaged vector fields are defined by averaging the nominal vector fields over an infinite time horizon, see \cite{nes4}.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lp}
Consider the dynamical systems of the form (\ref{kos2}) on $M$. Suppose there exists $\epsilon_{1}> 0$ such that the flows $\Phi_{\epsilon f_{i}}(\cdot,t_{0},x_{0}),\hspace{.2cm}i=1,2,$ exist on $[t_{0},t_{1}]$ for $\epsilon\in[0,\epsilon_{1}]$. Then for a time interval of order $O(1)$ and $\epsilon\in(0,\epsilon_{1}]$, we have
\begin{eqnarray} d(\Phi_{\epsilon f_{1}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon f_{2}}(t,t_{0}, x_{0}))=O(\epsilon),\hspace{.2cm}t\in[t_{0},t_{1}].\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf}
We define $\Gamma(\tau,t,\epsilon)$ as an admissible family of curves given by the flow of the vector field $X(\tau,t,x,\epsilon)=\epsilon f_{2}(x,t)+\epsilon\tau(f_{1}(x,t)-f_{2}(x,t))\in T_{x}M,\hspace{.2cm} \tau\in[0,1],t\in[t_{0},t_{1}],x\in M$, such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{gg} \Gamma(\tau,t,\epsilon)\doteq\Gamma_{\epsilon}(\tau,t)=\Phi_{X(\tau,t,x,\epsilon)}(t,t_{0},\gamma(\tau))\in M, \hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\\gamma(\tau)=x_{0}, \tau\in[0,1],\end{eqnarray}
where $\Gamma_{\epsilon}(\tau,t)$ is of the same form as (\ref{af}).
By construction, $\Gamma$ is continuous with respect to $(\tau,t)$. Employing the results of \cite{mar1}, it can be shown that $\Gamma$ is continuous with respect to $\epsilon$ as well. This yields compactness of $\hat{D}_{\Gamma}$, where
\begin{eqnarray} \hat{D}_{\Gamma}\doteq\bigcup_{\tau\in[0,1], t\in[t_{0},t_{1}],\epsilon\in[0,\epsilon_{1}]}\Gamma(\tau,t,\epsilon).\end{eqnarray}
We then modify $K_{\Gamma}$ and $C_{i},\hspace{.2cm}i=1,2$, as per (\ref{tan}) and (\ref{kos4}), to define
\begin{eqnarray} &&\hat{K}_{\Gamma}\doteq\sup_{\hat{D}_{\Gamma}\times[t_{0},t_{1}]}||f_{1}(x,t)-f_{2}(x,t)||,\nonumber\\&& \hat{C}_{i}\doteq\sup_{\hat{D}_{\Gamma}\times[t_{0},t_{1}]}||\nabla f_{i}(x,t)||,\hspace{.2cm}i=1,2.\end{eqnarray}
Applying Theorem \ref{tp} then yields
\begin{eqnarray} &&d(\Phi_{f_{1}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{f_{2}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))\leq\nonumber\\&& \epsilon\hat{K}_{\Gamma}(t_{1}-t_{0})\exp[\epsilon_{1}(\hat{C}_{1}+2\hat{C}_{2})(t-t_{0})]=O(\epsilon),\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
which completes the proof.\qed
\end{pf}
Let us consider a perturbed system as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{pp}\dot{x}(t)=\epsilon f(x(t),t), \hspace{.2cm}f\in \mathfrak{X}(M\times \mathds{R}),x_{0}\in M,\hspace{.2cm}\epsilon\geq 0,\nonumber\\\end{eqnarray}
where $f$ is periodic in $t$ with the period $T$, i.e. $f(x,t)=f(x,t+T)$. Such a system is referred to as \textit{$T$-periodic}. The averaged vector field $\hat{f}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{ppp}\hat{f}(x)\doteq\frac{1}{T}\int^{T}_{0}f(x,s)ds,\end{eqnarray}
where the average dynamical system is locally given by $\dot{x}(t)=\epsilon \hat{f}(x(t))$.
The following theorem is the first order averaging theorem for periodic dynamical systems on compact Riemannian manifolds.
\begin{theorem}[Averaging Theorem]
\label{ta}
For a smooth $n$ dimensional compact Riemannian manifold $M$, let $f\in \mathfrak{X}(M\times \mathds{R})$ be a $T$-periodic smooth vector field. Then, for any given $t_{1}\in [t_{0},\infty)$, such that $t_{1}-t_{0}=O(\frac{1}{\epsilon}),\hspace{.2cm}\epsilon\in(0,\epsilon_{1}]$ for some $0<\epsilon_{1}$,
\begin{eqnarray} d(\Phi_{\epsilon f}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))=O(\epsilon).\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}
In order to prove Theorem \ref{ta}, we employ the notion of pullbacks of vector fields along diffeomorphisms on
$M$. Let $X,Y\in \mathfrak{X}(M\times \mathds{R})$ be smooth time-varying vector fields on $M$, where it may be shown that $\Phi_{Y}(t,t_{0},.):M\rightarrow M$ is a local diffeomorphism (see \cite{mar1}). Define
\begin{eqnarray}\label{pu} &&\Phi_{Y}^{(t,t_{0})^{*}}:T_{\Phi_{Y}(t,t_{0},x_{0})}M\rightarrow T_{x_{0}}M,\nonumber\\&& \Phi_{Y}^{(t,t_{0})^{*}}X(x_{0},s)\doteq T\Phi_{Y}^{(t,t_{0})^{-1}}X(\Phi_{Y}(t,t_{0}, x_{0}),s),\nonumber\\&& t,s\in\mathds{R}, X\in \mathfrak{X}(M\times \mathds{R}),\end{eqnarray}
where $T\Phi_{Y}^{(t,t_{0})^{-1}}$ is the pushforward of $\Phi_{Y}^{-1}(t,t_{0},.):M\rightarrow M$ defined in the standard framework of differential geometry (see \cite{Lee2}, Chapter 3).
We have the following lemma for the variation of smoothly varying vector fields with respect to a parameter variable.
\begin{lemma}[\hspace{-.02cm}\cite{Agra}, Page 40, \cite{Lewis}, Page 451]
\label{ll1}
Consider a smooth vector field $Y\in \mathfrak{X}(\mathds{R}\times M)$ with the associated flow $\Phi_{Y}(t,t_{0},\cdot):M\rightarrow M$. Then,
\begin{eqnarray}&& \frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda}\Phi_{Y(\lambda,x(t))}(t,t_{0},x_{0})=T_{x_{0}}\Phi^{(t,t_{0})}_{Y(\lambda,x(t))}\times\nonumber\\&&\int^{t}_{t_{0}}\Phi^{(s,t_{0})^{*}}_{Y(\lambda,x(s))}\frac{\partial }{\partial \lambda}Y\left(\lambda,\Phi_{Y(\lambda,x(s))}(s,t_{0},x_{0})\right)ds=\nonumber\\&&\int^{t}_{t_{0}}(\Phi^{-1})^{(t,s)^{*}}_{Y(\lambda,x(s))}\frac{\partial }{\partial \lambda}Y(\lambda,\Phi_{Y(\lambda,x(s))}(s,t_{0},x_{0}))ds\nonumber\\&& \in T_{\Phi_{Y(\lambda,x(t))}^{(t,t_{0})}(x_{0})}M.\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{8cm}\qed\end{lemma}
The proof of Theorem 4 follows via the methodology of \cite{Lewis} for dynamical systems evolving
on $\mathds{R}^n$, and an extension of the results of \cite{Kha}, Theorem 10.4.
\begin{pf}(Theorem \ref{ta})
Define the smooth parameter varying vector field $Y(\lambda,x)\doteq\int^{\lambda}_{0}\big(f(x,s)-\hat{f}(x)\big)ds,\hspace{.2cm}0\leq \lambda,$ then by Lemma \ref{ll1} we have
\begin{eqnarray} &&\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda}\Phi_{\epsilon Y(\lambda,x(t))}(t,t_{0},x_{0})=\nonumber\\&&\epsilon\int^{t}_{t_{0}}(\Phi^{-1})^{(t,s)^{*}}_{\epsilon Y(\lambda,x(s))}\frac{\partial }{\partial \lambda}Y(\lambda,\Phi_{Y(\lambda,x(s))}(s,t_{0},x_{0}))ds=\nonumber\\&&\epsilon\int^{t}_{t_{0}}(\Phi^{-1})^{(t,s)^{*}}_{\epsilon Y(\lambda,x(s))}\big(f(x(s),\lambda)-\hat{f}(x(s))\big)ds.\end{eqnarray}
For a given initial condition $y_{0}\in M$, define a perturbed curve $y:\mathds{R}\times \mathds{R}\rightarrow M $ by
\begin{eqnarray} y(\lambda,\tau)\doteq\Phi_{\epsilon Y(\lambda,y)}(\tau,0,y_{0}),\hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\ y_{0}\in M,\tau\in[0,1],\lambda\in\mathds{R}_{\geq 0}.\end{eqnarray}
Since $Y(\lambda,x)$ is smooth with respect to both $x$ and $\lambda$, then $\Phi_{\epsilon Y(\lambda,y(\lambda,\tau))}(1,0,y_{0})$ has the same degree of regularity with respect to $\lambda$ (see \cite{mar1, Lewis}, Page 450). Note that the existence of $\Phi_{\epsilon Y(\lambda,y(\lambda,\tau))}(1,0,y_{0})$ is guaranteed by the compactness of
$M$. Define
\begin{eqnarray} \label{b}D_{\Phi,\epsilon}\doteq\bigcup_{\tau\in[0,1]}\Phi_{\epsilon Y(\lambda,y)}(\tau,0,y_{0})\subset M, \hspace{.2cm}\lambda\in\mathds{R}_{\geq 0}.\end{eqnarray}
Now we show that
\begin{eqnarray} d(\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,x(t))}(1,0,y_{0}),y_{0})=O(\epsilon),\hspace{.2cm}t\in[t_{0},\infty).\end{eqnarray}
By the definition of the length function in (\ref{l}),\\ $d(\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,x(t))}(t,t_{0},y_{0}),y_{0})\leq \ell(\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,x(t))}(t,t_{0},y_{0})),$ therefore
\begin{eqnarray} &&d(\Phi_{\epsilon Y(\lambda,y(\lambda,\tau))}(1,0,y_{0}),y_{0})\leq \nonumber\\&&\ell(\Phi_{\epsilon Y(\lambda,y(\lambda,\tau))}(1,0,y_{0}))\leq \epsilon\int^{1}_{0}||Y(\lambda,y(\lambda,\tau))||d\tau.\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
Periodicity of $Y$ with respect to $\lambda$, boundedness of $y(\lambda,\tau),\hspace{.2cm}\lambda\in[0,T],$ in the sense of prempactness of $D_{\Phi,\epsilon}$ (i.e. $D_{\Phi,\epsilon}$ is contained in a compact set $M$) in (\ref{b}) and smoothness of $Y$ with respect to $y$ together yield $d(\Phi_{\epsilon Y(\lambda,y(\lambda,\tau))}(1,0,y_{0}),y_{0})=O(\epsilon)$.
In order to obtain the statement of the theorem it is sufficient to prove that
\begin{eqnarray} d(\Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,x)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))=O(\epsilon),\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
since by the triangle inequality,
\begin{eqnarray} &&d(\Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}), \Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))\leq\nonumber\\&& d(\Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,x)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))+\nonumber\\&& d(\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,x)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0})),\end{eqnarray}
where \\$\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,x)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0})\doteq\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,x)}(1,0, \Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))$.
Here we compute the tangent vector field of $y(t)=\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,x)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0})\in M$. The derivative of $\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,x)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0})$ with respect to time can be computed via the chain rule as follows:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{rr}&&\dot{y}(t)=T_{\Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}}(t,t_{0},x_{0})}\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,y)}^{(1,0)}\Big(\epsilon \hat{f}(\Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))\Big)+\nonumber\\&&\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,y)}^{(1,0)}\big(\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,y)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0})\big)=(\Phi^{-1})_{\epsilon Y(t,y)}^{(1,0)^{*}}\nonumber\\&&\Big(\epsilon \hat{f}(\Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))\Big)+\epsilon\int^{1}_{0}(\Phi^{-1})^{(1,s)^{*}}_{\epsilon Y(t,y(s))}\nonumber\\&&\big(f(y(s),t)-\hat{f}(y(s))\big)ds,\end{eqnarray}
where the second equality is established by the definition of pullbacks in (\ref{pu}) and the equation of parameter variation of flows given by Lemma \ref{ll1}.
In a compact form, (\ref{rr}) is written as
\begin{eqnarray} \dot{y}(t)&=&\epsilon\Big[(\Phi^{-1})_{\epsilon Y(t,y)}^{(1,0)^{*}} \hat{f}+\int^{1}_{0}(\Phi^{-1})^{(1,s)^{*}}_{\epsilon Y(t,y(s))}\nonumber\\&&\big(f-\hat{f}\big)ds\Big]\circ y(t)\doteq\epsilon G(\epsilon,t,y(t)).\end{eqnarray}
where $G(\epsilon,t,y)\in T_{y(t)}M$. Since the vector fields $f,\hat{f}$ are both smooth, the construction above implies that $G$ is smooth with respect to $\epsilon$. One can see that by setting $\epsilon=0$, the nominal vector field $f$ is retrieved from $G$, i.e. $G(0,t,x)=f(x,t)$. This is due to the fact that at $\epsilon=0$, $(\Phi^{-1})_{\epsilon Y(t,x)}^{(1,0)^{*}}=I$ and the state trajectory $y(.)$ will be independent of $s$ in the integral term of $G$ (for an identically zero vector field, the state trajectory does not evolve away from its initial state). By applying the Taylor expansion with remainder we have
\begin{eqnarray} G(\epsilon,t,x)=f(x,t)+\epsilon h(x,\zeta,t),\end{eqnarray}
where $h(x,\zeta,t)=\frac{\partial }{\partial \epsilon}G(\epsilon,t,x)|_{\epsilon=\zeta}$ and $\zeta\in[0,\epsilon]$ and both $G$ and $h$ are $T$ periodic.
Now let us explore the state variation along the following dynamical equations:
\begin{eqnarray} &&\dot{x}(t)=\epsilon f(x(t),t),\hspace{2.2cm}x(t_{0})=x_{0},\nonumber\\&&\dot{y}(t)=\epsilon f(y(t),t)+\epsilon^{2} h(y,\zeta,t),\hspace{.2cm}y(t_{0})=x_{0}.\end{eqnarray}
We note that $G$ is a smooth vector field on a compact Riemannian manifold $M$. Therefore, employing the results of the Escape Lemma (see \cite{Lee2}, Lemma 17.10) yields completeness of the flow of $G$ on $M$.
Following the results of Theorem \ref{tp} and (\ref{jq}),
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ggg} &&d(\Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,x)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))\leq\nonumber\\&& \epsilon^{2}K_{\Gamma,h}(t-t_{0})\exp[\epsilon(C+\epsilon\hat{C})(t-t_{0})],\nonumber\\\end{eqnarray}
where there exist $0<K_{\Gamma,h},C,\hat{C}<\infty,$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{para} && K_{\Gamma,h}\doteq\sup_{(x,t)\in M\times[t_{0},t_{0}+T]}||h(x,\zeta,t)||,\nonumber\\&& C\doteq\sup_{ (x,t)\in M\times[t_{0},t_{0}+T]}||\nabla f(x,t)||,\nonumber\\&&\hspace{.2cm}\hat{C}\doteq\sup_{(x,t)\in M\times[t_{0},t_{0}+T]}||\nabla h(x,\zeta,t)||.\end{eqnarray}
The parameters $K_{\Gamma,h}, C,$ and $\hat{C}$ are all invariant with respect to $x$, since
\begin{eqnarray} \hat{D}^{\infty}_{\Gamma}\doteq\bigcup_{\tau\in[0,1], t\in[t_{0},\infty],\epsilon\in[0,\epsilon_{1}]}\Gamma(\tau,t,\epsilon)\subset M,\end{eqnarray}
where $\Gamma$ is defined by (\ref{gg}). Also $f$ and $h$ are both $T$ periodic therefore the maximization in (\ref{para}) is taken on $t\in[t_{0},t_{0}+T]$.
\\\\Obviously for $t-t_{0}=O(\frac{1}{\epsilon})$ we have
\begin{eqnarray} d(\Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon Y(t,x)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))=O(\epsilon),\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
which completes the proof.\qed
\end{pf
\subsection{An example of averaging on $SO(3)$}
\label{ex1}
In this section we present an example on $SO(3)$ which is a compact Lie group, see \cite{Lee2}.
The Lie algebra $\mathcal{L}$ of a Lie group $G$ is the tangent space at the identity element $e$ with the associated Lie bracket defined on the tangent space of $G$, i.e. $\mathcal{L}=T_{e}G$.
A vector field $X$ on $G$ is called \textit{left invariant } if
\begin{eqnarray} \forall g_{1},g_{2}\in G,\quad X(g_{1}\star g_{2})=TL_{g_{1}}X(g_{2}),\end{eqnarray}
where $L_{g_{1}}:G\rightarrow G,\hspace{.2cm} L_{g_{1}}(h)=g_{1}\star h,\hspace{.2cm} TL_{g_{1}}:T_{g_{2}}G\rightarrow T_{g_{1}\star g_{2}}G$ which immediately imply $X(g_{1}\star e)=X(g_{1})=TL_{g_{1}}X(e)$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-.25cm}\includegraphics[scale=.25]{gg1}
\caption{State trajectories on $SO(3)$(nominal system: solid line, average system: dashed line), $\epsilon=0.5$ (see Section \ref{ex1})}
\label{ff11}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-.25cm}\includegraphics[scale=.25]{gg2}
\caption{State trajectories on $SO(3)$ (nominal system: solid line, average system: dashed line), $\epsilon=0.1$(see Section \ref{ex1})}
\label{ff22}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We recall that $SO(3)$ is the rotation group in $\mathds{R}^{3}$ given by
\begin{eqnarray} SO(3)= \big \{x\in GL(3)\hspace{.1cm}| \quad x\,\cdot\, x^{T}=I,\hspace{.1cm} det(x)=1\big\},\end{eqnarray}
where $GL(n)$ is the set of nonsingular $n\times n$ matrices.
The Lie algebra of $SO(3)$ which is denoted by $so(3)$ is given by (see \cite{Varad})
\begin{eqnarray} so(3)=\big\{ X\in M(3)\hspace{.1cm}|\quad X+X^{T}=0\big\},\end{eqnarray}
where $M(n)$ is the space of all $n\times n$ matrices. The Lie group operation $\star$ is given by the matrix multiplication and consequently $TL_{g_{2}}$ is also given by the matrix multiplication $g_{2}X,\hspace{.2cm} X\in T_{g_{1}}G$.
A left invariant dynamical system on $SO(3)$ is given by (for the definition of left invariant dynamical systems see \cite{Lewis})
\begin{eqnarray} \dot{x}(t)=x(t)X(t),\quad x(0)=x_{0},\hspace{.2cm} X(t)\in so(3).\end{eqnarray}
The Lie algebra bilinear operator is defined as the commuter of matrices, i.e. $[X,Y]=XY-YX,\quad X,Y\in so(3).$
A controlled left invariant system on $SO(3)$ is then defined by
\begin{eqnarray} &&\hspace{-.2cm}\begin{array}{ll}\dot{x}(t)=x(t)\left( \begin{array}{ll} 0 \quad \hspace{.5cm}u_{1}(t) \quad u_{3}(t)\\-u_{1}(t)\quad 0\quad\hspace{.3cm} u_{2}(t)\\-u_{3}(t)\quad \hspace{-.2cm}-u_{2}(t)\quad 0
\end{array}\right), \hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\x(t)\in SO(3), (u_{1}(t),u_{2}(t),u_{3}(t))\in \mathds{R}^{3}.\end{array}\end{eqnarray}
The Lie algebra $so(3)$ is spanned by $e_{1}=\left( \begin{array}{ll} 0 \quad\hspace{.3cm} 1 \quad 0\\-1\quad 0\quad 0\\0\quad\hspace{.3cm} 0\quad 0
\end{array}\right),\nonumber\\ e_{2}=\left( \begin{array}{ll} 0 \quad\hspace{.3cm} 0 \quad 0\\0\quad\hspace{.3cm} 0\quad 1\\0\quad -1\quad 0
\end{array}\right) \mbox{and}\hspace{.2cm}e_{3}=\left( \begin{array}{ll} 0 \quad\hspace{.3cm} 0 \quad 1\\0\quad\hspace{.3cm} 0\quad 0\\-1\quad 0\quad 0
\end{array}\right)$.
Consider the following perturbed left invariant dynamical system on $SO(3)$:
\begin{eqnarray} &&\hspace{-.2cm}\dot{x}(t)=\epsilon x(t)\left( \begin{array}{ll} 0 \quad \hspace{.7cm}\sin^{2}(t) \quad 1\\-\sin^{2}(t)\quad 0\quad\hspace{.3cm} \cos(t)\\-1 \quad \hspace{.2cm}-\cos(t)\quad 0\end{array}\right).\end{eqnarray}
The average dynamical system is given by $\dot{x}(t)=\epsilon x(t)\left( \begin{array}{ll} 0 \quad \hspace{.3cm}\frac{1}{2} \quad 1\\-\frac{1}{2}\quad 0\quad\hspace{0cm} 0\\-1 \quad \hspace{0cm}0\quad 0\end{array}\right).$
Figures \ref{ff11} and \ref{ff22} show the closeness of solutions for the nominal and averaged systems above for $\epsilon=.5,$ and $.1$ respectively for $t\in[0,20]$ and $t\in[0,100]$ as expected by the results of Theorem \ref{ta}.
\section{Infinite horizon averaging on Riemannian manifolds}
\label{s4}
Closeness of solutions on a finite time horizon may be extended to the infinite horizon limit via the
incorporation of appropriate stability properties, yielding averaging results for systems evolving on (not
necessarily compact) Riemannan manifolds. To this end, it is useful to state a number of standard
stability properties defined with respect to such manifolds.
\begin{definition}
For the dynamical system $\dot{x}(t)=f(x), \hspace{.2cm}f:M\rightarrow TM$, $\bar{x}\in M$ is an equilibrium if
\begin{eqnarray} \Phi_{f}(t,t_{0},\bar{x})=\bar{x},\hspace{.2cm}t\in[t_{0},\infty),\end{eqnarray}
where $\Phi_{f}$ is the flow of $f$.
\qed\end{definition}
\begin{definition}[\hspace{-.02cm}\cite{Lewis, Kha,forni,Ang}]
For the dynamical system $\dot{x}(t)=f(x), \hspace{.2cm}f:M\rightarrow TM$, an equilibrium $\bar{x}\in M$ is\\
(i): \textit{Lyapunov stable} if for any $t_0\in\mathds{R}$ and any neighborhood $\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$ of $\bar{x}$, there exits a neighborhood $\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}}$ of $\bar{x}$, such that
\begin{eqnarray} x(t_{0})\in \mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}}\Rightarrow \Phi_{f}(t,t_{0},x(t_{0}))\in \mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}},\hspace{.2cm}t\in[t_{0},\infty).\end{eqnarray}\\
(ii): locally asymptotically stable if it is Lyapunov stable and for any $t_0\in\mathds{R},$ there exits $\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}},$ such that
\begin{eqnarray} \forall x(t_{0})\in \mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}},\hspace{.2cm}\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\Phi_{f}(t,t_{0},x(t_{0}))=\bar{x}. \end{eqnarray}\\
(iii) globally asymptotically stable if it is Lyapunov stable and for any $t_0\in\mathds{R}$,
\begin{eqnarray} \forall x(t_{0})\in M,\hspace{.2cm}\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\Phi_{f}(t,t_{0},x(t_{0}))=\bar{x}. \end{eqnarray}
(iv): locally exponentially stable if it is locally asymptotically stable and for any $t_0\in\mathds{R}$, there exists $\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}},$ such that
\begin{eqnarray} d(\Phi_{f}(t,t_{0},x(t_{0})),\bar{x})\leq kd(x(t_{0}),\bar{x})\exp(-\lambda(t-t_{0})),\nonumber\\ k,\lambda\in \mathds{R}_{>0},x(t_{0})\in \mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}.\nonumber\\\end{eqnarray} \hspace*{7.8cm}\qed
\end{definition}
We note that the convergence on $M$ is defined in the topology induced by the metric $d$ which is same as the original topology of $M$ by Theorem \ref{t2}.
\begin{definition}[\hspace{-.02cm}\cite{Lewis, Kha}]
A function $v:M\rightarrow \mathds{R}$ is locally positive-definite (positive-semidefinite) around $\bar{x}$ if $v(\bar{x})=0$ and there exists a neighborhood $\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}\subset M$ such that for all
$ x\in \mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}-\{\bar{x}\},\hspace{.2cm} 0<v(x) \hspace{.2cm}(\mbox{respectively}\hspace{.2cm} 0\leq v(x)).$\qed
\end{definition}
Given a smooth function $v:M\rightarrow \mathds{R}$, the Lie derivative of $v$ along a vector field $f$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray} \mathfrak{L}_{f}v\doteq dv(f),\end{eqnarray}
where $dv:TM\rightarrow \mathds{R}$ is the differential form of $v$, locally given by (see \cite{Lee2})
\begin{eqnarray} dv=\sum^{n}_{i=1}\frac{\partial v}{\partial x_{i}}dx_{i},\end{eqnarray}
where $n\doteq dim(M)$.
\begin{definition}
A smooth function $v:M\rightarrow \mathds{R}$ is a Lyapunov function for the vector field $f$, if $v$ is locally positive definite around the equilibrium $\bar{x}$ and $\mathfrak{L}_{f}v$ is locally negative-definite. \qed
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
The sublevel set $\mathcal{N}_{b}$ of a positive semidefinite function $v:M\rightarrow\mathds{R}$ is defined as $\mathcal{N}_{b}\doteq\{x\in M, \hspace{.2cm} v(x)\leq b\}$. By $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$ we denote the connected sublevel set of $M$ containing $\bar{x}\in M$. \hspace*{7.8cm}\qed
\end{definition}
The following lemma shows that there exists a connected compact neighborhood of an equilibrium point of a dynamical system on a Riemannian manifold.
\begin{lemma}[\hspace{-.02cm}\cite{Lewis}]
\label{lc}
Let $\bar{x}\in M$ be an equilibrium of $\dot{x}=f(x(t)),\hspace{.2cm}x(t)\in M$ and
$v$ be a Lyapunov function on a neighborhood of $\bar{x}$. Then, for any neighborhood $\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$ of $\bar{x}$, there exists $b\in\mathds{R}_{> 0}$ such that $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$ is compact, $\bar{x}\in int(\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}))$ and $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\subset \mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$.\hspace*{7.3cm}\qed
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}
\label{taa}
For a smooth $n$ dimensional Riemannian manifold $M$, let $f\in \mathfrak{X}(M\times \mathds{R})$ be a $T$-periodic smooth vector field and assume the nominal and averaged vector fields are both complete for $\epsilon\in(0,\epsilon_{1}],\hspace{.2cm}0< \epsilon_{1}$. Suppose the averaged dynamical system has a locally exponentially stable equilibrium $\bar{x}\in M$ such that there exists a Lyapunov function $v:M\rightarrow \mathds{R}$ where $\mathfrak{L}_{\hat{f}}v$ is locally negative-definite around $\bar{x}$. Then, there exists a neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_{\bar{x}}$ and $\hat{\epsilon}\leq\epsilon_{1}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray} d(\Phi_{\epsilon f}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))=O(\epsilon),\hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\\epsilon\in(0,\hat{\epsilon}],x_{0}\in \mathcal{N}_{\bar{x}},\hspace{.2cm} t\in[t_{0},\infty),\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat f$ is the averaged vector field (\ref{ppp}).
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
First we note that the existence of a Lyapunov function $v:M\rightarrow \mathds{R}$ around $\bar{x}$, where $\mathfrak{L}_{\hat{f}}v$ is locally negative-definite around $\bar{x}$, guarantees that $\bar{x}$ is locally asymptotically stable (see \cite{Lewis}, Theorem 6.14).
In order to analyze the dynamical system (\ref{pp}) on $[t_{0},\infty)$, we subtract the nominal vector field from the averaged vector field and integrate, yielding
\begin{eqnarray} Z(\lambda,x)\doteq\int^{\lambda}_{0}(\hat{f}(x)-f(x,\tau))d\tau,\hspace{.2cm}x\in M,\lambda\in\mathds{R}_{\geq 0}.\nonumber\\\end{eqnarray}
Now consider a composition of flows on $M$ given by:
\begin{eqnarray} z(t)=\Phi^{(1,0)}_{\epsilon Z(y,t)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}).\end{eqnarray}
Similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{ta}, the tangent vector field of $z$ is computed by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{rrr}\dot{z}(t)&=&T_{\Phi_{\epsilon f}(t,t_{0},x_{0})}\Phi_{\epsilon Z(t,z)}^{(1,0)}\Big(\epsilon f(\Phi_{\epsilon f}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),t)\Big)\nonumber\\&&+\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Phi_{\epsilon Z(t,z)}^{(1,0)}\big(\Phi_{\epsilon Z(t,z)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0})\big)\nonumber\\&=&(\Phi^{-1})_{\epsilon Z(t,z)}^{(1,0)^{*}}\Big(\epsilon f(\Phi_{\epsilon f}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),t)\Big)\nonumber\\&&+\epsilon\int^{1}_{0}(\Phi^{-1})^{(1,s)^{*}}_{\epsilon Z(t,z(s))}\big(\hat{f}(z(s))-f(z(s),t)\big)ds,\nonumber\\\end{eqnarray}
or equivalently
\begin{eqnarray} \label{kk}\dot{z}(t)&=&\epsilon\Big[(\Phi^{-1})_{\epsilon Z(t,z)}^{(1,0)^{*}} f\nonumber\\&&+\int^{1}_{0}(\Phi^{-1})^{(1,s)^{*}}_{\epsilon Z(t,z(s))}\big(\hat{f}-f\big)ds\Big]\circ z(t)\nonumber\\&\doteq&\epsilon H(\epsilon,t,z(t)). \end{eqnarray}
Similar to our analysis in the proof of Theorem \ref{ta}, one can see that $H(0,t,x)=\hat{f}(x)$ where by the construction above, $H$ is smooth with respect to $\epsilon$. By applying the Taylor expansion with remainder we have
\begin{eqnarray} H(\epsilon,t,x)=\hat{f}(x)+\epsilon h(x,\zeta,t),\end{eqnarray}
where $h(x,\zeta,t)=\frac{\partial }{\partial \epsilon}H(\epsilon,t,x)|_{\epsilon=\zeta}$ and $\zeta\in[0,\epsilon]$.
We note that $H(\epsilon,t,x)$ is periodic with respect to time since $f(x,t)$ and $Z(t,x)$ are both T-periodic. Hence, $h(x,\zeta,t)$ is a T-periodic vector field on $M$.
Periodicity of $Z$ with respect to $\lambda$ and its continuity with respect to $(\lambda,t)$ give the compactness of $\hat{D}_{\Phi,\epsilon}$ where
\begin{eqnarray} \label{bb}\hat{D}_{\Phi,\epsilon}\doteq\bigcup_{\tau\in[0,1],\lambda\in[0,\infty)}\Phi_{\epsilon Z(\lambda,z)}(\tau,0,z_{0}), \hspace{.2cm}\end{eqnarray}
and similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{ta} we can show that
\begin{eqnarray} d(\Phi_{\epsilon Z(t,z)}(1,0,z),z)=O(\epsilon),\hspace{.2cm}t\in[t_{0},\infty).\end{eqnarray}
Note that we do not need the compactness of $M$ in order to obtain the statement above since for any initial state $z_{0}$, the state trajectory $\Phi_{\epsilon Z(t,z)}(\tau,0,z_{0}),\tau\in[0,1]$ remains in the compact set $\hat{D}_{\Phi,\epsilon}$. The compactness of $\hat{D}_{\Phi,\epsilon}$ is a direct result of the continuity of $\Phi_{\epsilon Z(\lambda,z)}(\tau,0,z_{0}),\tau\in[0,1]$ with respect to $\tau$ and $\lambda$ (see \cite{mar1}).
The metric triangle inequality implies that
\begin{eqnarray} &&d(\Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}), \Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))\leq\nonumber\\&& d(\Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon Z(t,x)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))\nonumber\\&&+ d(\Phi_{\epsilon Z(t,x)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0})).\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
Hence, to demonstrate that the hypothesis of the theorem holds, we need to show that
\begin{eqnarray} d(\Phi_{\epsilon Z(t,x)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))=O(\epsilon),\hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\t\in[t_{0},\infty).\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
To this end, we analyze the distance variation of the following dynamics:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{kkk}&&\dot{x}(t)=\epsilon \hat{f}(x(t)),\hspace{2.2cm}x(t_{0})=x_{0},\nonumber\\&&\dot{z}(t)=\epsilon \hat{f}(z(t))+\epsilon^{2} h(z,\zeta,t),\hspace{.2cm}z(t_{0})=x_{0}.\end{eqnarray}
Rescaling time via $\omega=\epsilon t$ in (\ref{kkk}) yields
\begin{eqnarray} &&\frac{dx}{d\omega}=\hat{f}\left(x(\frac{\omega}{\epsilon})\right),\hspace{2.3cm}x(\omega_{0})=x_{0},\nonumber\\&&\frac{dz}{d\omega}= \hat{f}\left(z(\frac{\omega}{\epsilon})\right)+\epsilon h(z,\zeta,\frac{\omega}{\epsilon}),\hspace{.2cm}z(\omega_{0})=x_{0}.\end{eqnarray}
Without loss of generality we assume positive definiteness and negative definiteness of $v$ and $\mathfrak{L}_{\hat{f}}v$ are both defined in the same neighborhood $\mathcal{V}_{\bar{x}}\subset \mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$ of $\bar{x}$, where $(\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}},\psi)$ is the local coordinate system around $\bar{x}$. Otherwise we employ the intersection of the corresponding neighborhoods to perform all the analyses above.
Hence, by Lemma \ref{lc}, there exists $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\subset\mathcal{V}_{\bar{x}}$ such that $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$ is compact. Continuity of solutions and negativity of $\mathfrak{L}_{\hat{f}}v$ together imply that
\begin{eqnarray} x\in int(\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}))\Rightarrow \Phi_{\hat{f}}(\omega,\omega_{0},x)\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}),\hspace{.2cm}\omega\in[\omega_{0},\infty).\nonumber\end{eqnarray}\\
Now we show that the integral flow of the nominal perturbed system stays close (in the sense of metric $d$) to the integral flow of the averaged system.
By linearity of Lie derivatives, we have
\begin{eqnarray} \mathfrak{L}_{\hat{f}(z)+\epsilon h(z,\zeta,\omega)}v&=&\mathfrak{L}_{\hat{f}(z)}v+\epsilon \mathfrak{L}_{h(z,\zeta,\omega)}v\nonumber\\&=&dv(\hat{f}(z))+\epsilon dv(h(z,\zeta,\omega)).\end{eqnarray}
Since $\mathfrak{L}_{.}(v(x)):T_{x}M\rightarrow \mathds{R}$ is a bounded linear map, we introduce $||\mathfrak{L}_{.}(v)||$ as the operator norm of $dv$. Then we define
\begin{eqnarray} ||\mathfrak{L}_{.}(v)||_{\Omega}\doteq\sup_{x\in \Omega}||\mathfrak{L}_{.}(v(x))||.\end{eqnarray}
Since $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$ contains a neighborhood of $\bar{x}$, applying the Shrinking Lemma (see \cite{Lee4}) implies the existence of a prempact neighborhood $\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray} \mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}}\subset \overline{\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}}}\subset \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}).\end{eqnarray}
Then, $M-\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}}$ is a closed set and $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\bigcap\left( M-\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}}\right)\subset \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$ is a compact set, where
\begin{eqnarray} \mathfrak{L}_{\hat{f}}v(z)|_{z\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\bigcap (M-\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}})}<0.\end{eqnarray}
Define
\begin{eqnarray} \mathfrak{M}\doteq\sup_{z\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\bigcap (M-\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}})}\mathfrak{L}_{\hat{f}}v(z)<0.\end{eqnarray}
Consequently
\begin{eqnarray} &&\mathfrak{L}_{\hat{f}(z)}v+\epsilon \mathfrak{L}_{h(z,\zeta,\omega)}v\leq \mathfrak{M}+\epsilon||\mathfrak{L}_{.}v||_{\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\bigcap (M-\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}})}\times\nonumber\\&& \hspace{4cm}||h(z,\zeta,\omega)||_{g},\nonumber\\&&z\in\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\bigcap (M-\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}}), \epsilon\in(0,\epsilon_{1}],\omega\in [\omega_{0},\infty),\end{eqnarray}
Since $h$ is periodic with respect to $\omega$ and smooth with respect to $z,\zeta$, there exists $\epsilon_{0}>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray} \mathfrak{M}+\epsilon||\mathfrak{L}_{.}v||_{\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\bigcap( M-\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}})} ||h(z,\zeta,\omega)||_{g}\leq 0,\hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\z\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\bigcap (M-\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}}), \epsilon\in(0,\epsilon_{0}],\omega\in [\omega_{0},\infty).\end{eqnarray}
Note that $z\in int(\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}))$ implies that either $z\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\bigcap (M-\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}})$ or $z\in \mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}}$. In the first case, $\mathfrak{L}_{\hat{f}(z)}v+\epsilon \mathfrak{L}_{h(z,\zeta,\omega)}v\leq 0$, so that $\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega,\omega_{0},z)\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$. In the second case $\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega,\omega_{0},z)$ either stays in $\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}}$ or enters $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\bigcap M-\mathcal{W}_{\bar{x}}$ and consequently it stays in $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$.
Hence, for the interval of existence of solutions $[\omega_{0},\omega_{f})$, we have $\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega,\omega_{0},z)\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}) ,\hspace{.2cm} z\in int(\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}))$. Applying the Escape Lemma (see \cite{Lee2}) gives $\omega_{f}=\infty$. That is it has been shown that $\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega,\omega_{0},z)\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}) ,\hspace{.2cm} z\in int(\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}))$ is bounded in the sense of being trapped in the compact set $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$.
If the initial state $x_{0}\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$, then by the statement above $\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega,\omega_{0},x_{0})\in \mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}},\hspace{.2cm}\omega\in[\omega_{0},\infty)$, where $(\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}},\psi)$ is the local coordinate chart around $\bar{x}$ and (with no loss of generality) we assume $\psi(\bar{x})=0\in \mathds{R}^{n}$.
The uniform normal neighborhood of $\bar{x}\in M$ with respect to $\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$ is denoted by $\mathcal{U}^{n}_{\bar{x}}$ (its existence is guaranteed by Lemma \ref{un}). Consider a geodesic ball of radius $\delta$ where $\exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\delta}(0))\subset \mathcal{U}^{n}_{\bar{x}}$. By definition, $\exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\delta}(0))$ is an open set containing $\bar{x}$ in the topology of $M$. Therefore by Lemma \ref{lc} one can shrink $b$ to $\acute{b}, 0<\acute{b}\leq b,$ such that $\mathcal{N}_{\acute{b}}(\bar{x})\subset \exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\delta}(0))$ ($v$ is locally positive and smooth). Employing the results of \cite{Pet}, Section 5.6, we know that the distance function $d(\cdot,\bar{x})$ is given locally in $\mathcal{U}^{n}_{\bar{x}}$ by
\begin{eqnarray} d(x,\bar{x})=\left(\sum^{n}_{i=1}x^{2}_{i}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},\end{eqnarray}
which is the Euclidean distance function and hence in the normal coordinate system the convergence in the topology of $M$ will be same as the convergence in the Euclidean topology. The vector space $T_{x}M$ is a finite dimensional normed vector space therefore $\overline{B}_{\delta}(0)\subset T_{\bar{x}}M$ is compact and consequently $\exp_{\bar{x}}(\overline{B}_{\delta}(0))\subset M$ is a compact set ($\exp$ is a local diffeomorphism).
Let us replace the Riemannian metric $g$ with the standard Euclidean metric on $\mathcal{N}_{\acute{b}}$. Smoothness of $\hat{f}$ and compactness of $\exp_{\bar{x}}(\overline{B}_{\delta}(0))$ together imply that the Jacobian matrix $\frac{\partial\hat{f}}{\partial x}$ is bounded on $\mathcal{N}_{b}$ and hence the conditions of the Converse Lyapunov Theorem (see \cite{Kha}, Theorem 4.14) are satisfied.
Since $\bar{x}$ is exponentially stable, invoking the results of \cite{Kha} (Theorems 4.14 and 9.1) implies that there exists a parameter $0<\beta$ which is independent of $||h(z,\zeta,\omega)||_{e}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{luc}||x(\omega)-z(\omega)||_{e}\leq \epsilon\beta K,\end{eqnarray}
where $||.||_{e}$ is the Euclidean norm of $\mathds{R}^{n}$, and
\begin{eqnarray} K&\doteq&\sup_{z\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}), \omega\in[\omega_{0},\infty)}||h(z,\zeta,\omega)||_{e}\nonumber\\&=&\sup_{z\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}), \omega\in[\omega_{0},\omega_{0}+ T]}||h(z,\zeta,\omega)||_{e}.\end{eqnarray}
The vector space $T_{x}M$ is scalable with respect to $||.||_{e}$ and $||.||_{g}$, i.e. there exist $0<\lambda_{1}\leq \lambda_{2}$ such that $\lambda_{1}||X||_{e}\leq ||X||_{g}\leq \lambda_{2}||X||_{e},\hspace{.2cm} X\in T_{x}M$.
Continuity of $v$ implies that $\mathcal{N}_{\acute{b}}(\bar{x})$ is closed and compact, with the latter following as $\mathcal{N}_{\acute{b}}(\bar{x})\subset \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$ and $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$ is compact. Hence, without loss of generality, we assume that $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\subset \exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\delta}(0))$ and consequently $\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega,\omega_{0},z)\in \exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\delta}(0)),\hspace{.2cm}\omega\in[\omega_{0},\infty), z\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}) $. By scaling the Euclidean and Riemannian metrics inside $\exp_{\bar{x}}(\overline{B}_{\delta}(0))$ we have (for the scaling procedure see \cite{Lee3}, Lemma 5.12)
\begin{eqnarray}\lambda_{1}||X||_{e}\leq ||X||_{g}\leq \lambda_{2}||X||_{e},\hspace{.2cm}X\in T_{x}M, x\in \exp_{\bar{x}}(\overline{B}_{\delta}(0)).\nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray}
Now in the Euclidean metric $||.||_{e}$ consider a smooth straight line parametrized by time $\gamma_{1}:[0,1]\rightarrow \mathds{R}^{n}$ such that $\gamma_{1}(0)=x(\omega)$ and $\gamma_{1}(1)=z(\omega)$.
The results of \cite{Pet}, Corollary 5.3, ensure that when $\exp$ is diffeomorphic on its image then the Euclidean distance ball and the geodesic ball are identical sets on $M$. Therefore employing (\ref{luc}) implies that choosing $\hat{\epsilon}<min\{\epsilon_{0},\epsilon_{1}\}$ small enough guarantees the closeness of $x(\omega)$ and $z(\omega)$ in the sense that $\gamma_{1}\subset \exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\delta}(0))$. Hence,
\begin{eqnarray} \label{tay}&&d(x(\omega),z(\omega))\leq \ell(\gamma_{1})= \int^{1}_{0}||\dot{\gamma_{1}}(\tau)||_{g}d\tau\leq\nonumber\\&& \lambda_{2}\int^{1}_{0}||\dot{\gamma_{1}}(\tau)||_{e}d\tau=\lambda_{2}||x(\omega)-z(\omega)||_{e}\leq \epsilon \lambda_{2} \beta K,\nonumber\\&&\omega\in [\omega_{0},\infty), \end{eqnarray}
which completes the proof by choosing $\mathcal{N}_{\bar{x}}=int(\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}))$.\\\hspace*{8cm}\qed
\end{pf}
The exponential stability requirement of Theorem \ref{taa} can be relaxed to local asymptotic stability. This yields a closeness of solutions result of a similar form to Theorem \ref{taa}, but with a weaker
implied property. A version of this result is obtained for dynamical systems with external disturbances in \cite{nes}, Theorem 1. In \cite{Peut}, for a special case of homogeneous dynamical systems and under some technical hypotheses, it has been shown that the asymptotic stability of the average system implies the asymptotic stability of the nominal system.
\begin{theorem}
\label{taaa}
For a smooth $n$ dimensional Riemannian manifold $M$, let $f\in \mathfrak{X}(M\times \mathds{R})$ be a $T$-periodic smooth vector field and assume the nominal and averaged vector fields are both complete for $\epsilon\in(0,\epsilon_{1}],\hspace{.2cm}0< \epsilon_{1}$. Suppose the averaged dynamical system has a locally asymptotically stable equilibrium $\bar{x}\in M$ such that there exists a Lyapunov function $v:M\rightarrow \mathds{R}$ with $\mathfrak{L}_{\hat{f}}v$ is locally negative-definite around $\bar{x}$. Then, for every $0<\delta$, there exists a neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_{\bar{x}}$ and $\hat{\epsilon}\leq\epsilon_{1}$, such that
\begin{eqnarray} d(\Phi_{\epsilon f}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))\leq \delta,\hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\\epsilon\in(0,\hat{\epsilon}],x_{0}\in \mathcal{N}_{\bar{x}},\hspace{.2cm} t\in[t_{0},\infty).\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
Without loss of generality assume $\delta$ is small enough so that $\exp$ is a diffeomorphism on $\exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\frac{\delta}{4}}(0))$ and $\exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\frac{\delta}{4}}(0))\subset \mathcal{U}^{n}_{\bar{x}}$ where $B_{\frac{\delta}{4}}(0)\in T_{\bar{x}}M$ ($\mathcal{U}^{n}_{\bar{x}}$ is the uniform normal neighborhood around $\bar{x}$). Following the steps of the proof of Theorem \ref{taa} it can be shown that $\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega,\omega_{o},z)\in\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}) ,\hspace{.2cm} z\in int(\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}))$ where $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$ is a connected compact sublevel set of the Lyapunov function $v$ such that $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\subset \exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\frac{\delta}{4}}(0))$. Now let us consider the Euclidean metric instead of the Riemannian one on $\exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\frac{\delta}{4}}(0))$. Since $\exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\frac{\delta}{4}}(0))\subset \mathcal{U}^{n}_{\bar{x}}$, employing the results of \cite{Pet}, Corollary 5.3, \cite{Lee3}, Proposition 5.11, implies that the geodesic balls and Euclidean balls are identical, while smoothness of $\hat{f}$ implies the boundedness of $\frac{\partial \hat{f}}{\partial x}$ on the compact set $\exp_{\bar{x}}(\overline{B}_{\frac{\delta}{4}}(0))$. Combining the results of \cite{Kha}, Theorem 4.16 and Lemma 9.3 together implies that there exists $\epsilon_{0}>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{hel}d(\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega,\omega_{0},x),\bar{x})\leq \rho(\epsilon K),\hspace{.2cm} \omega_{0}\leq \omega<\infty,\epsilon\in(0,\epsilon_{0}],\nonumber\\\end{eqnarray}
where $K\doteq \sup_{x\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}),\omega\in [\omega_{0},\omega_{0}+T]}||h(x,\zeta,\omega)||_{e},$
and $\rho$ is a strictly increasing continuous function satisfying $\rho(0)=0$. Note that there exists a class $\mathcal{K}\mathcal{L}$ function (for the definition of $\mathcal{K}\mathcal{L}$ functions see \cite{Kha}, Section 4.4) in the statement of Lemma 9.3 in \cite{Kha} which bounds the state trajectory up to a specified time $t$. Since this $\mathcal{K}\mathcal{L}$ function is decreasing with respect to time and its construction only depends on the average system then we can choose $\epsilon_{0}$ sufficiently small such that (\ref{hel}) holds for all $\omega\geq \omega_{0}$.
Now by the continuity of $\rho$, we can choose $\epsilon_{0}$ sufficiently small such that $d(\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega,\omega_{0},x),\bar{x})\leq \rho(\epsilon K)\leq \frac{\delta}{4}, \forall\epsilon\in(0,\epsilon_{0}]$. Selecting the initial condition $x_{0}\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})\subset \exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\frac{\delta}{4}}(0)) $ guarantees that the state trajectory of the average system does not exit $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$. Hence,
\begin{eqnarray} &&d(\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega,\omega_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\hat{f}}(\omega,\omega_{0},x_{0}))\leq\nonumber\\&& d(\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega,\omega_{0},x_{0}),\bar{x})+d(\Phi_{\hat{f}}(\omega,\omega_{0},x_{0}),\bar{x})\leq \frac{\delta}{2},\hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\&&\forall x_{0}\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}).\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, we choose $\hat{\epsilon}\leq min\{\epsilon_{0},\epsilon_{1}\}$, so that
\begin{eqnarray} &&d(\Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}), \Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))\leq\nonumber\\&& d(\Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon Z(t,x)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))+ \nonumber\\&&d(\Phi_{\epsilon Z(t,x)}^{(1,0)}\circ \Phi_{\epsilon f(x,t)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}(x)}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))\leq\nonumber\\&& O(\epsilon)+\frac{\delta}{2}\leq \delta,\hspace{.2cm}\epsilon\in(0,\hat{\epsilon}].\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
Hence, the statement of the theorem follows for $\mathcal{N}_{\bar{x}}=int(\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}))$ and $\hat{\epsilon}$.
\qed\end{pf}
\section{Almost global stability and infinite horizon averaging on compact Riemannian manifolds}
Now we focus on the analysis of the closeness of solutions for dynamical systems evolving on compact Riemannian manifolds where the average system is almost globally stable. The notion of almost global stability is defined below. We note that, due to the non-contractibility of compact manifolds, there exists no smooth vector field which globally asymptotically stabilizes an equilibrium on a compact configuration manifold, see \cite{San, Mai}.
\begin{definition}[\cite{San, Mai}]
\label{nic}
For the dynamical system $\dot{x}(t)=f(x), \hspace{.2cm}f:M\rightarrow TM$, an equilibrium $\bar{x}\in M$ is almost globally asymptotically/exponentially stable if there exists an open $\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$ dense in $M$ such that for all $t_{0}\in \mathds{R}$\\
(i):(almost globally asymptotically) $\bar{x}$ is Lyapunov stable on $M$ and
\begin{eqnarray} \forall x(t_{0})\in \mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}},\hspace{.2cm}\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}\Phi_{f}(t,t_{0},x(t_{0}))=\bar{x}. \end{eqnarray}
(ii):(almost globally exponentially) if $\bar{x}$ is almost globally asymptotically stable and \begin{eqnarray} \label{tas}d(\Phi_{f}(t,t_{0},x(t_{0})),\bar{x})\leq &&kd(x(t_{0}),\bar{x})\exp(-\lambda(t-t_{0})),\nonumber\\&& k,\lambda\in \mathds{R}_{>0},x(t_{0})\in \mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}.\end{eqnarray} \qed
\end{definition}
The following Theorems specify closeness of solutions on an infinite time horizon for systems evolving on compact Riemannian
manifolds.
\begin{theorem}
\label{ttaa}
For a smooth $n$ dimensional compact Riemannian manifold $M$, let $f\in \mathfrak{X}(M\times\mathds{R})$ be a $T$-periodic smooth vector field. Suppose $\bar{x}\in M$ is almost globally exponentially stable on $M$ for the average dynamical system $\hat{f}$ and there exists a Lyapunov function $v:M\rightarrow \mathds{R}$ such that $\mathfrak{L}_{\hat{f}}v$ is locally negative-definite around $\bar{x}$. Then, there exist a dense open set $\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}\subset M$ and $\hat{\epsilon}>0$ such that
\begin{eqnarray} d(\Phi_{\epsilon f}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}}(t,t_{0},x_{0}))=O(\epsilon),\hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\\epsilon\in(0,\hat{\epsilon}],\forall x_{0}\in \mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}},\hspace{.2cm} t\in[t_{0},\infty).\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
The proof follows via Lemma \ref{lp} and Theorem \ref{taa}.
First we note that, since $\hat{f}$ is almost globally exponentially stable, by Definition \ref{nic} there exists $\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$ such that (\ref{tas}) holds. Since $\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$ is open in the topology of $M$ then $M-\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$ is closed and closed subsets of compact sets are all compact, see \cite{Lee4}. Hence, there exists a neighborhood $ U^{1}_{\bar{x}}\subset M$ such that $U^{1}_{\bar{x}}\bigcap (M-\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}})=\emptyset$. Otherwise, $\bar{x}\in M-\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$, or $\bar{x}$ is a limit point of $M-\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$. Since $M-\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$ is closed, it follows that $\bar{x}\in M-\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$ which contradicts the fact that $\hat{f}$ is almost globally exponentially stable on $\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}$. In the time scaled variable $\omega=\epsilon t$, the exponential stability of $\hat{f}$ implies that there exist $\tau>0$ such that $\Phi_{\hat{f}}(\omega,\omega_{0},x_{0})\in U^{1}_{\bar{x}},\hspace{.2cm}\omega\geq\tau$, see Figure \ref{mm},
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-.25cm}\includegraphics[scale=.3]{mm}
\caption{State trajectories of the nominal and averaged systems.}
\label{mm}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
and also continuity of $\Phi_{\hat{f}}(.,\omega_{0},x_{0})$ gives the compactness of $\bigcup_{\omega\in[\omega_{0},\tau]}\Phi_{\hat{f}}(\omega,\omega_{0},x_{0})$ in $M$. The distance function $d$ on $M$ is continuous with respect to both of its arguments, so that by Lemma \ref{lp}, on compact time intervals (compactness in $\omega$ gives $t-t_{0}=O(\frac{1}{\epsilon})$) we can select $\epsilon_{1}$ and $U^{1}_{\bar{x}}$ as small as
\begin{eqnarray} \left(\bigcup_{\omega\in[\omega_{0},\tau]}\Phi_{ f}(\omega,\omega_{0},x_{0})\right)\bigcap (M-\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}})=\emptyset.\end{eqnarray}
As presented in the proof of Theorem \ref{taa}, we have the following time rescaled equations:
\begin{eqnarray} &&\frac{dx}{d\omega}=\hat{f}\left(x(\frac{\omega}{\epsilon})\right),\hspace{2.3cm}x(\omega_{0})=x_{0},\nonumber\\&&\frac{dz}{d\omega}= \hat{f}\left(z(\frac{\omega}{\epsilon})\right)+\epsilon h(z,\zeta,\frac{\omega}{\epsilon}),\hspace{.2cm}z(\omega_{0})=x_{0}.\end{eqnarray}
Employing the results of Lemma \ref{lp}, on a compact interval of time $\omega_{1}-\omega_{0}$, we can shrink $\epsilon_{1}$ as
\begin{eqnarray} \label{jus}d\left(\Phi_{\hat{f}}(\omega,\omega_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega,\omega_{0}, x_{0})\right)=O(\epsilon),\hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\\omega\in[\omega_{0},\omega_{1}],\epsilon\in(0,\epsilon_{1}].\end{eqnarray}
Assume for $\delta >0$ that $\exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\delta}(0))\subset\mathcal{U}^{n}_{\bar{x}}$, where $\mathcal{U}^{n}_{\bar{x}}$ is a uniform normal neighborhood of $\bar{x}$ and choose $\omega_{1}=\tau$ and $U^{1}_{\bar{x}}=int(\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}))\subset \exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\delta}(0))$ where $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})$ is a compact connected sublevel set of $v$. We note that the existence of $\omega_{1}$ does not guarantee the existence of an entry time $t_{1}$ for the unscaled dynamical system since the smaller we choose $\epsilon$, the larger time it takes for the state trajectory to enter $\exp_{\bar{x}}(B_{\delta}(0))$. Now we show that $d\big(\Phi_{\hat{f}}(\omega,\omega_{1},x(\omega_{1})),\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega,\omega_{1}, z(\omega_{1}))\big)=O(\epsilon),\hspace{.2cm}\omega_{1}<\omega$.
Following the proof of Theorem \ref{taa} and employing the results of \cite{Kha}, and Theorems 4.14 and 9.1, we have
\begin{eqnarray} ||x(\omega)-z(\omega)||_{e}&\leq& k\exp(-\gamma(\omega-\omega_{1}))||x(\omega_{1})-z(\omega_{1})||_{e}\nonumber\\
&&+\beta \epsilon K,\omega\in[\omega_{1},\omega_{2}),\end{eqnarray}
for some parameters $k,\beta,\gamma$ which are independent of $\epsilon$ and $K$ ($K$ is defined as per the proof of Theorem \ref{taa}) and $z(\omega)\in\mathcal{U}^{n}_{\bar{x}},\hspace{.2cm}\omega\in[\omega_{1},\omega_{2})$. It remains to show that the Euclidean distance can be scaled by the Riemannian distance. In the last part of the proof of Theorem \ref{taa} we have shown that the Riemannian distance can be bounded above by the Euclidean distance. Similar to the scaling procedure presented in the proof of Theorem \ref{taa} we can show there exist $\hat{\lambda}_{1},\hat{\lambda}_{2}\in \mathds{R}_{>0}$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\hat{\lambda}_{1}||X||_{g}\leq ||X||_{e}\leq \hat{\lambda}_{2}||X||_{g},\hspace{.2cm}X\in T_{x}M, x\in \mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}),\nonumber\\ \end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}) $ is a compact set.
By Lemma \ref{lp}, we select $\hat{\epsilon}\leq\epsilon_{1}$ sufficiently small such that $x(\omega_{1}),z(\omega_{1})\in \mathcal{U}_{x(\omega_{1})}\subset\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}),\hspace{.2cm}\forall\epsilon\in(0,\hat{\epsilon}]$, where $\mathcal{U}_{x(\omega_{1})}=\{x\in int(\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x})), ||x-x(\omega_{1})||_{e}<\rho\}$ is an open set for a sufficiently small $\rho\in \mathds{R}_{>0}$. Now consider an arbitrary piecewise smooth curve $\gamma:[0,1]\rightarrow M$ connecting $x(\omega_{1})$ and $z(\omega_{1})$. Suppose that $\gamma\subset\mathcal{U}_{x(\omega_{1})}\subset\mathcal{N}_{b}(\bar{x}) $ then
\begin{eqnarray} ||x(\omega_{1})-z(\omega_{1})||_{e}\leq \int^{1}_{0}||\dot{\gamma}(\tau)||_{e}d\tau&\leq&\hat{\lambda}_{2}\int^{1}_{0}||\dot{\gamma}(\tau)||_{g}d\tau.\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
In the case $\gamma\nsubset\mathcal{U}_{x(\omega_{1})},$ there exists a hitting time $\tau_{1}$ such that $\gamma_{[0,\tau_{1})}\subset \mathcal{U}_{x(\omega_{1})}$ and $\gamma(\tau_{1})\in \overline{\mathcal{U}}_{x(\omega_{1})}$. Since $x(\omega_{1}),z(\omega_{1})\in \mathcal{U}_{x(\omega_{1})}$ and
\begin{eqnarray}||x(\omega_{1})-z(\omega_{1})||_{e}&\leq&\rho\leq\int^{\tau_{1}}_{0}||\dot{\gamma}(\tau)||_{e}d\tau\nonumber\\&\leq&\hat{\lambda}_{2}\int^{\tau_{1}}_{0}||\dot{\gamma}(\tau)||_{g}d\tau\leq \hat{\lambda}_{2}\int^{1}_{0}||\dot{\gamma}(\tau)||_{g}d\tau.\nonumber\\\end{eqnarray}
Hence, in general, for all piecewise smooth $\gamma$, $||x(\omega_{1})-z(\omega_{1})||_{e}\leq \hat{\lambda}_{2}\int^{1}_{0}||\dot{\gamma}(\tau)||_{g}d\tau$.Taking the infimum of the right hand side of the equation above implies $||x(\omega_{1})-z(\omega_{1})||_{e}\leq \hat{\lambda}_{2}d(\Phi_{\hat{f}}(\omega_{1},\omega_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\hat{f}+\epsilon h}(\omega_{1},\omega_{0}, x_{0})).$
Therefore, we can extend $\omega_{2}$ to $\infty$ and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{kay}||x(\omega)-z(\omega)||_{e}=O(\epsilon), \omega\in[\omega_{1},\infty).\end{eqnarray}
The theorem statement follows by (\ref{jus}) and applying the last part of the proof of Theorem \ref{taa}, i.e. (\ref{tay}) to (\ref{kay}).
\qed\end{pf}
The following Theorem specifies closeness of solutions on an infinite time horizon for systems evolving on compact
Riemannian manifolds in the case where the average system is almost globally asymptotically stable.
\begin{theorem}
\label{ttaaa}
For a smooth $n$ dimensional compact Riemannian manifold $M$, let $f\in \mathfrak{X}(M\times\mathds{R})$ be a $T$-periodic smooth vector field. Suppose $\bar{x}\in M$ is almost globally asymptotically stable on $ M$ for the average dynamical system $\hat{f}$ and there exists a Lyapunov function $v:M\rightarrow \mathds{R}$ with $\mathfrak{L}_{\hat{f}}v$ is locally negative-definite around $\bar{x}$. Then for every $\delta>0,$ there exist $\mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}}\subset M$ and $\hat{\epsilon}>0$, such that
$d\left(\Phi_{\epsilon f}(t,t_{0},x_{0}),\Phi_{\epsilon \hat{f}}(t,t_{0},x_{0})\right)<\delta ,\hspace{.2cm}\nonumber\\\epsilon\in(0,\hat{\epsilon}],\forall x_{0}\in \mathcal{U}_{\bar{x}},\hspace{.2cm} t\in[t_{0},\infty).$
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
The proof parallels that of Theorem \ref{ttaa} by employing the results of Theorem \ref{taaa}.
\qed\end{pf}
\subsection{Example 2}
\label{ex2}
Consider the following dynamical system on a torus $\textbf{T}^{2}$. A parametrization of $\textbf{T}^{2}$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray} x(\theta_{1},\theta_{2})&=&(R+r\cos(\theta_{1}))\cos(\theta_{2}),\nonumber\\y(\theta_{1},\theta_{2})&=&(R+r\cos(\theta_{1}))\sin(\theta_{2}),\nonumber\\z(\theta_{1},\theta_{2})&=&r \sin(\theta_{2}),\hspace{.2cm}\theta_{1},\theta_{2}\in[-\pi,\pi].\end{eqnarray}
The induced Riemannian metric is given by $g_{T^{2}}(\theta_{1}, \theta_{2})\doteq(R+r\cos(\theta_{1}))^{2}d\theta_{2} \otimes d\theta_{2}+r^{2}d\theta_{1} \otimes d\theta_{1},\hspace{.2cm}R=1,r=.5$,
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-.25cm}\includegraphics[scale=.25]{tor3}
\caption{State trajectories on the torus for example 2 (nominal system: blue line, average system: black line), $\epsilon=.1.$ (Section \ref{ex2})}
\label{f11}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\hspace*{-.25cm}\includegraphics[scale=.25]{tor4}
\caption{State trajectories on the torus for example 2 (nominal system: blue line, average system: black line), $\epsilon=.03.$ (Section \ref{ex2})}
\label{f22}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
where $\otimes$ is the tensor product, see \cite{Lee2}.
The dynamical equations are as follows:
\vspace{-.5cm}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{e1}f:\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\dot{\theta_{1}}(t)=\epsilon(-\theta_{1}(t)-\sin(t)),\\
\dot{\theta_{2}}(t)=\epsilon(\theta_{1}(t)-\theta_{2}(t)).\end{array} \right.\end{eqnarray}
By applying (\ref{ppp}) to (\ref{e1}), the averaged system is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\hat{f}:\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\dot{\theta_{1}}(t)=-\epsilon\theta_{1}(t),\\
\dot{\theta_{2}}(t)=\epsilon(-\theta_{1}(t)-\theta_{2}(t)). \end{array} \right.\end{eqnarray}
By inspection, the averaged system is locally exponentially stable in a neighborhood of $(0,0)$ for the Euclidean metric on $\textbf{T}^{2}$. By the scaling method of the Riemannian and Euclidean metrics (see \cite{Lee3}), we can show that (\ref{tas}) holds locally around $(0,0)$.
Figures \ref{f11} and \ref{f22} show the closeness of solutions for the nominal and averaged systems above for $\epsilon=.1,$ and $.03$ respectively for $t\in[0,\infty)$ as expected by the results of Theorem \ref{taa}.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\subsubsection*{Keywords}
Poisson equation,
multiresolution finite volume scheme, streamer discharges.
\subsubsection*{AMS subject classifications}
35J05, 65M50, 65G20, 65M08, 65Y15, 65Z05, 76X05
\pagestyle{myheadings}
\thispagestyle{plain}
\markboth{DUARTE, BONAVENTURA, MASSOT, BOURDON}
{POISSON EQUATION ON ADAPTIVE MULTIRESOLUTION GRID}
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
In numerous scientific applications
one has to deal with the numerical
solution of elliptic PDEs, like Poisson equations,
coupled with evolutionary PDEs
to address the numerical simulation of time-dependent physical processes.
One major example is given, for instance,
by the so-called projection methods \cite{Chorin68,Temam2},
widely investigated, extended,
and implemented in the literature
to solve the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations
(see, {\it e.g.}, \cite{Guermond2006} and references therein).
Solving Poisson equations is also very common in plasma physics simulations.
As an example, in the framework of a drift-diffusion model consisting of a set
of continuity equations for charged species coupled with a Poisson equation for the electric potential,
non-linear ionization waves also called streamers can be simulated \cite{Babaeva:1996,Kulikovsky:1997c}.
In either situation
Poisson-type equations
must be solved (often several times) at every time-step
throughout the numerical simulation,
a task that
depending on the size and complexity
of the problem can easily
become cumbersome in both CPU time and memory.
In particular
phenomena characterized by propagating fronts,
as considered in this work,
commonly require a sufficiently fine spatial
representation and potentially large
systems of equations need then to be solved.
In this regard
grid adaptation for time-dependent problems
disclosing localized fronts
is specifically designed to yield high data compression and hence
important savings in computational costs
(see, {\it e.g.}, \cite{berger1984,berger1989}).
Among the many adaptive meshing approaches developed in the literature,
we consider in this work adaptive multiresolution
schemes based on \cite{Harten94,Harten95},
namely the multiresolution finite volume
scheme introduced in \cite{Cohen03}
for conservation laws.
Besides the inherent advantages
of grid adaptation, multiresolution
techniques rely on biorthogonal wavelet decomposition \cite{Cohen1992}
and thus offer a rigorous
mathematical framework for adaptive meshing
schemes \cite{cohen2000a,muller2003}.
In this way
not only approximation errors
coming from grid adaptation and thus data compression
can be tracked, but general and robust
techniques can be built since
the wavelet decomposition is
independent of any physical particularity
of the problem and accounts
only for the spatial regularity of the
discrete variables at a given simulation time.
Adaptive multiresolution schemes have been successfully
implemented for the simulation of compressible fluids modeled
by Euler or Navier-Stokes equations
(see, {\it e.g.}, \cite{Muller2009,Brix2011,Domingues2011}
and references therein),
as well as for the numerical solution of time-dependent
parabolic \cite{Roussel03,Burger08} and stiff parabolic PDEs
\cite{Duarte11_SISC,Dumont2013,DuarteCFlame}.
Nevertheless, to the best of our knowledge this is the fist attempt
to develop a Poisson solver in the context of the adaptive multiresolution
finite volume method introduced in \cite{Cohen03}
for evolutionary problems.
Previously, such a solver was introduced in
\cite{Vasilyev2005} in the the context of wavelet collocation methods
for evolutionary PDEs developed in \cite{Vasilyev2000,Vasilyev2003}.
Analogous to multiresolution schemes, wavelet collocation methods
assure adaptive meshing capabilities within a user-defined accuracy
exploiting the mathematical properties of wavelet decomposition
(for a recent review on wavelet methods see \cite{Schneider2010}
and references therein).
Notice that an important amount of research
has been conducted in the past decades
to solve elliptic PDEs using wavelet methods and multiresolution
representations
(see, for instance, \cite{Jaffard92,Dahlke1997,CohenMasson1999,CohenMasson2000,Barinka2001}).
In this context the numerical solution of an elliptic PDE
is in general performed
using compressed representations of the problem in an
appropriate wavelet space, within a solid mathematical framework
(see \cite{Cohen2001} and references therein).
Here we do not consider wavelet methods to solve elliptic PDEs,
but rather aim at developing a numerical strategy
to discretize and solve Poisson equations on dynamically adapted finite volume grids
generated by means of a multiresolution analysis.
Dynamic meshing techniques for finite volume
discretizations are usually implemented
by defining a set of embedded grids with different spatial resolution.
Particular attention must be addressed to
the inter-grid interfaces in order to
consistently define the discrete operations there.
Otherwise, potential mismatches
may lead to substantial differences in the numerical
approximations as well as loss of conservation
(see \cite{Almgren1998} for a detailed discussion).
The most common way of solving an elliptic PDE
on this type of adapted grid
consists in solving the
discrete system level-wise, that
is, considering one grid-level at a time
followed by inter-level operations to
synchronize shared interfaces at different
grid-levels
as well as overlapped regions.
Computations are thus successively performed
over partial regions
at
a uniform mesh resolution until the
problem is entirely solved on the adapted grid.
Some examples can be found, for instance,
in \cite{Almgren1998,Teyssier2002,Montijn:2006,Martin2008,Safta2010}.
For intensive computations
iterative linear solvers based on
geometric multigrid schemes are often implemented,
taking advantage of
the multi-mesh representation of the problem
\cite{Almgren1998,Teyssier2002,Martin2008}.
In particular
the Poisson solver in \cite{Vasilyev2005}
also implements a level-wise approach where a finite difference
discretization is considered.
The main objective of this paper is to develop a
Poisson solver on dynamically adapted grids
generated with a multiresolution finite volume scheme.
In particular
we investigate
the influence of data compression on the
accuracy of approximations
obtained with Poisson equations discretized
on an adapted multiresolution mesh.
One novelty of this paper in terms of elliptic solvers
on adapted grids is that
instead of solving the discrete equations
level-wise throughout the set of embedded
grids, we have conceived a numerical procedure
to represent the elliptic operators
discretized directly on the adapted grid,
that is, on a mesh
consisting of cells with different spatial resolution.
The algorithm relies on a local
reconstruction of
uniform-grid zones at inter-level interfaces
by means of multiresolution operations
between consecutive grid-levels
that guarantee the conservation and accuracy properties
of multiresolution schemes.
This
approach
results in a separate
algebraic system completely
independent of any consideration
related to the adaptive meshing scheme
or its corresponding data structure, as well as
of the numerical integration of
the time-dependent PDEs
associated with the model.
The resulting
discrete system
can thus be solved
at once over the whole computational domain
with no need of grid overlapping
by considering an appropriate linear solver.
The performance of the strategy
is assessed
in the context of streamer discharge simulations at atmospheric pressure.
The detailed physics of these discharges reveals an important
time-space multi-scale character \cite{Ebert_nonlinearity:2011}.
Grid adaptation is therefore highly desirable and
was already considered,
for instance, in \cite{Montijn:2006,Pancheshnyi:2008,Unfer:2010}.
In \cite{Duarte11_JCP}
we introduced
a time-space adaptive numerical scheme
with error control
to simulate
propagating streamers on multiresolution
grids.
Nevertheless,
a simplified geometry was considered there in order to
avoid the numerical solution of a
multi-dimensional
Poisson equation.
The present work describes the required fundamentals and
further developments needed to
solve Poisson equations on a finite volume adapted grid
according to the approach established in \cite{Duarte11_JCP}.
The latter aims at assuring
a tracking capability of the numerical errors
and a
full resolution of the equations on the adapted grid.
The paper is organized as follows.
We give in Section \ref{sec:PoissonMR}
a short introduction on multiresolution finite volume schemes
and describe the data compression errors
associated with
Poisson equations discretized
on multiresolution grids.
In Section \ref{sec:imple}
we recall
some key aspects of the
multiresolution technique
considered here.
We then describe the numerical procedure
conceived to represent elliptic operators on the finite volume adapted mesh.
Numerical results coming from
streamer discharge simulations are
investigated in Section \ref{sec:streamer}.
\section{Data compression errors for Poisson equations on multiresolution grids}\label{sec:PoissonMR}
We investigate
the impact of data compression on the numerical accuracy of the approximations
obtained with a Poisson equation discretized on a multiresolution adapted grid.
However, we first need to
briefly recall the general framework of multiresolution finite volume schemes.
More details on wavelet decomposition and multiresolution
techniques for grid adaptation
can be found in \cite{cohen2000a,muller2003}.
\subsection{Multiresolution finite volume scheme}
According to the multiresolution finite volume scheme
\cite{Cohen03},
let us build a set of nested dyadic grids
over $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{d}$ as follows.
We consider regular disjoint partitions (cells)
$(\Omega_{\gamma})_{\gamma \in S_j}$
of $\Omega$ such that
$\bigcup_{\gamma \in S_j} \Omega_{\gamma} = \Omega$
for $j=0,1,\ldots,J$.
Since each $\Omega _{\gamma}$, $\gamma \in S_j$,
is the union of a finite number of cells $\Omega_{\mu}$
($2^d$ cells in the dyadic case), $\mu \in S_{j+1}$,
the sets $S_j$ and $S_{j+1}$ represent consecutive embedded grids over $\Omega$,
where $j$ corresponds to the grid-level from
the coarsest $(j=0)$ to the finest $(j=J)$ grid.
Defining $\Omega_{\gamma}:=\Omega_{j,k}$,
we denote $|\gamma|:=j$ if $\gamma \in S_j$, while subscript $k\in \Delta_j \subset {\mathbb Z}^d$
corresponds to the position of the cell within $S_j$.
For instance,
in Cartesian coordinates
we consider the
univariate dyadic intervals in ${\mathbb R}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq3:dyadic_1D}
\Omega_{\gamma}=
\Omega_{j,k} := ]2^{-j}k,2^{-j}(k+1)[,\ \gamma \in S_j:= \{(j,k) \ \mathrm{s.t.} \ j\in (0,1,\ldots,J), \, k\in {\mathbb Z} \},
\end{equation}
and the same follows for higher dimensions.
We denote
$\disc f_j:=(f_{\gamma})_{\gamma \in S_j}$ as the
spatial representation of $f$
on the grid $S_j$, where $f_{\gamma}$
represents the cell-average of
$f :\, {\mathbb R} \times {\mathbb R}^d \to {\mathbb R}$
in $\Omega _{\gamma}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq3:average_finite_vol}
f_{\gamma} := |\Omega_{\gamma}|^{-1} \int_{\Omega_{\gamma}} f(t,{\boldsymbol{x}})\, {\mathrm{d}} {\boldsymbol{x}}, \quad {\boldsymbol{x}}\in {\mathbb R}^d.
\end{equation}
Data at different levels of discretization are related
by two inter-level transformations which are defined as follows.
First, the
{\it projection} operator $P^j_{j-1}$
maps $\disc f_j$ to $\disc f_{j-1}$.
It is obtained
through exact a\-ve\-ra\-ges computed at the finer level by
\begin{equation}\label{eq3:projection}
f_{\gamma} = |\Omega_{\gamma}|^{-1}
\sum_{|\mu|=|\gamma| +1,\Omega_{\mu}
\subset \Omega_{\gamma}} |\Omega_{\mu}|f_{\mu}.
\end{equation}
As far as grids are nested, this
projection operator is {\it exact} and {\it unique}
\cite{cohen2000a}.
Second,
the {\it prediction} operator $P^{j-1}_j$
maps $\disc f_{j-1}$ to
an approximation $\widehat{\disc f}_j$ of $\disc f_{j}$.
Here
a polynomial interpolation
of order $\beta$ is used to define the prediction operator:
\begin{equation}\label{eq3:linear_prediction}
\widehat{f}_{\mu} =
\sum_{\gamma \in R_I(\mu)}
\beta_{\mu,\gamma} f_\gamma, \quad
|\mu|=|\gamma| +1,
\end{equation}
for a set of coefficients $(\beta_{\mu,\gamma})_{\gamma \in R_I(\mu)}$
and an {\it interpolation stencil} $R_I(\mu)$
surrounding $\Omega_{\mu}$ at the coarser level $|\gamma|=|\mu|-1$.
In particular
the prediction must be {\it consistent} with the projection \cite{Cohen03}
in the sense that
\begin{equation}\label{eq3:prediction_consist}
f_{\gamma} =
|\Omega_{\gamma}|^{-1}\sum_{|\mu|=|\gamma| +1,\Omega_{\mu} \subset \Omega_{\gamma}} |\Omega_{\mu}|\widehat{f}_{\mu};
\end{equation}
\textit{i.e.}, one can retrieve the coarse cell-averages from the
predicted values:
$P_{j-1}^j \circ P_j^{j-1} = {\rm Id}$.
With these operators we define for each cell $\Omega _{\mu}$
the prediction error or {\it detail}
as the difference between the exact and predicted values,
\begin{equation}\label{eq3:MR_detail}
d_{\mu} := u_{\mu} - \widehat{u}_{\mu},
\end{equation}
or in terms of inter-level operations:
$d_{\mu} = u_{\mu} - P_{|\mu|}^{|\mu|-1} \circ P_{|\mu|-1}^{|\mu|} u_{\mu}$.
The consistency property (\ref{eq3:prediction_consist}) and the
definitions of the
projection operator (\ref{eq3:projection}) and
of the detail (\ref{eq3:MR_detail}) imply that
\begin{equation}\label{eq3:MR_consis_2}
\sum_{|\mu|=|\gamma| +1,\Omega_{\mu} \subset \Omega_{\gamma}} d_{\mu}=0.
\end{equation}
We can then construct as shown in \cite{Cohen03}
a {\it detail vector} defined as $\disc d_j:=(d_{\mu})_{\mu \in \nabla_j}$,
where the set $\nabla_j \subset S_j$ is obtained by removing for
each $\gamma \in S_{j-1}$ one $\mu \in S_j$ ($\Omega_{\mu} \subset \Omega_{\gamma}$)
in order to avoid redundancy (considering (\ref{eq3:MR_consis_2}))
and to get a one-to-one correspondence:
\begin{equation*}\label{eq3:one_one_cor}
\mathbf{f}_{j+1}\longleftrightarrow (\mathbf{f}_j,\mathbf{d}_{j+1}),
\end{equation*}
that is, $\mathbf{f}_{j+1}$ can be exactly computed using the cell-averages
$\mathbf{f}_{j}$ at a coarser level and the set of details $\mathbf{d}_{j+1}$
defined with operators $P^j_{j-1}$ and $P_j^{j-1}$.
By iterating this decomposition, we finally obtain a
multi-scale representation of $\mathbf{f}_J$
in terms of $\mathbf{m}_J := (\mathbf{f}_0,\mathbf{d}_1,\mathbf{d}_2,\cdots,\mathbf{d}_J)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq3:M_U_M}
{\mathcal M}:\mathbf{f}_J\longmapsto \mathbf{m}_J,
\end{equation}
and similarly, its inverse ${\mathcal M}^{-1}$.
Given a set of indices $\Lambda \subset \nabla^J$,
where $\nabla^J := \bigcup_{j=0}^J \nabla_j$ with
$\nabla_0 := S_0$,
we define a {\it thresholding}
operator ${\mathcal T}_{\Lambda}$
that leaves unchanged the components $d_{\lambda}$
of $\mathbf{m}_J$
if $\lambda \in \Lambda$,
and replaces it by $0$ otherwise.
Defining the level-dependent threshold values
$(\epsilon_0,\epsilon_1,\ldots,\epsilon_J)$,
the set $\Lambda$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq3:MR_Lambda}
\lambda \in \Lambda \ {\rm if} \
\|d_{\lambda}\|_{L^p} \geq \epsilon_{|\lambda|}.
\end{equation}
Applying ${\mathcal T}_{\Lambda}$ on the multi-scale decomposition
$\mathbf{m}_J$ of $\mathbf{f}_J$
amounts then to building a multiresolution
approximation ${\mathcal A}_{\Lambda}\mathbf{f}_J$ of $\mathbf{f}_J$,
where the operator
${\mathcal A}_{\Lambda}$ is given by
\begin{equation*}\label{eq3:adap_operator_def}
{\mathcal A}_{\Lambda}:={\mathcal M}^{-1}{\mathcal T}_{\Lambda}{\mathcal M},
\end{equation*}
in which all details of a certain level of regularity
have been discarded.
The multi-scale transform
(\ref{eq3:M_U_M})
amounts to represent $\disc f_J$
in a wavelet space spanned by a biorthogonal wavelet basis.
Actually, as shown in \cite{Cohen03}, the cell-average
(\ref{eq3:average_finite_vol})
results from considering
a scaling function $\widetilde{\phi}_{\gamma}$ defined as
\begin{equation}\label{eq3:MR_dual_scaling}
\widetilde{\phi}_{\gamma} := |\Omega_{\gamma}|^{-1} \chi_{\Omega_{\gamma}},
\end{equation}
where $\chi_{\Omega_{\gamma}}$ is a standard characteristic function
($\chi_{\Omega_{\gamma}}=1$ if ${\boldsymbol{x}} \in \Omega_{\gamma}$;
otherwise, $\chi_{\Omega_{\gamma}}=0$).
Therefore, the finite volume representation of $f({\boldsymbol{x}})$
on the grid $S_j$:
$\mathbf{f}_j=(f_{\gamma})_{\gamma \in S_j}$
can be equivalently defined with
$f_{\gamma} := \langle f,\widetilde{\phi}_{\gamma}\rangle$.
Similarly,
introducing (\ref{eq3:MR_dual_scaling}) and (\ref{eq3:linear_prediction})
in (\ref{eq3:MR_detail}) defines a
box wavelet $\widetilde{\psi}_\mu$
of order $\beta$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq3:wavelet_MR}
\widetilde{\psi}_{\mu} := \widetilde{\phi}_{\mu} -
\sum_{\gamma \in R_I(\mu)}
\beta_{\mu,\gamma} \widetilde{\phi}_{\gamma}.
\end{equation}
Following (\ref{eq3:linear_prediction}) in this work
we consider only average-interpolating wavelets
given by (\ref{eq3:wavelet_MR}), to generate dynamically
the adapted grids through multiresolution analysis.
Details (\ref{eq3:MR_detail})
can be defined as the coefficients
related to $f$ when represented on a wavelet basis:
$d_{\mu} = \langle f,\widetilde{\psi}_\mu\rangle$.
Further details can be found in \cite{cohen2000a,muller2003}.
Based on \cite{Cohen03},
we can define the following $\ell^2$-norm:
\begin{equation*}\label{eq3:normalized_l2}
\|\mathbf{f}_J\|_2^2:= 2^{-dJ} \ds \sum_{\lambda \in S_J} (f_{\lambda})^2,
\end{equation*}
which corresponds to the $L^2$-norm of a piecewise constant function.
The following bound follows,
\begin{equation}\label{eq3:adap_error_eps}
\|\mathbf{f}_{J} - {\mathcal A}_{\Lambda}\mathbf{f}_J \|_2 \leq C \eta_{\rm MR},
\end{equation}
as shown in Appendix~\ref{AppMR}
with the level-dependent threshold values:
\begin{equation}\label{eq3:epsilon_j}
\epsilon_j = 2^{d(j-J)/2}\eta_{\rm MR}, \quad j=0,1,\ldots,J,
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{\rm MR}$ corresponds to an accuracy tolerance.
\subsection{Poisson equation discretized on multiresolution grids}\label{subsec:PoissonMR}
Considering the following Poisson equation:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Poisson}
\partial^2_{\boldsymbol{x}}\, V = f,
\end{equation}
with ${\boldsymbol{x}}\in \Omega$,
we can represent it on the finest finite volume grid $S_J$ as before
by taking cell-averages,
that is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f_J_Poisson}
\mathbf{f}_J=(\langle f,\widetilde{\phi}_{\gamma}\rangle)_{\gamma \in S_J}
= (\langle \partial^2_{\boldsymbol{x}} V,\widetilde{\phi}_{\gamma}\rangle)_{\gamma \in S_J}.
\end{equation}
Recall that $\mathbf{f}_J$
is an array of size $n=\#(S_J)$
(where $\#(\cdot)$ returns the cardinality of a set),
$\mathbf{f}_J \in {\mathbb R}^n$,
corresponding to function $f$ discretized on the grid $S_J$.
Considering the space of square matrices of size $n$: ${\mathcal M}_n(\R)$,
we can define an operator
$\mathbf{A} \in {\mathcal M}_n(\R)$ such that
following (\ref{eq:f_J_Poisson}),
\begin{equation}\label{eq:AVf}
\mathbf{f}_J =\mathbf{A} \mathbf{V}_J +
{\mathcal O}\left( (\Delta x)^\alpha\right),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta x :={\rm diam}(\Omega_{\gamma}\vert_{\gamma \in S_J})$
corresponds to the spatial resolution of the finest grid $S_J$, and
$\mathbf{V}_J := (\langle V,\widetilde{\phi}_{\gamma}\rangle)_{\gamma \in S_J} \in {\mathbb R}^n$,
that is, the analytical solution $V$ to the Poisson equation
(\ref{eq:Poisson}) discretized on the grid $S_J$.
Operator $\mathbf{A}$ is no other than a spatial
discretization of the Laplace operator.
It is therefore a positive definite, and hence non-singular matrix
assuming appropriate boundary conditions at ${\boldsymbol{x}} \in \partial \Omega$
for the Poisson equation (\ref{eq:Poisson}).
In particular following (\ref{eq:AVf}),
the unique solution $\mathbf{V}_d \in {\mathbb R}^n$ of system
$\mathbf{A}\mathbf{V}_d=\mathbf{f}_J$
is an approximation of
order $\alpha$ to $\mathbf{V}_J$.
Now, if we consider the multiresolution approximation
$\mathbf{f}^\epsilon_J:={\mathcal A}_{\Lambda}\mathbf{f}_J$
and $\mathbf{V}^\epsilon \in {\mathbb R}^n$, solution of the linear system:
$\mathbf{A}\mathbf{V}^\epsilon=\mathbf{f}^\epsilon_J$,
it can be shown that
there is a constant $c>0$ such that the following bound holds:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bound_analsol}
\|\mathbf{V}^\epsilon - \mathbf{V}_J\|_2 \leq c \left( (\Delta x)^\alpha
+ \eta_{\rm MR} \right).
\end{equation}
Given a finite volume spatial discretization of order $\alpha$,
the exact solution $\mathbf{V}_J$ of the
Poisson equation can be therefore approximated
according to a prescribed tolerance $\eta_{\rm MR}$,
even if the multiresolution analysis acts on the right-hand side
function.
In particular it follows that
the exact solution $\mathbf{V}_d$ of
the discrete Poisson equation
$\mathbf{A}\mathbf{V}_d=\mathbf{f}_J$
is approximated by $\mathbf{V}^\epsilon$ in the same way
$\mathbf{f}^\epsilon_J$
does for
$\mathbf{f}_J$:
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:hat_eps}
\|\mathbf{V}_d - \mathbf{V}^\epsilon \|_2 \leq C\eta_{\rm MR}.
\end{equation*}
However,
the Laplacian will be discretized
in practice
on an
adapted grid;
therefore, we will not be
solving system $\mathbf{A}\mathbf{V}^\epsilon=\mathbf{f}^\epsilon_J$.
Instead, an operator $\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$ is introduced
which corresponds to the Laplacian
discretized on the adapted grid.
Denoting $\mathbf{\widetilde{V}} \in {\mathbb R}^n$, solution of system
$\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}\mathbf{\widetilde{V}}=\mathbf{f}^\epsilon_J$,
we can numerically demonstrate that bound (\ref{eq:bound_analsol})
remains valid, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:res_coro}
\|\mathbf{\widetilde{V}} - \mathbf{V}_J\|_2 \leq c \left( (\Delta x)^\alpha
+ \eta_{\rm MR} \right),
\end{equation}
as long as $\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$ is consistently defined
within the multiresolution framework.
Therefore,
by applying the multiresolution analysis on
the right-hand side function and solving the discrete Poisson equation
on the corresponding adapted grid, we obtain a
solution $\mathbf{\widetilde{V}}$ that also verifies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hat_tilde}
\|\mathbf{V}_d - \mathbf{\widetilde{V}} \|_2 \leq C\eta_{\rm MR}.
\end{equation}
\section{Numerical implementation}\label{sec:imple}
We now describe
the numerical technique conceived to construct
a Poisson solver
within the present multiresolution framework.
We consider the multiresolution finite volume implementation
presented in \cite{Duarte11_SISC}.
For the sake of completeness some
key aspects of this particular implementation
will be first recalled,
while more details and references
can be found in \cite{Duarte_Phd}.
\subsection{Construction of multiresolution grids}\label{subsec:MR}
The adapted grid is composed of a set
of nested dyadic grids: $S_j$, $j=0,1,\ldots,J$,
from the coarsest to the finest,
generated by refining recursively
a given cell depending on the
local regularity of the time-dependent
variables,
measured by the details
at a given time.
Function $f$ in the Poisson equation
(\ref{eq:Poisson}) that
depends directly on these variables (and
hence varies also in time)
may be additionally considered if necessary
to generate the grids,
as well as the solution $V$
corresponding to the previous time-step.
These grids
are implemented in a
multi-dimensional and Cartesian
finite volume framework.
Data compression is achieved
by discarding the cells whose details
are not in $\Lambda$ according to
(\ref{eq3:MR_Lambda}).
However,
a {\it graded tree} $\Lambda_\epsilon$ is considered in practice
instead of $\Lambda$
because a certain data structure must be
respected in order
to carry out the
multiresolution transform ${\mathcal M}$ in (\ref{eq3:M_U_M}).
In particular all cells in the interpolation stencils $R_I(\cdot)$
must be always available
(see \cite{Cohen03} for more details).
Notice that $\Lambda \subset \Lambda_\epsilon$ and
error estimates like (\ref{eq3:adap_error_eps})
follows straightforwardly with ${\mathcal A}_{\Lambda_\epsilon}$
instead of ${\mathcal A}_{\Lambda}$.
Nevertheless, for the ease of reading we will keep the
notation $\Lambda$ in the following to
refer to a graded tree.
A graded tree-structure is used
to represent data in the computer memory
(see also \cite{Roussel03}).
Recalling the standard tree-structure terminology:
if $\Omega_{\mu} \subset \Omega_{\gamma}$ with
$|\mu| = |\gamma| + 1$, we say that $\Omega_\mu$ is a \textit{child} of
$\Omega_\gamma$ and that $\Omega_\gamma$ is the \textit{parent} of $\Omega_\mu$.
We thus define the \textit{leaves}
${\mathrm{L}}(\Lambda)$ of a
\textit{tree} $\Lambda$ as the set of cells $\Omega_{\lambda}$,
$\lambda \in {\mathrm{L}}(\Lambda)$,
such that
$\Omega_{\lambda}$ has no children in $\Lambda$.
The sets $\nabla_j$, $j=0,1,\ldots,J$, are distributed in
$N_{\rm R}$ graded trees $\Lambda_r$, $r=1,\ldots,N_{\rm R}$,
where $N_{\rm R}:=N_{{\rm R}x}N_{{\rm R}y}N_{{\rm R}z}$,
and
$N_{{\rm R}x}$, $N_{{\rm R}y}$, and
$N_{{\rm R}z}$ stand for the number of graded trees
or {\it roots} per direction.
Denoting by ${\mathrm{T}}(\Lambda _r)$ the set that
contains the graded tree $\Lambda _r$ plus the
missing cells $\Omega_{\lambda}$ in the construction of sets
$\nabla_j$, we similarly
have that grid indices
$S_j$, $j=0,1,\ldots,J$, are distributed in
$N_{\rm R}$ sets ${\mathrm{T}}(\Lambda_r)$.
The adapted grid is thus given by sets
${\mathrm{L}}(\Lambda_r)$, $r=1,\ldots,N_{\rm R}$,
with a total number of cells:
$N_{\mathrm{L}}= \sum_{r=1}^{N_{\rm R}}\#({\mathrm{L}}(\Lambda_r))$.
If no adaptation is required:
$\max N_{\rm L}=\#(S_J)=N_{{\rm R}}2^{dJ}$,
that is, the size of the finest grid.
Ghost cells called {\it phantoms} are added
to the adapted grid at level interfaces, in order
to always compute numerical fluxes at the
highest grid-level between two neighboring cells \cite{Roussel03}.
Cell-averages of phantoms are computed using the
prediction operator (\ref{eq3:linear_prediction}); therefore,
the graded tree must also contain all cells needed
to perform the corresponding interpolations.
Figure~\ref{fig:tree} depicts part of a one-dimensional graded tree
where the projection and prediction operators:
$P^j_{j-1}$ and $P^{j-1}_j$ according to
(\ref{eq3:projection}) and
(\ref{eq3:linear_prediction}), respectively,
are schematically
described.
\begin{figure}[!ht]\label{fig:tree}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{tree-new.png}}
\caption{Part of a one-dimensional graded tree $\Lambda$, indicating
the leaves (solid lines) that form the adapted grid, as well as the
inner (dashed lines) and ghost (dotted lines) cells.
Projection $P^j_{j-1}$ (left) and prediction
$P^{j-1}_j$ (right)
operations are also represented.}
\end{figure}
Following \cite{Cohen03}
a centered polynomial interpolation of accuracy order
$\beta = 2s+1$ is defined
for the projection operator (\ref{eq3:linear_prediction}),
computed with the $s$ nearest neighboring cells
in each direction;
the procedure is exact for polynomials of degree $2s$.
In the numerical illustrations we will only consider the case
$\beta=3$ with one neighboring cell per direction ($s=1$)
including the diagonals in multidimensional configurations.
For the one-dimensional dyadic case (\ref{eq3:dyadic_1D}),
the latter is given by
\begin{equation*}\label{eq3:polynomial_dyadic1D_order3}
\widehat{f}_{j+1,2k} = f_{j,k} + \frac{1}{8}(f_{j,k-1} - f_{j,k+1}), \qquad
\widehat{f}_{j+1,2k+1} = f_{j,k} + \frac{1}{8}(f_{j,k+1} - f_{j,k-1}),
\end{equation*}
as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:tree} (right).
In this case
the set of coefficients
$(\beta_{\mu,\gamma})_{\gamma \in R_I(\mu)}$
in (\ref{eq3:linear_prediction}) is given either by
$(1/8,1,-1/8)$ or by $(-1/8,1,1/8)$, regardless of the grid-level,
which are the scaling coefficients of a third-order
average-interpolating wavelet of type (\ref{eq3:wavelet_MR}).
Higher order formulae can be found in \cite{muller2003},
while extension to multi-dimensional
Cartesian grids is easily obtained by a
tensorial product of the one-dimensional operator
\cite{bihari1997,Roussel03}.
In general the interpolation stencil $R_I(\cdot)$ is given
by $(2s+1)^d$ cells.
Input parameters for the multiresolution implementation are:
the maximum grid-level
$J$ corresponding to the finest spatial discretization;
the number of roots per direction
$N_{{\rm R}x}$, $N_{{\rm R}y}$, and
$N_{{\rm R}z}$;
and the threshold parameter
$\eta_{\rm MR}$ which defines the numerical
accuracy of the compressed representations following
(\ref{eq3:adap_error_eps}).
\subsection{Construction of the discrete Laplace operator}\label{subsec:const_lap}
Introducing the set
${\rm I}_{\mathrm{L}} := \{1, 2, \ldots, N_{\mathrm{L}}\}$,
we define a bijective function $h:D(h)\to{\rm I}_{\mathrm{L}}$,
with
\begin{equation*}
D(h):= \bigcup_{r=1}^{N_{\rm R}} {\mathrm{L}}(\Lambda_r).
\end{equation*}
The set
$\Theta_{\mathrm{L}} := (\Omega_{\lambda})_{h(\lambda)\in {\rm I}_{\mathrm{L}} }$
corresponds then to the adapted grid, defined by
the leaves of the tree representation.
Multi-dimensional grids are thus arranged into
a one-dimensional array $\Theta_{\mathrm{L}}$,
where each leaf is associated with a unique index from $1$ to
$N_{\mathrm{L}}$ in ${\rm I}_{\mathrm{L}}$.
We then consider
for a given function
$u({\boldsymbol{x}})$
and for each leaf
$\Omega_{\gamma} \in \Theta_{\mathrm{L}}$
($\gamma$ such that
$\gamma \in D(h)$)
the
following standard finite volume approximation:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:FV_flux}
\langle\partial^2_{\boldsymbol{x}} u,\widetilde{\phi}_{\gamma}\rangle =
|\Omega_{\gamma}|^{-1} \sum_{\mu \neq \gamma}
|\Gamma_{\gamma,\mu}| F_{\gamma,\mu}
+ {\mathcal O}\left( \left[{\rm diam}(\Omega_{\gamma})\right]^\alpha\right),
\quad \gamma \in D(h),
\end{equation}
where $F_{\gamma,\mu}$ accounts for the flux across each interface
$\Gamma_{\gamma,\mu} := \overline{\Omega_{\gamma}} \cap
\overline{\Omega_{\mu}}$.
Moreover, we can represent the flux computations by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:flux}
|\Omega_{\gamma}|^{-1}
\sum_{\mu \neq \gamma}
|\Gamma_{\gamma,\mu}| F_{\gamma,\mu}
=
\sum_{\lambda \in R_F(\gamma)} \alpha_{\gamma,\lambda} u_\lambda,
\end{equation}
where the {\it flux stencil}
$R_F(\gamma)$ is contained in one single grid-level
($R_F(\gamma) \subset S_{|\gamma|}$)
and the set of coefficients $(\alpha_{\gamma,\lambda})_{\lambda \in R_F(\gamma)}$
establishes the order $\alpha$ of the approximation.
If the same scheme is considered throughout a given $S_j$,
then for any $\mu \neq \gamma$ such that $|\gamma|=|\mu|=j$ the set
of coefficients $(\alpha_{\gamma,\lambda})_{\lambda \in R_F(\gamma)}$ and
$(\alpha_{\mu,\lambda})_{\lambda \in R_F(\mu)}$ are constant and component-wise
equal.
For instance, the classical centered second-order scheme in the
one-dimensional dyadic case (\ref{eq3:dyadic_1D})
is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1d_2ndorder_disc}
\langle\partial^2_x u,\widetilde{\phi}_{j,k}\rangle =
\Delta x_j^{-2} \left(
u_{j,k+1} - 2 u_{j,k} + u_{j,k-1}
\right)
+
{\mathcal O}\left( \Delta x_j^2\right),
\end{equation}
where $\Delta x_j$ corresponds to the spatial resolution of grid $S_j$;
the set of coefficients $(\alpha_{\gamma,\lambda})_{\lambda \in R_F(\gamma)}$
in (\ref{eq:flux}) is thus given by
$\Delta x_{|\gamma|}^{-2}(1,-2,1)$.
The discrete Laplacian
$\mathbf{A} = (a_{i,l})_{i,l\in {\rm I}_{\mathrm{L}}}$
represented on the finest (uniform) finite volume grid $S_J$
is hence
defined by setting
for each
$i\in {\rm I}_{\mathrm{L}}$,
$\gamma = h^{-1}(i)$,
that is, for each
leaf in $\Theta_{\mathrm{L}}$
($N_{\mathrm{L}}=\#(S_J)$):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:buildA}
a_{h(\gamma),h(\lambda)}
=
\alpha_{\gamma,\lambda},
\qquad
\forall
\lambda \in R_F(\gamma),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:buildA_2_orig}
a_{h(\gamma),l} = 0,
\qquad
\forall l\in {\rm I}_{\mathrm{L}} \
{\rm s.t.} \
h^{-1}(l) \notin R_F(\gamma).
\end{equation}
In the case of
(\ref{eq:1d_2ndorder_disc}),
the latter process
(\ref{eq:buildA})--(\ref{eq:buildA_2_orig})
amounts to build the standard tridiagonal
matrix with non-zero entries given by
$\Delta x_{|\gamma|}^{-2}(1,-2,1)$.
Nevertheless,
the finite volume flux representation (\ref{eq:FV_flux})
establishes that for a given interface
$\Gamma_{\gamma,\mu}$ the following conservation property
is verified:
$F_{\gamma,\mu} + F_{\mu,\gamma} = 0$.
Computing the flux $F_{\gamma,\mu}$ for $\Omega_\gamma$
amounts to evaluate also $F_{\mu,\gamma}$ for the neighboring
cell $\Omega_\mu$.
Let us denote $F_{\gamma,\mu}^+$ as the right flux for
$\Omega_\gamma$ and $F_{\mu,\gamma}^-$ as the left flux
for $\Omega_\mu$ along the normal direction to $\Gamma^+_{\gamma,\mu}$,
the right interface of $\Omega_\gamma$
(the same as the left interface of
$\Omega_\mu$: $\Gamma_{\mu,\gamma}^-$).
Similarly, $R_F^+(\gamma)$ stands for the stencil required to
compute $F_{\gamma,\mu}^+$ and naturally
$R^-_F(\mu) \equiv R^+_F(\gamma)$.
Fluxes are then computed only once at each interface
and the same property is exploited to save computations
while constructing operator
$\mathbf{A}$.
Instead of (\ref{eq:buildA}), we can thus define
for each $i\in {\rm I}_{\mathrm{L}}$,
$\gamma = h^{-1}(i)$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:buildA_1}
a_{h(\gamma),h(\lambda)}
=
a_{h(\gamma),h(\lambda)}+
\alpha_{\gamma,\lambda},
\qquad
\forall
\lambda \in R^+_F(\gamma),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:buildA_3}
a_{h(\mu),h(\lambda)} =
a_{h(\mu),h(\lambda)}
-
\alpha_{\gamma,\lambda},
\quad
\forall \mu \
{\rm s.t.} \
\Gamma^+_{\gamma,\mu} =
\overline{\Omega_{\gamma}} \cap
\overline{\Omega_{\mu}};
\end{equation}
where initially all coefficients are set to zero, {\it i.e.},
$\mathbf{A} = 0$,
which automatically accounts for
(\ref{eq:buildA_2_orig}).
For the example
(\ref{eq:1d_2ndorder_disc}), we naturally obtain the same
tridiagonal matrix, but the coefficients
$(\alpha_{\gamma,\lambda})_{\lambda \in R^+_F(\gamma)}$
are now
given by
$\Delta x_{|\gamma|}^{-2}(1,-1)$.
In general
the sparsity of the resulting matrix depends directly
on the stencil $R^+_F(\cdot)$ related to the flux computation scheme,
while the computational complexity of the procedure is
of ${\mathcal O}(\#(S_J))$.
However,
we are interested in building the
Laplacian
$\mathbf{\widetilde{A}} = (\widetilde{a}_{i,l})_{i,l\in {\rm I}_{\mathrm{L}}}$
represented on a multiresolution finite volume adapted grid,
meaning that $N_{\mathrm{L}} < \#(S_J)$.
The principle is the same, as we construct
$\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$ by computing its elements following
(\ref{eq:buildA_1})--(\ref{eq:buildA_3})
with $\widetilde{a}_{i,l}$ instead of $a_{i,l}$.
Notice that for a given $\gamma$ such that
$|\gamma|=j$ all fluxes are computed at the
same grid $S_j$ in (\ref{eq:flux}).
In the case of adapted grids the latter involves
that fluxes are
computed on a locally uniform grid defined
by $R_F(\gamma)$.
Ghost cells are locally
introduced so that for a given $\gamma$
all cells $\lambda \neq \gamma$ such that
$\lambda \in R_F(\gamma)$ are available.
Given an adapted tree $\Lambda _r$,
let us denote by ${\mathrm{P}}(\Lambda _r)$ the set of phantoms
related to the tree $\Lambda _r$;
that is,
all cells with index $\lambda$ such that for any
leaf $\Omega_\gamma$ in $\Theta_{\mathrm{L}}$,
$\lambda \in R_F(\gamma)$ but $\lambda \notin {\mathrm{T}}(\Lambda _r)$.
Notice that by construction a phantom is always a child
of a leaf.
The variable values in these ghost cells are
computed based on the cells contained in the
adapted representation ${\mathrm{T}}(\Lambda _r)$,
as described in \S\ref{subsec:MR}.
Using the prediction operation (\ref{eq3:linear_prediction}),
variables at phantoms are defined by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:phantom}
\widehat{u}_\mu =
\sum_{\gamma \in R_I(\mu)}
\beta_{\mu,\gamma} u_\gamma,
\quad
|\mu|=|\gamma| +1,
\end{equation}
such that
\begin{equation*}\label{eq:proj_ghost}
u_{\gamma} = |\Omega_{\gamma}|^{-1}
\sum_{|\mu|=|\gamma| +1,\Omega_{\mu}
\subset \Omega_{\gamma}} |\Omega_{\mu}|\widehat{u}_{\mu},
\quad \gamma \in {\mathrm{L}}(\Lambda_r).
\end{equation*}
Recalling that
a phantom stands at the place of a discarded cell,
we have that
$\widehat{u}_\mu$ involves an approximation
error of ${\mathcal O}(\epsilon_{|\mu|})$
according to (\ref{eq3:MR_detail}),
and the multiresolution
error framework remains perfectly valid.
Moreover, this construction guarantees a consistent and conservative
representation at inter-grid interfaces.
\begin{figure}[!ht]\label{fig:tree_operations}
\centerline{(a)
\hspace{0.4\textwidth}\hfill
(b)\hspace{0.4\textwidth}}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{tree-small-a.png}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{tree-small-b.png}}
\centerline{(c)
\hspace{0.4\textwidth}\hfill
(d)\hspace{0.4\textwidth}}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{tree-small-c.png}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{tree-small-d.png}}
\caption{Computation of coefficients at inter-grid interfaces
when $\Omega_\lambda$ is contained in the flux stencil $R^+_F(\gamma)$
of a leaf $\Omega_\gamma$
and $\Omega_\lambda$ is a leaf (a), an inner cell (b), or
a phantom (c)--(d).
Leaves, inner cells, and phantoms are represented with solid, dashed,
and dotted lines, respectively.
Coefficients related to cell $\Omega_\lambda$ are written
in terms of leaves marked with $\bullet$.}
\end{figure}
Given a certain leaf $\Omega_\gamma$, for
each cell $\Omega_\lambda$ within the flux stencil $R^+_F(\gamma)$
($\lambda \in R^+_F(\gamma)$) there are three cases:
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item \label{eq:leaf_a} Cell $\Omega_\lambda$ is a leaf and thus belongs to the adapted grid, {\it i.e.},
$\lambda \in \bigcup_{r=1}^{N_{\rm R}} {\mathrm{L}}(\Lambda_r)$.
The coefficient $a_{h(\gamma),h(\lambda)}$ is computed according to
(\ref{eq:buildA_1}) as for a uniform grid (see, for instance, Figure \ref{fig:tree_operations}(a)).
\item \label{eq:tree_a}
Cell $\Omega_\lambda$ belongs to the set of adapted grids but it is not
a leaf, {\it i.e.},
$\lambda \in \bigcup_{r=1}^{N_{\rm R}} {\mathrm{T}}(\Lambda_r) \wedge
\lambda \notin \bigcup_{r=1}^{N_{\rm R}} {\mathrm{L}}(\Lambda_r)$.
In this case inner cells are linked to leaves
using the projection operator (\ref{eq3:projection}).
In Figure \ref{fig:tree_operations}(b),
(\ref{eq:buildA_1}) is replaced by
\begin{align*}
&a_{h(\gamma),h(\lambda_i)}
=
a_{h(\gamma),h(\lambda_i)}+
|\Omega_{\lambda}|^{-1}
|\Omega_{\lambda_i}|
\alpha_{\gamma,\lambda},
\qquad
\Omega_{\lambda_i}
\subset \Omega_{\lambda},
i=1,2.
\end{align*}
\item \label{eq:phantom_a} Cell $\Omega_\lambda$ is a phantom, {\it i.e.},
$\lambda \in \bigcup_{r=1}^{N_{\rm R}} {\mathrm{P}}(\Lambda_r)$.
As established by (\ref{eq:phantom}),
phantoms are linked to leaves
and/or inner cells using the
prediction operation (\ref{eq3:linear_prediction}).
For Figure \ref{fig:tree_operations}(c)
we thus have
\begin{align*}
&a_{h(\gamma),h(\lambda_i)}
=
a_{h(\gamma),h(\lambda_i)}+
\beta_{\lambda,\lambda_i}
\alpha_{\gamma,\lambda},
\qquad
\lambda_i \in R_I(\lambda),
i=1,2,3;
\end{align*}
whereas in Figure \ref{fig:tree_operations}(d)
$\Omega_{\lambda_1}$ is not a leaf and hence,
$a_{h(\gamma),h(\lambda_1)}$ must be replaced by
\begin{align*}
&a_{h(\gamma),h(\mu)}
=
a_{h(\gamma),h(\mu)}+
|\Omega_{\lambda_1}|^{-1}
|\Omega_{\mu}|
\beta_{\lambda,\lambda_1}
\alpha_{\gamma,\lambda},
\qquad
\Omega_{\mu}
\subset \Omega_{\lambda_1},
\lambda_1 \in R_I(\lambda),
\\
&a_{h(\gamma),h(\gamma)}
=
a_{h(\gamma),h(\gamma)}+
|\Omega_{\lambda_1}|^{-1}
|\Omega_{\gamma}|
\beta_{\lambda,\lambda_1}
\alpha_{\gamma,\lambda},
\qquad
\Omega_{\gamma}
\subset \Omega_{\lambda_1},
\lambda_1 \in R_I(\lambda),
\end{align*}
combining both inter-level operations
(\ref{eq3:projection}) and
(\ref{eq3:linear_prediction}).
\end{enumerate}
Additionally,
if a leaf $\Omega_\gamma$ shares
an interface $\Gamma_{\gamma,\lambda}$
with another of higher resolution,
coefficients $\widetilde{a}_{h(\gamma),l}$
are computed at grid-level $|\gamma|+1$,
considering the corresponding phantoms,
children of $\Omega_\gamma$, at $\Gamma_{\gamma,\lambda}$.
For instance,
when considering the interface $\Gamma_{\gamma,\lambda}$
in Figure \ref{fig:tree_operations2},
the stencil
$R^+_F(\gamma_2)$ is considered corresponding to
the phantom $\Omega_{\gamma_2}$, child of $\Omega_{\gamma}$.
For $\Omega_{\gamma_2}$ contained in $R^+_F(\gamma_2)$
(Figure \ref{fig:tree_operations2}(a)),
we thus have
\begin{align*}
a_{h(\gamma),h(\mu)}
=
a_{h(\gamma),h(\mu)}+
|\Omega_{\gamma}|^{-1}
|\Omega_{\gamma_2}|
\beta_{\gamma_2,\mu}
\alpha_{\gamma_2,\gamma_2},
\qquad &
\Omega_{\gamma_2}
\subset \Omega_{\gamma},
\mu \in R_I(\gamma_2),
\\
a_{h(\gamma),h(\gamma)}
=
a_{h(\gamma),h(\gamma)}+
|\Omega_{\gamma}|^{-1}
|\Omega_{\gamma_2}|
\beta_{\gamma_2,\gamma}
\alpha_{\gamma_2,\gamma_2},
\qquad &
\Omega_{\gamma_2}
\subset \Omega_{\gamma},
\gamma \in R_I(\gamma_2),
\\
a_{h(\gamma),h(\lambda_i)}
=
a_{h(\gamma),h(\lambda_i)}+
|\Omega_{\gamma}|^{-1}
|\Omega_{\gamma_2}|
\beta_{\gamma_2,\lambda}
|\Omega_{\lambda}|^{-1}
|\Omega_{\lambda_i}|
\alpha_{\gamma_2,\gamma_2},
\qquad &
\Omega_{\gamma_2}
\subset \Omega_{\gamma},
\lambda \in R_I(\gamma_2),
\Omega_{\lambda_i}
\subset \Omega_{\lambda},
i=1,2;
\end{align*}
whereas for
$\Omega_{\lambda_1}$, also contained in $R^+_F(\gamma_2)$
(Figure \ref{fig:tree_operations2}(b)):
\begin{align*}
& a_{h(\gamma),h(\lambda_1)}
=
a_{h(\gamma),h(\lambda_1)}+
|\Omega_{\gamma}|^{-1}
|\Omega_{\gamma_2}|
\alpha_{\gamma_2,\lambda_1},
\qquad
\Omega_{\gamma_2}
\subset \Omega_{\gamma}.
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}[!ht]\label{fig:tree_operations2}
\centerline{(a)
\hspace{0.4\textwidth}\hfill
(b)\hspace{0.4\textwidth}}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{tree-small-e.png}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{tree-small-f.png}}
\caption{
Computation of coefficients at inter-grid interfaces
when a leaf $\Omega_\gamma$ shares an interface with another one of
higher resolution.
Leaves, inner cells, and phantoms are represented with solid, dashed,
and dotted lines, respectively.
Coefficients related to cell
$\Omega_\gamma$ (a) and
$\Omega_{\lambda_1}$ (b) are written
in terms of leaves marked with $\bullet$.}
\end{figure}
The general, multi-dimensional
scheme
to
construct the discrete Laplacian
is detailed
for the sake of completeness in
Appendix~\ref{AppScheme}.
The algorithm (with computational complexity
${\mathcal O}(N_{\rm L})$)
considers multiplications
and combinations of constant coefficients
coming from the finite volume discretization
and the inter-level multiresolution operations
as previously shown.
The operator
$\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$ is thus represented
directly on the adapted grid strongly
coupling consistent inter-grid and conservation
properties.
In this study we do not develop our own linear
solver to solve the discrete Poisson equation.
We rather rely on dedicated solvers available in the literature
whose performance to solve multidimensional linear systems
have already been demonstrated.
Consequently,
matrix $\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$
must be an input to these solvers;
otherwise, the same operations
described here
would have been performed
without having to save the matrix entries in memory.
Here operator $\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$
is stored using a standard CSR (Compressed
Sparse Row) format for sparse matrices.
\section{Streamer discharge simulations}\label{sec:streamer}
Classical fluid model for streamers in air
at atmospheric pressure
is given by drift-diffusion equations
consistently coupled with a Poisson equation \cite{Babaeva:1996,Kulikovsky:1997c}:
\def\ne\nu_{\rm i}{n_{\rm e}\nu_{\rm i}}
\def\ne\nu_{\rm i}{n_{\rm e}\nu_{\rm i}}
\def\ne(\nu_{{\rm a}2}+\nu_{{\rm a}3}) - \ne\np\beta_{\rm ep}{n_{\rm e}(\nu_{{\rm a}2}+\nu_{{\rm a}3}) - n_{\rm e}n_{\rm p}\beta_{\rm ep}}
\def\ne\np\beta_{\rm ep} - \nn\np\beta_{\rm np}{n_{\rm e}n_{\rm p}\beta_{\rm ep} - \nnn_{\rm p}\beta_{\rm np}}
\def\nn\np\beta_{\rm np}{\nnn_{\rm p}\beta_{\rm np}}
\def\ne(\nu_{{\rm a}2}+\nu_{{\rm a}3}){n_{\rm e}(\nu_{{\rm a}2}+\nu_{{\rm a}3})}
\def\nn\gamma{n_{\rm n}\gamma}
\begin{equation}\label{trasp}
\left.
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t n_{\rm e} +\partial_{\boldsymbol{x}} \cdot(n_{\rm e}\,\vec{v}_{\! \rm e})
-\partial_{\boldsymbol{x}}\cdot(D_{\rm e}\ \partial_{\boldsymbol{x}}n_{\rm e}) =
\ne\nu_{\rm i} -\ne(\nu_{{\rm a}2}+\nu_{{\rm a}3}) - \ne\np\beta_{\rm ep} + \nn\gamma + S_{\rm ph}, \\[1.5ex]
\partial_t n_{\rm p} +\partial_{\boldsymbol{x}}\cdot(n_{\rm p}\vec{v}_{\! \rm p})
-\partial_{\boldsymbol{x}}\cdot(D_{\rm p}\,\partial_{\boldsymbol{x}}n_{\rm p}) =
\ne\nu_{\rm i} - \ne\np\beta_{\rm ep} - \nn\np\beta_{\rm np} + S_{\rm ph}, \\[1.5ex]
\partial_t n_{\rm n} +\partial_{\boldsymbol{x}}\cdot(n_{\rm n}\vec{v}_{\! \rm n})
-\partial_{\boldsymbol{x}}\cdot(D_{\rm n}\,\partial_{\boldsymbol{x}}n_{\rm n}) =
\ne(\nu_{{\rm a}2}+\nu_{{\rm a}3}) -\nn\np\beta_{\rm np} - \nn\gamma,
\end{array}
\right\}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_0\, \partial_{\boldsymbol{x}} \cdot \vec E = -q_{\rm e}(n_{\rm p}-n_{\rm n}-n_{\rm e}), \quad \vec E = - \partial_{\boldsymbol{x}} \phi, \label{poisson}
\end{equation}
where ${\boldsymbol{x}}\in {\mathbb R}^d$,
$n_{\rm i}$ is the density of charged species ${\rm i}$
(e: electrons, p: positive ions, n: negative ions),
$\phi$ and $\vec E$
stand, respectively, for the electric potential and field,
and $\vec{v}_{\rm i}= \mu_{\rm i} \vec E$ is the drift velocity.
We denote by
$D_{\rm i}$ and $\mu_{\rm i}$, respectively, the
diffusion coefficient and the mobility of charged species ${\rm i}$,
$q_{\rm e}$ is the absolute value of the electron charge,
and $\varepsilon_0$ is the permittivity of free space.
Moreover,
$\nu_{\rm i}$ is the electron impact ionization coefficient, $\nu_{{\rm a}2}$ and $\nu_{{\rm a}3}$
are the two-body and three-body electron attachment coefficients, $\beta_{\rm ep}$
and $\beta_{\rm np}$
are, respectively, the electron-positive ion
and
negative-positive ion recombination coefficients,
and $\gamma$ is the detachment coefficient.
All these coefficients depend
on the local reduced electric field $E/N_{\rm air}$
and thus vary in time and space,
where $E=|\vec E|$ is the electric field magnitude and $N_{\rm air} $ is the
air neutral density.
For test studies presented in this paper, the transport parameters for
air are taken from \cite{Morrow:1997}; detachment and attachment coefficients,
respectively, from \cite{Benilov:2003,Kossyi:1992}; and other reaction rates, also
from \cite{Morrow:1997}. Diffusion coefficients for ions are derived from mobilities using classical Einstein relations.
Our reference density for air is $N_{\rm air}=2.688\times 10^{19}\,$cm$^{-3}$.
For positive streamers
a sufficient number of seed-electrons needs to be present in front of the streamer head
as the direction of electron motion is opposed to the streamer propagation
(see \cite{Bourdon:2007} and references therein).
Photoionization is in general an accepted mechanism to produce such seed-electrons
in nitrogen-oxygen mixtures.
It is therefore introduced into the
drift-diffusion system (\ref{trasp}) as a source term ($S_{\rm ph}$)
that needs to be evaluated in general at each time-step
for all points of the computational domain.
Computation of $S_{\rm ph}$ is detailed in
Appendix~\ref{PhotoIonSec}
which requires the iterative solution of six elliptic equations given by
(\ref{SP3}) with boundary conditions (\ref{SP3BC}).
Iterating three times amounts then to solve 18 elliptic equations
per time-step.
In what follows we will first assess the theoretical
validity of the mathematical description conducted in \S\ref{subsec:PoissonMR}
and the numerical implementation described in \S\ref{subsec:const_lap}.
This study will be conducted on a simplified multi-dimensional model
with known analytical solution that mimics the spatial configuration
typically found in streamer discharges.
In a second part
we will present
two-dimensional
double-headed streamer simulations
modeled by (\ref{trasp})--(\ref{poisson}),
for which we will evaluate the performance of
different linear solvers implemented to solve the discrete Poisson equations.
Finally,
dynamic grid adaptation will be analyzed for
the numerical simulation of
two interacting positive streamers
in a two-dimensional configuration that leads to streamer merging.
\subsection{Numerical validation}
We first investigate the validity of
bound (\ref{eq:res_coro}) (and (\ref{eq:hat_tilde})).
That is,
the numerical error related to grid adaptation and
data compression is of ${\mathcal O}(\eta_{\rm MR})$,
where $\eta_{\rm MR}$ is a user-defined accuracy tolerance.
Given a set of constant parameters:
$a$, $b$, and $\sigma$, let us consider an exponential function $\phi({\boldsymbol{x}})$
on a multi-dimensional domain
$\Omega \subset {\mathbb R}^d$,
\begin{equation}\label{SOLUTION}
\phi({\boldsymbol{x}}) = g({\boldsymbol{x}}) + b = a \exp \left(-|{\boldsymbol{x}}|^2/\sigma^2 \right) + b, \quad
{\boldsymbol{x}} \in \Omega
\end{equation}
that verifies the following Poisson equation:
\begin{equation}\label{PTestCase1}
\partial_{\boldsymbol{x}}^2 \phi({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \rho({\boldsymbol{x}}), \quad
\rho({\boldsymbol{x}}) = \frac{4}{\sigma^2}\left(\frac{ |{\boldsymbol{x}}|^2}{\sigma^2} - 1\right) g({\boldsymbol{x}}), \quad
{\boldsymbol{x}} \in \Omega,
\end{equation}
with boundary conditions,
\begin{equation}\label{BC}
\phi({\boldsymbol{x}}) =g({\boldsymbol{x}})+b, \quad {\boldsymbol{x}} \in \partial\Omega.
\end{equation}
Using the standard, second-order centered scheme
(similar to (\ref{eq:1d_2ndorder_disc})),
we discretize equation (\ref{PTestCase1})
on a two-
and a three-dimensional
region: $[-0.5, 0.5]^2$ and
$[-0.5, 0.5]^3$, respectively, and we
consider the set of parameters:
$a=10$, $b=20$, and $\sigma=0.005$.
The value of $\sigma$
has been chosen such that function
$\rho({\boldsymbol{x}})$
exhibits similar steep gradients as those found in
a developed streamer head
modeled by (\ref{trasp})--(\ref{poisson}).
Since $g({\boldsymbol{x}})$ decays rapidly toward the boundaries,
we consider
Dirichlet boundary conditions in (\ref{BC}):
$\phi({\boldsymbol{x}})=b$, whereas symmetric boundary conditions
are taken in order to consider a reduced
two- and a three-dimensional computational
domain: $[-0.5, 0.5] \times [0, 0.5]$ and
$[0, 0.5]^3$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\hsize]{order-phi.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\hsize]{orderEFd-EF-L2.png}
\caption{$L^2$-errors between analytical and numerical solutions
$\phi$ of Poisson equation (\ref{PTestCase1}) (a)
and component $E_x$ of $\vec E = -\partial_{\boldsymbol{x}} \phi$ (b)
for several threshold values $\eta_{\rm MR}$
( $\eta_{\rm MR}=10^{-4}$ for the three-dimensional problem).}
\label{order-phi}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{order-phi} shows normalized $L^2$-errors
between the analytical solution (\ref{SOLUTION})
and the numerical solution of the Poisson equation
(\ref{PTestCase1})
discretized
on an adapted grid, obtained with several threshold values $\eta_{\rm MR}$.
The resulting linear systems were solved using MUMPS\footnote{
Release 4.10.0.
MUMPS home page: {\tt http://graal.ens-lyon.fr/MUMPS/}}
\cite{mumps,mumps1},
a direct linear system solver,
and BoomerAMG \cite{BoomerAMG}
(contained in the {\sl hypre} {} library\footnote{
Release 2.8.0b.
{\sl hypre} {} home page:
{\tt http://www.llnl.gov/CASC/linear\_solvers/}}),
an iterative solver, for the two- and
three-dimensional problems, respectively.
The finest spatial discretization is denoted by $\Delta x$,
and it is set by the choice of the maximum level $J$
in the multiresolution analysis
and the number of roots per direction:
$N_{{\rm R}x}$, $N_{{\rm R}y}$, and $N_{{\rm R}z}$.
For the two-dimensional case, $\Delta x = 1/(N_{{\rm R}x}2^J)$ with $J=5,6,\ldots,13$,
$N_{{\rm R}x}=10$, and $N_{{\rm R}y}=5$;
whereas for the three-dimensional one:
$\Delta x = 0.5/(N_{{\rm R}x}2^J)$ with $J=4,5,\ldots,9$,
$N_{{\rm R}x}=N_{{\rm R}y}=N_{{\rm R}z}=5$.
All computations were performed on a work station
with 24 GB of computer memory.
For streamer discharge simulations an accurate resolution of the electric field:
$\vec{E} = -\partial_{\boldsymbol{x}} \phi$, is essential for good physical descriptions.
Therefore, we have also computed $\vec E$ with a
second-order, centered approximation,
and compared it against its analytical counterpart:
$\vec{E}= 2{\boldsymbol{x}}\, g({\boldsymbol{x}})/\sigma^2$.
In both cases, for $\phi$ and $\vec E$,
the numerical errors behave like a second
order spatial approximation even if the solutions are
computed on an adapted grid,
especially for relatively coarse discretizations
or sufficiently
fine multiresolution threshold values.
For finer resolutions, the numerical errors coming
from the adaptive multiresolution become more
dominant and
the numerical errors are
effectively bounded by the threshold
parameter $\eta_{\rm MR}$.
Bounds (\ref{eq:res_coro}) and (\ref{eq:hat_tilde})
prove then to describe accurately the behavior
of the numerical approximations
when solving a Poisson equation on a multiresolution
adapted grid.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.39\hsize]{matrix-pattern2D.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\hsize]{order-solution-matrix-final.png}
\caption{Matrix construction and solution: (a)
discrete Laplacian
$\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$ on a two-dimensional
multiresolution grid; and (b)
CPU times to build $\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$
and solve the corresponding linear systems
for several numbers of cells
(slopes of data fits are indicated).}
\label{fig:matrix}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.39\hsize]{matrix-pattern3D.png}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\hsize]{mes3d-var.png}
\caption{Discrete Laplacian
$\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$ on a
three-dimensional multiresolution grid (a); and (b) cutting planes
through the
adapted mesh for $J=9$,
$N_{{\rm R}x}=N_{{\rm R}y}=N_{{\rm R}z}=5$,
and $\eta_{\rm MR}=10^{-4}$.}
\label{fig:matrix3d}
\end{figure}
These tests allow us to
verify that the discrete Laplacian
is consistently constructed following the procedure
established in \S\ref{subsec:const_lap},
and correctly implemented in practice.
The matrix representation $\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$
is shown in
Figure \ref{fig:matrix}(a)
(recall that only non-zero entries are actually saved in memory).
Notice that matrix $\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$ cannot be symmetric,
unless no grid adaptation is performed.
However, $\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$
is in general quasi-symmetric.
For instance,
for this particular problem
approximately $89\,$\% of symmetry is
retrieved in terms of non-zero
elements of the matrix.
Figure \ref{fig:matrix}(b) illustrates
the computational complexity of
the matrix construction, which behaves
like ${\mathcal O}(N_{\rm L})$.
The different measures were obtained performing
several computations with different finest grid-levels $J\in [9,\ldots,13]$,
and multiresolution parameters $\eta_{\rm MR}\in [10^{-2},\ldots,10^{-9}]$.
We have indicated in Figure \ref{fig:matrix}(b)
the CPU times to solve the resulting linear system with MUMPS, as well as
with an algebraic multigrid solver: AGMG\footnote{
Release 3.1.1.
AGMG home page:
{\tt http://homepages.ulb.ac.be/$\sim$ynotay/AGMG/}}
\cite{AGMG1,AGMG2,AGMG3}
(tolerances set to $10^{-9}$),
of a computational complexity of ${\mathcal O}(N_{\rm L})$.
We have also verified that
building
the matrix representation behaves the same way
for the more complex streamer configuration
presented in the following.
Finally, Figure \ref{fig:matrix3d}(a) shows operator
$\mathbf{\widetilde{A}}$ on a three-dimensional adapted grid.
As an illustration, the number of non-zero entries is
$29756821$ for $2846787$ cells on the adapted grid
(a ratio of about $10.5$) with $68\,$\% of symmetry.
The adapted grid for the finest three-dimensional
configuration is shown in Figure \ref{fig:matrix3d}(b),
corresponding to an equivalent uniform grid
of $5^3\times 512^3$ for $J=9$ and
$N_{{\rm R}x}=N_{{\rm R}y}=N_{{\rm R}z}=5$.
\subsection{Performance of linear solvers}
We present a brief study on the performance of several
software packages currently available in the literature
to solve linear systems of general type: $\mathbf{A}\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{b}$.
Our attention will be focused on iterative solver,
which in general exhibit
relatively modest memory requirements
with respect to direct ones.
In particular algebraic multigrid methods (AMG)
will be investigated.
These methods
do not require an explicit grid geometry
and work directly on matrix entries;
they are therefore well-suited to our purposes since system
$\mathbf{A}\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{b}$,
stemmed in our case from the discretization of a
Poisson equation on a multiresolution adapted grid,
has completely lost any reminiscence of its original geometric
layout.
\subsubsection{Test configuration}
Let us consider the propagation of a
two-dimensional
double-headed streamer at atmospheric pressure.
In this configuration positive and negative streamers emerge
from an initial germ of charged species.
Drift-diffusion equations (\ref{trasp}) together with Poisson equation
(\ref{poisson})
are solved following the
time-space
adaptive scheme introduced in \cite{Duarte11_JCP}.
The latter is based on a decoupled numerical solution of (\ref{trasp})
and (\ref{poisson}) in such a way that each problem is solved
separately by a dedicated solver.
Both numerical approximations are assembled according
to a second order scheme in time.
The latter also considers a time-stepping procedure
with error control such that a prescribed accuracy
$\eta_{\mathcal T}$ is attained.
Variables are represented
at cell centers except for the electric field
and the velocities which are staggered,
while the entire problem is solved on an adapted grid
dynamically obtained by multiresolution analysis.
The latter is performed on the
species densities.
Notice that the right-hand side of the Poisson equation
(\ref{poisson}) is a linear combination of these variables;
hence, the theoretical framework
in \S\ref{subsec:PoissonMR} remains valid.
Numerical simulations in the present study were carried out with
a space-time accuracy tolerance of $\eta_{\rm MR} =\eta_{\mathcal T} = 10^{-4}$
with a space resolution of 3.9$\,\mu$m corresponding to a finest grid level: $J=8$
with $N_{{\rm R}x}=10$ and $N_{{\rm R}y}=3$.
This set of parameters guarantees a sufficiently fine time-space
representation of the physics, and numerical results disclosing practically the same
behavior with higher spatial resolutions and tighter accuracy tolerances.
The computational domain is given by $[-0.5,0.5]\times [0,0.3]\,$cm
in a Cartesian configuration.
A homogeneous
electric field $\vec E = (48.0, 0)\,$kV/cm is
introduced via Dirichlet boundary conditions for the Poisson equation at $x=\pm0.5\,$cm,
whilst Neumann boundary conditions are applied at $y=0.3\,$cm.
A plane of symmetry is imposed at $y=0$, thus only one half of the streamer is actually simulated.
The double-headed streamer is initiated by placing a Gaussian plasma cloud so that
the initial conditions for the transport equations (\ref{trasp}) are given by
\begin{equation*}
n_{\rm p}({\boldsymbol{x}}, 0) = n_{\rm e}({\boldsymbol{x}}, 0) = n_{\max}\exp\left(-|{\boldsymbol{x}}|^2/\sigma^2\right)
+ n_{0{\rm p,e}},\quad n_{\rm n}({\boldsymbol{x}}, 0) = n_{0{\rm n}},
\end{equation*}
with $\sigma=0.02\,$cm, $n_{\max}=10^{13}\,$cm$^{-3}$,
and a small homogeneous pre-ionization background
of $n_{0{\rm n,e}} = 5\times 10^{-5}\,$cm$^{-3}$
and $n_{0{\rm p}} = 10^{-4}\,$cm$^{-3}$.
All tests were conducted starting from the same solution at $3.0\,$ns
when the double-headed streamer is already well developed but no interference
with the boundaries is evidenced.
The electron density, the net charge species density:
$n_{\rm ch}=n_{\rm p}-n_{\rm n}-n_{\rm e}$, the magnitude of the electric field, and
the levels of the adapted grid
at $3.0\,$ns are shown in
Figure \ref{DensityPlots}.
The total number of cells is of $197784$,
distributed over five grid-levels from a
resolution of 62.5$\,\mu$m at level $j=4$
up to 3.9$\,\mu$m at $J=8$.
A data compression of about $10\,$\% is thus achieved
with respect to a uniform grid with the finest spatial resolution.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\hsize]{2d-plots-030.png}
\end{center}
\caption{Double-headed streamer at $3.0\,$ns:
(a) electron density $n_{\rm e}$;
(b) net charged-species density $n_{\rm ch}$;
(c) magnitude of the electric field $E=|\vec E|$;
and
(d) grid-levels of the adapted mesh.
Only part of the computational domain is shown.}
\label{DensityPlots}
\end{figure}
\def\tlvs{\vrule height 1em width 0pt}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\caption{Iterative solvers:
number of iterations (\#iter)
for relative tolerances: $tol=10^{-6},\ldots,10^{-14}$,
CPU computing time, $L^2$-error of $\phi$
and $|\vec E|$ with respect to solutions computed with MUMPS,
and memory requirements for each solver.\label{tableSolvers2}
}
\begin{tabular}{clccccccccllllc}
\multicolumn{10}{l}{{\bfseries AGMG}} &
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Memory: 82 MB} \\
\hline
\tlvs& $tol$ &&& \#iter &&& CPU(s) &&& $L^2$-error $\phi$ &&& $L^2$-error $|\vec E|$ & \\
\hline
\tlvs & $10^{-6}$ &&& 3 &&& 0.50 &&& 1.65$\times10^{-5}$ &&& 1.40$\times10^{-4}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-7}$ &&& 4 &&& 0.55 &&& 1.20$\times10^{-5}$ &&& 2.94$\times10^{-5}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-8}$ &&& 8 &&& 0.78 &&& 1.80$\times10^{-6}$ &&& 4.20$\times10^{-6}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-9}$ &&& 10 &&& 0.89 &&& 1.43$\times10^{-7}$ &&& 4.10$\times10^{-7}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-10}$ &&& 14 &&& 1.10 &&& 2.03$\times10^{-8}$ &&& 4.74$\times10^{-8}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-11}$ &&& 16 &&& 1.21 &&& 2.24$\times10^{-9}$ &&& 7.44$\times10^{-9}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-12}$ &&& 19 &&& 1.38 &&& 2.09$\times10^{-11}$ &&& 9.65$\times10^{-11}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-13}$ &&& 20 &&& 1.43 &&& 1.28$\times10^{-11}$ &&& 3.68$\times10^{-11}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-14}$ &&& 24 &&& 1.64 &&& 1.59$\times10^{-12}$ &&& 3.86$\times10^{-12}$ & \\
\hline
\multicolumn{15}{c}{} \\
\multicolumn{10}{l}{{\bf {\em hypre} BoomerAMG}} &
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Memory: 100 MB} \\
\hline
\tlvs& $tol$ &&& \#iter &&& CPU(s) &&& $L^2$ error $\phi$ &&& $L^2$ error $|\vec E|$ & \\
\hline
\tlvs & $10^{-6}$ &&& 3 &&& 1.23 &&& 7.36$\times10^{-4}$ &&& 2.46$\times10^{-3}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-7}$ &&& 6 &&& 1.51 &&& 1.81$\times10^{-5}$ &&& 5.99$\times10^{-5}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-8}$ &&& 8 &&& 1.71 &&& 3.97$\times10^{-6}$ &&& 1.63$\times10^{-5}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-9}$ &&& 11 &&& 1.98 &&& 9.56$\times10^{-8}$ &&& 7.44$\times10^{-7}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-10}$ &&& 14 &&& 2.27 &&& 9.04$\times10^{-9}$ &&& 9.87$\times10^{-8}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-11}$ &&& 17 &&& 2.55 &&& 5.45$\times10^{-10}$ &&& 5.18$\times10^{-9}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-12}$ &&& 20 &&& 2.83 &&& 6.24$\times10^{-11}$ &&& 1.02$\times10^{-9}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-13}$ &&& 24 &&& 3.21 &&& 6.28$\times10^{-12}$ &&& 2.58$\times10^{-11}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-14}$ &&& 27 &&& 3.52 &&& 4.73$\times10^{-13}$ &&& 3.84$\times10^{-12}$ & \\
\hline
\multicolumn{15}{c}{} \\
\multicolumn{10}{l}{{\bf {\em hypre} BoomerAMG + GMRES} } &
\multicolumn{5}{l}{Memory: 146 MB} \\
\hline
\tlvs& $tol$ &&& \#iter &&& CPU(s) &&& $L^2$ error $\phi$ &&& $L^2$ error $|\vec E|$ & \\
\hline
\tlvs & $10^{-6}$ &&& 2 &&& 1.24 &&& 9.09$\times10^{-4}$ &&& 2.36$\times10^{-3}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-7}$ &&& 5 &&& 1.57 &&& 2.65$\times10^{-5}$ &&& 1.28$\times10^{-4}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-8}$ &&& 8 &&& 1.90 &&& 1.15$\times10^{-6}$ &&& 1.49$\times10^{-5}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-9}$ &&& 10 &&& 2.13 &&& 6.19$\times10^{-8}$ &&& 8.56$\times10^{-7}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-10}$ &&& 12 &&& 2.34 &&& 4.32$\times10^{-9}$ &&& 6.09$\times10^{-8}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-11}$ &&& 14 &&& 2.58 &&& 5.77$\times10^{-10}$ &&& 3.33$\times10^{-9}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-12}$ &&& 15 &&& 2.69 &&& 3.58$\times10^{-10}$ &&& 8.20$\times10^{-10}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-13}$ &&& 17 &&& 2.93 &&& 3.57$\times10^{-11}$ &&& 7.10$\times10^{-11}$ & \\
\tlvs & $10^{-14}$ &&& 19 &&& 3.15 &&& 3.13$\times10^{-12}$ &&& 7.73$\times10^{-12}$ & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Analysis of results}
We have considered some iterative
solvers readily available in various software packages.
Most of present day linear solvers are developed with a special attention
on enhanced parallel capabilities.
Nevertheless, thanks to significant data compression
achieved by multiresolution adaptation,
the linear systems under consideration have typically
about $10^5$ unknowns with
approximately $10^6$ non-zero elements in the system matrix.
Therefore, to simplify our study
we have focused our attention on sequential
performance of these solvers.
We have performed the numerical experiments on a two-processor computer.
Each processor is an Intel Xeon CPU E5410 @ 2.33GHz with a
total available computer memory of 24 GB.
The computer runs on a 64-bit version of Fedora 18 GNU/Linux system.
All codes with the various linear solvers were compiled using compilers from GCC (version 4.7.2).
Memory requirements of each solver were obtained by tracing
the memory profiles of running programs with {\tt top} command, executed in batch mode
with a delay-time
interval set to $0.01\,$s.
In order to discriminate memory requirements
for the linear solvers from the overall program memory usage,
a reference program was executed in which calls to the
solver were replaced by FORTRAN (GNU extension) {\tt SLEEP} command.
The total number of unknowns for the Poisson equations
considered in this problem is
given by the number of cells in the adapted grid,
$197784$ in this case, while the discrete
Laplacian has $1078534$ non-zero entries
(a ratio of about $5.5$).
In what follows we consider as reference solution
the solution to the Poisson equation (\ref{poisson}):
$\phi$,
computed with MUMPS.
For this problem, MUMPS requires $193\,$MB of memory space
for a computation that takes approximately $3.96\,$s.
As before we also analyze the approximation to the electric field:
$\vec E =- \partial_{\boldsymbol{x}} \phi$.
Data for three iterative solvers are presented in
Table \ref{tableSolvers2} for two algebraic multigrid solvers:
AGMG and BoomerAMG,
and for GMRES \cite{GMRES} preconditioned with
BoomerAMG (also contained in {\sl hypre} {}).
In all cases a fine-tuning of computing parameters
have been previously carried out so that
Table \ref{tableSolvers2} includes the best performances
obtained with each of these solvers for this particular
problem.
A key parameter for iterative solvers is given by the
relative and absolute tolerances that in particular
serve as stopping criteria
to the iterative procedures.
In this study we have set both tolerances equal to an
accuracy tolerance, denoted as $tol$.
The initial guess corresponds to the solution computed
during the previous time-step.
For tolerances higher or equal to $10^{-5}$
convergence is attained right-away
with the initial guess for all three solvers.
In all cases better performances are obtained
with these iterative solvers with respect to MUMPS
even with very fine accuracy tolerances $tol$.
Even though GMRES converges in a less number of iterations
for different values of $tol$
with respect to the
algebraic multigrid solvers,
it does not yield faster computations taking
into account that for this problem
preconditioning is the most expensive
part.
Therefore,
BoomerAMG and GMRES/BoomerAMG
require similar computing times.
With respect to the reference solution, all
these iterative solvers scale well in terms of the
accuracy of the approximations, set by the
tolerance parameter $tol$.
Notice that numerical errors related to iterative solvers
must be taken into account
to track the overall numerical accuracy of the simulation.
In particular these
numerical errors must be smaller than the multiresolution
ones so that (\ref{eq:res_coro}) and (\ref{eq:hat_tilde})
remain valid.
The latter could be enforced by setting
in general: $tol < \eta_{\rm MR}$, while in this particular case
a safer choice might be given by $tol \leq 10^{-3}\times \eta_{\rm MR}$
according to the values contained in Table \ref{tableSolvers2}.
Among the solvers tested in this study, AGMG
revealed itself as
the most performing package both in terms of CPU time and memory requirements
to solve this particular problem.
However, the overall performance
of these solvers is clearly problem-dependent.
In this regard the {\sl hypre} {} library
provides a user-friendly and unified interface to various solution schemes,
very appropriate to handle different types of problems.
\subsection{Application to the study of two interacting positive streamers}
\label{CaseStudy}
While previous illustrations served to validate
the numerical strategy,
we consider now an interesting plasma physics application
with more complex dynamics.
We study
the interaction
of two positive streamers initiated to develop side by side.
Because the heads of both streamers carry space charge of the same polarity,
their mutual interaction should essentially be an electrostatic repulsion.
However, it was found that streamers in such a configuration may attract
each other and eventually merge \cite{Briels2006,Cummer2006,Nijdam2009}.
This attraction is mainly the result of the enhancement of photoionization
source in the space between the streamer heads \cite{Luque2008,Bonaventura2012}.
In particular,
based on an extensive parametric numerical study, we have
shown in \cite{Bonaventura2012}
that for initial separations of two streamers smaller or comparable
to the absorption length of photoionization, merging will start
when the ratio of the streamer characteristic width and
their mutual separation attains a certain value.
We describe here some
numerical aspects omitted in our previous study.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\hsize]{rho-phases-0040.png}
\rule{0.5\textwidth}{0.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\hsize]{rho-phases-0060.png}
\rule{0.5\textwidth}{0.2mm}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\hsize]{rho-phases-0080.png}
\caption{Time evolution of the net charge density (a),
magnitude of the electric field (b), and
dynamic grid adaptation (c) for two interacting positive streamers
at ground pressure with an applied electric field
of $\vec E_{\rm bg}=(0,-48)\,$kV/cm at time instances: $4.0$, $6.0$ and $8.0\,$ns.
Only part of the computational domain is shown.
}
\label{rho-phases}
\end{figure}
Let us consider two positive streamers
modeled by (\ref{trasp})--(\ref{poisson})
propagating in a homogeneous electric field.
As before the system of equations is solved with
the time-space adaptive scheme introduced in \cite{Duarte11_JCP}
with the Poisson equation discretized on the adapted grid following
the numerical technique established in \S\ref{subsec:const_lap}.
The resulting linear systems are solved with MUMPS.
The computational domain is given by $[0,3.0]\times[-1.6,1.6]\,$cm
in a Cartesian configuration.
A space-time accuracy tolerance of $\eta_{\rm MR} =\eta_{\mathcal T} = 10^{-4}$
was chosen
with a space resolution of 3.9$\,\mu$m corresponding to a finest grid-level of $J=8$
with $N_{{\rm R}x}=30$ and $N_{{\rm R}y}=32$.
The finest spatial resolution is equivalent to that of a uniform grid
with $8192\times7680$ cells.
A homogeneous electric field of $\vec E_{\rm bg} = (0,-48)\,$kV/cm is
introduced via Dirichlet boundary conditions for the Poisson equation (\ref{poisson})
at $y=\pm1.6\,$cm, whilst Neumann boundary conditions are applied at $x=3.0\,$cm.
A plane of symmetry is imposed at $x=0$.
The positive streamer is initiated by placing a Gaussian seed
with a maximum of $10^{13}\,$cm$^{-3}$ and a characteristic
width of $0.02 \,$cm, centered at $0.1\,$cm from the symmetry axis.
The time evolution of the net charge density, the magnitude of the electric field,
and the dynamic grid adaptation at time instances: $4.0$, $6.0$, and $8.0\,$ns
are shown in Figure~\ref{rho-phases}.
Population of different grid-levels at sample times is detailed in
Table~\ref{TableResol} together with the corresponding data compression (DC),
defined as the percentage of active cells with respect to the equivalent
number of cells using the finest discretization,
given in this case by 62914560.
We recall that no grid overlapping is considered in this implementation,
that is, both the time-dependent PDEs as well as the Poisson equations
are solved on the adapted grid consisting of cells at different grid-levels
as shown in Table~\ref{TableResol}.
The coarsest resolution allowed in this simulation (at grid-level $j=1$)
corresponds to a spatial resolution of $0.05\,$cm (note that
this level was not populated during the simulation,
therefore it is not listed in Table~\ref{TableResol}).
\begin{table}[!ht]
\caption{Data compression (DC) and number of cells at different grid-levels at sample time instances.}
\label{TableResol}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccrrrrrrr}
\toprule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{time(ns)} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{DC(\%)} & \multicolumn{7}{c}{Number of cells at grid-levels} \cr
&
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{2}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{3}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{4}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{5}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{6}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{7}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{8} \cr
\midrule
\phantom{0}0 & 0.031 & 15240 & 162 & 272 & 527 & 1341 & 7728 &169904\cr
\phantom{0}1 & 1.219 & 780 &4671&61359&605154&22297&23160&49424 \cr
\phantom{0}2 & 1.264 & 620 & 4440 &57625 &633483 & 23447 &27668 & 47744\cr
\phantom{0}3 & 1.291 & 566 &4346&56348&642443&26479&33016&48752\cr
\phantom{0}4 & 1.325 & 528 & 4528 &54141 &648333 & 34030 &41660 & 50672\cr
\phantom{0}5 & 1.360 & 512 & 4712 & 51905 & 652364 & 42504 & 56536 & 47136 \cr
\phantom{0}6 & 1.407 & 544 & 4768 &49464 &653958 & 61267 &64120 & 51056\cr
\phantom{0}7 & 1.449 & 458 & 5288 & 47652 & 650502 & 93008 & 63196 & 51728 \cr
\phantom{0}8 & 1.495 & 338 & 5791 &46530 &644986 &131087 &66656 & 45328\cr
\phantom{0}9 & 1.567 & 219 & 5388 & 48316 & 637538 & 188227 & 70380 & 35744 \cr
10 & 1.702 & 18 & 5296 & 48622 & 624126 & 294256 & 73264 & 25280 \cr
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
From Figure~\ref{rho-phases} and Table~\ref{TableResol}
we observe that the finest level is first populated at the vicinity
of the initial Gaussian seed and follows the propagation of onsetting streamers
(see Figure~\ref{rho-phases} corresponding to time $4\,$ns).
At the next instance shown (Figure~\ref{rho-phases} at $6\,$ns),
the propagating front is fully described in a region
contained within levels 6 and 7. This is
because both streamer heads had expanded and the finest scale
is thus no longer necessary.
Once the streamer heads have merged (Figure~\ref{rho-phases} at $8\,$ns)
and therefore only one head is propagating,
only level 6 is required.
In particular
behind the
head, {\it i.e.}, inside the plasma channel where neither sharp gradients
nor strong discharge activity are present,
the grid is coarsened down to level 4.
The finest resolution is attained and kept
throughout the simulation
close to the initial Gaussian seeds where we can observe
persistence of highly localized space charge
as well as strong spatial variation of the electric field.
Despite a decreasing population of the finest level after $7\,$ns
(see Table~\ref{TableResol})
overall data compression is slowly increasing
because discharge activity
is gradually filling larger regions of the computational domain.
\section{Concluding remarks}\label{sec:conclusion}
The multiresolution finite volume scheme \cite{Cohen03}
has been extended to include the numerical solution of Poisson equations
on the corresponding adapted grids.
A numerical procedure
has been developed
to represent the discrete Laplace operator
on the adapted grid
by reconstructing locally uniform-grid regions
at inter-grid interfaces by means of ghost cells
and inter-level multiresolution operations.
This approach constitutes a new alternative
to the standard level-wise numerical solution of
elliptic equations considered in most of the
adaptive mesh refinement techniques
for time-dependent problems
in the literature.
The numerical solution of
the discrete Poisson equation amounts to considering a linear
system completely independent of the grid
generation or any other grid-related
data structure or geometric consideration.
The multiresolution framework
guarantees numerical approximations within an accuracy
tolerance as well as consistency and conservation
properties throughout the set of grids.
Here we have focused our attention on Poisson
equations, however the present technique
remains valid for more general elliptic PDEs
like Poisson equations with
time- and/or space-varying
coefficients.
The validity of
the numerical strategy
has been assessed
in the context of the numerical simulation of
streamer discharges.
This application involves an intensive
use of Poisson solvers and accurate
solutions of Poisson equations are essential to
the correct reproduction of physics.
First,
we have carefully evaluated the
numerical errors introduced by data compression
for a
simpler configuration with analytical solution.
A much more complex and complete model
was then considered to simulate the propagation of a double-headed streamer
discharge in air at atmospheric pressure.
We have thus conducted a study on the performance
and capabilities of various
linear solvers for this problem.
The latter allowed us
to further validate the current implementation and
serves as a guide for other applications.
In particular we have evaluated the potentialities of
algebraic multigrid solvers, well-suited for this
kind of implementation with no geometric counterpart.
The robustness of the numerical strategy has been further
assessed for the simulation of
interacting positive streamers,
an interesting application in
plasma physics.
Further developments include optimizing
the numerical construction of the discrete Laplace
operators by conceiving, for instance, better
data structures
or
by updating only the matrix entries modified by
grid adaptation.
Taking into account that in this implementation
solving the linear systems
becomes a separate aspect from the
multiresolution analysis itself,
parallel computing capabilities
may be directly inherited from the software packages
available in the literature.
However,
an intelligent conjunction with multiresolution
parallelism
must be sought to achieve overall satisfactory results.
These issues constitute particular topics of our
current research.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This research was
supported by a fundamental project grant from ANR (French National Research Agency - ANR Blancs):
{\it S\'echelles} (project leader S.~Descombes - 2009-2013)
and
by a DIGITEO RTRA project: \emph{MUSE} (project leader M.~Massot - 2010-2014).
M.~D. acknowledges support of
Laboratoire EM2C for a visiting stay in France.
Z.~B. acknowledges support from project CZ.1.05/2.1.00/03.0086
funded by the European Regional Development Fund and support of Ecole Centrale Paris.
|
\section{Modelling oblique magnetic dipoles with pulsations}
$\beta$\,Cep is a magnetic pulsating star. It hosts a radial pulsation mode as
well as non-radial pulsations of lower amplitude. The line profiles in its
spectrum therefore show mainly variations with the pulsation periods in addition
to the Zeeman broadening due to the magnetic field. Measurements of the magnetic
field in Stokes V clearly show both variations due to the pulsations and the
Zeeman signatures of its field. Therefore it is mandatory to take pulsations
into account when trying to determine the magnetic field configuration and
strength from the Stokes profiles.
For the first time we thus modelled the intensity and Stokes V profiles of a
magnetic massive star, $\beta$\,Cep, taking into account its pulsations with the
new Phoebe 2.0 code (see Fig.~\ref{Neiner_fig1}), and we compared the results
with a standard oblique dipole model without pulsations. Without pulsations we
find i=89$^\circ$, $\beta$=51$^\circ$, B$_{\rm pol}$=389 G, while with
pulsations our preliminary results are i=70$^\circ$, $\beta$=50$^\circ$, B$_{\rm
pol}$=276 G. In particular, the resulting field strength seems significantly
lower when taking pulsations into account.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=3cm]{collection_017_surface.ps}
\includegraphics[height=3cm]{collection_017_LSDIV.ps}\\
\includegraphics[height=3cm]{collection_042_surface.ps}
\includegraphics[height=3cm]{collection_042_LSDIV.ps}\\
\caption{Examples of the modelled surface (left), LSD Stokes I (middle) and V (right) profiles of $\beta$\,Cep fitted with pulsations and magnetic field, at two different phases.}
\label{Neiner_fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Taking magnetism into account in seismic studies}
The impact of a fossil magnetic field on rotation and mixing can be estimated following
two theoretical criteria: (1) the Spruit criterion \cite[(Spruit
1999)]{spruit1999}: Above a critical strength, the magnetic field freezes
differential rotation and mixing, and the field stays oblique. Otherwise the
structure adjusts to a symmetric configuration by rotational smoothing; (2) the
Zahn criterion \cite[(Zahn 2011, Mathis \& Zahn 2005)]{zahn2011,
mathiszahn2005}: The Lorentz force removes differential rotation along poloidal
field lines above a certain field strength and thus removes mixing.
For the magnetic pulsating B star V2052\,Oph, the Spruit and Zahn critical field
strengths are B$_{\rm crit}$=40 G and 70 G, respectively. In this star, the
measured polar field strength is B$_{\rm pol}$=400 G \cite[(Neiner et al.
2012)]{neiner2012}. Therefore we expect no mixing in V2052\,Oph. Indeed, a
seismic model of the pulsations of V2052\,Oph shows no overshoot in this star
\cite[(Briquet et al. 2012)]{briquet2012}. This example shows how a magnetic
field study can provide constraints for seismic modelling.
A magnetic field also produces splitting of the pulsation modes and a
modification of the amplitude of the pulsation modes. The split multiplet
depends both on the strength of the field and on its obliquity \cite[(see
Shibahashi \& Aerts 2000)]{shibahashi2000}. No magnetic splitting has been
identified so far in massive stars. However, the observation with CoRoT of
regular splittings in the hybrid B pulsator HD\,43317 \cite[(Papics et al.
2012)]{papics2012} and the recent discovery of a magnetic field in this star
\cite[(Briquet et al. 2013)]{briquet2013} make it an ideal candidate.
\section{Conclusions}
It is crucial to take pulsations into account when modelling the magnetic field
strength and configuration in pulsating massive stars. Moreover, knowing this
magnetic configuration provides important constraints on seismic modelling, in
particular it constraints the mixing, differential rotation and identification
of the modes.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $\mu$ be a compactly supported Borel probability measure on
${\Bbb R}^d$. We say that $\mu$ is a {\it spectral measure} if there
exists a countable set $\Lambda\subset {\Bbb R}^d$ called {\it spectrum} such that
$E(\Lambda): = \{e^{2\pi i \langle\lambda,x\rangle}:
\lambda\in\Lambda\}$ is an orthonormal basis for $L^2(\mu)$. If $\Omega\subset{\Bbb R}^d$ is measurable with finite positive Lebesgue measure and
$d\mu(x) =\chi_{\Omega}(x)dx$ is a spectral measure, then we say that $\Omega$
is a {\it spectral set}. Spectral sets were first introduced by Fuglede (\cite{[Fu]}) and
have a very delicate and mysterious relationship with translational tiling because of the
{\it spectral set conjecture} (known also as {\it Fuglede's conjecture}) proposed by Fuglede.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Conjecture (Fuglede's Conjecture):} {\it A bounded measurable set $\Omega$
on ${\Bbb R}^d$ of positive Lebesgue measure is a spectral set if and only if
$\Omega$ is a translational tile.}
\medskip
We say that $\Omega$ is a translational tile if there exists a
discrete set ${\mathcal J}$ such that $\bigcup_{t\in{\mathcal J}}(\Omega+t) = {\Bbb R}^d$,
and the Lebesgue measure of $(\Omega+t)\cap(\Omega+t')$ is zero for any distinct
$t$ and $t'$ in ${\mathcal J}$. Although this conjecture was eventually disproved
in dimension $d\geq 3$ (\cite{[T], [KM], [KM1]}),
most of the known examples of spectral sets are constructed from
translational tiles. An important class of examples of spectral sets
constructed in \cite{[PW]} consists of sets of the form $A+[0,1]$ tiling $[0,N]$ for some
$N$, where $A\subset\Bbb Z$. In fact, in this case, the corresponding
equally weighted discrete measure on $A$ is a spectral measure.
\medskip
The first singular spectral measure was constructed by Jorgensen and Pedersen \cite{[JP]}.
They showed that the standard
Cantor measures are spectral measures if the contraction is $\frac{1}{2n}$, while there are at most two orthogonal
exponentials when the contraction
is $\frac{1}{2n+1}$. Following this discovery, more spectral self-similar/self-affine measures were also found (\cite{[S]}, \cite{[LaW]}, \cite{[DJ]}). In these investigations, the tiling conditions on the digit sets play an important role. An interesting question arises naturally:
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Question:} {\it What kind of measures are spectral measures and how are they related to translational tilings?}
\medskip
This question seems to be out of reach using our current knowledge. In this paper,
we aim to describe a unifying framework bridging the gap between singular spectral
measures and spectral sets. Let us introduce some simple notations.
Denote by ${\mathcal L}$ the Lebesgue measure in ${\Bbb R}^d$ and by
${\mathcal L}_E$ the normalized Lebesgue measure restricted to the measurable set $E$
(i.e.~${\mathcal L}_E(F) = {\mathcal L}(E\cap F)/{\mathcal L}(E)$). For a finite set $A$, we
denote by $|A|$ the cardinality of $A$ and by $\delta_A$ the measure $\sum_{a\in A}\delta_a$,
where $\delta_a$ is the Dirac mass at $a$. We also write
$A\oplus B = C$ if every element in $C$ can be uniquely expressed as
a sum $a+b$ with $a\in A$ and $b\in B$. We now make some observations about
specific examples of spectral measures known in the literature.
\bigskip
(1) According to \cite{[PW]}, if $A\subset{\Bbb Z}$ and the set
$\Omega = A+[0,1)$ tiles $[0,N)$, then $\Omega$ is a spectral set.
We can thus find a set $B$ such that $A\oplus B = \{0,1,...,N-1\}$.
This means that $\left(\frac{1}{|B|}\delta_{B}\right)\ast {\mathcal L}_{\Omega} = {\mathcal L}_{[0,N]}$.
\medskip
(2) Let $\mu$ be the standard one-fourth Cantor (probability)
measure defined by the self-similar identity
$$
\mu(\cdot) = \frac{1}{2}\mu(4\cdot)+ \frac{1}{2}\mu(4\cdot-2).
$$
It is known that $\mu$ is a spectral measure \cite{[JP]}. At the same time,
we observe that if we define $\nu$ to be the one-fourth Cantor measure obeying the equation
$$
\nu(\cdot) = \frac{1}{2}\nu(4\cdot)+ \frac{1}{2}\nu(4\cdot-1),
$$
then $\mu\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}$. This can be seen directly by
computing the Fourier transform of both measures.
\bigskip
In fact, we may view the operation of convolution with a positive measure as certain
kind of generalized translation. The above examples suggest the following question.
Let $Q$ be a fundamental domain of some full-rank lattice on ${\Bbb R}^d$.
\medskip
{\bf ${\bf {\mathcal F}(Q)}$:} {\it Any positive Borel measures $\mu$ and $\nu$
such that $\mu\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_Q$ are spectral measures.}
\medskip
Unfortunately, we cannot expect the above statement
to be true for all $Q$. In fact, if $\mu = {\mathcal L}_{E}$ with
$E$ is the translational tile without a spectrum constructed in
\cite{[KM]}, then $\mu\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_Q$ for some
fundamental domain $Q$ as seen directly from the construction of
this counterexample. However, in order to understand which measures are spectral,
it is useful to know to what extent the statement ${\bf {\mathcal F}(Q)}$
is true for some specific $Q$. Our first main result unifies the examples
of discrete spectral measures, spectral sets and the singular spectral measures given in (1) and (2) above.
\begin{theorem}\label{th0.1}
For any $d\geq 1$, the statement ${\mathcal F}([0,1]^d)$ is true. Moreover, for any positive Borel
measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ such that $\mu\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]^d}$,
we can find spectra $\Lambda_{\mu}$ and $\Lambda_{\nu}$ for $\mu$ and $\nu$
respectively satisfying the property that
$$
\Lambda_{\mu}\oplus\Lambda_{\nu} = {\Bbb Z}.
$$
\end{theorem}
\medskip
We now give a brief explanation of the proof of Theorem \ref{th0.1}. We first focus on
${\Bbb R}^1$ where the proof involves two main steps. The first step is a complete characterization of the
Borel probability measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ satisfying the identity $\mu\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}$.
This characterization is actually a known result in probability due to Lewis \cite{[Le]}.
In particular, Lewis proved that only two cases could occur: either one measure is
absolutely continuous and the other one is purely discrete or they are both singular.
To prove our theorem, we will express the measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ as weak limits of
convolutions of some discrete measures using the result of Lewis (See Section 2).
The second step is to construct spectra for $\mu$ and $\nu$. This is done by
observing that the discrete measures obtained at each level are
spectral measures. We then show that the spectral property carries over by
passing to the weak limit. This argument is a generalization of the proof in
\cite{[DHL]} (See Section 3). After the dimension one case is established,
we characterize the Borel probability measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ satisfying
$\mu\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]^d}$ as Cartesian products of one-dimensional
Borel probability measures $\sigma_i$ and $\tau_i$,
$i=1,...,d$, on ${\Bbb R}^1$
satisfying $\sigma_i\ast\tau_i={\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}$
and also prove the spectral property for those (See Section 5).
\medskip
It is very unclear whether ${\bf {\mathcal F}({Q})}$ is true if $Q$ is not a hypercube.
We will focus our attention on ${\Bbb R}^1$ in which Fuglede's conjecture
remains open. We propose the
following generalized Fuglede's conjecture for spectral measures on
${\Bbb R}^1$ and it is direct to see that a full generality of
${\bf {\mathcal F}({Q})}$ on ${\Bbb R}^1$ will imply one direction of this generalized conjecture.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Conjecture (Generalized Fuglede's Conjecture):}
{\it A compactly supported Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\Bbb R}^1$ is
spectral if and only if there exists a Borel probability measure
$\nu$ and a fundamental domain $Q$ of some lattice on ${\Bbb R}^1$
such that $\mu\ast\nu ={\mathcal L}_{Q}$.}
\medskip
This is an open conjecture on ${\Bbb R}^1$ and we will prove that
it extends the classical Fuglede's conjecture.
\medskip
\begin{theorem}
The generalized Fuglede's conjecture implies Fuglede's conjecture on ${\Bbb R}^1$.
\end{theorem}
Let us make some remarks on the classical Fuglede's conjecture on ${\Bbb R}^1$.
There is some evidence that the conjecture may be true on ${\Bbb R}^1$.
In particular, the known fact that all tiling sets of a tile and all spectra of a
spectral set are periodic offers some credibility to the conjecture \cite{[LW1],[IK]}.
Moreover, some algebraic conditions, if satisfied, are sufficient to settle
the conjecture on ${\Bbb R}$, although these conditions are not easy to check \cite{[DL2]}.
\medskip
As our focus is the one-dimensional case, we organize our paper as follows:
In Section 2, we describe the factorization of the Lebesgue measure on
$[0,1]$ given by Lewis and, for the reader's convenience, we provide a somewhat
different proof of the factorization theorem that avoids some of the complications
of the original ones stemming from the use of probabilistic tools.
We then prove the spectral property in Section 3 and discuss the
generalized Fuglede's conjecture on ${\Bbb R}^1$ in Section 4.
We will finally prove Theorem \ref{th0.1} in higher dimension in Section 5.
As this piece of work offers us several new directions for further research, we end this paper with some remarks and open question in Section 6.
\medskip
\noindent{\it Note:} During the preparation of the manuscript,
we were made aware that Professor Xinggang He and his student \cite{[AH]}
discovered independently a new class of one-dimensional spectral measures
obtained via a Moran construction of fractals. These
one-dimensional spectral measures turn out to coincide exactly
with those we consider in this paper.
\bigskip
\section{Factorization of Lebesgue measures}
Let ${\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}$ be the Lebesgue measure supported on $[0,1]$ and
let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be two Borel probability measures supported on $[0,1]$.
We say that $(\mu,\nu)$ is a {\it complementary pair} of measures with respect to
${\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}$ if
$$
\mu\ast\nu ={\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}.
$$
Let ${\mathcal N} = \{N_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ be a sequence of positive
integers greater than or equal to 2. We associate with ${\mathcal N}$ the discrete measures
\begin{equation}\label{eqdis}
\nu_{k} = \frac{1}{N_k}\sum_{j=0}^{N_k-1}\delta_{\frac{j}{N_1\cdots N_k}},\quad k\ge 1.
\end{equation}
For a given Borel set $E$, recall that ${\mathcal L}_{E}$ is the normalized
Lebesgue measure supported on $E$. We now observe that the Lebesgue measure supported on
$[0,1]$ admits a natural decomposition as convolution products.
$$
\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}
_{[0,1)} =& \nu_{1}\ast ({\mathcal L}_{[0,\frac{1}{N_1}]})\\
=&\nu_{1}\ast\nu_{2}\ast({\mathcal L}_{[0,\frac{1}{N_1N_2}]})\\
=&\cdots\\
=& \nu_{1}\ast\nu_{2}\ast\cdots\ast\nu_{k}\ast({\mathcal L}_{[0,\frac{1}{N_1\cdots N_k}]}).
\end{aligned}
$$
The sequence of measures $\nu_{1}\ast\nu_{2}\ast\cdots\ast\nu_{k}$ converges weakly to
${\mathcal L}_{[0,1]} $. Therefore, one can write the Lebesgue measure as an infinite
convolution of discrete measures.
\begin{equation}\label{eq0.1}
{\mathcal L}_{[0,1]} = \nu_{1}\ast\nu_{2}\ast\cdots.
\end{equation}
\medskip
Given a set ${\mathcal N}$ as above, we will consider two types of factorization (Type I and Type II)
of ${\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}$ as the convolution of two measures obtained from the
infinite factorization obtained in
(\ref{eq0.1}).
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Type I.} There exists a finite positive integer $k$ such that
we have either
$$
\mu_{\mathcal N} = \nu_{1}\ast\nu_{3}\ast...\ast\nu_{{2k-1}} \ \mbox{and} \
\nu_{\mathcal N} = \nu_{2}\ast\nu_{4}\ast...\ast\nu_{{2k}}\ast({\mathcal L}_{[0,\frac{1}{N_1N_2\cdots
N_{2k}}]})
$$
or
$$
\mu_{\mathcal N} = \nu_{1}\ast\nu_{3}\ast...\ast\nu_{{2k-1}}\ast({\mathcal L}_{[0,\frac{1}{N_1N_2
\cdots N_{2k}}]}) \ \mbox{and} \ \nu_{\mathcal N} = \nu_{2}\ast\nu_{4}\ast...\ast\nu_{{2k}}.
$$
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Type II}
\begin{equation}\label{eq0.2}
\mu_{{\mathcal N}} = \nu_{1}\ast\nu_{3}\ast\cdots\ast\nu_{{2k-1}}\ast\cdots
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq0.3}
\nu_{{\mathcal N}} = \nu_{2}\ast\nu_{4}\ast\cdots\ast\nu_{{2k}}\cdots
\end{equation}
\medskip
\begin{Rem}\label{rem1}
{\rm The reader might want to construct more general decompositions obtained by choosing other
factorizations of (\ref{eq0.1}), but note that if convolution product of two consecutive factors of
(\ref{eq0.1}) belong to the same factor in the factorization, say $\nu_k$ and $\nu_{k+1}$, then we have}
$$
\nu_k\ast\nu_{k+1} = \frac{1}{N_kN_{k+1}}\sum_{j=0}^{N_kN_{k+1}}\delta_{j/N_1N_2...(N_kN_{k+1})}
$$
{\rm and we would then be able to write the given convolution product as one of type I or type II associated with a different ${\mathcal N}$.}
\end{Rem}
\medskip
Note in both cases that
$\mu_{{\mathcal N}}\ast\nu_{{\mathcal N}} ={\mathcal L}_{[0,1]} $ by (\ref{eq0.1}).
Therefore, they are $\mu_{{\mathcal N}}$ and $\nu_{{\mathcal N}}$
form a complementary pair with respect to ${\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}$.
In the case of the Type I decomposition, one is purely discrete and one is absolutely continuous
while in the Type II decomposition, both factors are singularly continuous measures.
We say that a complementary pair $(\mu, \nu)$ is {\it natural} if
we can find a sequence ${\mathcal N}$ of positive integers such that
$(\mu, \nu) =(\mu_{{\mathcal N}},\nu_{{\mathcal N}})$.
\begin{theorem}\label{th1.1}
If $\mu$ and $\nu$ are positive Borel probability measures supported on $[0,1]$
and $\mu\ast \nu = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}$, then $\mu$ and $\nu$ are natural complementary pair.
\end{theorem}
\medskip
This theorem is essentially due to Lewis \cite{[Le]} who considered the problem
in probability consisting in characterizing the type of the distributions of pairs of
independent random variables $X$ and $Y$ whose sum $X+Y$ is a uniform random variable on
$[-\pi,\pi]$. For the reader's convenience, we will give here another proof based on his ideas
as his result is not widely known. Moreover, the proof we give here is more analytical in flavor and
avoids some of the complications arising in the original proof from the use of probability tools.
The main important step of the proof is to show that if
two probablity measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ satisfy $\mu\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}$,
then one of them, say $\mu$, must be ''$1/N$ periodic" in the sense that
$\mu = \left(1/N\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}\delta_{j/N}\right)\ast \mu_1$ for some integer
$N\geq 2$ and $\mu_1\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1/N]}$. This is done by analyzing the
structure of the zeros of the Fourier transform of $\mu$ and $\nu$ (Lemma \ref{lem1}).
\medskip
We now define the (complex) Fourier transform of a compactly supported probability measure $\mu$ by the formula
$$
\widehat{\mu}(\xi) = \int e^{-2\pi i \xi x}d\mu(x), \ \xi\in{\Bbb C}.
$$
We will consider convolution products yielding the Lebesgue measure supported on $[-1/2,1/2]$ instead of $[0,1]$ to exploit some symmetric properties of the solutions (as explained below). Note that $\mu\ast \nu = {\mathcal L}_{[-1/2,1/2]}$ is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{sin}
\widehat{\mu}(\xi)\widehat{\nu}(\xi)=\widehat{{\mathcal L}_{[-1/2,1/2]}}(\xi) =\frac{\sin \pi \xi}{\pi \xi}.
\end{equation}
The zero set of the Fourier transform $\widehat{\mu}$ in the complex plane will be denoted by
$$
{\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\mu}) = \{\xi\in {\mathbb C}: \widehat{\mu}(\xi) =0\}
$$
Since $((\delta_x\ast\mu)\ast (\delta_{-x}\ast\nu) = {\mathcal L}_{[-1/2,1/2]}$
for any real numbers $x$, we may assume the smallest closed interval containing the support of
$\mu$ is given by $[-a,a]$. Denote by supp $\mu$ the closed support of $\mu$. Given a probability measure
$\rho$, we also define the measure $\check{\rho}$ to be the measure satisfying
$\check{\rho}(B) = \rho(-B)$ for any Borel set $B\subset \mathbb{R}$.
\begin{Lem}\label{lem01}
Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be two probability measures such that $\mu\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[-1/2,1/2]}$ and assume that the smallest closed interval containing supp $\mu$ is of the form $[-a,a]$, $a>0$. Then we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq1.1}
{\mathbb Z}\setminus\{0\} = {\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\mu})\cup {\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\nu}) \ (\mbox{\rm as a disjoint union}).
\end{equation}
Moreover, the smallest closed interval containing supp $\nu$ is given by $[-b,b]$ where $b=1/2-a$ and both $\mu$ and $\nu$ have symmetric distributions around the origin (i.e. $\check{\mu} = \mu$ and $\check{\nu} = \nu$).
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
It is well-known that $\widehat{\mu}$ is a non-zero entire analytic function, so its zero set is
a discrete set in the complex plane. Furthermore, since the zeros of $\widehat{\chi_{[-1/2,1/2]}}$ are
simple, (\ref{eq1.1}) follows from (\ref{sin}). Let $[c,b]$ be the smallest closed interval
containing the support of $\nu$. Then $a+b=1/2$ and $-a+c=-1/2$ showing that $c=-b$ and $b=1/2-a$.
\medskip
Finally, note that, since $\mu$ is a positive measure,
${\mathcal Z}\left(({\check{\mu}})^{\widehat{}}\right) =
{\mathcal Z}({\widehat{\mu}})$. Therefore,
${\mathcal Z}\left(({\check{\mu}})^{\widehat{}}\right)\cup{\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\nu})
= {\Bbb Z}\setminus\{0\}$. Consider the tempered distribution
$\rho: = \check{\mu}\ast\nu\ast\delta_{\Bbb Z}$.
Then $\widehat{\rho} =({\check{\mu}})^{\widehat{}}\cdot\widehat{\nu}\cdot\delta_{\Bbb Z}
= \delta_0$. Hence, $\rho$ is the Lebesgue measure on ${\Bbb R}$ and the restriction of $\rho$
to the interval $[-1/2,1/2]$ is $\check{\mu}\ast\nu$. This shows that
$\check{\mu}\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[-1/2,1/2]}$, which means that
$\check{\mu}\ast\nu = \mu\ast\nu$. Taking Fourier transform, we obtain $\check{\mu} = \mu$.
The proof of the symmetry of $\nu$ is similar.
\end{pf}
Note that Lewis used the Hadamard factorization theorem to prove the
symmetry property of $\mu$ and $\nu$ in Lemma \ref{lem01}. The ideas of the following
two lemmas are due to Lewis and form the crucial parts of the argument.
\medskip
\begin{Lem}\label{lem0}
Let $r\geq1$ be the smallest positive zero of $\widehat{\mu}$. Then
$$
\frac{1}{4r}\leq a\leq \frac{1}{2r} \ \mbox{and} \ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2r}\leq b\leq \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{4r}.
$$
\end{Lem}
\medskip
\begin{pf}
We just need to prove the lower estimates for both $a$ and $b$ as the upper ones will follow from these and the fact that $a+b=1/2$. Since $r$ is a zero of $\widehat{\mu}$, then $-r$ is also a zero and we must have $\int \cos (2\pi rx)d\mu(x) =0$. This implies that $2\pi r a \geq \frac{\pi}{2}$ and thus $a\geq\frac{1}{4r}$. In particular, the claim is true for $r=1$.
\medskip
For the upper bound, we consider the following functions for different $r$.
$$
h(x) : = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\cos(2\pi x), & \hbox{$r=2$;} \\
\cos(2\pi x)-\cos(2\pi 2x), & \hbox{$r=3$;} \\
\cos(\frac{\pi rx}{2})\prod_{j=1}^{k-1}(\cos(2\pi x)-\cos\frac{2(2j-1)\pi}{r}), & \hbox{$r>2$, $r =2k$;} \\
(\cos(\frac{\pi(r-1)x}{2})-\cos(\frac{\pi(r+1)x}{2})\prod_{j=1}^{k-2}(\cos(2\pi x)-\cos\frac{(2\pi)(2j)}{r}), & \hbox{$r>2$, $r=2k-1$.}
\end{array}
\right.
$$
By expanding $h(x)$, we see that $h(x)$ is a linear combination of
$\cos(2\pi kx)$, for $k =1...,r-1$. Hence $\int h(x)d\nu(x) =0$ as $1,\cdots,r-1$
are zeros of $\widehat{\nu}$. By checking the sign of each factor, we see that
if $2\pi x\leq \pi(r-1)/r$, then $h(x)\geq 0$.
\medskip
Consider the case where $r>2$ is even.
We have either $2\pi b\geq \pi(r-1)/r$ (i.e. $b\geq1/2-1/2r$) or $\nu$ is supported on
the atoms $\pm (1/r),\cdots, \pm (r-3)/r$. However, $\nu$ cannot be supported on those atoms
since $\widehat{\nu}$ would be a polynomial in $\cos(2\pi x/r)$ of degree at most $r-3$,
but there are $r-1$ zeros for $\widehat{\nu}$, a contradiction. Therefore, we must have $b\geq 1/2-1/(2r)$.
The proof for the other cases follows from a similar argument.
\end{pf}
\medskip
\begin{Lem}\label{lem1}
Let $N>0$ be a positive integer and let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be two probability measures
on ${\Bbb R}$ such that $\mu\ast\nu ={\mathcal L}_{[0,1/N]}$ with
neither $\widehat{\mu}$ nor $\widehat{\nu}$ being identically one.
Suppose that $N\in {\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\nu})$ and let $Nr$ with $r>1 $
be the smallest positive zero of $\widehat{\mu}$. Then
$${\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\mu})\subset Nr{\Bbb Z}.$$
\end{Lem}
\begin{pf}
By rescaling the measures by a factor of $N$, it is easy to see that it suffices
to consider the case $N=1$. By translating the measure
(i.e. $\mu\ast(\delta_{-1/2}\ast\nu) = {\mathcal L}_{[-1/2,1/2]}$),
it suffices to prove the lemma for the case $\mu\ast\nu ={\mathcal L}_{[-1/2,1/2]}$,
where $\check{\mu} = \mu$ and $\check{\nu} = \nu$.
\medskip
Let $\rho (E) = \nu(\{0\})\delta_0(E)+2\nu(E\cap (0,1/2])$ and $\check{\rho}(E) = \rho(-E)$ for $E$ Borel. Then, the fact that $\nu(E) = \nu(-E)$ implies that $
\rho+\check{\rho}= 2\nu.$
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eqpf1.2}
\mu\ast\rho+\mu\ast\check{\rho} =2{\mathcal L}_{[-1/2,1/2]}.
\end{equation}
This implies, in particular, that $\mu\ast\rho$ is absolutely continuous
with respect to the Lebesgue measure
and we can let $g(x)\geq0$ be its density. Then $g(-x)$ is the density of
$(\mu\ast\rho)^{\check{}} = \mu\ast\check{\rho}$. By (\ref{eqpf1.2}),
$$
g(x)+g(-x) =2, \ a.e.
$$
As supp ($\mu\ast\check{\rho}$) (and hence supp $g(-x)$) is contained in $[-1/2,a]$, $g(x)=2$ on $[a,1/2]$. We may therefore write
$$
\begin{aligned}
g = 2\chi_{[a,1/2]}+g\chi_{[-a,a]} =& 2\chi_{[a,1/2]}+ g\chi_{[-a,0]} +(2-g(-x))\chi_{[0,a]} \\
=& 2\chi_{[0,1/2]}+( g\chi_{[-a,0]} - g(-x)\chi_{[0,a]}).
\end{aligned}
$$
Note that $2\chi_{[0,1/2]}$ is the density of the measure ${\mathcal L}_{[0,1/2]}$. Taking Fourier transform, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqpf1.3}
\widehat{\mu}(\xi)\widehat{\rho}(\xi) = \widehat{g}(\xi) = \widehat{{\mathcal L}_{[0,1/2]}}(\xi)+2i\int_{0}^{a} g(-x)\sin(2\pi \xi x)dx
\end{equation}
Suppose that $r$ is even. As $\widehat{\mu}(r)=0$, we must have
$$
\int_{0}^{a} g(-x)\sin(2\pi r x)dx=0.
$$
Since $a\leq 1/2r$ by Lemma \ref{lem0}, we have $\sin(2\pi rx)\geq 0$ on $[0,a]$ and thus $g(-x)=0$ there. Thus, (\ref{eqpf1.3}) implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eqpf1.4}
\widehat{\mu}(\xi)\widehat{\rho}(\xi) = \widehat{{\mathcal L}_{[0,1/2]}}(\xi).
\end{equation}
Hence, ${\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\mu}) \subset2{\Bbb Z}$.
\medskip
Writing $r= 2^nm$ where $m$ is odd, we deduce from the above argument
that ${\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\mu}) \subset2{\Bbb Z}$. Consider the measure $\mu_1(E) = \mu(E/2)$ and $\rho_1(E) = \rho(E/2)$ we have $\widehat{\mu_1}(\xi) = \widehat{\mu}(2\xi)$ and $\widehat{\rho_1}(\xi) = \widehat{\rho}(2\xi)$. By (\ref{eqpf1.4}), we have
$\widehat{\mu_1}(\xi) \widehat{\rho_1}(\xi) =\widehat{{\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}}(\xi)$
(i.e. $\mu_1\ast(\delta_{-1/2}\ast\rho_1) = {\mathcal L}_{[-1/2,1/2]}$).
Moreover, ${\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\mu_1}) = \frac12{\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\mu})$.
In this case, the smallest positive zero of $\widehat{\mu_1}$ will be $2^{n-1}m$. Therefore,
repeating the above argument, we have ${\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\mu})\subset 2^n{\Bbb Z}$
and the proof will be finished if we can prove our claim if $r$ is odd.
\medskip
Suppose now that $r$ is odd. We consider the measures
$\nu_1(E) = \nu(E\cap [-a,b])$ and $\nu_2(E) = \nu(E\cap [-b,-a))$
(Here, it is more convenient not to normalize $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ as probability
measures). We have then $\nu = \nu_1+\nu_2$ and $
{\mathcal L}_{[-1/2,1/2]} = \mu\ast\nu_1+\mu\ast\nu_2.$
Let $g_1$ and $g_2$ be the density of $\mu\ast\nu_1$ and $\mu\ast\nu_2$ respectively. The above implies that
$$
g_1(x) +g_2(x) = 1 \ \mbox{a.e. on} \ [-1/2,1/2].
$$
Note that the supp $g_1$ is contained in $[-2a,1/2]$ and supp $g_2$ is contained in $[-1/2,0]$. It follows that $g_1 = 1$ almost everywhere on $[0,1/2]$. We may therefore write
$$
g_1 = \chi_{[0,1/2]}+g_1\chi_{[-2a,0]}.
$$
Taking Fourier transforms and noting that $\widehat{g_1}(\xi)= \widehat{\mu}(\xi)\widehat{\nu_1}(\xi)$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eqpf1.5}
\widehat{\mu}(\xi)\widehat{\nu_1}(\xi) = \widehat{\chi_{[0,1/2]}}(\xi) + \int_{0}^{2a}g_1(-x)e^{2\pi i \xi x}dx.
\end{equation}
As $\widehat{\mu}(r)=0$, by substituting $\xi = r$ and equating the imaginary parts, we have
$$
\frac{1}{\pi r} = \int_0^{2a}g_1(-x)\sin(2\pi r x)dx.
$$
By Lemma \ref{lem0}, $2a\geq1/2r$ and therefore,
$$
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\pi r} =& \int_{0}^{1/2r}g_1(-x)\sin(2\pi r x)dx+\int_{1/2r}^{2a}g_1(-x)\sin(2\pi r x)dx\\
\leq&\int_{0}^{1/2r}g_1(-x)\sin(2\pi r x)dx \ \ \ ( \mbox{as} \ \sin(2\pi rx)\leq0 \ \mbox{on} \ [1/2r,2a]) \\
\leq&\int_{0}^{1/2r}\sin(2\pi r x)dx =\frac{1}{\pi r}. \ \ \ ( \mbox{as} \ g_1(-x)\leq 1)\\
\end{aligned}
$$
Hence, we must have $g_1(-x)=1$ on $[0,1/2r]$ and $\int_{1/2r}^{2a}g_1(-x)\sin(2\pi r x)dx=0$, which implies that $g_1(-x)=0$ on $[1/2r,2a]$. Considering the real part of the equation (\ref{eqpf1.5}) and noting that $\widehat{\mu}(\xi)$ is real-valued (as $\check{\mu} = \mu$), we have
$$
\widehat{\mu}(\xi){\mbox Re}\left(\widehat{\nu_2}(\xi)\right) = \frac{\sin\pi\xi}{2\pi\xi}+\int_{0}^{1/2r}\cos(2\pi \xi x)dx = \frac{1}{2\pi \xi}\left(\sin\pi\xi+\sin\frac{\pi\xi}{r}\right).
$$
Since ${\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\mu})\subset {\Bbb Z}$, the previous equation shows that in fact ${\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\mu})\subset r{\Bbb Z}$, completing the proof.
\end{pf}
\medskip
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{th1.1}.}
Let $(\mu,\nu)$ be a complementary pair with respect to ${\mathcal L }_{[0,1]}$.
We may assume that $\widehat{\nu}(1)\neq 0$ and we let $N_1>1$ be
the smallest positive zero of $\widehat{\nu}$. We have ${\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\nu})\subset N_1{\Bbb Z}$
by Lemma \ref{lem1}. As the zero sets of $\widehat{\mu}$ and $\widehat{\nu}$ are disjoint
(see (\ref{eq1.1})), the set $\{k\in{\Bbb Z}: \widehat{\mu}(k)\neq 0\}$ is contained in $N_1{\Bbb Z}$.
\medskip
Consider the periodization of the measure $\mu$ defined by $\mu_p = \mu\ast\delta_{\Bbb Z}$.
Its distributional Fourier transform (as a tempered distribution) is given by
$$
\widehat{\mu_p} = \widehat{\mu}\cdot\delta_{\Bbb Z} =\widehat{\mu}\cdot\delta_{N_1{\Bbb Z}
$$
Hence, $\mu_p$ is indeed $1/N_1$-periodic. It follows immediately that
\begin{equation}\label{eq1.2}
\mu =\nu_1 \ast\alpha_1 \ \ \ \mbox{and} \ \ \ \nu\ast\alpha_1 ={\mathcal L}_{[0,1/N_1]}
\end{equation}
where $\nu_1 =\frac{1}{N_1}\sum_{j=0}^{N_1-1}\delta_{j/N_1}$ and
$\alpha_1(E) = N_1\mu(E\cap{[0,1/N_1]})$ for any Borel set $E$. The case where $\alpha_1$ is the
Dirac measure at the origin immediately yields a type I decomposition.
Otherwise, we apply Lemma \ref{lem1} on the pair $(\nu,\alpha_1)$.
Since $\widehat{\nu}(N_1)=0$, we have $\widehat{\alpha_1}(N_1)\neq0$ and we
can let $N_2$ ne the smallest positive integer such that $\widehat{\alpha_1}(N_1N_2)=0$.
By Lemma \ref{lem1}, we have ${\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\alpha_1})\subset N_1N_2{\Bbb Z}$.
We obtain
$$
\mu = \nu_1\ast\alpha_1, \ \ \ \nu = \nu_2\ast\alpha_2 \ \ \ \alpha_1\ast\alpha_2 = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1/N_1N_2]}
$$
where $\nu_2 = \frac{1}{N_2}\sum_{j=0}^{N_2-1}\delta_{j/N_1N_2}$.
The case where $\alpha_2$ is a Dirac measure at the origin yelds again a type I decomposition.
Otherwise, we continue this inductive process and define recursively the probability measures
$\alpha_k$, $k\geq 1$. If $\alpha_k=\delta_0$ for some $k$, the process stops
and we have arrived at a type I decomposition. If $\alpha_k\neq\delta_0$ for all $k$, we have
then expressed both measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ at the infinite convolution products
$\mu = \nu_1\ast\nu_3\ast \dots, \quad \nu = \nu_2\ast\nu_4\ast \dots$,
which yields a type II decomposition.
\qquad$\Box$
\medskip
Theorem \ref{th1.1} also gives us a new proof of classification
of the set $A$ and $B$ such that $A\oplus B = \{0,...,n-1\}$ which was proved in
\cite{[Lo]} and \cite{[PW]} using a theorem of De Bruijn.
\medskip
\begin{Cor}\label{cor2.1}
Let ${\mathcal E}_n = \{0,1,\cdots,n-1\}$ and let
${\mathcal A}$ and ${\mathcal B}$ be two finite set of integers such that
${\mathcal A}\oplus {\mathcal B} = \{0,...,n-1\}$. Suppose that $1\in {\mathcal A}$.
Then there exist integers $N_1,...,N_{2k}$ such that $N_1...N_{2k} =n$ and
$$
A = {\mathcal E}_{N_0}\oplus N_0N_1{\mathcal E}_{N_2}\oplus...\oplus
N_0N_1...N_{2k-1}{\mathcal E}_{2k}
$$
$$
B = N_0{\mathcal E}_{N_1}\oplus N_0N_1N_2{\mathcal E}_{N_3}\oplus...\oplus
N_0N_1...N_{2k-2}{\mathcal E}_{2k-1}.
$$
\end{Cor}
\medskip
\begin{pf}
As ${\mathcal A}\oplus {\mathcal B} = \{0,...,n-1\}$, we have
$$
\left(\frac{1}{|{\mathcal A}|}\delta_{\frac{1}{n}{\mathcal A}}\right)\ast
\left(\frac{1}{|{\mathcal B}|}\delta_{\frac{1}{n}{\mathcal B}}\right)\ast
{\mathcal L}_{[0,1/n]} = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}.
$$
By Theorem \ref{th1.1}, the measures
$\mu=\left(\frac{1}{|{\mathcal A}|}\delta_{\frac{1}{n}{\mathcal A}}\right)$
and $\nu =\left(\frac{1}{|{\mathcal B}|}\delta_{\frac{1}{n}{\mathcal B}}\right)\ast
{\mathcal L}_{[0,1/n]}$ are natural complementary pair.
As one of them is discrete and the other is absolutely continuous, they correspond to a type I
decomposition. Since $1\in{\mathcal A}$, we have thus $1/n\in \frac{1}{n}{\mathcal A}$.
By comparing the support of the measures, we obtain the existence of integers $N_1',N_2'...$ such that
$$
\frac1n{\mathcal A} = \frac{1}{N_1'}{\mathcal E}_{N_1'}\oplus
\frac{1}{N_1'N_2'N_3'}{\mathcal E}_{N_3'}\oplus...\oplus
\frac{1}{N_1'N_2'...N_{2k-1}'}{\mathcal E}_{N_{2k-1}'}.
$$
$$
\frac1n{\mathcal B} = \frac{1}{N_1'N_2'}{\mathcal E}_{N_2'}\oplus
\frac{1}{N_1'N_2'N_3'N_4'}{\mathcal E}_{N_4'}\oplus...\oplus
\frac{1}{N_1'N_2'...N_{2k}'}{\mathcal E}_{N_{2k}'}
$$
and $n = N_1'...N_{2k}'$. Letting $N_r = N'_{2k-r}$, we obtain the desired factorization.
\end{pf}
\bigskip
\section{The spectral property}
In this section, we show that all measures appearing in natural complementary pairs
are spectral measures. Recall that a Borel probability measure $\mu$ is called a {\it spectral measure} with associated {\it spectrum} $\Lambda$ if the collection of exponentials $E(\Lambda) = \{e^{2\pi i \lambda x}\}_{\lambda\in\Lambda}$ forms an orthonormal basis for $L^2(\mu)$. It is easy to see that $E(\Lambda)$ is an orthonormal set in $L^2(\mu)$ if and only if
$$
\Lambda-\Lambda\subset {\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\mu})\cup\{0\}.
$$
By a well-known result in \cite{[JP]}, $\Lambda$ is a spectrum of $\mu$ if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.0}
Q(\xi): = \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda}|\widehat{\mu}(\xi+\lambda)|^2\equiv 1.
\end{equation}
In fact, if $E(\Lambda)$ is an orthonormal set,
$Q(\xi)\leq 1$ and $Q$ is an entire function of exponential type (\cite{[JP]}, see also \cite{[DHL]}).
Let ${\mathcal N} = \{N_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ be a collection of positive integers and
consider the Type I and II decomposition as in the previous section. Let
$$
\mu^{(k)} = \nu_{1}\ast\nu_{3}\ast\cdots\ast\nu_{2k-1}, \
\nu^{(k)} = \nu_{2}\ast\nu_{4}\ast\cdots\ast\nu_{2k}
$$
and for a given ${\mathcal N}$, we let $A_1 = \{0,..,N_1-1\}$ and
$A_n = N_1\cdots N_{n-1}\cdot\{0,..,N_n-1\}$ for $n\geq2$. We start with a simple observation.
\medskip
\begin{Prop}\label{prop4.1}
Each $\nu_{n}$ is a spectral measure with spectrum $A_n$.
For all $k\geq 1$, $\mu^{(k)}$ is a spectral measure with spectrum given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.1}
\Lambda_k = \bigoplus_{j=1}^{k}A_{2j-1}
\end{equation}
In particular, the type I natural complementary pair $\mu_{\mathcal N}$ and $\nu_{\mathcal N}$ defined in the previous section are spectral measures.
\end{Prop}
\begin{pf}
It is immediate to see that the measure $\frac{1}{N_n}\sum_{j=0}^{N_n-1}\delta_{j/N_n} $ is a
spectral measure with spectrum $\{0,..,N_n-1\}$.
Therefore, $\nu_{n} = \frac{1}{N_n}\sum_{j=0}^{N_n-1}\delta_{j/(N_1\cdots N_{n})}$ is a
spectral measure with spectrum $N_1\cdots N_{n-1}\cdot\{0,..,N_n-1\} =A_n$.
\medskip
Note that ${\mathcal Z}(\widehat{\nu_n}) = N_1 N_2...N_n{\Bbb Z}\setminus
N_1 N_2...N_{n-1}{\Bbb Z}$ and
$$
\widehat{\mu^{(k)}}(\xi) = \prod_{j=1}^{k}\widehat{\nu_{2j-1}}(\xi).
$$
For notational convenience, we define $N_0=1$.
Taking distinct $\lambda_1,\lambda_2\in\Lambda_k$ and writing
$\lambda_{\ell} = \sum_{j=1}^{k}r_{\ell,j}N_1N_2...N_{2j-2}$, for $\ell=1,2$, we have
$$
\lambda_1-\lambda_2 = \sum_{j=1}^{k}(r_{1,j}-r_{2,j})N_1N_2\cdots
N_{2j-2}=\sum_{j=J}^{k}s_jN_1N_2\cdots N_{2j-2},
$$
where $J$ is the first index such that $r_{1,j}\neq r_{2,j}$ and
$-(N_{2J-1}-1)\leq s_J\leq N_{2J-1}-1$. so
$\widehat{\nu_{2J-1}}(\lambda_1-\lambda_2) = \widehat{\nu_{2J-1}}(N_1\cdots N_{2J-2}s_J)=0$.
Therefore, $\widehat{\mu^{(k)}}(\lambda_1-\lambda_2)=0$.
This proves the orthogonality of $E(\Lambda_k)$ in $L^2(\mu^{(k)})$.
As $L^2(\mu^{(k)})$ is a finite dimensional vector space of dimension
$N_{1} N_3\cdots N_{2k-1}=\mbox{card}\left(E(\Lambda)\right)$, the collection $E(\Lambda)$
must be complete in $L^2(\mu^{(k)})$.
\medskip
To prove the last statement, we just consider the case where $\mu_{\mathcal N} = \mu^{(k)}$
and $\nu_{\mathcal N} = \nu^{(k)} \ast ({\mathcal L}_{[0,\frac{1}{N_1\cdots N_{2k}}]})$,
as the case $
\mu_{\mathcal N} = \nu_{1}\ast\nu_{3}\ast...\ast\nu_{{2k-1}}\ast({\mathcal L}_{[0,\frac{1}{N_1N_2
\cdots N_{2k}}]})$ and $\nu_{\mathcal N} = \nu_{2}\ast\nu_{4}\ast...\ast\nu_{{2k}}$
is similar.
It is easily seen, as before, that $\nu^{(k)}$ is also a discrete spectral measure with spectrum
$$
\widetilde{\Lambda_{k}} = \bigoplus_{j=1}^{k}A_{2j}.
$$
Moreover, $\widehat{\nu^{(k)}}$ is $N_1...N_{2k}$-periodic.
Let $\alpha$ denote the measure ${\mathcal L}_{[0,\frac{1}{N_1N_2\cdots N_{2k}}]}$. Then $\alpha$ has $N_1N_2...N_{2k}{\Bbb Z}$ as a spectrum. It follows that
$$
\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\lambda\in\widetilde{\Lambda_{k}}+N_1\cdots N_{2k}{\Bbb Z}}|\widehat{\nu_{\mathcal N}}(\xi+\lambda)|^2=&\small{\sum_{\lambda\in\widetilde{\Lambda_{k}},m\in{\Bbb Z}}}|\widehat{\nu^{(k)}}(\xi+\lambda+N_1...N_{2k}m)|^2|\widehat{\alpha}(\xi+\lambda+N_1...N_{2k}m)|^2\\
=&\sum_{\lambda\in\widetilde{\Lambda_{k}}}|\widehat{\nu^{(k)}}(\xi+\lambda)|^2\cdot\sum_{m\in{\Bbb Z}}|\widehat{\alpha}(\xi+\lambda+N_1...N_{2k}m)|^2\equiv1.\\
\end{aligned}
$$
Hence, $\nu_{\mathcal N}$ a spectral measure with
spectrum $\widetilde{\Lambda_{k}}+N_1\cdots N_{2k}{\Bbb Z}$.
\end{pf}
\medskip
It remains to deal with the spectral property for complementary pairs $\mu_{\mathcal N}$ and
$\nu_{\mathcal N}$ of type II. Since these two measures have essentially the same form,
we will discuss only the case $\mu: = \mu_{\mathcal N}$. Note that
the measure $\mu$ will be the weak limit of the measures $\mu^{(k)}$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.4}
\widehat{\mu}(\xi)= \prod_{j=1}^{\infty}\widehat{\nu_{2j-1}}(\xi) =
\widehat{\mu^{(k)}}(\xi)\cdot\prod_{j=k+1}^{\infty}\widehat{\nu_{2j-1}}(\xi) .
\end{equation}
Here we recall that $\nu_{2j-1} =
\frac{1}{N_{2j-1}}\sum_{r=0}^{N_{2j-1}-1}\delta_{\frac{r}{N_1\cdots N_{2j-1}}}$
and its Fourier transform is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.4+}
\widehat{\nu_{2j-1}}(\xi) = e^{-\pi i (N_{2j-1}-1)\xi/(N_1\cdots N_{2j-1})}\frac{\sin(\pi \xi/(N_1\cdots N_{2j-2}))}{N_{2j-1}\sin({\pi \xi}/{(N_1\cdots N_{2j-1})})}.
\end{equation}
Let
$$
\Lambda_{\mu} = \bigoplus_{j=1}^{\infty}A_{2j-1} = \bigcup_{k=1}^{\infty}\Lambda_k
$$
(Only finite sums of elements of $A_{2j-1}$, $j\geq 1$, appear in $\Lambda_{\mu}$).
The exponentials $\{e^{2\pi i \lambda x}\}_{\lambda\in\Lambda_{\mu}}$ are mutually
orthogonal in $L^2(\mu)$ by Proposition \ref{prop4.1}. Our goal is verify (\ref{eq4.0}). To do this, we note that, as $Q$ is an entire function, we just need to show that $Q(\xi)\equiv 1$ on a neighborhood of $0$. Let
$$
Q_{k}(\xi) = \sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda_{k}}|\widehat{\mu}(\xi+\lambda)|^2.
$$
Now, we fix two positive integers $n$ and $p$. By (\ref{eq4.4}) and the fact that
$\{\Lambda_{k}\}_{k\ge 1}$ is an increasing sequence of sets,
\begin{equation}\label{Q}
\begin{aligned}
Q_{n+p}(\xi) =& Q_{n}(\xi)+\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda_{n+p}\setminus
\Lambda_{n}}|\widehat{\mu}(\xi+\lambda)|^2\\
=&Q_{n}(\xi)+\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda_{n+p}\setminus
\Lambda_{n}}|\widehat{\mu^{(n+p)}}(\xi+\lambda)|^2\cdot
\left|\prod_{j=n+p+1}^{\infty}\widehat{\nu_{2j-1}}(\xi+\lambda)\right|^2.\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
We need the following proposition which provides a
crucial estimate for the last term in the previous expression
in order to establish the spectral property.
\begin{Prop}\label{prop4.2}
There exists $c>0$ such that
$$
\inf_{k\geq1}\inf_{\lambda\in\Lambda_{k}}\left|\prod_{j=k+1}^{\infty}\widehat{\nu_{2j-1}}(\xi+\lambda)\right|^2\geq c
$$
for all $|\xi|<1/2$, where $\Lambda_{k}$ is given in (\ref{eq4.1}).
\end{Prop}
\begin{pf}
Let $\lambda\in\Lambda_{k}$ and $x_{k,\lambda} = \frac{\xi+\lambda}{N_1N_2\cdots N_{k}}$. We first note that, by (\ref{eq4.4+}),
\begin{equation}\label{eq4.5}
\begin{aligned}
\left|\prod_{j=k+1}^{\infty}\widehat{\nu_{2j-1}}(\xi+\lambda)\right|^2
=&\prod_{j=k+1}^{\infty}\frac{\sin^2(\pi ({\xi+\lambda})/({N_1\cdots N_{2j-2}}))}{N_{2j-1}^2\sin^2((\pi (\xi+\lambda))/({N_1\cdots N_{2j-1}}))}\\
=&\prod_{j=k+1}^{\infty}\frac{\sin^2(\pi x_{2j-2,\lambda})}{N_{2j-1}^2\sin^2(\pi x_{2j-1,\lambda})}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\medskip
Writing $\lambda = \sum_{j=1}^{k}r_jN_1N_2...N_{2j-2}$ with $0\leq r_j\leq N_{2j-1}-1$, we see immediately that $\lambda\leq N_1\cdots N_{2k-1}-1$. Hence, we have
$$
\frac{\lambda}{N_1\cdots N_{2k}}\leq
\frac{N_1\cdots N_{2k-1}-1}{N_1\cdots N_{2k}}\leq \frac{1}{N_{2k}}\leq \frac12.
$$
Therefore, for all $|\xi|<1/2$, we have
$$
C:=\sup_{k\geq 1}\sup_{\lambda\in\Lambda_{k}}x_{2k,\lambda}=\sup_{k\geq 1}\sup_{\lambda\in\Lambda_{k}}\frac{\xi+\lambda}{N_1\cdots N_{2k}}<\frac{3}{4}
$$
as all $N_j\geq 2$. Note that $N_kx_{k,\lambda} = x_{k-1,\lambda}$ and using two elementary inequalities $\sin x\leq x$ and $\sin x\geq x-\frac{x^3}{3!}$, we have the following estimation for the product in (\ref{eq4.5}),
$$
\begin{aligned}
\prod_{j=k+1}^{\infty}\frac{\sin^2(\pi x_{2j-2,\lambda})}{N_{2j-1}^2\sin^2(\pi x_{2j-1,\lambda})}
\geq&\prod_{j=k+1}^{\infty}\left(1-\frac{\pi^2}{6}x_{2j-2,\lambda}^2\right)^2\\
=&\prod_{j=k+1}^{\infty}\left(1-\frac{\pi^2}{6}\left(\frac{x_{2k,\lambda}}{N_{2k+1}...N_{2j-2}}\right)^2\right)^2\\
\geq& \prod_{j=k+1}^{\infty}\left(1-\frac{\pi^2}{6}\left(\frac{C}{2^{2(j-k)-2}}\right)^2\right)^2\\
=&\prod_{j=1}^{\infty}\left(1-\frac{3\pi^2}{32}\left(\frac{1}{2^{2j-2}}\right)^2\right)^2:=c.
\end{aligned}
$$
As $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}1/2^{2j-2}<\infty$ and all factors are positive, $c>0$ and hence the proof is complete
\end{pf}
\medskip
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{th0.1} on ${\Bbb R}^1$.} In view of Theorem \ref{th1.1}, we just need to show that all natural complementary pairs are spectral measures. Let ${\mathcal N}$ be a sequence of positive integers greater than or equal to 2. If the pair is of Type I, then Proposition \ref{prop4.1} shows that both factors are spectral measures.
\medskip
It remains to consider the Type II case. Let $\mu_{\mathcal N}$ and $\nu_{\mathcal N}$ be defined in (\ref{eq0.2}) and (\ref{eq0.3}). As mentioned before, we only need to prove that $\mu = \mu_{\mathcal N}$ is a spectral measure. Let $c$ be the positive number determined in Proposition \ref{prop4.2}.
By Proposition \ref{prop4.1} and (\ref{eq4.0}), we have
$$
\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda_{n+p}\setminus\Lambda_{n}}|\widehat{\mu^{(n+p)}}(\xi+\lambda)|^2 = 1-\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda_{n}}|\widehat{\mu^{(n+p)}}(\xi+\lambda)|^2.
$$
Using this fact and Proposition \ref{prop4.2}, we obtain from (\ref{Q}) that
$$
Q_{n+p}(\xi)\geq Q_{n}(\xi)+c\cdot\left(1-\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda_{n}}|\widehat{\mu^{(n+p)}}(\xi+\lambda)|^2\right).
$$
Fixing $n$ and letting $p$ go to infinity, it follows that
$$
Q(\xi) \geq Q_{n}(\xi)+c (1-\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda_{n}}|\widehat{\mu}(\xi+\lambda)|^2) = Q_{n}(\xi)+c(1-Q_{n}(\xi)).
$$
Finally, taking $n$ to infinity, we obtain that $c(1-Q(\xi))\leq 0$. But $c>0$ and $Q(\xi)\leq 1$
because $\{e^{2\pi i \lambda x}\}_{\lambda\in\Lambda}$ is an orthogonal set in $L^2(\mu)$.
This show that $Q(\xi)=1$ for $|\xi|\le 1/2$ and thus for all $\xi\in \mathbb{R}$ by analyticity,
completing the proof.
\bigskip
We now establish the tiling property of the spectra. Suppose that we are given a type I decomposition.
Then Proposition \ref{prop4.1} implies that $\mu_{\mathcal N}$ and $\nu_{\mathcal N}$ have the following spectra:
$$
\Lambda_{\mu} = \bigoplus_{j=1}^{k} A_{2j-1}, \
\Lambda_{\nu} = \bigoplus_{j=1}^{k-1} A_{2j}\oplus N_1\cdots N_{2k-1}{\Bbb Z}.
$$
It can be seen immediately that $\Lambda_{\mu}\oplus\Lambda_{\nu}= \{0,1,\cdots, N_{2k-1}-1\}\oplus N_{2k-1}{\Bbb Z} = {\Bbb Z}.$
\medskip
Suppose now the decomposition is of type II. Note that the complementary measures have the following spectra using the above notations.
$$
\Lambda_{\mu} = \bigoplus_{j=1}^{\infty} A_{2j-1}, \
\Lambda_{\nu} = \bigoplus_{j=1}^{\infty} A_{2j}
$$
Note that $-\Lambda_{\nu}$ is also spectrum of $\nu$. We now claim that $\Lambda_{\mu}\oplus(-\Lambda_{\nu}) = {\Bbb Z}.$ Observe that
$$
A_1\oplus(-A_2) = \{-N_1N_2+N_1,.., N_1-1\}.
$$
$$
A_1\oplus(-A_2)\oplus A_3= \{-N_1N_2+N_1,.., N_1N_2N_3-N_1N_2+N_1-1\}.
$$
Inductively, the sets $A_1\oplus(-A_2)\oplus...\oplus (-1)^{k-1}A_{k}$ cover an
increasing sequence of consecutive integers.
showing that $\Lambda_{\mu}\oplus(-\Lambda_{\nu}) = {\Bbb Z}$. This proves our claim.
\eproof
\bigskip
\section{Generalized Fuglede's conjecture}
In this section, we will formulate a generalization of Fuglede's
conjecture and prove that it implies the original one. Recall the conjecture we are interested in:
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Conjecture (Generalized Fuglede's Conjecture):} A compactly supported Borel probability measure $\mu$ on ${\Bbb R}^1$ is spectral if and only if there exists a Borel probability measure $\nu$ and a fundamental domain $Q$ of some lattice on ${\Bbb R}^1$ such that $\mu\ast\nu ={\mathcal L}_{Q}$.
\bigskip
We first prove the following proposition.
\begin{Prop}\label{prop5.1}
Let $\Omega$ and $Q$ be bounded measurable sets of positive Lebesgue measure on ${\Bbb R}^1$.
Suppose that ${\mathcal L}_{\Omega}\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_Q$, for some Borel probability measure $\nu$. Then
$$
\nu = \sum_{k=1}^{N}\frac{1}{N}\delta_{a_k}, \ Q = \bigcup_{k=1}^{N}(\Omega+a_k)
$$
and ${\mathcal L}((\Omega+a_k)\cap(\Omega+{a_\ell{}})) =0$ for all $k\neq\ell$.
\end{Prop}
\medskip
\begin{pf}
We first note that ${\mathcal L}_{\Omega}\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_Q$ if and only if
$({\mathcal L}_{\Omega}\ast\delta_y)\ast(\nu\ast\delta_x\ast\delta_{-y}) =
({\mathcal L}_Q\ast \delta_x)$ for any real numbers $x$ and $y$. Therefore,
there is no loss of generality to assume that the smallest closed intervals containing
$\Omega$ and $Q$ are respectively $[0,a]$ and $[0,b]$. As $\overline{Q}=$ supp
$({\mathcal L}_{\Omega}\ast\nu)$ = $\overline{\Omega}$ + supp $\nu$, The support of $\nu$
has to be contained in the non-negative part of the real line.
\medskip
Let $\epsilon>0$ and consider the interval
$E_{\epsilon}=[0,\epsilon)$. Let $\eta_{\epsilon}\in E_{\epsilon}$
be a Lebesgue point of $\chi_{Q}$. Then, using ${\mathcal L}_{\Omega}\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_Q$,
$$
\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{{\mathcal L} (Q)}{\mathcal L}\left( Q\cap [\eta_{\epsilon},
\eta_{\epsilon}+h)\right) &= \frac{1}{{\mathcal L}(\Omega)}
\int_{0}^{\eta_{\epsilon}+h} {\mathcal L}\left(\Omega\cap ([\eta_{\epsilon},\eta_{\epsilon}+h)-y)\right)
d\nu(y)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{{\mathcal L}(\Omega)}\int_{0}^{\eta_{\epsilon}+h} {\mathcal L}
\left((\Omega+y)\cap [\eta_{\epsilon},\eta_{\epsilon}+h)\right)d\nu(y),
\end{aligned}
$$
since $\Omega$ and supp $\nu$ are contained in $ [0,\infty)$. This implies that
$$
\frac{{\mathcal L}(\Omega)}{{\mathcal L}(Q)}{\mathcal L}
(Q\cap [\eta_{\epsilon},\eta_{\epsilon}+h))\leq {\mathcal L}([\eta_{\epsilon},
\eta_{\epsilon}+h))\nu ([0,\eta_{\epsilon}+h))=h\nu ([0,\eta_{\epsilon}+h)).
$$
Since $\eta_{\epsilon}$ is a Lebesgue point of $\chi_{Q}$, we have
$\lim_{h\rightarrow0}\frac{{\mathcal L}(Q\cap[\eta_{\epsilon},\eta_{\epsilon}+h))}{h}=1$.
Therefore, by taking $h\rightarrow 0$, we deduce that
$\frac{{\mathcal L}(\Omega)}{{\mathcal L}(Q)}\leq \nu ([0,\eta_{\epsilon}]).$
Letting $\epsilon$ approach zero, we obtain the inequality
\begin{equation}\label{eq5.2}
\frac{{\mathcal L}(\Omega)}{{\mathcal L}(Q)}\leq \nu(\{0\}).
\end{equation}
Since ${\mathcal L}(\Omega)>0$, $\nu$ has an atom at $0$ and we can write
\begin{equation}\label{eq5.2+}
\nu = p_0\delta_0+(1-p_0)\nu_1, \ p_0 = \nu(\{0\}) \ \mbox{and} \ \nu_1(\{0\})=0.
\end{equation}
The equation ${\mathcal L}_{\Omega}\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{Q}$ can thus be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{eq5.3}
(1-p_0){\mathcal L}_{\Omega}\ast\nu_1 = {\mathcal L}_{Q}-p_0{\mathcal L}_{\Omega}.
\end{equation}
Since the left hand side of (\ref{eq5.3}) is still a positive measure, this implies that
$$
0\leq ({\mathcal L}_{Q}-p_0{\mathcal L}_{\Omega})(\Omega) \leq \frac{{\mathcal L}(\Omega)}{{\mathcal L}(Q)}-p_0.
$$
Combining it with (\ref{eq5.2}), we conclude that
$p_0=\frac{{\mathcal L}(\Omega)}{{\mathcal L}(Q)}$ and, using (\ref{eq5.3}), we obtain
$$
{\mathcal L}_{\Omega}\ast\nu_1 = {\mathcal L}_{Q\setminus\Omega}
$$
\medskip
If $p_0=1$, then $Q=\Omega$ and $\nu = \delta_0$, so we are done. If not, we then repeat the argument with
$Q$ replaced by $Q\setminus\Omega$. We can find $\Omega+a_1\subset Q\setminus\Omega$ such
that $p_1:=\nu_1(\{a_1\})>0$ and $\nu_1 = p_1\delta_{a_1}+(1-p_1)\nu_2$.
Moreover, $p_1 = {\mathcal L}(\Omega)/{\mathcal L}(Q\setminus\Omega)$.
By (\ref{eq5.2+}),
$$
\nu = \frac{{\mathcal L} (\Omega)}{{\mathcal L} (Q)}\left(\delta_0+\delta_{a_1}\right)+(1-p_1)\nu_2.
$$
The theorem will be proved if $p_1=1$. Otherwise, we continue this process to
obtain a maximal number $N$ of measure disjoint translates of $\Omega$,
$\Omega+a_1$,..,$\Omega+a_{N-1}$ such
that $Q\supset\bigcup_{k=0}^{N-1}(\Omega+a_k)$. Since ${\mathcal L}(\Omega)>0$ and
${\mathcal L}(Q)\geq N{\mathcal L}(\Omega)$, $N$ is the largest integer such
that ${\mathcal L}(Q)\geq N{\mathcal L}(\Omega)$. We can then write
$$
\nu = \frac{{\mathcal L}(\Omega)}{{\mathcal L}(Q)}\left(\delta_0+...+\delta_{a_{N-1}}\right)+(1-p_{N-1})\nu_{N}.
$$
If $p_{N-1}<1$, we could iterate this process to obtain one more disjoint translate of $\Omega$ contained in $Q$, which is certainly impossible by this choice of $N$. Hence, $p_{N-1}=1$. As $\nu$ is a probability measure, we must have ${\mathcal L}(\Omega)/{\mathcal L}(Q) = 1/N$. Therefore, the proposition is proved.
\end{pf}
\medskip
\begin{theorem}
The validity of generalized Fuglede's conjecture implies that of the original Fuglede's conjecture on ${\Bbb R}^1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{pf}
Suppose that $\Omega$ is a bounded spectral set, then ${\mathcal L}_{\Omega}$ is a spectral measure. By the generalized
Fuglede's conjecture, we can find a probability measure $\nu$ and a fundamental domain $Q$ of some lattice $\Gamma$ such that
$$
{\mathcal L}_{\Omega}\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{Q}.
$$
By Proposition \ref{prop5.1}, $\nu$ is a purely discrete measure that can be written as $\nu = \frac{1}{\#{\mathcal A}}\delta_{\mathcal A}$ for some finite discrete subset ${\mathcal A}$ and
$$
Q = \bigcup_{a\in{\mathcal A}}(\Omega+a).
$$
As $Q$ is a fundamental domain $Q$ of the lattice $\Gamma$, $\Omega$ is a translational tile with tiling set given by ${\mathcal A}+\Gamma$.
\medskip
Conversely, suppose that $\Omega$ is a bounded translational tile with tiling set ${\mathcal J}$. By the result of Lagarias and Wang \cite{[LW1]}, all tiling sets on ${\Bbb R}^1$ are periodic. This implies that we can find a finite set $A\subset{\Bbb R}$ and a lattice $\Gamma$ such that ${\mathcal J} = {\mathcal A}+\Gamma$. This means that the set $Q = \Omega+{\mathcal A}$ is a fundamental domain of $\Gamma$. Letting $\nu = \frac{1}{\#{\mathcal A}}\delta_{\mathcal A}$, ${\mathcal L}_{\Omega}\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{Q}$. By the
generalized Fuglede's conjecture, ${\mathcal L}_{\Omega}$ is a spectral measure and $\Omega$ is a spectral set.
\end{pf}
\bigskip
\section{The Higher Dimensional Case}
Let $\mu_1$,...,$\mu_d$ be Borel probability measures on ${\Bbb R}^1$. The Cartesian product of these measures is the unique Borel probability measure $ \mu_{1}\otimes...\otimes\mu_d$ on ${\Bbb R}^d$ such that
$$
(\mu_{1}\otimes...\otimes\mu_d)(E_1\times...\times E_d) = \prod_{i=1}^{d}\mu_i(E_i),
$$
for any Borel sets $E_i$, $1\leq i\leq d$, on ${\Bbb R}^1$. In this section, we characterize the measures $\mu$ and $\nu$ on ${\Bbb R}^d$ which are solutions of the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq2.1}
\mu\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]^d}.
\end{equation}
as Cartesian products of the measures satisfying the corresponding one-dimensional equation.
\begin{theorem}\label{th2.2}
Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be compactly supported probability measures on ${\Bbb R}^d$. Then $\mu$ and $\nu$ are solutions to (\ref{eq2.1}) if and only if there exists compactly supported Borel probability measures $\{\sigma_i\}_{i=1}^{d}$ and $\{\tau_i\}_{i=1}^{d}$ on ${\Bbb R}^1$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq2.3}
\mu = \sigma_{1}\otimes...\otimes\sigma_d, \ \nu = \tau_{1}\otimes...\otimes\tau_d
\end{equation}
and $\sigma_i\ast\tau_i = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}$ for all $i=1,...,d$.
\end{theorem}
Note that the sufficiency part of the theorem follows by a direct computation
We only need to establish the necessity part of the theorem.
Denote by $P$ the orthogonal projection of the first coordinate on ${\Bbb R}^d$ and $Q$ the orthogonal projection of the corresponding orthogonal complement. If $\mu$ is a positive Borel measure on ${\Bbb R}^d$, we denote by $\mu P^{-1}$ the positive Borel measure on ${\Bbb R}^1$ defined by
$\mu P^{-1}(E)= \mu(P^{-1}(E))$ for any Borel set $E\subset{\Bbb R}$ and the measure $\mu Q^{-1}$ is similarly defined. We will need the following lemmas.
\medskip
\begin{Lem}\label{Lem2.1}
Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be two probability measures on ${\Bbb R}^d$. Then
$$
(\mu\ast\nu) P^{-1} = (\mu P^{-1})\ast(\nu P^{-1}), \ \mbox{and} \ (\mu\ast\nu) Q^{-1} = (\mu Q^{-1})\ast(\nu Q^{-1}).
$$
In particular, if $\mu$ and $\nu$ are two Borel probability measures satisfying (\ref{eq2.1}), then we have
$$
(\mu P^{-1})\ast(\nu P^{-1}) = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1)} \ \mbox{and} \ (\mu Q^{-1})\ast(\nu Q^{-1}) = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]^{d-1}}.
$$
\end{Lem}
\medskip
\begin{pf} The proof follows easily from the fact that
$$
(\mu P^{-1})^{\widehat{}}(\xi) = \widehat{\mu}(\xi,0,...,0), \ \mbox{and} \ (\mu Q^{-1})^{\widehat{}}(\xi_2,...,\xi_d) = \widehat{\mu}(0,\xi_2,...,\xi_d).
$$
\end{pf}
\medskip
\begin{Lem}\label{Lem2.4}
Let $\nu$ be a Borel probability measure on ${\Bbb R}^d$. Then, there is at most one probability measure $\mu$ on ${\Bbb R}^d$ satisfying $\mu\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]^d}$.
\end{Lem}
\medskip
\begin{pf}
If $\mu$ is as above, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq5.0}
\widehat{\mu}(\xi)\widehat{\nu}(\xi)=\left({\mathcal L}_{[0,1]^d}\right)^{\widehat{}}(\xi), \ \xi\in{\Bbb R}^d.
\end{equation}
Therefore, $\widehat{\mu} (\xi)$ is thus determined on the set
$$
F = \{\xi\in{\Bbb R}^d: \xi_i\not\in{\Bbb Z}^d, i=1,...,d\},
$$
Since $\overline{F}={\Bbb R}^d$ and $\widehat{\mu}$ is continuous (as $\mu$ is compactly supported), $\widehat{\mu}$ and thus $\mu$ is completely determined by (\ref{eq5.0}).
\end{pf}
\medskip
The previous lemma is also valid if $[0,1]^d$ is replaced by a $d$-dimensional rectangular box.
Now, we proceed to the proof of Theorem \ref{th2.2}.
\medskip
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{th2.2}.} We prove the necessity part of the theorem by induction on the dimension. The statement is proved when $d=1$ in Theorem \ref{th1.1}. Assuming that the statement is true for $d-1$, we now establish it on ${\Bbb R}^d$.
\medskip
Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be two Borel probability measures satisfying $\mu\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]^d}$. By Lemma \ref{Lem2.1} and Theorem \ref{th1.1} (see also equation (\ref{eq1.2})), we can find an integer $N_1\geq 2$ such that $\mu P^{-1}$ and $\nu P^{-1}$ can be decomposed (after possibly interchanging these two measures) as
\begin{equation}\label{eq5.5}
\mu P^{-1} = \nu_1\ast\alpha_1, \ \mbox{and} \ \alpha_1\ast(\nu P^{-1}) = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1/N_1]}
\end{equation}
where $\nu_1 = 1/N_1\sum_{j=0}^{N_1-1}\delta_{j/N_1}$ and $\alpha_1(E) = N_1 (\mu P^{-1})(E\cap[0,1/N_1))$ for any Borel set $E$. Let $C_{N_1}$ be the $d$-dimensional rectangular box $\left[0,\frac{1}{N_1}\right)\times[0,1]^{d-1}$. Then $[0,1]^d\setminus C_{N_1} = \left[\frac{1}{N_1},1\right]\times[0,1]^{d-1}$ and
$$
\mu\left(C_{N_1}\right) = \mu P^{-1}\left(\left[0,\frac{1}{N_1}\right)\right) = \frac{1}{N_1}.
$$
Hence, we can define two Borel probability measures on ${\Bbb R}^d$, $\rho_1$ and $\widetilde{\rho_1}$, satisfying
$$
\rho_1(E) =N_1 \mu\left(E\cap C_{N_1}\right), \ \widetilde{\rho_1}(E) = \frac{N_1}{N_1-1}\mu\left(E\cap \left([0,1]^d\setminus C_{N_1}\right)\right)
$$
for any Borel sets $E$. Then $\mu =\frac{1}{N_1}\rho_1+(1-\frac{1}{N_1})\widetilde{\rho_1}$. Since supp $\widetilde{\rho}\subset [0,1]^d\setminus C_{N_1}$ and supp $\nu\subset [0,1]^d$, we have $\nu\ast\widetilde{\rho}=0$ on the rectangular box $C_{N_1}$. Hence,
$$
\rho_1\ast\nu =N_1(\mu\ast\nu) = {\mathcal L}_{C_{N_1}} \ \ \mbox{on} \ \ C_{N_1}.
$$
We can thus write $\rho_1\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{C_{N_1}}+\eta$ where $\eta$ is a positive measure. However, $\eta=0$ as $\rho_1\ast\nu$ and ${\mathcal L}_{C_{N_1}}$ are probability measures. Hence,
$$
(\nu_1\otimes\delta_{0_{d-1}})\ast\rho_1\ast\nu =\left(\frac{1}{N_1}\sum_{j=0}^{N_1-1}\delta_{(j/N_1,0...,0)}\right)\ast\rho_1\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]^d}
$$
where $0_{d-1} = (0,...,0)\in{\Bbb R}^{d-1}$. By Lemma \ref{Lem2.4}, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{eq5.6}
\mu = (\nu_1\otimes\delta_{0_{d-1}})\ast\rho_1, \ \mbox{and} \ \rho_1\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1/N_1]\times[0,1]^{d-1}}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, $\rho_1 P^{-1} = \alpha_1 $ where $\alpha_1$ is defined in (\ref{eq5.5}).
\medskip
We now consider two cases depending on whether $\mu P^{-1}$ and $\nu P^{-1}$ correspond to a type I or type II decomposition (as defined in Section 2).
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Case 1 (Type I decomposition):} Using the notations introduced in Section 2, we have then, without loss of generality, that
$$
\mu P^{-1} = \nu_1\ast...\nu_{2k-1}, \ \nu P^{-1} = \nu_2\ast...\nu_{2k}\ast{\mathcal L}_{[0,\frac{1}{N_1...N_{2k}}]}.
$$
By the previous steps, the identities in (\ref{eq5.6}) hold. A similar argument, shows the existence of a probability measure $\rho_2$ such that
$$
\nu = (\nu_2\otimes\delta_{0_{d-1}})\ast\rho_2 \ \ \mbox{and} \ \ \rho_1\ast\rho_2 = {\mathcal L}_{[0,\frac{1}{N_1N_2}]\times[0,1]^{d-1}}.
$$
Continuing this procedure $2k$-times, we deduce the existence of probability measures $\rho_{2k-1}$ and $\rho_{2k}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq5.8}
\mu = ((\nu_1\ast\nu_3\ast...\ast\nu_{2k-1})\otimes\delta_{0_{d-1}})\ast\rho_{2k-1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq5.9}
\nu = ((\nu_2\ast\nu_4\ast...\ast\nu_{2k})\otimes\delta_{0_{d-1}})\ast\rho_{2k}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq5.10}
\rho_{2k-1}\ast\rho_{2k} = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1/N_1N_2...N_{2k}]\times[0,1]^{d-1}}.
\end{equation}
By (\ref{eq5.8}) and Lemma \ref{Lem2.1}, $\mu P^{-1} = \nu_1\ast...\nu_{2k-1}\ast\rho_{2k-1} P^{-1}$, showing that $\rho_{2k-1} P^{-1} =\delta_0$. Hence, we can write $\rho_{2k-1} = \delta_{0}\otimes\sigma$ for some positive measure $\sigma$ on ${\Bbb R}^{d-1}$. Using (\ref{eq5.10}) and Lemma \ref{Lem2.1} again, we obtain that $\sigma\ast(\rho_{2k} Q^{-1}) = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]^{d-1}}$. Hence,
$$
\begin{aligned}
\rho_{2k-1}\ast\rho_{2k} =& {\mathcal L}_{[0,1/N_1N_2...N_{2k}]}\otimes{\mathcal L}_{[0,1]^{d-1}} \\
=& {\mathcal L}_{[0,1/N_1N_2...N_{2k}]}\otimes(\sigma\ast(\rho_{2k} Q^{-1}) )\\
=& (\delta_0\otimes \sigma)\ast({\mathcal L}_{[0,1/N_1N_2...N_{2k}]}\otimes(\rho_{2k} Q^{-1}))\\
=&\rho_{2k-1}\ast({\mathcal L}_{[0,1/N_1N_2...N_{2k}]}\otimes(\rho_{2k} Q^{-1})).
\end{aligned}
$$
Lemma \ref{Lem2.4} shows that $\rho_{2k} = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1/N_1N_2...N_{2k}]}\otimes(\rho_{2k} Q^{-1})$ and (\ref{eq5.9}) implies that $
\nu = \nu P^{-1}\otimes \rho_{2k} {Q}^{-1}.$ Finally, applying the induction hypothesis to the identity $\sigma\ast(\rho_{2k} Q^{-1}) = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]^{d-1}}$, we can write $\sigma = \sigma_2\otimes...\otimes\sigma_d$ and $\rho_{2k-1} Q^{-1} = \tau_2\otimes...\otimes\tau_d$ with $\sigma_i\ast\tau_i = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}$ and Theorem \ref{th2.2} for dimension $d$ follows.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Case 2 (Type II decomposition).} In this case, we can without loss of generality assume that
$$
\mu P^{-1} = \nu_1\ast\nu_3\ast..., \ \nu P^{-1} = \nu_2\ast\nu_4\ast...
$$
and we still have (\ref{eq5.8}), (\ref{eq5.9}) and (\ref{eq5.10}) for all $k= 1,2,....$
with $\rho_n P^{-1} \ne \delta_0$ for any integer $n$. As $\rho_{n}$ are all probability measures,
we can assume,
by passing to subsequences if necessary, that the sequences $\{\rho_{2k-1}\}$ and $\{\rho_{2k}\}$
converge weakly to some probability measures that we denote by $\sigma$ and $\tau$, respectively.
From (\ref{eq5.10}), it is immediate to see that the supports of $\sigma$ and $\tau$ are both contained in $\{0\}\times[0,1]^{d-1}$. We can write $\sigma = \delta_0\otimes\sigma'$ and $\tau = \delta_0\otimes \tau'$. By passing to weak limit in (\ref{eq5.8}) and (\ref{eq5.9}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq5.11}
\mu = (\mu P^{-1}\otimes\delta_{0_{d-1}})\ast (\delta_0\otimes\sigma'), \ \ \nu = (\nu P^{-1}\otimes\delta_{0_{d-1}})\ast (\delta_0\otimes\tau').
\end{equation}
As $\mu\ast\nu = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]^d}$ and $(\mu P_1^{-1}\otimes\delta_{0_{d-1}})\ast (\nu P_1^{-1}\otimes\delta_{0_{d-1}}) = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}\otimes\delta_{0_{d-1}}$, we have
$$
\sigma'\ast\tau '={\mathcal L}_{[0,1]^{d-1}},
$$
The conclusion follows immediately by (\ref{eq5.11}) using the induction hypothesis.
\eproof
\medskip
\noindent{\it Proof of Theorem \ref{th0.1} on ${\Bbb R}^d$.} The proof follows from the result on ${\Bbb R}^1$. By Theorem \ref{th2.2}, we can write $\mu = \sigma_1\otimes...\otimes\sigma_d$ and $\nu = \tau_1\otimes...\otimes\tau_d$ with $\sigma_i\ast\tau_i = {\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}$. Therefore, our conclusion on ${\Bbb R}^1$ implies that $\sigma_i$ and $\tau_i$ are spectral measures on ${\Bbb R}^1$ with spectrum $\Lambda_{\sigma_i}$ and $\Lambda_{\tau_i}$ respectively. Moreover, they satisfies $\Lambda_{\sigma_i}\oplus\Lambda_{\tau_i} = {\Bbb Z}$. Now we define
$$
\Lambda_{\mu} = \bigotimes_{i=1}^{d}\Lambda_{\sigma_i}, \ \Lambda_{\nu} = \bigotimes_{i=1}^{d}\Lambda_{\tau_i},
$$
where $\bigotimes_{i=1}^{d} A_i := \{(a_1,...,a_d): a_i\in A_i\}$ for sets $A_i\subset{\Bbb R}^1$.
We claim that $\Lambda_{\mu}$ is a spectrum for $\mu$ (the proof that $\Lambda_{\nu}$ is a spectrum for $\nu$ is similar).
\medskip
Note that $
\widehat{\mu}(\xi) = \prod_{i=1}^{d}\widehat{\sigma_i}(\xi_i).$
From this, it follows easily that
$$
\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda_{\mu}} |\widehat{\mu}(\xi+\lambda)|^2 = \prod_{i=1}^{d}\left(\sum_{\lambda_i\in\Lambda_{\sigma_i}}|\widehat{\sigma_i}(\xi_i+\lambda_i)|^2\right)=1.
$$
Hence, $\Lambda_{\mu}$ is a spectrum for $\mu$. That the tiling property of the spectra (i.e. $\Lambda_{\mu}\oplus\Lambda_{\nu} = {\Bbb Z}^d$) follows immediately from the tiling property of $\Lambda_{\sigma_i}$ and $\Lambda_{\tau_i}$.
\eproof
\bigskip
\section{Remarks and Open questions}
\medskip
As indicated in the introduction, the statement $\bf{{\mathcal F}(Q)}$ is false in general.
Nonetheless, this statement suggests many related questions that may help us understand the
relationship among convolutions, translational tilings and spectral measures.
Motivated by the generalized Fuglede's conjecture,
one of the main questions we would like to ask is:
\medskip
\noindent {\bf (Q1):} For which $Q$ is the statement ${\bf {\mathcal F}(Q)}$ true?
\medskip
This question seems to be hard if we go beyond cubes
as the methods of this paper would be difficult to extend.
An easier, but still interesting question concerns the decomposition of
the Lebesgue measure on sets as convolution product of singular measures:
\medskip
\noindent {\bf (Q2):} For what kind of measurable (resp. spectral) sets $Q$
can ${\mathcal L}_{Q}$ be decomposed
into the convolution of two singularly continuous (resp. spectral) measure ?
\medskip
One natural type of such sets will be the self-affine tiles \cite{[LW2]}.
These tiles can be described as infinite convolution product of discrete measures and
can therefore be decomposed into two singular measures using methods similar to those in Section 2.
\medskip
Fourier frames and exponential Riesz bases are natural generalization of exponential orthonormal bases.
It has been an interesting question to produce singular measures with
Fourier frames but not exponential orthonormal bases.
By now we only know we can produce such measures by considering measures
which are absolutely continuous with respect to a spectral measure
with density bounded above and away from 0 or
convolving a spectral measure with some discrete measures \cite{[HLL], [DL1]}.
These methods are rather restrictive. As absolutely continuous (w.r.t. Lebesgue) measures
with Fourier frames were completely classified in \cite{[Lai]}, we ask
\medskip
\noindent {\bf (Q3):} Can we produce new singular measures admitting Fourier
frames by decomposing an absolutely continuous (w.r.t. Lebesgue) measures with Fourier frames?
Conversely, is it true that all measures admitting Fourier frames are constructed in this way?
\medskip
Given a spectral measure $\mu$, another important issue is to classify its spectrum.
This question has been studied for Lebesgue measures and some Cantor measures in
\cite{[LRW],[DHS],[DHL]}. However, there is no satisfactory answer when the measure is
singular. The tiling statement of Theorem \ref{th0.1}, suggests
a possible answer.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf (Q4):} Let $\mu$ and $\nu$ be a natural complementary pair of
${\mathcal L}_{[0,1]}$. Let also $\Lambda_{\mu}$ be a spectrum for $L^2(\mu)$,
does there exist a spectrum $\Lambda_{\nu}$ for $L^2(\nu)$ such that
$\Lambda_{\mu}\oplus\Lambda_{\nu} = {\Bbb Z}$?
\medskip
It is not difficult to prove that {\bf (Q4)} actually holds for type I
decompositions. The remaining challenge is to answer the question for type II decompositions.
|
\section{Introduction}
\indent \indent Outer billiards is a simple dynamical system that was introduced by B. H. Neumann in 1950s in \cite{neumann}. In the 1970s, J. Moser popularized outer billiards as a toy model for planetary motion as a means of finding possible unbounded orbits \cite{moser1,moser}. Since then, many mathematicians have asked and answered questions about outer billiards systems in various geometries. For example, in 2004 C. Culter proved the existence of periodic orbits for polygonal tables in the Euclidean Plane (the proof is presented by S. Tabachnikov in \cite{culter}). R. Schwarz answered, in the affirmative, Moser's question about the existence of unbounded orbits for certain polygons in \cite{schwartz1,schwartz}.
The main motivation for this paper is a result of Vivaldi and Shaidenko [8] that in the Euclidean case, outer billiards associated to quasi-rational polygons have all orbits bounded, see also \cite{Ko,GS}. As a consequence, all orbits about a lattice polygon in the Euclidean plane are periodic.
We continue the work of Dogru and Tabachnikov in \cite{dogtab} who studied the relationship between one-tile regular tilings of the hyperbolic plane and the outer billiards system.
For a detailed account of hyperbolic geometry and the hyperbolic plane, we direct the reader to \cite{hyperbolic}, and for a survey of outer billiards, see \cite{dogtab1,Tab}.
\section{Definitions}
\indent \indent The outer billiard map associated to a convex polygonal table $P$ in the hyperbolic plane is defined as follows. For a point $x\in\mathbb{H}^2\setminus P$, there are two lines that pass through $x$ and are tangent to the table $P$. By convention, we consider the tangent line for which $P$ is on the left, from the point of view of $x$. Then we reflect $x$ about the tangency (support) point to get $T(x)$ (See Figure \ref{definition}). The map is well-defined whenever the tangency point is unique and so we are able to define the map $T$ on the entire hyperbolic plane except for the clockwise continuations of the sides of $P$ (see Figure \ref{definition}) and their preimages under $T$. An immediate consequence of the definition is that $T$ is a piecewise isometry.
Likewise, the inverse map $T^{-1}$ is not defined on the counterclockwise continuations of the sides of $P$.
We define the \textit{web} associated to $P$ to be the union of all preimages under $T$ of the clockwise continuation of the sides and of all preimages under $T^{-1}$ of the counterclockwise continuation of the sides. For each connected component of the complement of the web, the restriction of the map $T^n$ to that component is defined by a single isometry of the hyperbolic plane for every $n\in {\mathbb Z}$. That means that each connected component of the complement of the web maps as a whole under the iterations of $T$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{Tablewithcontinuations.pdf}
\caption{Outer billiard map in Klein model}
\label{definition}
\end{figure}
\indent Another feature of the billiards map $T$ is that it extends continuously to a continuous circle map $t:S^1\to S^1$ at infinity. The map $t$ is defined using the same reflecting procedure. In this case the uniqueness of the support point is not needed, since the distance between our initial point and the support point is infinite no matter the choice and hence the map $t$ is well-defined for every point at infinity. Since $t$ is a circle map, it has a well defined Poincar\'{e} rotation number $\rho(t)$, and we will prove in section 3 that $\rho(t)$ encodes information about the combinatorial dynamics of the outer billiards.
\section{Outer Billiards on Tilings}
\indent \indent We are studying the hyperbolic outer billiards map associated with a polygonal table that is part of a two piece regular tiling of the hyperbolic plane. These tilings use two polygonal pieces, a regular $M$-gon and a regular $N$-gon that meet four in each vertex (See Figure \ref{mntiling}). We describe the combinatorial dynamics for outer billiards around one of the $M$-gons. We note that the web associated to such a map will fall exactly on the grid lines of the tiling. This is because the reflection around a vertex of the table tile is just a rotation by $180^{\circ}$ around vertices in the tiling. It follows that each tile maps as a whole under iterations of $T$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{Poincaretiling.pdf}
\caption{Example of $(M,N)$-tiling for $(M,N)=(6,7)$}
\label{mntiling}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Previous Results}
\indent \indent Previous results describing outer billiards of tiles in the hyperbolic plane are obtained in \cite{dogtab}. In this paper, the authors have proved that every orbit of the outer billiard map around a right-angled regular $n$-gon, for $n \geq 5$, is periodic. Any right-angled regular $n$-gon generates a tiling of the hyperbolic plane entirely consisting of $n$-gons. The theorems proven in the next sections have the same flavor as Theorem 4 in the above mentioned paper.
\indent Define the \textit{rank} of a tile as the minimum number of sides that one has to cross, when starting inside the table, to get to the given tile. This means that tiles that have one common side with the table have rank 1, and tiles that have a common side with a tile of rank 1 have rank 2, and so on.
\begin{theorem}
(Dogru-Tabachnikov \cite{dogtab})
For a tiling of regular $n$-gons meeting in 4, $n\geq 5$, the dual billiard map $T$ preserves the rank of a tile, and every orbit of $T$ is periodic. The set of rank $k$ tiles consists of
\[q_k=n\frac{\lambda_1^k-\lambda_2^k}{\lambda_1-\lambda_2}\]
elements, where
\[\lambda_{1,2}=\frac{n-2\pm\sqrt{n(n-4)}}{2}\]
are the roots of the equation $\lambda^2-(n-2)\lambda+1=0$. The action of $T$ on the set of rank $k$ tiles is a transitive cyclic permutation $i\mapsto i+p_k$ where
\[p_k=\frac{\lambda_1^{k-1}-\lambda_2^{k-1}}{\lambda_1-\lambda_2}+\frac{\lambda_1^k-\lambda_2^k}{\lambda_1-\lambda_2}.\]
The rotation number of the dual billiard map at infinity is given by the formula
\[\rho(t)=\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{p_k}{q_k}=\frac{n-\sqrt{n(n-4)}}{2n}.\]
\end{theorem}
The proof of this theorem uses geometric arguments for the periodicity of orbits and recurrence formulas for computing the number of tiles in each rank and the rotation number of $t$ (see \cite{dogtab} for details). The authors make an important remark that the representation of $\lambda_1$ (and so the rotation number of the map at infinity) as a continued fraction encodes the dynamics of the tiles under the billiard map $T$. We will deduce similar results for two-piece tilings.
\subsection{New Results}
\indent \indent Our results extend Theorem 1 to two-piece regular tilings of the hyperbolic plane. We will denote a tiling of regular $M$-gons and regular $N$-gons as an $(M,N)$-tiling, and we will always consider the table to be an $M$-gon. Such an $(M,N)$-tiling exists if $\frac{1}{M}+\frac{1}{N}<\frac{1}{2}$. As mentioned earlier, these tilings have four shapes meeting at each vertex, two $M$-gons and two $N$-gons
\subsubsection{Triangles and $N$-gons}\label{sec:3-N}
\indent \indent Most of the geometric arguments used here are analogous to those used by Dogru and Tabachnikov. Our counting arguments are different, although they are also based on recurrence relations.
Let us introduce a more general notation for rank in order to avoid cumbersome indexing. Observe that the layer of tiles of rank $k$ includes tiles of the same type (all $M$-gons or all $N$-gons) and as rank changes by one, that shape changes. So triangles always have even rank and $N$-gons always have odd rank. We will say that a rank $2k-1$ tile is a rank $k$ $N$-gon and a rank $2k$ tile is a rank $k$ triangle. The rest of this section is dedicated to describing the dynamics of the billiard map $T$ in the $(3,N)$-tilings through the proof of the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}\label{3n}
For a $(3,N)$-tiling, $N\geq 7$, the outer billiard map $T$ preserves the rank of a tile and every orbit of $T$ is periodic. The set of rank $k$ $N$-gons consists of
\[q_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N-6}}(\Phi_1^{2k-3}+\Phi_2^{2k-3})+\Phi_1^{2k-2}+\Phi_2^{2k-2}\]
elements and the set of rank $k$ triangles consists of
\[l_k=\frac{N-4}{\sqrt{N-6}}(\Phi_1^{2k-3}+\Phi_2^{2k-3})+(N-3)(\Phi_1^{2k-2}+\Phi_2^{2k-2})\]
elements, where
$$\Phi_{1,2}=\frac{\sqrt{N-6}\pm\sqrt{N-2}}{2}$$
are the two roots of the equation $$\Phi^2-\sqrt{N-6}\Phi-1=0.$$ The action of $T$ on the set of rank $k$ $N$-gons is a cyclic permutation $i\mapsto i+p_k$ where
\[p_k=\frac{q_k}{3}+\frac{\Phi_1^{2k-4}-\Phi_2^{2k-4}}{\sqrt{(N-6)(N-2)}}+\frac{\Phi_1^{2k-3}-\Phi_2^{2k-3}}{\sqrt{N-2}},\]
and the action of $T$ on the set of rank $k$ triangles is also a cyclic permutation $i\mapsto i+j_k$ where
\[j_k= \frac{l_k}{3}+(N-4)\frac{\Phi_1^{2k-4}-\Phi_2^{2k-4}}{\sqrt{(N-6)(N-2)}}+(N-3)\frac{\Phi_1^{2k-3}-\Phi_2^{2k-3}}{\sqrt{N-2}}.\]
The rotation number of the outer billiard map at infinity is given by the formula
\[\rho(t)=\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{p_k}{q_k}=\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{j_k}{l_k}=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3(1+\Phi_1^2)}=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3\sqrt{N-2}\Phi_1}.\]
\end{theorem}
Theorem 2 contains many independent results and for reasons of clarity we will prove them one by one as claims inside the proof.
\begin{claim}
Every orbit of $T$ is periodic.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
The proof of this result is written in much detail in \cite{dogtab}. We will present here a sketch of it and will refer the reader to \cite{dogtab} for detailed explanations.
The statement of the claim is a consequence of the following lemma:
\begin{lemma} \label{rankpreserve} The rank of a tile is preserved under $T$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent\textit{Proof of lemma.} The proof is by induction on the rank, based on geometrical observations. Observe that rank 1 tiles are preserved by $T$ and notice that every rank $k$ tile is adjacent to a rank $k-1$ tile, where these two tiles map together under a single application of $T$. These two facts complete the base case and the step of the induction. \hfill\ensuremath{\square}
From Lemma \ref{rankpreserve}, since there are finitely many tiles of rank $k$, every tile must eventually map back to itself after $m$-iterations, for some natural number $m$. Hence the $m$-th iteration of $T$ maps the entire tile to itself. This implies that $T^{\circ m}$ is a rotation by either $\frac{2\pi j}{N}$ (for $N$-gons) or $\frac{2\pi j}{3}$(for triangles) around some point inside the tile. Hence $T^{\circ Nm}$ restricted to that tile is the identity if the tile is an $N$-gon and $T^{\circ 3m}$ restricted to that tile is the identity if the tile is a triangle. We conclude that every orbit of $T$ is periodic.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
For every $k\geq 1$, $T$ permutes the rank $k$ tiles cyclically.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
This claim is an immediate corollary to the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}
Any two consecutive rank $k$ tiles are mapped to two consecutive rank $k$ tiles.
\end{lemma}
\noindent\textit{Proof of lemma.} We know by Lemma \ref{rankpreserve} that the rank of two tiles is preserved. If the two consecutive tiles are not separated by a clockwise continuation of one of the sides of the table then their common point is mapped, together with the two tiles, through the same vertex. Thus the tiles are mapped to two consecutive tiles.
If the two tiles are separated by such a continuation of one side of the table then the argument is more involved. A similar argument is presented in \cite{dogtab}. Figure 3 gives a pictorial representation of the situation. The first tile is reflected in $O_1$, while the second one is reflected in $O_2$. What remains to prove is that $A^{\prime}$=$B^{\prime}$ so that the images of the two tiles still touch in one point. The following sequence of equalities completes the proof:
\[ A^{\prime} O_2=A{^\prime}O_1-O_1O_2=BO_1+AB-O_1O_2=BO_1+O_1O_2=BO_2=B^{\prime}O_2.\]
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Adjacent.pdf}
\caption{Special case for lemma 2}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}
In order to compute the formulas for $q_k,p_k,j_k,l_k$ we first explain why the tiling we are working with has an intrinsic self-similar geometric structure. We will refer from now on to this self-similar structure as the \textit{crochet pattern}. To describe the crochet pattern, we consider $N$-gons to be of two types (See figure \ref{37tiling}), $X$-type and $Y$-type. Type $X$ $N$-gons have two \lq\lq parents" in the sense that they touch two $N$-gons of the previous rank, while type $Y$ $N$-gons touch only one \lq\lq parent". The rank 1 $N$-gons are of neither of the types, having 0 parents, so we call them type \lq 0' $N$-gons. (This is why our counting argument begins with counting rank $2$ $N$-gons.)
The following claim gives an intuitive explanation of why we call this self-similar structure of the tiling a crochet pattern.
\begin{claim}
When passing from the $k$-th layer of $N$-gons to the $k+1$-th layer of $N$-gons, we apply the following replacement rules:
\[X\to XY^{N-6} \]
\[ Y\to XY^{N-5} \]
i.e., when incrementing rank of the layer by 1, every $X$ gets replaced by an $X$ followed by $N-6$ $Y$'s, and every $Y$ gets replaced by an $X$ followed by $N-5$ $Y$'s.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
The methods used to prove this claim have been developed by Poincar\'{e} and we will not dwell on the details here. The reader can find extensive explanation in \textit{The Symmetry of Things} \cite{symm}.
Instead, we will illustrate the methods used to prove the claim in the case of $N=7$ in order to give the geometrical intuition behind the proof. Figure \ref{37tiling} illustrates the local and global behavior of a $(3,7)$-tiling.
In the local picture, the difference between a type $X$ $7$-gon and a type $Y$ $7$-gon is encoded in the different types of degenerate heptagons we associate to them. We associate to the $Y$-type heptagon a rectangle with 3 additional points on the upper side, while to the $X$-type heptagon we associate a rectangle with 2 additional points on the upper side and 1 additional point on the lower side, since it has two parents. Now by reducing the triangles in the global picture to points, we notice that the heptagons must meet 3 in each vertex. This results in the crochet pattern shown in Figure 4 (left). This crochet pattern immediately implies the claimed replacement rules.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{crochetnew37.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{37finalpicture1.pdf}
\caption{The (3,7)-tiling}
\label{37tiling}
\end{figure}
We can now use this crochet pattern to start our counting argument in order to get the exact numbers in Theorem \ref{3n}.
\begin{claim}
The formulas for $q_k,p_k,j_k,l_k$ hold as stated in Theorem \ref{3n}.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Denote the number of $X$-type and $Y$-type $N$-gons of rank $k$ by $x_k$ and $y_k$, respectively, and use Claim 3 to obtain the following system of linear difference equations:
\[\left(\begin{array}{c}
x_k \\
y_k
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1&1 \\
N-6 & N-5
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
x_{k-1} \\
y_{k-1}
\end{array}\right).\]
The initial configuration is $\left(\begin{array}{c}
x_2 \\
y_2
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
3 \\
3(N-4)
\end{array}\right)$, because there must be three rank 2 $N$-gons with two parents, and the rest of the vertices of the rank 1 $N$-gons must serve as an anchor for a different $Y$-type rank 2 $N$-gon. Solving this recurrence gives the general term formula:
\[\left(\begin{array}{c}
x_k \\
y_k
\end{array}\right)=3\left(\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{N-6}}(\Phi_1^{2k-3}+\Phi_2^{2k-3}) \\
\Phi_1^{2k-2}+\Phi_2^{2k-2}
\end{array}\right)\]
where
$$\Phi_1=\frac{\sqrt{N-2}+\sqrt{N-6}}{2}\ \ {\rm and}\ \ \Phi_2=\frac{-\sqrt{N-2}+\sqrt{N-6}}{2}.$$
From here the formula for $q_k=x_k+y_k$ follows immediately.
To count the triangles of rank $k$, we observe that the triangles of rank $k$ are the next layer after the $N$-gons of rank $k$, and each $X$-type $N$-gon is replaced by $N-4$ triangles and each $Y$-type is replaced by $N-3$ triangles. Hence the formula for $l_k=(N-4) x_k+ (N-3) y_k$ can be computed.
In order to count how many rank $k$ $N$-gons $T$ jumps, i.e., $p_k$, we need to define $s_k$ as the number of rank $k$ $N$-gons in a small cone as can be seen in Figure \ref{37tiling}. A small cone is opposite to one of the triangles vertices and doesn't contain any side of the triangle. In the same way, a big cone (see Figure \ref{37tiling}) is opposite to one of the sides of a triangle and contains the table. The number of rank $k$ $N$-gons in a big cone is just $\frac{q_k}{3}-s_k$ because of the 3-fold symmetry of the tiling.
For the same reasons as above we need to introduce $x^s_k$ and $y^s_k$, the number of $X$-type and $Y$-type rank $k$ $N$-gons in a small cone, respectively. With this, $s_k=x^s_k+y^s_k$. The billiard map $T$ makes any tile jump over 2 small cones and one big cone so in total it will jump $$p_k=2s_k+(\frac{q_k}{3}-s_k)=\frac{q_k}{3}+s_k.$$
By studying the structure small cone we observe the crochet pattern once again. One can notice that the cone that starts at the last $X$-type $N$-gon of the rank $k$ ($k\geq 2$) layer looks exactly the same as the initial small cone. That is why $s_k$ is equal to the total number of $N$-gons obtained by starting with an $X$-type $N$-gon and using the replacement rules in Claim 3. We express this as a sum:
\[\left(\begin{array}{c}
x^s_k \\
y^s_k
\end{array}\right)=\sum_{i=0}^{k-2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1&1 \\
N-6 & N-5
\end{array}\right)^i\left(\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0
\end{array}\right),\]
which, after some computation becomes:
\[\left(\begin{array}{c}
x^s_k \\
y^s_k
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}
1+\frac{\Phi_1^{2k-4}-\Phi_2^{2k-4}}{\sqrt{(N-6)(N-2)}} \\
-1+\frac{\Phi_1^{2k-3}-\Phi_2^{2k-3}}{\sqrt{N-2}}
\end{array}\right).\]
The formula for $p_k=\frac{q_k}{3}+x^s_k+y^s_k$ follows immediately. $j_k$ is computed in the same manner as $l_k$ was computed. As we have already said, every $X$ type $N$-gon is replaced by $N-4$ triangles and every $Y$ type $N$-gon is replaced by $N-3$ triangles on the next level and this procedure leaves uncounted only one rank $k$ triangle in the small cone, so $j_k=(N-4)x^s_k+(N-3)y^s_k+1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
The rotation number $\rho(t)$ equals
$$\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3(1+\Phi_1^2)}=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{3\sqrt{N-2}\Phi_1}.$$
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
The $k$-th layer of $N$-gons gives a discrete approximation of the circle map at infinity and so $\frac{p_k}{q_k}$ is an approximation of $\rho(t)$ as $k$ goes to $\infty$. By taking the limit we obtained the desired formula for the rotation number $\rho(t)$.
\end{proof}
This last claim completes the proof of all the statements in Theorem 2.
\begin{remark}
{\rm
(i) One might expect the formulas in Theorem 2 to also work for $N=6$, i.e., a $(3,6)$-tiling of the Euclidean plain. That is not the case even though the crochet pattern works exactly the same also in the $(3,6)$-tiling. The difference that appears when computing the formulas in the $(3,6)$-tiling is that the matrix of the difference system is not diagonalizable anymore and so its powers look completely different.
(ii) Note that the determinant of all the matrices given by the crochet pattern is 1. We believe this is true because the crochet pattern replacement can also be reversed, i.e., starting with rank $k$ layer, we can construct the rank $k-1$ layer.
(iii) According to Theorem 2, one can express the eigenvalues $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2=1/\Phi_1$ via the rotation number $\rho(t)$. Therefore this rotation number determines the numbers $q_k,l_k,p_k,j_k$, and hence the whole dynamics of the map $T$.
}
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{General $(M,N)$-tilings}
\indent \indent Next we consider the case of a general $(M,N)$-tiling. The theorem and subsequent proof are analogous to those in the $(3,N)$ case in the previous subsection, but we must consider the cases separately due to a difference in the counting method. In the previous section, $N$-gons were classified into types $X$ and $Y$, having two parents and one parent, respectively. However, due to the difference in geometry of triangles versus generic $M$-gons, the tilings in the $M\ge4$ case never produce $N$-gons with two parents. In this case, $N$-gons either have one parent or no parent, which we denote as types $Y$ and $Z$. This alternate counting method will be explained in detail in the proof, but first we state the theorem:
\begin{theorem}
For an $(M,N)$-tiling with
$$M,N\geq 4,\ \frac{1}{M} + \frac{1}{N} < \frac{1}{2},$$
the outer billiard map $T$ preserves the rank of a tile and every orbit of $T$ is periodic.
The set of rank $k$ $N$-gons consists of
$$
q_k = \frac{M}{\sqrt{b^2-4}}\left(
(b+1)(\alpha_1^{2k-2} - \alpha_2^{2k-2})
- (\alpha_1^{2k-4}-\alpha_2^{2k-4})
\right)
$$
elements, and the set of rank $k$ $M$-gons consists of
$$
l_k = \frac{M(N-2)}{\sqrt{b^2-4}}
\left(
b(\alpha_1^{2k-2} - \alpha_2^{2k-2})
- (\alpha_1^{2k-4}-\alpha_2^{2k-4} )
\right)
$$
elements, where
$b = (M-2)(N-2)-2$ and
$$\alpha_{1,2} = \frac{\sqrt{b-2} \pm \sqrt{b+2}}{2}$$
are the two roots of the equation $\alpha^2-\sqrt{b-2}\alpha-1=0$. The action of $T$ on the set of rank $k$ $N$-gons is a cyclic permutation $i\mapsto i+p_k$ where
\[p_k=\frac{q_k}{M} + \frac{M-2}{(b-2)\sqrt{b+2}}\left((b-1)(\alpha_1^{2k-3}-\alpha_2^{2k-3})-(\alpha_1^{2k-5}-\alpha_2^{2k-5})\right),
\]
and the action of $T$ on the set of rank $k$ $M$-gons is also a cyclic permutation $i\mapsto i+j_k$ where
\[j_k= \frac{l_k}{M} + \frac{1}{(b-2)\sqrt{b+2}}\left(
(b^2-2)(\alpha_1^{2k-3}-\alpha_2^{2k-3})-b(\alpha_1^{2k-5} - \alpha_2^{2k-5}) \right).
\]
The rotation number of the outer billiard map at infinity is given by the formula
\[\rho(t)=\frac{1}{M} + \frac{M-2}{M\sqrt{b-2}\alpha_1}
\left( \frac{(b-1)\alpha_1^2-1}{(b+1)\alpha_1^2-1} \right). \]
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
{\rm
if $N=M$, the statement of Theorem 3 reduces to that of Theorem 1.
}
\end{remark}
The proof of Theorem 3 also consists of several steps.
\begin{claim} Every orbit of $T$ is periodic.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
The proof of this claim is analogous to the proof in the previous section. Because the rank of each tile is preserved under the billiard map, and because there are finitely many tiles of a given rank, every tile must map back to itself after some finite number of iterations $m$. When the tile maps back to itself, it has rotated by $\frac{2\pi j}{M}$ if it is an $M$-gon or by $\frac{2\phi j}{N}$ if it is an $N$-gon. Then $T^{\circ mM}$ is the identity if the tile is an $M$-gon and $T^{\circ mN}$ is the identity if the tile is an $N$-gon.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim} For every $k\geq 1$, $T$ permutes the rank $k$ tiles cyclically. \end{claim}
\begin{proof} Proof is similar to that for Claim 2. \end{proof}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.60\textwidth]{4-5labeled.pdf}
\caption{(4,5)-tiling, with rank 1 and rank 2 pentagons labeled either as type Y (one parent) or as type Z (no parents).}
\label{fig:4-5labeled}
\end{figure}
Recall that we defined type $Y$ tiles to have one parent and type $Z$ tiles to have zero parents (see Figure \ref{fig:4-5labeled}). We now give a crochet pattern for general $(M,N)$-tilings, $M\geq 4$.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{4-5crochet1.pdf}
\caption{Tiling of pentagons meeting in fours. Can be extended to a (4,5)-tiling.}
\label{fig:4-5crochet}
\end{figure}
\begin{claim} The following replacement rules hold for $(M,N)$-tilings.
\begin{equation} \label{eq:crochety} Y \to (YZ^{M-3})^{N-4}YZ^{M-4} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:crochetz} Z \to (YZ^{M-3})^{N-3}YZ^{M-4} \end{equation}
\end{claim}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.80\textwidth]{5-6transition.pdf}
\caption{In (a), the plane is tiled using hexagons meeting in fives. As illustrated by (b), by replacing the vertices in the previous picture with pentagons, we achieve a (5,6)-tiling.}
\label{fig:kaleido}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
In a similar manner to the $(3,N)$ case, we represent type $Y$ and $Z$ tiles as degenerate polygons, with additional vertices. See Figure \ref{fig:4-5crochet} for illustrations of the $(4,5)$ case. Type $Y$ tiles are represented as quadrilaterals with $N$ vertices, and type $Z$ tiles are represented as triangles with $N$ vertices. Because a $Y$ tile has $N-3$ sides available to connect with a tile of higher rank, a rank $k$ $Y$ tile produces $N-3$ $Y$ tiles of rank $k+1$. Then, since tiles must meet $M$-to-a-vertex, there must be $M-3$ $Z$ tiles between every pair of $Y$ tiles, and there must be $M-4$ type $Z$ tiles following the last $Y$. Similarly, a $Z$ tile has $N-2$ edges free to connect to a tile of higher rank, so a rank $k$ $Z$ tile produces $N-2$ $Y$ tiles of rank $k+1$, again with $Z$ tiles appropriately interspersed.
This crochet pattern tiles the hyperbolic plane with $M$ $N$-gons meeting at every vertex. From this tiling, we obtain the $(M,N)$-tiling by considering the points in the tiling becoming $M$-gons, as in Figure \ref{fig:kaleido} (compare with \cite{symm}). The described crochet pattern translates to the replacement rules given above.
\end{proof}
We can now compute the formulas for the number of $M$- and $N$-gons of any rank, as well as for the cyclic permutation of $M$- and $N$-gons of any rank.
\begin{claim}
The formulas for $q_k,p_k,j_k,l_k$ hold as stated in Theorem 3.
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Denoting the number of $Y$ type and $Z$ type $N$-gons of rank $k$ by $y_k$ and $z_k$, respectively, we obtain the following recursion formula:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:yz-recurrence}
\begin{pmatrix}
y_{k} \\
z_{k}
\end{pmatrix}
=
A \begin{pmatrix}y_{k-1} \\ z_{k-1} \end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
where the matrix $A$ is given below and is obtained from the rules given in (\ref{eq:crochety}) and (\ref{eq:crochetz}).
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Amatrix}
A =
\begin{pmatrix}
N-3 & N-2 \\
(M-3)(N-3)-1 & (M-3)(N-2)-1
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
As mentioned above, the initial conditions are
$\left(\begin{matrix}
y_1 \\ z_1
\end{matrix}\right)
=
\left(\begin{matrix}
0 \\ M
\end{matrix}\right)$.
Solving the recurrence, we find the general formula:
$$
\begin{pmatrix}
y_{k} \\
z_{k}
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{M(N-2)(\alpha_1^{2k-2}-\alpha_2^{2k-2})}{\sqrt{b^2-4}} \\
\frac{M((M-3)(N-2)-1)(\alpha_1^{2k-2}-\alpha_2^{2k-2}) + M(\alpha_2^{2k-4}-\alpha_1^{2k-4})}{\sqrt{b^2-4}}
\end{pmatrix},
$$
where
$$b = (M-2)(N-2)-2,\
\alpha_{1} = \frac{\sqrt{b-2} + \sqrt{b+2}}{2},\
\alpha_{2} = \frac{\sqrt{b-2} - \sqrt{b+2}}{2}.$$
Then $q_k = y_k + z_k$, so
$$
q_k = \frac{M}{\sqrt{b^2-4}}\left(
(b+1)(\alpha_1^{2k-2} - \alpha_2^{2k-2}) +
\alpha_2^{2k-4} - \alpha_1^{2k-4}
\right).
$$
Now that we have counted the $N$-gons, we count the $M$-gons of rank $k$ by noticing a pattern in the tiling.
We see that a type $Y$ $N$-gon of rank $k$ produces $N-3$ $M$-gons of rank $k$, and a type $Z$ $N$-gon produces $N-2$ $M$-gons.
Thus the number of $M$-gons of rank $k$ is given by $l_k = (N-3)y_k + (N-2)z_k$.
The formula for $l_k$ given in Theorem 3 follows.
Next we determine $p_k$ by counting how many tiles a rank $k$ $N$-gon ``jumps" when $T$ is applied.
As in the previous section, we define $s_k$ as the number of rank $k$ $N$-gons in a small cone.
We call $y_k^s$ and $z_k^s$ the number of rank $k$ $Y$s and $Z$s, respectively, in the small cone.
Also, as before, applying $T$ to any tile causes the tile to jump over two small cones and one big cone.
In total, the jump is given by $p_k = s_k + \frac{q_k}{M}$.
We observe that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:conesum}
\begin{pmatrix}
y_k^s \\ z_k^s
\end{pmatrix}
=
\sum_{i=0}^{k-2} A^i
\begin{pmatrix}
2 \\ M-4
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $A$ is given in (\ref{eq:Amatrix}).
This becomes
$$
\begin{pmatrix}
y_k^s \\ z_k^s
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\left(\frac{1-\alpha_1^{2k-2}}{1-\alpha_1^2} \right) +
\frac{2}{\sqrt{b^2-4}}\left( \frac{1-\alpha_2^{2k-2}}{1-\alpha_2^2}\right)(\alpha_1^2-N+3)
\\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{b^2-4}}\left[
\left(\frac{1-\alpha_1^{2k-2}}{1-\alpha_1^2} \right)
(B-\alpha_2^2(M-4))
+
\left( \frac{1-\alpha_2^{2k-2}}{1-\alpha_2^2}\right)
(-B+\alpha_1^2(M-4))
\right]
\end{pmatrix},
$$
where
$B = (M-3)(b-2)+(M-4)$.
Then, since $s_k = y_k^s + z_k^s$, we have
$$s_k = \frac{M-2}{(b-2)\sqrt{b+2}}
\left(
(b-1)(\alpha_1^{2k-3} + \alpha_2^{2k-3})
+ \alpha_2^{2k-5} - \alpha_1^{2k-5}
\right)
.$$
This allows us to calculate $p_k$ and we can compute $j_k$ by noticing again that every $Y$ type $N$-gon will be replaced by $N-3$ $M$-gons and every $Z$ type $(N-2)$-gon will be replaced by $N-3$ $M$-gons on the next level and this procedure will leave again only one $M$-gon out, so $j_k=(N-3)y^s_k+(N-2)z^s_k+1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{claim}
The rotation number is given by
$$\rho(t)=\frac{1}{M} + \frac{M-2}{M\sqrt{b-2}\alpha_1}
\left( \frac{(b-1)\alpha_1^2-1}{(b+1)\alpha_1^2-1} \right).$$
\end{claim}
\begin{proof} This results from taking the limit of $\frac{p_k}{q_k}$ as $k \to \infty$.
\end{proof}
\section{Remarks and Acknowledgments}
\indent \indent The methods used in this paper both for geometrical and counting arguments can be used also for all other tilings with 2-fold symmetries in the vertices and so we believe that similar theorems and observations can be deduced in a more general setting.
We want to acknowledge the work of two of our colleagues during the program. Stephanie Ger classified the tilings of the hyperbolic plane in terms of symmetry groups, and Ananya Uppal provided us with a Mathematica demonstration that created images that helped to understand the patterns in the tilings. Their contributions were extremely valuable for our work.
We also want to thank our advisors during the Summer@ICERM program, Chaim Goodman-Strauss, Sergei Tabachnikov, Ryan Greene and Tarik Aougab, for all the help and the inspiring discussions. Finally, we thank ICERM for providing the opportunity for us to participate in this great program.
The tiling pictures were created using \textit{KaleidoTile} application created by Jeff Weeks \url{http://www.geometrygames.org/contact.html}.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Currently, one of the biggest worries of our society is the future of the climate. Common belief is that our planet is heating up at an accelerated rate, caused by the rapid increase in carbon dioxide (CO$_2$) concentration in the atmosphere, henceforth called [CO$_2$]. This increased carbon dioxide finds its origin in human activity; humans burn fossil fuels, thereby injecting large quantities of carbon into the troposphere by converting it into CO$_2$. The {CO$_2$} contributes to the greenhouse effect of our atmosphere and it is believed that the anthropogenic {CO$_2$} will heat by up the planet by up to six degrees during this century (page 45 of IPCC 2007 report\cite{ipcc2007}). Here we will analyze these ideas and come up with some remarkable conclusions. For that, while the subject is the atmosphere, we do not have to go into much detail of atmospheric science. There are (nearly philosophical) observations one can make about climate systems, even without going into technical details. They are in the realm of signal processing and feedback theory.
The model of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) stands or falls with the idea that temperature is strongly correlated to {[CO$_2$]} by the so-called greenhouse effect. Serious doubt is immediately found by anybody analyzing the data. The contribution of {CO$_2$} to the greenhouse effect can easily be estimated to be about 3.612\%\cite{montehieb}. The total greenhouse effect is also well known; without our atmosphere our planet would be 32 degrees colder. This makes the {CO$_2$} greenhouse effect only 1 kelvin in a simple analysis. We arrive at a similar value if we use statistics and do a linear regression on contemporary {[CO$_2$]} and temperature data, the maximum of the effect we can thus expect in a linear model when doubling the concentration artificially by burning up fossil fuels\cite{stalliban}. This is far below the Global Warming models even if we were to use a linear model. It is however, unlikely that the effects are linear. The system is more likely to be sublinear. That is because the greenhouse effect is governed by absorption of light which unavoidably follows the Beer-Lambert Law: the absorption is highly sublinear; twice as much {CO$_2$} will not cause twice as much absorption. The classical Arrhenius' Greenhouse law states that the forcing is logarithmic.
Yet, later models incorporating non-linear positive-feedback effects as proposed by many climate scientists do predict a super-linear behavior and come up with an estimate of between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees heating for the next century as caused by our carbon dioxide injection into the atmosphere\cite{ipcc2007}. The positive feedback can come from secondary effects such as an increase in water in the atmosphere, a strong greenhouse agent, or a CO$_2$-degassing of ground in the permafrost regions when these thaw.
Climate scientists are basing these conclusions mainly on research of the so-called finite-elements type, dividing the system in cells that interact, the same way the weather is studied. Such systems are complicated, but by tuning the processes and parameters that are part of the simulations they manage to explain the actual climate data to an impressive accuracy, as evidenced by the quality of pictures presented in the official climate reports, see for example the IPCC 2007 report where simulation and reality are as good as indistinguishable\cite{ipcc2007}, and, moreover, alarmingly, they conclude that the recent rise in temperature can only be attributed to {CO$_2$}.
But, from a philosophical point of view, the fact that the past was explained very accurately does not guarantee the same quality for the prediction of the future. The climate system is chaotic. Small deviations in parameters and initial conditions or assumptions made in the simulations can cause huge changes in the outcome. This is easily explained in an example from electronics. If we have a chaotic circuit with, for instance, critical feedback, we can go to our SPICE or Cadence simulator and find the parameters of our components that exactly explain the behavior of our circuit. So far so good. The problem is that if we now go back and switch on the same circuit, we will get a different result. (Just take an operational amplifier with 100\% positive feedback, it can saturate at the output at the positive as easily as the negative supply voltage, either one can be simulated). An additional problem is that even the parameters themselves are not constant and seem to change without any apparent reason, for instance the El Ni\~{n}o phenomena in the climate. This is one of the reasons electronic engineers talk about 'phase margins', the zone in Nyquist plots, real vs.\ imaginary parts of gain, that should be avoided because the circuit will become unpredictable even if it is perfectly simulatable.
In fact, recent temperature data fall way out of the prediction margins of earlier models. In view of the discussion above, this does not come as a surprise. Where extrapolation from the 2007 IPCC report predicted 2011 to be a year with an anomaly of close to one degree (0.95 $\rm ^o$C is our personal estimate based on Fig.\ 2.5 of the IPCC 2007 Report), in reality the anomaly is closer to zero. Since 1998, the hottest year in recent history, the planet has actually been cooling, something that was not foreseen by the predictions of 2007 where a continuing exponential increase in temperature was forecasted by the then generally accepted model. The scientific community is now going back to their drawing boards and fine-tunes its models to new perfection and manages to simulate the new data as well. This is a Bayesian way of doing science and is significantly less reliable. The correctness of this statement is evidenced by the fact that there now apparently exist many models that explain the data up to a certain point in time; every correction of the model that is still consistent with earlier data proves this. Apparently, there are a manifold of models that can explain certain data quite satisfactorily (but that diverge for future predictions). In view of this, one should be reluctant in making strong claims about the correctness of the latest model.
Just like in the weather, where the same simulation-evaluation techniques are used, we can only hope to get the predictions reasonably under control after thousands of iterations between predictions and reality. Each iteration takes about the amount of time as the prediction span -- one week with the weather, 30 years with the climate. Honestly speaking, before we get it right, it'll take at least some hundreds of centuries if we uniquely use the approach of finite-elements calculations on supercomputers. In the meantime, we should not see any climate models as proven indisputable facts. A skeptic approach to any scientific model is not an illness, it is an essential ingredient in science. Theories are correct until proven wrong. Ideas that stand up to scrutiny are more likely to be correct than ideas one is supposed to not question.
Still, undeniably, a strong correlation is found between the {CO$_2$} concentrations and the temperatures as measured by gas-analysis in drillings in ice shelves, see for example the data of the PANGAEA project indicating that one is the function of the other for the past hundreds of thousands of years\cite{pangaea}. That is a very strong point.
However, proving only statistical correlation, it is not clear from these data which one comes first. Are temperature variations the result of {[CO$_2$]} variations, or vice versa? While the data are consistent with the model of AGW they cannot serve as proof of these models. In fact, upon closer scrutiny, the temperature always seems to be \textit{ahead} of {CO$_2$} variations. See Figure \ref{fig:AlGore}, where a detail of the temperature and {[CO$_2$]} history as measured by ice-trapped gases is plotted, picturing the most blatant example of this effect. A simulation (dashed line) is also shown with an exponential-decay convolution of 15 kyr, quite adequately reproducing the results. Inderm\"{u}hle and coworkers\cite{indermuehle} made a statistical analysis and find a value of 900 yr for the delay and note that "This value is roughly in agreement with findings by Fischer et al.\ who reported a time lag of {CO$_2$} to the Vostok temperature of (600 $\pm$ 400) yr during early deglacial changes in the last 3 transitions glacial-interglacial"\cite{fischer}. This is inexplicable in the framework of Global Warming models and we honestly start having some legitimate doubts.
The apparent time lag may possibly be due to a calibration problem of the measurements, and indeed corrections have been made to the data since then, to make {[CO$_2$]} variations and temperature variations coincide. While these corrections are the result of circular reasoning, where the magnitude is found by modeling the behavior of ice based on climate models and the climate models based on the ice behavior, these corrections are not even sufficient to remove our doubts. If the correlations are true and we continue to claim that temperature variations are the result of {[CO$_2$]} variations, something is still not correct. The Vostok data of Figure \ref{fig:AlGore} show a sensitivity of 10 degrees for 50 ppm {[CO$_2$]}. Contemporary {[CO$_2$]} are of the order of 80 ppm rise from the preindustrial value. We are thus in for a 16-degree temperature-rise. The fact that we did not reach that level means that either {CO$_2$} is not climate forcing, or that there is a delay between {[CO$_2$]} variations (cause) and temperature variations (effect). To get a rough idea of the magnitude of this delay, in 25 years, only 2.5\% (0.4 of 16 degrees) of this rise occurred. The relaxation time is thus (25 years)/$\ln(0.975)$, which is about 1000 years. These are back-of-the-envelope calculations -- any 'real' values used for the calculation could anyway be debated by anybody. Yet, the outcome will always be more or less this order of magnitude. In other words, either the Vostok plots should show a delay between {[CO$_2$]} and $T$ of the order of 1000 years, or the carbon dioxide is not climate forcing. The data, however, show a delay of $-900$ years\cite{indermuehle} or zero, the latter value resulting from questionable corrections. As far as we know, no correction was proposed to result in the +1000 yr delay necessary to explain contemporary behavior.
What is more, modern correlation figures such as given in Fig.\ \ref{fig:AlGore} also include methane CH$_4$ (available at NOAA Paleoclimatology\cite{NOAA}) and, remarkably, this methane shows the same correlation with {[CO$_2$]} and $T$. This leaves us flabbergasted. We know that methane is also (assumed to be) a strong climate-forcing greenhouse agent. The enigma is then, How did the information from the {[CO$_2$]} variations percolate to [CH$_4$] variations? Was this information from {[CO$_2$]} transmitted to the methane through the temperature variations? In other words, [CH$_4$] variations are the \textit{result} of $T$ variations, rather than their cause? Then we may equally assume that {[CO$_2$]} variations are the \textit{effect} of $T$ variations rather than their \textit{cause}.
There are several mechanisms that may explain such an inverse phase relation, such as outgassing of {CO$_2$} (and CH$_4$) from the warming oceans and thawing permafrost, the correlation between {[CO$_2$]} and [CH$_4$] then stems from a common underlying cause. If that is the case, artificially changing the {CO$_2$} in the atmosphere will not change the temperature of our planet, just like heating up a can of soda will liberate the gases contained therein into the atmosphere, while increasing the concentrations of gases above the can of soda will not raise its temperature. This unidirectional relation between temperature and gas concentrations is what is called Henry's Law; the ratio of concentrations of gas dissolved in the liquid and mixed in the air above it in equilibrium is a parameter that depends on temperature. Al-Anezi and coworkers have studied this effect in more detail in a laboratory setup under various conditions of salinity and pressure, etc. For {CO$_2$} in and above water an increase in temperature will cause outgassing with a proportionality that is consistent with the correlation found by the historic correlations of global temperature and {CO$_2$} in the atmosphere. Also, Fischer and coworkers find the delay of {[CO$_2$]} relative to $T$, as discussed above, likely caused by this ocean outgassing effects\cite{fischer} and find that at colder times, the delay is longer, which is itself consistent with Arrhenius-like behavior of thermally-activated processes, such as most in nature. In the presence of an alternative explanation, there is room for doubt in the AGW ideas that increased {[CO$_2$]} will cause an increased temperature.
Inspired by this uncertainty in the (Anthropogenic) Global Warming model, we tried to see if we can find more evidence for this failure of the cause-and-effect idea. We looked at the recent historic climate data (from just before the AGW model prevalence) and meticulously-measured {[CO$_2$]} data and came to the same conclusion, as we will present here.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{0.6}{\includegraphics{CO2CONV.EPS}}\\
\caption{\label{fig:AlGore}
Detail of data of ice shelf drilling correlating the {CO$_2$} concentration and temperature. It is obvious that {CO$_2$} lags behind the temperature. This is consistently the case. A simulation is shown (dashed line) of a convolution of the temperature with a delay of 15 thousand years}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}
We started with the data of a climate report from before the Global Warming claims. We deem these data more reliable since they were for sure not produced under the tutelage of a political committee (IPCC). At least we are more convinced about the neutrality of the scientists reporting these data. Moreover, the work contains all the useful data and are even available on-line; The ideas presented here do not need recent data and thus we refrained from looking at them altogether.
The authors of the work, Balling and coworkers\cite{balling} analyzed the global warming (without capitals because it is not the name of a model) and concluded "Our analysis reveal a statistically significant warming of approximately 0.5 $^{\rm o}$C over the period 1751 to 1995. The period of most rapid warming in Europe occurred between 1890 and 1950, ... no warming was observed in the most recent half century". Note that at the onset of the Global Warming ideas, no warming was observed that can be correlated to the (accelerated) increase of {[CO$_2$]}. Note also that since 1998 it has not warmed up at all, as confirmed by satellite data (1998 was the warmest year)\cite{NSSTC}, in spite of the continuing exponential increase in atmospheric {CO$_2$}\cite{ESRL}. The temperature seems to be unaffected by the anthropogenic {CO$_2$}.
Balling and coworkers then went on to analyze the increase in temperature as a function of the time of the year for the data between 1851 and 1991. They calculated for each of the twelve months the increase in temperature. They found a distribution as given in Figure \ref{fig:year} (open circles).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{0.55}{\includegraphics{CO2COR.eps}}\\
\caption{\label{fig:year}
Distribution of global warming (degrees per decade) between 1851 and 1991 (source: Balling, et al.\cite{balling}) and {CO$_2$} concentrations (measured at Mauna Loa, source: NOAA\cite{noaa}) over a year. The dashed and solid lines are sinusoidal fits to the data of temperature and {[CO$_2$]}, respectively}
\end{figure}
This figure based on the data of Balling is again remarkable. The first thing we note is that, while there has been an average of warming, this is not spread equally over the year. In fact, summer months have become cooler. Without knowing the underlying reason, this is remarkable, since {[CO$_2$]} has increased in all months. There are seasonal fluctuations of the {CO$_2$} concentrations, see the black dots which represent the monthly {[CO$_2$]} fluctuations relative to the yearly average at the Mauna Loa site (source: NOAA, visited 2008\cite{NOAA}). These rapid fluctuations are mainly attributed to biological activity (the Northern hemisphere has more land and in colder times - in winter - more plants are converted into {CO$_2$} and in warmer times - in summer - more photosynthesis takes place converting {CO$_2$} into biomass, i.e., {[CO$_2$]} is a natural function of temperature). Part of the fluctuations, however, are attributed to human activity (in winter the Northern hemisphere - where more people live - is cold and humans thus burn more fuel to warm their houses, i.e., {[CO$_2$]} is a function of temperature). As a side note, these two things show us that it is very straightforward to understand how {[CO$_2$]} can be a function of temperature, in these cases through biological activity, including that of humans, in this case resulting in a rapid inverse proportionality (warmer $\rightarrow$ less {CO$_2$}). Other, long-term processes such as degassing of oceans can have opposite effects, i.e., warmer $\rightarrow$ more {CO$_2$}. While we bear this in mind, we will continue the reasoning of Anthropogenic Global Warming and assume an opposite correlation, that is, temperature is a function of {[CO$_2$]}, and analyze the oscillations. We will show that this assumption is inconsistent with the data.
While the natural oscillations have always existed and thus don't result in seasonal oscillations of global warming, the human-caused fluctuations should be represented in the temperature fluctuations. What we would expect in the framework of AGW is that all months have warmed up (because of general injection of anthropogenic {CO$_2$} into the atmosphere), but winter months a little bit more (because of seasonal fluctuations of these injections). As a response to the sinusoidal {[CO$_2$]} oscillations, a sinusoidal oscillation in temperature is to be expected that is i) offset vertically by an amount to make it fully above the zero line, ii) offset (delayed in time) by a time that can be up to 3 months maximum, as will be discussed here. Neither is the case.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{1}{\includegraphics{LPF.eps}}\\
\scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{SINUS.eps}}\\
\scalebox{0.5}{\includegraphics{RC.EPS}}\\
\caption{\label{fig:relax}
Relaxation RC system. Top: equivalent circuit. Middle: Temporal response. Bottom: Phase difference (dark curves) and amplitude (gray curve, log scale) of response. Note the maximum phase difference: 3 months. The dot represents the radiation-temperature system, where the warmest (coldest) day is about one month after the 'longest' ('shortest') day, indicating a relaxation time of about 0.1 year (1.2 months)}
\end{figure}
Comparing the monthly fluctuations in temperature increase with monthly fluctuations in {[CO$_2$]} we see again that the latter lags behind, this time by about 3 months (to be precise, fitting sine curves to the data give a difference of 2.9 months). One might think that the temperature lags behind 9 months -- after all, months are periodic -- but upon second thought, this is not possible. This is best explained in a relaxation model.
Electronic engineers model things with electronic circuits and this case of temperature and {CO$_2$} is also very adequately studied by such circuits. Using an equivalent electronic circuit does not mean that the processes are electronic, but that they can be modeled by such circuits, as in an analog computer. (The appendix gives the mathematical link between a relaxation model and the equivalent electronic circuit).
In this case we have a model between driving force (either {[CO$_2$]}, as we are wont to believe, or temperature $T$) and the response (respectively, $T$ or {[CO$_2$]}). For instance, an increase in {[CO$_2$]} will cause an increase in $T$ by the greenhouse effects. This is necessarily a simple relaxation system, where the changes of the force cause the system to be off-equilibrium until a new equilibrium is reached. This restoring of the equilibrium comes with a certain relaxation time. The reasons for relaxation can be various. For instance, {CO$_2$} has to diffuse to places where it can do its temperature effect. There can even be more than a single relaxation process, and instead be a complicated multi-relaxation process comparable to multi-stage nuclear decay. The fact is that one of the relaxation times is dominant, and we can describe the relaxation by a single relaxation time (that is the sum of all relaxation times). As long as there is no resonance in the system (something that can only be achieved with positive feedback) it will behave as described here.
We will model our climate system with a simple electronic relaxation system consisting of a resistance and a capacitance, $R$ and $C$ respectively, see Figure \ref{fig:relax}. The product of the two yields the relaxation time, $\tau = RC$. At the entrance of this system we connect our oscillating driving voltage $V_{\rm i}(t)$ (representing, for example, {[CO$_2$]} oscillations), in which $t$ is time. The response is measured as the charge $Q(t)$ in the capacitor which represents for instance the temperature variations. This charge is also measured by the output voltage by the standard capacitor relation $V = Q/C$. Thus our output voltage $V_{\rm o}(t)$ represents the response (for example temperature).
Applying a sinusoidal input signal, $V_{\rm i}(t) \propto \sin(2\pi f t) \propto$ [CO$_2$] $(t)$ (with $f$ the frequency of oscillation) we get a sinusoidal wave at the output, with the same frequency, but with a phase at the output that is not equal to the phase at the input signal, $V_{\rm o}(t) \propto \sin(2\pi f t + \theta)$. The phase difference $\theta$ is directly and uniquely determined by the relaxation time of the system $\tau$ and the oscillation frequency $f$, see Figure \ref{fig:relax}.
For very low oscillating frequencies, the system can easily relax and the phase of the output signal is equal to that of the input signal. For increased frequencies or for increased relaxation times the system has difficulty accompanying the driving force. The amplitude at the output drops and starts lagging behind the input. The maximum phase difference for infinite frequencies or infinite relaxation time is exactly one-quarter period.
In our case our oscillating period is one year. One quarter period is thus 3 months and that is the maximum delay we can expect between driving force and response. For relaxation times much longer than the oscillating period of one year, that is the delay one expects. The delay time provides information about the system.
As an example, the comparable system of solar radiation and temperature -- comparable in that the oscillating period is one year and both deal with the weather and climate -- has a delay of one month; the solar radiation and temperature oscillate with one year period, but the warmest day is nearly everywhere one month after the day with the most daylight and the on average coldest day is one month after the day with least daylight. In Figure \ref{fig:relax}(bottom) we see that the relaxation time of the \{radiation $\rightarrow$ temperature\} system therefore must be about 0.1 year (1.2 months). In the plot this is indicated with a dot.
We can get a similar estimation value of the relaxation time of the atmosphere temperature through daily oscillations. As a rough figure, the temperature drops by about 4 degrees at night in about 8 hours after the sun has set. Assume that the relaxation upon this step-like solar radiation is a simple exponential (situation b shown in the appendix) and would finish eventually at close to absolute zero (say 10 kelvin), and starts at 290 K, 4 degrees in 8 hours, we solve the equation
\begin{equation}
(280 \;{\rm K})\times\exp\left(-\frac{(8\;{\rm hours})}{\tau}\right) = (280-4)\;{\rm K},
\end{equation}
which yields 23 days, similar to the value found above from yearly oscillations.
Going back to the data of {[CO$_2$]} and temperature (Fig.\ \ref{fig:year}) we can now understand the behavior, that is, the phase difference. But only if we assume the temperature to be the driving force. For instance: for some reason the temperature has increased more in winter months, and, as a result, to the natural {[CO$_2$]} oscillations has been added a component with a maximum in spring months. The alternative, {[CO$_2$]} being the driving force and a delay of 9 months (3 quarter periods) is mathematically not possible. Another explanation, which we do not consider a valid alternative, the temperature might be lagging behind {[CO$_2$]} if it has a negative gain, i.e., {[CO$_2$]} increments lower the temperature. This negative sign of the gain would add another 180$\rm ^o$ phase shift and a total apparent phase shift of 270$\rm ^o$ would be possible. This goes even more against AGW models and we do not see an easy physical explanation how {CO$_2$} might lower the temperature.
\section{Discussion}
This simple analysis opposes the hypothesis that {[CO$_2$]} is causing serious temperature rises. As said, the model assumes that no resonance occurs that can possibly cause longer delay times. This, in our opinion, is a valid assumption since resonance is not likely. First of all, for this strong positive feedback effects would be needed and they are not likely. Although many climate scientists have proposed positive feedback as discussed in the introduction and they make heavy use of them in order to explain and model the needed non-linear behavior of the greenhouse effect, this goes against intuition. In a chaotic system these feedback factors are then extremely critical. Scientists of any plumage, when making such simulations, know this; if they change their parameters just slightly (sometimes even in the scale of the numerical resolution of their floating point numbers), the outcome can be hugely different.
There is also an experimental argument against positive feedback factors, namely the conscientious satellite measurements, see for instance the work of Lindzen and Choi\cite{lindzen}, Roy Spencer\cite{spencer}, or Wielicki et al.\cite{wielicki}. These, in fact, prove a \textit{negative} feedback in the climate system.
Without feedback, in standard theory, if the Earth warms up (by global warming in a radiation imbalance), the temperature rises and the outward Earth radiation increases by a certain amount, until establishing a new equilibrium. In the AGW model, a positive feedback is used of the form: if the temperature increases, the outward Earth radiation is less than that predicted by standard theory or the incoming solar radiation increases because of reasons like cloud (non)forming, thus increasing the temperature even further. The contrary can also happen: in negative feedback, if the planet heats up by a radiation imbalance for whatever reason, new channels of Earth radiation can be opened or incoming solar radiation blocked (for instance, by increased cloud cover), thus reducing the temperature with respect to standard theory. As demonstrated by the scientists mentioned above, the Earth climate is a negative-feedback 'auto-stabilizing' system, without going into detail what these feedbacks are. This is also in agreement with the fact that, whereas the conditions on our planet have significantly changed over the geological history (the sun for instance has been 25\% less bright than today), the climate has been rather stable, always restoring from climate perturbations to median values instead of saturating in extreme values; the latter one would expect in a thermal-runaway positive-feedback climate system. Note that, if large positive feedback exists, the temperature is unstable and will change until it saturates, that is until negative feedback becomes important. In other words, it is technically not even possible that we are in a positive-feedback situation, considering the stable temperatures. (Compare this to the positive-feedback of a shop-a-holic -- buying always makes him buy even more -- his funds are acceleratingly depleted or his credit increasingly rising, until the banks put a lid on his spending, i.e., negative feedback). We \textit{must} be in a negative-feedback situation and Lindzen and Choi, Spencer, and Wielicki, et al., have proven this by measurements. Negative feedback was already argued to be significant when the consensus of the scientists was for a global cooling, see the work of Idso\cite{idso}.
Additional arguments against positive feedback come from the fact that every day, and every year the temperature system is brought off equilibrium. At night it cools down, in the daytime it warms up. In the winter it cools down and in summer it warms up. These temperature disturbances are much larger and much faster than those that may have been produced by greenhouse gases (20 degrees/day or 30 degrees/year vs 0.7 degrees/100 years). The same accounts for {CO$_2$} disturbances. The human-caused {CO$_2$} is insignificant compared to the large and noisy emissions naturally occurring on this planet (only the accumulated effect of the tiny human-originated {CO$_2$} is supposed to have an effect). To give an idea, Segalstad and coworkers established that of the current rise in {[CO$_2$]} levels relative to the preindustrial level, only 12 ppm is attributable to human activity while 68 ppm is attributed to natural phenomena\cite{segalstad}. These fluctuations are also visible in the extensive summary of Beck\cite{beck} and show that even in recent history the {[CO$_2$]} levels were sometimes higher than the modern values, while as everyone knows, the human emissions have monotonously increased, showing that these huge fluctuations can only have a natural origin. Relevant for the discussion here, the fluctuations would rapidly push the climate off equilibrium if it were unstable.
Yet, in spite of these huge disturbances, both in temperature and {CO$_2$}, the equilibrium is restored every day and every year and every century. Had the earth climate been a positive-feedback system, in summer or in winter the temperature would have been in a runaway situation, unrecoverable in the following compensating half-period. Apparently the system can recover very easily and repeatedly from such huge disturbances. The reason is that the climate is a negative-feedback system that stabilizes itself. This is an unavoidable conclusion.
One might think that the seasonal fluctuations are too fast to be causing a runaway scenario and that before the system runs away it already recovers. That is a misapprehension; changes cannot be too fast. If the system is unstable, it is unstable. If starting oscillations are much faster than the response time of the system, the effective amplitude is reduced, but in a runaway system they will be amplified up to the point of saturation. The system can only be stable if the feedback factor at that specific frequency is not positive. Look at it like this: In the first half of the year, it is hot and the system tries to runaway. In the second half of the year it is colder and it will restore, but it has a minute memory that the temperature has already run off a little in the first half and the second half therefore does not compensate completely. In the first year we remain with a tiny temperature offset. Once this offset is introduced, the system will runaway. Of course, it can runway in both directions. Chance will determine which one, but if the system is unstable (positive feedback), the system will runaway. Like the metastable system of a ball placed on top of a hill. It can only stay there in the absence of noise or any fluctuation in general. In conclusion, only negative feedback makes sense.
Relevant to the current work, such negative feedback will make any delay longer than 1/4 period impossible. Thus, the fact that we find a delay close to a quarter period means that i) The temperature signal is the origin for {[CO$_2$]} signal (or the two are uncorrelated) and ii) the relaxation time $\tau$ linking the two is (much) longer than the period (12 months) of oscillation.
Moreover, even if positive feedback were present, for the resonance itself to be significant, the oscillating frequency needs to be close to the resonance frequency, i.e., 12 months. It is highly unlikely that the natural frequency of the climate-{[CO$_2$]} system is close to the 12-months-periodic driving force. Even more so, since also the long-term ice-drilling data need to be explained somehow, where delays of several thousands of years are observed. In our analysis, relaxation times of several thousands of years will explain both the ice-drilling data, as well as the yearly temperature and {[CO$_2$]} oscillations.
Finally, the set of data we used is rather limited. We only used data presented by Balling, et al., that ends at the end of the 20th century. Moreover, they only have data from the Northern Hemisphere. Future research should tell if the ideas presented here can stand up to scrutiny when more recent data and pan-global data are used. As a note of proof, Humlum et al.\cite{humlum}, have recently investigated correlation between temperature and {[CO$_2$]} variations on the time scale of decades, similarly concluding that {[CO$_2$]} changes are delayed in relation to temperature, and can therefore not be the reason for temperature changes.
\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion, the idea tested here that {[CO$_2$]} is the \textit{cause} of temperature changes does not pass our signal analysis. It goes a little too far to say that this what we present here is proof for the opposite, namely that {[CO$_2$]} is the \textit{effect} of temperature, but our analysis does not contradict this. Future will tell if such an hypothesis may be postulated with some confidence.
Acknowledgements: This research was paid by no grant. It received no funding whatsoever, apart from our salaries at the university where we work. Nor are we members of any climate committees (political or other) or are we linked to companies or NGOs, financially or otherwise. This is an independent opinion that does not necessarily represent the opinion of our university or of our government.
\section{Appendix: The mathematics of relaxations}
In simple relaxation models the (negative) change of a quantity is proportional to the magnitude of the remaining quantity. Simple examples are nuclear decay, in which the change of number $N$ of atoms at a certain time $t$ is given by ${\rm d}N(t)/{\rm d}t = -\alpha N(t)$, or the velocity $v$ of an object under friction is given by ${\rm d}v(t)/{\rm d}t = -\beta v(t)$. ($\alpha$ and $\beta$ positive constants). From experience, and by solving the differential equation, we know that such systems show exponential decay, $N(t) = N_0\exp(-\alpha t)$ and $v(t) = v_0\exp(-\beta t)$ respectively.
Now, we can take a function $f(t)$ that is the driving force of another quantity $g(t)$, the response function, respectively the cause and the effect. We can decompose the function $f$ into an integral of Dirac-delta functions. The response to each delta function is given by the function $d(t)$. Assuming linearity, the total response is then a convolution
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
g(t) &=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty d(s)u(s)f(t-s){\rm d}s\\
&=& \int_0^\infty d(s)f(t-s){\rm d}s,
\end{eqnarray}
where the Heaviside function $u(s)$ ($u(s)=1$ for $s>0$ and 0 otherwise) was used to force the causality; the response $d(s)$ can only come after the driving force. (Note that non-linearities will not change the sign of these calculations, i.e., a delay cannot become an advance.) For instance, if the response function is an exponential decay, as mentioned above,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:conv}
g(t) = \int_0^\infty g_0\exp(-\alpha s)f(t-s){\rm d}s
\end{equation}
Substituting a delta-function at $t=0$ for the driving force $f$ will reproduce the exponential decay:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
g(t) &=& \int_0^\infty g_0\exp(-\alpha s)\delta(t-s){\rm d}s\\
\nonumber
&=& \int_0^\infty g_0\exp(-\alpha [t-s])\delta(s){\rm d}s\\
&=& g_0\exp(-\alpha t)u(t)
\end{eqnarray}
In other words, the response to a 'spike', a delta function at $t=0$ is an exponential decay with an amplitude $g_0$, and time constant $\tau=1/\alpha$. The response to a Heaviside (step)function $f(t) = u(t)$ is then given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
g(t) &=& \int_0^\infty g_0\exp(-\alpha s)u(t-s){\rm d}s\\
\nonumber
&=& \int_0^t g_0\exp(-\alpha s){\rm d}s\\
&=& g_0u(t)[1-\exp(-\alpha t)]/\alpha
\end{eqnarray}
More interesting -- more relevant for our work -- is the case of a sinusoidal driving force. This can now easily be calculated by substituting the driving-force function $f$ into Eq.\ \ref{eq:conv}:
\begin{eqnarray}
f(t) &=& f_0\sin(\omega t)\\
\nonumber
\label{eq:grad}
g(t) &=& \int_0^{\infty} g_0 \exp(-\alpha s)f_0\sin[\omega (t-s)]{\rm d}s\\
\nonumber
&=& \frac{f_0g_0}{\alpha^2+\omega^2} \left[ \alpha\sin(\omega t) - \omega\cos(\omega t)\right]\\
&=& \frac{f_0g_0}{\sqrt{\alpha^2+\omega^2}} \sin\left(\omega t - \tan^{-1}[\omega/\alpha]\right)
\end{eqnarray}
(For the second step in Eq.\ \ref{eq:grad} Gradshteyn and Ryshik\cite{gradshteyn} was used). Figure \ref{fig:apndx} shows these three cases of driving forces and response functions. Figure \ref{fig:AlGore} shows a simulation with the driving function $f(t)$ equal to the measured temperature and a delay of $\tau$ ($= 1/\alpha$) = 15 kyr, which results in a quite good representation of the [CO$_2$] curve.
An electronic circuit such as presented here has these properties of exponential response to a Heaviside function and linearity and the response of Equation \ref{eq:grad}. For this reason, such (virtual) circuits are widely used in simulations of phenomena including phenomena far away from electronics.
The interesting and relevant conclusion of Eq.\ \ref{eq:grad} is that the maximum phase shift is 90$^{\rm o}$ and this occurs for frequencies that are much higher than the relaxation speed, $\omega \gg \alpha$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\scalebox{1}{\includegraphics{APNDX.EPS}}\\
\caption{\label{fig:apndx}
Cause and effect functions, $f(t)$, solid lines, and $g(t)$, dashed lines, for relaxation systems, with three different driving-force functions: a) $f(t) = \delta(t)$, b) $f(t) = u(t)$, c) $f(t) = \sin(\omega t)$}
\end{figure}
\newpage
|
\subsection{Introduction}
In his renowned lecture, ``Simulating physics with computers''
\cite{qs_extra:feyn82} Richard P.\ Feynman suggested the use of quantum
simulators, i.e.\ precisely controllable quantum systems, to simulate other
quantum systems that cannot be described theoretically due to their
exponentially growing Hilbert space. For instance, the Mott-insulator to
superfluid phase transition in condensed-matter systems \cite{qs_extra:fish89}
was predicted \cite{cold:jaks98} to be observable with ultracold atoms in an
optical lattice and then successfully demonstrated
\cite{cold:grei02a,qs_extra:stof04}. Also the Higgs mechanism
\cite{qs_extra:endr12}, high temperature superconductivity
\cite{qs_extra:schn08}, or \textit{Zitterbewegung} \cite{cold:gerr10} (to name
just a few) were successfully investigated by quantum simulation. Moreover,
the quantum simulation of electrons in crystalline solids exposed to laser
fields \cite{cold:arli10} has been proposed.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{figure1.eps}
\caption{(color online) \textbf{(a) \& (b)}: Comparison of
electrons in an atom exposed to a strong electric field {(a)}
and atoms in an optical trap exposed to a magnetic-field
gradient {(b)}. The different shadings of the electrons and
atoms reflects their different spin states and Zeeman substates,
respectively. An external electric field {(a)} or
magnetic-field gradient {(b)} effectively tilts the continuum
threshold and the electrons {(a)} or atoms {(b)} can escape the
binding potential by
tunneling.\\
\textbf{(b) - (e)}: Behavior of optically trapped atoms in a
periodically driven magnetic-field gradient (solid green curve),
as expected from the three-step model \cite{sfm:cork07} in
strong-field physics. After tunneling {(b)} the escaped atom
accelerates {(c)}, reverses {(d)} and finally recollides {(e)}
with the residual atoms. }
\label{fig:fig1}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
Strong-field physics has contributed considerably to the understanding
of the light-matter interaction. The progress leading to pulses on the
attosecond timescale \cite{sfa:paul01a} has even raised visions of
real-time imaging of molecular processes \cite{sfm:haes10} and orbital
tomography \cite{sfm:itat04}. Yet, attosecond many-body physics is
challenging. An exact investigation on classical computers beyond the
single-active-electron approximation becomes prohibitively complex for
many-electron systems. In fact, the numerical treatment of
two-electron systems like He or H$_2$ is today still state of the art
\cite{sfm:vann10, sfm:dehg10,sfa:arms11,sfm:silv12}. Thus, simplified
models are widely used for interpreting modern experiments. These
models are controversial and their validation is difficult for several
reasons. First, the used light pulses are bound to the specifications
of the laser. The wavelength range of lasers is limited, mostly
Ti:sapphire lasers are used. The pulse shapes are restricted and can
often only be reproduced and determined up to a considerable
uncertainty. The intensity and timescale of laser pulses are already
pushed to a limit where further improvements require major technical
or even principle developments with new limitations, like
free-electron lasers. Second, atoms, ions, and molecules are
complicated many-body systems. Their internal structure cannot be
simply manipulated. For example, a variation of the number of
electrons or protons underlies constraints due to electroneutrality.
Third, although the correlation of electronic and nuclear motion is
known to influence the ionization behavior \cite{sfm:pala06,
sfm:silv13}, in most theoretical models this effect is neglected by
fixing the nuclei in space while investigating the electronic response
to the laser field.
In this work, we introduce the concept of an ultracold-atom quantum
simulator for attosecond science which offers great flexibility and
control beyond the mentioned limitations. This includes many-body
quantum simulations that are impossible with any classical computer.
\textit{The attoscience simulator.} The simulator system consists of
ultracold trapped atoms that replace the electrons in the atom, ion,
or molecule, see \figref{fig:fig1}. The core potential is replaced by
an external, optical trapping potential. The ability to implement
single-well or multi-well trapping potentials allows for a simulation
of atoms or molecules, respectively. Naturally, fermionic atoms may
be chosen, but using bosons or distinguishable particles reveals
effects of the exchange interaction. The intense laser pulse is
replaced by a periodically driven magnetic-field gradient which is
generated by current-carrying coils. Restrictions for ultrashort
laser fields like the zero-net-force condition \cite{sfa:milo06} do
not apply here and thus fields of almost arbitrary shape can be
created, even true half-cycle pulses and fields that formally
correspond to sub-attosecond pulses.
Certainly, the atom-atom interaction is shorter ranged than the
Coulomb interaction. However, earlier quantum simulations like the
famous superfluid to Mott-insulator phase transition
\cite{cold:jaks98} demonstrated that an equivalent physics is
obtainable. The use of ultracold atoms introduces the unique
opportunity to arbitrarily vary the effective interaction strength
{\it via} magnetic Feshbach resonances. This promises new insights on
the influence of the interparticle interaction on the ionization
behavior. Furthermore, theoretical studies which replace the core
potential by, e.g., a zero-range potential \cite{sfa:milo06}, can now
be tested experimentally, and this even for many-particle systems.
Since ultracold quantum systems are manipulated nowadays on the
single-atom level \cite{cold:serw11,cold:weit11}, important tests of
the widely used single-active-electron approximation and a detailed
investigation of correlated many-body tunneling become
accessible. Moreover, only the simulator allows for the experimental
realization of fixed nuclei -- a task impossible with real molecules
due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The influence of a fixed
nuclear geometry on the ionization behavior \cite{sfm:saen00c} can
thus be tested experimentally in a clean fashion. Additionally, the
differences between the quantum-mechanical nature of vibronic states
and the simulation of a mechanical vibration of the nuclei can be
investigated.
\textit{Hamiltonian mapping.} The formal equivalence of the quantum
simulator Hamiltonian to the electronic strong-field Hamiltonian at a
fixed nuclear configuration is demonstrated. When treating the strong
laser field classically, which is acceptable due to its high
intensity, and applying dipole approximation and length gauge (LG),
respectively, the electronic strong-field Hamiltonian reads
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sf_hamil}
\hat{H}^{\mathrm{LG}}(t) = \hat{H}_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{N} \mathbf{r}_i \cdot e \mathbf{E}(t) \quad ,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\label{eq:sf_free_hamil}
\hat{H}_0 = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{\mathbf{\hat{p}}_i^2}{2 m_{\mathrm{e}}} +
V_{\mathrm{ee}} + V_{\mathrm{e,nuc}}
\end{align}
denotes the field-free Hamiltonian for $N$ electrons. $m_{\mathrm{e}}$ is the
electron mass, $e$ the electron charge, $V_{\mathrm{ee}}$ includes all
electron-electron repulsion terms, and $V_{\mathrm{e,nuc}}$ all the
electron-nucleus interactions. $\mathbf{E}$ denotes the electric-field
component of the pulse. In analogy, the Hamiltonian of $N$ ultracold atoms
confined in a trapping potential $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{a,tr}}$ which are
exposed to a time-dependent magnetic-field gradient
$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}^{\prime}(t)$ reads
\begin{align}
\label{eq:uc_hamil}
\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathrm{LG}}(t)= \hat{\mathcal{H}}_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{N} \mathbf{r}_i \cdot \mu
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}^{\prime}(t) \quad ,
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\label{eq:uc_free_hamil}
\hat{\mathcal{H}}_0 = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{\mathbf{\hat{p}}_i^2}{2 m_{\mathrm{a}}} +
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{aa}} + \mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{a,tr}}
\end{align}
denotes the Hamiltonian of the atoms in the trap without the gradient
$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}^{\prime}$. $m_{\mathrm{a}}$ denotes the
atomic mass, $\mu$ the magnetic moment of the atoms,
$\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{aa}}$ includes all atom-atom and
$\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{a,tr}}$ all atom-trap interactions,
respectively.
The Hamiltonians \eref{eq:sf_hamil} and \eref{eq:uc_hamil} are
\textit{formally} equivalent under the mapping
\begin{align}
\label{eq:mapping}
e \ \mathbf{E}\, \mapsto\, \mu \ \boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}^{\prime} \quad .
\end{align}
It is important to note that the electrodynamical potentials,
e.g., the vector potential $ -\frac{\partial \mathbf{A}(t)}{\partial t}
= \mathbf{E}$, map accordingly. In the ultracold simulator system
the ``vector potential'' is thus given by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:vector_pot}
-\frac{\partial \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}(t)}{\partial t} =
\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}^{\prime}} \quad .
\end{align}
Of course, the potential $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}$ differs from the
physical vector potential $\mathbf{\tilde{A}}$ that generates the
magnetic field $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}$ and its gradient
$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}^{\prime}$ via $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}} =
\nabla \times \mathbf{\tilde{A}}$. Yet, equation \eref{eq:vector_pot}
is the formal consequence of the simulator mapping \eref{eq:mapping}.
The simulator mapping \eref{eq:mapping} is intrinsically defined in length
gauge. However, it is particularly useful to consider the analog of the
velocity-gauge (VG) formulation, too.
A gauge transformation of the strong-field Hamiltonian \eref{eq:sf_hamil}
leads to the velocity-gauge form
\begin{align}
\hat{H}^{\mathrm{VG}}(t)= \hat{H}_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{e}{m_{\mathrm{e}}}\
\mathbf{A}(t) \cdot \mathbf{\hat{p}}_i +\frac{e^2}{2m_{\mathrm{e}}}\
\mathbf{A}(t)^2
\label{eq:tdsevg_sf}
\end{align}
In analogy, a ``gauge'' transformation of the simulator Hamiltonian
\eref{eq:uc_hamil} leads to the corresponding simulator Hamiltonian
in ``velocity gauge'',
\begin{align}
\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathrm{VG}}(t)= \hat{\mathcal{H}}_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{\mu}{m_{\mathrm{a}}}\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}(t) \cdot \mathbf{\hat{p}}_i +\frac{\mu^2}{2m_{\mathrm{a}}}\
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}(t)^2
\quad .
\label{eq:tdsevg_uc}
\end{align}
Again, the Hamiltonians are \textit{formally} equivalent. The vector
potential $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}(t)$ is the one resulting from the
simulator mappings
\eref{eq:mapping} and \eref{eq:vector_pot}.\\
\textit{Experimental realization.} As a possible realization we
consider the experiment of the group of Selim Jochim
\cite{cold:serw11} where a well defined number of fermionic atoms can
be loaded into a tight optical dipole trap in a well defined quantum
state. This trap is in good approximation described by a
one-dimensional Lorentz potential \cite{qs_extra:sm}. A
\textit{static} magnetic-field gradient which tilts the continuum
threshold of the trap, see \figref{fig:fig1}, is applied for the
preparation and investigation of the system. The here proposed
attoscience quantum simulator is realized by replacing the static
magnetic-field gradient by a periodically driven one.
Similarly to strong-field physics, the pulse may be defined by its
vector potential {\it via}
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}(t) = \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}_0 \, \sin\left(
\frac{\omega t}{2n_{\mathrm{c}}} \right)^2\, \sin(\omega t + \varphi)
\quad .
\end{align}
Here, $n_{\mathrm{c}}$ is the number of cycles, $\varphi = 0$ is the
carrier-envelope phase, $\omega$ the angular frequency, and
$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}_0$ from which
$\boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}}_0^{\prime}$ is obtained {\it via} equation
(\ref{eq:vector_pot}) is the strength of the perturbation. For a given
simulator setup and a specific pulse, the corresponding values for the
frequency $\omega_{\mathrm{e}}$ and peak vector potential
$|\mathbf{A}_0|$ applied in the strong-field system are found by
enforcing equal Keldysh parameters \cite{sfa:keld65,sfm:cork07} and an
equal ratio of the binding energy to the frequency of the perturbing
field \cite{qs_extra:sm}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{figure2.eps}
\caption{(color online) Atom spectra of the simulator and electron
spectra of a hydrogen atom for the multiphoton regime, (a) and
(b) respectively, and for the quasistatic regime, (c) and (d)
respectively. The dashed vertical lines in (a) and (b) indicate
the positions of the multiphoton peaks for an infinitely long
pulse as expected from the subsequent absorption of field
quanta. In (d), in addition to the result for the hydrogen atom
in three dimensions, also the result for the one-dimensional
(1D) \textit{soft-Coulomb} potential $V(z)=-1/\sqrt{2+z^2}$ is
shown. The SFA yields in (c) and (d) are rescaled in order to
agree with the total ionization yield of the TDSE
calculation. The factors are given in the figure legends. }
\label{fig:fig2}
\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\textit{Validation of the quantum simulator.} In the experiment
\cite{cold:serw11} the simulator builds on, the atom loss is routinely
measured. This observable corresponds to a measurement of the total
ion (or electron) yield in a strong-field experiment. More detailed
information on the underlying physics is obtained by a measurement of
differential yields: energy-resolved electron or atom spectra for
strong-field experiments or the simulator, respectively. The
measurement of energy-resolved atom spectra requires further
experimental developments, similarly to strong-field physics where in
the early days also only total yields were measured. To validate the
simulator in more detail, energy-resolved electron spectra of a
hydrogen atom are compared to the corresponding energy-resolved atom
spectra of the simulator setup, both initially in their ground
state. The spectra are calculated by solving the corresponding
time-dependent Schr\"odinger equations (TDSE) \cite{qs_extra:sm},
ensuring that the corresponding parameters for the quantum simulator
are experimentally accessible \cite{qs_extra:selim_priv}.
The laser-matter interaction is typically divided into two
characteristic regimes. In the low-frequency, high-intensity regime
the system is assumed to follow adiabatically the changes of the
electric field of the laser. In this quasistatic regime the electron
is supposed to tunnel through or escape over the field-distorted
potential barrier, see \figref{fig:fig1}. In the other limit of the
high-frequency, low-intensity regime the multiphoton picture is
usually adopted in which the ionization is described within a
simplified picture as an absorption of photons, despite the fact that
in the theoretical treatment the electromagnetic field is treated
classically.
In the multiphoton regime (Figs.~\ref{fig:fig2}a and b), both spectra
show the typical multi-peak structure (above-threshold-ionization
peaks) where the peak distance reflects the frequency of the
perturbing field. Clearly, simulator and hydrogen atom show very good
agreement. Despite the different dimensionalities the TDSE solutions
agree, in fact, almost quantitatively.
In the quasistatic regime (Figs.~\ref{fig:fig2}c and d), a simple
tunneling picture suggests an exponential decrease in the
energy-resolved spectra, as is seen in the low-energy part (up to $2
U_p$ where $U_p = I /(4 \omega^2)$ is the ponderomotive energy and $I$
the laser intensity). However, in a periodically changing field the
emitted electron or atom can reverse its direction of motion and
recollide, see \figref{fig:fig1}. High-harmonic generation in
strong-field physics is based on the recombination of the liberated
electron with the parent ion at the recollision step. Using classical
Newtonian mechanics it had been found that high-harmonic spectra
extend up to $3.17U_p + I_p$ \cite{sfa:cork93}. For energy resolved
electron spectra, the recollision process leads to a broad energy
distribution of the rescattered electrons which manifests in a plateau
as observed in \cite{sfa:scha93} and clearly seen in
\figref{fig:fig2}d.
In analogy to the high-harmonic cutoff law classical Newtonian
mechanics predicts an extension of this plateau between $2 U_p$ and
$10 U_p$ \cite{sfa:paul94b}. Clearly, the simulator shows all expected
features, both from tunneling and rescattering. However, the more
pronounced structures in the plateaus of the 1D systems (simulator and
1D hydrogen atom) reveal effects of the dimensionality. Such effects
can be studied with the simulator even experimentally by varying the
anisotropy of the trap -- a task impossible in strong-field
experiments.
Rescattering is the origin of nonsequential double ionization,
high-energy above-threshold ionization, and high-order harmonic
generation. A controlled recollision, see \figref{fig:fig1}, of an
escaped atom on residual bound atoms prepared in a specific
configuration with variable interaction strength can reveal insights
into correlated recollision dynamics relevant, e.\,g., for high
harmonics \cite{sfa:shaf12} and non-sequential double ionization
\cite{sfa:berg12}. On the other hand, inspired by the experiments on
imaging molecular orbitals using laser-induced electron tunneling and
diffraction \cite{sfm:meck08} controlled rescattering collisions can
serve for the imaging of ultracold many-body wavefunctions.
\textit{Strong-field approximation.} In the widely used strong-field
approximation (SFA) \cite{sfa:keld65,sfa:fais73,sfa:reis80} bound
states of the potential other than the initial state are neglected and
the final continuum state is replaced by a Volkov state, i.e.\ the
solution of a free electron in a laser field. Therefore, the
interaction of the electron with the remaining ion is ignored in the
final state. Thus, the SFA does not support rescattering as can also
be seen in Figs.~\ref{fig:fig2}c and d.
On the other hand, the direct electrons and atoms (up to $2 U_p$) in
the quasistatic regime in Figs.~\ref{fig:fig2}c and d are
qualitatively well described by the SFA. Similarly, the SFA reproduces
the multi-peak structure in the multiphoton regime, see
Figs.~\ref{fig:fig2}a and b.
Note, the SFA is not gauge invariant and so far no arguments from
first principles are known what gauge is to be preferred in which
situation \cite{sfa:vann09} (the gauge problem of SFA). In the
simulator system, the number of trap states as well as the potential
range can be varied which allows for an analysis of the assumptions
and the gauge ambiguity of the SFA.
Interestingly, the SFA in velocity gauge allows to obtain the momentum
density of the initial state since the energy-resolved yield is a
product of the momentum-space density $|\tilde{\psi}(\mathbf{p})|^2$
and a prefactor $|g(\mathbf{p})|^2$ \cite{qs_extra:sm}. For a given
momentum $\mathbf{p}$, the prefactor $g(\mathbf{p})$ depends solely on
the vector potential $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}(t)$ and the binding
energy. In contrast to the corresponding strong-field experiments,
these parameters are known precisely for the quantum simulator because
of the exactly known pulse shape. Note, this imaging technique relies
on the agreement of the SFA in velocity gauge with the full TDSE
results, which is fulfilled as seen in
Figs.~\ref{fig:fig2}a and c
despite the fact that the simulator mapping \eref{eq:mapping} is bound
to the length gauge. Thus, this imaging technique indeed allows to
image the momentum density of an ultracold gas in a trap.
\textit{Conclusion.} A proposal for a quantum simulator for attosecond
physics is presented based on ultracold atoms in an optical trapping
potential. The simulator idea connects the very contrary physics of
ultracold, trapped atomic gases and the one of atoms, ions, and
molecules in ultra-intense, ultra-short laser fields. The constraints
one faces in strong-field experiments, such as the limitation to a
specific molecular geometry, a fixed number of electrons per element
or molecule, fixed interaction strengths, and limited pulse shapes are
overcome in the simulator system. Moreover, the simulation can even
reach parameter regions which are beyond those nowadays realizable in
strong-field experiments, including, e.g., exotic pulse shapes and
effective pulse durations corresponding to the sub-attosecond regime.
In fact, the here proposed attosecond science in slow motion may shed
light onto the ongoing debate on tunneling times
\cite{sfa:uibe07,sfa:shaf12,sfa:pfei12,sfa:eckl08}. The numerical
analysis of the here proposed concrete experimental realization of the
quantum simulator with realistic experimental parameters demonstrates
that it reproduces in its simplest configuration the ionization
characteristics of a hydrogen atom. While this simple demonstrating
example can be evaluated computationally, the simulator paves the way
to systematically investigate many-body systems where the full
numerical treatment is beyond the reach of any classical computer.
Also the physics of ultracold atoms may profit from the quantum
simulator by adopting concepts developed in attosecond science.
\acknowledgments{The authors gratefully acknowledge Selim Jochim,
Gerhard Z\"urn, Thomas Lompe and Andre N.\ Wenz for valuable discussions
and details of their experiment, and financial support from the
\textit{Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes}, \textit{Fonds der
Chemischen Industrie}, and the \textit{EU Initial Training Network
(ITN) CORINF}.}
|
\section{Introduction}
It is well known that, e.g., for bounded Lipschitz domains $\Omega\subset\rz^3$,
a square integrable vector field $v$ having square integrable divergence $\div v$
and square integrable rotation vector field $\rot v$ as well as
vanishing tangential or normal component on the boundary $\Gamma$, i.e,
$\ttrG{v}=0$ resp.~$\ntrG{v}=0$, satisfies the Maxwell estimate
\begin{align}
\mylabel{maxestintro}
\int_{\Omega}|v|^2\leqc_{\mathtt{m}}^2\int_{\Omega}\big(|\rot v|^2+|\div v|^2\big),
\end{align}
if in addition $v$ is perpendicular to the so called Dirichlet or Neumann fields, i.e.,
$$\int_{\Omega}v\cdot w=0\quad\forall\,w\in\harmom{}{}{},$$
where
$$\harmom{}{}{}=
\begin{cases}
\harmom{}{\mathtt{D}}:=\set{w\in\Lt(\om)}{\rot w=0,\,\div w=0,\,\ttrG{w}=0},&
\text{if }\ttrG{v}=0,\\
\harmom{}{\mathtt{N}}:=\set{w\in\Lt(\om)}{\rot w=0,\,\div w=0,\,\ntrG{w}=0},&
\text{if }\ntrG{v}=0
\end{cases}$$
holds. Here, $c_{\mathtt{m}}$ is a positive constant independent of $v$,
which will be called Maxwell constant.
See, e.g., \cite{picardpotential,picardboundaryelectro,leisbook,webercompmax}.
We note that \eqref{maxestintro} is valid in much more general situations
modulo some more or less obvious modifications, such as
for mixed boundary conditions, in unbounded (like exterior) domains,
in domains $\Omega\subset\rz^N$, on $N$-dimensional Riemannian manifolds,
for differential forms or in the case of inhomogeneous media.
See, e.g.,\cite{jochmanncompembmaxmixbc,paulystatic,paulydeco,
picardboundaryelectro,picardcomimb,picarddeco,webercompmax,weckmax}.
So far, to the best of the author's knowledge, general bounds for the Maxwell constants $c_{\mathtt{m}}$ are unknown.
On the other hand, at least estimates for $c_{\mathtt{m}}$ from above are very important
from the point of view of applications, such as preconditioning
or a priori and a posteriori error estimation for numerical methods.
In this contribution we will prove that for
bounded and convex domains $\Omega\subset\rz^3$
\begin{align}
\mylabel{cmcpintro}
c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}\leqc_{\mathtt{m}}\leqc_{\mathtt{p}}\leq\diam(\om)/\pi
\end{align}
holds true, where $0<c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}<c_{\mathtt{p}}$ are the Poincar\'e constants,
such that for all square integrable functions $u$
having square integrable gradient $\nabla u$
$$\int_{\Omega}|u|^2\leqc_{\mathtt{p},\circ}^2\int_{\Omega}|\nabla u|^2\quad\text{resp.~}\quad
\int_{\Omega}|u|^2\leqc_{\mathtt{p}}^2\int_{\Omega}|\nabla u|^2$$
holds, if $\trG{u}=0$ resp.~$\displaystyle\int_{\Omega}u=0$.
While the result \eqref{cmcpintro} is already well known in two dimensions,
even for general Lipschitz domains $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^{2}$
(except of the last inequality), it is new in three dimensions.
We note that the last inequality in \eqref{cmcpintro}
has been proved in the famous paper of Payne and Weinberger \cite{payneweinbergerpoincareconvex},
where also the optimality of the estimate was shown.
A small mistake in this paper has been corrected later in \cite{bebendorfpoincareconvex}.
We will prove the crucial and from the point of view of applications most interesting inequality
$c_{\mathtt{m}}\leqc_{\mathtt{p}}$ also for polyhedral domains in $\rz^3$,
which might not be convex but still
allow the $\Ho(\om)$-regularity for solutions of Maxwell's equations.
We will give a general result for non-smooth and inhomogeneous, anisotropic media as well,
and even a refinement of \eqref{cmcpintro}.
Let us note that our methods are only based on elementary calculations.
\section{Preliminaries}
Throughout this paper
let $\Omega\subset\rz^3$ be a bounded Lipschitz domain.
Many of our results hold true under weaker assumptions on the regularity
of the boundary $\Gamma:=\p\!\om$. Essentially we need
the compact embeddings \eqref{allcompactembrellich}-\eqref{allcompactembmaxn} to hold.
We will use the standard Lebesgue spaces
$\Lt(\om)$ of square integrable functions or vector
(or even tensor) fields
equipped with the usual $\Lt(\om)$-scalar product $\scpsom{\,\cdot\,}{\,\cdot\,}$
and $\Lt(\om)$-norm $\normosom{\,\cdot\,}$.
Moreover, we will work with the standard $\Lt(\om)$-Sobolev spaces
for the gradient $\grad=\nabla$, the rotation $\rot=\nabla\times$
and the divergence $\div=\nabla\cdot$ denoted by
\begin{align*}
\Ho(\om)&:=\Hggen{}{}{\om},&\Hoc(\om)&:=\Hggen{}{\circ}{\om}:=\overline{\Cic(\om)}^{\Ho(\om)},\\
\divgenom{}{}&:=\Hdgen{}{}{\om},&\divgenom{}{\circ}&:=\Hdgen{}{\circ}{\om}:=\overline{\Cic(\om)}^{\divgenom{}{}},\\
\rotgenom{}{}&:=\Hgen{}{}{}(\rot;\Omega),&\rotgenom{}{\circ}&:=\Hgen{}{}{\circ}(\rot;\Omega):=\overline{\Cic(\om)}^{\rotgenom{}{}}.
\end{align*}
In the latter three Hilbert spaces the classical homogeneous scalar, normal and tangential
boundary traces are generalized, respectively.
An index zero at the lower right corner of the latter spaces indicates a vanishing derivative, e.g.,
$$\rotgenom{0}{\circ}:=\set{E\in\rotgenom{}{\circ}}{\rot E=0},\quad\divgenom{0}{}:=\set{E\in\divgenom{}{}}{\div E=0}.$$
Moreover, we introduce a symmetric, bounded ($\Lgen{\infty}{}$) and uniformly positive definite
matrix field $\varepsilon:\Omega\to\rz^{3\times3}$ and
the spaces of (harmonic) Dirichlet and Neumann fields
$$\harmom{}{\mathtt{D},\eps}:=\rotgenom{0}{\circ}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{0}{},\quad\harmom{}{\mathtt{N},\eps}:=\rotgenom{0}{}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{0}{\circ}.$$
We will also use the weighted $\varepsilon$-$\Lt(\om)$-scalar product
$\scpsepsom{\,\cdot\,}{\,\cdot\,}:=\scpsom{\varepsilon\,\cdot\,}{\,\cdot\,}$
and the corresponding induced weighted
$\varepsilon$-$\Lt(\om)$-norm $\normosepsom{\,\cdot\,}:=\scpsepsom{\,\cdot\,}{\,\cdot\,}^{1/2}$.
Moreover, $\bot_{\varepsilon}$ denotes orthogonality with respect to the $\varepsilon$-$\Lt(\om)$-scalar product.
If we equip $\Lt(\om)$ with this weighted scalar product we write $\Lgen{2}{\eps}(\om)$.
If $\varepsilon$ equals the identity $\id$, we skip it in our notations,
e.g., we write $\bot:=\bot_{\id}$ and $\harmom{}{\mathtt{D}}:=\harmom{}{\mathtt{D},\id}$.
By the assumptions on $\varepsilon$ we have
\begin{align}
\mylabel{epsuoone}
\exists\,\ul{\eps},\ol{\eps}>0\quad\forall\,E\in\Lt(\om)\quad
\ul{\eps}^{-2}\normosom{E}^2\leq\scpsom{\varepsilon E}{E}\leq\ol{\eps}^2\normosom{E}^2
\end{align}
and we note $\normosepsom{E}^2=\scpsom{\varepsilon E}{E}=\normosom{\varepsilon^{1/2}E}^2$
as well as $\normosom{\varepsilon E}=\normosepsom{\varepsilon^{1/2}E}$. Thus, for all $E\in\Lt(\om)$
\begin{align}
\mylabel{epsuotwo}
\ul{\eps}^{-1}\normosom{E}&\leq\normosepsom{E}\leq\ol{\eps}\normosom{E},&
\ul{\eps}^{-1}\normosepsom{E}&\leq\normosom{\varepsilon E}\leq\ol{\eps}\normosepsom{E}.
\end{align}
For later purposes let us also define $\hat{\eps}:=\max\{\ul{\eps},\ol{\eps}\}$.
We have the following compact embeddings:
\begin{align}
\mylabel{allcompactembrellich}
\Hoc(\om)\subset\Ho(\om)&\hookrightarrow\Lt(\om)&\text{(Rellich's selection theorem)}&\\
\mylabel{allcompactembmaxt}
\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{}&\hookrightarrow\Lt(\om)&\text{(tangential Maxwell compactness property)}&\\
\mylabel{allcompactembmaxn}
\rotgenom{}{}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{\circ}&\hookrightarrow\Lt(\om)&\text{(normal Maxwell compactness property)}&
\end{align}
It is well known and easy to prove by standard indirect arguments that
\eqref{allcompactembrellich} implies the Poincar\'e estimates
\begin{align}
\mylabel{poincarehoc}
\exists\,c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}&>0&\forall\,u&\in\Hoc(\om)&\normosom{u}&\leqc_{\mathtt{p},\circ}\normosom{\nabla u},\\
\mylabel{poincareho}
\exists\,c_{\mathtt{p}}&>0&\forall\,u&\in\Ho(\om)\cap\mathbb{R}^{\bot}&\normosom{u}&\leqc_{\mathtt{p}}\normosom{\nabla u}.
\end{align}
Furthermore
$$c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}^2=\frac{1}{\lambda_{1}}<\frac{1}{\mu_{2}}=c_{\mathtt{p}}^2$$
holds, where $\lambda_{1}$ is the first Dirichlet
and $\mu_{2}$ the second Neumann eigenvalue of the Laplacian.
We even have $0<\mu_{n+1}<\lambda_{n}$ for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$,
see e.g. \cite{filonovdirneulapeigen} and the literature cited there.
Analogously, \eqref{allcompactembmaxt} implies $\dim\harmom{}{\mathtt{D},\eps}<\infty$\footnote{
$d_{\mathtt{D}}:=\dim\harmom{}{\mathtt{D},\eps}$ is finite and independent of $\varepsilon$.
In particular, $d_{\mathtt{D}}$ depends just on the topology of $\Omega$.
More precisely, $d_{\mathtt{D}}=\beta_{2}$, the second Betti number of $\Omega$.
A similar result holds also for the Neumann fields, i.e.,
$d_{\mathtt{N}}:=\dim\harmom{}{\mathtt{N},\eps}=\beta_{1}$.},
since the unit ball in $\harmom{}{\mathtt{D},\eps}$ is compact,
and the tangential Maxwell estimate, i.e.,
there exists $c_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps}>0$ such that
\begin{align}
\mylabel{maxestelec}
\forall\,E&\in\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{}&
\normosepsom{(1-\pi_{\mathtt{D}})E}
&\leqc_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps}\big(\normosom{\rot E}^2+\normosom{\div\varepsilon E}^2\big)^{1/2},
\end{align}
where $\pi_{\mathtt{D}}:\Lgen{2}{\eps}(\om)\to\harmom{}{\mathtt{D},\eps}$ denotes the $\varepsilon$-$\Lt(\om)$-orthogonal projector onto Dirichlet fields.
Similar results hold if one replaces the tangential or electric boundary condition
by the normal or magnetic one.
More precisely, \eqref{allcompactembmaxn} implies $\dim\harmom{}{\mathtt{N},\eps}<\infty$
and the corresponding normal Maxwell estimate, i.e.,
there exists $c_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}>0$ such that
\begin{align}
\mylabel{maxestmag}
\forall\,H&\in\rotgenom{}{}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{\circ}&
\normosepsom{H-\pi_{\mathtt{N}} H}
&\leqc_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}\big(\normosom{\rot H}^2+\normosom{\div\varepsilon H}^2\big)^{1/2},
\end{align}
where $\pi_{\mathtt{N}}:\Lgen{2}{\eps}(\om)\to\harmom{}{\mathtt{N},\eps}$
denotes the $\varepsilon$-$\Lt(\om)$-orthogonal projector onto Neumann fields.
We note that $\sqrt{c_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps}^2+1}$ can also be seen as the norm of the
inverse $M^{-1}$ of the corresponding electro static Maxwell operator
$$\Abb{M}{\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{}\cap\harmom{}{\mathtt{D},\eps}^{\bot_{\varepsilon}}}{\rot\rotgenom{}{\circ}\times\Lt(\om)}{E}{(\rot E,\div\varepsilon E)}.$$
The analogous statement holds for $c_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}$ as well.
The compact embeddings \eqref{allcompactembrellich}-\eqref{allcompactembmaxn}
hold for more general bounded domains with
weaker regularity of the boundary $\Gamma$,
such as domains with cone property, restricted cone property or just $p$-cusp-property.
See, e.g., \cite{amrouchebernardidaugegiraultvectorpot,amroucheciarletciarletweakvectorpot,
picardpotential,picardboundaryelectro,picardcomimb,picarddeco,picardweckwitschxmas,
webercompmax,weckmax,witschremmax,leisbook}.
Note that the Maxwell compactness properties and hence the Maxwell estimates
hold for mixed boundary conditions as well,
see \cite{jochmanncompembmaxmixbc,goldshteinmitreairinamariushodgedecomixedbc,
jakabmitreairinamariusfinensolhodgedeco}.
The boundedness of the underlying domain $\Omega$ is crucial,
since one has to work in weighted Sobolev spaces in unbounded (like exterior) domains,
see \cite{kuhnpaulyregmax,leistheoem,leisbook,paulytimeharm,paulystatic,
paulydeco,paulyasym,picardpotential,picardweckwitschxmas}.
As always in the theory of Maxwell's equations, we need another crucial tool,
the Helmholtz or Weyl decompositions of vector fields into irrotational and solenoidal vector fields.
We have
\begin{align*}
\Lgen{2}{\eps}(\om)
&=\nabla\Hoc(\om)\oplus_{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{0}{}\\
&=\rotgenom{0}{\circ}\oplus_{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{}\\
&=\nabla\Hoc(\om)\oplus_{\varepsilon}\harmom{}{\mathtt{D},\eps}\oplus_{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{},\\
\Lgen{2}{\eps}(\om)
&=\nabla\Ho(\om)\oplus_{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{0}{\circ}\\
&=\rotgenom{0}{}\oplus_{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{\circ}\\
&=\nabla\Ho(\om)\oplus_{\varepsilon}\harmom{}{\mathtt{N},\eps}\oplus_{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{\circ},
\end{align*}
where $\oplus_{\varepsilon}$ denotes the orthogonal sum
with respect the latter scalar product, and note
\begin{align*}
\nabla\Hoc(\om)
&=\rotgenom{0}{\circ}\cap\harmom{}{\mathtt{D},\eps}^{\bot_{\varepsilon}},&
\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{}
&=\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{0}{}\cap\harmom{}{\mathtt{D},\eps}^{\bot_{\varepsilon}},\\
\nabla\Ho(\om)
&=\rotgenom{0}{}\cap\harmom{}{\mathtt{N},\eps}^{\bot_{\varepsilon}},&
\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{\circ}
&=\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{0}{\circ}\cap\harmom{}{\mathtt{N},\eps}^{\bot_{\varepsilon}}.
\end{align*}
Moreover, with
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{R}(\om):=\rotgenom{}{}\cap\rot\rotgenom{}{\circ}
&=\rotgenom{}{}\cap\divgenom{0}{\circ}\cap\harmom{}{\mathtt{N}}^{\bot},\\
\overset{\circ}{\mathcal{R}}(\om):=\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\rot\rotgenom{}{}
&=\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\divgenom{0}{}\cap\harmom{}{\mathtt{D}}^{\bot}
\end{align*}
we see
$$\rot\rotgenom{}{}=\rot\mathcal{R}(\om),\quad
\rot\rotgenom{}{\circ}=\rot\overset{\circ}{\mathcal{R}}(\om).$$
Note that all occurring spaces are closed subspaces of $\Lt(\om)$,
which follows immediately by the estimates \eqref{poincarehoc}-\eqref{maxestmag}.
More details about the Helmholtz decompositions can be found e.g. in \cite{leisbook}.
If $\Omega$ is even convex\footnote{Note that convex domains
are always Lipschitz, see e.g. \cite{grisvardbook}.} we have some simplifications
due to the vanishing of Dirichlet and Neumann fields, i.e.,
$\harmom{}{\mathtt{D},\eps}=\harmom{}{\mathtt{N},\eps}=\{0\}$. Then
\eqref{maxestelec} and \eqref{maxestmag} simplify to
\begin{align}
\mylabel{maxestelecconv}
\forall\,E&\in\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{}&
\normosepsom{E}
&\leqc_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps}\big(\normosom{\rot E}^2+\normosom{\div\varepsilon E}^2\big)^{1/2},\\
\mylabel{maxestmagconv}
\forall\,H&\in\rotgenom{}{}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{\circ}&
\normosepsom{H}
&\leqc_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}\big(\normosom{\rot H}^2+\normosom{\div\varepsilon H}^2\big)^{1/2}
\end{align}
and we have
$$\rotgenom{0}{\circ}=\nabla\Hoc(\om),\quad\rotgenom{0}{}=\nabla\Ho(\om),\quad\divgenom{0}{}=\rot\rotgenom{}{},\quad\divgenom{0}{\circ}=\rot\rotgenom{}{\circ}$$
as well as the simple Helmholtz decompositions
\begin{align}
\mylabel{helmdecoconvex}
\Lgen{2}{\eps}(\om)=\nabla\Hoc(\om)\oplus_{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{},\quad
\Lgen{2}{\eps}(\om)=\nabla\Ho(\om)\oplus_{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{\circ}.
\end{align}
The aim of this paper is to give a computable estimate for the two Maxwell
constants $c_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps}$ and $c_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}$.
\section{The Maxwell Estimates}
First, we have an estimate for irrotational fields, which is well known.
\begin{lem}
\mylabel{lemNarbdiv}
For all $E\in\nabla\Hoc(\om)\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{}$
and all $H\in\nabla\Ho(\om)\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{\circ}$
$$\normosepsom{E}\leq\ul{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}\normosom{\div\varepsilon E},\quad
\normosepsom{H}\leq\ul{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p}}\normosom{\div\varepsilon H}.$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Pick a scalar potential $\varphi\in\Hoc(\om)$ with $E=\nabla\varphi$.
Then, by \eqref{poincarehoc}
\begin{align*}
\normosepsom{E}^2
&=\scpsom{\varepsilon E}{\nabla\varphi}
=-\scpsom{\div\varepsilon E}{\varphi}
\leq\normosom{\div\varepsilon E}\normosom{\varphi}
\leqc_{\mathtt{p},\circ}\normosom{\div\varepsilon E}\normosom{\nabla\varphi}\\
&=c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}\normosom{\div\varepsilon E}\normosom{E}
\leq\ul{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}\normosom{\div\varepsilon E}\normosepsom{E}.
\end{align*}
Let $\varphi\in\Ho(\om)$ with $H=\nabla\varphi$ and $\varphi\bot\mathbb{R}$.
Since $\varepsilon H\in\divgenom{}{\circ}$ we obtain as before and by \eqref{poincareho}
\begin{align*}
\normosepsom{H}^2
&=\scpsom{\varepsilon H}{\nabla\varphi}
=-\scpsom{\div\varepsilon H}{\varphi}
\leq\normosom{\div\varepsilon H}\normosom{\varphi}
\leqc_{\mathtt{p}}\normosom{\div\varepsilon H}\normosom{\nabla\varphi}\\
&=c_{\mathtt{p}}\normosom{\div\varepsilon H}\normosom{H}
\leq\ul{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p}}\normosom{\div\varepsilon H}\normosepsom{H},
\end{align*}
which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\mylabel{remNarbdiv}
Without any change, Lemma \ref{lemNarbdiv} extends to Lipschitz domains
$\Omega\subset\rz^N$ of arbitrary dimension.
\end{rem}
To get similar estimates for solenoidal vector fields we
need a crucial lemma from \cite[Theorem 2.17]{amrouchebernardidaugegiraultvectorpot},
see also \cite{saranenineqfried,grisvardbook,giraultraviartbook,costabelcoercbilinMax}
for related partial results.
\begin{lem}
\mylabel{french}
Let $\Omega$ be convex
and $E\in\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\divgenom{}{}$ or $E\in\rotgenom{}{}\cap\divgenom{}{\circ}$.
Then $E\in\Ho(\om)$ and
\begin{align}
\mylabel{frenchformula}
\normosom{\nabla E}^2\leq\normosom{\rot E}^2+\normosom{\div E}^2.
\end{align}
\end{lem}
We note that for $E\in\Hoc(\om)$ it is clear that for any domain $\Omega\subset\rz^3$
\begin{align}
\mylabel{frenchformulaequal}
\normosom{\nabla E}^2=\normosom{\rot E}^2+\normosom{\div E}^2
\end{align}
holds since $-\Delta=\rot\rot-\nabla\div$.
This formula is no longer valid if $E$ has just the tangential
or normal boundary condition but for convex domains
the inequality \eqref{frenchformula} remains true.
\begin{lem}
\mylabel{lemNThreerot}
Let $\Omega$ be convex. For all vector fields $E\in\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{}$
and all vector fields $H\in\rotgenom{}{}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{\circ}$
$$\normosepsom{E}\leq\ol{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p}}\normosom{\rot E},\quad
\normosepsom{H}\leq\ol{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p}}\normosom{\rot H}.$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $\varepsilon E\in\rot\rotgenom{}{}=\rot\mathcal{R}(\om)$ there exists a vector potential field
$\Phi\in\mathcal{R}(\om)$ with $\rot\Phi=\varepsilon E$
and $\Phi\in\Ho(\om)$ by Lemma \ref{french} since
$\mathcal{R}(\om)=\rotgenom{}{}\cap\divgenom{0}{\circ}$.
Moreover, $\Phi=\rot\Psi$ can be represented by some $\Psi\in\rotgenom{}{\circ}$.
Hence, for any constant vector $a\in\rz^3$ we have
$\scpsom{\Phi}{a}=\scpsom{\rot\Psi}{a}=0$.
Thus, $\Phi$ belongs to $\Ho(\om)\cap(\rz^3)^{\bot}$.
Then, since $E\in\rotgenom{}{\circ}$ and by Lemma \ref{french} we get
\begin{align*}
\normosepsom{E}^2
&=\scpsom{E}{\varepsilon E}
=\scpsom{E}{\rot\Phi}
=\scpsom{\rot E}{\Phi}
\leq\normosom{\rot E}\normosom{\Phi}
\leqc_{\mathtt{p}}\normosom{\rot E}\normosom{\nabla\Phi}\\
&\leqc_{\mathtt{p}}\normosom{\rot E}\normosom{\rot\Phi}
=c_{\mathtt{p}}\normosom{\rot E}\normosom{\varepsilon E}
\leq\ol{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p}}\normosom{\rot E}\normosepsom{E}.
\end{align*}
Since $\varepsilon H\in\rot\rotgenom{}{\circ}$ there exists a vector potential
$\Phi\in\rotgenom{}{\circ}$ with $\rot\Phi=\varepsilon H$.
Using the Helmholtz decomposition $\Lt(\om)=\rotgenom{0}{}\oplus\rot\rotgenom{}{\circ}$,
we decompose
$$\rotgenom{}{}\ni H=H_{0}+H_{\rot}\in\rotgenom{0}{}\oplus\mathcal{R}(\om).$$
Then, $\rot H_{\rot}=\rot H$ and
again by Lemma \ref{french} we see $H_{\rot}\in\Ho(\om)$.
Let $a\in\rz^3$ such that $H_{\rot}-a\in\Ho(\om)\cap(\rz^3)^{\bot}$.
Since $\Phi\in\rotgenom{}{\circ}$ and
$\scpsom{\rot\Phi}{H_{0}}=0=\scpsom{\rot\Phi}{a}$
as well as by Lemma \ref{french} we obtain
\begin{align*}
\normosepsom{H}^2
&=\scpsom{\varepsilon H}{H}
=\scpsom{\rot\Phi}{H}
=\scpsom{\rot\Phi}{H_{\rot}-a}
\leq\normosom{\varepsilon H}\normosom{H_{\rot}-a}\\
&\leqc_{\mathtt{p}}\normosom{\varepsilon H}\normosom{\nabla H_{\rot}}
\leq\ol{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p}}\normosepsom{H}\normosom{\rot H_{\rot}}
=\ol{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p}}\normosepsom{H}\normosom{\rot H},
\end{align*}
completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\mylabel{lemNThreerottwod}
It is well known that Lemma \ref{lemNThreerot}
holds in two dimensions for any Lipschitz domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^2$.
This follows immediately from Lemma \ref{lemNarbdiv}
if we take into account that in two dimensions the rotation $\rot$
is given by the divergence $\div$ after $90^{\circ}$-rotation
of the vector field to which it is applied.
We refer to the appendix for details.
\end{rem}
\begin{theo}
\mylabel{maintheo}
Let $\Omega$ be convex. Then, for all vector fields $E\in\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{}$
and all vector fields $H\in\rotgenom{}{}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{\circ}$
$$\normosepsom{E}^2
\leq\ul{\eps}^2c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}^2\normosom{\div\varepsilon E}^2+\ol{\eps}^2c_{\mathtt{p}}^2\normosom{\rot E}^2,\quad
\normosepsom{H}^2
\leq\ul{\eps}^2c_{\mathtt{p}}^2\normosom{\div\varepsilon H}^2+\ol{\eps}^2c_{\mathtt{p}}^2\normosom{\rot H}^2.$$
Thus, $c_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps}\leq\max\{\ul{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p},\circ},\ol{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p}}\}$ and
$$c_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps},c_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}\leq\hat{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p}}\leq\hat{\eps}\diam(\Omega)/\pi.$$
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
By the Helmholtz decomposition \eqref{helmdecoconvex} we have
$$\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{}\ni
E=E_{\nabla}+E_{\rot}\in\nabla\Hoc(\om)\oplus_{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{}$$
with $E_{\nabla}\in\nabla\Hoc(\om)\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{}$
and $E_{\rot}\in\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{}$ as well as
$$\div\varepsilon E_{\nabla}=\div\varepsilon E,\quad
\rot E_{\rot}=\rot E.$$
By Lemma \ref{lemNarbdiv} and Lemma \ref{lemNThreerot} and orthogonality we obtain
$$\normosepsom{E}^2
=\normosepsom{E_{\nabla}}^2+\normosepsom{E_{\rot}}^2
\leq\ul{\eps}^2c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}^2\normosom{\div\varepsilon E}^2+\ol{\eps}^2c_{\mathtt{p}}^2\normosom{\rot E}^2.$$
Similarly we have
$$\rotgenom{}{}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{\circ}\ni
H=H_{\nabla}+H_{\rot}\in\nabla\Ho(\om)\oplus_{\varepsilon}\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{\circ}$$
with $H_{\nabla}\in\nabla\Ho(\om)\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\divgenom{}{\circ}$
and $H_{\rot}\in\rotgenom{}{}\cap\varepsilon^{-1}\rot\rotgenom{}{\circ}$ as well as
$$\div\varepsilon H_{\nabla}=\div\varepsilon H,\quad
\rot H_{\rot}=\rot H.$$
By Lemma \ref{lemNarbdiv} and Lemma \ref{lemNThreerot}
$$\normosepsom{H}^2
=\normosepsom{H_{\nabla}}^2+\normosepsom{H_{\rot}}^2
\leq\ul{\eps}^2c_{\mathtt{p}}^2\normosom{\div\varepsilon H}^2+\ol{\eps}^2c_{\mathtt{p}}^2\normosom{\rot H}^2,$$
which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
Lower bounds can be computed even for general domains $\Omega$:
\begin{theo}
\mylabel{maintheolower}
It holds
$$\frac{c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}}{\ul{\eps}\ol{\eps}^2}\leqc_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps},\quad
\frac{c_{\mathtt{p}}}{\ul{\eps}\ol{\eps}^2}\leqc_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}.$$
\end{theo}
\begin{proof}
Let $\lambda_{1}$ resp.~$\lambda_{1,\varepsilon}$ be the first Dirichlet eigenvalue
of the negative Laplacian $-\Delta$ resp.~weighted Laplacian $-\div\varepsilon\nabla$, i.e.,
$$\frac{1}{c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}^2}
=\lambda_{1}
=\inf_{0\neq u\in\Hoc(\om)}\frac{\normosom{\nabla u}^2}{\normosom{u}^2}
\geq\frac{1}{\ol{\eps}^2}\inf_{0\neq u\in\Hoc(\om)}\frac{\normosepsom{\nabla u}^2}{\normosom{u}^2}
=\frac{\lambda_{1,\varepsilon}}{\ol{\eps}^2}.$$
Hence $\lambda_{1,\varepsilon}\leq(\ol{\eps}/c_{\mathtt{p},\circ})^2$.
Let $u\in\Hoc(\om)$ be an eigenfunction to $\lambda_{1,\varepsilon}$.
Note that $u$ satisfies
$$\forall\,\varphi\in\Hoc(\om)\quad\scpsom{\varepsilon\nabla u}{\nabla\varphi}=\lambda_{1,\varepsilon}\scpsom{u}{\varphi}.$$
Then $0\neq E:=\nabla u$ belongs to $\nabla\Hoc(\om)\cap\eps^{-1}\divgenom{}{}=\rotgenom{0}{\circ}\cap\eps^{-1}\divgenom{}{}\cap\harmom{}{\mathtt{D},\eps}^{\bot_{\varepsilon}}$
and solves $-\div\varepsilon E=-\div\varepsilon\nabla u=\lambda_{1,\varepsilon}u$.
By \eqref{maxestelec} and \eqref{poincarehoc} we have
\begin{align*}
\normosepsom{E}
&\leqc_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps}\normosom{\div\varepsilon E}
=c_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps}\lambda_{1,\varepsilon}\normosom{u}
\leqc_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps}\lambda_{1,\varepsilon}c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}\normosom{\nabla u}
\leq\frac{c_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps}}{c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}}\ol{\eps}^2\ul{\eps}\normosepsom{E}
\end{align*}
yielding $c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}\leqc_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps}\ul{\eps}\ol{\eps}^2$.
Now, we follow the same arguments for the Neumann eigenvalues.
Let $\mu_{2}$ resp.~$\mu_{2,\varepsilon}$ be the second Neumann eigenvalue
of the negative Laplacian $-\Delta$ resp.~weighted Laplacian $-\div\varepsilon\nabla$, i.e.,
$$\frac{1}{c_{\mathtt{p}}^2}
=\mu_{2}
=\inf_{0\neq u\in\Ho(\om)\cap\mathbb{R}^{\bot}}\frac{\normosom{\nabla u}^2}{\normosom{u}^2}
\geq\frac{1}{\ol{\eps}^2}\inf_{0\neq u\in\Ho(\om)\cap\mathbb{R}^{\bot}}\frac{\normosepsom{\nabla u}^2}{\normosom{u}^2}
=\frac{\mu_{2,\varepsilon}}{\ol{\eps}^2}.$$
Hence $\mu_{2,\varepsilon}\leq(\ol{\eps}/c_{\mathtt{p}})^2$.
Let $u\in\Ho(\om)\cap\mathbb{R}^{\bot}$ be an eigenfunction to $\mu_{2,\varepsilon}$.
Note that $u$ satisfies
$$\forall\,\varphi\in\Ho(\om)\cap\mathbb{R}^{\bot}\quad\scpsom{\varepsilon\nabla u}{\nabla\varphi}=\mu_{2,\varepsilon}\scpsom{u}{\varphi}$$
and that this relation holds even for all $\varphi\in\Ho(\om)$.
Then $0\neq H:=\nabla u$ belongs to $\nabla\Ho(\om)\cap\eps^{-1}\divgenom{}{\circ}=\rotgenom{0}{}\cap\eps^{-1}\divgenom{}{\circ}\cap\harmom{}{\mathtt{N},\eps}^{\bot_{\varepsilon}}$
and $-\div\varepsilon H=-\div\varepsilon\nabla u=\mu_{2,\varepsilon}u$ holds.
By \eqref{maxestmag} and \eqref{poincareho} we have
\begin{align*}
\normosepsom{H}
&\leqc_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}\normosom{\div\varepsilon H}
=c_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}\mu_{2,\varepsilon}\normosom{u}
\leqc_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}\mu_{2,\varepsilon}c_{\mathtt{p}}\normosom{\nabla u}
\leq\frac{c_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}}{c_{\mathtt{p}}}\ol{\eps}^2\ul{\eps}\normosepsom{H}
\end{align*}
yielding $c_{\mathtt{p}}\leqc_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}\ul{\eps}\ol{\eps}^2$.
The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\mylabel{remmaintheolower}
The latter proof shows that Theorem \ref{maintheolower}
extends to any Lipschitz domain $\Omega\subset\rz^N$ of arbitrary dimension
with the appropriate changes for the rotation operator.
\end{rem}
Combining Theorems \ref{maintheo} and \ref{maintheolower} we obtain:
\begin{theo}
\mylabel{maintheolowerupper}
Let $\Omega$ be convex. Then
$$\frac{c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}}{\hat{\eps}^3}\leqc_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps}\leq\hat{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p}},\quad
\frac{c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}}{\hat{\eps}^3}<\frac{c_{\mathtt{p}}}{\hat{\eps}^3}\leqc_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}\leq\hat{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p}}$$
and hence
$$\frac{c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}}{\hat{\eps}^3}\leqc_{\mathtt{m,t},\eps},c_{\mathtt{m,n},\eps}\leq\hat{\eps}c_{\mathtt{p}}\leq\hat{\eps}\diam(\Omega)/\pi.$$
If additionally $\varepsilon=\id$, then
$$c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}\leqc_{\mathtt{m,t}}\leqc_{\mathtt{m,n}}=c_{\mathtt{p}}\leq\diam(\Omega)/\pi.$$
\end{theo}
\begin{rem}
\mylabel{polyhedra}
Our results extend also to all possibly non-convex polyhedra which allow the
$\Ho(\om)$-regularity of the Maxwell spaces $\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\divgenom{}{}$ and $\rotgenom{}{}\cap\divgenom{}{\circ}$
or to domains whose boundaries consist of combinations of convex boundary parts
and polygonal parts which allow the $\Ho(\om)$-regularity.
Is is shown in \cite[Theorem 4.1]{costabelcoercbilinMax}
that \eqref{frenchformula}, even \eqref{frenchformulaequal},
still holds for all $E\in\Ho(\om)\cap\rotgenom{}{\circ}$ or $E\in\Ho(\om)\cap\divgenom{}{\circ}$
if $\Omega$ is a polyhedron\footnote{The crucial point is
that the unit normal is piecewise constant and hence the curvature is zero.}.
We note that even some non-convex polyhedra admit the $\Ho(\om)$-regularity of the Maxwell spaces
depending on the angle of the corners, which are not allowed to by too pointy.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
\mylabel{eigenvalues}
\begin{itemize}
\item[\bf(i)]
We conjecture $c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}<c_{\mathtt{m,t}}<c_{\mathtt{m,n}}=c_{\mathtt{p}}$ for convex $\Omega\subset\rz^3$.
\item[\bf(ii)]
We note that by Theorem \ref{maintheolowerupper} we have given a new proof of the estimate
$$0<\mu_{2}\leq\lambda_{1}$$
for convex $\Omega\subset\rz^3$. Moreover, the absolute values of the eigenvalues
of the different Maxwell operators (tangential or normal boundary condition)
lie between $\sqrt{\mu_{2}}$ and $\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
Finally, we note that in the case $\varepsilon=\id$ we can find some different proofs
for the lower bounds in less general settings. For example,
if $\Omega$ has a connected boundary, then $\harmom{}{\mathtt{D}}=\{0\}$ and hence
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{c_{\mathtt{m,t}}^2}
&=\inf_{0\neq E\in\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\divgenom{}{}}\frac{\normosom{\rot E}^2+\normosom{\div E}^2}{\normosom{E}^2}\\
&\leq\inf_{0\neq E\in\Hoc(\om)}\frac{\normosom{\rot E}^2+\normosom{\div E}^2}{\normosom{E}^2}
=\inf_{0\neq E\in\Hoc(\om)}\frac{\normosom{\nabla E}^2}{\normosom{E}^2}
=\frac{1}{c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}^2}
\end{align*}
giving $c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}\leqc_{\mathtt{m,t}}$.
If $\Omega$ is simply connected, then $\harmom{}{\mathtt{N}}=\{0\}$ and hence
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{c_{\mathtt{m,n}}^2}
&=\inf_{0\neq H\in\rotgenom{}{}\cap\divgenom{}{\circ}}\frac{\normosom{\rot H}^2+\normosom{\div H}^2}{\normosom{H}^2}\\
&\leq\inf_{0\neq H\in\Hoc(\om)}\frac{\normosom{\rot H}^2+\normosom{\div H}^2}{\normosom{H}^2}
=\inf_{0\neq H\in\Hoc(\om)}\frac{\normosom{\nabla H}^2}{\normosom{H}^2}
=\frac{1}{c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}^2}
\end{align*}
yielding $c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}\leqc_{\mathtt{m,n}}$.
Another proof could be like this: Again, we assume that $\Gamma$ is connected for the tangential case
resp.~that $\Omega$ is simply connected for the normal case.
Let $u\in\Hoc(\om)$ and $\xi\in\rz^3$ with $|\xi|=1$. Then $E:=u\xi\in\Hoc(\om)\subset\rotgenom{}{\circ}\cap\divgenom{}{\circ}$
and since there are no Dirichlet resp.~Neumann fields, we get by \eqref{maxestelec} resp.~\eqref{maxestmag}
and $\rot E=\nabla u\times\xi$, $\div E=\nabla u\cdot\xi$
$$\normosom{u}^2
=\normosom{E}^2
\leqc_{\mathtt{m}}^2\big(\normosom{\rot E}^2+\normosom{\div E}^2\big)
=c_{\mathtt{m}}^2\normosom{\nabla u}^2.$$
Therefore $c_{\mathtt{p},\circ}\leqc_{\mathtt{m}}$, where $c_{\mathtt{m}}=c_{\mathtt{m,t}}$ resp.~$c_{\mathtt{m}}=c_{\mathtt{m,n}}$.
\begin{acknow}
The author is deeply indebted to Sergey Repin not only for bringing his attention
to the problem of the Maxwell constants in 3D.
Moreover, the author wants to thank Sebastian Bauer und Karl-Josef Witsch
for long term fruitful and deep discussions.
Finally, the author thanks the anonymous referee for careful reading and valuable suggestions,
especially concerning the lower bounds.
\end{acknow}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Stable hypersurfaces in a Riemannian manifold with boundary are second order minima of the \emph{interior area} for compactly supported deformations preserving the boundary of the manifold and, possibly, the volume separated by the hypersurface. From the first variation formulas \cite{ros-vergasta} such hypersurfaces have constant mean curvature and free boundary meeting orthogonally the boundary of the manifold. Moreover, the second variation formula \cite{ros-vergasta} implies that the associated index form is nonnegative for functions with compact support (and mean zero if the volume-preserving condition is assumed). The stability property has been extensively discussed and plays a central role in relation to classical minimization problems such as the Plateau problem or the isoperimetric problem.
The study of variational questions associated to the area functional in \emph{manifolds with density}, also called \emph{weighted manifolds} or \emph{smooth mm-spaces}, has been focus of attention in the last years. A \emph{manifold with density} is a connected Riemannian manifold, possibly with boundary, where a smooth positive function is used to weight the Hausdorff measures associated to the Riemannian distance. This kind of structures have been considered by many authors and provide a generalization of Riemannian geometry which is currently of increasing interest. For a nice introduction to weighted manifolds we refer the reader to Chapter 18 of Morgan's book \cite{gmt} and to Chapter 3 of Bayle's thesis \cite{bayle-thesis}. In the present paper we study \emph{free boundary stable hypersurfaces} in manifolds with density, by obtaining variational characterizations, topological and geometrical information, and rigidity results for the ambient manifold. In order to describe our results in more detail we need to introduce some notation and definitions.
Let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$. We consider a smooth oriented hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ immersed in $M$ in such a way that $\text{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\text{int}(M)$ and $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\subset\partial M$ whenever $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\neq\emptyset$. We say that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is \emph{strongly $f$-stationary} if it is a critical point of the \emph{weighted area functional} under compactly supported deformations preserving the boundary $\partial M$. Note that the \emph{weighted area} $A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ defined in \eqref{eq:volarea} is relative to the interior of $M$, so that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\cap\partial M$ does not contribute to $A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$. If, in addition, the hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ has non-negative second derivative of the weighted area for any variation, then we say that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is \emph{strongly $f$-stable}. In the Riemannian setting (constant density $f=1$), these definitions coincide with the classical notions of free boundary minimal and stable hypersurfaces. Recently, many authors have considered complete strongly $f$-stable hypersurfaces \emph{with empty boundary}, see \cite{fan}, \cite{ho}, \cite{calibrations}, \cite{mejia}, \cite{espinar} and \cite{liu}, among others. However, not much is known about strongly $f$-stable hypersurfaces \emph{with non-empty boundary}, and this has been in fact our main motivation in the present work.
Our first aim in this paper is to provide variational characterizations of strongly $f$-stationary and stable hypersurfaces in the same spirit of the ones given by Ros and Vergasta in \cite{ros-vergasta} for the Riemannian case. This is done in Section~\ref{sec:var}, where we follow the arguments for hypersurfaces with empty boundary in \cite[Ch.~3]{bayle-thesis} and \cite{rcbm}, in order to compute the first and second derivatives of the weighted area. As a consequence, we deduce that a hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $M$ is strongly $f$-stationary if and only if it has vanishing $f$-mean curvature and meets $\partial M$ orthogonally in the points of $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, see Corollary~\ref{cor:stationary}. The $f$-\emph{mean curvature} of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is the function $H_f$ in \eqref{eq:fmc} previously introduced by Gromov \cite{gromov-GAFA} in relation to the first derivative of the weighted area, see Lemma~\ref{lem:1st}. We also show that the strong $f$-stability of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is equivalent to that the associated $f$-index form defined in \eqref{eq:indo} is nonnegative for smooth functions with compact support, see Corollary~\ref{cor:stable}. At this point, it is worth mentioning that the techniques employed in this section allow also to characterize critical points and second order minima of the weighted area for deformations \emph{preserving the weighted volume} $V_f$ defined in \eqref{eq:volarea}. This is closely related to the \emph{partitioning problem}, which consists of separating a given weighted volume in $M$ with the least possible interior weighted area. However, besides showing some relevant situations in Examples~\ref{ex:1},~\ref{ex:2} and ~\ref{ex:3}, the partitioning problem and the associated $f$-stable hypersurfaces will not be treated in detail. Some characterization results for compact $f$-stable hypersurfaces with free boundary in a Euclidean solid cone where a homogeneous density is considered can be found in \cite{homostable}.
In the remainder of the paper we mainly investigate the relationship between the topology of compact strongly $f$-stable hypersurfaces and the geometry of the ambient manifold by means of the second variation formula. As a motivation, note that the $f$-index form in \eqref{eq:indo} of a hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is a quadratic form which involves the extrinsic geometry of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, the second fundamental form $\text{II}$ of $\partial M$, and the \emph{Bakry-\'Emery-Ricci curvature} $\text{Ric}_f$ of $M$ defined in \eqref{eq:fricci}. The $2$-tensor $\text{Ric}_f$ was first introduced by Lichnerowicz \cite{lich1}, \cite{lich2}, and later generalized by Bakry and \'Emery \cite{be} in the framework of diffusion generators. In particular, it is easy to observe that the stability inequality becomes more restrictive provided $\text{II}$ and $\text{Ric}_f$ are always semidefinite positive. Hence \emph{local convexity} of $\partial M$ and \emph{nonnegativity of the Bakry-\'Emery-Ricci curvature} become natural hypotheses in order to obtain interesting consequences from the stability condition.
In Section~\ref{subsec:ricci} we establish some results in this direction. In fact, by assuming $\text{Ric}_f\geq 0$ and $\text{II}\geq 0$ we deduce in a quite straightforward way that a compact strongly $f$-stable hypersurface must be totally geodesic, see Lemma~\ref{lem:easy}. Moreover, we also have $\text{Ric}_f(N,N)=0$ and $\text{II}(N,N)=0$, where $N$ is the unit normal to $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. In particular, if $\text{Ric}_f>0$ or $\text{II}>0$, then there are no compact strongly $f$-stable hypersurfaces in $M$. This property was observed by Simons \cite{simons-james} for the Riemannian case, and later generalized by Fan \cite{fan}, and Cheng, Mejia and Zhou \cite{mejia} for hypersurfaces with empty boundary in manifolds with density. On the other hand, Espinar showed in \cite{espinar} that Lemma~\ref{lem:easy} also holds for complete strongly $f$-stable hypersurfaces of finite type and empty boundary.
The simplest examples of strongly $f$-stable totally geodesic hypersurfaces satisfying $\text{Ric}_f(N,N)=0$ and $\text{II}(N,N)=0$ are the horizontal slices $\{s\}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in a Riemannian product ${\mathbb{R}}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, where $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is a compact Riemannian manifold of non-negative Ricci curvature, and the logarithm of the density $f$ is a linear function in ${\mathbb{R}}$. These are not the unique examples we may give, i.e., the existence of compact strongly $f$-stable hypersurfaces in the above conditions does not imply that the metric of $M$ splits, even locally, as a product metric, see \cite{micallef}. However, in Theorem~\ref{th:ricci} we prove the following rigidity result:
\begin{quotation}
\emph{If a weighted manifold $M$ with non-negative Bakry-\'Emery-Ricci curvature and locally convex boundary contains a compact, oriented, embedded, locally weighted area-minimizing hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with non-empty boundary, then there is a neighborhood of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $M$ isometric to a Riemannian product $(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$}.
\end{quotation}
This local result can be globalized by means of a standard continuation argument. As a consequence, if we further assume that $M$ is complete and $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ \emph{minimizes the weighted area in its isotopy class}, then $M$ is a Riemannian quotient of ${\mathbb{R}}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. We must remark that this rigidity result was previously obtained by Liu \cite{liu} for weighted area-minimizing hypersurfaces \emph{with empty boundary}. To prove it, Liu used the second variation formula to analyze the weighted area functional for the deformation by normal geodesics leaving from $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. In our context, however, a normal geodesic starting from $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is not necessarily confined to stay in $M$, and so this deformation cannot be considered. As we will explain in more detail later, this difficulty is solved by taking another deformation which moves $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ along $\partial M$.
In Section~\ref{subsec:scalar} we provide a topological restriction for strongly $f$-stable surfaces, and a rigidity result for weighted area-minimizing surfaces in a weighted $3$-manifold $M$ of \emph{non-negative Perelman scalar curvature} and \emph{$f$-mean convex boundary}. On the one hand, the \emph{Perelman scalar curvature} $S_f$ defined in \eqref{eq:fscalar} is the generalization of the Riemannian scalar curvature introduced by Perelman \cite{perelman} when showing that the Ricci flow is a gradient flow. Let us indicate, as a remarkable difference with respect to the Riemannian case, that the Perelman scalar curvature \emph{is not the trace} of the Bakry-\'Emery-Ricci curvature. In fact, we have the Bianchi identity $S_f=2\,\nabla^*\text{Ric}_f$, where $\nabla^*$ is the adjoint operator of $\nabla$ with respect to the $L^2$-norm for the weighted volume measure $dv_f:=f\,dv$. We also remark that $S_f$ is the limit as $n$ tends to infinity of the conformally invariant scalar curvature $S_f^n$ introduced by Chang, Gursky and Yang, see \cite{chang} for a rigorous statement. On the other hand, the \emph{$f$-mean convexity} of $\partial M$ means that the $f$-mean curvature of $\partial M$ is nonnegative when computed with respect to the inner unit normal.
There are several works on the topology of compact stable minimal surfaces in $3$-manifolds of non-negative scalar curvature and mean convex boundary. Schoen and Yau proved in \cite{schoen-yau} that, if such a surface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is immersed in a Riemannian $3$-manifold $M$ of positive scalar curvature, then it must be topologically a sphere. This was later generalized by Fischer-Colbrie and Schoen \cite{fcs}, who showed that, if $M$ has non-negative scalar curvature, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is a sphere or a totally geodesic flat torus. These results have been extended for surfaces with empty boundary in manifolds with density by Fan~\cite{fan} and Espinar~\cite{espinar}, respectively. For the case of non-empty boundary, Chen, Fraser and Pang~\cite{fbr}, and Ambrozio~\cite{ambrozio}, have recently proved that a compact free boundary stable minimal surface inside a $3$-manifold of non-negative scalar curvature and mean convex boundary is either a disk or a totally geodesic flat cylinder. This was previously established in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ by Ros \cite{ros-free}, who also showed that stable cylinders cannot appear. In Theorem~\ref{th:main} we obtain the following:
\begin{quotation}
\emph{A smooth, compact, oriented, strongly $f$-stable surface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with non-empty boundary inside a $3$-manifold $M$ of non-negative Perelman scalar curvature and $f$-mean convex boundary is either a disk or a totally geodesic flat cylinder bounded by geodesics in $M$.}
\end{quotation}
As in the previous results, our proof is based on the second variation for the area, the Gauss formula and the Gauss-Bonnet theorem. Moreover, after a careful analysis we deduce that along a strongly $f$-stable cylinder we have $\text{Ric}_f(N,N)=0$, $\text{II}(N,N)=0$ and the density $f$ must be constant.
The existence of strongly $f$-stable cylinders in the previous conditions cannot be discarded. In fact, in the Riemannian product ${\mathbb{R}}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with constant density, where $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is the compact cylinder $\mathbb{S}^1\times [a,b]$ endowed with the Euclidean metric of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, any horizontal slice $\{s\}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ provides a strongly $f$-stable cylinder. As in the case $\text{Ric}_f\geq 0$ and $\partial M$ locally convex, other examples may be given where the Riemannian metric of $M$ does not split as a product metric. However, in Theorem~\ref{th:main2} we prove the following rigidity result:
\begin{quotation}
\emph{If a weighted $3$-manifold $M$ of non-negative Perelman scalar curvature and $f$-mean convex boundary contains an oriented, embedded, locally weighted area-minimizing cylinder $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, then there is a neighborhood of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $M$ which is isometric to $(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, and the density $f$ is constant in such neighborhood. Moreover, if $M$ is complete and $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ minimizes the weighted area in its isotopy class, then ${\mathbb{R}}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is an isometric covering of $M$, and the density $f$ is constant on $M$.}
\end{quotation}
We remark that rigidity results for area-minimizing tori and cylinders in Riemannian $3$-manifolds of non-negative scalar curvature and mean convex boundary were previously established by Cai and Galloway~\cite{cai-galloway}, and by Ambrozio~\cite{ambrozio}. An extension of Cai and Galloway's result for surfaces with empty boundary in manifolds with density has been obtained by Espinar \cite{espinar}. At this point, it is worth mentioning that our rigidity results in Theorems~\ref{th:ricci} and \ref{th:main2} are independent since the hypotheses $\text{Ric}_f\geq 0$ and $\partial M$ locally convex do not necessarily imply $S_f\geq 0$ and $f$-mean convexity of $\partial M$.
Finally, in Section~\ref{subsec:area} we show how the proofs of Theorems~\ref{th:main} and \ref{th:main2} can be adapted to provide optimal upper and lower bounds for the weighted area of a compact strongly $f$-stable surface in terms of a lower non-vanishing bound for the Perelman scalar curvature of a weighted $3$-manifold with $f$-mean convex boundary. The sharpness of these area estimates comes from the fact that, in case of equality for a locally weighted area-minimizing surface, we get the corresponding rigidity results, see Theorems~\ref{th:main3} and \ref{th:main4} for detailed statements. Previous area estimates in Riemannian $3$-manifolds were given by Shen and Zhu~\cite{shen-zhu} when $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma=\emptyset$, and by Chen, Fraser and Pang~\cite{fbr} when $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\neq\emptyset$. The associated rigidity results were obtained by Bray, Brendle and Neves \cite{bbn} under a positive lower bound on the scalar curvature, and by Nunes~\cite{nunes} under a negative one. Extensions of these results for surfaces with empty boundary in manifolds with density were found by Espinar~\cite{espinar}.
A unified approach for surfaces with non-empty boundary in Riemannian $3$-manifolds has been given by Ambrozio~\cite{ambrozio}.
We finish this introduction by explaining the geometric approach employed to prove our local rigidity results. Starting from a strongly $f$-stationary, totally geodesic hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, with $\text{Ric}_f(N,N)=0$ and $\text{II}(N,N)=0$, we use the implicit function theorem to find an open neighborhood $\Omega$ of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $M$ which is foliated by a one-parameter family of strongly $f$-stationary hypersurfaces $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ with $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_0=\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, $\text{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s)\subset\text{int}(M)$ and $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s\subset\partial M$, see Proposition~\ref{prop:deformation}. Then, our curvature and convexity assumptions imply that, for such a family, the derivative of the $f$-mean curvature function is nonnegative. As a consequence, the associated weighted area is strictly decreasing unless any hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ is totally geodesic and the normal component of the velocity vector along $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ is constant. Hence, if we start from a locally weighted area-minimizing hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, then we can deduce that the normal vector field along the hypersurfaces $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ is parallel on the open set $\Omega$. From here, it is not difficult to conclude that, for some $\varepsilon_0>0$, the restriction to $(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ of the normal exponential map associated to $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is an isometry.
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Let $M$ be a smooth $(C^\infty)$ connected and oriented $(n+1)$-dimensional manifold with a Riemannian metric $g=\escpr{\cdot\,,\cdot}$. We denote by $\text{int}(M)$ and $\partial M$ the interior and the boundary of $M$, respectively. By a \emph{density} on $M$ we mean a smooth positive function $f=e^\psi:M\to{\mathbb{R}}$ used to weight the Hausdorff measures associated to the Riemannian distance. In particular, the \emph{weighted volume} of a Borel set $\Omega\subseteq M$ and the \emph{$($interior$)$ weighted area} of a smooth hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:volarea}
V_f(\Omega):=\int_\Omega \,dv_f=\int_\Omega f\,dv,\qquad
A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma):=\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\cap\text{int}(M)} da_f=\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\cap\text{int}(M)} f\,da,
\end{equation}
where $dv$ and $da$ stand for the Riemannian elements of volume and area, respectively. According to the previous definition the set $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\cap\partial M$ does not contribute to $A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$. We will also denote $dl_f:=f\,dl$, where $dl$ is the $(n-1)$-dimensional Hausdorff measure in $M$.
For a Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ with density $f=e^\psi$, the \emph{Bakry-\'Emery-Ricci tensor} is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fricci}
\text{Ric}_f:=\text{Ric}-\nabla^2\psi,
\end{equation}
where $\text{Ric}$ and $\nabla^2$ are the Ricci tensor and the Hessian operator in $(M,g)$. For us the Ricci tensor is given by $\text{Ric}(u,v):=\text{trace}(w\mapsto R(u,w)v)$, where $R$ is the curvature tensor in $(M,g)$. The \emph{Perelman scalar curvature} is the function
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fscalar}
S_f:=S-2\,\Delta\psi-|\nabla\psi|^2,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta$ and $\nabla$ denote the Laplacian and the gradient in $(M,g)$, and $S$ is the scalar curvature given by $S(p):=\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}\text{Ric}_p(e_i,e_i)$, for any orthonormal basis $\{e_i\}$ of $T_pM$. For a constant density $f$, we have $\text{Ric}_f=\text{Ric}$ and $S_f=S$. Note also that $S_f$ \emph{does not coincide} in general with the trace of $\text{Ric}_f$.
Let $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ be a smooth oriented hypersurface immersed in $M$. For any smooth vector field $X$ along $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, we define the \emph{f-divergence relative} to $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ of $X$ by
\[
\divv_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,f}X:=\divv_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma X+\escpr{\nabla\psi,X},
\]
where $\divv_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is the divergence relative to $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $(M,g)$. If $N$ is a unit normal vector along $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, then the \emph{f-mean curvature} of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with respect to $N$ is the function
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fmc}
H_f:=-\divv_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,f}N=nH-\escpr{\nabla\psi,N},
\end{equation}
where $H:=(-1/n)\divv_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma N$ is the mean curvature of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $(M,g)$. By using the Riemannian divergence theorem it was proved in \cite[Lem.~2.2]{homostable} that equality
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:divthsup}
\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\divv_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,f}X\,da_f=-\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma H_f\,\escpr{X,N}\,da_f
-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}\escpr{X,\nu}\,dl_f,
\end{equation}
holds for any smooth vector field $X$ with compact support on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. Here we denote by $\nu$ the conormal vector, i.e., the inner unit normal to $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$.
Finally, we define the \emph{f-Laplacian relative} to $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ of a function $u\in C^\infty(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:deltaf}
\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,f}u:=\divv_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,f}(\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u)=\Delta_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u
+\escpr{\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\psi,\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u},
\end{equation}
where $\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is the gradient relative to $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. For this operator we have the following integration by parts formula, which is an immediate consequence of \eqref{eq:divthsup}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ibp}
\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u_1\,\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,f}\,u_2\,da_f=-\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\escpr{\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u_1,\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u_2}\,da_f-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}u_1\,\frac{\partial u_2}{\partial\nu}\,dl_f,
\end{equation}
where $u_1,u_2\in C^\infty_0(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ and $\partial u_2/\partial\nu$ is the directional derivative of $u_2$ with respect to $\nu$.
\section{Stationary and stable free boundary hypersurfaces}
\label{sec:var}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we compute the first and the second derivative of area and volume for a variation of a hypersurface immersed in a manifold with density, and whose boundary lies in the boundary of the manifold. As a consequence, we characterize stationary points and second order minima of the area with or without a volume constraint, thus extending previous results in \cite{ros-vergasta} for Riemannian manifolds (constant density $f=1$), and in \cite[Ch.~3]{bayle-thesis} for hypersurfaces with empty boundary in weighted manifolds. We will follow closely the arguments in \cite[Sect.~3]{rcbm}, where hypersurfaces embedded in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ and variations supported away from the boundary were considered. Note also that the first variational formulas for piecewise regular densities were established in \cite[Prop.~2.11]{cvm}.
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$. We consider a smooth oriented hypersurface given by an immersion $\varphi_0:\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ such that $\varphi_0(\text{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma))\subset\text{int}(M)$ and $\varphi_0(\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\partial M$. If $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma=\emptyset$ then we adopt the convention that all the integrals along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ vanish. We denote by $N$ the unit normal along $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ which is compatible with the orientations of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $M$.
By a \emph{variation} of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ we mean a smooth map $\varphi:(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] for any $s\in (-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)$, the map $\varphi_s:\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ defined by $\varphi_s(p):=\varphi(s,p)$ is an immersion with $\varphi_s(\text{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma))\subset\text{int}(M)$ and $\varphi_s(\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\partial M$,
\item[(ii)] $\varphi(0,p)=\varphi_0(p)$, for any $p\in\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$,
\item[(iii)] there is a compact set $C\subseteq\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ such that $\varphi_s(p)=\varphi_0(p)$ for any $p\in\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma-C$.
\end{enumerate}
The \emph{velocity vector} is the vector field $X_p:=(\partial\varphi/\partial s)(0,p)$ for any $p\in\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. Note that $X$ has compact support and it is tangent to $\partial M$ in the points of $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ by the condition (i) above. The function $A_f(s)$, that maps any $s\in (-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)$ to the weighted area of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s:=\varphi_s(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ defined in \eqref{eq:volarea}, is the \emph{weighted area functional} associated to the variation. More explicitly
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:area}
A_f(s)=\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma (f\circ\varphi_s)\,|\text{Jac}\,\varphi_s|\,da.
\end{equation}
If $p\in\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $\{e_i\}$ is any orthonormal basis in $T_p\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, then $|\text{Jac}\,\varphi_s|(p)$ is the squared root of the determinant of the matrix $a_{ij}$ with $a_{ij}=\escpr{e_i(\varphi_s),e_j(\varphi_s)}$. We define the \emph{volume functional} $V_f(s)$ as in \cite[Sect.~2]{bdce}, i.e., $V_f(s)$ denotes the \emph{signed weighted volume} enclosed between $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. More precisely
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:volume}
V_f(s)=\int_{[0,s]\times C}\varphi^*(dv_f)=\int_{[0,s]\times C}(f\circ\varphi)\,\varphi^*(dv),
\end{equation}
where $dv_f=f\,dv$ is the weighted volume element in $M$. We say that the variation is \emph{volume preserving} if $V_f(s)$ is constant for any $s$ small enough.
\begin{remark}
When $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is an embedded hypersurface separating an open set $\Omega\subset M$ with $V_f(\Omega)<+\infty$, then we can associate to any variation of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ a family of open sets $\Omega_s\subset M$ such that $\Omega_0=\Omega$ and $\overline{\partial\Omega_s\cap\text{int}(M)}=\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ for any $s\in I$. In this situation it is natural to define the volume functional by $\text{Vol}_f(s):=V_f(\Omega_s)$. Observe that this functional does not coincide with the signed volume in \eqref{eq:volume}, which vanishes for $s=0$. However, we have $|V'_f(s)|=|\text{Vol}_f'(s)|$ for any $s\in (-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)$.
\end{remark}
In the next result we provide explicit expressions for the first derivatives of the functionals $A_f(s)$ and $V_f(s)$.
\begin{lemma}[First variation formulas]
\label{lem:1st}
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$. Consider a smooth oriented hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ immersed in $M$ with $\emph{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\emph{int}(M)$ and $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\subset\partial M$. Given a variation $\varphi:(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with velocity vector $X$, we have
\[
A_f'(0)=-\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma H_f\,u\, da_f-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}\escpr{X,\nu}\,dl_f, \qquad V_f'(0)=\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\,u\, da_f,
\]
where $H_f$ is the $f$-mean curvature of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ defined in \eqref{eq:fmc}, $u$ is the normal component of $X$, and $\nu$ is the inner unit normal to $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By differentiating under the integral sign in \eqref{eq:area}, and taking into account that $(d/ds)|_{s=0}\,|\text{Jac}\,\varphi_s|=\divv_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma X$, see \cite[Sect.~9]{simon} and \cite[Lem.~5.4]{rosales-sr}, we get
\begin{align*}
A_f'(0)&=\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}\big(\escpr{\nabla f,X}+f\divv_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma X\big)\,da=\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\divv_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,f}X\,da_f
\\
&=-\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma H_f\,u\, da_f-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}\escpr{X,\nu}\,dl_f,
\end{align*}
where in the last equality we have used formula \eqref{eq:divthsup}.
Now we compute $V'_f(0)$. As in the proof of \cite[Lem.~(2.1)]{bdce} it is easy to see that
\[
\varphi^*(dv)(s,p)=\escpr{\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial s}(s,p),N_s(p)}\,ds\wedge da,
\]
where $N_s$ is the unit normal along the immersion $\varphi_s:\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ which is compatible with the orientations of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $M$. By using the definition of $V_f(s)$ in \eqref{eq:volume} and Fubini's theorem, we obtain
\[
V_f'(0)=\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\escpr{X,N}\,(f\circ\varphi)\,da=\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u\,da_f,
\]
which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
We say that the hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is \emph{strongly $f$-stationary} if $A_f'(0)=0$ for any variation of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. If $A_f'(0)=0$ for any volume-preserving variation of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ then we will say that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is \emph{$f$-stationary}. From the expressions for $A_f'(0)$ and $V_f'(0)$ in Lemma~\ref{lem:1st} we can deduce the following characterization of stationary hypersurfaces.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:stationary}
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$. Then, for a smooth oriented hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ immersed in $M$ with $\emph{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\emph{int}(M)$ and $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\subset\partial M$, the following statements are equivalent
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is $f$-stationary $($resp. strongly $f$-stationary$)$.
\item[(ii)] The $f$-mean curvature of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ defined in \eqref{eq:fmc} is a constant $H_0$ $($resp. vanishes$)$ and $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ meets $\partial M$ orthogonally in the points of $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$.
\item[(iii)] There is a constant $H_0$ such that $(A_f+H_0\,V_f)'(0)=0$ for any variation of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ $($resp. $A_f'(0)=0$ for any variation of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$$)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
We give a proof when $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is $f$-stationary (the case strongly $f$-stationary is easier). From Lemma~\ref{lem:1st} we can check that (ii) implies (iii), and that (iii) implies (i). To see that (i) implies (ii) we take a function $u\in C_0^\infty(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ with $\text{supp}(u)\subset\text{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ and $\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u\,da_f=0$. As in \cite[Lem~(2.2)]{bdce}, we find a volume-preserving variation of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ whose velocity vector $X$ satisfies $\escpr{X,N}=u$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. The fact that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is $f$-stationary yields $\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma H_fu\,da_f=0$ for any $u$ in the previous conditions, and so $H_f$ is constant along $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. Finally, suppose $\escpr{N_p,\xi_p}\neq 0$ for some $p\in\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, where $\xi$ denotes the inner unit normal along $\partial M$. Then, there exists a smooth vector field $Y$ with compact support on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ such that $\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\escpr{Y,N}\,da_f=0$ and $\escpr{Y,\nu}$ is a cut-off function along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. By using again \cite[Lem.~(2.2)]{bdce} we could construct a volume-preserving variation of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with velocity vector $X$ satisfying $\escpr{X,N}=\escpr{Y,N}$ and $\escpr{X,\nu}=\escpr{Y,\nu}$. Hence we would get $0=A_f'(0)=-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}\escpr{X,\nu}\,dl_f$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
\label{ex:1}
Let $M=0{\times\!\!\!\!\times}\mathcal{D}$ be a cone over a smooth region $\mathcal{D}$ of the unit sphere $\mathbb{S}^n$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. If $f=e^\psi$ is a radial density, i.e., $\psi(p)$ only depends on $|p|$, then any sphere centered at the origin and intersected with $M$ is $f$-stationary since it has constant $f$-mean curvature, see \cite[Ex.~3.4]{rcbm}, and meets $\partial M$ orthogonally. As was shown in \cite[Ex.~4.3]{homostable} this also holds if $f=e^\psi$ is a $k$-homogeneous density, i.e., $f(tp)=t^k\,f(p)$ for any $t>0$ and any $p\in M-\{0\}$. Different examples of $f$-stationary curves in planar sectors with density $f(p)=|p|^k$, $k>0$, were found in \cite{dhht}. On the other hand, if $M$ is a half-space or a slab in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ with radial density, then the intersection with $M$ of any hyperplane perpendicular to $\partial M$ and containing $0$ has vanishing $f$-mean curvature, and so it is strongly $f$-stationary. Moreover, for the Gaussian density $f(p)=e^{-|p|^2}$ any hyperplane perpendicular to $\partial M$ is an $f$-stationary hypersurface.
\end{example}
Next, we compute the second derivative of the functional $A_f+H_f\,V_f$ for an $f$-stationary hypersurface of constant $f$-mean curvature $H_f$.
\begin{proposition}[Second variation formula]
\label{prop:2nd}
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$. Let $\varphi:(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ be a variation of a smooth oriented hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ immersed in $M$ with $\emph{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\emph{int}(M)$ and $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\subset\partial M$. If $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is $f$-stationary with constant $f$-mean curvature $H_f$, then we have
\[
(A_f+H_f\,V_f)''(0)=\mathcal{I}_f(u,u),
\]
where $u$ is the normal component of the velocity vector and $\mathcal{I}_f$ is the symmetric bilinear form on $C^\infty_0(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ defined by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:indo}
\mathcal{I}_f(v,w)&:=\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\left\{\escpr{\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma v,\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma w}
-\big(\emph{Ric}_f(N,N)+|\sigma|^{2}\big)\,vw\right\}da_{f}
\\
\nonumber
&-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}\emph{II}(N,N)\,vw\,dl_f.
\end{align}
In the previous expression $\emph{Ric}_f$ denotes the Bakry-\'Emery-Ricci tensor defined in \eqref{eq:fricci}, $\sg$ is the second fundamental form of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with respect to the unit normal $N$, and $\emph{II}$ is the second fundamental form of $\partial M$ with respect to the inner unit normal.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First observe that the conormal vector $\nu$ to $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ coincides with the inner unit normal $\xi$ to $\partial M$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ by the orthogonality condition in Corollary~\ref{cor:stationary} (ii). Let us denote by $N_s$ the unit normal along $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s:=\varphi_s(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ which is compatible with the orientations of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $M$. By using Lemma~\ref{lem:1st} we obtain
\[
(A_f+H_f\,V_f)'(s)=-\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}(H_f)_s\,u_s\,(da_f)_s+
H_f\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}u_s\,(da_f)_s-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\escpr{X_s,\nu_s}\,(dl_f)_s,
\]
where $(H_f)_s$ is the $f$-mean curvature of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$, $(X_s)_p:=(\partial\varphi/\partial s)(s,p)$, $u_s:=\escpr{X_s,N_s}$ and $\nu_s$ is the conormal vector to $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. By differentiating into the previous equality and using that $\escpr{X,\nu}=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2nd1}
(A_f+H_f\,V_f)''(0)=-\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma H_f'(0)\,u\,da_f-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}\escpr{X_s,\nu_s}'(0)\,dl_f,
\end{equation}
where the primes in $H_f'(0)$ and $\escpr{X_s,\nu_s}'(0)$ denote differentiation along the curve $s\mapsto\varphi_s(p)$. On the one hand, the derivative $H_f'(0)$ was computed in the proof of \cite[Prop.~3.6]{rcbm} for the case of normal variations, see also \cite[Re.~3.7]{rcbm}. By taking into account that the $f$-mean curvature of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is constant, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hfprima}
H_f'(0)=\mathcal{L}_f(u):=\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,f}\,u+(\text{Ric}_f(N,N)+|\sg|^2)\,u,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,f}$ is the $f$-Laplacian relative to $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ defined in \eqref{eq:deltaf}. On the other hand, the derivative $\escpr{X_s,\nu_s}'(0)$ can be computed as in \cite[Lem.~4.1~(2)]{ros-souam}, so that we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bd}
\escpr{X_s,\nu_s}'(0)=u\,\left\{\frac{\partial u}{\partial\nu}+\text{II}(N,N)\,u\right\},
\end{equation}
where $\partial u/\partial\nu$ is the derivative of $u$ with respect to $\nu$. For further reference, it is worth noting that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mimo}
\escpr{\xi,N_s}'(0)=-\frac{\partial u}{\partial\nu}-\text{II}(X,N)-\sg(X^\top,\nu),
\end{equation}
where $X^\top$ is the tangent projection of $X$. This is an immediate consequence of equality
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:normal}
N_s'(0)=D_{X^\top}N-\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u,
\end{equation}
which is proved in \cite[Lem.~4.1~(1)]{ros-souam}. By using \eqref{eq:hfprima} and \eqref{eq:bd}, equation \eqref{eq:2nd1} reads
\[
(A_f+H_f\,V_f)''(0)=\mathcal{Q}_f(u,u),
\]
where we define
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{Q}_f(v,w):=-\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma v\,\mathcal{L}_f(w)\,da_f
-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}v\,\left\{\frac{\partial w}{\partial\nu}+\text{II}(N,N)\,w\right\}dl_f.
\end{equation*}
Finally, an application of the integration by parts formula in \eqref{eq:ibp} yields $\mathcal{Q}_f(u,u)=\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)$. This proves the claim.
\end{proof}
Following the terminology in \cite{bdce} we call \emph{$f$-Jacobi operator} of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ to the second order linear operator $\mathcal{L}_f$ in \eqref{eq:hfprima}. Note that $\mathcal{L}_f$ coincides with the derivative of the $f$-mean curvature function along the variation. The \emph{$f$-index form} of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is the symmetric bilinear form $\mathcal{I}_f$ on $C^\infty_0(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ defined in \eqref{eq:indo}. By using formula \eqref{eq:ibp} we get $\mathcal{Q}_f(v,w)=\mathcal{I}_f(v,w)$ for any $u,v\in C^\infty_0(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$. In particular, the symmetry of $\mathcal{I}_f$ gives us the equality
\begin{equation*}
\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma \left\{v\,\mathcal{L}_f(w)-w\,\mathcal{L}_f(v)\right\}da_f
=\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}\left\{w\,\frac{\partial v}{\partial\nu}-v\,\frac{\partial w}{\partial\nu}\right\}dl_f,
\end{equation*}
for any two functions $v,w\in C^\infty_0(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$.
Let $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ be an $f$-stationary hypersurface of constant $f$-mean curvature $H_f$. We say that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is \emph{strongly $f$-stable} if we have $(A_f+H_f\,V_f)''(0)\geq 0$ for any variation of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. We say that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is \emph{$f$-stable} if $A_f''(0)\geq 0$ for any volume-preserving variation. For a strongly $f$-stationary hypersurface, to be strongly $f$-stable is the analogous property satisfied by free boundary stable minimal hypersurfaces in Riemannian manifolds.
By using the orthogonality condition in Corollary~\ref{cor:stationary} (ii) and the arguments given in \cite[Lem.~(2.2)]{bdce}, any function $u\in C^\infty_0(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ with $\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u\,da_f=0$ is the normal component of the velocity vector associated to a volume-preserving variation of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. As a consequence, we can deduce the following result from Proposition~\ref{prop:2nd}.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:stable}
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$. Consider a smooth oriented $f$-stationary hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ immersed in $M$ with $\emph{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\emph{int}(M)$ and $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\subset\partial M$. Let $\mathcal{I}_f$ be the index form of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ defined in \eqref{eq:indo}. Then, we have
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is strongly $f$-stable if and only if $\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)\geq 0$, for any $u\in C^\infty_0(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$.
\item[(ii)] $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is $f$-stable if and only if $\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)\geq 0$, for any $u\in C^\infty_0(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ with $\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u\,da_f=0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{example}
\label{ex:2}
Let $M=0{\times\!\!\!\!\times}\mathcal{D}$ be a cone over a smooth region $\mathcal{D}$ of the unit sphere $\mathbb{S}^n$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$. Suppose that $f=e^\psi$ is a smooth radial density on $M$ and denote by $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ the intersection with $M$ of a round sphere of radius $r$ centered at $0$. By following the computations in \cite[Thm.~3.10]{rcbm} we see that the $f$-index form associated to $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is given by
\[
\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)=f(r)\left[\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\left(|\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u|^2-|\sg|^2\,u^2\right)da
-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}\text{II}(N,N)\,u^2\,dl+\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\psi''(r)\,u^2\,da\right].
\]
In general, we cannot expect that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is $f$-stable. For example, if $M$ is a half-space and $f$ is strictly log-concave, then we can move $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ by translations along a fixed direction of $\partial M$ to find a function $u$ with $\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u\,da_f=0$ and $\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)<0$. However, if $M$ is convex and $f$ is log-convex, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is $f$-stable. To see this we take a function $u\in C^\infty(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ with $\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u\,da_f=0$. On the one hand, we have $\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u\,da=0$ and we can use that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is free boundary stable in $M$ with Euclidean density \cite{cones} to deduce that the sum of the two first terms in $\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)$ is nonnegative. On the other hand, the log-convexity of $f$ implies $\psi''(r)\geq 0$. So we get $\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)\geq 0$, as claimed. As in \cite{rcbm} this fact might suggest that in a Euclidean solid convex cone endowed with a smooth, radial, log-convex density, any round sphere centered at the origin intersected with the cone minimizes the interior weighted area among all the hypersurfaces in the cone enclosing the same weighted volume.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{ex:3}
Let $M$ be a Euclidean solid cone endowed with a $k$-homogeneous density $f=e^\psi$. In \cite[Ex.~4.7]{homostable} it was shown that the intersection with $M$ of a round sphere centered at $0$ is strongly $f$-stable if and only if $k\leq -n$. By assuming that $M$ is convex and the Bakry-\'Emery-Ricci tensor satisfies $\text{Ric}_f\geq (1/k)(d\psi\otimes d\psi)$ for some $k>0$, it was proved in \cite[Re.~1.5]{cabre3} that such spherical caps are $f$-stable (they are minimizers of the interior weighted area for fixed weighted volume). In fact, in \cite[Thm.~5.11]{homostable} it is shown that these are the unique compact $f$-stable hypersurfaces in $M$. Unduloidal examples of $f$-stable curves inside planar sectors with density $f(p)=|p|^k$, $k>0$, appear in \cite{dhht}.
\end{example}
\section{Topology and rigidity of compact strongly stable hypersurfaces}
\label{sec:main}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we prove the main results of the paper. We will obtain topological and geometrical restrictions for strongly $f$-stable hypersurfaces under certain curvature and boundary assumptions on the ambient manifold. Our statements and proofs are inspired by previous results for the Riemannian case, see \cite{cai-galloway}, \cite{bbn}, \cite{nunes}, \cite{micallef}, \cite{fbr}, \cite{ambrozio}, and for hypersurfaces with empty boundary in manifolds with density, see \cite{fan}, \cite{liu} and \cite{espinar}.
We will use the same notation as in the previous section. For a given oriented hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in a Riemannian manifold $M$ with boundary $\partial M$, we denote by $N$, $\nu$ and $\sg$ the unit normal to $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, the conormal vector to $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, and the second fundamental form of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, respectively. We denote by $\xi$ and $\text{II}$ the inner unit normal to $\partial M$ and the second fundamental form of $\partial M$ with respect to $\xi$.
\subsection{Non-negative Bakry-\'Emery-Ricci curvature and locally convex boundary}
\label{subsec:ricci}
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$. Given a point $p\in M$, we define the \emph{Bakry-\'Emery-Ricci curvature} of $M$ at $p$ as the quadratic form $v\in T_pM\mapsto\text{Ric}_f(v,v)$, where $\text{Ric}_f$ is the $2$-tensor in \eqref{eq:fricci}. Observe that, for an $f$-stationary hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ immersed in $M$, the $f$-index form $\mathcal{I}_f$ introduced in \eqref{eq:indo} involves the normal Bakry-\'Emery-Ricci curvature $\text{Ric}_f(N,N)$. As a consequence, if $\text{Ric}_f(N,N)\geq 0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $\partial M$ is \emph{locally convex}, i.e., $\text{II}$ is always positive semidefinite, then $\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)$ contains non-positive terms, and so the stability condition in Corollary~\ref{cor:stable} (i) becomes more restrictive. In fact, by inserting $u=1$ inside $\mathcal{I}_f$ we can prove the following simple but interesting result.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:easy}
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian manifold with locally convex boundary, and endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$ of non-negative Bakry-\'Emery-Ricci curvature. Consider a smooth, compact, oriented, $f$-stationary hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ immersed in $M$ with $\emph{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\emph{int}(M)$ and $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\subset\partial M$. Then, $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is strongly $f$-stable if and only if $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is totally geodesic, $\emph{Ric}_f(N,N)=0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, and $\emph{II}(N,N)=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$.
\end{lemma}
The simplest case where strongly $f$-stable hypersurfaces in the conditions of Lemma~\ref{lem:easy} appear is the Riemannian product ${\mathbb{R}}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, where $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is a compact manifold of non-negative Ricci curvature. In fact, for any density $f=e^\psi$ with $\psi(s,p)=as+b$, the horizontal slices $\{s\}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ are strongly $f$-stable hypersurfaces. As it is shown in \cite[Sect.~1]{micallef} other examples exist where the ambient manifold $M$ does not split along $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. However, by assuming that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is embedded and locally weighted area-minimizing we can obtain a rigidity result in the same spirit of the one proved by Liu \cite[Thm.~1]{liu} for hypersurfaces with empty boundary. Before stating the theorem we need two definitions. We say that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is \emph{locally weighted area-minimizing} if for any variation $\varphi:(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, the associated weighted area functional satisfies $A_f(0)\leq A_f(s)$ for any $s$ in a small open interval containing the origin. We say that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ \emph{minimizes the weighted area in its isotopy class} if, for any variation $\varphi$ of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ such that the maps $\varphi_s:\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ are diffeomorphisms, then $A_f(0)\leq A_f(s)$, for any $s\in (-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:ricci}
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian manifold with locally convex boundary, and endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$ of non-negative Bakry-\'Emery-Ricci curvature. Suppose that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is a smooth, compact, oriented, locally weighted area-minimizing hypersurface embedded in $M$ with $\emph{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\emph{int}(M)$ and $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\subset\partial M$. Then, $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is totally geodesic, and there is an open neighborhood of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $M$ which is isometric to a Riemannian product $(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. Moreover, if $M$ is complete and $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ minimizes the weighted area in its isotopy class, then the Riemannian product ${\mathbb{R}}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is an isometric covering of $M$.
\end{theorem}
Liu's proof of Theorem~\ref{th:ricci} when $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma=\emptyset$ uses the second variation formula for the area and the fact that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is locally area-minimizing to deduce that the local flow of normal geodesics leaving from $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ keeps constant the weighted area. However, in the case $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\neq\emptyset$, we must deform $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in a different way since a normal geodesic starting from $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ may leave the manifold $M$. This deformation is carried out in the next proposition for hypersurfaces satisfying the conclusions of Lemma~\ref{lem:easy}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:deformation}
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$. Consider a smooth, compact, oriented, $f$-stationary hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ immersed in $M$ with $\emph{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\emph{int}(M)$ and non-empty boundary $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\subset\partial M$. If $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is totally geodesic, $\emph{Ric}_f(N,N)=0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $\emph{II}(N,N)=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, then there is a variation $\varphi:(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with velocity vector $X=N$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, and such that any hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s:=\varphi_s(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ is $f$-stationary. Moreover, if $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is embedded, then $\Omega:=\varphi\big((-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\big)$ is an open neighborhood of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $M$ and $\varphi:(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to\Omega$ is a diffeomorphism.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We adapt to weighted manifolds the arguments in \cite[Prop.~10]{ambrozio}. Fix a smooth vector field $Y$ on $M$ such that $Y=N$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $Y$ is tangent to $\partial M$. We denote by $\{\phi_s\}$ the associated one-parameter group of diffeomorphisms. For fixed $\alpha\in (0,1)$ we can find numbers $\tau>0$ and $\delta>0$ such that, for any pair $(s,u)$ with $s\in (-\tau,\tau)$ and $u$ in the open ball $B_\delta(0)$ of the H\"older space $C^{2,\alpha}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$, the set $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_{u+s}:=\{\phi_{u(p)+s}(p)\,;\,p\in\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\}$ is an immersed $C^{2,\alpha}$ hypersurface with $\text{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_{u+s})\subset\text{int}(M)$ and $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_{u+s}\subset\partial M$. Moreover, if $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is embedded, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_{u+s}$ is also embedded. Let us denote $E:=\{u\in C^{2,\alpha}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\,;\,\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u\,da_f=0\}$ and $F:=\{u\in C^{0,\alpha}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\,;\,\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u\,da_f=0\}$. Thus, we have a well-defined map $\Phi:(-\tau,\tau)\times (B_\delta(0)\cap E)\to F\times C^{1,\alpha}(\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ given by
\[
\Phi(s,u):=\left((H_f)_{u+s}-\frac{1}{A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)}\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma (H_f)_{u+s}\,\,da_f,\escpr{\xi,N_{u+s}}\right),
\]
where $N_{u+s}$ and $(H_f)_{u+s}$ denote the unit normal and the $f$-mean curvature of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_{u+s}$, respectively. Note that $\Phi(0,0)=(0,0)$ since $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is $f$-stationary. In fact, a hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_{u+s}$ will be also $f$-stationary if and only if $\Phi(s,u)=(0,0)$. So, we try to apply the implicit function theorem to $\Phi$ at $(0,0)$. For any $w\in E$, we can construct the variation $\eta(s,p):=\phi_{sw(p)}(p)$, whose velocity vector equals $wN$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. By using formulas \eqref{eq:hfprima} and \eqref{eq:mimo}, equalities $\text{Ric}_f(N,N)=|\sg|^2=\text{II}(N,N)=0$, and the divergence theorem in \eqref{eq:divthsup}, we get
\begin{align*}
(d\Phi)_{(0,0)}(0,w)&=\left(\mathcal{L}_f(w)
-\frac{1}{A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)}\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\mathcal{L}_f(w)\,da_f,-\frac{\partial w}{\partial\nu}
\right)
\\
&=\left(\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,f}(w)+\frac{1}{A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)}\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}\frac{\partial w}{\partial\nu}\,dl_f,-\frac{\partial w}{\partial\nu}\right),
\end{align*}
where $\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,f}$ is the $f$-Laplacian defined in \eqref{eq:deltaf}. Let us see that $(d\Phi)_{(0,0)}:\{0\}\times E\to F\times C^{1,\alpha}(\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ is an isomorphism. Take functions $h\in F$ and $k\in C^{1,\alpha}(\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$. Then we have $\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}(h+\beta)\,da_f=\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}k\,dl_f$, where $\beta:=A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)^{-1}\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}k\,dl_f$. Now, we can apply existence and uniqueness of solutions for Poisson type equations with Neumann boundary conditions, see \cite[Sect.~3.3]{equations} and \cite{nardi}, to conclude that there is a unique function $w\in E$ solving the problem $\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,f}(w)=h+\beta$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $\partial w/\partial\nu=-k$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. As a consequence $(d\Phi)_{(0,0)}(0,w)=(h,k)$. Moreover, $w$ is unique in $E$ satisfying this property.
Hence, we can find $\varepsilon_0>0$ and a curve $u:(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\to B_\delta(0)\cap E$ such that $u(0)=0$ and $\Phi(s,u(s))=\Phi(0,0)=(0,0)$, for any $s\in (-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)$. In particular, any hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_{u(s)+s}$ is $f$-stationary. Finally, we define $\varphi:(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ as $\varphi(s,p):=\phi_{\mu(s,p)}(p)$, where $\mu(s,p):=s+u(s)(p)$. Note that $\varphi(0,p)=\phi_0(p)=p$ for any $p\in\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, and so $\varphi$ is a variation of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. For any $s\in (-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)$ we have $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s:=\varphi_s(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)=\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_{u(s)+s}$, which is $f$-stationary. The velocity vector equals $X_p=(\partial\mu/\partial s)(0,p)\,N_p$. By differentiating with respect to $s$ in equality $\Phi(s,u(s))=(0,0)$, and using again \eqref{eq:hfprima} and \eqref{eq:mimo}, we deduce that $(\partial\mu/\partial s)(0,p)$ solves the problem $\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,f}(w)=0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with $\partial w/\partial\nu=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. Hence $(\partial\mu/\partial s)(0,p)$ is constant as a function of $p\in\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. From equality $0=\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u(s)\,da_f=\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma(\mu(s,p)-s)\,da_f$ we get $(\partial\mu/\partial s)(0,p)=1$, so that $X=N$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. To finish the proof we apply the inverse function theorem and we find a smaller $\varepsilon_0>0$ such that $\Omega:=\varphi\big((-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\big)$ is open in $M$ and the map $\varphi:(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to\Omega$ is a diffeomorphism.
\end{proof}
Now, we are ready to prove Theorem~\ref{th:ricci}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:ricci}]
First note that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is strongly $f$-stationary and strongly $f$-stable. So, we can deduce by Corollary~\ref{cor:stationary} and Lemma~\ref{lem:easy} that the $f$-mean curvature $H_f$ of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ vanishes, $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is totally geodesic, and equalities $\text{Ric}_f(N,N)=\text{II}(N,N)=0$ hold. In particular, we can apply Proposition~\ref{prop:deformation} to obtain a variation $\varphi:(-s_0,s_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ such that $X=N$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, the hypersurfaces $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s:=\varphi_s(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ are all $f$-stationary, and $\Omega:=\varphi\big((-s_0,s_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\big)$ is an open neighborhood of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $M$ diffeomorphic to $(-s_0,s_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$.
Let us prove that the variation $\varphi$ does not increase the area, i.e., $A_f(s)\leq A_f(0)$ for any $s$ in a small open interval containing $0$. We will use the subscript $s$ to denote geometric functions and vectors associated to $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. We define $(X_s)_p:=(\partial\varphi/\partial s)(s,p)$ and $u_s:=\escpr{X_s,N_s}$. Since $u_0=1$, we can assume by continuity that $u_s>0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ for any $s\in (-s_0,s_0)$. On the other hand, as any $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ is $f$-stationary, we deduce by Corollary~\ref{cor:stationary} (ii) that $\escpr{X_s,\nu_s}=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. In particular, equation~\eqref{eq:bd} yields $\partial u_s/\partial\nu_s+\text{II}(N_s,N_s)\,u_s=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. Let $H_f(s)$ be the function that maps any $s\in (-s_0,s_0)$ to the constant $f$-mean curvature of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. In order to show that $\varphi$ does not increase the area it suffices, by Lemma~\ref{lem:1st}, to see that $H'_f(s)\geq 0$ for any $s\in (-s_0,s_0)$. Observe that $H_f'(s)=(\mathcal{L}_f)_s(u_s)$, where $(\mathcal{L}_f)_s$ is the $f$-Jacobi operator on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ defined in \eqref{eq:hfprima}. As a consequence
\begin{align*}
H_f'(s)\,A_f(s)&=\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}H_f'(s)\,(da_f)_s=\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}(\mathcal{L}_f)_s(u_s)\,(da_f)_s
\\
&=\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\left\{\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s,f}(u_s)+\big(\text{Ric}_f(N_s,N_s)+|\sg_s|^2\big)\,u_s\right\}(da_f)_s
\\
&=\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\text{II}(N_s,N_s)\,u_s\,(dl_f)_s
+\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\big(\text{Ric}_f(N_s,N_s)+|\sg_s|^2\big)\,u_s\,(da_f)_s,
\end{align*}
where we have used \eqref{eq:divthsup} and that $\partial u_s/\partial\nu_s=-\text{II}(N_s,N_s)\,u_s$. Therefore, the local convexity of $\partial M$ and the nonnegativity of the Bakry-\'Emery-Ricci curvature give us $H_f'(s)\geq 0$. Moreover, if equality holds for some $s\in(-s_0,s_0)$, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ is totally geodesic, $\text{Ric}_f(N_s,N_s)=0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ and $\text{II}(N_s,N_s)=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. In particular, the function $u_s$ solves the problem $\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s,f}(u_s)=0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with $\partial u_s/\partial\nu_s=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$, so that $u_s$ must be constant on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$.
Now, we can prove the conclusions of the theorem. By using that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is locally weighted area-minimizing, we get $A_f(s)=A_f(0)$ for any $s$ in a small open interval $J$ containing $0$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:1st}, this implies $H_f(s)\equiv 0$, and so $H'_f(s)=0$ for any $s\in J$. From the previous discussion we deduce that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ is totally geodesic and $u_s$ is constant on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ for any $s\in J$. By taking into account equation \eqref{eq:normal} and that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ is totally geodesic, we infer that $N_s$ is a parallel vector field defined on $\Omega$. So, the integral curves of $N_s$ are geodesics, and we can find $\varepsilon_0>0$, and an open neighborhood $U_0\subseteq\Omega$ of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $M$, such that the flow by normal geodesics $F:(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to U_0$ given by
$F(s,p):=\exp_p(sN_p)$ is a diffeomorphism. Moreover, $F$ is an isometry since $N_s$ is a Killing field.
Finally, let us assume that $M$ is complete and $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ minimizes the weighted area in its isotopy class. Note that the flow by normal geodesics $F$ is well-defined on ${\mathbb{R}}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. Let $s_\infty$ be the supremum of the set $B$ of the numbers $s>0$ such that $F:[-s,s]\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ is an isometry onto its image. Suppose $s_\infty<+\infty$ and denote $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_{\pm\infty}=F(\{s_{\pm\infty}\}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$. As in the first part of the proof, we can see that the variation $F$ does not increase the area. Thus, we would get $A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)=A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_{\pm\infty})$ by the minimization property of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. Hence, the hypersurfaces $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_{\pm\infty}$ would be locally weighted area-minimizing, and we may use the first conclusion of the theorem to find $\beta>0$ such that $s_\infty+\beta\in B$, a contradiction. So, we have $s_\infty=+\infty$. As a consequence $F:{\mathbb{R}}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ is a local isometry and, in particular, a covering map. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Non-negative Perelman scalar curvature and $f$-mean convex boundary}
\label{subsec:scalar}
Here we provide topological estimates and rigidity results for strongly $f$-stable surfaces in weighted manifolds by assuming a certain condition on the Perelman scalar curvature and weigh\-ted mean convexity of the boundary. We restrict ourselves to dimension $3$ since the Gauss-Bonnet theorem will be a key ingredient in our proofs.
We first recall some notation and introduce a definition. Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian $3$-manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$. Recall that the Perelman scalar curvature is the function defined in \eqref{eq:fscalar} by $S_f:=S-2\Delta\psi-|\nabla\psi|^2$. We will say that the boundary $\partial M$ is \emph{$f$-mean convex} if the $f$-mean curvature $(H_f)_{\partial M}$ of $\partial M$ introduced in \eqref{eq:fmc} is nonnegative when computed with respect to the inner unit normal $\xi$.
Now we can prove a first result, where we obtain a topological restriction for strongly $f$-stable surfaces where $S_f+H^2_f\geq 0$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:main}
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian $3$-manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$ such that $\partial M$ is $f$-mean convex. Consider a smooth, compact, connected, oriented, $f$-stationary surface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ immersed in $M$ with $\emph{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\emph{int}(M)$ and $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\subset\partial M$. If $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is strongly $f$-stable and $S_f+H^2_f\geq 0$, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ has non-negative Euler characteristic. More precisely, we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] If $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma=\emptyset$, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is a sphere or a torus.
\item[(ii)] If $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\neq\emptyset$, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is a disk or a cylinder.
\end{enumerate}
If the Euler characteristic vanishes, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is flat and totally geodesic, the density $f$ is constant on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, and $S_f+H^2_f=\emph{Ric}_f(N,N)=0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. Moreover, if $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\neq\emptyset$, then it consists of two closed geodesics in $M$ where $\emph{II}(N,N)=(H_f)_{\partial M}=0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first obtain two identities, one for the interior of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and another one for the boundary $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, that will be key ingredients to prove the claim. From the Gauss equation we get the following rearrangement already described in the proof of \cite[Thm.~5.1]{schoen-yau}
\[
\text{Ric}(N,N)+|\sg|^2=\frac{1}{2}\,S+2H^2+\frac{1}{2}\,|\sg|^2-K,
\]
where $H$ and $K$ denote the Riemannian mean curvature and the Gauss curvature of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, respectively. Note also that
\[
\Delta\psi=\divv_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\nabla\psi+(\nabla^2\psi)(N,N)=\Delta_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\psi-2H\,\escpr{\nabla\psi,N}+(\nabla^2\psi)(N,N),
\]
where we have used $\nabla\psi=\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\psi+\escpr{\nabla\psi,N}N$ and $\divv_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma N=-2H$ to obtain the second equality. Combining the two previous equations together with \eqref{eq:fricci}, \eqref{eq:fmc} and \eqref{eq:fscalar}, we deduce
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:yo1}
\text{Ric}_f(N,N)+|\sg|^2=\frac{1}{2}\,(S_f+H^2_f)+\frac{1}{2}\,(|\sg|^2+|\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\psi|^2)-K+\Delta_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\psi\quad\text{ on } \Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the fact that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is $f$-stationary implies, by Corollary~\ref{cor:stationary} (ii), that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ meets $\partial M$ orthogonally along the boundary curves. Thus, the inner unit normal $\xi$ of $\partial M$ coincides with the conormal vector $\nu$. As a consequence $\text{II}(T,T)=h$, where $T$ is a unit tangent vector to $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $h$ is the geodesic curvature of $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. Therefore, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:yo2}
\text{II}(N,N)=2H_{\partial M}-h \quad\text{ along }\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma,
\end{equation}
where $H_{\partial M}$ is the Riemannian mean curvature of $\partial M$ with respect to $\xi$.
Now, we take the function $u:=1/\sqrt{f}$. The strong $f$-stability of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ together with Corollary~\ref{cor:stable} (i) and the definition of $f$-index form in \eqref{eq:indo} gives us
\[
0\leq\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)=\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\left\{|\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u|^2-\big(\text{Ric}_f(N,N)+|\sg|^2\big)\,u^2\right\}da_f-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}\text{II}(N,N)\,u^2\,dl_f,
\]
where we understand that the boundary integral vanishes provided $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma=\emptyset$. Note that $u^2\,da_f=da$, $u^2\,dl_f=dl$ and $|\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u|^2\,da_f=(1/4)\,|\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\psi|^2\,da$. Therefore, by substituting equalities \eqref{eq:yo1} and \eqref{eq:yo2} into the previous expression, and taking into account that $\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\Delta_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\psi\,da=-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}\escpr{\nabla\psi,\nu}\,dl$, we conclude
\begin{align}
\label{eq:yo3}
0\leq\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)&=\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\left\{\frac{-1}{4}\,|\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\psi|^2-\frac{1}{2}\,(S_f+H_f^2)-\frac{1}{2}\,|\sg|^2\right\}da+\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma K\,da
\\
\nonumber
&+\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}\left\{-2H_{\partial M}+\escpr{\nabla\psi,\nu}\right\}dl
+\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}h\,dl
\\
\nonumber
&\leq\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma} K\,da-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma}(H_f)_{\partial M}\,dl+2\pi\,\chi-\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma K\,da
\\
\nonumber
&\leq 2\pi\chi=2\pi\,(2-2g-m),
\end{align}
where we have used that $S_f+H_f^2\geq 0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, and the $f$-mean convexity of $\partial M$. We have also denoted by $\chi$, $g$ and $m$ the Euler characteristic, the genus and the number of boundary components of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, respectively. From the previous inequality we easily deduce statements (i) and (ii) of the theorem.
Now, suppose $\chi=0$. Then, equality holds in \eqref{eq:yo3}, and so $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is a totally geodesic surface such that $|\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\psi|^2=0$, $S_f+H_f^2=0$ and $(H_f)_{\partial M}=H_{\partial M}=0$. Moreover, we also have $\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)=0$. For any function $v\in C^\infty(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ and any $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we get
\begin{align*}
0\leq\mathcal{I}_f(u+sv,u+sv)&=\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)+2s\,\mathcal{I}_f(u,v)+s^2\,\mathcal{I}_f(v,v)
\\
&=2s\,\mathcal{I}_f(u,v)+s^2\,\mathcal{I}_f(v,v),
\end{align*}
since $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is strongly $f$-stable and $\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)=0$. This implies that $\mathcal{I}_f(u,v)=0$ for any $v\in C^\infty(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$. Let $\mathcal{L}_f$ be the $f$-Jacobi operator defined in \eqref{eq:hfprima}. After applying the integration by parts formula in \eqref{eq:ibp}, we obtain
\[
0=\mathcal{I}_f(v,u)=\mathcal{Q}_f(v,u)=-\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma v\,\mathcal{L}_f(u)\,da_f
-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma} v\left\{\frac{\partial u}{\partial\nu}+\text{II}(N,N)\,u\right\}dl_f,
\]
for any $v\in C^\infty(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$. From here we deduce $\mathcal{L}_f(u)=0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $\partial u/\partial\nu+\text{II}(N,N)\,u=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. By taking into account that $u>0$ and that $\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma u=-(\nabla_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\psi)/(2\sqrt{f})=0$, we conclude that $\text{Ric}_f(N,N)=0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $\text{II}(N,N)=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. Finally, equations \eqref{eq:yo1} and \eqref{eq:yo2} give $K=0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $h=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{example}
Consider the manifold $M_r=\{p\in{\mathbb{R}}^{3}\,;\,|p|\geq r\}$ endowed with the Euclidean metric and the radial $k$-homogeneous density $f(p)=|p|^k$. It is easy to check, see the computations in \cite[Ex.~4.3]{homostable}, that the $f$-mean curvature of $\partial M_r$ with respect to the inner unit normal equals $-(k+2)/r$. Moreover, the Perelman scalar curvature is given by $S_f(p)=-k\,|p|^{-2}\,(k+2)$, see \cite[Lem.~3.6]{homostable} for details. Hence, in the case $k=-2$, we have that $M_r$ has $f$-mean convex boundary and vanishing Perelman scalar curvature. By applying Theorem~\ref{th:main} we conclude that any compact strongly $f$-stable hypersurface in $M_r$ is topologically a sphere or a disk.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Theorem~\ref{th:main} shows that the existence of strongly $f$-stable tori or cylinders is very restrictive. However, we can find some situations where they appear. Take the manifold $M={\mathbb{R}}\times\mathbb{S}^1\times [-1,1]$ endowed with the Riemannian product metric and the density $f(s,\theta,t)=e^s$. It is easy to check that $M$ has $f$-mean convex boundary and that any horizontal cylinder $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma=\{s\}\times\mathbb{S}^1\times [-1,1]$ is $f$-stationary with $S_f+H^2_f=-1+1=0$. Moreover, $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is totally geodesic with $\text{Ric}_f(N,N)=0$ and $\text{II}(N,N)=0$, which implies by \eqref{eq:indo} and Corollary~\ref{cor:stable} (i) that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is strongly $f$-stable. Similarly, in the Riemannian product $M={\mathbb{R}}\times\mathbb{S}^1\times\mathbb{S}^1$ with density $f(s,\theta,t)=e^{-s}$ any horizontal torus $\{s\}\times\mathbb{S}^1\times\mathbb{S}^1$ is strongly $f$-stable.
\end{example}
Observe that Theorem~\ref{th:main} applies when $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma=\emptyset$, $S_f\geq 0$ on $M$, and $H_f=0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, thus generalizing previous results in \cite[Thm.~2.1]{fan} and \cite[Prop.~8.1]{espinar}. In the next corollary we particularize Theorem~\ref{th:main} when $S_f\geq 0$ and $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\neq\emptyset$. This provides an extension of the results in \cite[Thm.~1.2]{fbr} and \cite[Prop.~6]{ambrozio} for stable free boundary minimal surfaces in Riemannian $3$-manifolds.
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:main}
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian $3$-manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$ such that $S_f\geq 0$ on $M$ and $\partial M$ is $f$-mean convex. Consider a smooth, compact, connected, oriented, $f$-stationary surface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ immersed in $M$ with $\emph{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\emph{int}(M)$ and non-empty boundary $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\subset\partial M$. If $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is strongly $f$-stable, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is either a disk or a totally geodesic flat cylinder. In the last case, the density $f$ is constant on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, $S_f=H_f=\emph{Ric}_f(N,N)=0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ consists of two closed geodesics in $M$, and $\emph{II}(N,N)=(H_f)_{\partial M}=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$.
\end{corollary}
The existence of strongly stable cylinders in the conditions of the previous corollary cannot be discarded. The model situation where they appear is a Riemannian product ${\mathbb{R}}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with constant density, where $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is the compact cylinder $\mathbb{S}^1\times [a,b]$ endowed with the Euclidean metric of ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. In fact, any horizontal slice $\{s\}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ provides a strongly stable cylinder. This is not the unique example we may give, in the sense that the existence of such cylinders does not imply that $M$ locally splits as a Riemannian product, see \cite[Sect.~1]{micallef}. However, by assuming that the cylinder is embedded and locally area-minimizing, we can obtain a rigidity result in the same spirit of \cite[Thm~1]{cai-galloway}, \cite[Thm.~8.1]{espinar} and \cite[Thm.~7]{ambrozio}.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:main2}
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian $3$-manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$ such that $S_f\geq 0$ on $M$ and $\partial M$ is $f$-mean convex. Suppose that there is a locally weighted area-minimizing smooth oriented cylinder $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ embedded in $M$ with $\emph{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\emph{int}(M)$ and $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\subset\partial M$.
Then, $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is flat with geodesic boundary, and there is an open neighborhood of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $M$ which is isometric to a Riemannian product $(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with constant density. Moreover, if $M$ is complete and $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ minimizes the weighted area in its isotopy class, then the density $f$ is constant in $M$ and the Riemannian product ${\mathbb{R}}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is an isometric covering of $M$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The scheme of the proof is the same as in Theorem~\ref{th:ricci}. First note that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is strongly $f$-stationary and strongly $f$-stable. So, we can deduce by Corollary~\ref{cor:main} that the $f$-mean curvature $H_f$ of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ vanishes, the density $f$ is constant on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, the surface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is totally geodesic and flat with geodesic boundary, and equalities $\text{Ric}_f(N,N)=\text{II}(N,N)=0$ hold. In particular, we can apply Proposition~\ref{prop:deformation} to obtain a variation $\varphi:(-s_0,s_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ such that $X=N$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, the hypersurfaces $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s:=\varphi_s(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)$ are all $f$-stationary, and $\Omega:=\varphi\big((-s_0,s_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\big)$ is an open neighborhood of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $M$ diffeomorphic to $(-s_0,s_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$.
Let us prove that the variation $\varphi$ does not increase the area. We use the subscript $s$ for denoting the quantities associated to $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. Define $(X_s)_p:=(\partial\varphi/\partial s)(s,p)$ and $u_s:=\escpr{X_s,N_s}$. Since $u_0=1$, we can suppose that $u_s>0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ for any $s\in (-s_0,s_0)$. As $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ is $f$-stationary, we infer by Corollary~\ref{cor:stationary} (ii) that $\escpr{X_s,\nu_s}=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. Thus equation~\eqref{eq:bd} yields $\partial u_s/\partial\nu_s+\text{II}(N_s,N_s)\,u_s=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. For any $s\in (-s_0,s_0)$, let $H_f(s)$ be the constant $f$-mean curvature of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. To prove the claim it suffices, by Lemma~\ref{lem:1st}, to show that $H'_f(s)\geq 0$ for any $s\in (-s_0,s_0)$. Note that $H_f'(s)=(\mathcal{L}_f)_s(u_s)$, where $(\mathcal{L}_f)_s$ is the $f$-Jacobi operator on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ defined in \eqref{eq:hfprima}. Hence, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:desi0}
H_f'(s)\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\frac{1}{u_s}\,da_s=\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\frac{(\mathcal{L}_f)_s(u_s)}{u_s}\,da_s.
\end{equation}
Let us see that the integrals at the right-hand side are nonnegative for any $s\in (-s_0,s_0)$. First note that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ausi}
-2\,\escpr{\nabla_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\psi,\nabla_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s} u_s}\leq |\nabla_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\psi|^2\,u_s+\frac{|\nabla_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s} u_s|^2}{u_s}.
\end{equation}
By taking into account \eqref{eq:hfprima}, \eqref{eq:deltaf} and \eqref{eq:yo1}, we get
\begin{align}
\label{eq:desi1}
\frac{(\mathcal{L}_f)_s(u_s)}{u_s}&=\frac{\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s} u_s+\escpr{\nabla_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\psi,\nabla_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s} u_s}}{u_s}+\text{Ric}_f(N_s,N_s)+|\sg_s|^2
\\
\nonumber
&\geq\frac{\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s} u_s}{u_s}-\frac{|\nabla_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}u_s|^2}{2\,u_s^2}+\frac{1}{2}\,\big(S_f+H_f(s)^2+|\sg_s|^2\big)-K_s+\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\psi.
\end{align}
On the other hand, we can use the divergence theorem together with equalities \eqref{eq:yo2} and $\partial u_s/\partial\nu_s=-\text{II}(N_s,N_s)u_s$, to obtain
\begin{align*}
\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\frac{\Delta_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s} u_s}{u_s}\,da_s&=\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\frac{|\nabla_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s} u_s|^2}{u_s^2}\,da_s-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\frac{1}{u_s}\frac{\partial u_s}{\partial\nu_s}\,dl_s
\\
&=\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\frac{|\nabla_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s} u_s|^2}{u_s^2}\,da_s+\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s} 2H_{\partial M}\,dl_s-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}h_s\,dl_s.
\end{align*}
By integrating and substituting the previous information into \eqref{eq:desi1}, we deduce
\begin{align}
\label{eq:desi2}
\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\frac{(\mathcal{L}_f)_s(u_s)}{u_s}\,da_s&\geq\frac{1}{2}\,\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\left(\frac{|\nabla_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s} u_s|^2}{u_s^2}+S_f+H_f(s)^2+|\sg_s|^2\right)da_s-\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s} K_s\,da_s
\\
\nonumber
&+\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}(H_f)_{\partial M}\,dl_s-\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}h_s\,dl_s
\\
\nonumber
&=\frac{1}{2}\,\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\left(\frac{|\nabla_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s} u_s|^2}{u_s^2}+S_f+H_f(s)^2+|\sg_s|^2\right)da_s
\\
\nonumber
&+\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}(H_f)_{\partial M}\,dl_s-2\pi\chi(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s),
\end{align}
where we have applied the Gauss-Bonnet theorem. Finally, the fact that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ is topologically a cylinder together with hypotheses $S_f\geq 0$ and $(H_f)_{\partial M}\geq 0$, allows us to conclude that $\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}(\mathcal{L}_f)_s(u_s)/u_s\,da_s\geq 0$, as we claimed. If we have equality for some $s\in(-s_0,s_0)$, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ is totally geodesic and the function $u_s$ is constant on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. Moreover, by \eqref{eq:ausi} we get that the density $f$ is constant on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$.
Now, the first conclusion of the theorem follows as in Theorem~\ref{th:ricci} by using that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is locally weighted area-minimizing. In particular, $H_f(s)=0$ for any $s\in (-s_0,s_0)$, and so
\[
0=H_f(s)=-\escpr{\nabla\psi,N_s}
\]
by equation \eqref{eq:fmc}. As a consequence, the density $f$ is constant in a neighborhood of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. The second conclusion in the statement can also be deduced as in Theorem~\ref{th:ricci}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
It is important to observe that our rigidity result in Theorem~\ref{th:ricci} does not follow from Theorem~\ref{th:main2} since the Perelman scalar curvature $S_f$ \emph{is not the trace} of $\text{Ric}_f$. This is a remarkable difference with respect to Riemannian geometry, where non-negative Ricci curvature implies non-negative scalar curvature. For example, in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ with the Gaussian density $f(p)=e^{-|p|^2}$, we have $\text{Ric}_f(v,v)=2|v|^2$ for any vector $v$, and $S_f(p)=12-4|p|^2$ for any $p\in{\mathbb{R}}^3$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Perelman scalar curvature and area estimates}
\label{subsec:area}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{th:main} can be adapted to deduce upper and lower bounds for the weighted area of compact strongly stable surfaces. These area estimates involve a non-vanishing lower bound on the Perelman scalar curvature, and they are sharp, in the sense that the equality cases lead to rigidity results for area-minimizing surfaces. In this way we obtain results in the spirit of \cite[Thm.~3]{shen-zhu}, \cite{bbn}, \cite[Thm.~3 and Cor.~1]{nunes}, \cite[Thm.~1.2]{fbr}, \cite[Thms.~8 and 9]{ambrozio} for the Riemannian case, and of \cite[Sects.~8 and 9]{espinar} for surfaces with empty boundary in manifolds with density. The precise statements are the following.
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:main3}
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian $3$-manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$ such that $\partial M$ is $f$-mean convex and $S_f\geq S_0f$ on $M$ for some $S_0>0$. Consider a smooth, compact, connected, oriented, $f$-stationary surface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with $\emph{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\emph{int}(M)$ and non-empty boundary $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\subset\partial M$. If $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is strongly $f$-stable, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is topologically a disk with $A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\leq 4\pi/S_0$. Moreover, if $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is embedded, locally weighted area-minimizing, and $A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)=4\pi/S_0$, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is a totally geodesic disk of constant Gauss curvature $(S_0f)/2$ bounded by geodesics, and there is an open neighborhood of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $M$ which is isometric to a Riemannian product $(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with constant density. Finally, if $M$ is complete and $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ minimizes the weighted area in its isotopy class, then the density $f$ is constant in $M$ and the Riemannian product ${\mathbb{R}}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is an isometric covering of $M$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
\label{th:main4}
Let $M$ be a smooth oriented Riemannian $3$-manifold endowed with a density $f=e^\psi$ such that $\partial M$ is $f$-mean convex and $S_f\geq S_0f$ on $M$ for some $S_0<0$. Consider a smooth, compact, connected, oriented, $f$-stationary surface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with $\emph{int}(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\subset\emph{int}(M)$ and non-empty boundary $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\subset\partial M$. If $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is strongly $f$-stable and has negative Euler characteristic $\chi$, then $A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)\geq 4\pi\chi/S_0$. Moreover, if $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is embedded, locally weighted area-minimizing, and $A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)=4\pi\chi/S_0$, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is a totally geodesic surface of constant Gauss curvature $(S_0f)/2$ bounded by geodesics, and there is an open neighborhood of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $M$ which is isometric to a Riemannian product $(-\varepsilon_0,\varepsilon_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ with constant density. Finally, if $M$ is complete and $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ minimizes the weighted area in its isotopy class, then the density $f$ is constant in $M$ and the Riemannian product ${\mathbb{R}}\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is an isometric covering of $M$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Let $g$ be the genus of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ and $m$ the number of boundary components. Then, the hypothesis $\chi<0$ is equivalent to that $g\geq 1$, or $g=0$ and $m\geq 3$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorems~\ref{th:main3} and \ref{th:main4}]
The first part of the statements comes from the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:main}. In fact, equation \eqref{eq:yo3} yields
\[
0\leq\mathcal{I}_f(u,u)\leq 2\pi\chi-\frac{1}{2}\int_\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma S_f\,da\leq 2\pi\chi-\frac{S_0}{2}\,A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma),
\]
from which we deduce the area estimates. Moreover, in the equality cases, we get that $f$ is constant on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, the surface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is totally geodesic with constant Gauss curvature $(S_0f)/2$, $H_f=\text{Ric}_f(N,N)=0$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ consists of geodesics, and $\text{II}(N,N)=0$ along $\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. In particular, we can use Proposition~\ref{prop:deformation} to construct a variation $\varphi:(-s_0,s_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\to M$ of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ such that $X=N$ on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$, all the hypersurfaces $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ are $f$-stationary, and $\Omega:=\varphi\big((-s_0,s_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma\big)$ is an open neighborhood of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ in $M$ diffeomorphic to $(-s_0,s_0)\times\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$.
Now we show that $\varphi$ does not increase the weighted area. We use the same notation as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:main2}. Let us see that $H'_f(s)\geq 0$ for any $s$ small enough, and that equality for some $s$ implies that $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ is totally geodesic and $u_s$ is constant on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. By taking into account \eqref{eq:desi0} and \eqref{eq:desi2}, we obtain
\begin{align}
\label{eq:desi3}
H_f'(s)\,\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\frac{1}{u_s}\,da_s&\geq\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\left(\frac{|\nabla_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}u_s|^2}{u_s^2}+S_f+H_f(s)^2+|\sg_s|^2\right)da_s
\\
\nonumber
&+\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}(H_f)_{\partial M}\,dl_s-2\pi\chi(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s)
\\
\nonumber
&\geq\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}S_f\,da_s+\int_{\partial\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}(H_f)_{\partial M}\,dl_s-2\pi\chi(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s)
\\
\nonumber
&\geq \frac{S_0}{2}\,A_f(s)-2\pi\chi,
\end{align}
where we have applied the hypotheses $S_f\geq S_0f$ and $(H_f)_{\partial M}\geq 0$. If equality holds in \eqref{eq:desi3} for some $s\in (-s_0,s_0)$, then $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$ is totally geodesic and $u_s$ is constant on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$. Moreover, by \eqref{eq:ausi} we also have that the density $f$ is constant on $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s$.
Suppose first that $S_0>0$ and $A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)=4\pi/S_0$. Since $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is locally weighted area-minimizing, then $A_f(s)\geq A_f(0)$ in a small open interval $J$ containing $0$. Thus, equation \eqref{eq:desi3} gives us
\[
H_f'(s)\,\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}\frac{1}{u_s}\,da_s\geq\frac{S_0}{2}\,A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)-2\pi=0,
\]
for any $s\in J$, and the claim is proved.
Suppose now that $S_0<0$ and $A_f(\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma)=4\pi\chi/S_0$. We reason as in the proof of \cite[Thm.~2]{micallef}. For any $s\in (0,s_0)$, we denote $\phi(s):=\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}(1/u_s)\,da_s$ and $\eta(s):=\int_{\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma_s}u_s\,(da_f)_s$. From the first variation formula in Lemma~\ref{lem:1st}, equation \eqref{eq:desi3} reads
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:desi4}
H_f'(s)\geq\frac{S_0}{2\phi(s)}\,\int_0^sA_f'(t)\,dt=-\frac{S_0}{2\phi(s)}\int_0^sH_f(t)\,\eta(t)\,dt.
\end{equation}
Let $C>0$ be the maximum value of the function $\phi(s)^{-1}\int_0^s\eta(t)\,dt$ on $[0,s_0]$. Fix a number $\varepsilon>0$ such that $-CS_0\,\varepsilon<2$. If we show that $H_f(t)\geq 0$ for any $t\in [0,\varepsilon)$, then we deduce from \eqref{eq:desi4} that $H_f'(s)\geq 0$ for any $s\in [0,\varepsilon)$. This proves the claim by arguing similarly on some $(\varepsilon',0]$. Suppose that there is $t_0\in (0,\varepsilon)$ with $H_f(t_0)<0$. Let $t_*:=\inf B$, where $B:=\{t\in [0,t_0]\,;\,H_f(t)\leq H_f(t_0)\}$. Note that $t_*\leq t_0<\varepsilon$. Let us assume $t_*>0$. By the definition of $t_*$ we have $H_f(t)\geq H_f(t_0)$ for any $t\in [0,t_*]$ and $H_f(t_0)=H_f(t_*)$. On the other hand, we apply the mean value theorem to find $t_1\in (0,t_*)$ such that $H_f'(t_1)=H_f(t_*)/t_*$. From \eqref{eq:desi4} we would obtain
\begin{align*}
\frac{H_f(t_*)}{t_*}=H_f'(t_1)&\geq-\frac{S_0}{2\phi(t_1)}\int_0^{t_1}H_f(t)\,\eta(t)\,dt\geq-\frac{S_0}{2}\,H_f(t_*)\,\frac{1}{\phi(t_1)}\int_0^{t_1}\eta(t)\,dt
\\
&\geq-\frac{CS_0}{2}\,H_f(t_*)>\frac{H_f(t_*)}{\varepsilon},
\end{align*}
which is a contradiction since $t_*<\varepsilon$. As a consequence, we would get $t_*=0$, and so $0=H_f(0)\leq H_f(t_0)<0$, which is another contradiction.
Finally, the conclusions of both theorems follow as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:main2}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Following classical terminology, we say that a strongly $f$-stationary hypersurface $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$ is \emph{strictly $f$-stable} if the second derivative of the weighted area functional satisfies $A_f''(0)>0$ for any variation of $\Sigma} \newcommand{\sg}{\sigma$. Clearly, a strictly $f$-stable hypersurface is locally weighted area-minimizing. In particular, all the results in this section hold for strictly $f$-stable hypersurfaces.
\end{remark}
\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}
|
\section*{References}\frenchspacing\small
\begin{list}{[\arabic{enumi}]}
{\usecounter{enumi}\parsep=2pt\topsep 0pt
\settowidth{\labelwidth}{[#1]}
\leftmargin=\labelwidth\advance\leftmargin\labelsep
\rightmargin=0pt\itemsep=1pt\sloppy}}{\end{list}}
\title{Harmonic analysis on homogeneous complex bounded domains and noncommutative geometry\footnote{Work
supported by the Belgian Interuniversity Attraction Pole (IAP) within the framework ``Dynamics, Geometry and Statistical Physics'' (DYGEST).}}
\author{}
\author{Pierre Bieliavsky$^1$, Victor Gayral$^2$, Axel de Goursac$^1$, Florian Spinnler$^1$}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\vspace*{-1cm}
\begin{center}
\textit{1: D\'epartement de Math\'ematiques, \\ Universit\'e Catholique de Louvain,\\
Chemin du Cyclotron, 2,\\
1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium\\
\vspace{2mm}
2: Universit\'e Reims Champagne-Ardenne\\
Laboratoire de Math\'ematiques\\
Moulin de la Housse - BP 1039\\
51687 Reims cedex 2, France\\
\vspace{2mm}
e-mails: \texttt{<EMAIL>, <EMAIL>, <EMAIL>, <EMAIL>}}
\end{center}%
\vskip 2cm
\begin{abstract}
We define and study a noncommutative Fourier transform on every homogeneous complex bounded domain. We then give an application in noncommutative differential geometry by defining noncommutative Baumslag-Solitar tori.
\end{abstract}
\noindent{\bf Key Words:} Strict deformation quantization, symmetric spaces, $\star$-representation, $\star$-exponential, noncommutative manifolds.
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent{\bf MSC (2010):} 22E45, 46L87, 53C35, 53D55.
\vskip 1cm
\tableofcontents
\section{Introduction}
In \cite{BG}, the authors developed a tracial symbolic pseudo-differential calculus on every Lie group $G$ whose Lie algebra $\kg$ is a normal $j$-algebras in the sense of Pyatetskii-Shapiro \cite{PS}. The class of such Lie groups is in one to one correspondence
with the class of homogeneous complex bounded domains. Each of them carries a
left-invariant Kahler structure.
\noindent As a by-product, they obtained a $G$-equivariant continuous linear mapping between the Schwartz space $\caS(G)$ of such a Lie group and a sub-algebra of Hilbert-Schmidt operators
on a Hilbert irreducible unitary $G$-module. This yields a one-parameter family of noncommutative associative multiplications
$\{\star_\theta\}_{\theta\in\gR}$ on the Schwartz space, each of them endowing
$\caS(G)$ with a Fr\'echet nuclear algebra structure. Moreover the resulting family of Fr\'echet algebras $\{(\caS(G),\star_\theta)\}_{\theta\in\gR}$ deforms the commutative
Fr\'echet algebra structure on $\caS(G)$ given by the pointwise multiplication of functions corresponding to the value $\theta=0$ of the deformation parameter. Note that such a program was achieved in \cite{Rieffel:1993} for abelian Lie groups and in \cite{Bieliavsky:2010su} for abelian Lie supergroups.
\medskip
In the present article, we construct a bijective intertwiner between every
noncommutative Fr\'echet algebra $(\caS(G),\star_\theta)$ ($\theta\neq0$) and
a convolution function algebra on the group $G$. The intertwiner's kernel consists
in a complex valued smooth function $\caE$ on the group $G\times G$ that we
call ``$\star$-exponential" because of its similar nature with objects defined in
\cite{F} and studied in \cite{AC} in the context of the Weyl-Moyal quantization of co-adjoint orbits of exponential Lie groups.
\noindent We then prove that the associated smooth map
$$
\caE: G\to C^\infty(G)
$$
consists in a group-morphism valued in the multiplier
(nuclear Fr\'echet) algebra $\caM_{\star_\theta}(G)$
of $(\caS(G),\star_\theta)$. The above group-morphism integrates the classical
moment mapping
$$
\lambda:\kg\to\caM_{\star_\theta}(G)\;\cap\;C^\infty(G)
$$
associated with the (symplectic) action of $G$ on itself by left-translations.
\noindent Next, we modify the 2-point kernel $\caE$ by a power of the modular function of $G$ in such a way that the corresponding Fourier-type transform
consists in a unitary operator $\caF$ on the Hilbert space of square integrable
functions with respect to a left-invariant Haar measure on $G$.
\noindent As an application, we define a class of noncommutative tori associated
to generalized Bauslag-Solitar groups in every dimension.
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgment.} One of us, Pierre Bieliavsky, spent the academic year 1995-1996 at UC Berkeley as a post-doc in the group of Professor Joseph A. Wolf.
It is a great pleasure for P. B. to warmly thank Professor Wolf for his support not only when a young post-doc but constantly during P. B. 's career. The research presented in this note is closely related to the talk P. B. gave at the occasion of the West Coast Lie Theory Seminar in November 1995 when studying some early stage features of the non-formal $\star$-exponential \cite{BUCB}.
\section{Homogeneous complex bounded domains and $j$-algebras}
The theory of $j$-algebras was much developed by Pyatetskii-Shapiro \cite{PS} for studying in a Lie-algebraic way the structure and classification of bounded homogeneous --- not necessarily symmetric --- domains in $\gC^n$. A $j$-algebra is roughly the Lie algebra $\kg$ of a transitive Lie group of analytic automorphisms of the domain, together with the data of the Lie algebra $\k$ of the stabilizer of a point in the latter Lie group, an endomorphism $j$ of $\kg$ coming from the complex structure on the domain, and a linear form on $\kg$ whose Chevalley coboundary gives the $j$-invariant symplectic structure coming from the K\"ahler structure on the domain. Pyatetskii-Shapiro realized that, among the $j$-algebras corresponding to a fixed bounded homogeneous domain, there always is at least one whose associated Lie group acts simply transitively on the domain, and which is realizable as upper triangular real matrices. Thoses $j$-algebras have the structure of \emph{normal $j$-algebras} which we proceed to describe now.
\begin{definition}
A {\defin normal $j$-algebra} is a triple $(\kg,\alpha,j)$ where
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\kg$ is a solvable Lie algebra which is split over the reals, i.e. $\ad_X$ has only real eigenvalues for all $X\in \kg$,
\item $j$ is an endomorphism of $\kg$ such that $j^2=-Id_{\kg}$ and $[X,Y]+j[jX,Y]+j[X,jY]-[jX,jY]=0$, $\forall X,Y \in \kg$,
\item $\alpha$ is a linear form on $\kg$ such that:
$\alpha([jX,X])>0$ if $X\neq 0$ and $\alpha([jX,jY])=\alpha([X,Y])$, $\forall X,Y \in\kg$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\noindent If $\b'$ is a subalgebra of $\b$ which is invariant by $j$, then $(\b',\alpha|_{\b'},j|_{\b'})$ is again a normal $j$-algebra, said to be a {\defin $j$-subalgebra} of $(\b,\alpha,j)$. A $j$-subalgebra whose algebra is at the same time an ideal is called a {\defin $j$-ideal}.
\begin{remark}
To each simple Lie algebra $\g$ of Hermitian type (i.e. such that the center of the maximal compact algebra $\k$ has real dimension one) we can attach a normal $j$-algebra $(\b,\alpha,j)$ where
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$\b$ is the solvable Lie algebra underlying the Iwasawa factor $\b=\a \oplus\n$
of an Iwasawa decomposition $\k \oplus\a \oplus\n$ of $\g$.
\item Denoting by $\mathbb{G}/K$ the Hermitean symmetric space associated to
the pair $(\g,\k)$ and by $\mathbb{G}=KAN$ the Iwasawa group decomposition corresponding to $\k\oplus\a\oplus\n$,
the global diffeomorphism:
$$
G:=AN\longrightarrow \mathbb{G}/K:g\mapsto gK\;,
$$
endows the group $G$ with an exact left-invariant symplectic structure
as well as a compatible complex structure. The evaluations at the unit
element $e\in G$ of these tensor fields define the elements ${\bf \Omega}=\dd\alpha$ and
$j$ at the Lie algebra level.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\noindent It is important to note that not every normal $j$-algebra arises this way. Indeed, it is with the help of the theory of $j$-algebras that Pyatetskii-Shapiro discovered the first examples of non-symmetric bounded homogeneous domains. Nevertheless, they can all be built from these ``Hermitian'' normal $j$-algebras by a semi-direct product process, as we recall now.
\begin{definition}
\label{def-elemjalg}
A normal $j$-algebra associated with a rank one Hermitean symmetric space (i.e.\ $\dim \a=1$) is called {\defin elementary}.
\end{definition}
\begin{Lemma}
Let $(V,\omega_0)$ be a symplectic vector space of dimension $2n$, and $\kh_V:=V\oplus \gR E$ be the corresponding Heisenberg algebra : $[x,y]=\omega_0(x,y)E$, $[x,E]=0$ $\forall x,y \in V$. Setting $\ka := \gR H$, we consider the split extension of Lie algebras:
\begin{equation*}
0\rightarrow \kh_V \rightarrow \ks:= \ka \ltimes \kh_V \rightarrow \ka \rightarrow 0,
\end{equation*}
with extension homomorphism $\rho_{\mathfrak{h}} : \mathfrak{a} \rightarrow \Der(\mathfrak{h})$ given by
\begin{equation*}
\rho_{\mathfrak{h}}(H)(x+\ell E):=[H,x+\ell E]:=x+2\ell E, \quad x\in V,\, \ell\in \gR.
\label{defelementarynormal}
\end{equation*}
Then the Lie algebra $\ks$ underlines an elementary normal $j$-algebra. Moreover,
every elementary normal $j$-algebra is of that form.
\end{Lemma}
\noindent
The main interest of elementary normal $j$-algebras is that they are the only building blocks of normal $j$-algebras, as shown by the following important property \cite{PS}.
\begin{proposition}\label{PS}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{PS_i} Let $(\b,\alpha,j)$ be a normal $j$-algebra, and $\z_1$ be one-dimensional ideal of $\b$. Then there exists a vector subspace $V$ of $\b$, such that $\mathfrak{s}=j\z_1+V+\z_1$ underlies an elementary normal $j$-ideal of $\b$. Moreover,
the associated extension sequence
$$
0\longrightarrow\mathfrak{s}\longrightarrow\b\longrightarrow\b'\longrightarrow0\;,
$$
is split as a sequence of normal $j$-algebras and such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $[\b',\a_1\oplus\z_1]=0$,
\item $[\b', V]\subset V$.
\end{enumerate}
\item Such one-dimensional ideals $\z_1$ always exist. In particular, every normal $j$-algebra admits a decomposition as a sequence of split extensions of elementary normal $j$-algebras with properties (a) and (b) above.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Symplectic symmetric space geometry of elementary normal $j$-groups}
\label{subsec-elem}
In this section, we briefly recall results of \cite{BM, B07}.
\begin{definition}
The connected simply-connected real Lie group $G$ whose Lie algebra $\kg$ underlies a normal $j$-algebra is called a {\defin normal $j$-group}.
The connected simply connected Lie group $\gS$ whose Lie algebra $\ks$ underlies an elementary normal $j$-algebra is said to be an {\defin elementary normal $j$-group}.
\end{definition}
\noindent Elementary normal $j$-groups are exponential (non-nilpotent) solvable Lie groups. As an example, consider the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{s}$ of Definition \ref{def-elemjalg} where $V=\algzero$. It is generated over $\mathbb{R}$ by two elements $H$ and $E$ satisfying $[H,E]=2E$ and is therefore isomorphic to the Lie algebra of the group of affine transformations of the real line: in this case, $\mathbb{S}$ is the $ax+b$ group.
\noindent Now generally, the Iwasawa factor $AN$ of the simple group $SU(1,n)$ (which corresponds to the above example in the case $n=1$) is an elementary normal $j$-group.
\medskip
\noindent We realize $\gS$ on the product manifold underlying $\ks$:
$$
\gS\;=\;\gR\times V\times\gR\;=\;\{(a,x,\ell)\}\;.
$$
The group law of $\gS$ is given by
\begin{equation}
(a,x,\ell)\fois(a',x',\ell')=\Big(a+a',e^{-a'}x+x',e^{-2a'}\ell+\ell'+\frac12e^{-a'}\omega_0(x,x')\Big)\label{eq-gSlaw}
\end{equation}
and the inverse by $$(a,x,\ell)^{-1}=(-a,-e^ax,-e^{2a}\ell)\;.$$
\noindent We denote by
$$
\Ad^*:\gS\times\ks^\ast:(g,\xi)\mapsto\Ad^*_g(\xi)\;:=\;\xi\circ\Ad_{g^{-1}}
$$
the co-adjoint action of $\gS$ on the dual space $\ks^\ast$ of $\ks=\gR H\oplus V\oplus\gR E$.
\noindent In the dual $\ks^\ast$, we consider the elements ${}^\flat H$ and ${}^\flat E$ as well as ${}^\flat x$ ($x\in V$) defined by
\begin{align*}
&{}^\flat H|_{V\oplus \gR E}\;\equiv\;0,\qquad \langle{}^\flat H, H\rangle\;=\;1,\\
&{}^\flat E|_{\gR H\oplus V}\;\equiv\;0,\qquad \langle{}^\flat E, E\rangle\;=\;1,\\
&{}^\flat x|_{\gR H\oplus\gR E}\;\equiv\;0,\qquad \langle{}^\flat x,y\rangle\;=\;\omega_0(x,y) \quad (y\in V)\;.
\end{align*}
\begin{proposition}\label{elem-orbit}
\noindent Let $\caO_\ee$ denote the co-adjoint orbit through the element $\ee\,{}^\flat E$, for $\ee=\pm 1$, equipped with its standard Kirillov-Kostant-Souriau symplectic
structure (referred to as KKS). Then the map
\begin{equation}
\gS\to\caO_\ee\;:\;(a,x,\ell)\mapsto \Ad^*_{(a,x,\ell)}(\ee\,{}^\flat E)=\ee(2\ell\, {}^\flat H-e^{-a}\,{}^\flat x+e^{-2a}\,{}^\flat E) \label{eq-orbitelem}
\end{equation}
is a $\gS$-equivariant global Darboux chart on $\caO_\ee$ in which the KKS two-form reads:
$$\omega:=\omega_{\gS}:=\ee(2\dd a\wedge\dd\ell+\omega_0)\;.$$
\end{proposition}
\noindent Within this setting, we consider the moment map of the action of $\gS$ on $\caO_\ee\simeq\gS$:
$$
\lambda:\ks\to C^\infty(\gS): X\mapsto\lambda_X
$$
defined by the relations:
$$
\lambda_X(g)\;:=\;\langle\,\Ad_g^\ast\left(\ee\,{}^\flat E\right)\,,\,X\,\rangle\;.
$$
\begin{lemma} Denoting, for every $X\in\ks$, the associated fundamental vector field by
$$
X^*_g\;:=\;\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}|_0\,\exp(-tX).g\;,
$$
one has ($y\in V$):
\begin{equation*}
H^\ast=-\partial_a\;,\qquad y^\ast=-e^{-a}\partial_{y}+\frac12e^{-a}\omega_0(x,y)\partial_\ell\;,\qquad E^\ast=-e^{-2a}\partial_\ell\;.
\end{equation*}
Moreover the moment map reads:
\begin{equation}
\lambda_H(a,x,\ell)=2\ee\ell\;,\qquad \lambda_y(a,x,\ell)=e^{-a}\ee\omega_0(y,x)\;,\qquad \lambda_E(a,x,\ell)=\ee e^{-2a}\;.\label{eq-elem-moment}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proposition}
The map
$$
s:\gS\times\gS\to\gS:(g,g')\mapsto s_gg'
$$
defined by
\begin{equation}
s_{(a,x,\ell)}(a',x',\ell')=\Big(2a-a',2\cosh(a-a')x-x',2\cosh(2(a-a'))\ell-\ell'+\sinh(a-a')\omega_0(x,x')\Big)\label{eq-symstruct}
\end{equation}
endows the Lie group $\gS$ with a left-invariant structure of symmetric space in the sense of O. Loos (cf. \cite{L}).
\noindent Moreover the symplectic structure $\omega$ is invariant under the symmetries: for every $g\in\gS$, one has
$$
s_g^\ast\omega\;=\;\omega\;.
$$
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Normal j-groups}
\label{subsec-normal}
The above Proposition \ref{PS} implies that every normal $j$-group $G$ can be decomposed into a semi-direct product
\begin{equation}\label{SDP}
G\;=\;G_1\ltimes_\rho\gS_2
\end{equation}
where $$\gS_2\;:=\;\R H_2\times V_2\times \R E_2$$ is an elementary normal $j$-group of real dimension $2n_2+2$ and $G_1$ is a normal $j$-group. This means that the group law of $G$ has the form
\begin{equation*}
\forall g_1,g_1'\in G_1,\ \forall g_2,g_2'\in\gS_2\quad:\quad (g_1,g_2)\fois(g_1',g_2')=\Big( g_1\fois g_1',\ g_2\fois(\rho(g_1)g_2')\Big),
\end{equation*}
where $\rho:G_1\to Sp(V_2,\omega_0)$ denotes the extension homomorphism; and the inverse is given by $(g_1,g_2)^{-1}=(g_1^{-1},\rho(g_1^{-1})g_2^{-1})$. As a consequence, every normal $j$-group therefore results as a sequence of semidirect products of a finite number of elementary normal $j$-groups.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop-moment} Consider the decomposition (\ref{SDP}). Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item the Lie group $G_1$ admits an open co-adjoint orbit $\caO_1$ through an element $o_1\in\kg_1^\ast$ which it acts on in a simply transitive way.
\item The co-adjoint orbit $\caO$ of $G$ through the element $o\;:=\;o_1+\ee_2\,{}^\flat E_2$ (same notation as in Section \ref{subsec-elem})
is open in $\kg^\ast$.
\item Denoting by $\caO_2$ the co-adjoint orbit of $\gS_2$ through $\ee_2\,{}^\flat E_2$, the map
\begin{equation}\label{SYMPL}
\phi\,:\,\caO_1\times\caO_2\to\caO:(\Ad_{g_1}^\ast o_1,\ee_2\Ad_{g_2}^\ast{}^\flat E_2)\mapsto\Ad^\ast_{(g_1,g_2)}(o)
\end{equation}
is a symplectomorphism when endowing each orbit with its KKS two-form.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We proceed by induction on the dimension in proving that $\caO$ is acted on by $G$ in a simply transitive way.
By induction hypothesis, so is $\caO_1$ by $G_1$. And Proposition \ref{elem-orbit} implies it is the case for $\caO_2$ as well.
Now denoting $(g_1,e)\;=:\;g_1$ and $(e,g_2)\;=:\;g_2$, we observe:
$$
\Ad^\ast_{(g_1,g_2)}(o)=\Ad^\ast_{g_2g_1}(o)=\Ad^\ast_{g_2}\left(\Ad^\ast_{g_1}(o_1)+\ee_2\,{}^\flat E_2\circ\rho(g_1^{-1})_{\ast e}\right)
$$
where $\rho:G_1\to\Aut(\gS_2)$ denotes the extension homomorphism.
\noindent Now for all $\xi_1\in\kg_1^\ast\,,\, X_1\in\kg_1\,,\,X_2\in\ks_2$ and $g_2\in\gS_2$:
$$
\langle\Ad_{g_2}^\ast\xi_1\,,\,X_1+X_2\rangle=\langle\xi_1\,,\,\Ad_{g_2^{-1}}X_1+\Ad_{g_2^{-1}}X_2\rangle=\langle\xi_1\,,\,\Ad_{g_2^{-1}}X_1\rangle\;.
$$
But
$$
\Ad_{g_2^{-1}}X_1\;=\;\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}|_0(\exp(t X_1),g_2^{-1})(e,g_2)\;=\;\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}|_0(\exp(t X_1),g_2^{-1}\rho(\exp(tX_1))g_2)\;.
$$
Hence
$$
\langle\xi_1\,,\,\Ad_{g_2^{-1}}X_1\rangle\;=\;\langle\xi_1\,,\,X_1\oplus\left(\frac{{\rm d}}{{\rm d}t}|_0g_2^{-1}\rho(\exp(tX_1))g_2\right)\rangle\;=\;\langle\xi_1\,,\,X_1\rangle\;.
$$
Therefore $\Ad_{g_2}^\ast\xi_1=\xi_1$ and we get
$$
\Ad^\ast_{(g_1,g_2)}(o)\;=\;\Ad^\ast_{g_1}(o_1)\,+\ee_2\,\Ad^\ast_{g_2}\left({}^\flat E_2\circ\rho(g_1^{-1})_{\ast e}\right)\;.
$$
The induction hypothesis thus implies that the stabilizer of element $o$ in $G$ is trivial. Which shows in particular that the fundamental group
of $\caO$ is trivial.
The map (\ref{SYMPL}) being a surjective submersion is therefore a diffeomorphism.
\noindent It remains to prove the assertion regarding the symplectic structures. Denoting by $\omega^{\caO}$ the KKS form on $\caO$, we observe that,
with obvious notations,
for all $Y_1\in\kg_1$ and $Y_2\in\ks_2$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\phi^\ast\omega^{\caO}(X^\ast_1\oplus X_2^\ast,Y_1^\ast\oplus Y_2^\ast)\\&=&
\omega^{\caO}_{\Ad^\ast_{(g_1,g_2)}(o)}(\phi_\ast X^\ast_1+ \phi_\ast X_2^\ast,\phi_\ast Y_1^\ast+ \phi_\ast Y_2^\ast)\\
&=&
\omega^{\caO}_{\Ad^\ast_{(g_1,g_2)}(o)}(\left(\Ad_{g_2}X_1\right)^\ast+ X_2^\ast,\left(\Ad_{g_2}Y_1\right)^\ast+ Y_2^\ast)\\
&=&
\langle\,\Ad^\ast_{(g_1,g_2)}(o)\,,\,[\Ad_{g_2}X_1+ X_2\,,\,\Ad_{g_2}Y_1+ Y_2]\,\rangle\\
&=&
\langle\,\Ad^\ast_{g_1}(o)\,,\,[X_1+ \Ad_{g_2^{-1}}X_2\,,\,Y_1+ \Ad_{g_2^{-1}}Y_2]\,\rangle\\
&=&
\langle\,\Ad^\ast_{g_1}(o)\,,\,[X_1,Y_1]- \rho(Y_1)\Ad_{g_2^{-1}}X_2+ \rho(X_1)\Ad_{g_2^{-1}}Y_2+\Ad_{g_2^{-1}}[X_2,Y_2]\,\rangle\\
&=&\omega^{\caO_1}_{\Ad^\ast_{g_1}(o_1)}(X^\ast_1,Y_1^\ast)+\ee_2\omega^{\caO_2}_{\Ad^\ast_{g_2}{}^\flat E_2}(X^\ast_2,Y_2^\ast)\\
&+&\ee_2\langle{}^\flat E_2\,,\,\rho(g_1^{-1})_{\ast e}\left(
- \rho(Y_1)\Ad_{g_2^{-1}}X_2+ \rho(X_1)\Ad_{g_2^{-1}}Y_2
\right)\rangle\;.
\end{eqnarray*}
The last term in the above expression vanishes identically. Indeed, the specific form of $\rho$ implies that the element
$v_2\;:=\;- \rho(Y_1)\Ad_{g_2^{-1}}X_2+ \rho(X_1)\Ad_{g_2^{-1}}Y_2$ lives in $V_2$ as well as $\rho(g_1^{-1})_{\ast e}v_2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\label{rmk-decomp}
Normal $j$-groups can be decomposed into elementary normal $j$-groups $\gS_k$ as $G=\big(\dots (\gS_1\ltimes_{\rho_1}\gS_2)\ltimes_{\rho_2}\dots\big)\ltimes_{\rho_{N-1}}\gS_N$ and the co-adjoint orbits described in Proposition \ref{prop-moment} are determined by sign choices $\ee_k=\pm 1$ for each factor $\gS_k$. We will denote $\caO_{(\ee)}$ the co-adjoint orbit associated to the signs $(\ee_k)_{1\leq k\leq N}\in(\gZ_2)^N$.
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
\label{ex-normal-siegel}
Let us describe the following example corresponding to the six-dimensional Siegel domain $\mbox{\rm Sp}(2,\R)/\mbox{\rm U}(2)$. Let $G_1=\gS_1$ be of dimension 2 ($V_1=\algzero$, $G_1$ is the affine group), $\gS_2$ of dimension 4, i.e. $V_2$ is of dimension 2, with basis $f_2,f'_2$ endowed with $\omega_0=\begin{pmatrix} 0&1 \\ -1& 0 \end{pmatrix}$), and the action $\rho:\gS_1\to Sp(V_2)$ be given by
\begin{equation*}
\rho(a_1,\ell_1)=\begin{pmatrix} e^{a_1}& 0 \\ e^{-a_1}\ell_1 & e^{-a_1} \end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Then the group law is
\begin{multline*}
(a_1,\ell_1,a_2,v_2,w_2,\ell_2)\fois(a'_1,\ell'_1,a_2',v_2',w_2'\ell_2')=\Big(a_1+a_1',e^{-2a_1'}\ell_1+\ell_1',a_2+a_2',e^{-a_2'}v_2+e^{a_1}v_2',\\
e^{-a_2'}w_2+e^{-a_1}\ell_1v_2'+e^{-a_1}w_2', e^{-2a_2'}\ell_2+\ell_2'+\frac12 e^{-a_2'}(e^{-a_1}\ell_1 v_2v_2'+e^{-a_1}v_2w_2'-e^{a_1}w_2v_2')\Big),
\end{multline*}
where
$(a_1,\ell_1)\in\gS_1\;,\;(a_2,v_2,w_2,\ell_2)\in\gS_2$ and
$$
g:=(a_1,\ell_1,a_2,v_2,w_2,\ell_2)=e^{a_2H_2}e^{v_2f_2+w_2f'_2}e^{\ell_2E_2}e^{a_1H_1}e^{\ell_1 E_1}\;.$$
Its Lie algebra is characterized by
\begin{align*}
&[H_1,E_1]=2E_1,\qquad [H_2,f_2]=f_2,\qquad [H_2,f'_2]=f'_2,\qquad [f_2,f'_2]=E_2,\\
&[H_2,E_2]=2E_2,\qquad [H_1,f_2]=f_2,\qquad [H_1,f'_2]=-f'_2,\qquad [E_1,f_2]=f'_2,
\end{align*}
where the other relations vanish. The co-adjoint action takes the form
\begin{multline*}
\Ad^{*}_{g}(\ee_1\,{}^\flat E_1+\ee_2\,{}^\flat E_2)=(2\ee_1\ell_1+\ee_2 v_2w_2){}^\flat H_1+(\ee_1 e^{-2a_1}-\frac{\ee_2}{2}v_2^2){}^\flat E_1\\
+\ee_2(2\ell_2{}^\flat H_2-e^{-a_2}v_2{}^\flat f_2-e^{-a_2}w_2{}^\flat f'_2+e^{-2a_2}{}^\flat E_2)\;.
\end{multline*}
The moment map can then be extracted from this expression:
\begin{align*}
&\lambda_{H_1}=2\ee_1\ell_1+\ee_2 v_2w_2,\qquad \lambda_{E_1}=\ee_1 e^{-2a_1}-\frac{\ee_2}{2}v_2^2,\qquad \lambda_{H_2}=2\ee_2\ell_2,\\
&\lambda_{f_2}=\ee_2 e^{-a_2}w_2,\qquad \lambda_{f'_2}=-\ee_2 e^{-a_2}v_2,\qquad \lambda_{E_2}=\ee_2 e^{-2a_2}.
\end{align*}
\end{example}
\section{Determination of the star-exponential}
\subsection{Quantization of elementary groups}
\label{subsec-quelem}
We follow the analysis developed in \cite{BG}, where the reader can find all the proofs. In the notations of section \ref{subsec-elem}, we choose two Lagrangian subspaces in duality $V_0,V_1$ of the symplectic vector space $(V,\omega_0)$ of dimension $2n$ underlying the elementary group $\gS$. We denote the corresponding coordinates $x=(v,w)\in V$ in the global chart, with $v\in V_0$ and $w\in V_1$. Let $\kq=\gR H\oplus V_0$ and $Q=\exp(\kq)$. The unitary induced representation associated to the co-adjoint orbit $\caO_\ee$ ($\ee=\pm1$) by the method of Kirillov has the form:
\begin{equation}
U_{\theta,\ee}(a,x,\ell)\varphi(a_0,v_0)= e^{\frac{i\ee}{\theta}\Big(e^{2(a-a_0)}\ell+\omega_0(\frac12e^{a-a_0}v-v_0,e^{a-a_0}w)\Big)}\varphi(a_0-a,v_0-e^{a-a_0}v)\label{eq-unitindrep}
\end{equation}
for $(a,x,\ell)\in \gS$, $\varphi\in L^2(Q)$, $(a_0,v_0)\in Q$ and $\theta\in\gR_+^*$. These representations $U_{\theta,\ee}:\gS\to\caL(\ehH)$ are unitary and irreducible, and the unitary dual is described by these two representations. A multiplier $\bfm$ is a function on $Q$. There is a particular multiplier:
\begin{equation}
\bfm_0(a,v)=2^{n+1}\sqrt{\cosh(2a)}\cosh(a)^n.\label{eq-multiplier}
\end{equation}
Let us define $\Sigma:=(s_{(0,0,0)}|_Q)^\ast$, where $s$ is the symmetric structure \eqref{eq-symstruct}:
\begin{equation}
\Sigma\varphi(a,v)=\varphi(-a,-v).\label{eq-sigma}
\end{equation}
Then, the Weyl-type quantization map is given by
\begin{multline}
\Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}(a,x,\ell)\varphi(a_0,v_0):=U_{\theta,\ee}(a,x,\ell)\bfm_0\Sigma U_{\theta,\ee}(a,x,\ell)^{-1}\varphi(a_0,v_0)\\
=2^{n+1}\sqrt{\cosh(2(a-a_0))}\cosh(a-a_0)^n e^{\frac{2i\ee}{\theta}\Big(\sinh(2(a-a_0))\ell+\omega_0(\cosh(a-a_0)v-v_0,\cosh(a-a_0)w)\Big)}\\
\varphi(2a-a_0,2\cosh(a-a_0)v-v_0).\label{eq-qumap}
\end{multline}
$\Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}(g)$ is a symmetric unbounded operator on $\ehH$, and $g\in \gS\simeq\caO_\ee$.
On smooth functions with compact support $f\in\caD(\caO_\ee)$, by denoting $\kappa:=\frac{1}{2^n(\pi\theta)^{n+1}}$, one has
\begin{equation*}
\Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}(f):=\kappa\int_{\caO_\ee} f(g)\Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}(g)\dd\mu(g)
\end{equation*}
with $\dd\mu(g)=\dd^Lg$ which corresponds to the Liouville measure of the KKS symplectic form on the co-adjoint orbit $\caO_\ee\simeq\gS$. Its extension is continuous and called the quantization map $\Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}:L^2(\caO_\ee)\to\caL_{HS}(\ehH)$, with $\ehH:=L^2(Q)$ and $\caL_{HS}$ the Hilbert-Schmidt operators.
The normalization has been chosen such that $\Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}(1)=\gone_\ehH$, understood in the distributional sense. Moreover, it is $\gS$-equivariant, because of
\begin{equation*}
\forall g,g_0\in \gS\quad:\quad \Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}(g\fois g_0)=U_{\theta,\ee}(g)\Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}(g_0)U_{\theta,\ee}(g)^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
The unitary representation $U_{\theta,\ee}:\gS\to\caL(\ehH)$ induces a resolution of the identity.
\begin{proposition}
By denoting the norm $\norm\varphi\norm^2_w:=\int_Q|\varphi(a,v)|^2e^{2(n+1)a}\dd a\dd v$ and $\varphi_g(q)=U_{\theta,\ee}(g)\varphi(q)$ for $g\in\gS$, $q\in Q$ and a non-zero $\varphi\in\ehH$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\kappa}{\norm\varphi\norm^2_w}\int_\gS |\varphi_g\rangle\langle\varphi_g|\dd^Lg=\gone_\ehH.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
This resolution of identity shows that the trace has the form
\begin{equation}
\tr(T)=\frac{\kappa}{\norm\varphi\norm^2_w}\int_\gS \langle\varphi_g, T\varphi_g\rangle\dd^L g\label{eq-tracesymb}
\end{equation}
for any trace-class operator $T\in\caL^1(\ehH)$.
\begin{theorem}
The symbol map, which is the left-inverse of the quantization map $\Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}$ can be obtained via the formula
\begin{equation*}
\forall f\in L^2(\caO_\ee),\ \forall g\in\caO_\ee\quad:\quad \tr(\Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}(f)\Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}(g))=f(g),
\end{equation*}
where the trace is understood in the distributional sense in the variable $g\in \gS$.
\end{theorem}
Then, the star-product is defined as
\begin{equation*}
(f_1\star_{\theta,} f_2)(g):=\tr(\Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}(f_1)\Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}(f_2)\Omega_{\theta,\ee,\bfm_0}(g))
\end{equation*}
for $f_1,f_2\in L^2(\caO_\ee)$ and $g\in\caO_\ee$, where we omitted the subscripts $\ee,\bfm_0$ for the star-product.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop-quelem-starprod}
The star-product has the following expression:
\begin{equation}
(f_1\star_{\theta}f_2)(g)=\frac{1}{(\pi\theta)^{2n+2}}\int\ K_{\gS}(g,g_1,g_2)e^{-\frac{2i}{\theta}S_{\gS}(g,g_1,g_2)}f_1(g_1)f_2(g_2)\dd \mu(g_1)\dd \mu(g_2)\label{eq-starprod}
\end{equation}
where the amplitude and the phase are
\begin{align*}
K_{\gS}(g,g_1,g_2)=& 4\sqrt{\cosh(2(a_1-a_2))\cosh(2(a_1-a))\cosh(2(a-a_2))}\cosh(a_2-a)^{n}\\
&\cosh(a_1-a)^{n}\cosh(a_1-a_2)^{n},\\
\ee S_{\gS}(g,g_1,g_2)=&-\sinh(2(a_1-a_2))\ell-\sinh(2(a_2-a))\ell_1-\sinh(2(a-a_1))\ell_2\\
&+\cosh(a_1-a)\cosh(a_2-a)\omega_0(x_1,x_2) +\cosh(a_1-a)\cosh(a_1-a_2)\omega_0(x_2,x)\\
&+\cosh(a_1-a_2)\cosh(a_2-a)\omega_0(x,x_1).
\end{align*}
with $g_i=(a_i,x_i,\ell_i)\in\gS$. Moreover, $g\mapsto 1$ is the unit of this product, is is associative, $\gS$-invariant and satisfies the tracial identity:
\begin{equation}
\int f_1\star_\theta f_2=\int f_1\fois f_2.\label{eq-tracial1}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
Note that this product has first been found \cite{Bieliavsky:2002} by intertwining the Moyal product:
\begin{multline*}
(f_1\star^0_\theta f_2)(a,x,\ell)=\frac{4}{(\pi\theta)^{2+2n}}\int\dd a_i\dd x_i\dd \ell_i\ f_1(a_1+a,x_1+x,\ell_1+\ell)\\
f_2(a_2+a,x_2+x,\ell_2+\ell) e^{-\frac{2i\ee}{\theta}(2a_1\ell_2-2a_2\ell_1+\omega_0(x_1,x_2))}
\end{multline*}
for $f_1,f_2\in L^2(\caO_\ee)$ and $\caO_\ee\simeq\gS\simeq\gR^{2n+2}$, which is $\ks$-covariant ($[\lambda_X,\lambda_Y]_{\star_\theta^0}=-i\theta \lambda_{[X,Y]}$) but not $\gS$-invariant. So for smooth functions with compact support, we have $f_1\star_{\theta}f_2= T_\theta((T_\theta^{-1}f_1)\star_\theta^0(T_\theta^{-1}f_2))$ with intertwiners:
\begin{align}
&T_\theta f(a,x,\ell)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\dd t\dd\xi\ \sqrt{\cosh(\frac{\theta t}{2})}\cosh(\frac{\theta t}{4})^n e^{\frac{2i}{\theta}\sinh(\frac{\theta t}{2})\ell-i\xi t}f(a,\cosh(\frac{\theta t}{4})x,\xi)\nonumber\\
&T^{-1}_\theta f(a,x,\ell)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\dd t\dd\xi\ \frac{\sqrt{\cosh(\frac{\theta t}{2})}}{\cosh(\frac{\theta t}{4})^n}e^{-\frac{2i}{\theta}\sinh(\frac{\theta t}{2})\xi+it\ell}f(a,\cosh(\frac{\theta t}{4})^{-1}x,\xi)\label{eq-quelem-intertw}
\end{align}
which will be useful in section \ref{subsec-other}.
\subsection{Quantization of normal j-groups}
\label{subsec-qunorm}
Let $G=G_1\ltimes \gS_2$ be a normal $j$-group, with notations as in section \ref{subsec-normal}. Taking into account its structure, the unitary representation $U$ and the quantization map $\Omega$ of this group (dependence in $\theta\in\gR_+^*$ will be omitted here in the subscripts) can be constructed from the ones $U_1$ and $\Omega_1$ of $G_1$ (obtained by recurrence) and the ones $U_2$ and $\Omega_2$ of $\gS_2$, given by \eqref{eq-unitindrep} and \eqref{eq-qumap} (without $\bfm_0$ for the moment).
Let $\ehH_i$ be the Hilbert space of the representation $U_i$, associated to a co-adjoint orbit $\caO_i$ (in the notations of Proposition \ref{prop-moment}). Since $U_2$ is irreducible and $\rho:G_1\to Sp(V_2)$, there exists a unique homomorphism $\caR:G_1\to\caL(\ehH_2)$ such that $\forall g_1\in G_1$, $\forall g_2\in \gS_2$,
\begin{equation*}
U_2(\rho(g_1)g_2)=\caR(g_1)U_2(g_2)\caR(g_1)^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
$\caR$ is actually a metaplectic-type representation associated to $U_2$ and $\rho$. The matrix $\rho(g_1)$, with smooth coefficients in $g_1$, is of the form
\begin{equation*}
\rho(g_1)=\begin{pmatrix} \rho_+(g_1)&0 \\ \rho_-(g_1)& (\rho_+(g_1)^T)^{-1} \end{pmatrix}
\end{equation*}
with $\rho_-(g_1)^T\rho_+(g_1)=\rho_+(g_1)^T\rho_-(g_1)$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop-metaplec}
The map $\caR:G_1\to\caL(\ehH_2)$ is given by $\forall g_1\in G_1$, $\forall\varphi\in\ehH_2$ non-zero,
\begin{equation*}
\caR(g_1)\varphi(a_0,v_0)=\frac{1}{|\det(\rho_+(g_1))|^{\frac12}}e^{-\frac{i\ee_2}{2\theta}v_0\rho_-(g_1)\rho_+(g_1)^{-1}v_0}\varphi(a_0,\rho_+(g_1)^{-1}v_0)
\end{equation*}
and is unitary, where the sign $\ee_2=\pm1$ determines the choice of the co-adjoint orbit $\caO_2$ and the associated irreducible representation $U_2$.
\end{proposition}
The expression
\begin{equation*}
U(g)\varphi:=U_1(g_1)\varphi_1\,\otimes\,U_2(g_2)\caR(g_1)\varphi_2
\end{equation*}
for $g=(g_1,g_2)\in G$, $\varphi=\varphi_1\otimes\varphi_2\in\ehH:=\ehH_1\otimes\ehH_2$, defines a unitary representation $U:G\to\caL(\ehH)$. Let $\Sigma=\Sigma_1\otimes\Sigma_2$, with $\Sigma_2$ given in \eqref{eq-sigma}. Then, the quantization map is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\Omega(g):=U(g)\circ \Sigma\circ U(g)^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
Using the definition of $U$ and $\caR$ together with the property (see Proposition 6.55 in \cite{BG}):
\begin{equation*}
\caR(g_1)\Sigma_2\caR(g_1)^{-1}=\Sigma_2,
\end{equation*}
it is easy to check that
\begin{equation*}
\Omega((g_1,g_2))=\Omega_1(g_1)\otimes\Omega_2(g_2),
\end{equation*}
with $(g_1,g_2)\in G$ and $\Omega_i(g_i)=U_i(g_i)\circ \Sigma_i\circ U_i(g_i)^{-1}$. Using the identification $\caO\simeq G$ (see Proposition \ref{prop-moment}), we see that $\Omega$ is defined on $\caO$ and it is again $G$-equivariant: for $g\in G$ and $g'\in \caO$,
\begin{equation*}
\Omega(g\fois g')=U(g)\Omega(g')U(g)^{-1}.
\end{equation*}
In the same way, if $\bfm_0:=\bfm_0^1\otimes\bfm_0^2$, where $\bfm_0^2$ is given by \eqref{eq-multiplier}, we also have $\Omega_{\bfm_0}((g_1,g_2))=\Omega_{1,\bfm_0^1}(g_1)\otimes \Omega_{2,\bfm_0^2}(g_2)$. The quantization map of functions $f\in \caD(\caO)$ has then the form
\begin{equation*}
\Omega_{\bfm_0}(f):=\kappa\int_\caO f(g)\Omega_{\bfm_0}(g)\dd\mu(g)
\end{equation*}
where $\dd\mu(g):=\dd\mu_1(g_1)\dd\mu_2(g_2)=\dd^Lg_1\dd^Lg_2$ is the Liouville measure of the KKS symplectic form on the co-adjoint orbit $\caO\simeq G$; $\kappa=\kappa_1\kappa_2$, for $G=G_1\ltimes\gS_2$, is defined recursively with $\kappa_2=\frac{1}{2^{n_2}(\pi\theta)^{n_2+1}}$ and $\dim(\gS_2)=2n_2+2$ like in section \ref{subsec-quelem}. We then have $\Omega_{\bfm_0}(1)=\gone$.
Note that the left-invariant measure for the group $G=G_1\ltimes \gS_2$ has the form
\begin{equation*}
\dd^Lg=\dd^Lg_1\dd^Lg_2
\end{equation*}
which corresponds to the Liouville measure $\dd\mu(g)$, like the elementary case. As in section \ref{subsec-quelem}, the unitary representation $U:G\to\caL(\ehH)$ induces a resolution of the identity.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop-qunorm-resol}
By denoting the norm $\norm\varphi\norm^2_w:=\norm\varphi_1\norm^2_w \norm\varphi_2\norm^2_w$ for $\varphi=\varphi_1\otimes\varphi_2\in\ehH$ non-zero, we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\kappa}{\norm\varphi\norm^2_w}\int_G |U(g)\varphi\rangle\langle U(g)\varphi|\dd^Lg=\gone_\ehH.
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
This resolution of identity shows that the trace has the form
\begin{equation}
\tr(T)=\frac{\kappa}{\norm\varphi\norm^2_w}\int_G \langle U(g)\varphi, TU(g)\varphi\rangle\dd^L g\label{eq-tracesymbnorm}
\end{equation}
for $T\in\caL^1(\ehH)$. In particular, for $T=T_1\otimes T_2$ with $T_i\in\caL^1(\ehH_i)$, one has
\begin{multline}
\tr(T)=\frac{\kappa}{\norm\varphi\norm^2_w}\int_G \langle U_1(g_1)\varphi_1, T_1U_1(g_1)\varphi_1\rangle \langle U_2(g_2)\caR(g_1)\varphi_2, T_2U_2(g_2)\caR(g_1)\varphi_2\rangle\\
\dd^L g_1\dd^Lg_2=\tr(T_1)\tr(T_2).\label{eq-qunorm-trace}
\end{multline}
\begin{theorem}
The symbol map, which is the left-inverse of the quantization map $\Omega_{\bfm_0}$ can be obtained via the formula
\begin{equation*}
\forall f\in L^2(\caO),\ \forall g\in \caO\quad:\quad \tr\Big(\Omega_{\bfm_0}(f)\Omega_{\bfm_0}(g)\Big)=f(g).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Abstractly (in a weak sense), we have
\begin{multline*}
\tr(\Omega_{\bfm_0}(f)\Omega_{\bfm_0}(g))=\kappa\int f(g_1',g_2')\tr(\Omega_1(g_1')\Omega_1(g_1)) \tr(\Omega_2(g_2')\Omega_2(g_2))\dd\mu_1(g_1')\dd\mu_2(g_2')\\
=f(g_1,g_2).
\end{multline*}
\end{proof}
The star-product is defined as
\begin{equation*}
(f_1\star_{\theta} f_2)(g):=\tr(\Omega_{\bfm_0}(f_1)\Omega_{\bfm_0}(f_2)\Omega_{\bfm_0}(g))
\end{equation*}
for $f_1,f_2\in L^2(\caO)$ and $g\in \caO$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop-qunorm-starprod}
The star-product has the following expression:
\begin{equation}
(f_1\star_{\theta}f_2)(g)=\frac{1}{(\pi\theta)^{\dim(G)}}\int_{G\times G}\ K_{G}(g,g',g'')e^{-\frac{2i}{\theta}S_{G}(g,g',g'')}f_1(g')f_2(g'')\dd \mu(g')\dd \mu(g'')\label{eq-starprodnorm}
\end{equation}
where the amplitude and the phase are
\begin{align*}
K_{G}(g,g',g'')=& K_{G_1}(g_1,g_1',g_1'')K_{\gS_2}(g_2,g_2',g_2''),\\
S_{G}(g,g',g'')=& S_{G_1}(g_1,g_1',g_1'')+S_{\gS_2}(g_2,g_2',g_2'').
\end{align*}
with $g=(g_1,g_2)\in \caO=\caO_1\times \caO_2$ due to \eqref{SYMPL}. There is also a tracial identity:
\begin{equation*}
\int_\caO (f_1\star_\theta f_2)(g)\dd\mu(g)=\int_\caO f_1(g)f_2(g)\dd\mu(g).
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Computation of the star-exponential}
\label{subsec-comput}
\begin{definition}
\label{def-comput-starexp}
We define the {\defin star-exponential} associated to the deformation quantization $(\star,\Omega)$ of section \ref{subsec-qunorm} as
\begin{equation*}
\forall g\in G,\,\forall g'\in \caO\simeq G\quad:\quad \caE^\caO_g(g')=\tr(U(g)\Omega_{\bfm_0}(g'))
\end{equation*}
where the trace has to be understood in the distributional sense in $(g,g')\in G\times \caO$.
\end{definition}
By using computation rules of the above sections, we can obtain recursively on the number of factors of the normal $j$-group $G=G_1\ltimes \gS_2$ with corresponding co-adjoint orbit $\caO\simeq\caO_1\times\caO_2$, the expression of the star-exponential $\caE^\caO\in\caD'(G\times \caO)$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm-exprexp}
We have $\forall g,g'\in G$,
\begin{multline}
\caE^\caO_g(g')=\caE^{\caO_1}_{g_1}(g'_1) \frac{2^{n_2}|\det(\rho_+(g_1))|^{\frac12}\sqrt{\cosh(a_2)}\cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})^{n_2}}{|\det(1+\rho_+(g_1))|}\exp(\frac{i\ee_2}{\theta}\Big[ 2\sinh(a_2)\ell'_2\\
+e^{a_2-2a_2'}\ell_2+e^{\frac{a_2}{2}-a_2'}\cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})\omega_0(x_2,x_2')+\frac12(\tilde x)^TM_\rho(g_1) \tilde x\Big]),\label{eq-comput-starexp2}
\end{multline}
where
\begin{equation*}
M_\rho(g_1):=\begin{pmatrix} -B_\rho & C_\rho^T \\ C_\rho & 0 \end{pmatrix},\qquad
\tilde x:= e^{\frac{a_2}{2}-a_2'}x_2-2\cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})x_2'
\end{equation*}
and with $B_\rho=(1+\rho_+^T(g_1))^{-1}\rho_+^T(g_1)\rho_-(g_1)(1+\rho_+(g_1))^{-1}$, and $C_\rho=\frac12 (\rho_+(g_1)-1)(\rho_+(g_1)+1)^{-1}$, $g=(g_1,g_2)$, $g_2=(a_2,x_2,\ell_2)\in\gS_2$, and $\caE^{\caO_1}$ the star-exponential of the normal $j$-group $G_1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First, we use Proposition \ref{prop-qunorm-resol} and equation \eqref{eq-qunorm-trace}:
\begin{equation*}
\caE^\caO_g(g')=\tr(U(g)\Omega_{\bfm_0}(g'))=\tr(U_1(g_1)\Omega_{1,\bfm_0^1}(g'_1))\tr(U_2(g_2)\caR(g_1)\Omega_{2,\bfm_0^2}(g'_2)).
\end{equation*}
The second part of the above expression can be computed by using \eqref{eq-tracesymb}, it gives:
\begin{equation*}
\tr(U_2(g_2)\caR(g_1)\Omega_{2,\bfm_0^2}(g'_2))= \frac{\kappa_2}{\norm\varphi\norm^2_w}\int_{\gS_2} \langle\varphi_{g_2''}, U_2(g_2)\caR(g_1)\Omega_{2,\bfm_0^2}(g'_2)\varphi_{g_2''}\rangle\dd^Lg_2''
\end{equation*}
If we replace $U_2$, $\Omega_{2,\bfm_0^2}$ and $\caR$ by their expressions determined previously in \eqref{eq-unitindrep}, \eqref{eq-qumap} and Proposition \ref{prop-metaplec}, we find after some integrations and simplifications that $\forall g,g'\in G$,
\begin{equation}
\caE^\caO_g(g')=\caE^{\caO_1}_{g_1}(g'_1) \frac{2^{n_2}|\det(\rho_+(g_1))|^{\frac12}\sqrt{\cosh(a_2)}\cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})^{n_2}}{|\det(1+\rho_+(g_1))|}\exp(\frac{i\ee_2}{\theta}\Big[ 2\sinh(a_2)\ell'_2
+e^{a_2-2a_2'}\ell_2+X^TA_\rho X\Big]).\label{eq-comput-starexp}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
A_\rho=&\begin{pmatrix} -B_\rho & C_\rho^T & B_\rho & (1+\rho_+^T(g_1))^{-1} \\ C_\rho & 0 & -\rho_+(g_1)(1+\rho_+(g_1))^{-1} & 0\\ B_\rho & -\rho_+^T(g_1)(1+\rho_+^T(g_1))^{-1} & -B_\rho & C_\rho^T \\ (1+\rho_+(g_1))^{-1} & 0 & C_\rho & 0 \end{pmatrix},\\
X=&\begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}e^{\frac{a_2}{2}-a'_2}v_2 \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}e^{\frac{a_2}{2}-a'_2}w_2 \\ \sqrt 2 \cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})v'_2 \\ \sqrt 2 \cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})w'_2\end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
and with $x_2=(v_2,w_2)$. A straighforward computation then gives the result.
\end{proof}
Let us denote by $\caE^{\caO_2}_{(g_1,g_2)}(g_2')$ the explicit part in the RHS of \eqref{eq-comput-starexp} which corresponds to the star-exponential of the group $\gS_2$ twisted by the action of $g_1\in G_1$.
The expression \eqref{eq-comput-starexp} seems to be ill-defined when $\det(1+\rho_+^{-1})=0$. However, one can obtain in this case a degenerated expression of the star-exponential which is well-defined. For example, when $\rho_+(g_1)=-\gone_{n_2}$, we have
\begin{multline*}
\caE^{\caO_2}_{(g_1,g_2)}(g'_2)= (\pi\theta)^{n_2}\frac{\sqrt{\cosh(a_2)}}{\cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})^{n_2}} \exp(\frac{i\ee_2}{\theta}\Big[ 2\sinh(a_2)\ell'_2
+e^{a_2-2a_2'}\ell_2+\frac12 e^{a_2-2a_2'}\omega_0(v_2,w_2)\Big])\\
\delta\Big(v_2'-\frac{e^{\frac{a_2}{2}-a_2'}}{2\cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})}v_2\Big) \delta\Big(w_2'-\frac{e^{\frac{a_2}{2}-a_2'}}{2\cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})}w_2\Big).
\end{multline*}
In the case where $\rho(g_1)=\gone$, i.e. when the action of $G_1$ on $\gS_2$ is trivial in $G$, we find the second part of the star-exponential
\begin{equation}
\caE^{\caO_2}_{g_2}(g'_2)=\sqrt{\cosh(a_2)}\cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})^{n_2}\exp(\frac{i\ee_2}{\theta}\Big[ 2\sinh(a_2)\ell'_2
+e^{a_2-2a_2'}\ell_2+e^{\frac{a_2}{2}-a_2'}\cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})\omega_0(x_2,x_2')\Big]).\label{eq-comput-starexpelem}
\end{equation}
which corresponds to the star-exponential of the elementary normal $j$-group $\gS_2$.
By using this characterization in terms of the quantization map, we can derive easily some properties of the star-exponential.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop-link3}
The star-exponential enjoys the following properties. $\forall g,g'\in G$, $\forall g_0\in \caO$,
\begin{itemize}
\item hermiticity: $\overline{\caE^\caO_g(g_0)}=\caE^\caO_{g^{-1}}(g_0)$.
\item covariance: $\caE^\caO_{g'\fois g\fois g'^{-1}}(g'\fois g_0)=\caE^\caO_g(g_0)$.
\item BCH: $\caE^\caO_g\star_\theta\caE^\caO_{g'}=\caE^\caO_{g\fois g'}$.
\item Character formula: $\int_G \caE^\caO_g(g_0)\dd\mu(g_0)=\kappa^{-1}\tr(U(g))$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By using Theorem \ref{thm-exprexp}, we can show that $\overline{\caE^\caO_g(g_0)}=\tr(U(g^{-1})\Omega_{\bfm_0}(g_0))=\caE^\caO_{g^{-1}}(g_0)$ since $\Omega_{\bfm_0}(g_0)$ is self-adjoint. In the same way, covariance follows the $G$-equivariance of $\Omega_{\bfm_0}$. BCH property is related to the fact that $U$ is a group representation. Finally, we get
\begin{equation*}
\int_\caO \caE^\caO_g(g_0)\dd\mu(g_0)=\tr(U(g)\int_\caO\Omega_{\bfm_0}(g_0)\dd\mu(g_0))=\kappa^{-1} \tr(U(g))
\end{equation*}
by using that $\Omega_{\bfm_0}(1)=\gone$.
\end{proof}
Note that the BCH property makes sense in a non-formal way only in the functional space $\caM_{\star_\theta}(G)$ determined in section \ref{subsec-mult}, where we will see that the star-exponential belongs to.
\subsection{Other determination by PDEs}
\label{subsec-other}
We give here another way to determine the star-exponential without using the quantization map, but directly by solving the PDE it has to satisfy. We restrict here to the case of an elementary normal $j$-group $G=\gS$ for simplicity.
By using the strong-invariance of the star-product, for any $f\in\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS)$ (see section \ref{subsec-mult}),
\begin{equation*}
\forall X\in\ks\quad:\quad [\lambda_X,f]_{\star_\theta}=-i\theta X^\ast f,
\end{equation*}
where $\lambda$ is the moment map \eqref{eq-elem-moment}, and by using also the equivariance of $\Omega_{\bfm_0}$, we deduce that
\begin{multline*}
[\Omega_{\bfm_0}(\lambda_X),\Omega_{\bfm_0}(f)]=\Omega_{\bfm_0}([\lambda_X,f]_{\star_\theta})=-i\theta \Omega_{\bfm_0}(X^\ast f)=-i\theta\frac{d}{dt}|_0\Omega_{\bfm_0}(L^\ast_{e^{-tX}}f)\\
=-i\theta\frac{d}{dt}|_0 U(e^{tX})\Omega_{\bfm_0}(f)U(e^{-tX})=-i\theta[U_{\ast}(X),\Omega_{\bfm_0}(f)]
\end{multline*}
Since the center of $\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS)$ is trivial, this means that there exists a linear map $\beta:\kg\to \gC$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\Omega_{\bfm_0}(\lambda_X)=-i\theta U_{\ast}(X)+\beta(X)\gone.
\end{equation*}
The invariance of the product under $\Sigma$ (see \eqref{eq-sigma}) implies that $\beta(X)=-\beta(X)$ and finally $\beta(X)=0$. As a consequence, we have the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}
The star-exponential (see Definition \ref{def-comput-starexp}) of an elementary normal $j$-group $G=\gS$ satisfies the equation:
\begin{equation}
\partial_t \caE_{e^{tX}}=\frac{i}{\theta}(\lambda_X\star_\theta \caE_{e^{tX}})\label{eq-other-eqdef}
\end{equation}
with initial condition $\lim_{t\to 0}\caE_{e^{tX}}=1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Indeed, by using $\Omega_{\bfm_0}(\lambda_X)=-i\theta U_{\ast}(X)$, we derive
\begin{multline*}
\partial_t \caE_{e^{tX}}(g_0)=\partial_t \tr(U(e^{tX})\Omega_{\bfm_0}(g_0))=\tr(U_{*}(X)U(e^{tX})\Omega_{\bfm_0}(g_0))\\
=\frac{i}{\theta}\tr(\Omega_{\bfm_0}(\lambda_X)U(e^{tX})\Omega_{\bfm_0}(g_0))=\frac{i}{\theta}(\lambda_X\star_\theta \caE_{e^{tX}})(g_0)
\end{multline*}
\end{proof}
Now, we can use this equation to find directly the expression of the star-exponential. Let us do it for example for the co-adjoint orbit associated to the sign $\ee=+1$. Since the equation \eqref{eq-other-eqdef} is integro-differential and complicated to solve, we will analyze the following equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_t f_t=\frac{i}{\theta}(\lambda_X\star_\theta^0 f_t),\qquad \lim_{t\to0} f_t=1\label{eq-expM1}
\end{equation}
for the Moyal product $\star_\theta^0$. Indeed, we have the expression of the intertwiner $T_\theta$ from $\star_\theta^0$ to $\star_\theta$. We define the partial Fourier transformation as
\begin{equation}
\caF f(a,x,\xi):=\hat f(a,x,\xi):=\int\dd\ell\ e^{-i\xi\ell}f(a,x,\ell).\label{eq-fourier}
\end{equation}
Applying the partial Fourier transformation \eqref{eq-fourier}, with $X=\alpha H+y+\beta E\in\ks$, on the action of moment maps by the Moyal product, we find
\begin{align*}
\caF(\lambda_{H}\star_\theta^0 f)&= \left(2i\partial_\xi+\frac{i\theta}{2}\partial_a\right)\hat f\\
\caF(\lambda_{y}\star_\theta^0 f)&=e^{-a-\frac{\theta\xi}{4}}\left(\omega_0(y,x)+\frac{i\theta}{2}y\partial_x\right)\hat f\\
\caF(\lambda_{E}\star_\theta^0 f)&=e^{-2a-\frac{\theta\xi}{2}}\hat f,
\end{align*}
so that the equation \eqref{eq-expM1} can be reformulated as
\begin{equation}
\partial_t \hat f_t=\frac{i}{\theta}\Big[2i\alpha\partial_\xi+\frac{i\theta\alpha}{2}\partial_a+\beta e^{-2a-\frac{\theta\xi}{2}}+ e^{-a-\frac{\theta\xi}{4}}(\omega_0(y,x)+\frac{i\theta}{2}y\partial_x)\Big]\hat f_t\label{eq-expM2}
\end{equation}
which is a pure PDE. Then, owing to the form of the moment map \eqref{eq-elem-moment}, we consider the ansatz
\begin{equation}
f_t(a,x,\ell)=v(t)\exp\frac{i}{\theta}\Big[2\ell\gamma_1(t)+e^{-2a}\gamma_2(t)+e^{-a}\gamma_3(t) \omega_0(y,x)\Big]\label{eq-expM3}
\end{equation}
whose partial Fourier transform can be expressed as
\begin{equation*}
\hat f_t(a,x,\xi)=4\pi^2\delta\Big(\xi-\frac{2\gamma_1(t)}{\theta}\Big)\,v(t)\exp\frac{i}{\theta}\Big[e^{-2a}\gamma_2(t)+e^{-a}\gamma_3(t)\omega_0(y,x)\Big].
\end{equation*}
Inserting this ansatz into Equation \eqref{eq-expM2}, it gives:
\begin{equation*}
\gamma'_1(t)=\alpha,\qquad \gamma'_2(t)=\alpha\gamma_2(t)+\beta e^{-\gamma_1(t)},\qquad
\gamma_3'(t)=\frac{\alpha}{2}\gamma_3(t)+e^{-\frac{\alpha t}{2}},\qquad v'(t)=0.
\end{equation*}
We find that the solutions with initial condition $\lim_{t\to0}f_t=1$ are:
\begin{equation*}
\gamma_1=\alpha t,\qquad \gamma_2=\frac{\beta}{\alpha}\sinh(\alpha t),\qquad \gamma_3=\frac{\sinh(\frac{\alpha t}{2})}{\alpha},\qquad v=1.
\end{equation*}
By using intertwining operators \eqref{eq-quelem-intertw}, we see that $T_\theta^{-1}\lambda_X=\lambda_X$, and $T_\theta f_t$ is then a solution of \eqref{eq-other-eqdef}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&E_{\star_\theta}(t\lambda_X)(a,x,\ell):=\caE_{e^{tX}}(a,x,\ell)=T_\theta f_t(a,x,\ell)\\
&=&\sqrt{\cosh(\alpha t)}\cosh(\frac{\alpha t}{2})^n e^{\frac{i}{\theta}\sinh(\alpha t)\Big(2\ell+\frac{\beta}{\alpha}e^{-2a}
+\frac{e^{-a}}{\alpha}\omega_0(y,x)\Big)}
\end{eqnarray*}
To obtain the star-exponential, we need the expression of the logarithm of the group $\gS$: $\caE_{g_0}=E_{\star_\theta}(\lambda_{\log(g_0)})$. For $X=\alpha H+y+\beta E\in\ks$, the exponential of the group $\gS$ has the expression
\begin{equation*}
\exp(\alpha H+y+\beta E)=\Big(\alpha,\frac{2e^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}}}{\alpha}\sinh(\frac{\alpha}{2})y, \frac{\beta}{\alpha}e^{-\alpha}\sinh(\alpha)\Big),
\end{equation*}
and the logarithm:
\begin{equation*}
\log(a,x,\ell)=a H+\frac{a}{2}\frac{e^{\frac{a}{2}}}{\sinh(\frac{a}{2})}x
+\frac{a e^a}{\sinh(a)}\ell E.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\caE_{g_0}(g)= \sqrt{\cosh(a_0)}\cosh(\frac{a_0}{2})^n e^{\frac{i}{\theta}\Big(2\sinh(a_0)\ell+e^{a_0-2a}\ell_0
+e^{\frac{a_0}{2}-a}\cosh(\frac{a_0}{2})\omega_0(x_0,x)\Big)},
\end{equation*}
which coincides with the expression \eqref{eq-comput-starexpelem} determined by using the quantization map $\Omega_{\bfm_0}$. Note that the BCH property (see Proposition \ref{prop-link3}) can also be checked directly at the level of the Lie algebra $\ks$. From the above expressions of the logarithm and the exponential of the group $\gS$, we derive the BCH expression: $\text{BCH}(X_1,X_2):=\log(e^{X_1}e^{X_2})$, i.e.
\begin{multline*}
\text{BCH}(X_1,X_2)=\Big(\alpha_1+\alpha_2,\frac{(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}{\sinh(\frac{\alpha_1+\alpha_2}{2})}\Big(\frac{e^{-\frac{\alpha_2}{2}}}{\alpha_1}\sinh(\frac{\alpha_1}{2})y_1+\frac{e^{\frac{\alpha_1}{2}}}{\alpha_2}\sinh(\frac{\alpha_2}{2})y_2\Big),\\
\frac{(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}{\sinh(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}\Big[\frac{\beta_1}{\alpha_1}e^{-\alpha_2}\sinh(\alpha_1)+\frac{\beta_2}{\alpha_2}e^{\alpha_1}\sinh(\alpha_2)+\frac{2}{\alpha_1\alpha_2}e^{\frac{\alpha_1-\alpha_2}{2}}\sinh(\frac{\alpha_1}{2})\sinh(\frac{\alpha_2}{2})\omega_0(y_1,y_2)\Big]\Big).
\end{multline*}
Then, BCH property $\caE_{g}\star_\theta\caE_{g'}=\caE_{g\fois g'}$ is equivalent to
\begin{equation*}
\forall X_1,X_2\in\ks\quad:\quad E_{\star_\theta}(\lambda_{X_1})\star_\theta E_{\star_\theta}(\lambda_{X_2})=E_{\star_\theta}(\lambda_{\text{BCH}(X_1,X_2)})
\end{equation*}
which turns out to be true for the star-product \eqref{eq-starprod} and the star-exponential determined above.
\section{Non-formal definition of the star-exponential}
\subsection{Schwartz spaces}
\label{subsec-schwartz}
In \cite{BG}, a Schwartz space adapted to the elementary normal $j$-group $\gS$ has been introduced, which is different from the usual one $\caS(\gR^{2n+2})$ in the global chart $\{(a,x,\ell)\}$, but related to oscillatory integrals. Let us have a look on the phase \eqref{eq-starprod} of the star-product:
\begin{equation*}
\ee S_{\gS}(0,g_1,g_2)=\sinh(2a_1)\ell_2-\sinh(2a_2)\ell_1+\cosh(a_1)\cosh(a_2)\omega_0(x_1,x_2)
\end{equation*}
with $g_i=(a_i,x_i,\ell_i)\in\gS$. Recall that the left-invariant vector fields of $\gS$ are given by
\begin{equation*}
\tilde H=\partial_a-x\partial_x-2\ell\partial_\ell,\quad \tilde y=y\partial_x+\frac12\omega_0(x,y)\partial_\ell,\quad \tilde E=\partial_\ell.
\end{equation*}
We define the maps $\tilde\alpha$ by $\forall X=(X_1,X_2)\in\ks\oplus\ks$,
\begin{equation*}
\tilde X\fois e^{-\frac{2i}{\theta}S_\gS(0,g_1,g_2)}=:-\frac{2i\ee}{\theta}\tilde\alpha_X(g_1,g_2)e^{-\frac{2i}{\theta}S_\gS(0,g_1,g_2)}
\end{equation*}
since it is an oscillatory phase. For example, we have
\begin{equation*}
\tilde\alpha_{(E,0)}(g_1,g_2)=-\sinh(2a_2),\; \tilde\alpha_{(H,0)}(g_1,g_2)=2\cosh(2a_1)\ell_2+2\sinh(2a_2)\ell_1-e^{-a_1}\cosh(a_2)\omega_0(x_1,x_2).
\end{equation*}
Then, we set $\alpha_X(g):=\tilde\alpha_{(X,0)}(0,g)$ for any $X\in\ks$ and $g\in G$, whose expressions are
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_H(g)=2\ell,\qquad \alpha_y(g)=\cosh(a)\omega(y,x),\qquad \alpha_E(g)=-\sinh(2a).
\end{equation*}
This leads to the following definition.
\begin{definition}
\label{def-schwartz}
The {\defin Schwartz space} of $\gS$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\caS(\gS)=\{f\in C^\infty(\gS)\quad \forall j\in\gN^{2n+2},\ \forall P\in\caU(\ks)\quad
\norm f\norm_{j,P}:=\sup_{g\in\gS}\Big| \alpha^j(g) \tilde P f(g)\Big|<\infty\}
\end{equation*}
where $\alpha^j:=\alpha_H^{j_1}\alpha_{e_1}^{j_2}\dots\alpha_{e_{2n}}^{j_{2n+1}} \alpha_E^{j_{2n+2}}$.
\end{definition}
\noindent It turns out that the space $\caS(\gS)$ corresponds to the usual Schwartz space in the coordinates $(r,x,\ell)$ with $r=\sinh(2a)$. It is stable by the action of $\gS$:
\begin{equation*}
\forall f\in\caS(\gS),\ \forall g\in \gS\quad:\quad g^\ast f\in\caS(\gS).
\end{equation*}
Moreover, $\caS(\gS)$ is a Fr\'echet nuclear space endowed with the seminorms $(\norm f\norm_{j,P})$.
\medskip
For $f,h\in\caS(\gS)$, the product $f\star_{\theta}h$ is well-defined by \eqref{eq-starprod}. However, to show that it belongs to $\caS(\gS)$, we will use arguments close to oscillatory integral theory. Let us illustrate this concept. One can show that the following operators leave the phase $e^{-\frac{2i}{\theta}S_\gS(0,g_1,g_2)}$ invariant:
\begin{align*}
&\caO_{a_2}:=\frac{1}{1+\tilde\alpha_{(E,0)}^2}(1-\frac{\theta^2}{4}\tilde E^2)=\frac{1}{1+\sinh(2a_2)^2}(1-\frac{\theta^2}{4}\partial_{\ell_1}^2), \qquad \caO_{a_1}:=\frac{1}{1+\sinh(2a_1)^2}(1-\frac{\theta^2}{4}\partial_{\ell_2}^2),\\
& \caO_{x_2}:=\frac{1}{1+x_2^2}(1-\frac{\theta^2}{4\cosh(a_1)^2\cosh(a_2)^2}\partial_{x_1}^2), \qquad \caO_{x_1}:=\frac{1}{1+x_1^2}(1-\frac{\theta^2}{4\cosh(a_1)^2\cosh(a_2)^2}\partial_{x_2}^2),\\
&\caO_{\ell_2}:=\frac{1}{1+\ell_2^2}(1-\frac{\theta^2}{4}(\frac{1}{\cosh(2a_1)}(\partial_{a_1}-\tanh(a_1)x_1\partial_{x_1}))^2),\\
&\caO_{\ell_1}:=\frac{1}{1+\ell_1^2}(1-\frac{\theta^2}{4}(\frac{1}{\cosh(2a_2)}(\partial_{a_2}-\tanh(a_2)x_2\partial_{x_2}))^2).
\end{align*}
So we can add arbitrary powers of these operators in front of the phase without changing the expression. Then, using integrations by parts, we have for $F\in\caS(\gS^2)$:
\begin{multline}
\int\ e^{-\frac{2i}{\theta}S_\gS(0,g_1,g_2)} F(g_1,g_2)\dd g_1\dd g_2=\\
\int\ e^{-\frac{2i}{\theta}S_\gS(0,g_1,g_2)} (\caO^\ast_{a_1})^{k_1} (\caO^\ast_{a_2})^{k_2} (\caO^\ast_{x_1})^{p_1} (\caO^\ast_{x_2})^{p_2} (\caO^\ast_{\ell_1})^{q_1} (\caO^\ast_{\ell_2})^{q_2} F(g_1,g_2)\dd g_1\dd g_2\\
= \int\ e^{-\frac{2i}{\theta}S_\gS(0,g_1,g_2)} \frac{1}{(1+\sinh^2(2a_1))^{k_1}(1+\sinh^2(2a_2))^{k_2}}\\
\frac{1}{(1+x_1^2)^{p_1-q_2}(1+x_2^2)^{p_2-q_1}(1+\ell_1^2)^{q_1}(1+\ell_2^2)^{q_2}}DF(g_1,g_2)\dd g_1\dd g_2\label{eq-osc}
\end{multline}
for any $k_i,q_i,p_i\in\gN$ such that $p_1\geq q_2$ and $p_2\geq q_1$, and where $D$ is a linear combination of products of bounded functions (with every derivatives bounded) in $(g_1,g_2)$ with powers of $\partial_{\ell_i}$, $\partial_{x_i}$ and $\frac{1}{\cosh(2a_i)}\partial_{a_i}$. The first line of \eqref{eq-osc} is not defined for non-integrable functions $F$ bounded by polynoms in $r_i:=\sinh(2a_i)$, $x_i$ and $\ell_i$. However, the last two lines of \eqref{eq-osc} are well-defined for $k_i,p_i,q_i$ sufficiently large. Therefore it gives a sense to the first line, now understood as an oscillatory integral, i.e. as being equal to the last last two lines. This definition of oscillatory integral \cite{BM,BG} is unique, in particular unambiguous in the powers $k_i,p_i,q_i$ because of the density of $\caS(\gS)$ in polynomial functions in $(r,x,\ell)$ of a given degree. Note that this corresponds to the usual oscillatory integral \cite{Hormander:1979} in the coordinates $(r,x,\ell)$.
The next Theorem, proved in \cite{BG}, can be showed by using such methods of oscillatory integrals on $\caS(\gS)$.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\caP:\gR\to C^\infty(\gR)$ be a smooth map such that $\caP_0\equiv1$, and $\caP_\theta(a)$ as well as its inverse are bounded by $C\sinh(2a)^k$, $k\in\gN$, $C>0$. Then, the expression \eqref{eq-starprod} yields a $\gS$-invariant non-formal deformation quantization.\\
In particular, $(\caS(\gS),\star_{\theta})$ is a nuclear Fr\'echet algebra.
\end{theorem}
In the following, we show a factorization property for this Schwartz space. First, by introducing $\gamma(a)=\sinh(2a)$ and $\caS(A):=\gamma^\ast\caS(\gR)$, we note that the group law of $\gS$ reads in the coordinates $(r=\gamma(a),x,\ell)$:
\begin{multline*}
(r,x,\ell)\fois (r',x',\ell')=\Big(r\sqrt{1+r'^2}+r'\sqrt{1+r^2},(c(r')-s(r'))x+x',(\sqrt{1+r'^2}-r')\ell+\ell'\\
+\frac{1}{2}(c(r')-s(r'))\omega_0(x,x')\Big)
\end{multline*}
with the auxiliary functions:
\begin{align}
&c(r)=\frac{\sqrt 2}{2}(1+\sqrt{1+r^2})^{\frac12}=\cosh(\frac12\text{arcsinh}(r)),\label{eq-auxfunc}\\
&s(r)=\frac{\sqrt 2}{2}\text{sgn}(r)(-1+\sqrt{1+r^2})^{\frac12}=\sinh(\frac12\text{arcsinh}(r)).\nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{proposition}[Factorization]
\label{prop-factor}
The map $\Phi$ defined by $\Phi(f\otimes h)=f\star_\theta h$, for $f\in\caS(A)$ and $h\in\caS(\gR^{2n+1})$ realizes a continuous automorphism $\caS(\gS)=\caS(A)\hat\otimes\caS(\gR^{2n+1})\to\caS(\gS)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Due to the nuclearity of the Schwartz space, we have indeed $\caS(\gS)=\caS(A)\hat\otimes\caS(\gR^{2n+1})$. For $f\in\caS(A)$ (abuse of notation identifying $f(a)$ and $f(r):=f(\gamma^{-1}(r))$) and $h\in\caS(\gR^{2n+1})$, we reexpress the star-product \eqref{eq-starprod} in the coordinates $(r,x,\ell)$:
\begin{multline*}
(f\star_{\theta}h)(r,x,\ell)=\frac{1}{(\pi\theta)^{2n+2}}\int\ \Big(1-\frac{r_1r_2}{\sqrt{(1+r_1^2)(1+r_2^2)}}\Big)\frac{\sqrt{c(r_1)c(r_2)}}{\sqrt{c(r_1\sqrt{1+r_2^2}-r_2\sqrt{1+r_1^2})}}\\
e^{-\frac{2i\ee}{\theta}(r_1\ell_2-r_2\ell_1+\omega_0(x_1,x_2))} f(r\sqrt{1+r_1^2}+r_1\sqrt{1+r^2})\\
h(\frac{1}{c(r_1)}x_2+(c(r_2)-\frac{s(r_1)s(r_2)}{c(r_1)})x,\ell_2+\sqrt{1+r_2^2}\ell)\dd r_i\dd x_i\dd \ell_i
\end{multline*}
By using the partial Fourier transform $\hat h(r,\xi)=\int\dd\ell e^{-i\ell\xi}h(x,\ell)$, and integrating over several variables, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
(f\star_{\theta}h)(r,x,\ell)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\ f(r\sqrt{1+\frac{\theta^2\xi^2}{4}}+\frac{\ee\theta\xi}{2}\sqrt{1+r^2})\hat h(x,\xi)e^{i\ell\xi}\dd \xi.
\end{equation*}
For $\varphi\in\caS(\gS)$, we have now the following explicit expression for $\Phi$:
\begin{equation*}
\Phi(\varphi)(r,x,\ell)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\ \hat\varphi(r\sqrt{1+\frac{\theta^2\xi^2}{4}}+\frac{\ee\theta\xi}{2}\sqrt{1+r^2},x,\xi)e^{i\ell\xi}\dd \xi
\end{equation*}
which permits to deduce that $\Phi$ is valued in $\caS(\gS)$ and continuous. Then, the formula
\begin{equation*}
\hat \varphi(r,x,\ell)=\int\ \Phi(\varphi)(r\sqrt{1+\frac{\theta^2\ell^2}{4}}-\frac{\ee\theta\ell}{2}\sqrt{1+r^2},x,\xi)e^{-i\ell\xi}\dd\xi
\end{equation*}
permits to obtain the inverse of $\Phi$ which is also continuous.
\end{proof}
For normal $j$-groups $G=G_1\ltimes \gS_2$, we define the Schwartz space recursively
\begin{equation*}
\caS(G)=\caS(G_1)\hat\otimes\caS(\gS_2)
\end{equation*}
and obtain the same properties as before. In particular, endowed with the star-product \eqref{eq-starprodnorm}, the Schwartz space $\caS(G)$ is a nuclear Fr\'echet algebra.
\subsection{Multipliers}
\label{subsec-mult}
Let us consider the topological dual $\caS'(\gS)$ of $\caS(\gS)$. In the coordinates $(r=\gamma(a),x,\ell)$, it corresponds to tempered distributions. By denoting $\langle-,-\rangle$ the duality bracket between $\caS'(\gS)$ and $\caS(\gS)$, one can extend the product $\star_\theta$ (with tracial identity) as
\begin{equation*}
\forall T\in\caS'(\gS),\ \forall f,h\in\caS(\gS)\quad:\quad \langle T\star_\theta f,h\rangle:=\langle T,f\star_\theta h\rangle\text{ and } \langle f\star_\theta T,h\rangle:=\langle T,h\star_\theta f\rangle,
\end{equation*}
which is compatible with the case $T\in\caS(\gS)$.
\begin{definition}
The {\defin multiplier space} associated to $(\caS(\gS),\star_\theta)$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS):=\{T\in\caS'(\gS),\ f\mapsto T\star_\theta f\text{ and } f\mapsto f\star_\theta T\text{ are continuous from }\caS(\gS) \text{ into itself}\}.
\end{equation*}
We can equipy this space with the topology associated to the seminorms:
\begin{equation*}
\norm T\norm_{B,j,P,L}=\sup_{f\in B}\norm T\star f\norm_{j,P}\,\text{ and }\, \norm T\norm_{B,j,P,R}=\sup_{f\in B}\norm f\star T\norm_{j,P}
\end{equation*}
where $B$ is a bounded subset of $\caS(\gS)$, $j\in\gN^{2n+2}$, $P\in\caU(\ks)$ and $\norm f\norm_{j,P}$ is the Schwartz seminorm introduced in Definition \ref{def-schwartz}. Note that $B$ can be described as a set satisfying $\forall j,P$, $\sup_{f\in B}\norm f\norm_{j,P}$ exists.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
The star-product can be extended to $\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS)$ by:
\begin{equation*}
\forall S,T\in\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS),\ \forall f\in\caS(\gS)\quad:\quad \langle S\star_\theta T,f\rangle:=\langle S,T\star_\theta f\rangle=\langle T,f\star_\theta S\rangle.
\end{equation*}
Then, $(\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS),\star_\theta)$ is an associative Hausdorff locally convex complete and nuclear algebra, with separately continuous product, called the multiplier algebra.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For the extension of the star-product and its associativity, we can show successively $\forall S,T\in\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS)$, $\forall f,h\in\caS(\gS)$,
\begin{equation*}
(T\star_\theta f)\star_\theta h=T\star_\theta(f\star_\theta h),\quad (S\star_\theta T)\star_\theta f=S\star_\theta (T\star_\theta f),\quad (T_1\star_\theta T_2)\star_\theta T_3= T_1\star_\theta (T_2\star_\theta T_3),
\end{equation*}
each time by evaluating the distribution on a Schwartz function $\varphi\in\caS(\gS)$ and by using the factorization property (Proposition \ref{prop-factor}).
$\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS)$ is the intersection of $\caM_L$, the left multipliers, and $\caM_R$, the right multipliers. By definition, each space $\caM_L$ and $\caM_R$ is topologically isomorphic to $\caL(\caS(\gS))$ endowed with the strong topology. Since $\caS(\gS)$ is Fr\'echet and nuclear, so is $\caL(\caS(\gS))$, as well as $\caM_L$, $\caM_R$ and finally $\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS)$ (see \cite{Treves:1967} Propositions 50.1, 50.5 and 50.6).
\end{proof}
Due to the definition of $\caS(G)$ for a normal $j$-group $G=G_1\ltimes \gS_2$ and to the expression of the star-product \eqref{eq-starprodnorm}, the multiplier space associated to $(\caS(G),\star_\theta)$ takes the form:
\begin{equation}
\caM_{\star_\theta}(G)=\caM_{\star_\theta}(G_1)\hat\otimes\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS_2)\label{eq-multnorm}
\end{equation}
and is also an associative Hausdorff locally convex complete and nuclear algebra, with separately continuous product. Remember that we have identified co-adjoint orbits $\caO$ described in Proposition \ref{prop-moment} with the group $G$ itself, so that we can speak also about the multiplier algebra $\caM_{\star_\theta}(\caO)$.
\subsection{Non-formal star-exponential}
\begin{theorem}
Let $G$ be a normal $j$-group and $\star_\theta$ the star-product \eqref{eq-starprodnorm}. Then for any $g\in G$, the star-exponential \eqref{eq-comput-starexp} $\caE^\caO_g$ lies in the multiplier algebra $\caM_{\star_\theta}(\caO)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us focus for the moment on the case of the elementary group $\caS$. The general case can then be obtained recursively due to the structure of the star-exponential \eqref{eq-comput-starexp} and of the multiplier algebra \eqref{eq-multnorm}. We use the same notations as before. For $f,h\in\caS(A)$, $f\star_\theta h=f\fois h$. If $T$ belongs to the multiplier space $\caM(\caS(A))$ of $\caS(A)$ for the usual commutative product, we have in particular $T\in\caS'(\gS)$ and by duality $T\star_\theta f=T\fois f$. Then,
\begin{equation*}
\forall f\in\caS(A),\ \forall h\in\caS(\gR^{2n+1})\quad:\quad T\star_\theta (f\star_\theta h)=(T\fois f)\star_\theta h.
\end{equation*}
By the factorization property (Proposition \ref{prop-factor}), it means that $T\in\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS)$, and we have an embedding $\caM(\caS(A))\hookrightarrow\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS)$. If we note as before $\gR^{2n+1}=V\oplus\gR E$, we can show in the same way that there is another embedding $\caM(\caS(\gR E))\hookrightarrow\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS)$. Since $x'\in V\mapsto\caE^{\caO_2}_{(g_1,g_2)}(0,x',0)$ is an imaginary exponential of a polynom of degree less or equal than 2 in $x'$ and since the product $\star_\theta$ coincides with the Moyal product on $V$, it turns out that $x'\in V\mapsto\caE^{\caO_2}_{(g_1,g_2)}(0,x',0)$ is in $\caM_{\star_\theta}(\caS(V))$. Then, the star-exponential $\caE^{\caO_2}$ in \eqref{eq-comput-starexp} lies in $\caM(\caS(A))\hat\otimes \caM_{\star_\theta}(\caS(V))\hat\otimes\caM(\caS(\gR E))$, and it belongs also to $\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gS)$.
\end{proof}
\section{Adapted Fourier transformation}
\subsection{Definition}
As in the case of the Weyl-Moyal quantization treated in \cite{AC,Arnal:1988}, we can introduce the notion of adapted Fourier transformation. For normal $j$-groups $G=G_1\ltimes\gS_2$, which are not unimodular, it is relevant for that to introduce a {\defin modified star-exponential}
\begin{equation*}
\tilde\caE^{\caO}_g(g'):=\tr(U(g)d^{\frac12}\Omega(g')).
\end{equation*}
where $d$ is the formal dimension operator associated to $U$ (see \cite{Duflo:1976,Gayral:2008fo}) and $\caO$ is the co-adjoint orbit determining the irreducible representation $U$. Such an operator $d$ is used to regularize the expressions since $\int f(g)U(g)d^{\frac 12}$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator whenever $f$ is in $L^2(G)$. So the trace in the definition of $\tilde\caE^{\caO}$ is understood as a distribution only in the variable $g'\in \caO$.
By denoting $\Delta$ the modular function, defined by $\dd^L(g\fois g')=\Delta(g')\dd^L g$, whose computation gives
\begin{equation*}
\Delta(g)=\Delta_1(g_1)\Delta_2(g_2),\text{ with }\Delta_2(a_2,x_2,\ell_2)=e^{-2(n_2+1)a_2},
\end{equation*}
the operator $d$ is defined (up to a positive constant) by the relation:
\begin{equation*}
\forall g\in G\quad:\quad U(g)d U(g)^{-1}=\Delta(g)^{-1}d.
\end{equation*}
Since $\caR(g_1)d_2\caR(g_1)^{-1}=d_2$, it can therefore be expressed as $d=d_1\otimes d_2$, for $d_i$ the dimension operator associated to $U_i$, and with $\forall\varphi_2\in\ehH_2$, $\forall (a_0,v_0)\in Q_2$,
\begin{equation*}
(d_2\varphi_2)(a_0,v_0)=\kappa_{2}^2 e^{-2(n_2+1)a_0}\varphi_2(a_0,v_0)
\end{equation*}
where we recall that $\dim(\gS_2)=2(n_2+1)$. Note that $d_2$ is independent here of the choice of the irreducible representation $U_2$ ($\ee_2=\pm1$).
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop-adapt-mod}
The expression of the modified star-exponential can then be computed in the same notations as for Theorem \ref{thm-exprexp}:
\begin{multline*}
\tilde\caE^{\caO}_g(g')=\tilde\caE^{\caO_1}_{g_1}(g'_1) \frac{e^{(n_2+1)(\frac{a_2}{2}-a_2')}}{(\pi\theta)^{n_2+1}}\frac{\sqrt{\cosh(a_2)}\cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})^{n_2}|\det(\rho_+(g_1))|^{\frac12}}{|\det(1+\rho_+(g_1))|}\\
\exp(\frac{i\ee_2}{\theta}\Big[ 2\sinh(a_2)\ell'_2
+e^{a_2-2a_2'}\ell_2+X^TA_\rho X\Big]).
\end{multline*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{definition}
We can now define the {\defin adapted Fourier transformation}: for $f\in\caS(G)$ and $g'\in \caO$,
\begin{equation*}
\caF_\caO(f)(g'):=\int_G f(g)\tilde\caE^{\caO}_g(g')\dd^Lg.
\end{equation*}
\end{definition}
We see that this definition is a generalization of the usual (symplectic) Fourier transformation. For example in the case of the group $\gR^{2}$, the star-exponential associated to the Moyal product is indeed given by $\exp(\frac{2i}{\theta}(a\ell'-a'\ell))$.
\subsection{Fourier analysis}
\label{subsec-fourier}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop-fourier-orth}
The modified star-exponential satisfies an orthogonality relation: for $g',g''\in G$,
\begin{equation*}
\int_G \overline{\tilde\caE^{\caO}_g(g')}\tilde\caE^{\caO}_g(g'')\dd^Lg= \frac{1}{\Delta(g'')}\delta(g''\fois (g')^{-1})
\end{equation*}
\end{proposition}
Note that $\Delta(g''_2)^{-1}\delta(g''_2\fois (g'_2)^{-1})=\delta(a''_2-a'_2)\delta(x''_2-x'_2)\delta(\ell''_2-\ell'_2)$. This orthogonality relation does not hold for the unmodified star-exponential.
\begin{proof}
We use the expression of Proposition \ref{prop-adapt-mod}:
\begin{multline*}
\int_G \overline{\tilde\caE^{\caO}_g(g')}\tilde\caE^{\caO}_g(g'')\dd^Lg= \int_{G_1} \overline{\tilde\caE^{\caO_1}_{g_1}(g'_1)}\tilde\caE^{\caO_1}_{g_1}(g''_1)\int_{\gS_2} \frac{e^{(n_2+1)(a_2-a_2'-a_2'')}}{(\pi\theta)^{2(n_2+1)}}\\
\frac{|\det(\rho_+(g_1))|\cosh(a_2)\cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})^{2n_2}}{|\det(1+\rho_+(g_1))|^2}e^{\frac{i\ee_2}{\theta}(2\sinh(a_2)(\ell''_2-\ell'_2)
+e^{a_2}(e^{-2a_2''}-e^{-2a_2'})\ell_2)}\\
e^{\frac{i\ee_2}{\theta}((X'')^TA_\rho X''-(X')^TA_\rho X')}\dd^Lg_2\dd^Lg_1
\end{multline*}
with
\begin{equation*}
X'=\begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}e^{\frac{a_2}{2}-a'_2}v_2 \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}e^{\frac{a_2}{2}-a'_2}w_2 \\ \sqrt 2 \cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})v'_2 \\ \sqrt 2 \cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})w'_2\end{pmatrix}\quad\text{ and }\quad X''=\begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}e^{\frac{a_2}{2}-a''_2}v_2 \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}e^{\frac{a_2}{2}-a''_2}w_2 \\ \sqrt 2 \cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})v''_2 \\ \sqrt 2 \cosh(\frac{a_2}{2})w''_2\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
Integration over $\ell_2$ leads to the contribution $\delta(a_2'-a_2'')$. Since $A_\rho$ depends only on $g_1$, and $a_2'=a_2''$, we see that the gaussian part in $(v_2,w_2)$ disappears and integration over these variables brings $\frac{|\det(1+\rho_+(g_1))|^2}{|\det(\rho_+(g_1))|}\delta(v_2'-v_2'')\delta(w_2'-w_2'')$. Eventually, integration on $a_2$ can be performed and we find
\begin{equation*}
\int_G \overline{\tilde\caE^{\caO}_g(g')}\tilde\caE^{\caO}_g(g'')\dd^Lg= \int_{G_1} \overline{\tilde\caE^{\caO_1}_{g_1}(g'_1)}\tilde\caE^{\caO_1}_{g_1}(g''_1)\dd^Lg_1 \, \Delta(g''_2)^{-1}\delta(g''_2\fois (g'_2)^{-1})
\end{equation*}
which leads to the result recursively.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
The adapted Fourier transformation satisfies the following property: $\forall f_1,f_2\in\caS(G)$,
\begin{equation*}
\caF_\caO(f_1\times f_2)=\frac{\Delta^{\frac12}}{\kappa}\big(\Delta^{-\frac12}\caF_\caO(f_1)\big)\star_\theta \big(\Delta^{-\frac12}\caF_\caO(f_2)\big),
\end{equation*}
with $(f_1\times f_2)(g)=\int_G f_1(g')f_2((g')^{-1}g)\dd^Lg'$ the usual convolution.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Due to the BCH property (see Proposition \ref{prop-link3}) and to the computation of the modified star-exponential $\tilde\caE^{\caO}_g(g')=\tilde\caE^{\caO_1}_{g_1}(g'_1)\frac{\kappa_2}{\Delta_2(g_2(g_2')^{-2})^{\frac12}}\caE^{\caO_2}_g(g_2')$, we have the modified BCH property
\begin{equation*}
\tilde\caE^{\caO}_{g\fois g'}(g'')=\frac{\Delta(g'')^{\frac12}}{\kappa}\big(\Delta^{-\frac12}\tilde\caE^{\caO}_g\big)\star_\theta \big(\Delta^{-\frac12}\tilde\caE^{\caO}_{g'}\big)(g''),
\end{equation*}
which leads directly to the result by using the expression of the adapted Fourier transform and the convolution.
\end{proof}
As in Remark \ref{rmk-decomp}, we consider the co-adjoint orbit $\caO_{(\ee)}=\caO_{1,(\ee_1)}\times\caO_{2,\ee_2}$ of the normal $j$-group $G=G_1\ltimes\gS_2$ determined by the sign choices $(\ee)=((\ee_1),\ee_2)\in(\gZ_2)^N$, with $(\ee_1)\in(\gZ_2)^{N-1}$ and $\ee_2\in\gZ_2$. Due to Proposition \ref{prop-adapt-mod}, we can write the modified star-exponential as
\begin{equation*}
\tilde\caE^{\caO_{(\ee)}}_g(g')=\tilde\caE^{\caO_{1,(\ee_1)}}_{g_1}(g'_1)\,\tilde\caE^{\caO_{2,\ee_2}}_{(g_1,g_2)}(g'_2),
\end{equation*}
with $g=(g_1,g_2)\in G$ and $g'=(g_1',g_2')\in\caO_{(\ee)}$.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm-four-inv}
We have the following inversion formula for the adapted Fourier transformation: for $f\in\caS(G)$ and $g\in G$,
\begin{equation*}
f(g)=\sum_{(\ee)\in(\gZ_2)^N}\int_{\caO_{(\ee)}}\overline{\tilde\caE^{\caO_{(\ee)}}_g(g')} \caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}(f)(g')\dd\mu(g').
\end{equation*}
Moreover, the Parseval-Plancherel theorem is true:
\begin{equation*}
\int_G|f(g)|^2\dd^Lg=\sum_{(\ee)\in(\gZ_2)^N}\int_{\caO_{(\ee)}}|\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}(f)(g')|^2\dd\mu(g').
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let us show the dual property to Proposition \ref{prop-fourier-orth}, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\sum_{(\ee)\in(\gZ_2)^N}\int_{\caO_{(\ee)}}\overline{\tilde\caE^{\caO_{(\ee)}}_{g'}(g)} \tilde\caE^{\caO_{(\ee)}}_{g''}(g)\dd\mu(g)= \frac{1}{\Delta(g'')}\delta(g''\fois (g')^{-1}).\label{eq-fourier-orth2}
\end{equation}
First, we have
\begin{multline*}
\int_{\caO_{(\ee)}} \overline{\tilde\caE^{\caO_{(\ee)}}_{g'}(g)}\tilde\caE^{\caO_{(\ee)}}_{g''}(g)\dd\mu(g)= \int_{\caO_{1,(\ee_1)}} \overline{\tilde\caE^{\caO_{1,(\ee_1)}}_{g_1'}(g_1)}\tilde\caE^{\caO_{1,(\ee_1)}}_{g_1''}(g_1)\int_{\caO_{2,\ee_2}} \frac{e^{(n_2+1)(\frac{a_2'+a_2''}{2}-2a_2)}}{(\pi\theta)^{2(n_2+1)}}\\
\frac{|\det(\rho_+(g_1'))\det(\rho_+(g_1''))|^{\frac12}\sqrt{\cosh(a_2')\cosh(a_2'')}\cosh(\frac{a_2'}{2})^{n_2}\cosh(\frac{a_2''}{2})^{n_2}}{|\det(1+\rho_+(g_1'))\det(1+\rho_+(g_1''))|}\\
e^{\frac{i\ee_2}{\theta}(-2\sinh(a_2')\ell_2+2\sinh(a_2'')\ell_2
-e^{a_2'-2a_2}\ell_2'+e^{a_2''-2a_2}\ell_2''+(X'')^TA_\rho(g_1'') X''-(X')^TA_\rho(g_1') X')}\dd\mu_2(g_2)\dd\mu_1(g_1)
\end{multline*}
with
\begin{equation*}
X'=\begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}e^{\frac{a_2'}{2}-a_2}v_2' \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}e^{\frac{a_2'}{2}-a_2}w'_2 \\ \sqrt 2 \cosh(\frac{a_2'}{2})v_2 \\ \sqrt 2 \cosh(\frac{a_2'}{2})w_2\end{pmatrix}\quad\text{ and }\quad X''=\begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}e^{\frac{a_2''}{2}-a_2}v_2'' \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt 2}e^{\frac{a''_2}{2}-a_2}w_2'' \\ \sqrt 2 \cosh(\frac{a''_2}{2})v_2 \\ \sqrt 2 \cosh(\frac{a''_2}{2})w_2\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
We want to compute the sum over $(\ee)\in(\gZ_2)^N$ of such terms. By recurrence, we can suppose that
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{(\ee_1)\in(\gZ_2)^{N-1}}\int_{\caO_{1,(\ee_1)}} \overline{\tilde\caE^{\caO_{1,(\ee_1)}}_{g'_1}(g_1)}\tilde\caE^{\caO_{1,(\ee_1)}}_{g''_1}(g_1)\dd\mu_1(g_1)= \frac{1}{\Delta(g''_1)}\delta(g''_1\fois (g'_1)^{-1}),
\end{equation*}
which means that $g_1''=g_1'$ in the following. The integration over $\ell_2$ brings a contribution in $\delta(a_2'-a_2'')$. Since $g_1''=g_1'$ and $a_2'=a_2''$, the gaussian part in $(v_2,w_2)$ disappears and integration over these variables brings $\frac{|\det(1+\rho_+(g_1'))|^2}{|\det(\rho_+(g_1'))|}\delta(v_2'-v_2'')\delta(w_2'-w_2'')$. The remaining term is proportional to
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{\ee_2=\pm1}\int_\gR e^{a_2'-2a_2} e^{\frac{i\ee_2}{\theta}e^{a_2'-2a_2}(\ell_2''-\ell_2')}\dd a_2=\pi\theta\delta(\ell_2''-\ell_2').
\end{equation*}
The property \eqref{eq-fourier-orth2} permits to show the inversion formula
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{(\ee)\in(\gZ_2)^N}\int_{\caO_{(\ee)}}\overline{\tilde\caE^{\caO_{(\ee)}}_g(g')}\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}} (f)(g')\dd\mu(g')=\sum_{(\ee)\in(\gZ_2)^N}\int \overline{\tilde\caE^{\caO_{(\ee)}}_g(g')} f(g'')\tilde\caE^{\caO_{(\ee)}}_{g''}(g')\dd^Lg''\dd\mu(g')=f(g),
\end{equation*}
as well as the Parseval-Plancherel theorem
\begin{multline*}
\sum_{(\ee)\in(\gZ_2)^N}\int_{\caO_{(\ee)}}|\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}} (f)(g')|^2\dd\mu(g')=\sum_{(\ee)\in(\gZ_2)^N}\int \overline{f(g)\tilde\caE^{\caO_{(\ee)}}_g(g')}f(g'')\tilde\caE^{\caO_{(\ee)}}_{g''}(g')\dd^Lg''\dd^Lg\dd\mu(g')\\
=\int_G|f(g)|^2\dd^Lg.
\end{multline*}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The map
\begin{equation*}
\caF:=\bigoplus_{(\ee)\in(\gZ_2)^N}\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}:\, L^2(G,\dd^Lg)\to \bigoplus_{(\ee)} L^2(\caO_{(\ee)},\mu),
\end{equation*}
defined by $\caF(f):=\bigoplus_{(\ee)} (\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}f)$ realizes an isometric isomorphism.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
From Proposition \ref{prop-fourier-orth}, we deduce that $\forall (\ee)\in (\gZ_2)^N$, $\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}^*=\gone$. And the Parseval-Plancherel means that $\sum_{(\ee)}\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}^*\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}=\gone$. Moreover, we can show that $\forall (\ee),(\ee')\in(\gZ_2)^N$, with $(\ee)\neq(\ee')$, $\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}\caF_{\caO_{(\ee')}}^*=0$. Indeed, if $k\leq N$ is such that $\ee_k\neq\ee'_k$, then the computation of $\int_G\overline{\tilde\caE^{\caO_{(\ee')}}_g(g')}\tilde\caE^{\caO_{(\ee)}}_g(g'')\dd^Lg$ corresponds to have a factor $e^{\frac{i\ee_k}{\theta}e^{a_2}(e^{-2a_2''}+e^{-2a_2'})\ell_2}$ in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop-fourier-orth}. Integration over $\ell_2$ makes this expression vanishing.
For each $(\ee)\in(\gZ_2)^N$ (i.e. for each $(\ee)=(\ee_1,\dots,\ee_N)$ with $\ee_j=\pm1$), we will consider a function $f_{(\ee)}\in L^2(\caO_{(\ee)},\mu)$. We denote by $\bigoplus_{(\ee)} f_{(\ee)}$ the collection of these $2^N$ functions on the different orbits $\caO_{(\ee)}$. By using the three above properties and the fact that $\caF^*(\bigoplus_{(\ee)} f_{(\ee)})=\sum_{(\ee)}\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}^*(f_{(\ee)})$, we obtain that
\begin{equation*}
\caF^*\caF(f)=\sum_{(\ee)}\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}^*\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}(f)=f,\qquad \caF\caF^*(\bigoplus_{(\ee)}f_{(\ee)})=\bigoplus_{(\ee)}(\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}\caF_{\caO_{(\ee)}}^*f_{(\ee)})=\bigoplus_{(\ee)} f_{(\ee)}.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Fourier transformation and Schwartz spaces}
Given such an adapted Fourier transformation, we can wonder wether the Schwartz space $\caS(G)$ defined in \cite{BG} (see section \ref{subsec-schwartz}) is stable by this transformation, as it is true in the flat case: the usual transformation stabilizes the usual Schwartz space on $\gR^n$. However, the answer appears to be wrong here. Let us focus on the case of the elementary normal $j$-group $\gS$. The Schwartz space $\caS(\gS)$ of Definition \ref{def-schwartz} corresponds to the usual Schwartz space in the coordinates $(r=\sinh(2a),x,\ell)$. These coordinates are adapted to the phase of the kernel of the star-product \eqref{eq-starprod}. For the star-exponential of $\gS$ given in \eqref{eq-comput-starexpelem}, we need also to consider the coordinates corresponding to the moment maps \eqref{eq-elem-moment}:
\begin{equation*}
\mu:\gS\to\gR_+^\ast\times\gR^{2n+1},\quad (a,x,\ell)\mapsto (e^{-2a},e^{-a}x,\ell).
\end{equation*}
We will denote the new variables $(s,z,\ell)=\mu(a,x,\ell)$.
\begin{definition}
We define the {\defin moment-Schwartz space} of $\gS$ to be
\begin{equation*}
\caS_\lambda(\gS)=\{f\in C^\infty(\gS)\quad (\mu^{-1})^\ast f\in\caS(\gR_+^\ast\times\gR^{2n+1})\text{ and } s^{-\frac{n+1}{2}}(\mu^{-1})^\ast f(s,z,\ell)\text{ is smooth in } s=0\}.
\end{equation*}
The space $\caS_\lambda(\gS)$ corresponds to the usual Schwartz space in the coordinates $(s,z,\ell)$ (for $s>0$) with some boundary regularity condition in $s=0$. As before, we identify the group $\gS$ with the co-adjoint orbit $\caO_\ee$ ($\ee=\pm1$).
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
The adapted Fourier transformation restricted to the Schwartz space induces an isomorphism
\begin{equation*}
\caF:\caS(\gS)\to\caS_\lambda(\caO_+)\oplus\caS_\lambda(\caO_-).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $f\in\caS(\gS)$. The Fourier transform reads:
\begin{multline*}
\caF_{\caO_\ee}(f)(s,z,\ell)=\frac{1}{(\pi\theta)^{n+1}}\int \dd r'\dd x'\dd \ell'\frac{f(r',x',\ell')}{(1+r'^2)^{\frac14}} (\sqrt{1+r'^2}+r')^{\frac{n+1}{2}} s^{\frac{n+1}{2}} c(r')^n\\
e^{\frac{i\ee}{\theta}\Big(2r'\ell+(\sqrt{1+r'^2}+r')s\ell'+\frac12(\sqrt{1+r'^2}+r'+1)\omega_0(x',z)\Big)}
\end{multline*}
Here we use the function $c(r')$ defined in \eqref{eq-auxfunc}, the coordinates $s=e^{-2a}$, $z=e^{-a}x$, $r'=\sinh(a')$ and the fact that $f$ is Schwartz in the variable $\sinh(a)$ if and only if it is in the variable $\sinh(2a)$. We denote again by $f$ the function in the new coordinates by a slight abuse of language. We have to check that $h(s,z,\ell)=s^{-\frac{n+1}{2}}\caF_{\caO_\ee}(f)(s,z,\ell)$ is Schwartz in $(s,z,\ell)$, i.e. we want to estimate expressions of the type
\begin{equation*}
\int \dd s\dd z\dd\ell\ |(1+s^2)^{k_1} (1+z^2)^{p_1}(1+\ell^2)^{q_1}\partial_s^{k_2}\partial_{z}^{p_2}\partial_{\ell}^{q_2}\ h(s,z,\ell)|.
\end{equation*}
Let us provide an analysis in terms of oscillatory integrals.
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Polynom in $\ell$}: controled by an adapted power of the following operator (invariant acting on the phase) $\frac{1}{1+\ell^2}(1-\frac{\theta^2}{4}\Big(\partial_{r'}-\frac{\ell'}{\sqrt{1+r'^2}}\partial_{\ell'}+\frac{(\sqrt{1+r'^2}+r')}{\sqrt{1+r'^2}(\sqrt{1+r'^2}+r'+1)}x'\partial_{x'}\Big)^2)$ (see section \ref{subsec-schwartz}). Indeed, powers and derivatives in the variables $r',x',\ell'$ are controled by the Schwartz function $f$ inside the integral.
\item \underline{Polynom in $z$}: controled by an adapted power of the (invariant) operator $\frac{1}{1+z^2}(1-\frac{4\theta^2}{(\sqrt{1+r'^2}+r'+1)^2}\partial_{x'}^2)$.
\item \underline{Polynom in $s$}: controled by an adapted power of the (invariant) operator $\frac{1}{1+s^2}(1-\frac{\theta^2}{(\sqrt{1+r'^2}+r')^2}\partial_{\ell'}^2)$. Note that the function $\frac{1}{(\sqrt{1+r'^2}+r')^2}$ is estimated by a polynom in $r'$ for $r'\to\pm\infty$, as its derivatives.
\item \underline{Derivations in $s$}: produce terms like powers of $(\sqrt{1+r'^2}+r')\ell'$ which are controled.
\item \underline{Derivations in $z$}: produce terms like powers of $(\sqrt{1+r'^2}+r'+1)x'$ which are controled.
\item \underline{Derivations in $\ell$}: produce terms like powers of $r'$.
\end{itemize}
This shows that $h$ is Schwartz in $(s,z,\ell)$, so $\caF(f)\in\caS_\lambda(\gS)$.
Conversely, let $f_\ee\in\caS_\lambda(\caO_\ee)$. Due to Theorem \ref{thm-four-inv}, we can write the inverse of the Fourier transform as:
\begin{multline*}
\caF^{-1}(f_+,f_-)(r,x,\ell)=\sum_{\ee=\pm1}\frac{1}{2(\pi\theta)^{n+1}}\int \dd s'\dd z'\dd \ell'\frac{f_\ee(s',z',\ell')}{s'^{\frac{n+1}{2}}} (\sqrt{1+r^2}+r)^{\frac{n+1}{2}}\sqrt{1+r^2} c(r)^n\\
e^{-\frac{i\ee}{\theta}\Big(2r\ell'+(\sqrt{1+r^2}+r)s'\ell+\frac12(\sqrt{1+r^2}+r+1)\omega_0(x,z')\Big)}
\end{multline*}
Here we use now the coordinates $s'=e^{-2a'}$, $z'=e^{-a'}x'$, $r=\sinh(a)$. We want to estimate expressions of the type
\begin{equation*}
\int \dd r\dd x\dd\ell\ |(1+r^2)^{k_1} (1+x^2)^{p_1}(1+\ell^2)^{q_1}\partial_r^{k_2}\partial_{x}^{p_2}\partial_{\ell}^{q_2}\ \caF^{-1}(f_+,f_-)(r,x,\ell)|.
\end{equation*}
Let us provide also an analysis in terms of oscillatory integrals.
\begin{itemize}
\item \underline{Polynom in $\ell$}: controled by an adapted power of the following operator (invariant acting on the phase) $\frac{1}{1+\ell^2}(1-\frac{\theta^2}{(\sqrt{1+r^2}+r)^2}\partial_{s'}^2)$. As before, powers and derivatives in the variables $s',z',\ell'$ are controled by the Schwartz function $f$ inside the integral. Note that $\frac{f_\ee(s',z',\ell')}{s'^{\frac{n+1}{2}}}$ is smooth in $s=0$ so that the integral is well-defined for $s\in\gR_+$.
\item \underline{Polynom in $x$}: controled by an adapted power of the (invariant) operator: $$\frac{1}{1+x^2}(1-\frac{4\theta^2}{(\sqrt{1+r^2}+r+1)^2}\partial_{z'}^2)\;.$$
\item \underline{Polynom in $r$}: controled by an adapted power of the (invariant) operator $\frac{1}{1+r^2}(1-\frac{\theta^2}{4}\partial_{\ell'}^2)$.
\item \underline{Derivations in $r$}: produce terms like powers of $(\sqrt{1+r^2}+r),\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+r^2}},$ $r,c'(r),\ell',\frac{(\sqrt{1+r^2}+r')}{\sqrt{1+r^2}}s'\ell,$ $\omega_0(x,z'),...$ which are controled (see just above).
\item \underline{Derivations in $x$}: produce terms like powers of $(\sqrt{1+r^2}+r+1)z'$ which are controled.
\item \underline{Derivations in $\ell$}: produce terms like powers of $(\sqrt{1+r^2}+r)s'$ which are also controled.
\end{itemize}
This shows that $\caF^{-1}(f_+,f_-)\in\caS(\gS)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Application to noncommutative Baumslag-Solitar tori}
We consider the decomposition of $G$ into elementary normal $j$-groups of section \ref{subsec-normal}
\begin{equation*}
G=\big(\dots (\gS_1\ltimes_{\rho_1}\gS_2)\ltimes_{\rho_2}\dots\big)\ltimes_{\rho_{N-1}}\gS_N
\end{equation*}
and the associated basis
\begin{equation*}
\kB:=\Big(H_1,(f_1^{(i)})_{1\leq i\leq 2n_1},E_1,\dots,H_N,(f_N^{(i)})_{1\leq i\leq 2n_N},E_N\Big)
\end{equation*}
of its Lie algebra $\kg$, where $(f_j^{(i)})_{1\leq i\leq 2n_j}$ is a canonical basis of the symplectic space $V_j$ contained in $\gS_j$. We note $G_{\text{BS}}$ the subgroup of $G$ generated by $\{e^{\theta X},\ X\in\kB\}$ and call it the {\defin Baumslag-Solitar subgroup} of $G$. Indeed, in the case of the ``$ax+b$'' group (two-dimensional elementary normal $j$-group), and if $e^{2\theta}\in\gN$, this subgroup corresponds to the Baumslag-Solitar group \cite{Baumslag:1962}:
\begin{equation*}
\text{BS}(1,m):=\langle\; e_1,e_2\quad |\quad e_1e_2(e_1)^{-1}=(e_2)^m\;\rangle.
\end{equation*}
We have seen before that the star-exponential associated to a co-adjoint orbit $\caO$ is a group morphism $\caE:G\to\caM_{\star_\theta}(\caO)\simeq\caM_{\star_\theta}(G)$. Composed with the quantization map $\Omega$, it coincides with the unitary representation $U=\Omega\circ\caE$. So, if we take now the subalgebra of $\caM_{\star_\theta}(G)$ generated by the star-exponential of $G_{\text{BS}}$, i.e. by elements $\{\caE_{e^{\theta X}},\ X\in\kB\}$, then it is closed for the complex conjugation and it can be completed into a C*-algebra $\algA_G$ with norm $\norm \Omega(\fois)\norm_{\caL(\ehH)}$. This C*-algebra is canonically associated to the group $G$. Moreover, if $\theta\to 0$, this C*-algebra is commutative and corresponds thus to a certain torus.
\begin{definition}
Let $G$ be a normal $j$-group. We define the {\defin noncommutative Baumslag-Solitar torus} of $G$ to be the C*-algebra $\algA_G$ constructed above.
\end{definition}
It turns out that the relation between the generators $\caE_{e^{\theta X}}$ ($\ X\in\kB$) of $\algA_G$ can be computed explicitely by using the BCH formula of Proposition \ref{prop-link3}. Let us see some examples.
\begin{example}
In the elementary group case $G=\gS$, let
\begin{align*}
U(a,x,\ell)&:=\caE_{(\theta,0,0)}(a,x,\ell)=\sqrt{\cosh(\theta)}\cosh(\frac{\theta}{2})^n e^{\frac{2i}{\theta}\sinh(\theta)\ell},\\
V(a,x,\ell)&:=\caE_{(0,0,\theta)}(a,x,\ell)=e^{ie^{-2a}},\\
W_i(a,x,\ell)&:=\caE_{(0,\theta e_i,0)}(a,x,\ell)=e^{ie^{-a}\omega_0(e_i,x)},
\end{align*}
where $(e_i)$ is a canonical basis of the symplectic space $(V,\omega_0)$ of dimension $2n$ (i.e. $\omega_0(e_i,e_{i+n})=1$ if $i\leq n$). Then, we can compute relations like
\begin{equation*}
U\star_\theta V=V^{e^{2\theta}}\star_\theta U.
\end{equation*}
by using BCH property of the star-exponential (see Proposition \ref{prop-link3}). We obtain (by omitting the notation $\star$):
\begin{align*}
&UV=V^{e^{2\theta}} U\qquad (\text{ and }UV^{\beta}=V^{\beta e^{2\theta}}U),\\
&UW_i=W_i^{e^{\theta}}U,\qquad W_iW_{i+n}=V^{\theta}W_{i+n}W_i
\end{align*}
where the other commutation relations are trivial. Note that these relations become trivial at the commutative limit $\theta\to0$. In the two-dimensional case, where $\gS$ is the ``$a$x$+b$ group'', the relation $UV=V^{e^{2\theta}} U$ has already been obtained in another way in \cite{Iochum:2011}.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Let us consider the Siegel domain of dimension $6$ (see Example \ref{ex-normal-siegel} for definitions and notations). As before, we can define the following generators:
\begin{align*}
U(g)&:=\caE_{(0,0,\theta,0,0,0)}(g)=\sqrt{\cosh(\theta)}\cosh(\frac{\theta}{2}) e^{\frac{2i}{\theta}\sinh(\theta)\ell_2},\\
V(g)&:=\caE_{(0,0,0,0,0,\theta)}(g)=e^{ie^{-2a_2}},\\
W_1(g)&:=\caE_{(0,0,0,\theta,0,0)}(g)=e^{ie^{-a_2}w_2},\\
W_2(g)&:=\caE_{(0,0,0,0,\theta,0)}(g)=e^{-ie^{-a_2}v_2},\\
R(g)&:=\caE_{(\theta,0,0,0,0,0)}(g)=\frac{e^{\frac{\theta}{2}}\sqrt{\cosh(\theta)}}{\cosh(\frac{\theta}{2})}e^{\frac{2i}{\theta}(\sinh(\theta)\ell_1+\tanh(\frac{\theta}{2})v_2w_2)},\\
S(g)&:=\caE_{(0,\theta,0,0,0,0)}(g)=e^{i(e^{-2a_1}+\frac12v_2^2)}.
\end{align*}
We obtain the relationship:
\begin{align*}
&UV=V^{e^{2\theta}} U,\qquad UW_1=(W_1)^{e^{\theta}}U,\qquad UW_2=(W_2)^{e^{\theta}}U,\qquad W_1W_2=V^{\theta}W_2W_1,\\
& RS=S^{e^{2\theta}}R,\qquad RW_1=(W_1)^{e^{\theta}}R,\qquad RW_2=(W_1)^{e^{-\theta}}R,\qquad SW_1=V^{\frac{\theta^2}{2}}(W_2)^\theta W_1S,
\end{align*}
where the other commutation relations are trivial.
\end{example}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:introduction}
Soon after the introduction of its basic concept in \cite{NetCoding}, network coding was accepted as a promising technique for multicast and attracted a lot of attention in the research community. As opposed to conventional packet networks where intermediate nodes can only store and forward the incoming packets, in network coding the intermediate nodes can also combine the incoming packets to form (encode) an outgoing packet. Later, the idea of linearly combining the incoming packets was introduced in \cite{LinNetCoding} and extended in \cite{AlgNetCoding} by using an algebraic approach. Also by applying random coefficients, random linear network coding (RLNC) \cite{Benefits, RandNetCoding} was shown to be sufficient for achieving zero reception overhead with failure probability arbitrarily close to zero. As a result, network coding became an attractive technique for multicast over networks with random topology.
In RLNC, the source node and all the intermediate nodes of the network encode the data packets by forming random linear combinations of them. The receivers then wait to receive enough encoded packets, in other words enough linear combinations of the information packets, such that they can form full rank systems of linear equations. Each receiver can now decode the information packets by solving the system of linear equations corresponding to the set of received packets. It is shown in \cite{Benefits, RandNetCoding} that by using RLNC with a sufficiently large code alphabet $q$, it is possible to achieve zero reception overhead\footnote{In this paper, the reception overhead is defined as the difference between the number of received packets required for successful decoding and the number of information packets divided by the number of information packets.} with failure probability arbitrary close to zero. The encoding complexity of RLNC for a block of $K$ information packets each with $s$ symbols is $O(Ks)$ operations per coded packet where the operations are done in $\mathrm{GF}(q)$. The complexity of decoding then scales as $O(K^2+Ks)$ per information packet which becomes impractical when the block size $K$ is moderate to large.
To reduce the decoding complexity of network coding, the idea of fragmenting the information packet blocks into distinct \emph{generations} is proposed in \cite{Practical}. This way, random linear combinations are formed only within each generation. This makes the final linear equation system solvable locally within each generation and thus sparse. This technique, however, requires a large number of control messages to be exchanged between the nodes to combat the problem of \emph{rare blocks} and \emph{block reconciliation} \cite{bharambe06}. To avoid this, a method called \emph{sparse} RLNC (SRLNC) is proposed in \cite{Efficient_Methods} which uses a simple random schedule for selecting which generation to transmit at any time. This method reduces the encoding complexity to $O(gs)$ per coded packet and the decoding complexity to $O(g^2+gs)$ per information packet, where $g$ denotes the number of information packets in each generation. It has been shown that to keep the SRLNC tractable in most of the practical settings the generation size should be upper bounded by a small constant (e.g. 512 for typical notebook computers \cite{Uusee}). Throughout this paper we limit our discussion to the case where all generations are of a small constant size $g$, which does not scale with the information block length $K$. This complexity is practically feasible if $g$ is not very large, making SRLNC an attractive solution for multicast. Unfortunately, the reception overhead under this scheme is affected by the \emph{curse of coupon collector} phenomenon \cite{Newman_Shepp , Erdos_Renyi_Coupon}, and thus even for very large alphabet size or number of information packets, the reception overhead does not vanish. In fact, the reception overhead grows with $K$ as $O(\log K)$ \cite{RandomAnnex}. Consequently, a trade-off is raised between reception overhead and complexity in SRLNC.
In general, the large reception overhead in SRLNC comes from two sources. The first and major source is random scheduling. More specifically, for all generations to become full rank, due to random scheduling, some generations will receive significantly more than $g$ packets resulting in a large reception overhead. The second source of reception overhead is the possibility of receiving linearly dependent combinations of the packets. The probability of receiving linearly dependant equations can be arbitrarily reduced by increasing the field size $q$ of the code alphabet \cite{RandNetCoding,Silva_Overlapping}. Another solution recently proposed in \cite{silva12} is to do pre-coding using maximum rank distance codes which is quite effective even for very small field sizes.
Knowing that SRLNC is complexity-efficient, there have been several attempts to decrease its reception overhead \cite{Efficient_Methods,Silva_Overlapping,Heidarzadeh,silva12,RandomAnnex,tang12,tang13}. For this purpose, the idea of using an outer code is introduced in \cite{Efficient_Methods}. In this method, an outer code which is considered as a separate block is applied to SRLNC. At the receiver, the outer decoder waits for the recovery of $1-\delta$ fraction of the generations for some small predefined $\delta$ and then participates in the decoding to recover the remaining $\delta$ fraction of the generations. This method is capable of reducing the reception overhead to a constant, independent of $K$. However, this scheme is still wasteful in terms of the reception overhead since it ignores the received packets pertaining to the $\delta$ fraction of the generations. Furthermore, waiting to receive enough packets to recover $1-\delta$ fraction of the generations when $\delta$ is small leads to a high probability of receiving more than $g$ packets in many generations. As a result, the reception overhead is considerably large even for infinite block lengths.
In \cite{Silva_Overlapping, Heidarzadeh} the idea of overlapping generations, where some packets are shared among different generations, is proposed. This overlap reduces the reception overhead of SRLNC since generations can help each other in the decoding process. Another \emph{overlapped} SRLNC scheme called \emph{Random Annex} codes \cite{RandomAnnex} proposes \emph{random} sharing of the packets between any two generations. Furthermore, combination of overlapping and outer coding (called expander chunked (EC) codes) is proposed in \cite{tang12,tang13}. In this scheme, expander graphs are used to form overlapped generations. By establishing an upper bound on the reception overhead and careful choice of parameters, it has been shown that the proposed scheme of \cite{tang12,tang13} outperforms all other previously existing overlapping schemes. However, as it will be shown later, the SRLNC designed based on EC codes analysis is equivalent to a special (but not the optimal) case of our proposed Gamma codes.
Another recently proposed low-complexity RLNC technique is called batched sparse (BATS) coding \cite{yang11,yang12}. BATS codes generalize the idea of fountain codes \cite{LT,Raptor} to a network with packet loss. Using BATS codes, the buffer requirement at intermediate nodes become independent of the information packets block size in tree networks \cite{yang12}. Furthermore, it is shown that these codes perform near the capacity of the underlying network in certain cases \cite{yang12}. Nevertheless, design of BATS codes requires the knowledge of the end-to-end transformation of the packets in the network which is not always available.
One important difference between BATS codes and SRLNC is that BATS codes perform RLNC inside variable-size subsets of information packets called \emph{batches} whereas SRLNC schemes perform RLNC inside fixed-size subsets of information packets, i.e., generations. For each batch in BATS codes, first a degree $d_i$ is determined by sampling from a degree distribution. Then, $d_i$ information packet is chosen uniformly at random from all information packets. Next, a fixed number $M$ of output packets (forming a batch) are encoded by performing RLNC inside the chosen subset. Then, the same process is repeated to form the next batch. The receiver needs to receive enough number of batches to decode all information packets. In BATS codes, each information packet can participate in multiple batches which can be seen as overlaps between batches. Thus, BATS codes and overlapping SRLNC are similar in imposing dependence between batches/generations.
A key observation which will lead to our proposed network coding scheme is that the overlap between different generations in overlapped SRLNC can be seen as having a repetition outer code acting on the common packets from overlapping generations. Thus, overlapped SRLNC can be seen as a special case of SRLNC with outer code. In overlapped SRLNC, on the contrary to the separate outer coding of \cite{Efficient_Methods}, there is no need to wait for the recovery of a large fraction of the generations before the repetition outer code can participate in the decoding. This can potentially reduce the reception overhead compared to the scheme of \cite{Efficient_Methods}. This point of view then leads to the idea of allowing the outer code to participate in the decoding, but not limiting the outer code to a repetition code. This in turn generates a host of new questions, some of which are answered in this work. For example, a major question is how one can design an outer code which provides minimum reception overhead. To the best of our knowledge, no general analysis and design technique for SRLNC with an outer code exists in the literature. The analysis methods presented in \cite{Heidarzadeh_Analysis,RandomAnnex,tang13} either assume specific network structures or specific coding schemes such as overlapping schemes and thus cannot be used to design outer coded SRLNC in a general way\footnote{In this work, the only constraint on the outer code is that we consider the class of linear outer codes that choose their variable nodes uniformly at random, which we refer to them as \emph{random linear outer codes}. This constraint simplifies the analysis and design of optimal codes. As will be revealed in the results section, despite the mentioned constraint, the optimal design achieves asymptotic overheads as small as $2\%$.}.
\subsection{Main idea and summary of contributions}
In this work, we propose a solution to the problem of designing low-overhead linear-complexity SRLNC with a random linear outer code. For this purpose, we introduce a new family of low-overhead linear-complexity network codes, called \emph{Gamma network codes}. In Gamma network codes, SRLNC with outer code is considered in a more general way, i.e., the outer code is not limited to a simple repetition outer code. Also, Gamma network codes do not rely on a large portion of generations being recovered before getting the outer code involved in the decoding. We then develop an analytical framework based on density evolution equations \cite{DensityEvolution} to investigate the impact of the outer code parameters on the average reception overhead. The importance of such framework is that it can be used both for (i) finding the limits on the performance measures of SRLNC with random linear outer code such as the minimum achievable reception overhead, (ii) track the decoding process, and (iii) to analytically design optimal codes.
While similar to \cite{Efficient_Methods} an outer code is suggested here, the design of Gamma network codes has major differences with that of \cite{Efficient_Methods}: (i) Unlike \cite{Efficient_Methods}, where the outer code has to wait for a large fraction of the generations to be recovered, here the outer code can participate in the decoding as soon as a single generation is recovered. In other words, outer decoding is done jointly with solving the linear equation systems instead of separate decoding used in \cite{Efficient_Methods}. (ii) In contrast to \cite{Efficient_Methods}, the received packets belonging to non-full rank generations are not ignored. (iii) Our outer codes are designed to have the ability of actively participating in the decoding when the fraction of known packets is much smaller than the code rate. As we will show later, the reception overhead of Gamma network codes is significantly smaller than that of \cite{Efficient_Methods}.
Gamma network codes are built based on the following facts/results: (1) Every received packet whose corresponding linear combination is linearly independent with those of all other received packets is innovative and must be used in the decoding process. (2) Assuming the field size of the code alphabet is large enough, before receiving enough packets to form a small number of full-rank generations, all received packets are linearly independent with high probability. (3) It is possible to design an outer code capable of successful decoding, based on receiving enough packets to have only a small fraction of full rank generations. Details of this code design is provided in Section \ref{sec:optimization}.
In summary, our solution works in the following way. Accepting an optimally small reception overhead, we continue receiving packets until a small fraction of the generations is full rank. Next, the carefully designed outer code comes to help to decode all other generations through providing enough information about the packets in the remaining generations to remove the rank deficiency in their corresponding linear equation systems. This will be done in an iterative decoding process alternating between the outer code and the SRLNC. Since nearly all received packets are used in the decoding process, the outer code does not introduce an excess overhead. The key to our finding is an intermediate performance analysis (i.e., density evolution equations) of SRLNC with outer code.
Our contributions are summarized as follows: (i) We introduce a new class of linear-complexity random linear network codes called Gamma network codes. This design is based on integrating a carefully designed outer code into SRLNC. Our design enables joint decoding of the outer and the SRLNC at the receivers and is shown to outperform all other existing linear-complexity random linear network codes. (ii) We derive density evolution equations for the asymptotic performance analysis of Gamma network codes. (iii) Using the asymptotic analysis, we propose an optimization technique to design optimized Gamma network codes with very small reception overheads. (iv) Finite-length performance of these codes are also evaluated and some methods to improve their performance are presented. We also compare our results with those of overlapping SRLNC schemes \cite{Silva_Overlapping, RandomAnnex,Efficient_Methods,tang13}. We will show that Gamma network codes are capable of reducing the reception overhead compared to all the existing linear-complexity random linear network coding schemes.
In our analysis, we assume that as long as less than g packets are received in a generation, these packets are linearly independent. This can be due to using a sufficiently large q or using methods of \cite{silva12}. The assumption is primarily made to prevent unnecessary complications and to be consistent with the convention in the literature \cite{RandomAnnex,Silva_Overlapping}. We study the effect of $q$ on the performance of Gamma network codes numerically in Section \ref{subsec:results_B}.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we describe the encoding and decoding structure of the proposed Gamma network codes. Section~\ref{sec:analysis} Describes the asymptotic analysis of the performance of the proposed codes through introducing the decoding evolution chart. Next, we will propose an optimization technique to design Gamma network codes with minimum reception overhead in Section~\ref{sec:optimization}. Section~\ref{sec:results} contains numerical results and discussions. Moreover as an example of the applications of decoding evolution chart we will also propose techniques to design Gamma network codes which are suitable for achieving very small decoding failure probability in finite block lengths. Section~\ref{sec:improved_design} reviews the encoding procedure and suggests some improved designs. Finally, Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} concludes the paper.
\section{The Proposed Coding Scheme} \label{Sec:model}
\subsection{Network model} \label{sec:network_model}
Similar to \cite{RandomAnnex, Silva_Overlapping,tang13}, in this paper we consider the transmission of a file consisting of information packets from a source to a destination over a unicast link. The network structure is assumed to be dynamic with diverse routing, unknown and variable packet loss, and with random processing times at the intermediate nodes. It is further assumed that random linear combining is performed at the intermediate nodes on the available packets within each generation. As a result, the destination receives a random subset of the random linear combinations of the transmitted packets and is supposed to recover the information packets.
\subsection{Encoding}\label{sec:encoding}
The encoding process of Gamma network codes is done in two steps. In the first step, a file consisting of $K$ information packets, each having $d$ symbols in $\mathrm{GF}(q)$ is encoded via a linear outer code\footnote{As we will show in Section~\ref{sec:convergence}, a pre-code can also be helpful. To avoid complications, we do not discuss this here and leave it to Section~\ref{sec:convergence}.} $\mathcal{C}$ of rate $R$ giving rise to a block of $N$ \emph{outer coded} packets where $R=K/N$. These $N$ outer coded packets are partitioned into $n=\lceil\frac{N}{g}\rceil$ distinct generations, where $\lceil x\rceil$ is the smallest integer larger than or equal to $x$. In this work, without loss of generality we assume that $N$ is a multiple of $g$, where $g$ denotes the number of packets in each generation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{decoding_graph2.tex}
\caption{The graphical representation for a Gamma network code with check nodes, outer coded nodes, and received nodes corresponding to outer code's check equations, outer coded packets, and received packets, respectively. Each group of outer coded nodes constituting a generations is separated by a dashed box. The edges of the outer code's check nodes are in fact hyper edges connecting dense linear combinations of the outer coded packets in the corresponding generation to the check node. The degree of outer code's check nodes is defined as the number of generations connected to it. For example, the degree of the leftmost check node is $2$.}\label{fig:decoding_graph}
\end{figure}
The structure of the linear outer code $\mathcal{C}$ requires some explanation. Fig.~\ref{fig:decoding_graph} shows the graphical representation of a Gamma network code. As the figure shows, in contrast to the check nodes of a conventional linear code which represent parity-check equations imposed on the connected encoded packets, check nodes in $\mathcal{C}$ represent parity-check equations imposed on dense random linear combinations\footnote{A linear combination is called dense when the coefficients are non-zero with high probability. When the coefficients are drawn uniformly at random from $\mathrm{GF}(q)$ the linear combination will be dense.} of the encoded packets of the connected generations. For example, the parity-check equation of the check node $\mathsf{c}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:generation_based_checks}
\sum_{i\in\mathcal{N}(\mathrm{c})}\sum_{j=1}^g\alpha_j^{(i)}u_j^{(i)}=0,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{N}(\mathrm{c})$ denotes the set of generations connected to $\mathrm{c}$, $\alpha_j^{(i)}$ is the random coefficient of the $j$th outer coded packet from the $i$th generation chosen uniformly at random from $\mathrm{GF}(q)$, and $u_j^{(i)}$ denotes the $j$th outer coded packets from the $i$th generation. For reasons that will be revealed later in Section~\ref{sec:density_evolution}, we characterize the outer code $\mathcal{C}$ by a generating polynomial $P(x)=\sum_{i=2}^{D}p_ix^i$ where $p_{i}$ is the probability that a randomly selected check equation of an instance of the outer codes is connected to $i$ generations. The minimum degree of $P(x)$ is two since any check equation should encounter at least two generations, and $\sum_{i=2}^{D}{p_{i}}=1$. Moreover, generations contributing in each check equation are considered to be distributed uniformly at random among all the generations. We refer to such outer codes as random linear outer codes. More details about selecting $R$ and designing $P(x)$ are left to Section~\ref{sec:optimization}.
In the second step of the encoding, SRLNC is performed on the partitioned outer coded packets in which the source repeatedly forms output packets to be sent to the receiver through the network. In particular, first for each output packet a generation index $j\in\{1,2,\dots,n\}$ is selected uniformly at random with replacement. Then, having selected a vector element $\beta \in (\mathrm{GF}(q))^g$ uniformly at random, an output packet is formed as the linear combination of the $g$ outer coded packets of the $j$th generation using $\beta$ as the coefficient vector. Finally, the output packet is transmitted through the network along with the index of the selected generation $j$, and the coefficient vector $\beta$.
At the intermediate nodes, coding is done by conventional SRLNC as in \cite{Efficient_Methods,RandomAnnex, Silva_Overlapping,tang13}. The complexity of encoding per output packet for Gamma network codes is $O(gs+\bar{d}gs(1-R)/R)$ at the source and $O(gs)$ at intermediate nodes, where $\bar{d}$ is the average degree of the outer code check nodes. This constant complexity per output packet thus gives rise to an overall linear encoding complexity in terms of the block length $K$.
\subsection{Decoding}\label{sec:decoding}
At the receiver, each received packet reveals a linear equation in terms of the outer coded packets of the corresponding generation in $\mathrm{GF}(q)$. The receiver constantly receives packets until it can form a full rank linear equation system for one of the generations. This generation is then decoded by Gaussian elimination. At this time, an iterative decoding process operating on the graph of Fig.~\ref{fig:decoding_graph} initiates.
Each iteration of this iterative decoding process is performed in two steps. In the first step, the \emph{edge-deletion decoding} step \cite{LT}, all the nodes corresponding to the outer coded packets of the recent full rank generations and their connecting edges are removed from the decoding graph. As a result, the degree of the check nodes of the outer code is reduced. Any outer code's check node reduced to degree one represents a dense linear equation in terms of the outer coded packets of the connected generation in $\mathrm{GF}(q)$. Thus, a dense linear equation is added to the linear equation system of the corresponding generation.
The second step follows by updating the linear equation system of the generations and performing Gaussian elimination for the full-rank generations. Any added dense linear equation increases the rank of the linear equation system of that generation by one with high probability if the alphabet size $q$ is large enough. As a result, there is a possibility that the updated generation becomes full rank and its packets could be recovered by Gaussian elimination.
The decoder now iterates between these two steps until either all the packets are recovered or no new packet could be recovered. If no new packet could be recovered, then the receiver receives more packets from the network so that it can resume the decoding. The decoding complexity of Gamma network codes is $O(g^2+gd+g\bar{d}(1-R)/R)$ operations per information packet which translates to a linear overall decoding complexity in terms of $K$.
\section{Asymptotic Analysis and Design} \label{sec:analysis}
In this section, we will study the average performance of our suggested Gamma network codes. The main goal of this study is to provide an analytical framework to formulate the effects of different code parameters on the average performance. As usual in the literature of modern coding, we will conduct this study under an asymptotic length assumption and derive density evolution equations for the iterative decoding process. Later, the finite-length performance of the example codes will be evaluated through computer simulations in Section~\ref{sec:results} along with the related discussions and remarks on finite-length issues.
As stated in Section~\ref{sec:decoding}, a successful decoding requires all of the generations to become full rank. Any received packet and any outer code's check node reduced to degree one add one dense linear equation to the equation system of the corresponding generation. For large $q$, adding one dense linear equation increases the rank of equation system by one with high probability. Thus, to analyze the decoding process, we are interested in tracking the evolution of the rank of the linear equation systems corresponding to different generations. To this end, in the following, we calculate the average fraction of generations whose equation systems are of rank $i,~i\in\{0,\dots,g\}$ at any instance during the decoding process.
Let the number of received encoded packets at some arbitrary state during the decoding be denoted by $rn$, where $0 \leq r$ is the normalized number of received encoded packets. Having a total of $r$ normalized number of received encoded packets, the decoder can form a system of linear equations in terms of the encoded packets in each generation. By a slight abuse of notations we will refer to the rank of such an equation system as the rank of its corresponding generation.
Let $R_{r,q}$ be the random variable representing the rank of a generation selected uniformly at random, when the normalized number of received encoded packets is equal to $r$ and the code alphabet is of size $q$. The following lemma whose proof is provided in App.~\ref{app:generation_rank_distribution}, gives the statistical structure of the generation rank distribution under very large $q$.
\begin{lem}\label{lemm:generation_rank_distribution}
\begin{align}
q\rightarrow \infty \Rightarrow R_{r,q}\overset{\mathfrak{D}}{\rightarrow}\mathcal{B}_{r,n},
\end{align}
where $\overset{\mathfrak{D}}{\rightarrow}$ denotes the convergence in distribution, and $\mathcal{B}_{r,n}$ is a random variable with the following truncated binomial probability distribution:
\begin{align}
\text{Pr}[\mathcal{B}_{r,n}=i]=\nonumber \begin{cases}
\binom{rn}{i}(\frac{1}{n})^{i}(\frac{n-1}{n})^{rn-i} & i=0,1,\dots ,g-1\\
1-I_{\frac{n-1}{n}}(rn-g+1,g) & i=g
\end{cases}.
\end{align}
Here $I_{\alpha}(m,\ell)$ is the regularized incomplete beta function defined as
\begin{align}
I_{\alpha}(m,\ell)=m\binom{m+\ell-1}{\ell-1}\int_{0}^{\alpha}{t^{m-1}(1-t)^{\ell-1}dt}.
\end{align}
\end{lem}\hfill$\square$
Since the main goal here is to study the average asymptotic performance, we assume that the value of $q$ is large enough to make the results of the previous lemma valid.
\begin{cor}
When the block length of the SRLNC goes to infinity, we have $n\rightarrow\infty$ and hence $R_{r,q}\overset{\mathfrak{D}}{\rightarrow}\mathcal{R}_r$, where $\mathcal{R}_r$ is a random variable with the following truncated Poisson distribution
\begin{align}\label{eq:GenRankDist}
\text{Pr}[\mathcal{R}_r=i]=\begin{cases}
\frac{e^{-r}r^{i}}{i!} & i = 0,1,\cdots,g-1\\
1-\frac{\Gamma_{g}(r)}{(g-1)!} & i=g
\end{cases},
\end{align}
where $\Gamma_{g}(r)$ is the incomplete Gamma function\footnote{Gamma network codes are named after the incomplete Gamma function since it plays a key role in their design.} given as
\begin{align}
\Gamma_{\alpha}(x)=(\alpha-1)!e^{-x}\sum_{i=0}^{\alpha}{\frac{x^i}{i!}}.
\end{align}
\end{cor}\hfill$\square$
Now that we have the probability distribution of the rank of a randomly selected generation at hand, we are interested to find the average number of generations of rank $i,~i\in\{0,1,\cdots,g\}$. The following lemma derives this quantity.
\begin{lem}\label{Lem:No_of_fullrank}
Let $E_{r}\{\cdot\}$ denote the expectation operator given that the normalized number of received packets is $r$. The average number of generations of rank $i$ is then given by
\begin{align}
E_{r}\left\{|\{\mathcal{G}|\text{rank}(\mathcal{G})=i\}|\right\}=n\text{Pr}[\mathcal{R}_r=i],
\end{align}
where $|A|$ denotes the cardinality of the set $A$.
\end{lem}\hfill$\square$
App.~\ref{app:no_of_fullrank} provides the proof of this lemma.
\subsection{Density Evolution Equations}\label{sec:density_evolution}
In the next step of our analysis, we study the growth in the average fraction of full rank generations during the decoding process, assuming that the packet reception has stopped at some arbitrary time. Let $r_{0}$ denote the normalized number of received encoded packets at this time.
The decoder has two sets of equations which could be used for decoding, namely the set of equations corresponding to the received encoded packets and the set of check equations available due to the outer code. Since the main goal in the design of SRLNC is to keep the decoding and encoding efficient, Gaussian Elimination is just performed within each generation, i.e., just performed on the set of equations which are all in terms of packets belonging to a single generation. For the check equations of the outer code, the decoder uses message-passing decoding (i.e., edge-deletion decoding) to reduce them to degree one.
At step zero of the iterative decoding process, where the normalized number of received encoded packets is $r_{0}$, the probability distribution of the rank of any randomly selected generation is given by (\ref{eq:GenRankDist}) as $\text{Pr}[\mathcal{R}_{r_0}=g]=1-\frac{\Gamma_g(r_0)}{(g-1)!}$. Therefore, the initial average fraction of full rank generations (i.e., before using any of the check equations in the decoding), is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:initial_fullrank}
x_{0}=1-\frac{\Gamma_{g}(r_{0})}{(g-1)!}.
\end{align}
Having the developed mathematical framework at hand, it is now easy to track the average fraction of full rank generations as a function of the normalized number of received packets. In order to keep this simple formulation working for tracking the average fraction of full rank generations when the outer code comes to play in the decoding, we introduce the concept of \emph{effective} number of received packets. The aim of this definition is to translate the effect of check equations which are reduced to degree one into the reception of some imaginary packets from the network. This enables us to use the developed mathematical framework to track the average fraction of full rank generations as the decoding iterates between the edge-deletion decoder working on the outer code and the Gaussian elimination decoder which works inside each generation.
Now assume that after the $i$th iteration of the decoding for some $i\geq 0$, we have a certain fraction $x_i$ of full rank generations. Moreover, let $y_i$ denote the number of check equations of the outer code reduced to degree one at iteration $i$, which have not been reduced to degree one up to the end of iteration $i-1$. Each of these check equations now represents a dense equation in terms of the packets of one of the non-full rank generations. When $q$ is large enough, each of these equations will then increase the rank of its corresponding non-full rank generation by one, with high probability. However, as the selection of generations participating in each parity check equation in the outer code is done uniformly at random in the encoder, the effect of these equations on the decoding is equivalent to receive $y_i$ imaginary packets from the network all belonging to the non-full rank generations. Noticing that receiving more packets in the full rank generations also does not have any effect in the decoding process and does not change the fraction of full rank generations, we can easily model the effect of $y_i$ reduced degree-one parity check equations of the outer code by receiving $y_i/(1-x_i)$ imaginary packets from the network distributed uniformly at random over all the generations. We will refer to these $y_i/(1-x_i)$ imaginary packets as the \emph{effective} number of received packets at the beginning of iteration $i+1$. Moreover, we refer to the quantity
\begin{align}
z_{i+1}=n\Gamma^{-1}_{g}((1-x_i)(g-1)!)+y_i/(1-x_i),\nonumber
\end{align}
as the total effective number of received packets at the beginning of iteration $i+1$. According to Lemma~\ref{Lem:No_of_fullrank}, and the discussion above, the average fraction of full rank generations at iteration $i+1$ is given by
\begin{align}
x_{i+1}=1-\frac{\Gamma_{g}\left(\frac{z_{i+1}}{n}\right)}{(g-1)!}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Now consider the Tanner graph \cite{tanner81} of the outer code. Similar to the idea of density evolution \cite{DensityEvolution} and the intrinsic information transfer (EXIT) charts \cite{tenbrink99}, we track the density of full rank generations through the decoding iterations. In each iteration, in the first step all the edges connecting the full rank generations to the outer code's check nodes are removed. This reduces the degree of the check nodes. In the second step, each check node which is reduced to degree one adds a dense linear equation in terms of the packets of the connected generation to the coefficient matrix of that generation. The following theorem describes the evolution of the average fraction of full rank generations through the iterations of the decoding process.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:Lower_bound}
Let $r_{0}$ denote the normalized number of received packets, and $x_{i}$ for $i\geq 0$ denote the average fraction of full rank generations after iteration $i$ of decoding. Then the average effective number of received packets at iteration $i,~i\geq 1$ is given by
\begin{align}
ng(1-R)P'(x_{i-1})(1-x_{i}),\nonumber
\end{align}
Where $P'(\cdot)$ denotes the first order derivative of $P(x)$ and we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:evolution}
&x_{0} = \nonumber 1-\frac{\Gamma_{g}(r_{0})}{(g-1)!},\\
&x_{i} = 1-\frac{\Gamma_{g}(r_{0}+g (1-R) P'(x_{i-1}))}{(g-1)!},~~i \geq 1.
\end{align}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The initial average fraction of full rank generations $x_{0}$, could be calculated using (\ref{eq:initial_fullrank}). In the first iteration of the decoding, decoder removes the edges connecting the full rank generations connected to the outer code's check nodes. Thus, the probability of having a randomly selected check node reduced to degree one at this point is equal to
\begin{align
\sum_{i=2}^{\infty}{p_{i}\binom{i}{1}(x_{0})^{(i-1)}(1-x_{0})}=P'(x_{0})(1-x_{0}).\nonumber
\end{align}
This is the probability of all except one of the generations participating in that check equation being full rank, and having that last one belong to the set of non-full rank generations. Such a check equation now reveals a dense equation in terms of packets of the only non-full rank generation connected to it and hence increases the rank of that non-full rank generation with high probability. Thus, the probability that a randomly selected check equation increases the rank of a non-full rank generation in iteration $1$ is
\begin{align}
P'(x_{0})(1-x_{0}).\nonumber
\end{align}
Moreover, as the total number of check equations is given by $N-K$, the average number of check equations which are now capable to increase the rank of a non-full rank generation is given as
\begin{align
N(1-R)P'(x_0)(1-x_0) = ng(1-R)P'(x_0)(1-x_0).\nonumber
\end{align}
As discussed above, the effect of these $ng(1-R)P'(x_{0})(1-x_{0})$ equations on the generation rank growth is equivalent to the effect of $ng(1-R)P'(x_{0})$ dense equations distributed uniformly at random over all of the generations. Thus, we model the impact of iteration one of the edge-deletion by the reception of $ng(1-R)P'(x_{0})$ dense equations distributed uniformly at random over all of the generations. Then the average effective number of equations is $ng(1-R)P'(x_{0})$, or equivalently, the normalized average effective number of equations is
\begin{align
g(1-R)P'(x_{0}).\nonumber
\end{align}
As all of the equations (i.e. effective check equations reduced to degree one, and equations corresponding to the received packets) which have been used in the coefficient matrices of the generations have a uniform distribution on the set of all generations, then the total average effective number of equations used throughout the decoding up to iteration one is equal to $r_{0}+g(1-R)P'(x_{0})$. Hence, similar to the calculation of $x_{0}$, we can calculate $x_{1}$ as
\begin{align
x_{1} = 1-\frac{\Gamma_{g}(r_{0}+g(1-R)P'(x_{0}))}{(g-1)!}\nonumber.
\end{align}
Assuming the claim of Theorem~\ref{thm:Lower_bound} holds for all iterations from zero to $i$, we will now prove the claim for iteration $i+1$, and using mathematical induction we then conclude that the theorem holds for all iterations. Recall that we denote the average fraction of full rank generations at the end of iteration $i$ by $x_{i}$, and according to the assumption, the average effective normalized number of the total received packets up to the end of iteration $i$ is $r_{0}+g(1-R)P'(x_{i-1})$. Hence, according to the discussion above, the average fraction of check equations reduced to degree one after the edge deletion phase of iteration $i+1$ is given by $P'(x_{i})(1-x_{i})$. Since we have a total of $N-K=N(1-R)$ check equations, the number of check equations reduced to degree one is
\begin{align}\label{total_oreder_ones}
N(1-R)(1-x_{i})P'(x_{i}).
\end{align}
In order to calculate the average effective number of equations received at iteration $i+1$, we need to find the number of check nodes reduced to degree one at this iteration which have not been reduced to degree one in the previous iterations. Therefore, we need to deduct the average number of check nodes reduced to degree one up to the end of iteration $i$ which are still of degree one from (\ref{total_oreder_ones}). Hence, the total average effective number of received packets at this point is given by
\begin{align}
\nonumber nr_{0}+ng(1-R)P'(x_{i-1})+ &\frac{ng(1-R)}{(1-x_{i})}\left[P'(x_{i})(1-x_{i})-P'(x_{i-1})\frac{(1-x_{i})}{(1-x_{i-1})}\right]=\nonumber \\
& n\left[r_{0}+g(1-R)P'(x_{i})\right].\nonumber
\end{align}
Therefore, the average fraction of full rank generations at the end of iteration $i+1$ is given by
\begin{align}
x_{i+1}=1-\frac{\Gamma_{g}(r_{0}+g(1-R)P'(x_{i}))}{(g-1)!}.\nonumber
\end{align}
The claim of the theorem then holds for all iterations.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Decoding convergence and overhead}\label{sec:convergence}
Using Theorem~\ref{thm:Lower_bound}, a sufficient condition for successful decoding can be derived. Assume that packet reception is stopped after receiving enough packets to form $x_{0}n$ full rank generations, for some $x_{0}$ such that $0<x_{0}<1$. For large enough $q$ and $n$, the random linear outer code $\mathcal{C}$ with check degree distribution $P(x)$ then asymptotically guarantees successful decoding if
\begin{align}\label{eq:sufcon}
x < 1-\frac{\Gamma_g(r_{0}+g(1-R)P'(x))}{(g-1)!},~~x\in (x_{0},1),
\end{align}
where $r_0=\Gamma_g^{-1}\left((g-1)!(1-x_0)\right)$.
Note that to recover all of the encoded packets, $x$ should approach $1$ in (\ref{eq:sufcon}). But $x$ tends to $1$ when the argument of $\Gamma_g(\cdot)$ tends to infinity since $\Gamma_g(\cdot)$ is a strictly decreasing function lower bounded by zero. This means that $P'(x)$ should tend to infinity as $x$ tends to one. Since $x<1$ and $P(x)$ is a polynomial with positive coefficients, this is achieved only when the average degree of the outer code check nodes $\bar{d}$ tends to infinity\footnote{It can be shown that in this case the average degree should scale logarithmically with $n$.} which makes the per packet encoding and decoding complexities unbounded.
Motivated by the construction of Raptor codes \cite{Raptor} and to keep the complexities linear, we concatenate a high-rate linear block code $\mathcal{C}'$, which is called the \emph{pre-code}, with the random linear outer code $\mathcal{C}$. For this purpose, we use a weakened random linear outer code $\mathcal{C}$ of rate $R$ with a small constant $\bar{d}$. A constant $\bar{d}$ means that a fraction of the generations will remain uncovered. The pre-code $\mathcal{C}'$ is then responsible to recover the remaining fraction of the generations. As a result, if we choose $\bar{d}$ and $P(x)$ such that \begin{equation}\label{eq:convergence_condition}
x<1-\frac{\Gamma_g(r_{0}+g(1-R)P'(x))}{(g-1)!},~~x\in (x_{0},1-\delta),
\end{equation}
given a small $\delta>0$, then a capacity-achieving pre-code of rate $R'=1-\delta$ can recover the remaining $\delta$ fraction of generations.
Due to the concatenation of the pre-code, encoding of Gamma network codes should now be done in three steps. In the first step, a file consisting of $K'$ packets is encoded via $\mathcal{C}'$ with rate $R'$ to give a block of $K=K'/R'$ packets. In the next step, encoding this block by the outer code $\mathcal{C}$ of rate $R$ gives a block of $N=K/R=ng$ outer coded packets. The final step consists of the conventional RLNC. The number of information packets is given by $K'=ngR'R=ng(1-\delta)R$. The receiver is able to successfully decode all of the information packets after receiving $r_0n$ encoded packets from the network. As a result, the average reception overhead of this coding scheme is given by
\begin{align}
\nonumber\epsilon = \frac{r_0n-K'}{K'}&=\frac{r_0}{g(1-\delta)R}-1\\
&=\frac{\Gamma_g^{-1}\left((g-1)!(1-x_0)\right)}{g(1-\delta)R}-1\label{eq:overhead}
\end{align}
Considering these, the asymptotic convergence properties of Gamma network codes can be summarized as follows. For a Gamma network code with a linear random outer code of rate $R$ and check degree distribution $P(x)$, if (\ref{eq:convergence_condition}) is satisfied for some $x_0$ and $\delta$, then the Gamma network code can asymptotically recover all of the information packets with an average reception overhead of (\ref{eq:overhead}) using a linear capacity-achieving pre-code\footnote{The pre-code can be a high-rate right-regular low-density parity-check code (LDPC) designed for the binary erasure channel (BEC)\cite{Shokrollahi99}.} of rate $1-\delta$.
Moreover, in the asymptotic regime, the variance of the fraction of recovered generations approaches zero as shown by \cite{Concentration_Kaplan,Concentration_Flatto}. Hence, the average behavior is expected to be observed with high probability.
We conclude this section by an example. For the heuristic outer code design proposed in \cite{Mahdaviani12}\footnote{This heuristic design is based on the assumption that minimizing the overhead can be achieved to a great extent by designing the code such that $x_0 = 1/n$ \cite{Mahdaviani12}.} with $g=25$, we have outer code rate $R=0.6351$, and precode rate $R'=0.9701$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:heuristic_px}
P(x) = \sum_{i=2}^{D^*}\frac{1}{i(i-1)}x^i+\frac{1}{D^*}x^{(D^*+1)},
\end{equation}
where $D^*=33$. The evolution of $x_i$ during the decoding process as predicted by (\ref{eq:evolution}) is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:EXIT_example} for $x_0=0.10$. Also, the $45$-degree line is plotted. We call this the decoding evolution chart. The point where the evolution chart gets closed, i.e., intersects the $45$-degree line, is equal to $1-\delta$. As depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:EXIT_example}, $1-\delta$ is very close to one for this example. The predicted average asymptotic reception overhead given by (\ref{eq:overhead}) is then $18.83\%$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{EXIT_1.eps}
\caption{The decoding evolution chart for the Gamma network code with the heuristic check degree distribution of \cite{Mahdaviani12}. Using these parameters, the lowest $x_0$ by which the evolution chart is open is $x_0=0.10$.}\label{fig:EXIT_example}
\end{figure}
The concept of decoding evolution chart is very similar to the EXIT chart introduced in \cite{tenbrink99}. This concept has already been used to derive many techniques for the analysis and optimization in many modern coding problems, and is proved to be a very powerful tool with many applications. In network coding, however, no similar concept has been introduced prior to this work. In the following sections we will describe some examples of applying the decoding evolution chart for optimization of the proposed Gamma network codes in asymptotic and finite block lengths as examples of this tool.
\section{Outer Code Optimization} \label{sec:optimization}
The previous section provided us with the tools for the asymptotic analysis of the decoding of Gamma network codes as well as their decoding convergence and reception overhead calculation. Now that this analytical formulation is at hand, we can use it to design good Gamma network codes. The goal of this design process is to find a combination of the parameters of the outer code and the pre-code, namely the rate of the outer code $R$, the check degree distribution $P(x)$, and the rate of the pre-code $R'$, which gives the minimum reception overhead.
For this purpose, we are seeking solution to the following optimization problem:
\begin{align}
\min_{{R, P(x), x_0,\delta}}\epsilon=&\min_{R, P(x), x_0,\delta}\frac{\Gamma_g^{-1}\left((g-1)!(1-x_0)\right)}{g(1-\delta)R}-1\label{eq:optimization}\\
\nonumber&\quad\mathrm{subject~to:}~~(\ref{eq:convergence_condition})~\mathrm{holds}\\
\nonumber&\quad\quad\qquad\qquad\;\;\sum_{i=2}^{D}{p_{i}}=1\\
\nonumber&\qquad\quad\qquad\qquad0\le p_i\le1.
\end{align}
Solving this optimization problem analytically is not easy since some of the parameters inherently depend on each other through the non-linear constraint (\ref{eq:convergence_condition}). Thus, we use numerical methods to find solutions to this optimization problem.
First notice that for a fixed $R$ and $P(x)$, for any given $x_0$ one can find $\delta$ by using the convergence condition (\ref{eq:convergence_condition}). Also, since $0< x_0<1$ and $0<R<1$, for any fixed $P(x)$ one can make a fine grid and do a search over $(x_0,R)$ and minimize $\epsilon$ and find the best combination of $x_0$, $R$, and $\delta$. Finally, solution to (\ref{eq:optimization}) can be found by fixing maximum degree $D$ and searching over $P(x)$ and finding the best set of $x_0$, $R$, and $\delta$ for each $P(x)$.
Searching over the space of $P(x)$ can be done by global numerical optimization techniques. Here, to speed up the process, we use the gradient descent method to find various local minima and then choose the best answer. Our results are not guaranteed to be equal to the global minimum but as we will show in our examples, the decoding evolution chart for the optimized codes gets extremely close to the $45$-degree line which suggests that our results should be very close to the global answer.
Assuming that the generation size is $g=25$, asymptotically optimized Gamma network codes are found for various values of the maximum check degree $D$ by solving (\ref{eq:optimization}). The parameters of these codes are reported in Table~\ref{tb:optimization}. Selecting $D=2$ is equivalent to an all degree-2 check degree distribution. In this case, the check degree distribution is fixed and the rest of the parameters are optimized (code $\mathcal{C}_1$ in the table). The reception overhead under this code is $\epsilon=11.43\%$. The evolution chart of the decoding of this code is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:EXIT_optimized}.
As evident from the results of Table~\ref{tb:optimization}, increasing $D$ from $2$ to $30$ decreases the reception overhead from $11.43\%$ to $2.60\%$. This is because increasing $D$ allows larger average degrees for $P(x)$ and hence the closing point of the evolution chart gets closer to $x=1$. Also, note that the reception overhead does not change significantly for $D>15$ since the closing point $1-\delta$ is already very close to $1$ and larger average degrees does not change $1-\delta$ and hence the overhead significantly. The decoding evolution charts for $\mathcal{C}_4$ and $\mathcal{C}_6$ which are optimized under $D=15$ and $D=30$, respectively, are also depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:EXIT_optimized}.
Note that in the optimized degree distributions of Table~\ref{tb:optimization}, only check nodes of degree $2$ and $D$ have significant weights, with most of the weight on degree $2$. Having a large weight on degree-$2$ check nodes is useful since it maximizes the participation of the outer code's check nodes. Degree-$2$ check nodes start to contribute early at the beginning of the decoding but since they provide low connectivity in the decoding graph, they fail to be useful eventually when the fraction of recovered packets grow. Low connectivity in the graph make some segments of the graph unrecoverable since the decoding process cannot spread to all segments. This leads to a significant increase in the reception overhead. As an example, in the all degree-$2$ code $\mathcal{C}_1$, the outer code participates in the decoding sooner than the other codes with larger $D$ (compare $x_0=0.049$ with the rest) but fails to contribute in the decoding when the fraction of full rank generations gets larger (by having a smaller $1-\delta$) and a lower rate pre-code is needed to finish the decoding. Large-degree check nodes, on the contrary to degree-$2$ check nodes, provide good coverage in the graph but cannot participate early in the decoding since the low fraction of recovered packets is unlikely to reduce them to degree one. Consequently, there should be a balance between degree $2$ and higher degrees. This balance is usually achieved by putting a large weight on degree $2$ and the rest of the weight on the largest allowed degree.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{EXIT_optimized.eps}
\caption{The decoding evolution chart for the optimized Gamma network codes $\mathcal{C}_1$, $\mathcal{C}_4$, $\mathcal{C}_6$. The parameters of these codes are reported in Table~\ref{tb:optimization}.}\label{fig:EXIT_optimized}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Optimized check degree distributions $P(x)=\sum_ip_ix^i$ under $g=25$ for various maximum check degrees $D$} \label{tb:optimization}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $\mathcal{C}_1$ & $\mathcal{C}_2$ & $\mathcal{C}_3$ & $\mathcal{C}_4$ & $\mathcal{C}_5$ & $\mathcal{C}_6$\\
\hline
$D$ & $2$ & $5$ & $10$ & $15$ & $20$ & $30$ \\
\hline
$p_2$ & $1.0000$ & $0.7860$ & $0.8788$ & $0.9226$ & $0.9184$ & $0.9162$\\
\hline
$p_3$ & & & & & $0.0011$ & \\
\hline
$p_4$ & & & & $0.0004$ & & $0.0004$\\
\hline
$p_5$ & & $0.2140$ & & $0.0004$ & & $0.0028$\\
\hline
$p_6$ & & & & & $0.0012$ & $0.0069$\\
\hline
$p_7$ & & & & & $0.0071$ & $0.0065$\\
\hline
$p_8$ & & & $0.0002$ & & $0.0138$ & $0.0092$\\
\hline
$p_9$ & & & $0.0003$ & $0.0005$ & $0.0082$ & $0.0095$\\
\hline
$p_{10}$ & & & $0.1207$ & $0.0010$ & $0.0036$ & $0.0075$\\
\hline
$p_{11}$ & & & & & $0.0005$ & $0.0068$\\
\hline
$p_{12}$ & & & & & $0.0003$ & $0.0055$\\
\hline
$p_{13}$ & & & & & & $0.0032$\\
\hline
$p_{14}$ & & & & $0.0048$ & & \\
\hline
$p_{15}$ & & & & $0.0703$ & & \\
\hline
$p_{19}$ & & & & & $0.0004$ & \\
\hline
$p_{20}$ & & & & & $0.0455$ & \\
\hline
$p_{26}$ & & & & & & $0.0007$\\
\hline
$p_{27}$ & & & & & & $0.0006$\\
\hline
$p_{28}$ & & & & & & $0.0002$\\
\hline
$p_{29}$ & & & & & & $0.0002$\\
\hline
$p_{30}$ & & & & & & $0.0239$\\
\hline
\hline
$x_0$ & $0.0490$ & $0.1100$ & $0.0885$ & $0.0762$ & $0.0782$& $0.0802$\\
\hline
$R$ & $0.6600$ & $0.7342$ & $0.7228$ & $0.7163$ & $0.7192$& $0.7216$\\
\hline
$1-\delta$& $0.9433$ & $0.9746$ & $0.9912$ & $0.9910$ & $0.9910$ & $0.9911$\\
\hline
$\epsilon$ & $11.43\%$ & $6.62\%$ & $3.64\%$ & $2.75\%$ & $2.65\%$ & $2.60\%$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The minimum reception overhead can be further decreased by increasing the generation size $g$. For example, reception overheads of $\epsilon=2.17\%$ and $\epsilon=1.92\%$ can be achieved under $D=15$ when $g=50$ and $g=75$, respectively ($\mathcal{C}_7$ and $\mathcal{C}_8$ in Table~\ref{tb:optimization2}). This reduction in the minimum reception overhead is however achieved at the expense of added encoding and decoding complexities\footnote{It is worth mentioning that the complexity still remains linear and only the coefficient increases.}.
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Optimized check degree distributions $P(x)=\sum_ip_ix^i$ under $D=15$ for generation sizes $g=50$ and $g=75$.} \label{tb:optimization2}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $\mathcal{C}_7$ & $\mathcal{C}_8$\\
\hline
$D$ & $15$ & $15$ \\
\hline
$p_2$ & $0.9260$ & $0.9303$ \\
\hline
$p_3$ & $0.0007$ & \\
\hline
$p_5$ & $0.0002$ & $0.0001$ \\
\hline
$p_6$ & $0.0002$ & \\
\hline
$p_7$ & $0.0006$ & $0.0005$ \\
\hline
$p_8$ & $0.0010$ & $0.0002$ \\
\hline
$p_9$ & $0.0005$ & $0.0003$ \\
\hline
$p_{10}$ &$0.0001$& \\
\hline
$p_{11}$ &$0.0001$& $0.0002$ \\
\hline
$p_{12}$ &$0.0001$& $0.0002$ \\
\hline
$p_{13}$ &$0.0018$& \\
\hline
$p_{14}$ &$0.0018$& $0.0025$ \\
\hline
$p_{15}$ &$0.0669$& $0.0658$ \\
\hline
\hline
$g$ & $50$ & $75$ \\
\hline
$x_0$ & $0.0831$ & $0.0853$ \\
\hline
$R$ & $0.8008$ & $0.8374$ \\
\hline
$1-\delta$& $0.9911$ & $0.9911$ \\
\hline
$\epsilon$ & $2.17\%$ & $1.92\%$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Numerical Results and Robust Design} \label{sec:results}
In this section, we investigate the performance of Gamma network codes constructed based on the results of the previous section. In particular, we investigate the reception overhead and decoding failure probability trade-off of Gamma network codes in practical settings and compare them with the other existing SRLNC schemes. We also discuss issues regarding their finite-length performance and provide robust and improved designs.
\subsection{Simulation setup}
The pre-code $\mathcal{C}'$ should be a capacity-achieving code which does not incur extra overhead. To this end, we use the right-regular capacity-achieving binary low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes designed for the binary erasure channel (BEC) \cite{Shokrollahi99}. The check nodes of the pre-code, as opposed to the check nodes of the outer code, impose parity-check equations directly on the encoded packets. Decoding of the pre-code and the outer code is done jointly. As a result, during the decoding any pre-code check node reduced to degree one recovers a new coded packet. This updates the linear equation system for the generation to which the recovered packets belong by removing the new recovered coded packets from them. This reduces the linear equation system of those generations to the non-recovered packets. Since the number of unknowns are reduced, there is a possibility that the non-recovered packets of the updated generations can be recovered by Gaussian elimination. It is also worth mentioning that since the pre-code is a high-rate code, the degrees of its check nodes are usually very large. Thus, they are reduced to degree one and hence help the decoding process only at the final stages of the decoding when a large fraction of the coded packets are recovered.
Using a finite alphabet size $q$ and having designed a pre-code $\mathcal{C}'$ of rate $R'$, a random linear outer code $\mathcal{C}$ of rate $R$, and considering encoded packets block length of $N=ng$, where $g$ is the generation size, we calculate the average reception overhead of the coding scheme by Monte Carlo simulation, i.e., $\bar{\epsilon}=E[(N_r-K')/K']$ where $N_r$ is the number of received packets required for successful decoding. To achieve the trade-off between decoding failure probability and overhead, we simulate the system for a large number of blocks and calculate the empirical complementary cumulative distribution function of the overhead.
\subsection{Numerical results}\label{subsec:results_B}
For a finite-length setup, we set the alphabet size $q=256$, generation size $g=25$, and the number of generations $n=67$, which gives an encoded packet block of $N=1675$ blocks. Using the parameters of the asymptotically optimized code $\mathcal{C}_4$ from Table~\ref{tb:optimization}, we have $R=0.7163$ and $K=RN=1200$. As a result, $N-K=475$ check nodes are produced based on the optimized degree distribution $P(x)$ in Table~\ref{tb:optimization}. For the pre-code, we use a right-regular binary LDPC code of rate $R'=0.97$. This rate is selected slightly lower than the asymptotically optimized rate of $0.991$ due to the fact that there is a gap between the finite-length performance and asymptotic performance of capacity-achieving LDPC codes\footnote{In practice, the best pre-code rate giving the minimum reception overhead can be selected by Monte Carlo simulation.}. The number of information packets will then be $K'=1164$. The average reception overhead achieved by Monte Carlo simulation is $\bar{\epsilon}=10.82\%$. The decoding failure probability versus the reception overhead is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:overhead1}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{overhead_1.eps}
\caption{Failure probability versus reception overhead for Gamma network codes of different lengths. For all lengths, $g=25$, $q=256$, and $P(x)$ and $R$ are equal to those of $\mathcal{C}_4$ in Table~\ref{tb:optimization}. The encoded packet block lengths are $N=1675$, $N=8375$, and $N=16750$, with pre-codes of rates $R'=0.97$, $R'=0.98$, and $R'=0.98$, respectively. The pre-codes are all binary right-regular LDPC codes. The average reception overheads of these schemes achieved by Monte Carlo simulation are reported in Table~\ref{tb:average_overhead2}.}\label{fig:overhead1}
\end{figure}
We expect improvements in the performance by increasing the block length of the code. To show this, we have also constructed codes with larger block lengths, namely $N=8375$ and $N=16750$. The pre-codes are right-regular binary LDPC codes of rate $R'=0.98$, $g=25$, and the rest of the parameters are the same as those of $\mathcal{C}_4$ in Table~\ref{tb:optimization}. The performances of these codes are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:overhead2} which show improvement with regard to the code with length $N=1675$. Table~\ref{tb:average_overhead2} includes the average reception overhead $\bar{\epsilon}$ achieved for these constructions. As $N$ increase, $\bar{\epsilon}$ gets closer to the asymptotic overhead reported in Table~\ref{tb:optimization} for $\mathcal{C}_4$. It is worth mentioning that by using $R'=0.98$ (instead of $R'=0.991$), the asymptotic achievable reception overhead will be $\epsilon=3.90\%$ which is very close to the empirical result obtained at $N=16750$.
We are also interested in investigating how the performance of optimized Gamma network codes varies with alphabet size $q$. Table~\ref{tb:average_overhead2} also includes the average reception overhead achieved by Monte Carlo simulation for the codes constructed with $q=2$ and $q=16$. It is clear that $\bar{\epsilon}$ increases by decreasing $q$ from $256$ to $2$. Also, note that the $\bar{\epsilon}$ achieved by $q=16$ is very close to that by $q=256$. Thus, in practice $q=16$ should normally be enough.
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Average overhead for optimized Gamma network codes constructed based on the parameters of $\mathcal{C}_4$ with $g=25$} \label{tb:average_overhead2}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$N$ & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$1675$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$8375$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$16750$}\\
\hline
$q$ & $2$ & $16$ & $256$ & $2$ & $16$ & $256$ & $2$ & $16$ & $256$ \\
\hline
$\bar{\epsilon}$ & $21.33\%$ & $11.71\%$ & $10.82\%$ & $18.09\%$ & $7.23\%$ & $6.64\%$ & $16.54\%$ & $5.96\%$ & $5.57\%$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Robust Gamma Network Codes} \label{sec:robust_practical}
As evident from the failure-probability versus overhead performance of the asymptotically optimized Gamma network code with $N=1675$ and $N=8375$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:overhead2}, achieving very low probabilities of failure increases the reception overhead significantly. In other words, the curve is not very steep and there exists an error floor.
The reason for the existence of error floor for highly optimized Gamma network codes can be described as follows. The decoding evolution chart of highly optimized codes is normally very close to the $45$-degree line which makes their opening very narrow, e.g., see Fig.~\ref{fig:EXIT_optimized}. As stated, the evolution chart which is based on (\ref{eq:evolution}) and (\ref{eq:convergence_condition}), predicts the average performance of asymptotic Gamma network codes. When the convergence condition (\ref{eq:convergence_condition}) is satisfied, receiving $r_0n$ packets from the network is enough to trigger a chain reaction in the decoding such that the asymptotic Gamma network code recovers all of the encoded packets without getting stuck and receiving any more packets from the network.
When finite-length codes are used, however, the performance deviates from the average performance expected for the asymptotic regime. As a result, for the finite-length case, the decoder might get stuck several times during the decoding and can only continue after receiving enough packets from the network to form a new full rank generation. Getting stuck in the early stages of decoding when the fraction of recovered packets is small does not increase the reception overhead significantly since the new received packets most likely belong to the non-full rank generations and with high probability they increase the rank of their corresponding generation. However, getting stuck when the fraction of recovered packets is large (equivalent to the upper portion of the decoding evolution chart), normally leads to a significant increase in the reception overhead as most of the new received packets belong to the already full rank generations. The event of getting stuck in the final stages of the decoding happens with low probability but it incurs a large overhead. This is why the error floor exists for these codes in the finite-length cases.
The above discussion suggests that having an asymptotic decoding evolution chart which is widely open at its upper portion leads to codes with smaller error floors since this decreases the probability of getting stuck at points where the fraction of recovered packets is large. Thus for a robust design, asymptotic Gamma network codes can be optimized under an additional constraint to have decoding evolution charts widely open in the upper portion. This can be done by modifying the convergence constraint to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:robust_constraint}
x<1-\frac{\Gamma_g(r_{0}+g(1-R)P'(x))}{(g-1)!},~~x\in (x_{0},1-\delta_0]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:robust_constraint2}
x<1-\frac{\Gamma_g(r_{0}+g(1-R)P'(x))}{(g-1)!}-\Delta,~~x\in (1-\delta_0,1-\delta'),
\end{equation}
for some $\Delta>0$ and $x_0<1-\delta_0<1-\delta'$, and modify the minimization problem to
\begin{align}
&\min_{R, P(x), x_0,\delta'}\frac{\Gamma_g^{-1}\left((g-1)!(1-x_0)\right)}{g(1-\delta')R}-1.\label{eq:optimization2}\\
\nonumber&\quad\mathrm{subject~to:}~~(\ref{eq:robust_constraint})~\mathrm{and}~ (\ref{eq:robust_constraint2})~\mathrm{hold}\\
\nonumber&\quad\quad\qquad\qquad\;\;\sum_{i=2}^{D}{p_{i}}=1\\
\nonumber&\quad\qquad\qquad\qquad0\le p_i\le1
\end{align}
Notice that the closing point ($1-\delta'$) of the decoding evolution chart given by the modified convergence conditions (\ref{eq:robust_constraint}) and (\ref{eq:robust_constraint2}) is used in the robust optimization problem. This closing point is not the closing point of the true asymptotic evolution chart of the decoding because of the margin $\Delta$. The true asymptotic convergence condition and evolution chart are still given by (\ref{eq:convergence_condition}). After solving (\ref{eq:optimization2}), the pre-code rate is found to be $R'=1-\delta'$ and the overhead of this concatenation will then be
\[\epsilon=\frac{\Gamma_g^{-1}\left((g-1)!(1-x_0)\right)}{g(1-\delta')R}-1.\]
The parameters of two such robust codes designed by setting $\Delta=0.03$, $1-\delta_0=0.8$ for $\mathcal{C}_9$, and $\Delta=0.01$, $1-\delta_0=0.9$ for $\mathcal{C}_{10}$, and solving (\ref{eq:optimization2}) are given in Table~\ref{tb:robust}. Fig.~\ref{fig:EXIT_robust} depicts the decoding evolution chart of $\mathcal{C}_9$. The average reception overhead achieved for a finite-length construction of $\mathcal{C}_9$ with $R'=0.9644$, $N=1675$, and $q=256$ is $\bar{\epsilon}=13.45\%$. The performance is also depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:robust} where it is shown that the error floor can be decreased using the above robust optimization method. This is achieved at the expense of a slight increase in the average reception overhead. Fig.~\ref{fig:robust} also contains the performance of a robust Gamma network code with $N=8375$ constructed using the parameters of $\mathcal{C}_{10}$ which also shows decrease in error floor. In this case, $\bar{\epsilon}=6.88\%$
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Robust optimized codes designed by solving (\ref{eq:optimization2}) and assuming $D=15$} \label{tb:robust}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $\mathcal{C}_9$ & $\mathcal{C}_{10}$\\
\hline
$p_2$ & $0.8443$ & $0.9074$\\
\hline
$p_3$ & & \\
\hline
$p_4$ & $0.0006$ & \\
\hline
$p_5$ & $0.0006$ & \\
\hline
$p_6$ & $0.0005$ & \\
\hline
$p_7$ & $0.0005$ & \\
\hline
$p_8$ & $0.0024$ & \\
\hline
$p_9$ & $0.0022$ & $0.0006$ \\
\hline
$p_{10}$& $0.0347$ & \\
\hline
$p_{11}$& $0.0265$ & $0.0024$\\
\hline
$p_{12}$& $0.0453$ & \\
\hline
$p_{13}$& $0.0249$ &\\
\hline
$p_{14}$& $0.0081$ & \\
\hline
$p_{15}$& $0.0094$ & $0.0896$\\
\hline
\hline
$g$ & $25$ & $25$ \\
\hline
$x_0$ & $0.0838$ & $0.0777$\\
\hline
$R$ & $0.7046$ & $0.7144$ \\
\hline
$1-\delta'$& $0.9644$ & $0.9820$\\
\hline
$1-\delta_0$& $0.8000$ & $0.9000$\\
\hline
$\Delta$& $0.0300$ & $0.0100$\\
\hline
$\epsilon$ & $8.55\%$ & $4.20\%$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{EXIT_robust_new.eps}
\caption{The decoding evolution chart for the robust optimized Gamma network code $\mathcal{C}_9$ with parameters $D=15$, $\Delta=0.03$, and $1-\delta_0=0.8$. Notice that this code has a wide opening at the upper portion of its evolution chart compared to that of $\mathcal{C}_4$.}\label{fig:EXIT_robust}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{overhead_robust.eps}
\caption{Failure probability versus reception overhead for $\mathcal{C}_4$, a network Gamma code optimized for minimum average reception overhead and for $\mathcal{C}_9$ and $\mathcal{C}_{10}$ which are robust Gamma network codes designed based on the method of Section~\ref{sec:robust_practical}. The parameters of the robust codes are reported in Table~\ref{tb:robust}. It is clear that the error floor is improved under the robust design compared to the optimized design of $\mathcal{C}_4$.}\label{fig:robust}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison with other SRLNC schemes}\label{Comparison_results}
In this section, we compare Gamma network codes with the other existing linear-complexity SRLNC schemes \cite{Efficient_Methods,RandomAnnex,Silva_Overlapping,tang13}. The schemes of \cite{Efficient_Methods,RandomAnnex,Silva_Overlapping} lack exact analysis and design methods and are normally designed heuristically. However, there exists an asymptotic analysis and design method for EC codes based on expander graph arguments\cite{tang13}. As a result, we are also able to compare the performance of optimized Gamma network codes with EC codes in the asymptotic regime as well \cite{tang13}.
Assuming infinite block length and large enough $q$, EC codes can be designed with overheads $\epsilon=6.62\%$ and $\epsilon=5.50\%$ for $g=25$ and $g=50$, respectively. From Tables~\ref{tb:optimization} and \ref{tb:optimization2}, we see that Gamma network codes achieve average overheads of $\epsilon=2.60\%$ and $\epsilon=2.17\%$ for $g=25$ and $g=50$, respectively. This shows that Gamma network codes outperform EC codes.
For a finite-length comparisons, we use the following schemes. In the case of SRLNC with an outer LDPC code as a separate block \cite{Efficient_Methods}, the optimal rate for $N=8375$ and $g=25$ is found by search at $R=0.90$ \cite{Mahdaviani12} which gives rise to $K=7538$. For the Random Annex codes of \cite{RandomAnnex}, the optimal annex size is found to be $11$ for $g=25$ and $N=8375$ which gives rise to $R=0.56$ and hence $K=4690$ packets. For the overlapping SRLNC scheme of \cite{Silva_Overlapping}, the parameters of an optimal diagonal grid code are found to be $(5000,25,335)$ with $\theta=7$ which is equivalent to having a repetition outer code of rate $R=0.5970$. These two schemes do not use any pre-code. In the case of EC codes, the optimal overlap size is $16$ giving rise to $R=0.68$ for the overlapped code and the pre-code is a right-regular LDPC code of rate $R'=0.98$. For our Gamma network codes, we use the parameters of $\mathcal{C}_{10}$ with $N=8375$ and an LDPC pre-code of rate $R'=0.98$.
The average reception overhead achieved under these cases have been reported in Table~\ref{tb:average_overhead}. Fig.~\ref{fig:overhead2} also compares these schemes with our optimized Gamma network codes in terms of failure probability-overhead trade-off. As evident from these results, the optimized Gamma network code outperforms all the other existing outer coded SRLNC schemes. However, we will see later that even further improvement to the performance of Gamma network codes is also possible.
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Average overhead for different linear-complexity SRLNC schemes with outer code, $N=8375$, $g=25$, $q=256$} \label{tb:average_overhead}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Code & $\bar{\epsilon}$ \\
\hline
SRLNC with LDPC & $41.07\%$\\
\hline
Random annex code & $31.69\%$\\
\hline
Diagonal grid code & $29.77\%$\\
\hline
EC code & $7.83\%$\\
\hline Gamma network code, robust $\mathcal{C}_{10}$ & $6.88\%$\\
\hline Gamma network code, optimized $\mathcal{C}_4$ & $6.45\%$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{overhead_comparison1.eps}
\caption{Failure probability versus reception overhead for different SRLNC schemes with outer code. The encoded packet block length for all of these constructions is $N=8375$ packets with $g=25$ and $q=256$. The average reception overheads of these schemes achieved by Monte Carlo simulation are reported in Table~\ref{tb:average_overhead}. It is evident that the Gamma network code outperforms all other schemes. }\label{fig:overhead2}
\end{figure}
\section{Encoding and Improved Designs}\label{sec:improved_design}
\subsection{Encoding}\label{sec:improved_design_encoding}
We stated in Section~\ref{sec:encoding} that the check nodes of the outer code impose parity-check constraints on the dense linear combinations of all of the packets of their adjacent generations. This is different from how a check node of a conventional linear code imposes constraints directly on the connected packets. Thus, the encoding process of the outer code in Gamma network codes is different from conventional linear codes.
To achieve linear encoding complexity per block length, encoding the outer coded packets can be done as follows. Assume that we have an outer code of rate $R=K/N$ with check degree distribution $P(x)$ and generation size $g$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We construct an instance of the ensemble of Tanner graphs specified by $P(x)$ which connects $n=N/g$ generations to $N-K$ check nodes. We then call the number of check nodes connected to each generation $G_i$ the degree of that generation $d_{G_i}$.
\item The $n$ generations are sorted based on their degrees in a descending order such that $d_{G_i}\ge d_{G_{i+1}}$, $1\le i\le n-1$.
\item The $K$ pre-coded packets constitute $K$ outer coded packets as in a systematic code. These packets are distributed into the $n$ generations based on the following rules:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Generation $i$ receives $m_i=g-[{d_{G_i}}/{\bar{d}}]$ where $\bar{d}$ is the empirical average degree of the check nodes and $[\cdot]$ denotes rounding to the nearest integer.
\item It is ensured that $\sum_{i=1}^nm_i=K$.
\end{enumerate}
\item Generation $G_i$ now contains $m_i$ packets $\{u^i_1,\dots,u^i_{m_i}\}$. Set $i=1$.
\item For $G_i$, we select $g-m_i$ number of check nodes among the $d_i$ check nodes connected to $i$ with the highest check degrees. The set of these check nodes is denoted by $\mathcal{M}(G_i)$.
\item We generate $g-m_i$ parity packets $\{u_{m_{i+1}}^i,\dots,u_{g}^i\}$ as
\begin{equation}
u_j^i=\sum_{k\in\mathcal{N}(\mathrm{c})}\sum_{l=1}^{n_k}\alpha_l^ku_l^k,~j\in\{m_{i+1},\dots,g\}
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{c}\in\mathcal{M}(G_i)$, $\mathcal{N}(\mathrm{c})$ denotes the set of generations connected to $\mathrm{c}$, $n_{G_k}$ denotes the number of packets currently available in $G_k$, and $\alpha$ are random coefficients from $\mathrm{GF}(q)$.
\item If $i=n$ stop. Else set $i:=i+1$ and go to step 5.
\end{enumerate}
This algorithm ensures that the number of packets which participate in the random linear combinations are maximized.
\subsection{Improved designs}\label{sec:improved_design_improved}
It is also possible to impose parity-check constraints directly on the outer coded packets as in a conventional linear code instead of their dense linear combinations. In this case, instead of (\ref{eq:generation_based_checks}), the parity-check equation represented by check node $\mathrm{c}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:packet_based_checks}
\sum_{i\in\mathcal{N}(\mathrm{c})}u^{(i)}=0.
\end{equation}
Then, $p_i$ in $P(x)=\sum p_ix^i$ will represent the probability that any given check node be connected to $i$ outer coded packets. The decoding process for such a code should be modified since any outer code's check node which is reduced to degree one, similar to the pre-code's check nodes, now recovers an outer coded packet instead of adding a dense linear equation to its corresponding generation. If the new to-be-recovered packet has not already been decoded, it can now be removed from the linear equation system of its belonging generation. Since the linear equation system has dense coefficient vectors, rank will be preserved with high probability and with less number of unknowns now there exists a possibility that the equation system can be solved.
In the analysis of the proposed outer code of Section~\ref{sec:encoding}, we assumed that every check node reduced to degree one increases the rank of its corresponding generation by one. This assumption is not valid in general when check nodes are imposed on outer coded packets since a reduced degree-one check node may be connected to an already recovered packet. Nevertheless, if the outer code is constructed in such a way that each outer coded packet is connected to at most one check node, then a reduced degree-one check node always recovers a new outer coded packet. This requires the average degree of check nodes to be upper bounded as $\bar{d}<1/(1-R)$. Under this assumption, the results of Theorem~\ref{thm:Lower_bound} and the convergence condition (\ref{eq:convergence_condition}) are still valid.
For a given $P(x)$, $R$, and $r_0$, as the convergence condition (\ref{eq:convergence_condition}) predicts, the outer code can recover $1-\delta$ fraction of the generations. At this point, as given by (\ref{total_oreder_ones}), there will be $\delta N(1-R)P'(1-\delta)$ check nodes of degree one which belong to the remaining $\delta$ fraction of generations. This means that $\delta N(1-R)P'(1-\delta)$ are already recovered among the $\delta N$ packets belonging to the remaining non-full-rank generations. Thus, the rate of the pre-code required to recover the remaining outer coded packets is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:precode_packet_level}
R'= 1-\frac{N\delta-\delta N(1-R) P'(1-\delta)}{N} = 1-\delta+\delta(1-R)P'(1-\delta).
\end{equation}
This then gives an average reception overhead of
\begin{equation}\label{eq:overhead_packet_level}
\epsilon= \frac{\Gamma_g^{-1}\left((g-1)!(1-x_0)\right)}{gR(1-\delta+\delta(1-R)P'(1-\delta))}-1.
\end{equation}
Since $\delta (1-R)P'(1-\delta)>0$, then the average reception overhead predicted by (\ref{eq:overhead_packet_level}) will be smaller than (\ref{eq:overhead}). Thus, the average reception overhead of the case where check nodes impose constraints directly on packets is smaller than the construction of Section~\ref{sec:encoding}.
The average reception overhead of (\ref{eq:overhead_packet_level}) defines a new objective for the optimization problem given in (\ref{eq:optimization}). Notice that the new objective can change the results of the optimization significantly when $1-\delta$ is not very close to one. For example, when $D=2$, the new optimization problem gives $x_0=0.0540$, $R=0.6800$, and $1-\delta=0.9172$ leading to $R'=0.9658$ and average reception overhead of $\epsilon=6.77\%$. This shows a significant reduction in overhead compared to the overhead of $11.43\%$ reported in Table~\ref{tb:optimization} for $\mathcal{C}_1$.
\emph{Remark:} Note that in the case of improved Gamma network codes, setting the maximum degree of the outer code to be $D=2$ as in the above mentioned example reduces the Gamma network codes to the SRLNC with a repetition outer code, or in other words, SRLNC with overlapping generations. Moreover, it is interesting to note that in this case, the optimal outer code rate for the Gamma network code is calculated to be $R=0.6800$ which is in a very close agreement with the EC codes design \cite{tang12,tang13} as mentioned in Section~\ref{Comparison_results}. However $D =2$ is not the optimal choice for Gamma network codes and its performance can be further improved by increasing the maximum degree and hence outperforms all the previously existing SRLNC schemes including the EC codes as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:overhead3}.
Given the parameters of the optimized Gamma network code $\mathcal{C}_4$, we have constructed finite-length Gamma network codes whose outer code have packet-level check nodes. Notice that in this case, since $1-\delta$ is very close to one, the results of the new optimization will not be significantly different from those of Table~\ref{tb:optimization}, except for $R'$ and the average reception overhead $\epsilon$. We have chosen the new pre-codes used in the simulations to be LDPC codes of rate $R'=0.99$. Table~\ref{tb:average_overhead3} shows the average reception overhead achieved under these codes. Fig.~\ref{fig:overhead3} also compares the performance of the code of length $N=8375$ with the robust Gamma network code and EC codes of Fig.~\ref{fig:overhead2}. As the figure shows, code designed with packet-level check nodes and the LDPC pre-code of rate $R'=0.99$ outperforms the other designs.
\begin{table}[t!]
\caption{Average overhead for optimized Gamma network codes constructed based on the parameters of $\mathcal{C}_4$ with $g=25$ and $q=256$. The check nodes of the outer code impose parity-check equations directly on the packets. The pre-codes are right-regular LDPC codes of rate $R'=0.99$.} \label{tb:average_overhead3}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$N$ & $1675$ & $8375$ & $16750$ \\
\hline
$\bar{\epsilon}$ & $10.30\%$ & $5.75\%$ & $5.18\%$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{packet_level_performance.eps}
\caption{Failure probability versus reception overhead comparison between the optimized Gamma network code with packet-level outer code check nodes and the robust Gamma network code and EC codes of Fig.~\ref{fig:overhead2}.}\label{fig:overhead3}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we introduced and studied a new family of overhead-efficient SRLNC schemes called Gamma network codes. The introduced scheme was based on incorporating a linear outer code in the SRLNC construction. We then presented an analytical framework by formulating density evolution equations for the analysis and design of asymptotic Gamma network codes. Using the proposed analysis method, we presented an optimization technique to design minimum overhead Gamma network codes and obtain their fundamental limits. We followed our studies with numerical results and showed that Gamma network codes outperform all the other existing SRLNC schemes. Realizing that highly optimized Gamma network codes exhibit error floors in finite-lengths, we proposed a robust design method to lower the error floors. We finally discussed their encoding method and also introduced improved designs.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
The authors wish to thank Hossein Bagheri for many valuable discussions which has influenced parts of this work.
\appendices
\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{lemm:generation_rank_distribution}} \label{app:generation_rank_distribution}
Let $B_{r,n}$ be a random variable and its outcome be the number of encoded packets received for a randomly selected generation, when the normalized number of received encoded packets is $r$. Since it is assumed that the probability of a randomly selected received encoded packet belonging to a certain generation has a uniform distribution on the set of all the generations, $B_{r,n}$ has a binomial probability distribution as
\begin{align}
\text{Pr}[B_{r,n}=i]=\binom{rn}{i}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^{i}\left(\frac{n-1}{n}\right)^{rn-i},~i=0,1,\dots,rn.
\end{align}
To complete the proof, we use the result of theorem 3.1 in \cite{RaptorQ}. This theorem states that if $A_{m\times n}$ is a matrix in which each element is chosen independently and uniformly at random from $\mathrm{GF}(q)$, then for $n\leq m$
\begin{align}\label{rankdef}
\text{Pr}[\text{rank}(A)<n]\leq \frac{1}{(q-1)q^{m-n}}
\end{align}
Now, for $i\in\{0,1,\cdots,g-1\}$ we have,
\begin{align}
\text{Pr}[R_{r,q}=i] = \sum_{j=i}^{rn}{\text{Pr}[R_{r,q}=i|B_{r,n}=j]\text{Pr}[B_{r,n}=j]}\nonumber
\end{align}
But according to (\ref{rankdef}) it is easy to see that as $q\rightarrow\infty \Rightarrow \text{Pr}[R_{r,q}=i|B_{r,n}=j]\rightarrow 0$ for all $i<j$. Furthermore, as $\sum_{i=0}^{j}{\text{Pr}[R_{r,q}=i|B_{r,n}=j]}=1$, we have $q\rightarrow \infty \Rightarrow {\text{Pr}[R_{r,q}=j|B_{r,n}=j]}\rightarrow 1$. Hence, $q\rightarrow \infty \Rightarrow {\text{Pr}[R_{r,q}=i]}\rightarrow {\text{Pr}[B_{r,n}=i]},~i=0,1,\cdots,g-1$.
In addition,
\begin{align}
\text{Pr}[R_{r,q}=g] = \sum_{j=g}^{rn}{\text{Pr}[R_{r,q}=i|B_{r,n}=j]\text{Pr}[B_{r,n}=j]}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Again as $q\rightarrow\infty \Rightarrow \text{Pr}[R_{r,q}=i|B_{r,n}=j]\rightarrow 0$ for all $i<g\leq j$ as a direct corollary of (\ref{rankdef}), we have $q\rightarrow \infty \Rightarrow {\text{Pr}[R_{r,q}=g|B_{r,n}=j]}\rightarrow 1$, for all $g\leq j$. Finally, we have
\begin{align}
q\rightarrow \infty \Rightarrow {\text{Pr}[R_{r,q}=g]}&\rightarrow \sum_{j=g}^{rn}{\text{Pr}[B_{r,n}=j]}\nonumber \\&=1-\text{Pr}[B_{r,n}\leq g-1]\nonumber \\&=1-I_{\frac{n-1}{n}}(rn-g+1,g) \nonumber
\end{align}
\section{Proof of Lemma \ref{Lem:No_of_fullrank}} \label{app:no_of_fullrank}
Take $A_{r,i,j},~0\leq r,~i \in \{1,\cdots,g\}, j \in \{1,\cdots,n\}$, as the event that the $j$th generation is of rank $i$ based on the received encoded packets' corresponding equations, when the normalized number of received encoded packets is $r$. Then we have
\begin{align
&\mathbb{E}_{r}\{|\{G|G\in \mathcal{G},~\text{rank}(G)=i\}|\}\nonumber \\&=\mathbb{E}\lbrace\sum_{j=1}^{n}{I_{A_{r,i,j}}(\omega)}\rbrace,~\omega \in \Omega,
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{G}$ is the set of all generations, $\Omega$ is the set of all possible outcomes of the packet reception, and $I_{A}$ is the indicator function of the event $A$, i.e.,
\begin{align}
I_{A}(\omega)=\begin{cases} \nonumber
1, & \text{if }\omega\in A \\
0, & \text{if }\omega\notin A
\end{cases}.
\end{align}
Now, although the random variables $I_{A_{r,i,j}}$ are correlated, using the linearity of the expectation we have
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}_{r}\{|\{G|G\in \mathcal{G},~\text{rank}(G)=i\}|\}&=\sum_{j=1}^{n}{\mathbb{E}\{I_{A_{r,i,j}}(\omega)\}}\nonumber \\ &=n\text{Pr}[\mathcal{R}_r=i]. \nonumber
\end{align}
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Quite generally, a theory -either physical or mathematical- often consists in the kinematical data of an algebra $\algA$ together with some dynamical data encoded
by some specific, say ``action", functional $\kS$ on $\algA$. In most cases, the algebra is associative because it represents the ``observables"
in the theory, i.e. operators whose spectrality is associated with measurements. Also, the understanding of the theory
passes through the determination of critical points of the action functional $\kS$, or sometimes equivalently, by the determination
of first integrals: elements of $\algA$ that will be preserved by the dynamics. Disposing of a sufficient numbers of such
first integrals yields a satisfactory understanding of the system. In particular, the consideration of symmetries appears as a necessity
- rather than a simplifying hypothesis.
Now, assume that one disposes of enough such symmetries in order to entirely determine the dynamics. In that case, the
system $(\algA,\kS)$ could be called ``integrable" or even, quite abusively, ``free". Of course, once a ``free" system is understood, one wants to pass to a perturbation or ``singularization" of it, for instance by implementing some type of ``interactions". This is rather clear within
the physical context. Within the mathematical context, such a singularization could for example correspond to implementing
a foliation.
However, once perturbed, the problem remains the same: determining symmetries. One may naively hope that
the symmetries of the unperturbed ``free" system would remain symmetries of its perturbation. It is not the case: perturbing
generally implies symmetry breaking.
\medskip
One idea, due essentially to Drinfel'd, is to define the perturbation process through the data of the symmetries themselves \cite{Drinfeld:1989} in the framework of deformation quantization \cite{Bayen:1978,Fedosov:1994}.
This allows, even in the case of a symmetry breaking, to control the ``perturbed symmetries".
More specifically, let $G$ be a Lie group with Lie algebra $\kg$ whose enveloping (Hopf) algebra is denoted by $\caU(\kg)$.
Consider the category of $\caU(\kg)$-module algebras i.e. associative algebras that admit an (infinitesimal) action of $G$.
A (formal) {\defin Drinfel'd twist} based on $\caU(\kg)$ is an element $F$ of the space of formal power series $\caU(\kg)\otimes\caU(\kg)[[\nu]]$ of the form
$F\;=\;I\otimes I+...$ satisfying a specific cocycle property (see e.g. \cite{Giaquinto:1998}) that ensures that for every $\caU(\kg)$-module algebra $(\algA,\mu_\algA)$ the formula $\mu_{\algA}^F\;:=\;\mu_\algA\circ F$ defines an associative algebra structure $\algA_F$ on the space $\algA[[\nu]]$. Disposing
of a Drinfel'd twist then allows to deform the above mentioned category. However, as expected, the deformed objects are no longer
$\caU(\kg)$-module algebras. But, the data of the twist allows to define a Hopf deformation of the enveloping algebra: keeping the
multiplication unchanged, one deforms the co-product $\Delta$ of $\caU(\kg)$ by conjugating under $F$. This yields a new
co-multiplication $\Delta_F$ that together with the undeformed multiplication underly a structure of Hopf algebra $\caU(\kg)_F$ on $\caU(\kg)[[\nu]]$. The latter so called \emph{non-standard quantum group} $\caU(\kg)_F$ now acts on every deformed algebra $\algA_F$.
\medskip
At the {\defin non-formal} level, the notion of Drinfel'd twist based on $\caU(\kg)$ corresponds to the one of {\defin universal deformation formula} for the actions $\alpha$ of $G$ on associative algebras $\algA$ of a specified topological type such as Fr\'echet- or C*-algebras. This -roughly- consists in the data of a two-point kernel $K_\theta\in C^\infty(G\times G)$ ($\theta\in\gR_0$) satisfying specific properties that guarantee
a meaning to integral expressions of the form $a\star^\algA_\theta b\;:=\;\int_{G\times G}K_\theta(x,y)\mu_\algA(\alpha_xa\otimes\alpha_yb)\,{\rm d}x{\rm d}y$ with $a,b\in\algA$. Once well-defined, one also requires associativity of the product $\star^\algA_\theta$ as well as
the semi-classical limit condition: $\lim_{\theta\to0}\star_\theta^\algA=\mu_\algA$ in some precise topological context. This has been performed for abelian Lie groups in \cite{Rieffel:1993} and for abelian supergroups in \cite{Bieliavsky:2010su,deGoursac:2011kv}.
In \cite{Bieliavsky:2010kg}, such universal deformation formulae have been constructed for every Piatetskii-Shapiro normal $J$-group $\gB$.
For example, the class of normal $J$-groups (strictly) contains all Iwasawa factors of Hermitean type non-compact simple Lie groups.
A universal deformation formula in particular yields a left-invariant associative function algebra on the group $\gB$. It is therefore natural to
ask for a comparison with the usual group convolution algebra. Following ideas mainly due to Fronsdal in the context of the $\star$-representation program (representation theory of Lie group in the framework of formal $\star$-products), one may expect
that (a non-formal version of) the notion of {\defin star-exponential} \cite{Bayen:1978,Bayen:1982} plays a crucial role in this comparison. Moreover, such a star-exponential can give access to the spectrum of operators \cite{Cahen:1984,Cahen:1985} determining possible measurements of a system.
\medskip
In this paper, we recall the construction of the non-formal deformation quantization (see \cite{Bieliavsky:2008or}) and exhibit its star-exponential for the basic case of the Poincar\'e Group $ISO(1,1)$. Such a low-dimensional case illustrate the general method developed for normal $J$-group $\gB$ (which are Kahlerian), in \cite{Bieliavsky:2010kg} for star-products and in \cite{Bieliavsky:2013sk} for star-exponentials. However, the Poincar\'e group is solvable but of course not Kahlerian, so this paper shows also that the method introduced in \cite{Bieliavsky:2010kg,Bieliavsky:2013sk} can be extended to some solvable but non-Kahlerian Lie groups.
\section{Geometry of the Poincar\'e Group}
We recall here some features concerning the geometry of the Poincar\'e group $G=ISO(1,1)=SO(1,1)\ltimes\gR^2$ and of its coadjoint orbits. First, it is diffeomorphic to $\gR^3$, so let us choose a global coordinate system $\{(a,\ell,m)\}$ of it. Its group law can be read as
\begin{equation*}
(a,\ell,m)\fois(a',\ell',m')=(a+a',e^{-2a'}\ell+\ell',e^{2a'}m+m')
\end{equation*}
Its neutral element is $(0,0,0)$ and the inverse is given by: $(a,\ell,m)^{-1}=(-a,-e^{2a}\ell,-e^{-2a}m)$. By writing $(a,\ell,m)=\exp(aH)\exp(\ell E)\exp(mF)$, we can determine its Lie algebra $\kg$:
\begin{equation*}
[H,E]=2E,\qquad [H,F]=-2F,\qquad [E,F]=0.
\end{equation*}
Let us have a look to the coadjoint orbit of $G$. After a short calculation, one can find that
\begin{equation*}
\Ad^*_g(\alpha H^*+\beta E^*+\gamma F^*)= (\alpha+2\beta\ell-2\gamma m)H^*+\beta e^{-2a}E^*+\gamma e^{2a}F^*
\end{equation*}
if $g=(a,\ell,m)\in G$ and $\{H^*,E^*,F^*\}$ is the basis of $\kg^\ast$ dual of $\{H,E,F\}$. A generic orbit of $G$ is therefore a hyperbolic cylinder. We will study in particular the orbits associated to the forms $k(E^\ast-F^\ast)$ with $k\in\gR^\ast_+$, which will be denoted by $\gM_k$ or simply by $\gM$. The Poincar\'e quotient $\gM_k$ is globally diffeomorphic to $\gR^2$, so we choose the following coordinate system:
\begin{equation}
(a,\ell):=\Ad^*_{(a,\ell,0)}k(E^\ast-F^\ast)=k(2\ell H^*+e^{-2a}E^*-e^{2a}F^*).\label{eq-ident}
\end{equation}
$\gM$ is a $G$-homogeneous space for the coajoint action:
\begin{multline}
(a,\ell,m)\fois(a',\ell'):=\Ad^*_{(a,\ell,m)}k(2\ell' H^*+e^{-2a'}E^*-e^{2a'}F^*)\\
=(a+a',\ell'+e^{-2a'}\ell+e^{2a'}m).\label{eq-act}
\end{multline}
\begin{remark}
Note that the affine group $\gS$ (connected component of the identity of ``ax+b'') is the subgroup of $G$ generated by $H$ and $E$, i.e. by simply considering the two first coordinates $(a,\ell)$ of $G$. Actually the identification \eqref{eq-ident} yields a diffeomorphism between $\gS$ and $\gM$ which is $\gS$-equivariant with respect to the left action of $\gS$ and its action on $\gM$ by \eqref{eq-act} as a subgroup of $G$. This identification $\gS\simeq\gM$ is useful to construct star-products.
\end{remark}
The fundamental fields of the action \eqref{eq-act}, defined by
\begin{equation*}
X^\ast_{(a,\ell)}f=\frac{\dd}{\dd t}|_{t=0}f(\exp(-tX)\fois(a,\ell)),
\end{equation*}
for $X\in\kg$, $(a,\ell)\in\gM$, $f\in C^\infty(\gM)$,
are given by
\begin{equation*}
H^*_{(a,\ell)}=-\partial_a,\qquad E^*_{(a,\ell)}=-e^{-2a}\partial_\ell,\qquad F^*_{(a,\ell)}=-e^{2a}\partial_\ell.
\end{equation*}
This permits to compute the {\defin Kostant-Kirillov-Souriau symplectic form} of $\gM$, $\omega_\varphi(X^*_\varphi,Y^*_\varphi):=\langle\varphi,[X,Y]\rangle$, for $\varphi\in\gM\subset\kg^\ast$, and $X,Y\in\kg$. One finds
\begin{equation}
\omega_{(a,\ell)}=2k\dd a\wedge\dd\ell. \label{eq-kks}
\end{equation}
For different values of $k\in\gR^\ast_+$, the $(\gM_k,\omega)$ are symplectomorphic, so we set $k=1$ in the following. Since the action of $G$ on its coadjoint orbit $\gM$ is strongly hamiltonian, there exists a Lie algebra homomorphism $\lambda:\kg\to C^\infty(\gM)$ (for the Poisson bracket on $\gM$ associated to $\omega$), called the {\defin moment map} and given by
\begin{equation}
\lambda_H=2\ell,\qquad \lambda_E=e^{-2a},\qquad \lambda_F=-e^{2a}.\label{eq-moment}
\end{equation}
\begin{proposition}
The exponential of the group $G$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
e^{tX}=\Big(\alpha t,\frac{\beta}{\alpha}e^{-\alpha t}\sinh(\alpha t),\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}e^{\alpha t}\sinh(\alpha t)\Big)
\end{equation*}
for $X=\alpha H+\beta E+\gamma F$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
It is a direct calculation using the semigroup property $e^{(t+s)X}=e^{sX}e^{tX}$ and by deriving by $s$.
\end{proof}
For $g=(a,\ell,m)\in G$, we can obtain straighforwardly the logarithm by inversing the above equation:
\begin{equation}
\log(a,\ell,m)= aH+\frac{ae^a\ell}{\sinh(a)}E+\frac{ae^{-a}m}{\sinh(a)}F\label{eq-log}
\end{equation}
and the {\defin BCH expression}:
\begin{multline}
\text{BCH}(X_1,X_2)=\log(e^{X_1}e^{X_2})=(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)H\\
+\frac{(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}{\sinh(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}\Big(\frac{\beta_1}{\alpha_1}e^{-\alpha_2}\sinh(\alpha_1)+\frac{\beta_2}{\alpha_2}e^{\alpha_1}\sinh(\alpha_2)\Big)E\\
+\frac{(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}{\sinh(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}\Big(\frac{\gamma_1}{\alpha_1}e^{\alpha_2}\sinh(\alpha_1)+\frac{\gamma_2}{\alpha_2}e^{-\alpha_1}\sinh(\alpha_2)\Big)F\label{eq-bchGroup}
\end{multline}
for $X_i=\alpha_i H+\beta_i E+\gamma_i F\in\kg$.
\section{Deformation quantization}
\subsection{Star-products}
Due to the identification $\gM\simeq\gR^2$, we can endow the space of Schwartz functions $\caS(\gR^2)$ with the Moyal product associated to the constant KKS symplectic form \eqref{eq-kks}:
\begin{equation}
(f\star^0_\theta h)(a,\ell)=\frac{4}{(\pi\theta)^2}\int\dd a_i\dd \ell_i\ f(a_1+a,\ell_1+\ell)
h(a_2+a,\ell_2+\ell) e^{-\frac{4i}{\theta}(a_1\ell_2-a_2\ell_1)}\label{eq-moyal}
\end{equation}
for $f,h\in\caS(\gR^2)$. It turns out that this associative star-product is {\defin covariant} for the moment map \eqref{eq-moment}, formally in the deformation parameter $\theta$:
\begin{equation}
\forall X,Y\in\kg\quad:\quad [\lambda_X,\lambda_Y]_{\star_\theta^0}=-i\theta\lambda_{[X,Y]}.\label{eq-cov}
\end{equation}
Nonetheless, it is not $G$-{\defin invariant}, one does not have:
\begin{equation}
\forall g\in G\quad:\quad g^\ast(f\star_\theta^0 h)= (g^\ast f)\star_\theta^0 (g^\ast h)\label{eq-invar}
\end{equation}
in general, where $g^\ast$ means the pullback of the action \eqref{eq-act} of $G$ on $\gM$: $g^\ast f:=f(g\,\fois)$. In the following, we exhibit intertwining operators $T_\theta$ (see \cite{Bieliavsky:2002}) in order to construct invariant star-products on $\gM$, i.e. satisfying \eqref{eq-invar}.
We consider $\caP_\theta$ a invertible multiplier on $\gR$: $\caP_\theta\in\caO_M^{\times}(\gR)=\{f\in C^\infty(\gR),\ \forall h\in\caS(\gR)\ f.h\in\caS(\gR)\text{ and } f^{-1}.h\in\caS(\gR)\}$, and $\phi_\theta$ defined by:
\begin{equation*}
\phi_\theta(a,\ell)=\Big(a,\frac{2}{\theta}\sinh(\frac{\theta\ell}{2})\Big),\qquad \phi_\theta^{-1}(a,\ell)=\Big(a,\frac{2}{\theta}\text{arcsinh}(\frac{\theta\ell}{2})\Big).
\end{equation*}
We define the operator $T_\theta=\caP_\theta(0)\caF^{-1}\circ(\phi_\theta^{-1})^\ast\circ \caP_\theta^{-1}\circ\caF$, from $\caS(\gR^2)$ to $\caS'(\gR^2)$, where $\caP_\theta^{-1}$ acts by multiplication by $\caP_\theta(\ell)^{-1}$ and the partial Fourier transformation is given by:
\begin{equation}
\caF f(a,\xi)=\hat f(a,\xi):=\int\dd\ell\ e^{-i\xi\ell}f(a,\ell).\label{eq-fourier}
\end{equation}
The normalization is chosen so that $T_\theta 1=1$. On its image, $T_\theta$ is invertible. The explicit expressions are:
\begin{align*}
&T_\theta f(a,\ell)=\frac{\caP_\theta(0)}{2\pi}\int\dd t\dd\xi\ \cosh(\frac{\theta t}{2})\caP_\theta(t)^{-1}e^{\frac{2i}{\theta}\sinh(\frac{\theta t}{2})\ell-i\xi t}f(a,\xi)\\
&T^{-1}_\theta f(a,\ell)=\frac{1}{2\pi\caP_\theta(0)}\int\dd t\dd\xi\ \caP_\theta(t)e^{-\frac{2i}{\theta}\sinh(\frac{\theta t}{2})\xi+it\ell}f(a,\xi)
\end{align*}
In \cite{Bieliavsky:2002}, it has been shown that this intertwining operator yields an associative product on $T_\theta(\caS(\gR^2))$: $f\star_{\theta,\caP}h:=T_\theta((T_\theta^{-1}f)\star_\theta^0(T_\theta^{-1}h))$ which is $G$-invariant. Its explicit expression is: $\forall f,h\in T_\theta(\caS(\gR^2))$,
\begin{multline}
(f\star_{\theta,\caP}h)(a,\ell)=\frac{4}{(\pi\theta)^{2}}\int\dd a_i\dd \ell_i \cosh(2(a_1-a_2))\frac{\caP_\theta(\frac{4}{\theta}(a_1-a))\caP_\theta(\frac{4}{\theta}(a-a_2))}{\caP_\theta(\frac{4}{\theta}(a_1-a_2))\caP_\theta(0)}\\
e^{\frac{2i}{\theta}(\sinh(2(a_1-a_2))\ell+\sinh(2(a_2-a))\ell_1+\sinh(2(a-a_1))\ell_2)}f(a_1,\ell_1)h(a_2,\ell_2).\label{eq-prod}
\end{multline}
\subsection{Schwartz space}
In \cite{Bieliavsky:2010kg}, a Schwartz space adapted to $\gM$ has been introduced, which is different from the usual one $\caS(\gR^2)$ in the global chart $\{(a,\ell)\}$ \eqref{eq-ident}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def-schwartz}
The {\defin Schwartz space} of $\gM$ is defined as
\begin{multline*}
\caS(\gM)=\{f\in C^\infty(\gM)\quad \forall \alpha=(k,p,q,n)\in\gN^4,\\
\norm f\norm_{\alpha}:=\sup_{(a,\ell)}\Big|\frac{\sinh(2a)^k}{\cosh(2a)^p}\ell^q\partial_a^p\partial_\ell^n f(a,\ell)\Big|<\infty\}.
\end{multline*}
\end{definition}
\noindent The space $\caS(\gM)$ corresponds to the usual Schwartz space in the coordinates $(r,\ell)$ with $r=\sinh(2a)$. It is stable by the action of $G$:
\begin{equation*}
\forall f\in\caS(\gM),\ \forall g\in G\quad:\quad g^\ast f\in\caS(\gM)
\end{equation*}
due to the formulation of the action of $G$ in the coordinates $(r,\ell)$:
\begin{multline*}
(r,\ell,m)(r',\ell')=\Big(r\sqrt{1+r'^2}+r'\sqrt{1+r^2},\ell'+(\sqrt{1+r'^2}-r')\ell\\
+(\sqrt{1+r'^2}+r')m\Big).
\end{multline*}
Moreover, $\caS(\gM)$ is a Fr\'echet nuclear space endowed with the seminorms $(\norm f\norm_{\alpha})$.
\medskip
For $f,h\in\caS(\gM)$, the product $f\star_{\theta,\caP}h$ is well-defined by \eqref{eq-prod}. However, it is not possible to show that it belongs to $\caS(\gM)$ unless we consider this expression as an oscillatory integral. Let us define this concept. For $F\in\caS(\gM^2)$, one can show using integrations by parts that:
\begin{multline}
\int\dd a_i\dd\ell_i\ e^{\frac{2i}{\theta}(\sinh(2a_2)\ell_1-\sinh(2a_1)\ell_2)} F(a_1,a_2,\ell_1,\ell_2)=\\
\int\dd a_i\dd\ell_i\ e^{\frac{2i}{\theta}(\sinh(2a_2)\ell_1-\sinh(2a_1)\ell_2)} \Big(\frac{1-\frac{\theta^2}{4}\partial_{\ell_2}^2}{1+\sinh^2(2a_1)}\Big)^{k_1}\Big(\frac{1-\frac{\theta^2}{4}\partial_{\ell_1}^2}{1+\sinh^2(2a_2)}\Big)^{k_2}\\
\Big(\frac{1-\frac{\theta^2}{16\cosh^2(2a_2)}\partial_{a_2}^2}{1+\ell_1^2}\Big)^{p_1} \Big(\frac{1-\frac{\theta^2}{16\cosh^2(2a_1)}\partial_{a_1}^2}{1+\ell_2^2}\Big)^{p_2}F(a_1,a_2,\ell_1,\ell_2)\\
= \int\dd a_i\dd\ell_i\ e^{\frac{2i}{\theta}(\sinh(2a_2)\ell_1-\sinh(2a_1)\ell_2)} \frac{1}{(1+\sinh^2(2a_1))^{k_1}}\\
\frac{DF(a_1,a_2,\ell_1,\ell_2)}{(1+\sinh^2(2a_2))^{k_2}(1+\ell_1^2)^{p_1}(1+\ell_2^2)^{p_2}}\label{eq-osc}
\end{multline}
for any $k_i,p_i\in\gN$, and where $D$ is a linear combination of products of bounded functions (with every derivatives bounded) in $(a_i,\ell_i)$ with powers of $\partial_{\ell_i}$ and $\frac{1}{\cosh(2a_i)}\partial_{a_i}$. The first expression of \eqref{eq-osc} is not defined for non-integrable functions $F$ bounded by polynoms in $r_i:=\sinh(2a_i)$ and $\ell_i$. However, the last expression of \eqref{eq-osc} is well-defined for $k_i,p_i$ sufficiently large. Therefore it gives a sense to the first expression, now understood as an {\defin oscillatory integral}, i.e. as being equal to the last expression. This definition of oscillatory integral \cite{Bieliavsky:2001os,Bieliavsky:2010kg} is unique, in particular unambiguous in the powers $k_i,p_i$ because of the density of $\caS(\gM)$ in polynomial functions in $(r,\ell)$ of a given degree. Note that this corresponds to the usual oscillatory integral \cite{Hormander:1979} in the coordinates $(r,\ell)$.
The first part of the next Theorem shows that this concept of oscillatory integral is necessary \cite{Bieliavsky:2010kg} for $\caS(\gM)$ to obtain an associative algebra, while the other parts have been treated in \cite{Bieliavsky:2008or}.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\caP:\gR\to C^\infty(\gR)$ be a smooth map such that $\caP_0\equiv1$, and $\caP_\theta(a)$ as well as its inverse are bounded by $C\sinh(2a)^k$, $k\in\gN$, $C>0$.
\begin{itemize}
\item Then, the expression \eqref{eq-prod}, understood as an oscillatory integral, yields a $G$-invariant non-formal deformation quantization.\\
In particular, $(\caS(\gM),\star_{\theta,\caP})$ is a Fr\'echet algebra.
\item For $f,h\in\caS(\gM)$, the map $\theta\mapsto f\star_{\theta,\caP} h$ is smooth and admits a $G$-invariant formal star-product as asymptotic expansion in $\theta=0$.
\item Every $G$-invariant formal star-product on $\gM$ can be obtained as an expansion of a $\star_{\theta,\caP}$, for a certain $\caP$.
\item For $\caP_\theta(a)=\caP_\theta(0)\sqrt{\cosh(a\theta/2)}$, one has the tracial identity: $\int f\star_{\theta,\caP}h=\int f\fois h$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
We denote $\star_\theta$ the product $\star_{\theta,\caP}$ with $\caP_\theta(a)=\sqrt{\cosh(a\theta/2)}$, therefore satisfying the tracial identity.
\subsection{Schwartz multipliers}
Let us consider the topological dual $\caS'(\gM)$ of $\caS(\gM)$. In the coordinates $(r,\ell)$, it corresponds to tempered distributions. By denoting $\langle-,-\rangle$ the duality bracket between $\caS'(\gM)$ and $\caS(\gM)$, one can extend the product $\star_\theta$ (with tracial identity) as $\forall T\in\caS'(\gM)$, $\forall f,h\in\caS(\gM)$,
\begin{equation*}
\langle T\star_\theta f,h\rangle:=\langle T,f\star_\theta h\rangle\ \text{ and }\ \langle f\star_\theta T,h\rangle:=\langle T,h\star_\theta f\rangle,
\end{equation*}
which is compatible with the case $T\in\caS(\gM)$. Then, we define \cite{Bieliavsky:2013sk}:
\begin{multline*}
\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gM):=\{T\in\caS'(\gM),\ f\mapsto T\star_\theta f,\ f\mapsto f\star_\theta T\text{ are continuous}\\
\text{from }\caS(\gM) \text{ into itself}\},
\end{multline*}
and the product can be extended to $\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gM)$ by:
\begin{equation*}
\forall S,T\in\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gM),\ \forall f\in\caS(\gM)\quad:\quad \langle S\star_\theta T,f\rangle:=\langle S,T\star_\theta f\rangle=\langle T,f\star_\theta S\rangle.
\end{equation*}
We can equipy $\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gM)$ with the topology associated to the seminorms:
\begin{equation*}
\norm T\norm_{B,\alpha,L}=\sup_{f\in B}\norm T\star_\theta f\norm_\alpha\ \text{ and }\ \norm T\norm_{B,\alpha,R}=\sup_{f\in B}\norm f\star_\theta T\norm_\alpha
\end{equation*}
where $B$ is a bounded subset of $\caS(\gM)$, $\alpha\in\gN^4$ and $\norm f\norm_\alpha$ is the Schwartz seminorm introduced in Definition \ref{def-schwartz}. Note that $B$ can be described as a set satisfying $\forall\alpha$, $\sup_{f\in B}\norm f\norm_\alpha$ exists.
\begin{proposition}
$(\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gM),\star_\theta)$ is an associative Hausdorff locally convex complete and nuclear algebra, with separately continuous product, called the {\defin multiplier algebra}.
\end{proposition}
\section{Construction of the star-exponential}
\subsection{Formal construction}
Let us follow the method developed in \cite{Bieliavsky:2013sk}. We want first to find a solution to the following equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_t f_t(a,\ell)=\frac{i}{\theta}(\lambda_X\star_\theta^0 f_t)(a,\ell)\label{eq-defexp}
\end{equation}
for $X=\alpha H+\beta E+\gamma F\in\kg$, with initial condition $\lim_{t\to 0}f_t(a,\ell)=1$. To remove the integral of this equation, we apply the partial Fourier transformation \eqref{eq-fourier} to obtain
\begin{align*}
\caF(\lambda_{H}\star_\theta^0 f)= \left(2i\partial_\xi+\frac{i\theta}{2}\partial_a)\right)&\hat f,\qquad
\caF(\lambda_{E}\star_\theta^0 f)=e^{-2a-\frac{\theta\xi}{2}}\hat f,\\
\caF(\lambda_{F}&\star_\theta^0 f)=-e^{2a+\frac{\theta\xi}{2}}\hat f
\end{align*}
so that the equation \eqref{eq-defexp} can be reformuled as
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t \hat f_t(a,\xi)=\frac{i}{\theta}\Big[2i\alpha\partial_\xi+\frac{i\theta\alpha}{2}\partial_a+\beta e^{-2a-\frac{\theta\xi}{2}}-\gamma e^{2a+\frac{\theta\xi}{2}}\Big]\hat f_t(a,\xi).
\end{equation*}
The existence of a solution of this equation which satisfies the BCH property directly relies on the covariance \eqref{eq-cov} of the Moyal product. We have the explicit following result.
\begin{proposition}
For $X=\alpha H+\beta E+\gamma F\in\kg$, the expression
\begin{equation*}
E_{\star_\theta^0}(t\lambda_X)(a,\ell)=e^{\frac{i}{\theta}\Big(2\ell\alpha t+\frac{1}{\alpha}\sinh(\alpha t)(\beta e^{-2a}-\gamma e^{2a})\Big)}
\end{equation*}
is a solution of the equation \eqref{eq-defexp} with initial condition $\lim_{t\to 0}f_t(a,\ell)=1$. Moreover, it satisfies the BCH property: $\forall X,Y\in\kg$,
\begin{equation}
E_{\star_\theta^0}(\lambda_{\text{BCH}(X,Y)})=E_{\star_\theta^0}(\lambda_X)\star_\theta^0 E_{\star_\theta^0}(\lambda_Y).\label{eq-bchStar}
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By performing the following change of variables $b=-\frac{a}{\alpha}-\frac{\theta\xi}{4\alpha}$ and $c=-\frac{a}{\alpha}+\frac{\theta\xi}{4\alpha}$, we reformulate the equation as
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t \hat f_t=\partial_b\hat f_t+\frac{i\beta}{\theta} e^{2\alpha b}-\frac{i\gamma}{\theta}e^{-2\alpha b},
\end{equation*}
whose solution is given by $\hat f_t(b,c)=\exp\Big(-\int^b_0(\frac{i\beta}{\theta} e^{2\alpha s}-\frac{i\gamma}{\theta}e^{-2\alpha s})\dd s\Big)h(b+t,c)$, where $h$ is an arbitrary function. By assuming the initial condition, we obtain the expression of $E_{\star_\theta^0}(tX)(a,\ell)$. The BCH property is given by direct computations from the expression of the product \eqref{eq-moyal} and from \eqref{eq-bchGroup}.
\end{proof}
Finally, we push this solution by $T_\theta$:
\begin{multline*}
E_{\star_{\theta,\caP}}(tX)(a,\ell):=T_\theta E_{\star_\theta^0}(tT_\theta^{-1}\lambda_X)(a,\ell)\\
=\frac{\caP_\theta(0)\cosh(\alpha t)}{\caP_\theta(\frac{2\alpha t}{\theta})}e^{\frac{i}{\theta}\sinh(\alpha t)(2\ell+\frac{\beta}{\alpha}e^{-2a}-\frac{\gamma}{\alpha} e^{2a})+\frac{2\caP_\theta'(0)}{\theta\caP_\theta(0)}\alpha t}.
\end{multline*}
It also satisfies the BCH property \eqref{eq-bchStar}.
\subsection{Multiplier property}
For the star-product with tracial property, we want to define the star-exponential at the non-formal level. We can use the oscillatory integral in the star-product to show \cite{Bieliavsky:2013sk}:
\begin{theorem}
For any $X\in\kg$, the function
\begin{equation*}
E_{\star_{\theta}}(tX)(a,\ell)=\sqrt{\cosh(\alpha t)}e^{\frac{i}{\theta}\sinh(\alpha t)(2\ell+\frac{\beta}{\alpha}e^{-2a}-\frac{\gamma}{\alpha} e^{2a})}
\end{equation*}
lies in the multiplier algebra $\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gM)$.
\end{theorem}
As it belongs to a specific ``functional space'', the function $E_{\star_\theta}$ is called the {\defin non-formal star-exponential} of the group $G$ for the star-product $\star_\theta$. The BCH property
\begin{equation*}
E_{\star_\theta}(\text{BCH}(X,Y))=E_{\star_\theta}(X)\star_\theta E_{\star_\theta}(Y)
\end{equation*}
now makes sense in the topological space $\caM_{\star_\theta}(\gM)$. This functional framework is useful for applications of the star-exponential discussed in the introduction.
\bibliographystyle{utcaps}
|
\section{Introduction}
Deuterium (D) is one of the light elements created in the big bang, whose
primordial abundance depends sensitively on the cosmological constants
\citep{boesgaard85}. D is destroyed by nuclear reactions in
stellar interiors, a process termed astration, and its abundance decreases monotonically
along with the chemical evolution of the Galaxy \citep{epstein76, mazzitelli80}.
The abundance of D in the present day is thus directly related
to the primordial nucleosynthesis and the subsequent Galactic chemical evolution.
The D astration factor, defined as the ratio of the primordial to the
present-day D to hydrogen (D/H) ratio, should reflect the history of the star-formation and
the infall of the pristine gas to the Galactic disk
\cite[e.g.,][]{romano06, tsujimoto11}.
However, the observed D/H ratio of the interstellar gas
shows no systematic trend with the metallicity, but shows a considerable scatter, which cannot
be accounted for solely by Galactic chemical evolution models \citep{tosi10}.
\citet{linsky06} show several pieces of evidence that D is depleted onto dust
grains in the interstellar medium (ISM), which was originally suggested by \citet{jura82}.
They show that the D/H ratio of the interstellar gas is
well correlated with the depletion of iron and silicon and also with the excitation temperature
of molecular hydrogen. Enrichment of D found in interplanetary dust
particles \citep{messenger02} further supports the depletion model of D.
\citet{draine06} proposes that interstellar polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
can be the major reservoir of interstellar D. PAHs are thought to be responsible for
a series of the emission bands in the near- to mid-infrared region \citep{leger84, allamandola85,
allamandola89}, referred to as ``PAH features,''
which are ubiquitously observed in the ISM \citep[e.g.,][]{onaka96, mattila96, tsumura13}.
PAHs are small particles of less than 1\,nm in size and carry about 3.5\% of cosmic carbon atoms
\citep{tielens08}.
Based upon a thermodynamic equilibrium argument,
\citet{draine06} shows that the D/H ratio in PAHs can be as high as $\sim 0.3$,
which is sufficient to
account for the observed range of D/H of the interstellar gas, if the gas temperature is lower than 90K.
When H in PAHs is replaced by D, the emission bands originating from vibration modes of
C\sbond H bonds should be shifted to longer wavelengths by a factor of the difference in reduced mass between
the C\sbond H and C\sbond D oscillators. The emission bands at 3.3 and 3.4$-$3.5\,$\mu$m,
which come from stretching vibrations of aromatic and aliphatic C\sbond H bonds, are thus expected to
move to $\sim 4.4$ and $\sim 4.6$$-$4.7\,$\mu$m in deuterated PAHs \citep[PADs,][]{hudgins04}.
\citet{verstraete96} report detection of an emission feature at 4.65\,$\mu$m with the 4.4$\sigma$ level in
M17 based on observations with the Short Wavelength Spectrometer (SWS) onboard the {\it Infrared Space Observatory (ISO)}.
Subsequently \citet{peeters04} report detection of emission bands at 4.4 and 4.65\,$\mu$m at 1.9$\sigma$
and 4.4$\sigma$ levels in the Orion Bar region with SWS observations and attribute them to aromatic and aliphatic
stretching vibration modes of C\sbond D in PADs, respectively. They estimate the ratio of the sum of the integrated band
intensities at 4.4 and 4.65\,$\mu$m to those at 3.3 and 3.4$-$3.5\,$\mu$m as $0.17\pm0.03$ in
the Orion Bar and $0.36\pm0.08$ in M17. While those ratios are in the range of D/H
predicted by the depletion model of D onto PAHs \citep{draine06}, the spectral range 4.08$-$5.30\,$\mu$m of the
SWS (band 2a) has a rather high noise level and similar features are not detected in any other objects.
Therefore, it is strongly desirable to obtain spectra with higher signal-to-noise ratios and confirm the detection,
particularly for the 4.4\,$\mu$m band, giving a better constraint on the D/H ratio in PAHs.
The spectral range of 4.3$-$4.7\,$\mu$m is largely obscured by the
terrestrial atmosphere and we need space telescopes to observe these PAD features.
The Infrared Camera (IRC) onboard the {\it AKARI} infrared satellite \citep{murakami07}
has a spectroscopic capability in the near-infrared (NIR; 2$-$5\,$\mu$m)
with a high sensitivity \citep{onaka07, ohyama07}.
In {\it this paper}, we report observations of the PAD features in the Orion Bar, M17, and the reflection
nebula GN18.14.0
in 4.3$-$4.7\,$\mu$m with the Infrared Camera (IRC), carried out in its warm mission phase
\citep[Phase 3,][]{onaka10}.
\section{Observations and data reduction}
The present observations were carried out in the warm mission phase of {\it AKARI} after the
exhaustion of liquid helium, where only NIR observations were executed, as part
of the ``Interstellar Medium in our Galaxy and Nearby Galaxies'' program \citep[ISMGN,][]{kaneda09}.
Even after the exhaustion of liquid helium, the telescope and focal plane instruments were kept
sufficiently cold ($<47$\,K) by the onboard cryocooler and the NIR channel of the IRC was able to be operated.
At temperatures below 47\,K, the thermal background from the telescope was still negligible
for wavelengths shorter than 5\,$\mu$m and the IRC was able to perform NIR spectroscopy with high
sensitivity compared to large, but warm telescopes, particularly for observations of the diffuse emission,
being free from the disturbance of the terrestrial atmosphere
\citep{onaka10}.
The IRC has a variety of options for the NIR spectroscopy using its special aperture mask
pattern \citep{onaka07}. In the present observations,
slit spectroscopy was performed, using the Ns and Nh slits with the grism disperser. The Ns slit is $0\farcm8 \times
5\arcsec$, while the Nh slit has a size of $1\arcmin \times 3\arcsec$.
The Ns and Nh slits observe the sky separated by about 2\arcmin\, simultaneously.
The Ns slit width is adjusted to the mid-infrared (MIR) channel and the Nh width matches with
about 2 pixels of the NIR channel (2\farcs92).
The NIR grism (NG) provides a dispersion of 0.0097\,$\mu$m per pixel for 2.5$-$5\,$\mu$m
and spectroscopy with Nh gives a slightly better spectral resolution than that with Ns.
In the program ISMGN, a number of extended objects in the Galactic plane have been observed
with NIR spectroscopy, including the Orion Bar and M17.
For both targets, the center of the Ns slit was intended to be at the position of the SWS
observations. Since the IRC Ns slit is smaller than the aperture of the SWS ($20\arcsec \times 14\arcsec$), only
a part of the SWS aperture is covered with the Ns slit.
Due to the limited accuracy of the absolute pointing, the actual slit position was slightly
different from those intended, but the Ns slit overlapped with part of the SWS aperture in both targets.
NIR Ns spectra are extracted from the overlapping region with the slit length of 6 pixels (8\farcs76) and
they are analyzed in the following sections. Variation along the slit is not significant for both targets.
The central part of the Nh slit spectra is also extracted for comparison.
Figure~\ref{fig1} shows the slit positions of the SWS (large boxes) and the regions where the spectra are
extracted in the present study (small boxes).
The Nh slit turns out to be located toward the ionized region in both objects (see \S~\ref{sec3}).
In addition to these two objects, we also include the reflection nebula G18.14.0, which
does not show a signature of the ionized gas, in the present study.
The observation was carried out toward the western boundary of the nebula of G18.14.0.
Details of the present observation data are summarized in Table~\ref{table1}.
The data reduction was performed with the official pipeline optimized for Phase 3 version 20111121.
Due to the increase in the temperature in Phase 3, the dark current becomes non-negligible and
the number of hot pixels increases. Even after the subtraction of the dark current in the official
pipeline, the residual dark signals are still recognizable at the edge region of a 10 pixel width
next to the Nh slit, which is supposed to be blocked by the aperture mask. The residual dark signals are estimated
from this region and subtracted in the post pipeline process. This process also corrects for
spurious patterns parallel to the spatial direction due to the detector anomaly.
The present targets are sufficiently bright and
this correction has only a small effect on their spectra.
Then the spectra are averaged for a $3 \times 3$ pixel region, both in the spectral and spatial
directions, with the official pipeline software.
This averaging process significantly reduces the noise level with a minimum cost to spectral
and spatial resolutions.
\section{Results and analysis\label{sec3}}
Figure~\ref{fig2} displays the obtained spectra. The Ns spectra of the Orion Bar and M17 are rich in features.
Both are dominated by PAH band emission at 3.3$-$3.5\,$\mu$m and a number of hydrogen recombination
lines are also seen clearly. The general characteristics of the Ns spectra are in agreement with
the SWS spectra \citep{peeters04} and are typical for the photodissociation region (PDR) associated with ionized gas.
The Ns spectrum of M17 (Fig.~\ref{fig2}c) also indicates the presence of
CO$_2$ ice absorption at 4.27\,$\mu$m.
The CO$_2$ ice absorption is not evident in other spectra.
The hydrogen recombination lines appear quite strong in the Nh spectra of the Orion and M17 with
the faint PAH band emission, suggesting that the ionized gas dominates in these regions.
The Ns spectrum of G18.14.0 shows clear PAH features, but the recombination lines
are not observed. G18.14.0 is associated with a young stellar cluster \citep{bica03}.
The spectral type of the central star of the nebula
HD\,167638 is B2II, consistent with the absence of ionized gas emission in the spectrum.
We assume that this target
represents a typical PDR without ionized gas.
Possible identification of the features in these spectra is indicated in Figures~\ref{fig2}a, c, and e
and summarized in Table~\ref{table2}. Note that some of the features in these spectra are blended with bright
emission lines and bands, and therefore are not individually resolved. Also unambiguous identification
of the faint features is difficult with the low spectral resolution of these observations.
The Ns spectra of the Orion Bar and M17 show a number of emission features in the range 4$-$5\,$\mu$m
(Figure~\ref{fig2}). To estimate the feature intensities, first we make a spline fit to the continuum and
then fit the PAH band emission and the ice absorption.
The pivot points for the spline fit are set as around 2.57, 2.67, 3.70, 3.95, 4.14, 4.50, and 4.88\,$\mu$m.
For the Orion Bar, the 4.14\,$\mu$m point is shifted to 4.24\,$\mu$m to avoid possible excess emission around
4.16\,$\mu$m.
Three PAH band components are clearly
seen at 3.29, 3.41, and 3.48\,$\mu$m. The former two bands have sufficiently broad intrinsic widths compared to
the present spectral resolution, while
the 3.48\,$\mu$m band is known to consist of more than one components, which cannot
be resolved by the present resolution \citep{geballe89}. Hence,
we approximate the 3.29 and 3.41\,$\mu$m bands
by Lorentzian functions and the 3.48\,$\mu$m band by a Gaussian in the fitting.
This combination of functions provides the best fit for the 3\,$\mu$m emission.
The CO$_2$ ice absorption at 4.27\,$\mu$m is clearly seen in the M17 spectrum.
The presence of the CO$_2$ ice band also suggests the
presence of the broad H$_2$O ice absorption at around 3\,$\mu$m,
\citep[e.g.,][]{gibb04, shimonishi10}, but it is not obvious
when the absorption is weak and overlaps with the bright PAH band emission.
A simple screen geometry,
in which the ice species are located in front of the emission source,
is assumed in the spectrum fit.
For the H$_2$O ice absorption, we employ
laboratory data taken at 10K \citep{ehrenfreund96}, whereas we assume a Gaussian profile in absorption
for the CO$_2$ ice because of its narrow width \citep{shimonishi10}.
Details of the fit are given in \citet{mori13}, which employ a slightly different method to estimate the
continuum. In the present study, we intend to fit the lower boundary of the spectrum in the
estimate of the continuum to obtain an upper limit for the remaining emission.
The best fit indicates the presence of H$_2$O ice with a column density of $(4.94 \pm 0.07) \times
10^{17}$\,cm$^{-2}$ for the Orion Bar, which is in the weakest end of the observed range \citep{gibb04}.
No positive detection of the CO$_2$ ice is obtained for the Orion Bar.
The fit of the M17 spectrum provides the column densities of the H$_2$O and CO$_2$ ices
as $(7.65 \pm 0.07) \times 10^{17}$ and $(1.07 \pm 0.03) \times 10^{17}$ \,cm$^{-3}$, respectively.
The ratio of the CO$_2$ to H$_2$O ice column densities is $14.0 \pm 0.4$\%, which is in agreement
with the ratios found in massive young stellar objects \citep[$17 \pm 3$\%,][]{gerakines99, nummelin01}.
The spectrum of G18.14.0 also suggests the presence of weak ice absorption. The best fit yields a
column density of $(2.23\pm0.12) \times 10^{17}$ and $(0.32\pm0.06) \times 10^{17}$\,cm$^{-3}$ for
H$_2$O and CO$_2$ ices, respectively. The column density ratio of $14\pm3$\% is again in the range expected
for massive young stellar objects.
The fitted spectra are shown by the red dashed lines in Figure~\ref{fig2}.
In the next step we subtract the estimated
continuum, the PAH band emission, and the ice absorption from the observed spectrum.
Figures~\ref{fig3}a and b show the residual spectra for the Orion Bar and M17, which show the remaining emission
features. The residual seen around the 3\,$\mu$m region comes from the imperfect
modeling of the PAH band emission, and it does not affect the following discussion.
In the range 4.3$-$4.7\,$\mu$m, several features appear clearly.
The strongest one is \ion{H}{1} Pf$\beta$ at 4.6538\,$\mu$m. Pf$\beta$ in the Orion spectrum
seems to be broader than other \ion{H}{1} lines and may be blended with the pure rotation line of
H$_2$ S(9) at 4.6946\,$\mu$m.
\ion{H}{1} Hu$\epsilon$ at 4.6725\,$\mu$m could also make a contribution.
The 4.65\,$\mu$m emission of the Orion spectrum is found to be
better fitted by two Gaussians at 4.65 and 4.69\,$\mu$m, supporting the contribution from the
H$_2$ line (see below).
The presence of H$_2$ emission in the Orion spectrum
is also supported by possible detection of other pure rotational lines of H$_2$ of S(10), S(11), and
S(13) at 4.41, 4.18, and 3.85\,$\mu$m, respectively (Figure~\ref{fig2}a).
The S(12) line overlaps with Br$\alpha$ and cannot be confirmed.
The H$_2$ lines are not clearly detected in the M17 spectrum.
The feature at 4.3\,$\mu$m, which appears strong in the Orion spectrum,
is identified as the recombination line of \ion{He}{1} $^3S_1$$-$$^3P_0$ \citep{vanden00}.
A broad emission is also seen at around 4.4\,$\mu$m.
The \ion{He}{1} line is weak and the presence of a feature around 4.4\,$\mu$m
is not obvious in the M17 spectrum. There are no other excess emission features seen in
4.3$-$4.7\,$\mu$m.
To estimate the contribution of \ion{H}{1} recombination lines, we calculate a simple
hydrogen recombination line model
of the Case B conditions with $T_e=10^4$\,K and $n_e = 10^4$\,cm$^{-3}$, where
$T_e$ and $n_e$ are the electron temperature and density of the ionized gas, respectively
\citep{storey95} and scale it to the observed Br$\alpha$ intensity.
The estimated \ion{H}{1} emission is shown by the red dotted lines in
Figure~\ref{fig3}. For the Orion spectrum we assume no extinction, while we set
$A_V = 10$\,mag for M17 to fit the Br$\beta$ intensity. The models fit most of the \ion{H}{1} recombination
lines fairly well, including faint ones, particularly for M17, suggesting the validity
of the Case B calculation for the estimate of the \ion{H}{1} line intensities.
The uncertainty in $A_V$ is
estimated to be smaller than 1\,mag, which will affect the Pf$\beta$ intensity estimated from the
Br$\alpha$ only by 0.7\%.
Then we subtract the model line emission from the observed spectra and
plot the residuals in the range 4$-$5\,$\mu$m in Figure~\ref{fig4}. The
locations of the known emission lines (Table~\ref{table2}) are also indicated in Figure~\ref{fig4}a.
The \ion{He}{1} line at 4.3\,$\mu$m remains
together with a broad emission around 4.4\,$\mu$m in the spectrum of the Orion Bar.
Part of the 4.4\,$\mu$m residual emission can be attributed to H$_2$ S(10) and residual
\ion{H}{1} Hu12, although the latter is too faint to account for the amount of the entire residual emission.
Residual emission is also seen
at 4.65$-$4.7\,$\mu$m. Part of the residual comes from H$_2$ S(9) at 4.6946\,$\mu$m,
which now appears clearly in Figure~\ref{fig4}a.
For M17, the residuals are smaller than the Orion spectrum. There may be some residual in the blue
part of the Pf$\beta$ around 4.6\,$\mu$m.
The intensity of the He recombination line depends sensitively on the conditions of the ionized gas
in contrast to the hydrogen recombination lines and it is difficult to predict its intensity from the
present data accurately. We cannot rule out a possibility
of unknown faint emission features present in the ionized gas either. As an alternative way to
the Case B model calculation,
we make use of the spectra taken at the Nh slit, which are dominated by the
ionized gas, to estimate the emission lines from the ionized gas in each region.
Here we simply assume that the relative emission line intensities do not vary from
the Nh to Ns positions appreciably as a first approximation. Figure~\ref{fig5} shows the spectrum
estimated from the Nh spectra after being scaled to the Br$\alpha$ intensity and adjusted to the spectral
resolution of Ns. The \ion{H}{1} emission line intensities
in the Nh spectra are also in good agreement with the Case B model calculation and thus the
overall agreement
in the \ion{H}{1} lines is not unexpected.
Figure~\ref{fig6} plots the residual between the observed Ns spectra and the spectra
estimated from the Nh spectra. The residual emission at 4.3\,$\mu$m in the Orion spectrum is
reduced, confirming that it comes from the \ion{He}{1} line.
The line emission estimated from the Nh spectra also accounts for part of the
emission at 4.4\,$\mu$m region in the Orion, but not perfectly, suggesting a partial contribution
from the ionized gas components.
The emission around 4.4\,$\mu$m
still remains. The excess emission around 4.65\,$\mu$m is also reduced in the
M17 spectrum to some extent. Some excess emission is apparent at the position of Pf$\beta$
(4.65\,$\mu$m) in both spectra.
The residuals in Figure~\ref{fig6} are generally smaller than those in Figure~\ref{fig4}.
To estimate the excess intensities conservatively, however, we use the residuals shown in Figure~\ref{fig4},
in which the line emission estimated from the Case B conditions is subtracted. We assume that
the emission at 4.3\,$\mu$m is the \ion{He}{1} line and take account of the emission only
at around 4.4\,$\mu$m.
For the emission around 4.65\,$\mu$m, we separate the contribution
from H$_2$ S(9) by fitting two Gaussians for the Orion spectrum and estimate the
residual emission at around 4.65\,$\mu$m. For the M17 spectrum, we simply calculate the
residual emission at 4.65\,$\mu$m.
The results are summarized in Table~\ref{table3}
together with the intensities of the PAH bands.
Intensities of the excess emission are estimated by a fit of the excess with a Gaussian and
errors are derived from the fitting, also taking account of any observational error.
For the estimate of the PAH bands, the separation
of the 3.41 and 3.48\,$\mu$m bands cannot be made accurately at this spectral resolution and only the summation of the
two features is given. Contribution to the 3.29\,$\mu$m band from Pf$\delta$ is subtracted
assuming the Case B model, which is small ($<3$\%) for both spectra.
In the following, we assume that the 3.29\,$\mu$m band comes from aromatic C\sbond H bonds
and the 3.41 and 3.48\,$\mu$m bands from aliphatic C\sbond H bonds in PAHs. The features at
4.4 and 4.65\,$\mu$m are assumed to be the corresponding features from aromatic and aliphatic
C\sbond D bonds in PADs, respectively \citep{peeters04}. No extinction correction is applied for the
estimate of the PAH band intensities.
The spectrum that contains contribution from the
ionized gas shows a number of emission lines. It is difficult to predict and identify faint features
accurately with the resolution and sensitivity obtained here. To avoid possible faint emission
from unknown species in the ionized gas, we require a spectrum that does not show a signature
of the ionized gas, but has PAH emission with a sufficient signal-to-noise in our targets. Most of the spectra
taken in the ISMGN program show some sign of the ionized gas.
The reflection nebula G18.14.0 is the best target on these criteria in the ISMGN sample.
The spectrum of G18.14.0 shows no evidence of the
ionized gas, but has prominent PAH emission. There are weak emission features seen in 2.5$-$3\,$\mu$m
(Figure~\ref{fig2}e),
some of which can be attributed to H$_2$ 1$-$0 O(2), O(3), and (4) at 2.627, 2.803, and 3.004\,$\mu$m
\citep[e.g.,][]{lee11}.
The O(2) line is at the same wavelength as \ion{H}{1} Br$\beta$ and the absence of Br$\alpha$ suggests
that the excess at 2.63\,$\mu$m is attributable to O(2). These bands are weak, but at least the O(3) line seems to be real.
Figure~\ref{fig4}c plots the residual after the subtraction of the continuum and
the PAH band emission with the ice absorption for 4$-$5\,$\mu$m (red dashed line in Figure~\ref{fig2}e).
There is small excess emission remaining at around 4.4 and 4.65\,$\mu$m.
The detection of H$_2$ 1$-$0 lines in 2.5$-$3\,$\mu$m suggests possible contribution from
H$_2$ 0$-$0 S(10) and S(9) to the excess at around 4.4 and 4.65\,$\mu$m, respectively.
The emission features in 2.5$-$3\,$\mu$m are too weak to constrain the emission mechanism and conditions with accuracy,
even if they are attributed to the H$_2$ emission. Therefore, from the present spectra
it is rather difficult to estimate the intensities of H$_2$ S(9) and S(10) transitions accurately and thus
they are not subtracted from the intensity of the excess emission.
The intensities of the excess in G18.14.0 are also listed in Table~\ref{table3} together with the
PAH band intensities. As indicated in Table~\ref{table3} the excess emission at 4.65\,$\mu$m
is only at the 2.5\,$\sigma$ level and the presence of any excess is marginal.
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{PAD to PAH ratio}
The last three columns of Table~\ref{table3} show the ratios of the intensities of PADs to those
of PAHs. We estimate the ratios for the aromatic (4.4\,$\mu$m to 3.29\,$\mu$m) and
the aliphatic (4.65\,$\mu$m to 3.41 and 3.48\,$\mu$m) components
separately as well as for the total (aromatic + aliphatic) PAD to PAH features. The aliphatic component
in the Orion Bar and M17 shows the ratios of 4\% and 7\%, respectively, but the ratios of the aromatic component
and the total intensities
are all less than 3\%. The effect of extinction is not taken into account in these estimates.
If we take account for the extinction effect for M17, the ratio will be decreased further by about 20\%.
The extinction is estimated to be not significant for the Orion Bar. For G18.14.0, the estimate of extinction
using \ion{H}{1} lines
is not possible, but weaker ice absorption suggests that the effects should be smaller than for M17.
Note that the contributions from \ion{H}{1} lines are subtracted in these estimates, but
those from molecular hydrogen are not except for the S(9) line in the Orion Bar.
The present result shows a clear contrast to the results by \citet{peeters04}, who report the total ratio
of $0.17 \pm 0.03$ for the Orion Bar and $0.36\pm0.08$ for M17.
The present spectra do not show any strong excess emission in the 4\,$\mu$m region except for \ion{H}{1} Pf$\beta$.
The remaining excess is about 10\% of Br$\alpha$ (Table~\ref{table3}) and the
intensity of Pf$\beta$ is predicted with better accuracy than the excess.
This is also supported by the estimate using the Nh spectra.
The basic result is
not affected by the method of the subtraction of the emission lines.
The present observation covers only a part of the aperture of the SWS observations and
it is possible that strong excess emission is present in the region that the IRC observations
did not cover. The spatial variation along the Ns slit is, however, not significant, and no strong
excess emission in the 4\,$\mu$m region is seen in the entire slit spectra. Thus it seems unlikely that
the present observations miss the right spot in both targets, although we cannot rule out the possibility.
It should also be noted that the present estimate gives upper limits on the PAD band emission.
The residual spectra, in which the
line emission estimated from the ionized gas (Nh) spectra is subtracted, show smaller residuals, particularly
for the 4.4\,$\mu$m emission, than those after subtraction of the Case B spectra.
There could be contributions from faint emission of unknown species
at around 4.4\,$\mu$m. Marginal detection of the excess emission at 4.65\,$\mu$m for G18.14.0
also suggests that the residual emission in this spectral range in the Orion Bar and M17 may have
contribution from faint emission components in the ionized gas. For G18.14.0, there may be contribution from
the pure rotation lines of H$_2$.
Since these features are weak,
it is difficult to unambiguously attribute the excess emission seen
at 4.4 and 4.65\,$\mu$m, if real, to deuterated PAHs or others from the present data.
Spectra with higher spectral resolution and better
signal-to-noise ratios are needed to make clear confirmation and
identification of these excess emissions.
In the above discussion, we simply compare the intensities of the features
in the 3 and 4\,$\mu$m regions according to the
previous study \citep{peeters04}. However, the emission intensity depends on
the transition probabilities, which may not be the same for C\sbond H and C\sbond D bonds.
Also the emission in the NIR requires high excitation, whose conditions are
different between the emission at 3 and 4\,$\mu$m. Bands at 4\,$\mu$m should be
more easily excited than those at 3\,$\mu$m.
\citet{bauschlicher97} show that
perdueterated PAHs have integrated intensities for their spectroscopic transitions reduced by a factor of 1.75
compared to fully hydrogenated PAHs. Assuming this reduction factor in the cross-section, we make a
calculation based on a simple PAH emission model given by \citet{mori12} for
D/H = 0.1 and 0.025 to roughly estimate the effects.
The 3\,$\mu$m PAH emission is thought to come mainly from
neutral PAHs \citep{draine01}. Since we discuss only the ratio of the 4.4\,$\mu$m to 3.3\,$\mu$m band
intensity, we simply assume that all the PAHs are neutral in the following estimate.
Even if a half of the PAHs are assumed to be ionized, the band ratio is changed only by 0.5\%.
We also assume as a standard case that the temperature
of the exciting source is 30000\,K, and the size distribution of PAHs is given by
a power-law with the number of carbon atoms in the
smallest and largest PAHs of 20 and 4000, respectively.
The results indicate
that the ratio of the 4.4\,$\mu$m to 3.3\,$\mu$m band intensity is about 0.095 and 0.024, respectively.
Easier excitation of
the 4.4\,$\mu$m band compensates the smaller cross-section, resulting in
an intensity ratio similar to the D/H abundance ratio. The result is obviously
sensitive to the assumed parameters of the exciting source and the size distribution of PAHs.
If the minimum number of carbon atoms is increased to 50, the intensity ratio becomes
0.14 and 0.035, respectively, which are larger than the abundance ratio by about 40\%.
Thus the observed intensity ratio may overestimate the true D/H ratio by several tens \%, but
not by an order of magnitude. The present study does not find evidence for the D fraction
of more than 3\% in the carriers that emit the 3\,$\mu$m PAH band emission.
\subsection{Deuterium depletion model}
The expected amount of the depleted D onto solid particles depends on the abundance of
the observed distribution of the D/H ratios in the ISM, which is related to the primordial
D abundance via chemical evolution in the Galaxy. The primordial
D/H can be estimated from observations
of distant quasars. The latest estimate based on quasar observations suggests
(D/H)$_\mathrm{prim} = 25.35 \pm 0.05$\,ppm, which
is smaller than a previous estimate \citep{pettini08}, but is
in good agreement with the most recent cosmological parameters deduced from the
angular power spectrum of the comics microwave background \citep{pettini12}.
\citet{prodanovic10} make a Bayesian analysis on the observations of gaseous D in the ISM and
find that the maximum and minimum D/H in the ISM are $20 \pm 1$ and $7 \pm 2$\,ppm,
respectively, for a top hat distribution. The astration factor suggested by these results becomes less than 1.3,
if the variation in the D/H ratio in the ISM is attributed to the depletion and the largest ratio is taken as the
intrinsic D/H at the present. The small astration factor
can be accounted for by a recent model of the chemical evolution that takes account of the declining star-formation
together with the infall of pristine gas onto the Galactic disk \citep{tsujimoto11}.
The above analysis of the interstellar D/H distribution suggests that D/H of about 13\,ppm
needs to be depleted onto interstellar grains at maximum. Using this value,
the D/H ratio expected in dust grains is estimated following \citet{draine06}.
The C/H in interstellar grains is assumed to be about 200\,ppm, 85\% of which are in aromatic
\citep{pendleton02}. For aromatic materials, H/C is about 0.35, which suggests
60\,ppm of H in aromatic grains. Thus, the expected maximum D/H in PAHs is 0.28.
The present result
does not find evidence for D/H $\ge 3$\% in PAHs and only accounts for the interstellar
D/H variation of $\sim 1$\,ppm.
UV observations of D in the ISM generally probe regions with medium density and cannot investigate
dense regions, while current NIR spectroscopy
is not sensitive enough to detect emission from regions with relatively small optical depth.
Thus if deuterated PAHs are present only in less dense regions, PAD emission cannot be detected
in the present observations. Unimolecular photodissociation may work at moderate temperatures and can
increase D fraction in PAHs in regions where UV radiation penetrates
\citep{allamandola89, tielens97, hudgins04}. However it is difficult to obtain the high concentration of D
suggested by the depletion observations
with this mechanism. The observed amount of D depletion may be achieved only by the deuteration process
in dense and cold environments
\citep{draine06}. If the depletion of D onto PAHs predominantly occurs in cold and dense regions
and is preserved in diffuse \ion{H}{1} clouds toward which UV observations are carried out,
a signature of PADs should appear in PDRs, targets of the present observations.
It should be noted that the present observation is only sensitive to the population of the smallest
aromatic dust grains
that emit 3$-$4\,$\mu$m emission.
If D is depleted in PAHs whose size is
too large to make prominent emission in the 3$-$4\,$\mu$m region, they could elude detection
in the NIR spectroscopy. We estimate the size dependence using the simple model as above.
Assuming that only PAHs whose number of carbon atoms is larger than 50 are deuterated and
the total D/H = 0.1, then the 4.4 to 3.3\,$\mu$m band ratio becomes 0.049. Hence, if a large amount of
interstellar D is depleted on PAHs, it might reside only in large PAHs.
Emission expected from large deuterated PAHs would appear at longer wavelengths
in a more complicated way than at the 4\,$\mu$m region
because of the interaction between C\sbond H and C\sbond D in bending
modes \citep{hudgins04}. A dedicated search for MIR features from large PADs is needed to test the
depletion model and make a clear conclusion on D depletion onto PAHs.
\section{Summary}
We made sensitive spectroscopic observations in the NIR towards the Orion Bar, M17, and the reflection nebula
G18.14.0 with
the IRC on board {\it AKARI}. Neither of the spectra of the Orion Bar nor M17 shows evidence for strong emission features
expected from deuterated PAHs in the 4\,$\mu$m region. Some excess emission remains
at around 4.4 and 4.65\,$\mu$m after subtraction of the contribution from hydrogen recombination lines,
but its intensity is less than previously reported.
To avoid potential contributions from faint emission components in ionized gas,
the spectrum of the reflection nebula G18.14.0 is also analyzed in a similar way.
It shows a typical PDR spectrum without any sign of ionized gas.
The spectrum indicates slight excess emission at around 4.4\,$\mu$m
and a marginal detection of the excess at 4.65\,$\mu$m (2.7$\sigma$).
These excess emissions are weak and it should be emphasized that
it is difficult to unambiguously rule out other possibilities and
attribute these two features to PADs because of the low
spectral resolution of the present observations.
If we assume that they come from aromatic and aliphatic C\sbond D in PADs, then
the ratio of PAD (4.4 and 4.65\,$\mu$m)
to PAH (3.29, 3.41, and 3.48\,$\mu$m) features is estimated as 3\% at most in the three targets.
If these 4\,$\mu$m features have different origins or there are contributions from other
species, the ratio will further be reduced.
The effects of the difference in the cross-section and excitation between the 3 and 4\,$\mu$m emission
are investigated based on a simple model calculation. The results suggest that the effects
may overestimate the D/H ratio by several tens \%, and do not affect the conclusion.
The present study does not find evidence for the presence of a large amount of
deuterated PAHs as predicted from the D depletion model.
The PAD/PAH ratio required to account for the observed distribution of D in the ISM is larger by an order of
magnitude
than the result of present observations. If interstellar D is depleted onto PAHs, then it must
reside in large PAHs, which do not contribute dominantly to the NIR PAH emission.
Search for MIR emission from PADs is needed to further test the D depletion model onto
PAHs, although the band emission of PADs at the MIR is more complicated than at the 4\,$\mu$m
region.
\acknowledgments
This work is based on observations with {\it AKARI}, a JAXA project
with the participation of ESA. The authors thank all the members of
the {\it AKARI} project and the members of the Interstellar and Nearby
Galaxy team for their help and continuous encouragements. They are also grateful to Bruce
Draine and Francois Boulanger for the
useful discussions and Mark Hammonds for careful reading of the manuscript.
This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive,
which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
This work is supported by Grants-in-Aid
for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
(nos. 21654027 and 23244021).
{\it Facility:} \facility{AKARI}.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:first}
One calls a Jordan domain $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ a quasidisk if it is
the image of the unit disk $\mathbb D$ under a quasiconformal mapping
$f\colon\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\to\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ of the entire plane.
If $f$ is $K$-quasiconformal, we say that $\Omega$ is a $K$-quasidisk.
Another possibility is to require that $f$ is additionally conformal in
the unit disk $\mathbb D$. It is essentially due to K\"uhnau~\cite{k88} that
$\Omega$ is a $K$-quasidisk if and only if $\Omega$ is the image of $\mathbb D$
under a $K^2$-quasiconformal mapping $f:\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ that is conformal
in $\mathbb D$, see~\cite{gh01}. The concept of a quasidisk is central in the theory of planar quasiconformal
mappings; see, for example, \cite{a06,aim09,g82,lv73}.
A substantial part of the theory of quasiconformal mappings has recently
been shown to extend in a natural form to the setting of mappings of
locally exponentially integrable
distortion~\cite{agrs10,aim09,d88,hek,hk03,iko02,oz05,z08}.
See Section 2 below for the definition of this class of mappings.
Thus one could say that $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a generalized quasidisk if it is
the image of the unit disk $\mathbb D$ under a homeomorphism $f\colon\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\to\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ of the entire plane with locally exponentially integrable distortion. However, requiring that $f$ is additionally conformal in the unit disk $\mathbb D$ leads to different classes of domains, see~\cite[Theorem 1.1]{gkt13}. In this paper, a Jordan domain $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is termed a generalized quasidisk if the additional conformality requirement is satisfied.
For a quasidisk $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$, there are several equivalent characterizations. One of the simplest is Ahlfors~\cite{a63} three point property. Recall that a Jordan domain $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ has the three point property if there exists a constant $C\geq 1$ such that for each pair of distinct points $P_1,P_2\in\bdary\Omega$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:three point property}
\min_{i=1,2}\diam(\gamma_i)\leq C|P_1-P_2|,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_1,\gamma_2$ are components of $\bdary\Omega\backslash\{P_1,P_2\}$. In order to understand the geometry of generalized quasidisks, one naturally has to weaken the three point property. A Jordan domain $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is said to have the three point property with a control function $\psi$ if there exists a constant $C\geq 1$ and an increasing function $\psi:[0,\infty)\to [0,\infty)$ such that for each pair of distinct points $P_1,P_2\in\bdary\Omega$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:three point property with control function}
\min_{i=1,2}\diam(\gamma_i)\leq \psi\Big(C|P_1-P_2|\Big).
\end{equation}
A closely related concept is the following $\psi$-local connectivity, which was introduced in~\cite{gkt13}. A domain $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is said to be $\psi$-locally connected if for each $x$ and all $r>0,$
\begin{itemize}
\item each pair of points in $B(x,r)\cap\Omega$ can be joined by an arc in
$B(x,\psi^{-1}(r))\cap\Omega$, and
\item each pair of points in $\Omega\backslash B(x,r)$ can be joined by an arc in
$\Omega\setminus B(x,\psi(r))$.
\end{itemize}
If we were to choose $\psi(t)=Ct,$ then this would reduce to the usual linear local
connectivity condition.
In Lemma~\ref{lemma:equivalence of three point property and LLC} below, we show that
that a Jordan domain $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ has the three point property with a control function $\psi$ if and only if $\Omega$ is $\psi^{-1}$-locally connected.
In~\cite[Theorem 1.2]{gkt13}, it was proved that if a Jordan domain $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is $\psi$-locally connected with $\psi(t)=\frac{Ct}{\log^s\log\frac{1}{t}}$ for some positive constant $C$ and some $s\in (0,\frac{1}{4})$, then $\Omega$ is a generalized quasidisk. However, the result is not sharp regarding well-studied examples, see~\cite{gkt13}. In fact, the previous studies in~\cite{gkt13,kt07,kt10,t07} suggest that the critical case should be $\psi(t)=\frac{Ct}{\log\frac{1}{t}}$. Our first main result is the following generalization of~\cite[Theorem 1.2]{gkt13}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:thma}
If a Jordan domain $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ has the three point property with the control function $\psi(t)=Ct\log^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{t}$ for some positive constant $C$, then $\Omega$ is a generalized quasidisk.
\end{theorem}
Equivalently, Theorem~\ref{thm:thma} provides a general sufficient condition for extendability of a conformal mapping $f:\mathbb{D}\to \Omega$ to a homeomorphism of locally exponentially integrable distortion. It was pointed out in~\cite{gkt13} that this is essentially equivalent to extending the corresponding conformal welding to the whole plane as a homeomorphism of locally exponentially integrable distortion, see also Section 4 below.
Our second main result asserts that if we relax the control function $\psi$ to be a root in Theorem~\ref{thm:thma}, then we end up with a homeomorphism of the whole plane with locally $p$-integrable distortion.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:thmb}
Let $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a Jordan domain that has the three point property with the control function $\psi(t)=t^{s}$, $0<s<1$.
Then any conformal mapping $f\colon \mathbb D\to\Omega$ can be extended to the entire plane as a homeomorphism of locally $p$-integrable distortion for all $p\in (0,\frac{s^2}{2(1-s^2)})$.
\end{theorem}
As pointed out in~\cite{gkt13}, (polynomial) interior cusps are more dangerous than (polynomial) exterior cusps in the locally exponentially integrable distortion case. Thus one expects that this is still the case for extensions with locally $p$-integrable distortion. Our next result confirms this expectation.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:thmc}
Let $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a LLC-1 Jordan domain.
Then any conformal mapping $f\colon \mathbb D\to\Omega$ can be extended to the entire plane as a homeomorphism of locally $p$-integrable distortion for some $p>0$.
\end{theorem}
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains the basic definitions and
Section 3 some auxiliary results. In Section 4, we study the relation of extending a Riemann mapping and the corresponding conformal welding. We prove our main results in Section 5.
In the final section, Section 6, we make some concluding remarks.
\section{Notation and Definitions}\label{sec:notdef}
We sometimes associate the plane $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ with the complex plane $\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}$ for convenience and denote
by $\hat{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$ the extended complex plane.
The closure of a set $U\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is denoted $\closure{U}$ and the boundary $\bdary{U}$.
The open disk of radius $r>0$ centered at $x\in\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is denoted by $B(x,r)$ and we simply write
$\mathbb D$ for the
unit disk.
The boundary of $B(x,r)$ will be denoted by $S(x,r)$ and the boundary of the unit disk $\mathbb D$
is written as $\partial \mathbb D.$
The symbol~$\Omega$ always refers to a domain, \mbox{i.e.}\xspace a connected and open subset of~$\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$.
We call a homeomorphism $f\colon\Omega\to f(\Omega)\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ a homeomorphism of finite
distortion if $f\in W_{\mathrm{loc}}^{1,1}(\Omega;\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:disteq}
\|Df(x)\|^2\leq K(x)J_f(x) \text{ a.e. in } \Omega,
\end{equation}
for some measurable function~$K(x)\geq1$ that is finite almost everywhere. Recall here that
$J_f\in L_{loc}^{1}(\Omega)$ for each homeomorphism $f\in W_{loc}^{1,1}(\Omega;\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2)$(cf.~\cite{aim09}).
In the distortion inequality~\eqref{eq:disteq}, $Df(x)$ is the formal differential of~$f$ at the
point~$x$ and $J_f(x):=\det Df(x)$ is the Jacobian. The norm of~$Df(x)$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\|Df(x)\|:=\max_{e\in\bdary{\mathbb D}} |Df(x)e|.
\end{equation*}
For a homeomorphism of finite distortion it is convenient to write $K_f$ for the optimal distortion
function. This is obtained by setting $K_f(x)=\|Df(x)\|^2/J_f(x)$ when $Df(x)$ exists and $J_f(x)>0$,
and $K_f(x)=1$ otherwise. The distortion of~$f$ is said to be locally $\lambda$-exponentially
integrable if $\exp(\lambda K_f(x))\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^1(\Omega)$, for some $\lambda>0$.
Note that if we assume $K_f(x)$ to be bounded, $K_f\le K,$
we recover the class of $K$-quasiconformal mappings,
see~\cite{aim09} for the theory of quasiconformal mappings.
Recall that a domain $\Omega$ is said to be linearly locally connected (LLC)
if there is a constant $C\geq 1$ so that
\begin{itemize}
\item (LLC-1) each pair of points in $B(x,r)\cap \Omega$ can be joined by an arc in
$B(x,Cr)\cap \Omega$, and
\item (LLC-2) each pair of points in $\Omega\backslash B(x,r)$ can be joined by an arc
in $\Omega\setminus B(x,C^{-1}r)$.
\end{itemize}
We need a weaker version of this condition, defined as follows.
We say that $\Omega$ is $(\varphi,\psi)$-locally connected ($(\varphi,\psi)$-LC) if
\begin{itemize}
\item ($\varphi$-LC-1) each pair of points in $B(x,r)\cap\Omega$ can be joined by an arc in
$B(x,\varphi(r))\cap\Omega$, and
\item ($\psi$-LC-2) each pair of points in $\Omega\backslash B(x,r)$ can be joined by an arc in
$\Omega\setminus B(x,\psi(r))$,
\end{itemize}
where $\varphi, \psi:[0, \infty)\to[0, \infty)$ are smooth increasing functions such that
$\varphi(0)=\psi(0)=0$, $\varphi(r)\geq r$ and $\psi(r)\leq r$ for all $r>0$.
For technical reasons, we assume that the function $t\mapsto \frac t {\varphi^{-1}(t)^2}$ is decreasing
and that there exist constants $C_1,C_2$ so that $C_1\varphi(t)\le \varphi(2t)\le C_2\varphi(t)$
and $C_1\psi(t)\le \psi(2t)\le C_2\psi(t)$ for all $t>0.$
If
$\varphi^{-1}=\psi$ above, as in the introduction, $\Omega$ will simply be called $\psi$-LC.
One could relax joinability by an arc above to joinability by a continuum, but this leads to
the same concept; see~\cite[Theorem 3-17]{hy88}. Notice that if $\Omega$ is simply connected and
bounded, then $\varphi$-LC-1 guarantees that $\Omega$ is a Jordan domain.
Finally we define the central tool for us -- the modulus of a path family.
A Borel function $\rho\colon\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\to[0,\infty\mathclose]$ is said to be
admissible for a path family $\Gamma$ if
$\int_\gamma\rho\,ds\geq1$ for each locally rectifiable $\gamma\in\Gamma$.
The modulus of the path family $\Gamma$ is then
$$
\modulus(\Gamma):=
\inf\Big\{\int_{\Omega}\rho^2(x)\,dx : \rho
\text{ is admissible for } \Gamma\}.
$$
For subsets $E$ and $F$ of $\closure{\Omega}$ we write $\Gamma(E,F,\Omega)$ for
the path family consisting of all locally rectifiable paths joining~$E$ to~$F$
in~$\Omega$ and abbreviate $\modulus(\Gamma(E,F,\Omega))$ to $\modulus(E,F,
\Omega).$
In what follows, $\gamma(x,y)$ refers to a curve or an arc from $x$ to $y$.
When we write $f(x)\lesssim g(x)$, we mean that $f(x)\leq Cg(x)$ is
satisfied for all $x$ with some fixed constant $C\geq 1$. Similarly, the
expression $f(x)\gtrsim g(x)$ means that $f(x)\geq C^{-1}g(x)$ is satisfied
for all $x$ with some fixed constant $C\geq 1$. We write $f(x)\approx g(x)$
whenever $f(x)\lesssim g(x)$ and $f(x)\gtrsim g(x)$.
\section{Auxiliary results}
We begin this section by showing the equivalence of the generalized three point property and generalized local connectivity mentioned in the introduction.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:equivalence of three point property and LLC}
Let $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a Jordan domain. Then $\Omega$ has the three point property with the control function $\psi$ if and only if $\Omega$ is $\psi^{-1}$-locally connected.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First, suppose that $\Omega$ has the three point property with the control function $\psi$. We want to show that $\Omega$ is $\psi$-LC-1. To this end, let $x,y\in B(z,r)\cap\Omega$. We may assume that there exist $x',y'\in B(z,r)\cap \bdary\Omega$ such that
\begin{equation*}
d(x,x')=d(x,\bdary\Omega), d(y,y')=d(y,\bdary\Omega)
\end{equation*}
and that $x$ can be connected to $x'$ by an arc $\beta_1$ in $\closure{\Omega}\cap B(z,r)$ and $y$ can be connected to $y'$ by an arc $\beta_2$ in $\closure{\Omega}\cap B(z,r)$.
Let $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ be the components of $\bdary\Omega\backslash \{x',y'\}$. We may assume that $\alpha_1\leq \alpha_2$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\diam(\alpha_1)\leq \psi(|x'-y'|)\leq \psi(2r).
\end{equation*}
Hence, $\gamma=\beta_1\cup\alpha_1\cup\beta_2$ is a curve that connects $x$ and $y$ in $\closure{\Omega}$ with diameter less than $2\psi(2r)$. Then the Jordan assumption for $\Omega$ implies that we may connect $x$ to $y$ in $\Omega$ by a curve with diameter no more than $3\psi(2r)$. This together with Lemma~\ref{lemma:consequence of technical assumption} below implies that $\Omega$ is $\psi$-LC-1. Similarly, one can prove that $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\backslash \closure{\Omega}$ is $\psi$-LC-1. Then the duality result in~\cite{gk12} implies that $\Omega$ is $\psi$-LC.
Next, we assume that $\Omega$ is $\psi^{-1}$-LC. Then, again by the duality result in~\cite{gk12}, we know that both $\Omega$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\backslash\closure{\Omega}$ are $\psi$-LC-1. Let $x,y\in \bdary\Omega$ and let $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$ be the components of $\bdary\Omega\backslash \{x,y\}$. We may assume that $\diam(\alpha_1)\leq \diam(\alpha_2)$.
Let $z=\frac{x+y}{2}$ and $r=|x-y|$. Then $x,y\in B(z,r)$. We may choose two points $x'$ and $y'$ in $\Omega\cap B(z,r)$ such that $x$ can be connected to $x'$ by an arc $\beta_1$ in $\closure{\Omega}\cap B(z,r)$ and $y$ can be connected to $y'$ by an arc $\beta_2$ in $\closure{\Omega}\cap B(z,r)$. Then we may connect $x'$ to $y'$ by an arc $\gamma$ in $\Omega\cap B(z,2\psi(r))$. Then the curve $\eta=\beta_1\cup\gamma\cup\beta_2$ forms a crosscut of $\Omega$ with diameter no more than $4\psi(r)$. Similarly, we may form a crosscut $\eta'$ of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\backslash\closure{\Omega}$ with diameter no more than $4\psi(r)$. Thus $\eta\cup\eta'$ is a Jordan curve which contains the Jordan arc $\alpha_1$. Therefore, the diameter of $\alpha_1$ is no more than $8\psi(r)$. This together with Lemma~\ref{lemma:consequence of technical assumption} below implies that $\Omega$ has the three point property with the control function $\psi$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}[Lemma 3.5, \cite{gk12}]\label{lemma:consequence of technical assumption}
Let $C_1\geq 1$, $C_2\geq 1$, and $C_3\geq 1$ be given. There exists a constant $C$, depending only on $C_0$, $C_1$, $C_2$ and $C_3$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:consequence of technical assumption}
C_1\varphi(C_2t)+C_3t\leq \varphi(Ct)
\end{equation}
for all $t>0$. Above, $C_0$ is the doubling constant of $\varphi^{-1}$.
\end{lemma}
The following two modulus estimates are standard,
see e.g. \cite{v88}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:modululower}
Let $E, F$ be disjoint nondegenerate continua in $B(x,R).$
Then
\begin{equation}
C_0^{-1}\frac{1}{\log(1+t)}\geq \modulus(E,F,B(x,R))\geq C_0\frac{1}{\log(1+t)},
\end{equation}
where $t=\frac{\dist(E,F)}{\min\{\diam E, \diam F\}}$ and $C_0$ is an absolute constant.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:modulusupper}
Let $\Gamma$ be a curve family such that for all $t\in (r,R)$, the circle $|z-z_1|=t$ contains a curve $\gamma\in \Gamma$. Then
\begin{equation}
\modulus(\Gamma)\geq \frac{1}{2\pi}\log\frac{R}{r}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Next, we recall the following result on the modulus of continuity of a
quasiconformal mapping.
The proof can be found in~\cite{kot01}; also see \cite{g13}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:modulus of continuity}
Suppose $g\colon \Omega\to \mathbb D$ is a $K$-quasiconformal mapping from a simply connected domain
$\Omega$ onto
the unit disk. Then there exists a positive constant $C$, (depending on $f$),
such that for any $\omega,\xi\in \Omega$,
\begin{equation}
|g(\omega)-g(\xi)|\leq Cd_{I}(\omega,\xi)^{\frac{1}{2K}},
\end{equation}
where $d_{I}(\omega,\xi)$ is defined as $\inf_{\gamma(\omega,\xi)\subset \Omega}\diam(\gamma(\omega,\xi))$.
In particular, if $\Omega$ above is $\varphi$-LC-1, then
\begin{equation}
|g(\omega)-g(\xi)|\leq C\varphi(|\omega-\xi|)^{\frac{1}{2K}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
Finally, we need the following key estimate.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:key modulus estimate}
Let $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a Jordan domain that has the three point property with the control function $\psi$. Let $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ be two disjoint arcs in $\bdary\Omega$ and let $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ be the family of curves which join $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ in $\Omega$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\backslash\closure{\Omega}$, respectively. If $\modulus(\Gamma)\leq C$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:diam bounds}
\min\{\diam(\alpha_1),\diam(\alpha_2)\}\leq \psi\circ\psi(d(\alpha_1,\alpha_2))
\end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:modulus bounds}
\modulus(\Gamma')\leq C_0^{-1}\log^{-1}\Big(1+\frac{\psi^{-1}\circ\psi^{-1}(\min\{\diam(\alpha_1),\diam(\alpha_2)\})}{\min\{\diam(\alpha_1),\diam(\alpha_2)\}} \Big).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The idea of the proof is similar to that of the proof of Theorem 5.1 in~\cite{gkt13}. Let $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ be two disjoint arcs in $\bdary\Omega$. Choose $z_1\in \alpha_1$, $z_2\in\alpha_2$ so that
\begin{equation*}
|z_1-z_2|=d(\alpha_1,\alpha_2):=d.
\end{equation*}
Without loss of generality, we may assume that
\begin{equation*}
r:=\diam(\alpha_1)\leq \diam(\alpha_2).
\end{equation*}
Our aim is to show that $r\leq 2\psi\circ\psi(d)$. Thus we may clearly assume that $r>2\psi\circ\psi(d)$. Note that our assumption on $\psi$ implies that $r>\psi(d)$. Since $\Omega$ has the three point property with the control function $\psi$,
\begin{equation*}
\min_{i=1,2}\diam(\gamma_i)\leq \psi(d),
\end{equation*}
where $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$ are the components of $\bdary\Omega\backslash \{z_1,z_2\}$. Again, we may assume that
\begin{equation*}
\diam(\gamma_1)\leq \psi(d).
\end{equation*}
Let $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$ be the components of $\bdary\Omega\backslash (\alpha_1\cup\alpha_2)$, labeled so that $\beta_i\subset\gamma_i$. Then $\beta_1\subset\gamma_1\subset\closure{B}(z_1,\psi(d))$. Choose $z_0\in\beta_2$ and let $\delta_1$, $\delta_2$ denote the components of $\bdary\Omega\backslash \{z_0,z_1\}$ labeled so that $\alpha_2\subset\delta_2$. Then the fact $\Omega$ has the three point property with the control function $\psi$ implies that
\begin{equation*}
\min_{i=1,2}\diam(\delta_i)\leq \psi(|z_1-z_0|).
\end{equation*}
Choose $\omega_1,\omega_2\in\alpha_1$ so that
\begin{equation*}
r=|\omega_1-\omega_2|=\diam(\alpha_1).
\end{equation*}
Then $\omega_i\in \gamma_1\cup\delta_1$, and the fact that $\diam(\gamma_1)\leq \psi(d)<r$ implies that not both of these points can lie in $\gamma_1$. If $\omega_1\in \gamma_1$, then
\begin{align*}
\diam(\delta_1)&\geq |\omega_2-z_1|\geq |\omega_1-\omega_2|-|z_1-\omega_1|\\
&\geq r-\diam(\gamma_1)\geq r-\psi(d)\geq \frac{r}{2}.
\end{align*}
If both lie in $\delta_1$, then
\begin{equation*}
\diam(\delta_1)\geq |\omega_1-\omega_2|=r.
\end{equation*}
Thus
\begin{equation*}
\frac{r}{2}\leq \min_{i=1,2}\diam(\delta_i)\leq \psi(|z_1-z_0|).
\end{equation*}
It follows that
\begin{equation*}
\beta_2\cap B(z_1,\psi^{-1}(\frac{r}{2}))=\emptyset.
\end{equation*}
In particular, the circle $|z-z_1|=t$ separates $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ for $t\in (\psi(d),\psi^{-1}(\frac{r}{2}))$ and hence must contain an arc $\gamma$ joining $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ in $\Omega$. Thus Lemma~\ref{lemma:modulusupper} implies that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{2\pi}\log\frac{\psi^{-1}(r/2)}{\psi(d)}\leq \modulus(\Gamma)\leq C
\end{equation*}
from which the claim follows. The desired inequality~\eqref{eq:modulus bounds} follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma:modululower} directly.
\end{proof}
\section{Extension of a conformal welding}
Before stating the main result of this section, let us describe the standard way of extending a conformal map
$f\colon \mathbb D\to\Omega,$ where $\Omega$ is a Jordan domain, to a mapping
of the entire plane.
First of all,
$f$ can be extended to a homeomorphism between $\closure{\mathbb D}$ and
$\closure{\Omega}$.
For simplicity, we denote this extended homeomorphism also by $f$.
It follows from the Riemann Mapping Theorem that there exists a
conformal mapping $g\colon \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus{\closure{\mathbb D}}\to\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus{\closure{\Omega}}$
such that the complement of the closed unit disk gets mapped to the complement
of $\overline \Omega$.
In this correspondence the boundary curve
$\Gamma=\bdary{\Omega}$ is mapped homeomorphically onto the boundary circle
$\partial \mathbb D$ and hence the composed mapping $G=g^{-1}\circ f$ is a
well-defined circle
homeomorphism, called conformal welding.
Suppose we are able to extend $G$ to the exterior of the
unit disk, with the extension
still denoted by $G$. Then the mapping $G'=g\circ G$ will be well-defined
outside the unit disk and
it coincides with $f$ on the boundary circle $\partial \mathbb D$.
Finally, if we define
\begin{equation*}
F(x)=
\begin{cases}
G'(x) & \text{if } |x| \geq 1 \\
f(x) & \text{if } |x| \leq 1 ,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
then we obtain an extension of $f$ to the entire plane.
In the case of a quasidisk, that is when $\Omega$ is linearly locally
connected (LLC), the extension $G$ can be chosen to be quasiconformal
and hence the obtained map $F$ is also quasiconformal.
On the other hand, the extendability
of a conformal mapping $f:\mathbb D\to \Omega$ to a homeomorphism $\hat f:\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2
\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ of locally integrable distortion is essentially equivalent to being
able to extend the conformal welding $G'$ above to this class. Indeed,
if $\hat f$ extends $f$, then $g^{-1}\circ \hat f$ extends $G$ to the exterior
of $\mathbb D$ and has the same distortion as $\hat f.$ Reflecting (twice)
with respect to the unit circle one then further obtains an extension
to $\mathbb D\setminus \{0\}.$ Hence, one obtains an extension $\hat G'$ of
$G'$ to $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus \{0\}$ with distortion that has the same local
integrability degree as the distortion of $\hat f.$ If the latter distortion
is sufficiently nice in a neighborhood of infinity (e.g. bounded), then this
holds in all of $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ as well.
Given a sense-preserving homeomorphism $f\colon \partial \mathbb D\to \partial \mathbb D$
and $0< t< \frac{\pi}{2}$, set
\begin{equation}
\delta_f(\theta,t)=\max \Big\{\frac{|f(e^{i(\theta+t)})-f(e^{i\theta})|}{|f(e^{i\theta})-f(e^{i(\theta-t)})|}, \frac{|f(e^{i(\theta-t)})-f(e^{i\theta})|}{|f(e^{i\theta})-f(e^{i(\theta+t)})|}\Big\}.
\end{equation}
Clearly $\delta_f$ is continuous in both variables, $\delta_f\geq 1$ and $\delta_f(\theta+2\pi,t)=\delta_f(\theta,t)$. The scalewise distortion of $f$ is defined as $\rho_f(t)=\sup_{\theta}\delta_f(\theta,t)$.
In the following, we discuss a standard way of extending a conformal welding $G:\bdary\mathbb{D}:\to\bdary\mathbb{D}$ to a global homeomorphism of the whole plane with controlled distortion. More precisely, we want to present the following result, which is implicitly contained in~\cite[Section 2 and Section 3]{z08}.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:results for conformal welding}
Given a conformal welding $G:\bdary\mathbb{D}:\to\bdary\mathbb{D}$, there exists a homeomorphism $\hat{G}:\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ with the following property:
\begin{itemize}
\item For some $\delta\in (0,\frac{1}{2})$, $\hat{G}(z)=z$ if $|z|<\delta$ or $|z|>\frac{1}{\delta}$.
\item The distortion of $\hat{G}$ is bounded above by the scalewise distortion of $G$, \mbox{i.e.}\xspace
\begin{equation}\label{eq:estimate of scalewise distortion}
K_{\hat{G}}(z)\leq C\rho_{G}(\log |z|)=C\sup_{\theta\in [0,2\pi]}\delta_{G}(\theta,\log |z|),
\end{equation}
if $\delta\leq |z|\leq \frac{1}{\delta}$ for some absolute constant $C>0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
Let us describe below the argument leading to Proposition~\ref{prop:results for conformal welding}.
Given a conformal welding $G:\bdary\mathbb{D}\to\bdary\mathbb{D}$, we first want to extend $G$ to a homeomorphism $\tilde{G}:\closure{\mathbb{D}}\to\closure{\mathbb{D}}$. We may represent $G$ in the form
\begin{equation*}
G(e^{2\pi ix})=e^{2\pi ih(x)},
\end{equation*}
where $h:\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\to \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}$ is a homeomorphism of the real line which commutes with the unit translation $x\mapsto x+1$. For simplicity, we may assume that $G(1)=1$ and hence $h(0)=0$.
Next, we extend our mapping $h$ to a homeomorphism $H:\mathbb{H}\to \mathbb{H}$. This can be done via the well-known Beurling-Ahlfors extension. To be more precise, for $0<y<1$, set
\begin{equation}\label{eq:B-A extension}
H(x+iy)=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^1 (h(x+ty)+h(x-ty))dt+i\int_0^1 (h(x+ty)-h(x-ty))dt.
\end{equation}
Then $H=h$ on the real axis and $H$ is a $C^1$-smooth homeomorphism of $\mathbb{H}$. Since $h(x+1)=h(x)+1$, for $y=1$
\begin{equation*}
H(x+i)=x+i+C_0,
\end{equation*}
where $C_0=\int_0^1 h(t)dt-\frac{1}{2}\in [-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]$. For $1\leq y\leq 2$ we extend $H$ linearly by setting
\begin{equation*}
H(z)=z+(2-y)C_0, \quad z=x+iy.
\end{equation*}
Finally, we set $H(z)=z$ if $y=Im(z)\geq 2$. It is easy to check that $H(z+k)=H(z)+k$ for $k\in \mathbb{Z}$.
We set
\begin{equation}
\tilde{G}=\textbf{e}\circ H\circ L,
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{e}:z\mapsto e^{2\pi iz}$ is the lifting mapping and $L:z\mapsto \frac{\log z}{2\pi i}$ is the logarithmic mapping. We claim that $\tilde{G}:\mathbb{D}\backslash \{0\}\to \mathbb{D}\backslash \{0\}$ is a well-defined homeomorphism. To see thisu], let $z=re^{0i}=re^{2\pi i}$ be as in Figure~\ref{fig:homeomorphism}. We need to show that $L$ is well-defined on the segment $P:=\{z:r\leq |z|\leq 1\}$. Note that in Figure~\ref{fig:homeomorphism}, the vertical line $[0,L(z)]$ corresponds to the image of $P$ with argument $0$ and the vertical line $[1,L(z)+1]$ corresponds to the image of $P$ with argument $2\pi$ under the mapping $L$. Note also that $L(re^{0i})=\frac{\log r}{2\pi i}$ and $L(re^{2\pi i})=\frac{\log r+2\pi i}{2\pi i}$. Since $H$ satisfies that $H(z+1)=H(z)+1$ and $\textbf{e}$ is $1$-periodic, the mapping $\tilde{G}$ is a homeomorphism in the annulus $\mathbb{D}\backslash B(0,r)$.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{Fig1.eps}\\
\caption{The homeomorphism $\tilde{G}$}\label{fig:homeomorphism}
\end{figure}
Moreover, $\tilde{G}=G$ on $\bdary\mathbb{D}$ and $\tilde{G}(z)=z$ for $0<|z|\leq \delta:= e^{-4\pi}$. Thus $\tilde{G}$ is well-defined homeomorphism of the unit disk if we additionally set $\tilde{G}(0)=0$.
Finally, we may define our mapping $\hat{G}:\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\to\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ by setting
\begin{equation*}
\hat{G}(z)=
\begin{cases}
\tilde{G}(z) & \text{if } |z| \geq 1 \\
R\circ\tilde{G}\circ R(z) & \text{if } |z| \leq 1 ,
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
where $R(z)=\frac{1}{\bar{z}}$ is the inversion with respect to the unit circle. To complete the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:results for conformal welding}, we need to estimate the distortion of $\hat{G}$.
It is clear that we only need to estimate the distortion of $\tilde{G}$. Since $\textbf{e}$ and $L$ are conformal mappings, it follows that
\begin{align*}
K_{\tilde{G}}(z)=K_H(\omega),\quad z=e^{2\pi i\omega},\ \omega\in \mathbb{H}.
\end{align*}
So we reduce all distortion estimates for $\tilde{G}$ to the corresponding ones for $H$. Since $H$ is conformal for $y>2$ and linear for $y\in [1,2]$, it suffices to estimate $K_H$ in the strip $S=\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}\times [0,1]$.
The desired estimate
\begin{equation*}
K_H(x+iy)\leq C_0\rho_h(y),\quad x+iy\in S
\end{equation*}
follows from the calculation in~\cite{cch96}, where
\begin{align*}
\rho_h(t)&=\sup_{\theta\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\delta_h(\theta,t)\\
&:=\sup_{\theta\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\max \Big\{\frac{|h(\theta+t)-h(\theta)|}{|h(\theta)-h(\theta-t)|},\frac{|h(\theta-t)-h(\theta)|}{|h(\theta)-h(\theta+t)|}\Big\}.
\end{align*}
Note that if $t\in [0,1]$, then
\begin{equation*}
\delta_{G}(\theta,t)\approx \delta_h(\theta,t)
\end{equation*}
and hence
\begin{equation*}
\rho_G(t)\approx\rho_h(t).
\end{equation*}
The proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:results for conformal welding} is complete.
As an application of Proposition~\ref{prop:results for conformal welding}, we easily obtain the following corollary.
Let $\delta$ be as in Proposition~\ref{prop:results for conformal welding} and let $\varepsilon<\delta$ is sufficiently small such that $$\log |z|\leq 2|r-1|$$ for $z=re^{i\theta}\in A:=\closure{B(0,1+\varepsilon)}\backslash B(0,1-\varepsilon)$. Proposition~\ref{prop:results for conformal welding} implies that
\begin{align*}
K_{\hat{G}}(z)\leq C\rho_G(\log |z|)\leq C\rho_G(2|r-1|)
\end{align*}
for $z\in A$. If $\rho_G(t)\leq C't^{-\alpha}$ as $t\to 0$, then
\begin{align*}
K_{\hat{G}}(z)\leq C |r-1|^{-\alpha},
\end{align*}
for $z\in A$. Integrating in polar coordinates, we immediately obtain the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{coro:sufficient for extending}
Let $G:\bdary\mathbb{D}:\to\bdary\mathbb{D}$ be a conformal welding. If
\begin{equation*}
\rho_G(t)=O(\log\frac{1}{t}) \quad \text{as}\quad t\to 0,
\end{equation*}
then $G$ extends to a homeomorphism of the entire plane of locally exponentially integrable distortion. Moreover, if
\begin{equation*}
\rho_G(t)=O(t^{-\alpha}) \quad \text{as}\quad t\to 0
\end{equation*}
for some $\alpha>0$,
then $G$ extends to a homeomorphism of the entire plane of locally $p$-integrable distortion with any $p\in (0,\frac{1}{\alpha})$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Main proofs}
Theorem~\ref{thm:thma} follows from the following more general result.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm: general thmc}
If $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a Jordan domain that has the three point property with a control function $\psi$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sufficient condition}
\limsup_{r\to 0}\frac{r}{\psi^{-1}\circ\psi^{-1}(r)\log\frac{1}{r}}\leq C'\\
\end{equation}
for some constant $C'$, then $\Omega$ is a generalized quasidisk.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm: general thmc}]
The idea is similar to that used in~\cite[Theorem 5.1]{gkt13}. Since $\Omega$ is a Jordan domain, $f$ extends to a homeomorphism between $\mathbb D$
and $\closure{\Omega}$ and we denote also this extension by $f$.
Let $e^{i(\theta-t)},\ e^{i\theta}$ and $e^{i(\theta+t)}$ be three points on $S$.
Since $f$ is a sense-preserving homeomorphism, $f(e^{i(\theta-t)}),\ f(e^{i\theta})$ and
$f(e^{i(\theta+t)})$ will be on the boundary of $\Omega$ in order.
Let $g\colon \ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus {\closure {\mathbb D}}\to\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus{\closure{\Omega}}$
be a conformal mapping from the Riemann Mapping Theorem. Then $g$ extends to a homemorphism
between $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus{\mathbb D}$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\setminus{\Omega}$.
As before, we still denote this extension by $g$. Based on the discussion in the previous section, we only need to estimate the scale-wise distortion of the conformal welding $G:=g^{-1}\circ f$.
Let $P=e^{i(\theta+\pi)}$ be the anti-polar point of $e^{i\theta}$ on $\bdary\mathbb{D}$ and let $\gamma_f(P,\theta-t)$ denote the arc from $f(P)$ to $f(e^{i(\theta-t)})$ on $\bdary\Omega$ . There exists a $t_0$ small enough such that $\diam(\gamma_f(-1,\theta-t))\geq \diam(\gamma_f(\theta,\theta+t))$ when $t\in [0,t_0)$. Let $\Gamma_1$ be the family of curves in $\mathbb{D}$ joining $\gamma(P,e^{i(\theta-t)})$ and $\gamma(e^{i\theta},e^{i(\theta+t)})$. Then Lemma~\ref{lemma:modululower} implies that
\begin{equation}
\modulus(\Gamma_1)\leq C_1
\end{equation}
for some absolute constant $C_1>0$. The conformal invariance of modulus gives us that
\begin{equation}
\modulus(\Gamma):=\modulus(f(\Gamma_1))\leq C_2.
\end{equation}
Thus, we may use Lemma~\ref{lemma:key modulus estimate} for $\alpha_1=\gamma_f(\theta,\theta+t)$ and $\alpha_2=\gamma_f(P,\theta-t)$ and conclude that
\begin{equation*}
\diam(\gamma_f(\theta,\theta+t))\leq \psi\circ\psi(d),
\end{equation*}
where $d=d(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$ is the distance between these two arcs. Moreover,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:modulus estimate for outer family}
\modulus(\Gamma')\leq C\log^{-1}\Big(1+\frac{\psi^{-1}\circ\psi^{-1}(\diam(\alpha_1))}{\diam(\alpha_1)} \Big),
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma'$ is the family of curves joining $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ in $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\backslash\closure{\Omega}$. Again by conformal invariance of modulus, we obtain that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:modulus from conformal invar}
\log^{-1}(1+\frac{1}{\delta_{G}(\theta,t)})\leq C_0^{-1}\modulus(\Gamma'),
\end{equation}
where $C_0$ is the constant from Lemma~\ref{lemma:modululower}. Note that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{\log(1+t)}\approx \frac{1}{t}\quad\text{as}\quad t\to 0.
\end{equation*}
Combining~\eqref{eq:modulus estimate for outer family} with~\eqref{eq:modulus from conformal invar} gives us the estimate
\begin{equation*}
\delta_{G}(\theta,t)\leq \frac{C\diam(\alpha_1)}{\psi^{-1}\circ\psi^{-1}(\diam(\alpha_1))} .
\end{equation*}
Since $\frac{t}{\psi^{-1}\circ\psi^{-1}(t)}$ is non-increasing, Lemma~\ref{lemma:modulus of continuity} implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:important estimate for scalewise distortion}
\delta_{G}(\theta,t)\leq \frac{Ct^2}{\psi^{-1}\circ\psi^{-1}(t^2)} .
\end{equation}
Theorem~\ref{thm: general thmc} follows immediately from~\eqref{eq:sufficient condition},~\eqref{eq:important estimate for scalewise distortion} and Corollary~\ref{coro:sufficient for extending}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:thmb}]
This is basically contained in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm: general thmc}. In this case, the desired bound~\eqref{eq:important estimate for scalewise distortion} reads as follows:
\begin{equation*}
\delta_{G}(\theta,t)\leq Ct^{2(1-\frac{1}{s^2})}.
\end{equation*}
The claim follows directly from Corollary~\ref{coro:sufficient for extending} with $\alpha=2(\frac{1}{s^2}-1)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:thmc}]
If $\Omega$ is LLC-1, then Lemma~\ref{lemma:modulus of continuity} implies that $f^{-1}$ is uniformly H\"older continuous. On the other hand, the duality result implies that $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\backslash\closure{\Omega}$ is LLC-2, which is further equivalent to $\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\backslash\closure{\Omega}$ being John by the results in~\cite{nv91}. Then by the results in~\cite{kot01}, $g$ is also H\"older continuous. Hence $G^{-1}$ is uniformly H\"older continuous with some exponent $\alpha$. Therefore, for $t$ sufficiently small, we have
\begin{align*}
\delta_G(\theta,t)&\leq \max\Big\{\frac{|G(e^{i(\theta+t)})-G(e^{i\theta})|}{|G(e^{i\theta})-G(e^{i(\theta-t)})|}, \frac{|G(e^{i\theta})-G(e^{i(\theta-t)})|}{|G(e^{i(\theta+t)})-G(e^{i\theta})|}\Big\}\\
&\lesssim t^{-1/\alpha}.
\end{align*}
The claim follows from Corollary~\ref{coro:sufficient for extending}.
\end{proof}
\section{Concluding remarks}
\subsection{Definition of generalized quasidisks}
This was previously discussed briefly in the introduction. Recall that $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a generalized quasidisk if it is
the image of the unit disk $\mathbb D$ under a homeomorphism $f\colon\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2\to\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^2$ of the entire plane with locally exponentially integrable distortion and $f$ is conformal in the unit disk $\mathbb{D}$. However, this is not natural from the technical point of view since our extended mapping $\hat{f}$ is the identity outside a compact disk.
On the other hand, from the point view of conformal welding, requiring that $f$ is identity at infinity is reasonable since it makes the two extension problems equivalent as discussed in Section 4.
From the point view of finding a geometric characterization of generalized quasidisks, this additional requirement is also natural. More precisely, the geometry of a generalized quasidisk $\Omega\subset\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}^n$ should be determined by the geometry of its boundary (at least this is the case if $\Omega$ is a quasidisk). Intuitively the geometry of $\bdary\Omega$ should have nothing to do with the behavior of the global homeomorphism $f$ at infinity.
These observations suggest that it is better to require the global homeomorphism $f$ to be identity at $\infty$ in the definition of a generalized quasidisk.
\subsection{Inward pointing and outward pointing cusps}
As we already observed, (polynomial) interior cusps are more dangerous than (polynomial) exterior cusps for our extension problems.
This is not a big surprise from the technical point of view since our aim is to estimate the scalewise distortion of our conformal welding $G$. It is fairly easy to observe that this is closely related to the modulus of continuity of $G^{-1}$. On the other hand, combining the duality results in~\cite{gk12} with the global H\"older continuity estimates of conformal mappings in~\cite{g13,kot01}, one can immediately see how the role of $\Omega$ being $\varphi$-LC-1 or $\psi$-LC-2 is related the modulus of continuity of $G$ and $G^{-1}$. In fact, this is exactly the way we proved~\cite[Theorem 4.4]{gkt13}.
\subsection{Open problems}
To end the article, we put forward some open problems, which are plausible to be true.
\begin{problem}
In Theorem~\ref{thm:thma}, can we further relax the control function $\psi$ to be of the form $\psi(t)=Ct\log\frac{1}{t}$ ? By the result in~\cite{gkt13}, we know that the result fails for $\psi(t)=Ct\log^{1+\delta}\frac{1}{t}$ for any $\delta>0$.
\end{problem}
\begin{problem}
In Theorem~\ref{thm:thmc}, can we conclude that the extension has better integrability for the distortion, say locally exponentially integrable distortion, if we additionally assume that $\Omega$ is $\psi$-LC-2 for $\psi(t)=t^{s}$ with $s>1$?
\end{problem}
\begin{problem}
If we require reasonable good moduli of continuity for both $f$, $g$ and their inverses, say both $f$ and $g$ are bi-H\"older continuous up to boundary, can we conclude that $\Omega$ is a generalized quasidisk ?
\end{problem}
\textbf{Acknowledgements}
I wish to thank my supervisor Academy Professor Pekka Koskela for many useful suggestions.
|
\section{Introduction}
After the discovery of the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) by the ATLAS \cite{Aad:2012tfa} and CMS
\cite{Chatrchyan:2012ufa} experiments, a precise determination of
its properties is of extreme importance. The determination of the
Higgs boson couplings to fermions and gauge bosons as well as the
reconstruction of the Higgs potential are among the measurements that
are carried out. The $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state can play
an important role in Higgs boson studies at the LHC. For
instance, the
reconstruction of the Higgs potential requires the measurement of the
trilinear Higgs couplings that can be performed in the $pp \to HH \to
b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ channel
\cite{Djouadi:1999rca,Dolan:2012rv,Baglio:2012np}. Moreover the $pp
\to b\bar{b}H \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ production mode where the Higgs
boson is radiated off a bottom quark could be used to measure the bottom
quark Yukawa coupling \cite{Dittmaier:2003ej,Dawson:2003kb}. This
final state is also of great significance in probing New Physics
scenarios, where for example a search for a model-independent s-channel TeV
resonance, that decays into a pair of Standard Model (SM) resonances, {\it
e.g.} $Z$ or $H$, which subsequently decay into four bottom
quarks \cite{Gouzevitch:2013qca}, could be performed.
Accurate knowledge of the SM background would play a crucial
role in devising strategies to look for physics beyond the SM.
In QCD, the $pp \to b\bar{b} b\bar{b}$ process can be described either in
the four flavour scheme (4FS) or in the five flavour scheme (5FS). In
the former case bottom quarks appear only in the final state and are
massive. They do not enter in the computation of the running of
$\alpha_s$ and the evolution of the PDFs. Finite $m_b$ effects enter
via power corrections of the type $\left[(m_b^2/Q^2)\right]^n$ and
logarithms of the type $\left[\log^{n}(m_b^2/Q^2)\right]$ where $Q$ stands for
the hard scale of the process. At the LHC, typically $(m_b/Q) \ll 1$
and power corrections are suppressed, while logarithms, both of
initial and final state nature, could be large. However, for inclusive
observables such as b-jets, logarithms can only originate from nearly
collinear initial-state $g\to b\bar{b}$ splitting. These large
logarithms could in principle spoil the convergence of fixed order
calculations and a resummation could be required. But
up to NLO accuracy
those potentially large logarithms, $\log(m_b/Q)$, are replaced by
$\log(p^{\rm min}_{\rm T, b}/Q)$ with $m_b \ll p^{\rm min}_{\rm T,b}
\lesssim Q$ and are less significant numerically. On the other hand,
in the 5FS towers of $\log^n(m_b^2/Q^2)$ can be explicitly resummed
into the bottom quark PDFs. For consistency with the factorization theorem, one
should set $m_b$ to zero in the calculation of the matrix
element. Therefore the number of active flavors is $N_F$ = 5 and
bottom quarks enter in the computation of the running of $\alpha_s$
and evolution of the PDFs. To all orders in perturbation theory those
two schemes are identical in describing logarithmic effects.
However, the way of ordering in the perturbative expansion is
different and at any finite order the results might be different, see
{\it e.g} \cite{Harlander:2011aa,Maltoni:2012pa,Frederix:2012dh}.
NLO calculations for the $pp \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b} +X$ production in
the 5FS with massless bottom quarks have been first performed by the
\textsc{Golem} collaboration \cite{Binoth:2009rv,Greiner:2011mp}. We
have calculated this process using both schemes, 4FS and 5FS, which
gave us an opportunity to study the impact of dominant mass
contributions \cite{Bevilacqua:2013taa}. We have also used this
process as a testing ground to cross-check our implementation of the newly
implemented Nagy-Soper subtraction scheme for both massive and
massless cases \cite{Bevilacqua:2013iha}.
In the following we briefly summarize the calculation of the NLO
corrections to the $pp \to b\bar{b}b\bar{b} +X$ process at the LHC
in the 4FS and the 5FS. In addition, a comparison with results
calculated using the traditional Catani-Seymour subtraction scheme will
also be presented.
\section{HELAC-NLO Framework}
Calculations are performed with the help of \textsc{Helac-NLO}
\cite{Bevilacqua:2011xh}, which is based on the tree level
\textsc{Helac-Phegas} framework
\cite{Kanaki:2000ey,Papadopoulos:2000tt,Cafarella:2007pc}.
The package consists of \textsc{Helac-1loop} \cite{vanHameren:2009dr}
for the computation of the one loop amplitudes, \textsc{CutTools}
\cite{Ossola:2007ax}, which implements the OPP reduction method
to decompose loop integrals into scalar integrals
\cite{Ossola:2006us,Ossola:2008xq,Mastrolia:2008jb,Draggiotis:2009yb},
and \textsc{OneLoop}
\cite{vanHameren:2010cp} for the evaluation of the scalar
integrals. The singularities for soft and collinear parton emission
are treated using two subtraction schemes as implemented in
\textsc{Helac-Dipoles} \cite{Czakon:2009ss}, namely Catani-Seymour
\cite{Catani:1996vz,Catani:2002hc} and Nagy-Soper \cite{Bevilacqua:2013iha}
subtraction schemes. The idea for the latter subtraction scheme has
been first introduced by Nagy and Soper
in the formulation of an improved parton shower \cite{Nagy:2007ty} and later on
exploited in a series of papers
\cite{Chung:2010fx,Chung:2012rq,Robens:2013wga}.
The phase space integration is performed with the help of the Monte
Carlo generator \textsc{Kaleu} \cite{vanHameren:2010gg}, including
\textsc{Parni} \cite{vanHameren:2007pt} for importance sampling. The
\textsc{Helac-NLO} package has already been widely used in the computation
of NLO QCD
corrections to several processes at the LHC and the Tevatron
\cite{Bevilacqua:2009zn,Bevilacqua:2010ve,Bevilacqua:2010qb,Bevilacqua:2011aa,
Worek:2011rd,Bevilacqua:2012em}.
\section{Numerical Results for the LHC}
In the following we present predictions for the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}+X$
process at the LHC with $\sqrt{s}=14$ TeV. All final-state
partons with pseudorapidity $|\eta| < 5$ are recombined into jets
with a resolution parameter $R = 0.4$ via the IR-safe anti-$k_T$ jet
algorithm \cite{Cacciari:2008gp}. The four b-jets are required to have
\begin{equation}
p_T (b) > 30 ~{\rm GeV},
~~~~~~~~~~~|y(b)| < 2.5,
~~~~~~~~~~~\Delta R(b,b) > 0.4 \,,
\end{equation}
where $p_T (b)$ and $y(b)$ are the transverse momentum and rapidity of
the b-jet, whereas $\Delta R(b,b)$ is the separation in the plane of
rapidity and azimuthal angle between $b\bar{b}$ pairs. The five and
four flavor
MSTW2008 sets of parton distribution functions (PDFs)
are employed \cite{Martin:2009iq,Martin:2010db}. In
particular, we take MSTW2008LO PDFs with 1-loop running $\alpha_s$ in
LO and MSTW2008NLO PDFs with 2-loop running $\alpha_s$ in NLO. The
renormalization and factorization scales are set to a common value
\begin{equation}
\mu_R=\mu_F=H_T= \sum m_{T}(b), ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
m_{T}(b)=\sqrt{m^2_b+p^2_{T}(b)}.
\end{equation}
For the four flavour scheme we define the bottom quark mass in the
on-shell scheme and use $m_b = 4.75$\,GeV.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{scale_dependence_cteq_LO_NLO_PDF.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\it \label{fig:scale-dependence} Scale dependence of the 5FS
LO and NLO cross sections for $pp\rightarrow b\bar{b} b\bar{b} ~+
X$ at the LHC with $\sqrt{s}$ = 14 TeV. The renormalisation and
factorisation scales are set to a common value $\mu_R=\mu_F= \xi \mu_0$,
where $\mu_0=H_{T}$. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparison between 5FS and 4FS}
The cross section predictions in 5FS and 4FS are collected in Table
\ref{tab:1}. At the central value of the scale both cross sections
receive moderate NLO correction of the order of $40\%$. The scale
dependence is indicated by the upper and lower indices. The upper
(lower) index represents the change when the scale is shifted towards
$\mu = H_T/2 ~(\mu = 2 H_T)$. Rescaling the common scale from the
default value up and down by a factor 2 changes both cross sections at
LO by about $60\%$. Through the inclusion of NLO QCD corrections
scale uncertainties are reduced down to about $30\%$. In Figure
\ref{fig:scale-dependence} a graphical presentation of the scale
dependence is given, both at the LO and NLO. We observe a dramatic
reduction of the scale uncertainty while going from LO to NLO.
\begin{table}[h!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}+X$& $\sigma_{\rm LO}$\,[pb]
& $\sigma_{\rm NLO}$\,[pb]
& $K = \sigma_{\rm NLO}/\sigma_{\rm LO}$ \\ \hline
MSTW2008LO/NLO (5FS) & $99.9^{+58.7\,(59\%)}_{-34.9\,(35\%)}$
& $136.7^{+38.8(28\%)}_{-30.9\,(23\%)}$
& 1.37\\
MSTW2008LO/NLO (4FS) & $84.5^{+49.7(59\%)}_{-29.6(35\%)} $ &
$118.3^{+33.3(28\%)}_{-29.0(24\%)}$ & 1.40\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\it \label{tab:1} 5FS and 4FS LO and NLO cross sections for
$pp\rightarrow b\bar{b} b\bar{b} ~+ X$ at the LHC with $\sqrt{s} =
14 ~TeV$. The
theoretical uncertainties and the K-factor are also given.}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{pTb_1st_NLO.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{pTb_1st_NLO_normalized.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\it \label{fig:1} Differential NLO cross section for
$pp\rightarrow b\bar{b} b\bar{b} ~+ X$ at the LHC with $\sqrt{s}$ = 14
TeV in the 4FS and 5FS as a function of the transverse momentum of
the hardest bottom jet. Also shown are the normalised distributions
at NLO.}
\end{figure}
Comparing 4FS with 5FS results, we observe that the
bottom mass effects decrease the NLO cross section prediction by
$16\%$. The difference between the massless and the
massive calculations has two origins. First, we have a genuine
bottom mass effect of the
order of $10\%$ that depends strongly on the transverse momentum cut
and decreases to $1\%$ for $p_T (b)$ higher than $100$ GeV.
The remaining $\sim 6\%$ variation is due to
an interplay of two factors, different pdf sets and
different corresponding $\alpha_s$. The 4FS pdf set does not
comprise $g\to b\bar{b}$ splitting therefore the corresponding
gluon flux is much
larger than for the 5FS pdf set. On the other hand, the four flavor
$\alpha_s$ is smaller than the corresponding value
calculated with five active flavors. For the $pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}
+X$ process the difference in $\alpha_s$ dominates, which accounts for
a further reduction of the 4FS cross section prediction.
An important input for the experimental analyses and the
interpretation of the experimental data are accurate predictions of
differential distributions. In Figure\,\ref{fig:1} the differential
distribution in the transverse momentum of the hardest bottom jet, as
calculated in the 5FS with massless bottom quarks and in the 4FS with
$m_b = 4.75$\,GeV is presented. Both, the absolute prediction at NLO,
and the predictions normalized to the corresponding 5FS and 4FS NLO
inclusive cross sections are shown. The latter plots make it clear
that the difference in the shape of the distributions in the 5FS and the
4FS is not significant.
\subsection{Comparison between Catani-Seymour and Nagy-Soper subtraction scheme}
The calculations have been performed with two different subtraction
schemes: the standard Catani-Seymour dipole subtraction, and a new
scheme based on the splitting functions and momentum mappings of an
improved parton shower by Nagy and Soper. The comparison between the
two schemes for the inclusive 5FS and 4FS cross sections is presented
in Table \ref{tab:CS-NS}. Cross sections obtained using both
subtraction schemes are in agreement. They provide a validation of
our implementation of the new subtraction scheme into
\textsc{Helac-Dipoles} for the case of massive and massless fermions
and allow for a non-trivial internal cross check of the calculation.
\begin{table}[h!]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
$pp\to b\bar{b}b\bar{b}+X$
& $\sigma_{\rm NLO}^{\rm CS }$ [pb] &
$\sigma_{\rm NLO}^{\rm NS}$ [pb] \\ \hline
MSTW2008NLO (5FS) & $136.7 \pm 0.3$ & $137.6 \pm 0.5$\\
MSTW2008NLO (4FS) & $118.3 \pm 0.5$
& $118.0 \pm$ 0.5 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\it \label{tab:CS-NS} 5FS and 4FS NLO cross sections for
$pp\rightarrow b\bar{b} b\bar{b} ~+ X$ at the LHC with $\sqrt{s}$
= 14 TeV. Results are shown for two different subtraction schemes,
the Catani-Seymour (CS) dipole subtraction and the new Nagy-Soper
(NS) scheme. The numerical error from the Monte Carlo
integration is also included. }
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{mbbbb_NLO_CS_NS.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{hT_NLO_CS_NS.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\it \label{fig:CS-NS} Differential cross section for
$pp\rightarrow b\bar{b} b\bar{b} ~+ X$ at the LHC with $\sqrt{s}$ =
14 TeV in the 5FS as a function of the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ invariant
mass (left panel) and the total transverse energy (right panel).
Results are shown for two different subtraction schemes, the
Catani-Seymour (CS) dipole subtraction and the new Nagy-Soper (NS)
scheme. The lower panels show the ratio of the results within the
two schemes.}
\end{figure}
The results have also been compared at the differential
level. Differential cross sections in the 5FS as a function of the
total transverse energy, $H_T$, and the invariant mass of the four
bottom system, $M_{b\bar{b}b\bar{b}}$, are depicted in Figure
\ref{fig:CS-NS}. Again we observe full agreement between the
predictions calculated with the two schemes.
\section{Summary and Outlook}
We report on the next-to-leading order calculation for the production
of four bottoms quarks at the LHC at the centre-of-mass energy of
${\sqrt{s} = 14}$ TeV. The higher order corrections significantly
reduce the scale dependence, with a residual theoretical uncertainty
of about $30\%$ at NLO. The impact of the bottom quark mass is
moderate for the cross section normalization and negligible for the
shape of distributions. As a completely technical detail, results
for inclusive and differential cross-sections have been shown for two
subraction schemes for treating real radiation corrections:
Catani-Seymour and Nagy-Soper. They provide a validation of our
implementation of the second scheme for
massive and massless fermions within \textsc{Helac-Dipoles}.
\acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by the German Research Foundation
under Grant No. WO 1900/1-1 (``Signals and Backgrounds Beyond Leading
Order. Phenomenological studies for the LHC'').
|
\section{\label{Sec:Intro}Introduction}
In today's era of big data, there is an increasing demand from businesses and industries to get an edge over competitors by making the best use of their data. Clustering is one of the powerful tools that data scientists can employ to discover natural groupings from the data. The $k$-means algorithm \cite{Jain99} is the most commonly-used method for tackling this problem. It has gained popularity due to its effectiveness on many datasets as well as the ease of its implementation on different computing architectures.
The $k$-means algorithm, however, assumes that data are available in an attribute-value format, and that all attributes can be turned into numeric values so that each data instance is represented as a vector in some space where the algorithm can be applied. These assumptions are impractical for real data, and they hinder the use of complex data structures in real-world clustering problems. Examples include grouping users in social networks based on their friendship networks, clustering customers based on their behaviour, and grouping proteins based on their structure. Data scientists tend to simplify these complex structures to a vectorized format and accordingly lose the richness of the data they have.
In order to solve these problems, much research has been conducted on clustering algorithms that work on similarity matrices over data instances rather than on a vector representation of the data in a feature space. This led to the advance of different similarity-based methods for data clustering such as the kernel $k$-means \cite{dhillon2007weighted} and the spectral clustering \cite{Luxburg2007}. The focus of this paper is on the kernel k-means. Different from the traditional $k$-means, the kernel $k$-means algorithm works on kernel matrices which encode different aspects of similarity between complex data structures. It has also been shown that the widely-accepted spectral clustering method has an objective function which is equivalent to a weighted variant of the kernel k-means \cite{dhillon2007weighted}, which means that optimizing that criterion allows for an efficient implementation of the spectral clustering algorithm, in which the computationally complex eigendecomposition step is bypassed. Accordingly, the methods proposed in this paper can be leveraged for scaling the spectral clustering method on MapReduce.
The kernel $k$-means algorithm requires calculating and storing the complete
kernel matrix. Further, all entries of the kernel matrix need to be accessed in each iteration. As a result, the kernel $k$-means suffers from scalability issues when applied to large-scale data. Some recent approaches \cite{Chitta2011, chitta2012efficient} have been proposed to approximate the kernel $k$-means clustering, and allow its application to large data. However, these algorithms are designed for centralized settings, and assume that the data will fit on the memory/disk of a single machine.
This paper proposes a family of algorithms for scaling the kernel $k$-means over cloud infrastructures for distributed computing. Such infrastructures tend to be composed of several commodity machines, each of which is of a limited memory and computing power \cite{viewcloud,Dean2008,mrc}. The machines are connected together in a shared-nothing cluster which means that data transfers between different machines are done through the network. In such settings of infrastructure, ensuring the scalability and fault tolerance of data analysis tasks is troublesome. MapReduce \cite{Dean2008} is a programming model supported by an execution framework that provides scalable and fault tolerant execution of analytical data processing tasks over distributed infrastructures of commodity machines. The proposed algorithms in this paper are designed to perfectly fit into MapReduce programming model and adhere to its computational constraints. We also optimize the execution of the proposed algorithms by considering the different performance aspects of the target computing infrastructure.
Our approach is based on eliminating the scalability bottlenecks of the kernel $k$-means by first learning an embedding of the data instances, and then using this embedding to approximate the cluster assignment step in each iteration of the kernel $k$-means algorithm. We show that this approach leads to a unified and MapReduce-efficient scaling strategy. Additionally, we generalize our approach by defining a family of embeddings charactrized by only four properties that ensure the correctness of any embedding method in the defined family for scaling the kernel $k$-means on MapReduce. The contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item The paper proposes a generic family of embeddings, which we call Approximate Nearest Centroid (APNC) embeddings, and defines its computational and statistical properties that facilitate scaling kernel $k$-means on MapReduce.
\item Explioting the properties of APNC embeddings, we present a unified and efficient parallelization strategy on MapReduce for approximating the kernel $k$-means using any APNC embedding.
\item The paper proposes two instances of APNC embeddings which are based on the Nystr\"om method and the use of $p$-stable distributions for approximating vector norms.
\item Medium and large-scale experiments have been conducted for comparing the proposed approach to state-of-the-art kernel $k$-means approximations and demonstrating the effectiveness of the parallel algorithms.
\end{itemize}
The paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{Sec:Notations} describes the notations used throughout the paper. Section \ref{Sec:Background} gives a necessary background on MapReduce and the kernel $k$-means algorithm. We define the family of embeddings in Section \ref{Sec:Embeddings}. Then, we describe the proposed kernel $k$-means approximation along with its parallelization strategy on MapReduce in Section \ref{Sec:Approach}. Sections \ref{Sec:Nystrom} and \ref{Sec:APNC} give the details of the two proposed APNC embeddings. Section \ref{Sec:Related} discusses the related work. The experiments and results are shown in Section \ref{Sec:Exp}. Finally, we conclude the paper in Section \ref{Sec:Conc}.
\section{\label{Sec:Notations}Notations}
The following notations are used throughout the paper unless otherwise indicated. Scalars are denoted by small letters (e.g., $m$, $n$), sets are denoted in script letters (e.g., $\mc{L}$), vectors are denoted by small bold italic letters (e.g., $\bs{\phi}$, $\bs{y}$), and matrices are denoted by capital letters (e.g., $\Phi$, $Y$). In addition, the following notations are used:
\noindent For a set $\mc{L}$:
\begin{tabular} {p{2cm}p{15cm}}
$\mc{L}^{(b)}$ & the subset of $\mc{L}$ corresponding to the data block $b$.\\
$|\mc{L}|$ & the cardinality of the set.\\
\end{tabular}
\noindent For a vector $\bs{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{m}$:
\begin{tabular} {p{2cm}p{15cm}}
$\bs{x}_{i}$ & $i$-th element of $\bs{x}$.\\
$\bs{x}^{(i)}$ & the vector $\bs{x}$ correponding to the data instance $i$.\\
$\bs{x}_{[b]}$ & the vector $\bs{x}$ corresponding to the data block $b$.\\
$\| \bs{x} \|_p$ & the $\ell_p$-norm of $\bs{x}$.\\
\end{tabular}
\noindent For a matrix $A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$:
\begin{tabular} {p{2cm}p{15cm}}
$A_{ij}\;\;$ & $(i,j)$-th entry of $A$.\\
$A_{i:}$ & $i$-th row of $A$.\\
$A_{:j}$ & $j$-th column of $A$.\\
$A_{\mc{L}:}$, $A_{:\mc{L}}$ & the sub-matrices of $A$ which consist of the set $\mc{L}$ of rows and columns respectively.\\
$A^{(b)}$ & the sub-matrix of $A$ corresponding to the data block $b$.\\
\end{tabular}
\section{\label{Sec:Background}Background}
\subsection{\label{Sec:MapReduce}MapReduce Framework}
MapReduce \cite{Dean2008} is a programming model supported by an execution framework for big data analytics over a distributed environment of commodity machines. To ensure scalable and fault-tolerant execution of the analytical jobs, MapReduce imposes a set of constraints on data access at each machine and communication between different machines. MapReduce is currently considered the typical software infrastructure for many data analytics tasks over large distributed clusters.
In MapReduce, the dataset being processed is viewed as distributed chunks of key-value pairs. A single MapReduce job processes the dataset over two phases. In the first phase, namely the \textit{map phase}, each key-value pair is converted by a user defined \textit{map} function to new intermediate key-value pairs. The intermediate key-value pairs of the entire dataset are grouped by the key, and provided to a \textit{reduce} function in the second phase (the \textit{reduce phase)}. The \textit{reducer} processes a single key and its associated values at a time, and outputs new key-value pairs, which are collectively considered the output of the job. For complex analytical tasks, multiple jobs are chained together or multiple iterations of the same job are carried out over the input dataset \cite{Farahat13}. It is important to note that in addition to the processing time of the \textit{map} and \textit{reduce} functions, a major portion of the job execution time is that taken to move the intermediate key-value pairs across the network. Hence, minimizing the size of the intermediate key-value pairs significantly reduces the overall running time of MapReduce jobs. Further, since the individual machines in cloud computing infrastructures are of very limited memory, a scalable MapReduce-algorithm should ensure that the memory required per machine remains within the bound of commodity memory sizes as the data size increases
The simplicity of MapReduce API together with its scalable and fault-tolerant execution framework distinguished MapReduce and its open-source implementation Hadoop \cite{hadoop} as the most attractive paradigm for data analytics tasks on large-scale cloud computing infrastructures. A significant amount of research have been devoted towards scaling complex data analytics algorithms on MapReduce by developing efficient parallelization strategies, or even by introducing novel approximations that lead to MapReduce-efficient algorithms. Recently, various approaches and approximations have been studied and proposed for scaling popular data mining and machine learning algorithms on MapReduce. Such algorithms spanned text mining \cite{textMR}, graph mining \cite{hadi2008,ashraf}, nonnegative matrix factorization \cite{NMFMapReduce}, feature selection \cite{signhLogistc}, regression \cite{robustRegression}, PageRank \cite{pageRankMr} and most recently column subset selection \cite{Farahat13}.
\subsection{\label{Sec:Kernelkmeans}Kernel $k$-Means}
The $k$-means algorithm \cite{Jain99} is the most widely used algorithm for data clustering. The objective of the algorithm is to group the data points into $k$ clusters such that the Euclidean distances between data points in each cluster and that cluster's centroid are minimized.
An iterative algorithm, namely Lloyd's algorithm \cite{Lloyd1982}, is usually used for the optimization of this criterion function. In each iteration, the Lloyd's algorithm assigns each data point to the nearest centroid and calculates new centroids based on the current assignment of the data points.
The kernel $k$-means \cite{dhillon2007weighted} is a variant of the $k$-means algorithm in which the distance between a data point and a centroid is calculated in terms of the kernel matrix $K$ which encodes the inner-product between data points in some high-dimensional space. Let $\bs{\phi}^{\pth{i}}$ be the representation of a data instance $i$ in the high-dimensional space endowed implicitly by the kernel function $\kappa(.,.)$. In Lloyd's iterations, cluster assignments are made based on the $\ell_2$-distance between $\bs{\phi}^{\pth{i}}$ and each cluster centroid $\bar{\bs{\phi}}^{\pth{c}}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:Clstr_Assign}
\pi(i) = \arg\min_{c} \left\Vert \bs{\phi}^{\pth{i}}-\bar{\bs{\phi}}^{\pth{c}}\right\Vert_2\:.
\end{equation} Since neither $\bs{\phi}^{(i)}$ nor $\bar{\bs{\phi}}^{(c)}$ can be assumed to be accessible explicitly, the square of the $\ell_2$-distance in Eq. (\ref{Eq:Clstr_Assign}) is expanded in terms of entries from the kernel matrix $K$ as:
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:KKmeans}
\left\Vert
\bs{\phi}^{\pth{i}}-\bar{\bs{\phi}}^{\pth{c}}\right\Vert^2_2
=K_{ii}-\frac{2}{n_{c}}\sum_{a\in\mc{P}_{c}}K_{ia}+\frac{1}{n_{c}^{2}}\sum_{a,b\in\mc{P}_{c}}K_{ab}\:,
\end{equation} where $\mc{P}_{c}$ is the set of instances in cluster $c$, $n_c=\left|\mc{P}_{c}\right|$ and $K_{ab}$ is the ($a$,$b$)-th entry of the kernel matrix.
This means that in order to find the closest centroid for each data instance, a single pass over the whole kernel matrix is needed. In addition, the whole kernel matrix needs to be stored in the memory. This makes the computational and space complexities of the algorithm quadratic. Accordingly, it is infeasible to implement the original kernel $k$-means algorithm on MapReduce due to the limited memory and computing power of each machine. As we increase the data, there will be a scalability bottleneck which limits the application of the kernel $k$-means to large-scale datasets.
\section{\label{Sec:Embeddings}Embeddings for Scaling Kernel $k$-Means}
In this section, we define a family of embeddings, which we call Approximate Nearest Centroid (APNC) embeddings, that can be used to scale kernel $k$-means on MapReduce. Essentially, we aim at embeddings that: (1) can be computed in a MapReduce-efficient manner, and (2) can efficiently approximate the cluster assignment step of the kernel $k$-means on MapReduce (Eq. \ref{Eq:Clstr_Assign}). We start by defining a set of properties which an embedding should have for the aforementioned conditions to be satisfied.
Let $i$ be a data instance, and $\bs{\phi}=\Phi_{:i}$ be a vector corresponding to $i$ in the kernel space implicitly defined by the kernel function. Let $f:\mathbb{R}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{m}$ be an embedding function that maps $\bs{\phi}$ to a target vector $\bs{y}$, i.e., $\bs{y}=f\pth{\bs{\phi}}$. In order to use $f\left(\bs{\phi}\right)$ with the proposed MapReduce algorithms, the following properties have to be satisfied.
\begin{property}\label{Prp:Linear} $\f{\bs{\phi}}$ is a linear map, i.e., $\bs{y}=\f{\bs{\phi}}=T\bs{\phi}\:,$ where $T\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times d}$.
\end{property}
If this property is satisfied, then for any cluster $c$, the embedding of its centroid is the same as the centroid of the embeddings of the data instances that belong to that cluster:
\[\bs{\bar{y}}^{\pth{c}} =\f{\bs{\bar{\phi}}^{\pth{c}}}=\frac{1}{n_{c}}\sum_{j\in\mc{P}_{c}}\f{\bs{\phi}^{\pth{j}}}=\frac{1}{n_{c}}\sum_{j\in\mc{P}_{c}}\bs{y}^{\pth{j}}\:,\]where $\bar{\bs{y}}^{\pth{c}}$ is the embedding of the centroid $\bs{\bar{\phi}}^{\pth{c}}$.
\begin{property}\label{Prp:Kernel}
$\f{\bs{\phi}}$ is kernelized.
\end{property}
In order for this property to be satisfied, we restrict the columns of the transformation matrix $T$ to be in the subspace of a subset of data instances $\mc{L} \subseteq \mc{D}$, $\left|\mc{L}\right|=l$ and $l \leq n$:
\[ T=R\Phi_{:\mathcal{L}}^{T}\:.\]
Substituting in $\f{\bs{\phi}}$ gives
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:yKernel}
\bs{y}=\f{\bs{\phi}}=T\bs{\phi}=R\Phi_{:\mathcal{L}}^{T}\bs{\phi}=RK_{\mc{L}i}\:,
\end{equation}where $K_{\mc{L}i}$ is the kernel matrix between the set of instances $\mc{L}$ and the $i$-th data instance, and $R\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times l}$. We refer to $R$ as the embedding coefficients matrix.
Suppose the set $\mathcal{L}$ definied in Property \ref{Prp:Kernel} consists of $q$ disjoint subsets $\mathcal{L}^{(1)}$,$\mathcal{L}^{(2)}$,..., and $\mathcal{L}^{(q)}$.
\begin{property}\label{Prp:R} The embedding coefficients matrix $R$ is in a block-diagonal form: \[R=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
R^{\pth{1}} & 0 & 0\\
0 & \ddots & 0\\
0 & 0 & R^{\pth{q}}
\end{array}\right]\:,\]where $q$ is the number of blocks and the $b$-th sub-matrix $R^{\pth{b}}$ along with its corresponding subset of data instances $\mathcal{L}^{(b)}$ can be computed and fit in the memory of a single machine.
\end{property}
It should be noted that different embeddings of the defined family differ in their definitions of the coefficients matrix $R$.
\begin{property}\label{Prp:Error} There exists a function $e\left(\cdot,\cdot\right)$ that approximates the $\ell_2$-distance between each data point $i$ and the centroid of cluster $c$ in terms of their embeddings $\bs{y}^{\pth{i}}$ and $\bs{\bar{y}}^{\pth{c}}$ only, i.e.,
\[
\exists\hspace{0.2cm} e\left(\cdot,\cdot\right):\:\:\left\Vert\bs{\phi}^{\pth{i}}-\bar{\bs{\phi}}^{\pth{c}}\right\Vert_{2}\approx\beta\: e\left(\bs{y}^{\pth{i}},\:\bar{\bs{y}}^{\pth{c}}\right) \:\: \forall \:\: i,c \:\:\:,
\] where $\beta$ is a constant.
\end{property}
This property allows for approximating the cluster assignment step of the kernel $k$-means as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:NewC}
\tilde{\pi}(i)=
\underset{c}{\arg\min}\:\:e\left(\bs{y}^{\pth{i}},\:\bar{\bs{y}}^{\pth{c}}\right)\:.
\end{equation}
\section{\label{Sec:Approach}MapReduce-Efficient Kernel $k$-Means}
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{APNC Embedding on MapReduce \label{Alg:APNCEmbd}}
\textbf{Input:} Distributed data points $\mathcal{D}$, Kernel function $\kappa(.,.)$, Embedding coefficients matrix $R$, Sample data points $\mathcal{L}$, Number of embedding blocks $q$\\
\textbf{Output:} Embedding matrix $Y$\\
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{for} $b$ = $1$:$q$
\STATE \hspace{0.5cm}\textbf{\textit{map:}}
\STATE \hspace{1cm}Load $\mathcal{L}^{\left(b\right)}$ and $R^{\left(b\right)}$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}\textbf{foreach} $<i,\mathcal{D}\{i\}>$
\STATE \hspace{1.5cm}$K_{\mathcal{L}^{\left(b\right)}i}$ $\leftarrow$ $\kappa\left(\mathcal{L}^{\left(b\right)},\mathcal{D}\{i\}\right)$
\STATE \hspace{1.5cm}$\bs{y}^{\left(i\right)}_{[b]}$ $\leftarrow$ $R^{\left(b\right)} K_{\mathcal{L}^{\left(b\right)}i}$
\STATE \hspace{1.5cm}emit($i$,$\bs{y}^{\left(i\right)}_{[b]}$)
\STATE \hspace{1cm}\textbf{end}
\STATE \textbf{end}
\STATE \vspace{0.1cm}\textbf{\textit{map:}}
\STATE \hspace{0.5cm}\textbf{foreach} $<i$,$\bs{y}^{\left(i\right)}_{[1]}, \bs{y}^{\left(i\right)}_{[2]},...,\bs{y}^{\left(i\right)}_{[q]}>$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}$Y_{:i}$ $\leftarrow$ join$\left( \bs{y}^{\left(i\right)}_{[1]}, \bs{y}^{\left(i\right)}_{[2]},...,\bs{y}^{\left(i\right)}_{[q]} \right)$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}emit($i$,$Y_{:i}$)
\STATE \hspace{0.5cm}\textbf{end}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
In this section, we show how the four properties of APNC embeddings can be exploited to develop efficient and unified parallel MapReduce algorithms for kernel $k$-means. We start with the algorithm for computing the corresponding embedding for each data instance, then explain how to use these embeddings for approximating the kernel $k$-means.
From Property \ref{Prp:Kernel} and Property \ref{Prp:R}, the embedding $\bs{y}^{(i)}$ of a data instance $i$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\bs{y}^{(i)}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
R^{\pth{1}} & 0 & 0\\
0 & \ddots & 0\\
0 & 0 & R^{\pth{q}}
\end{array}\right]\:K_{\mathcal{L}i}\:,
\label{y_inR}
\end{eqnarray}for a set of selected data points $\mathcal{L}$. The set $\mathcal{L}$ consists of $q$ disjoint subsets $\mathcal{L}^{(1)}$,$\mathcal{L}^{(2)}$,..., and $\mathcal{L}^{(q)}$. So, the vector $K_{\mathcal{L}i}$ can then be written in the form of $q$ blocks as $K_{\mathcal{L}i} = [K_{\mathcal{L}^{(1)}i}^T K_{\mathcal{L}^{(2)}i}^T \hdots K_{\mathcal{L}^{(q)}i}^T]^T$. Accordingly, the embedding formula in Eq. (\ref{y_inR}) can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bs{y}^{(i)}&=&\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
R^{\pth{1}} & 0 & 0\\
0 & \ddots & 0\\
0 & 0 & R^{\pth{q}}
\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}
K_{\mathcal{L}^{(1)}i}\\
K_{\mathcal{L}^{(2)}i}\\
\vdots\\
K_{\mathcal{L}^{(q)}i}\end{array}\right]
= \left[\begin{array}{c}
R^{\pth{1}}K_{\mathcal{L}^{(1)}i}\\
R^{\pth{2}}K_{\mathcal{L}^{(2)}i}\\
\vdots\\
R^{\pth{q}}K_{\mathcal{L}^{(q)}i}\end{array}\right]\:.
\label{y_inblocks}
\end{eqnarray}
As per Property \ref{Prp:R}, each block $R^{\pth{b}}$ and the sample instances $\mathcal{L}^{(b)}$, used to compute its corresponding $K_{\mathcal{L}^{(b)}i}$, are assumed to fit in the memory of a single machine. This suggests computing $\bs{y}^{(i)}$ in a piecewise fashion, where each portion ${y}^{(i)}_{[b]}$ is computed separately using its corresponding $R^{\pth{b}}$ and $\mathcal{L}^{(b)}$.
Our embedding algorithm on MapReduce computes the embedding portions of all data instances in rounds of $q$ iterations. In each iteration, each \textit{mapper} loads the corresponding coefficients block $R^{\pth{b}}$ and data samples $\mathcal{L}^{(b)}$ in its memory. Afterwards, for each data point, the vector $K_{\mathcal{L}^{(b)}i}$ is computed using the provided kernel function, and then used to compute the embedding portion as $\bs{y}^{(i)}_{[b]} = R^{\pth{b}} K_{\mathcal{L}^{(b)}i}$. Finally, in a single \emph{map} phase, the portions of each data instance $i$ are concatenated together to form the embedding $\bs{y}^{(i)}$. It is important to note that the embedding portions of each data point will be stored on the same machine, which means that the concatenation phase has no network cost. The only network cost incurred by the whole embedding algorithm is from loading the sub-matrices $R^{\pth{b}}$ and $\mathcal{L}^{(b)}$ once for each $b$. Algorithm \ref{Alg:APNCEmbd} outlines the embedding steps on MapReduce. We denote each key-value pair of the input dataset $\mc{D}$ as $<\hspace{-0.1cm}i,\mc{D}\{i\}\hspace{-0.07cm}>$ where $i$ refers to the index of the data instance $\mc{D}\{i\}$.
\begin{algorithm} [t]
\caption{APNC Clustering on MapReduce\label{Alg:ClusterStep}}
\textbf{Input:} Distributed embeddings matrix $Y$, Embedding dimensionality $m$, Number of clusters $k$, Discrepancy function $e(.,.)$\\
\textbf{Output:} Cluster centroids $\bar{Y}$\\
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE Generate initial $k$ centroids $\bar{Y}$
\STATE \textbf{repeat} until convergence
\STATE \hspace{0.5cm}\textbf{\textit{map:}}
\STATE \hspace{1cm}Load $\bar{Y}$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}Initialize $Z\leftarrow[0]_{m\times k}$ and $\mathbf{g}\leftarrow[0]_{k\times 1}$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}\textbf{foreach} $<i,Y_{:i}>$
\STATE \hspace{1.5cm}$\hat{c} = \arg\min_{c} e(Y_{:i},\bar{Y}_{:c})$
\STATE \hspace{1.5cm}$Z_{:\hat{c}} \leftarrow Z_{:\hat{c}}+Y_{:i}$
\STATE \hspace{1.5cm}$\mathbf{g}_{\hat{c}} \leftarrow \mathbf{g}_{\hat{c}} +1$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}\textbf{end}
\STATE \hspace{1cm}\textbf{for} $c$ = $1$:$k$
\STATE \hspace{1.5cm}emit($c$,$<Z_{:c},\mathbf{g}_c>$)
\STATE \hspace{1cm}\textbf{end}
\STATE \vspace{0.1cm}\hspace{0.5cm}\textbf{\textit{reduce:}}
\STATE \hspace{1cm}\textbf{foreach} $<c$, $\mathcal{Z}_c$, $\mathcal{G}_c>$
\STATE \hspace{1.5cm}$\bar{Y}_{:c} \leftarrow \left(\sum_{Z_{:c} \in \mathcal{Z}_c}Z_{:c}\right)/\left(\sum_{\mathbf{g}_c \in \mathcal{G}} \mathbf{g}_c\right)$
\STATE \hspace{1.5cm}emit($c$,$\bar{Y}_{:c}$)
\STATE \hspace{1cm}\textbf{end}
\STATE \textbf{end}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
To parallelize the clustering phase on MapReduce, we make use of Properties \ref{Prp:Linear} and \ref{Prp:Error}. As mentioned in Section \ref{Sec:Kernelkmeans}, in each kernel $k$-means iteration, a data instance is assigned to its closet cluster centroid given by Eq. (\ref{Eq:Clstr_Assign}). Property \ref{Prp:Error} tells us that each data instance $i$ can be approximately assigned to its closest cluster using only its embedding $\bs{y}^{(i)}$ and the embeddings of the current centroids. Further, Property \ref{Prp:Linear} allows us to compute updated embeddings for cluster centroids, using the embeddings of the data instances assigned to each cluster.
Let $\bar{Y}$ be a matrix whose columns are the embeddings of the current centroids. Our MapReduce algorithm for the clustering phase parallelizes each kernel $k$-means iteration by loading the current centroids matrix $\bar{Y}$ to the memory of each \emph{mapper}, and uses it to assign a cluster ID to each data point represented by its embedding $\bs{y}^{(i)}$. Afterwards, the embeddings assigned to each cluster are grouped and averaged in a separate \emph{reducer}, to find an updated matrix $\bar{Y}$ to be used in the following iteration. To minimize the network communication cost, we maintain an in-memory matrix $Z$ whose columns are the summation of the embeddings of the data instances assigned to each cluster. We also maintain a vector $\bs{g}$ of the number of data instances in each cluster. We only move $Z$ and $\bs{g}$ of each \textit{mapper} across the network to the \emph{reducers} that compute the updated $\bar{Y}$. Algorithm \ref{Alg:ClusterStep} outlines the clustering steps on MapReduce.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{APNC Coefficients via Nystr\"om Method\label{Alg:NysEmbd}}
\textbf{Input:} Distributed $n$ data instances $\mathcal{D}$, Kernel function $\kappa(.,.)$, Number of samples $l$, Target dimensionality $m$.\\
\textbf{Output:} Sample data instances $\mathcal{L}$, Embedding coefficients matrix $R$.\\
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{\textit{map:}}
\STATE \hspace{0.5cm}\textbf{for} $<i$,$\mathcal{D}\{i\}>$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}with probability $l/n$, emit($0$,$\mathcal{D}\{i\}$)
\STATE \hspace{0.5cm}\textbf{end}
\STATE \vspace{0.1cm}\textbf{\textit{reduce:}}
\STATE \hspace{0.5cm}\textbf{for} $\mathcal{L}$ $\leftarrow$ all values $\mathcal{D}\{i\}$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}$K_{\mathcal{L}\mathcal{L}} \leftarrow$ $\kappa\left(\mathcal{L},\mathcal{L}\right)$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}$[\tilde{V},\tilde{\Lambda}] \leftarrow$ eigen($K_{\mathcal{L}\mathcal{L}}$,$m$)
\STATE \hspace{1cm}$R \leftarrow$ $\tilde{\Lambda}^{-1/2}\tilde{V}^T$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}emit($<S,R>$)
\STATE \hspace{0.5cm}\textbf{end}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{\label{Sec:Nystrom}APNC Embedding via Nystr\"om Method}
One way to preserve the objective function of the cluster assignment step given by Eq. (\ref{Eq:Clstr_Assign}) is to find a low-rank kernel matrix $\tilde{K}$ over the data instances such that $K\approx \tilde{K}$. Using this kernel matrix in Eq. (\ref{Eq:KKmeans}) results in a cluster assignment which is very close to the assignment obtained using the original kernel $k$-means algorithm. If the low-rank approximation $\tilde{K}$ can be decomposed into $W^TW$ where $W\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ and $m\ll n$, then the columns of $W$ can be directly used as an embedding that approximates the $\ell_2$-distance between data instance $i$ and the centroid of cluster $c$ as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_DistW}
\left\Vert \bs{\phi}^{\left(i\right)}-\bar{\bs{\phi}}^{\left(c\right)}\right\Vert _{2}\approx\left\Vert \bs{w}^{\left(i\right)}-\bar{\bs{w}}^{\left(c\right)}\right\Vert _{2}\:.
\end{equation}
To prove that, the right-hand side can be simplified to
\begin{eqnarray*}
\bs{w}^{\left(i\right)T}\bs{w}^{\left(i\right)}-2\bs{w}^{\left(i\right)T}\bar{\bs{w}}^{\left(c\right)}+\bar{\bs{w}}^{\left(c\right)T}\bar{\bs{w}}^{\left(c\right)}\\
=\tilde{K}_{ii}-\frac{2}{n_{c}}\sum_{a\in\mc{P}_{c}}\tilde{K}_{ia}+\frac{1}{n_{c}^{2}}\sum_{a,b\in\mc{P}_{c}}\tilde{K}_{ab}
\end{eqnarray*}
The right-hand side is an approximation of the distance function of Eq. (\ref{Eq:KKmeans}). There are many low-rank decompositions that can be calculated for the kernel matrix $K$, including the very accurate eigenvalue decomposition. However, the low-rank approximation to be used has to satisfy the properties defined in Section \ref{Sec:Embeddings}, and accordingly can be implemented on MapReduce in an efficient manner.
One well-known method for calculating low-rank approximations of kernel matrices is the Nystr\"om approximation \cite{Williams01usingthe}. The Nystr\"om method approximates a kernel matrix over all data instances using the sub-matrix of the kernel between all data instances and a few set of data instances $\mc{L}$ as
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:NystromCh3}
\tilde{K} = D^TA^{-1}D\:,
\end{equation}where $\left|\mc{L}\right|=l\ll n$, $A\in\mathbb{R}^{l\times l}$ is the kernel matrix over the data instances in $\mc{L}$, and $D\in\mathbb{R}^{l\times n}$ is the kernel matrix between the data instances in $\mc{L}$ and all data instances. In order to obtain a low-rank decomposition of $\tilde{K}$, the Nystr\"om method calculates the eigendecomposition of the small matrix $A$ as $A\approx U\Lambda U^T$, where $U\in\mathbb{R}^{l\times m}$ is the matrix whose columns are the leading-$m$ eigenvectors of $A$, and $\Lambda\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times m}$ is the matrix whose diagonal elements are the leading $m$ eigenvalues of $A$. This means that a low-rank decomposition can be obtained as $\tilde{K}=W^TW$ where $W=\Lambda^{-1/2}U^TD$. It should be noted that this embedding satisfies Properties \ref{Prp:Linear} and \ref{Prp:Kernel} as $D=\Phi_{:\mc{L}}^T\Phi$, and accordingly
$\bs{y}^{\pth{i}}=W_{:i}=\Lambda^{-1/2}U^T\Phi_{:\mc{L}}^T\bs{\phi}^{\pth{i}}$. Further, Equation (\ref{Eq_DistW}) tells us that $e\left(\bs{y}^{\pth{i}},\bs{\bar{y}}^{\pth{c}}\right) = \left\Vert\bs{y}^{\pth{i}}-\bs{\bar{y}^{\pth{c}}}\right\Vert_2$ can be used to approximate the $\ell_2$-distance in Eq. (\ref{Eq:KKmeans}), which satisfies Property \ref{Prp:Error} of the APNC family.
The embedding coefficient matrix $R=\Lambda^{-1/2}U^T$ is a special case of that described in Property \ref{Prp:R}, which consists of one block of size $m \times l$, where $l$ is the number of instances used to calculate the Nystr\"om approximation, and $m$ is the rank of the eigen-decomposition used to compute both $\Lambda$ and $U$. It can be assumed that $R$ is computed and fits in the memory of a single machine, since an accurate Nystr\"om approximation can usually be obtained using a very few samples and $m \leq l$. Algorithm \ref{Alg:NysEmbd} outlines the MapReduce algorithm of computing the coefficients matrix $R$ based on the Nystr\"om approximation. The algorithm uses the \textit{map} phase to iterate over the input dataset in parallel, to uniformly sample $l$ data instances. The sampled instances are then moved to a single \textit{reducer} that computes $R$ as described above.
The Nsytr\"om embedding can be extended by the use of the ensemble Nystr\"om method \cite{Kumar2009a}. In that case, each block of $R$ will be the coefficients of the Nystr\"om embedding corresponding to the subset of data instances that belong to that instance of the ensemble. The details of that extension are the subject of a future work.
\begin{algorithm}[t]
\caption{APNC Coefficients via Stable Distributions\label{Alg:SDEmbd}}
\textbf{Input:} Distributed $n$ data instances $\mathcal{D}$, Kernel function $\kappa(.,.)$, Number of samples $l$, Target dimensionality $m$, Tuning parameter $t$.\\
\textbf{Output:} Sample data instances $\mathcal{L}$, Embedding coefficients matrix $R$.\\
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE \textbf{\textit{map:}}
\STATE \hspace{0.5cm}\textbf{for} $<i$,$\mathcal{D}\{i\}>$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}with probability $l/n$, emit($0$,$\mathcal{D}\{i\}$)
\STATE \hspace{0.5cm}\textbf{end}
\STATE \vspace{0.1cm}\textbf{\textit{reduce:}}
\STATE \hspace{0.5cm}\textbf{for} $\mathcal{L}$ $\leftarrow$ all values $\mathcal{D}\{i\}$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}$K_{\mathcal{L}\mathcal{L}} \leftarrow$ $\kappa\left(\mathcal{L},\mathcal{L}\right)$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}$H$ $\leftarrow$ $I - \frac{1}{l}ee^T$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}$[V,\Lambda] \leftarrow$ eigen($HK_{\mathcal{L}\mathcal{L}}H$)
\STATE \hspace{1cm}$E$ $\leftarrow$ $\Lambda^{-1/2}V^T$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}\textbf{for} $r$ = $1$:$m$
\STATE \hspace{1.5cm}$\mathcal{T} \leftarrow$ select $t$ unique values from $1$ to $l$
\STATE \hspace{1.5cm}$R_{r:}=\sum_{v \in \mathcal{T}} E_{v:}$
\STATE \hspace{1cm}\textbf{end}
\STATE \hspace{1cm}emit($<S,R>$)
\STATE \hspace{0.5cm}\textbf{end}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\section{\label{Sec:APNC}APNC Embedding via Stable Distributions}
In this section, we develop our second embedding method based on the results of Indyk \cite{Indyk} which showed that the $\ell_p$-norm of a $d$-dimensional vector $\bs{v}$ can be estimated by means of $p$-stable distributions. Given a $d$-dimensional vector $\bs{r}$ whose entries are i.i.d. samples drawn from a $p$-stable distribution over $\mathbb{R}$, the $\ell_p$-norm of $\bs{v}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
||\bs{v}||_p = \alpha \mathbb{E} [ |\sum_{i=1}^d \bs{v}_i\bs{r}_i| ]\:,
\end{equation} for some positive constant $\alpha$. It is known that the standard Gaussian distribution $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ is $2$-stable \cite{Indyk}, which means that it can be employed to compute the $\ell_2$-norm of Eq. (\ref{Eq:KKmeans}) as
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert\boldsymbol{\phi}-\boldsymbol{\bar{\phi}}\right\Vert_2 = \alpha \mathbb{E} [ | \sum_{i=1}^d ( \boldsymbol{\phi}_i - \boldsymbol{\bar{\phi}}_i) \bs{r}_i | ]\:,
\label{euc_expectation}
\end{equation} where $d$ is the dimensionality of the space endowed by the used kernel function and the entries $\bs{r}_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$. The expectation above can be approximated by the sample mean of multiple values for the term $| \sum_{i=1}^d ( \boldsymbol{\phi}_i - \boldsymbol{\bar{\phi}}_i) r_i |$ computed using $m$ different vectors $\bs{r}$, each of which is denoted as $\bs{r}^{(j)}$. Thus, the $\ell_2$-norm in Eq. (\ref{euc_expectation}) can be approximated as
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert\boldsymbol{\phi}-\boldsymbol{\bar{\phi}}\right\Vert_2 \approx \frac{\alpha}{m} \sum_{j=1}^m | \sum_{i=1}^d \left(\boldsymbol{\phi}_i \bs{r}^{(j)}_i - \boldsymbol{\bar{\phi}}_i \bs{r}^{(j)}_i \right)|
\label{euc_sum}
\end{equation}
Define two $m$-dimensional embeddings $\bs{y}$ and $\bs{\bar{y}}$ such that $\bs{y}_j = \sum_{i=1}^d \boldsymbol{\phi}_i \bs{r}^{(j)}_i$ and $\bs{\bar{y}}_j = \sum_{i=1}^d\boldsymbol{\bar{\phi}}_i \bs{r}^{(j)}_i$ or equivalently, $\bs{y}_j = \boldsymbol{\phi}^T \bs{r}^{(j)}$ and $\bs{\bar{y}}_j = \boldsymbol{\bar{\phi}}^T \bs{r}^{(j)}$. Equation (\ref{euc_sum}) can be expressed in terms of $\bs{y}$ and $\bs{\bar{y}}$ as
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert\boldsymbol{\phi}-\boldsymbol{\bar{\phi}}\right\Vert_2 \approx \frac{\alpha}{m} \sum_{j=1}^m |\bs{y}_j - \bs{\bar{y}}_j| = \frac{\alpha}{m} \left\Vert\bs{y} - \bs{\bar{y}}\right\Vert_1 \:.
\label{euc_l1}
\end{equation}
Since all of $\boldsymbol{\phi}$, $\boldsymbol{\bar{\phi}}$, and $\bs{r}^{(j)}$ are intractable to explicitly work with, our next step is to kernelize the computations of $\bs{y}$ and $\bs{\bar{y}}$. Without loss of generality, let $\mathcal{T}_j = \{\boldsymbol{\hat{\phi}}^{(1)},\boldsymbol{\hat{\phi}}^{(2)},...,\boldsymbol{\hat{\phi}}^{(t)}\}$ be a set of $t$ randomly chosen data instances embedded and centered into the kernel space (i.e. $\boldsymbol{\hat{\phi}}^{(i)} = \boldsymbol{\phi}^{(i)} - \frac{1}{t}\sum_{j=1}^t \boldsymbol{\phi}^{(j)}$). According to the central limit theorem, the vector $\bs{r}^{(j)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \sum_{\boldsymbol{\phi} \in \mathcal{T}_j} \boldsymbol{\phi}$ approximately follows a multivariate Gaussian distribution $\mathcal{N} \left(0,\Sigma \right)$, where $\Sigma$ is the covariance matrix of the underlying distribution of all data instances embedded into the kernel space \cite{KLSH-12}. But according to our definition of $\bs{y}$ and $\bs{\bar{y}}$, the individual entries of $\bs{r}^{(j)}$ have to be independent and identically Gaussians. To fulfil that requirement, we make use of the fact that decorrelating the variables of a joint Gaussian distribution is enough to ensure that the individual variables are independent and marginally Gaussians. Using the whitening transform, $\bs{r}^{(j)}$ is redefined as
\begin{equation}
\bs{r}^{(j)} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{t}} \tilde{\Sigma}^{-1/2}\sum_{\bs{\phi} \in \mathcal{T}^{(j)}} \bs{\phi}\:,
\label{r_decorr}
\end{equation} where $\tilde{\Sigma}$ is an approximate covariance matrix estimated using a sample of $l$ data points embedded into the kernel space and centred as well. We denote the set of the $l$ data points as $\mc{L}$.
With $\bs{r}^{(j)}$ defined as in Eq. (\ref{r_decorr}), the computation of $\bs{y}$ and $\bs{\bar{y}}$ can be fully kernelized using similar steps to those in \cite{KLSH-12}. Accordingly, $\bs{y}$ and $\bs{\bar{y}}$ can be computed as follows: let $K_{\mc{L}\mc{L}}$ be the kernel matrix of $\mc{L}$, and define a centering matrix $H=I -\frac{1}{l}\bs{e}\bs{e}^T$ where $I$ is an $l\times l$ identity matrix, and $\bs{e}$ is a vector of all ones. Denote the inverse square root of the centered version of $K_{\mc{L}\mc{L}}$ as $E$.\footnote{The centered version of $K_{\mc{L}\mc{L}}$ is given by $HK_{\mc{L}\mc{L}}H$. Its inverse square root can be computed as $\Lambda^{-1/2}V^T$ where $\Lambda$ is a diagonal matrix of the eigenvalues of $HK_{\mc{L}\mc{L}}H$ and $V$ is the eigenvector matrix of $HK_{\mc{L}\mc{L}}H$.} The embedding of a vector $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ is then given by
\begin{equation}
\bs{y} = f(\boldsymbol{\phi}) = R\Phi_{:\mc{L}}^T\boldsymbol{\phi}\:,
\label{y_embd}
\end{equation} such that for $j = 1$ to $m$, $R_{j:}= \bs{s}^TE$, where $\bs{s}$ is an $l$-dimensional binary vector indexing $t$ randomly chosen values from 1 to $l$ for each $j$.
Now, we show that the embedding function $f$ defined in Eq. (\ref{y_embd}) is an APNC Embedding function. It is clear from Eq. (\ref{y_embd}) that $f$ is a linear map in a kernelized form which satisfies Properties \ref{Prp:Linear} and \ref{Prp:Kernel}. Equation (\ref{euc_l1}) shows that the $\ell_2$-norm of the difference between a data point $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ and a cluster centroid $\boldsymbol{\bar{\phi}}$ can be approximated up to a constant by $e(\bs{y},\bs{\bar{y}}) = \left\Vert\bs{y}-\bs{\bar{y}}\right\Vert_1$ which satisfies Property \ref{Prp:Error} of the APNC family. The coefficients matrix $R$ in Eq. (\ref{y_embd}) is of a single block, which can be assumed to be computable in the memory of a single commodity machine. That assumption is justified by observing that $R$ is computed using a sample of a few data instances that are used to conceptually estimate the covariance matrix of the data distribution. Furthermore, the target dimensionality, denoted as $m$ in Eq. (\ref{y_embd}), determines the sample size used to estimate the expectation in Eq. (\ref{euc_expectation}), which also can be estimated by a small number of samples. We validate the assumptions about $l$ and $m$ in our experiments. This accordingly satisfies Property \ref{Prp:R}. We outline the MapReduce algorithm for computing the coefficients matrix $R$, defined by Eq.(\ref{y_embd}), in Algorithm \ref{Alg:SDEmbd}. Similar to Algorithm \ref{Alg:NysEmbd}, we sample $l$ data instances in the \textit{map} phase, and then $R$ is computed using the sampled data instances in a single \textit{reducer}.
\section{\label{Sec:Related}Related Work}
The quadratic runtime complexity per iteration, in addition to the quadratic space complexity of the kernel $k$-means have limited its applicability to even medium-scale datasets on a single machine. Recent work \cite{Chitta2011, chitta2012efficient} to tackle these scalability limitations has focused only on centralized settings with the assumption that the dataset being clustered fits into the memory/disk of a single machine. In specific, Chitta \textit{et al.} \cite{Chitta2011} suggested restricting the clustering centroids to an at most rank-$l$ subspace of the span of the entire dataset where $l \ll n$. That approximation reduces the runtime complexity per iteration to $\mc{O}(l^2k+nlk)$, and the space complexity to $\mc{O}(nl)$, where $k$ is the number of clusters. However, that approximation is not sufficient for scaling kernel $k$-means on MapReduce, since assigning each data point to the nearest cluster still requires accessing the current cluster assignment of all data points. It was also noticed by the authors that their method is equivalent to applying the original kernel $k$-means algorithm to the rank-$l$ Nystr\"om approximation of the entire kernel matrix \cite{Chitta2011}. That is algorithmically different from our Nystr\"om-based embedding in the sense that we use the concept of the Nystr\"om approximation to learn low-dimensional embedding for all data instances, which allows for clustering the data instances by applying a simple and MapReduce-efficient algorithm to their corresponding embeddings.
Later, Chitta \textit{et al.} \cite{chitta2012efficient} exploited the Random Fourier Features (RFF) approach \cite{rahimi2007random} to propose fast algorithms for approximating the kernel $k$-means. However, these algorithms inherit the limitations of the RFF approach such as being limited to only shift-invariant kernels, and requiring data instances to be in a vectorized form. Furthermore, the theoretical and empirical results of Yang \textit{et al.} \cite{yang2012nystr} showed that the kernel approximation accuracy of RFF-based methods depends on the properties of the eigenspectrum of the original kernel matrix, and that ensuring acceptable approximation accuracy requires using a large number of Fourier features, which increases the dimensionality of the computed RFF-based embeddings. In our experiments, we empirically show that our kernel $k$-means methods achieve clustering accuracy superior to those achieved using the state-of-the-art approximations presented in \cite{Chitta2011} and \cite{chitta2012efficient}.
Other than the kernel $k$-means, the spectral clustering algorithm \cite{Luxburg2007} is considered a powerful approach to kernel-based clustering. Chen \textit{et al.} \cite{chen2010parallel} presented a distributed implementation of the spectral clustering algorithm using an infrastructure composed of MapReduce, MPI, and SSTable\footnote{http://wiki.apache.org/cassandra/ArchitectureSSTable}. In addition to the limited scalability of MPI, the reported running times are very large. We believe this was mainly due to the very large network overhead resulting from building the kernel matrix using SSTable. Later, Gao \textit{et al.} \cite{Hefeeda2012} proposed an approximate distributed spectral clustering approach that relied solely on MapReduce. The authors showed that their approach significantly reduced the clustering time compared to that of Chen \textit{et al.}, \cite{chen2010parallel}. However, in the approach of Gao \textit{et al.} \cite{Hefeeda2012}, the kernel matrix is approximated as a block-diagonal, which enforces inaccurate pre-clustering decisions that could result in degraded clustering accuracy.
Scaling other algorithms for data clustering on MapReduce was also studied in recent work \cite{fastclustering,multidimensional,disco}. However, those works are limited to co-clustering algorithms \cite{disco}, subspace clustering \cite{multidimensional}, metric $k$-centers, and metric $k$-median with the assumption that all pairwise similarities are pre-computed and provided explicitly \cite{fastclustering}.
\interfootnotelinepenalty=10000
\section{\label{Sec:Exp}Experiments and Results}
We evaluated the two proposed algorithms by conducting experiments on four medium and three big datasets, called \textbf{USPS}, \textbf{PIE}, \textbf{MNIST}, \textbf{RCV1}, \textbf{CovType}, \textbf{ImageNet-50k}, and the full \textbf{ImageNet}. The \textbf{PIE} dataset is a subset of 11,554 face images, in 68 classes, out of CMU PIE \cite{cmuPie}. Both of the \textbf{USPS} and \textbf{MNIST} datasets are handwritten digits in 10 classes, and their sizes are 9,298 and 70,000, respectively \cite{ChangLibsvm}. The \textbf{RCV1} dataset is a subset of 193,844 news documents, in 103 categories, prepared by Chen \textit{et al.} \cite{chen2010parallel} to evaluate their distributed spectral clustering algorithms. The \textbf{CovType} dataset is a subset of 581,012 observations of cartographic variables. Each observation is associated with one of seven possible forest cover types. The \textbf{ImageNet} dataset is a processed version of the original ImageNet dataset \cite{imagenet_cvpr09} prepared by Chitta \textit{et al.} \cite{Chitta2011} to evaluate their approximate kernel $k$-means approach. In the medium-scale experiments, we used a sample of 50,000 images out of the 1,262,102 images of the \textbf{ImageNet} dataset. That sample dataset is denoted as \textbf{ImageNet-50k}. All the datasets have been used in previous work to evaluate large-scale clustering algorithms in general \cite{chen2011large, chen2010parallel} and the kernel $k$-means algorithm in particular \cite{Chitta2011,chitta2012efficient}. The properties of the datasets are summarized in Table \ref{Tab:Datasets}.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{Tab:Datasets}The properties of the datasets used in the experiments.
}
\begin{center}
{\small }%
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{\footnotesize Dataset} & \textbf{\footnotesize Type} & \textbf{\footnotesize \# Instances} & \textbf{\footnotesize \# Features} & \textbf{\footnotesize \# Clusters}\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
\textbf{\footnotesize USPS} & {\small Digit Images} & {\small 9,298} & {\small 256} & {\small 10}\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{\footnotesize PIE} & {\small Face Images} & {\small 11,554} & {\small 4,096} & {\small 68}\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{\footnotesize MNIST} & {\small Digit Images} & {\small 70,000} & {\small 784} & {\small 10}\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{\footnotesize RCV1} & {\small Documents} & {\small 193,844} & {\small 47,236} & {\small 103}\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{\footnotesize CovType} & {\small Multivariate} & {\small 581,012} & {\small 54} & {\small 7}\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{\footnotesize ImageNet} & {\small Images} & {\small 1,262,102} & {\small 900} & {\small 164}\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}{\small \par}
\end{center}
\end{table}
For all experiments, after the clustering is performed, the cluster labels are compared to ground-truth labels and the Normalized Mutual Information (NMI) \cite{strehl2003cluster} between clustering labels and the class labels is calculated. We also report the embedding time and clustering time of the proposed algorithms in the large-scale experiments.
The medium-scale experiments were carried out using MATLAB on a single machine to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms compared to previously proposed kernel $k$-means approximations. We compared our algorithms - APNC via Nystr\"om (\textit{APNC-Nys}) and APNC via Stable Distributions (\textit{APNC-SD}) - to the approximate Kernel $k$-means approach (\textit{Approx KKM}) \cite{Chitta2011} and the two Random Fourier Features (RFF)-based algorithms (\textit{RFF}) and (\textit{SV-RFF}) presented in \cite{chitta2012efficient}. For \textit{APNC-Nys}, \textit{APNC-SD} and \textit{Approx KKM}, we used three different values for the number of samples $l$, while fixing the parameter $t$ in \textit{APNC-SD} to $40\%$ of $l$ and $m$ to $1000$. For a fair comparison, we set the number of fourier features used in \textit{RFF} and \textit{SV-RFF} to $500$ to obtain $1000$-dimensional embeddings as in \textit{APNC-SD}. An RBF kernel was used for both the \textbf{PIE} and \textbf{Imgnet-50k} datasets. The $\sigma$ parameter was estimated using the self-tuning method used in \cite{Chitta2011}. We used a neural kernel $k(x_1,x_2) = tanh(ax_1^Tx_2 + b)$ for the \textbf{USPS} dataset and a polynomial kernel $k(x_1,x_2) = (x_1^Tx_2 + 1)^d$ for the \textbf{MNIST} dataset. Following \cite{Chitta2011}, the parameters $a,b$ and $d$ were set to $0.0045, 0.11$ and $5$, respectively. Table \ref{tab:Results1} summarizes the average and standard deviation of the NMIs achieved in $20$ different runs of each algorithm. Being limited to only shift-invariant kernels, both \textit{RFF} and \textit{SV-RFF} were only used for the datasets \textbf{PIE} and \textbf{ImageNet-50k}. We also report the clustering accuracy achieved using the exact kernel $k$-means algorithm on the datasets \textbf{PIE} and \textbf{USPS}.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\begin{center}
\caption{\label{tab:Results1}The NMIs (\%) of different kernel $k$-means approximations (single-node experiments). In each sub-table, the best performing approximation(s) for each $l$ according to $t$-test (with $95\%$ confidence level) is highlighted in bold.
}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|}
\hline
& $l=50$ & $l=100$ & $l=300$ \tabularnewline
\cline{2-4}
\multirow{1}{*}{Methods} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{PIE - 11K, RBF}} \tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{RFF} & $5.2 \pm 0.12$ & $5.2 \pm 0.12$ & $5.2 \pm 0.12$\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{SV-RFF} & $5.15 \pm 0.11$ & $5.15 \pm 0.11$ & $5.15 \pm 0.11$\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{Approx KKM} & $13.99 \pm 0.6$ & $14.66 \pm 1.01$ & $15.95 \pm 0.83$\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{APNC-Nys} & $\mathbf{18.52 \pm 00.26}$ & $\mathbf{19.23\pm 00.36}$ & $\mathbf{20.20\pm00.46}$\tabularnewline
\cline{1-4}
\hline
\textbf{APNC-SD} & $\mathbf{18.62 \pm 0.37}$ & $\mathbf{19.5 \pm 0.38}$ & $\mathbf{20.12 \pm 0.35}$\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{Exact KKM} &\multicolumn{3}{c|}{$20.7915\pm 0.4542$}\tabularnewline
\cline{1-4}
\multirow{2}{*} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{ImageNet - 50K, RBF}} \tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{RFF} & $6.12 \pm 0.04$ & $6.12 \pm 0.04$ & $6.12 \pm 0.04$\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{SV-RFF} & $5.96 \pm 0.06$ & $5.96 \pm 0.06$ & $5.96 \pm 0.06$\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{Approx KKM} & $14.67 \pm 0.25$ & $15.12 \pm 0.17$ & $15.27 \pm 0.15$\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{APNC-Nys} & $\mathbf{15.62\pm 00.17}$ & $\mathbf{15.81\pm 00.12}$ & $\mathbf{15.79\pm00.09}$\tabularnewline
\cline{1-4}
\hline
\textbf{APNC-SD} & $\mathbf{15.66 \pm 0.14}$ & $\mathbf{15.78 \pm 0.14}$ & $\mathbf{15.76 \pm 0.08}$\tabularnewline
\hline
\multirow{2}{*} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{USPS - 9K, Neural}} \tabularnewline
\cline{2-4}
\hline
\textbf{Approx KKM} & $37.60 \pm 17.50$ & $50.68 \pm 11.28$ & $\mathbf{57.17 \pm 5.44}$\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{APNC-Nys} & $\mathbf{51.58\pm 11.74}$ & $\mathbf{55.77\pm 03.30}$ & $\mathbf{58.26\pm 00.95}$\tabularnewline
\cline{1-4}
\hline
\textbf{APNC-SD} & $\mathbf{52.88 \pm 7.25}$ & $\mathbf{55.34 \pm 4.15}$ & $\mathbf{58.22 \pm 0.87}$\tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{Exact KKM} &\multicolumn{3}{c|}{$59.4367\pm 0.6591$}\tabularnewline
\hline
\multirow{2}{*} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\textbf{MNIST - 70K, Polynomial}} \tabularnewline
\cline{2-4}
\hline
\textbf{Approx KKM} & $19.07 \pm 1.45$ & $20.73 \pm 1.30$ & $22.38 \pm 1.06$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\textbf{APNC-Nys} & $19.68\pm 00.71$ & $20.82\pm 01.44$ & $21.93\pm 00.69$ \tabularnewline
\cline{1-4}
\hline
\textbf{APNC-SD} & $\mathbf{23.00 \pm 1.57}$ & $\mathbf{23.08 \pm 1.58}$ & $\mathbf{23.86 \pm 1.82}$ \tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
The large-scale experiments carried out using the last three dataset in Table \ref{Tab:Datasets} were conducted on an Amazon EC2\footnote{http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/} cluster which consists of 20 machines. Each machine comes with a memory of 7.5 GB and a two-cores processor. All machines were running Debian 6.0.5, Hadoop version 1.0.3 and Java 1.7.0. We combined our embedding algorithms \textit{APNC-Nys} and \textit{APNC-SD} with the proposed parallelization strategy and compared them to a baseline two-stages method \textit{2-Stage} that uses the exact kernel $k$-means clustering results of a sample of $l$ data instance to propagate the labels to all the other data instances \cite{Chitta2011}. The \textit{2-Stage} method is used as a sanity check to evaluate the relative improvement in clustering accuracy of the \textit{APNC-Nys} and \textit{APNC-SD}.\footnote{The \textit{2-Stage} method was implemented using MATLAB on a single machine since we are only interested in its clustering accuracy.} We evaluated the three algorithms using three different values for $l$ while fixing $m$ in \textit{APNC-Nys} and \textit{APNC-SD} to $500$. We used a self-tuned RBF kernel for all datasets. For simplicity we used a fixed number of 20 iterations in the clustering step as a convergence criteria in both \textit{APNC-Nys} and \textit{APNC-SD}. Table \ref{tab:Results2} summarizes the average and standard deviation of the NMIs achieved in three different runs of each algorithm. The table also reports the embedding and clustering times of the different APNC methods. For each dataset, the clustering time depends only on the dimensionality of the embeddings ($m$). That is why we are reporting a single entry for the clustering time in each dataset.
It can be observed from Table \ref{tab:Results1} that the centralized versions of the proposed algorithms were significantly superior to all the other kernel $k$-means approximations in terms of the clustering accuracy. Both methods performed similarly in all datasets except for the MNIST, in which \textit{APNC-SD} outperformed \textit{APNC-Nys}. The poor performance of \textit{RFF} and \textit{SV-RFF} is consistent with the results of \cite{yang2012nystr} that showed that for a fixed number of fourier features, the approximation accuracy of RFF-based methods are determined by the properties of the eigenspectrum of the kernel matrix being approximated. The table also shows that when using only 300 samples (i.e. $l = 300$), \textit{APNC-Nys} and \textit{APNC-SD} achieve very close clustering accuracy to that of the exact kernel $k$-means which confirms the accuracy and the reliability of the proposed approximations.
Table \ref{tab:Results2} demonstrates also the effectiveness of the proposed algorithms in distributed settings compared to the baseline algorithm. The \textit{APNC-SD} managed to outperform the \textit{APNC-Nys} in NMI only on the \textbf{CovType} dataset. Both methods achieved similar NMIs on the two other datasets. It is also worth noting that, to the best of our knowledge, the best reported NMIs in the literature for the datasets \textbf{RCV1}, \textbf{CovType}, and \textbf{ImageNet} are $28.65\%$ using the spectral clustering \cite{chen2010parallel}, $14\%$ using \textit{RFF} \cite{chitta2012efficient} and $10.4\%$ using \textit{Approx-KKM} of \cite{Chitta2011}, respectively. Our algorithms managed to achieve better NMIs on both \textbf{CovType} and \textbf{ImageNet} and a comparable clustering accuracy on \textbf{RCV1}. Table \ref{tab:Results2} also shows that \textit{APNC-Nys} and \textit{APNC-SD} have comparable embedding times. On the other hand, the clustering step of \textit{APNC-SD} is faster than that of \textit{APNC-Nys}, especially in the datasets with a large number of clusters (\textbf{RCV1} and \textbf{ImageNet}). That advantage of the \textit{APNC-SD} algorithm is from using the $\ell_1$-distance as its discrepancy function, while the \textit{APNC-Nys} uses the $\ell_2$-distance as its discrepancy function. To judge the overall efficiency of our algorithms, we compared the total clustering time on the \textbf{RCV1} dataset to the reported clustering running time of the same dataset on a $20$-node cluster in \cite{chen2010parallel}. We are unaware of any reported results for a distributed kernel $k$-means implementation. We are comparing our running times to the running times of the distributed spectral clustering of \cite{chen2010parallel}, to just get a sense of the efficiency of our algorithms. With $l=1500$, the total clustering time using \textit{APNC-SD} was on average $25$ minutes, while the total clustering time of \textit{APNC-Nys} was $29$ minutes. The reported running time for the same dataset on a $20$-nodes cluster in \cite{chen2010parallel} was $95$ minutes.
\begin{table*}
\caption{\label{tab:Results2}The NMIs and run times of different kernel $k$-means approximations (big datasets). In each NMI sub-table, the best performing method(s) for each $l$ according to $t$-test is highlighted in bold.
}\vspace{-0.7cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|c|c||c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{\small NMI (\%)}} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{\textbf{\small Embedding Time (mins)}} & \textbf{\small Clustering }\tabularnewline
\cline{2-7}
& {\small $l=500$} & {\small $l=1000$} & {\small $l=1500$} & {\small $l=500$} & {\small $l=1000$} & {\small $l=1500$} & \textbf{\small Time (mins)}\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
\textbf{\small Methods} & \multicolumn{7}{c|}{\textbf{\small RCV1 - 200K}}\tabularnewline
\hline
{\small 2-Stage} & {\small 13.33\textpm{}00.53} & {\small 13.56\textpm{}00.53} & {\small 13.56\textpm{}00.06} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{{\small N/A}} & {\small N/A}\tabularnewline
\hline
{\small APNC-Nys} & {\small \textbf{22.15\textpm{}00.09}} & {\small \textbf{23.77\textpm{}00.60}} & {\small \textbf{23.84\textpm{}00.80}} & {\small 03.1\textpm{}00.1} & {\small 05.9\textpm{}00.2} & {\small 10.9\textpm{}00.5} & 19.6\textpm{}00.1\tabularnewline
\hline
{\small APNC-SD} & {\small \textbf{22.21\textpm{}00.39}} & {\small \textbf{24.34\textpm{}00.26}} & {\small \textbf{23.55\textpm{}00.17}} & {\small 03.0\textpm{}00.2} & {\small 05.9\textpm{}00.2} & {\small 09.9\textpm{}00.4} & 15.6\textpm{}00.4\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
\textbf{\small Methods} & \multicolumn{7}{c|}{\textbf{\small CovType - 580K}}\tabularnewline
\hline
{\small 2-Stage} & {\small 08.95\textpm{}02.98} & {\small 10.23\textpm{}01.07} & {\small 09.85\textpm{}01.88} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{{\small N/A}} & {\small N/A}\tabularnewline
\hline
{\small APNC-Nys} & {\small 09.53\textpm{}02.55} & {\small 12.31\textpm{}00.74} & {\small 12.51\textpm{}01.08} & {\small 03.7\textpm{}00.2} & {\small 07.4\textpm{}00.2} & {\small 11.3\textpm{}00.5} & 16.4\textpm{}00.1\tabularnewline
\hline
{\small APNC-SD} & {\small \textbf{15.96\textpm{}01.03}} & {\small \textbf{15.08\textpm{}01.40}} & {\small \textbf{15.56\textpm{}00.18}} & {\small 03.8\textpm{}00.2} & {\small 07.2\textpm{}00.1} & {\small 11.6\textpm{}00.3} & 15.8\textpm{}00.1\tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
\textbf{\small Methods} & \multicolumn{7}{c|}{\textbf{\small ImageNet - 1.26M}}\tabularnewline
\hline
{\small 2-Stage} & {\small 07.51\textpm{}00.42} & {\small 07.58\textpm{}00.21} & {\small 07.71\textpm{}00.20} & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{{\small N/A}} & {\small N/A}\tabularnewline
\hline
{\small APNC-Nys} & {\small \textbf{11.33\textpm{}00.05}} & {\small \textbf{11.26\textpm{}00.11}} & {\small \textbf{11.19\textpm{}00.03}} & {\small 15.6\textpm{}00.4} & {\small 30.3\textpm{}02.4} & {\small 45.2\textpm{}01.9} & 63.8\textpm{}02.8\tabularnewline
\hline
{\small APNC-SD} & {\small \textbf{11.27\textpm{}00.06}} & {\small \textbf{11.26\textpm{}00.04}} & {\small \textbf{11.10\textpm{}00.05}} & {\small 14.9\textpm{}01.4} & {\small 30.9\textpm{}00.9} & {\small 44.6\textpm{}01.5} & 23.7\textpm{}00.3\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{-0.9cm}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\section{\label{Sec:Conc}Conclusions}
In this paper, we proposed distributed algorithms for scaling kernel $k$-means on MapReduce. We started by defining a family of low-dimensional embeddings characterized by a set of computational and statistical properties. Based on these properties, we presented a unified parallelization strategy that first computes the corresponding embeddings of all data instances of the given dataset. The obtained embeddings are then clustered in a MapReduce-efficient manner. Based on the Nystr\"om approximation and the properties of the stable distributions, we derived two embedding methods that were shown to adhere to the properties of the defined embedding family. Combining each of the two embedding methods with the proposed parallelization strategy, we demonstrated the effectiveness of the presented algorithms by empirical evaluation on medium and large benchmark datasets.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
We thank Radha Chitta and the authors of \cite{Chitta2011} for sharing their processed ImageNet dataset.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper we develop a renormalization group (RG) method to estimate
functional integrals, based on ideas of conditional expectations and
harmonic extensions. We demonstrate this method with the model of
classical dipole gas, which has always been considered as a simple
model to start with for this type of problems. For the classical dipole
model, earlier important works are \cite{frohlich_correlation_1978,frohlich_statistical_1981}.
The renormalization group approach to this model originated from the
works by Gawedzki and Kupiainen \cite{gawedzki_rigorous_1980,gawedzki_block_1983},
based on Kadanoff spin blockings.
A different method that uses the idea of decomposition of the covariance of
the Gaussian field was initiated from \cite{brydges_grad_1990},
and was simplified and pedagogically presented in the lecture notes
\cite{brydges_lectures_2007}, see also \cite{dimock_infinite_2009}.
The latter method has achieved several important applications in other
problems such as the two-dimensional Coulomb gas model \cite{Dimock_SineGordon,falco_kosterlitz_2012,falco_Critical_2013},
$\phi^{4}$-type field theories \cite{brydges_short_1995,brydges_nonGaussian_1998,brydges_critical_2003,Brydges_2014-8}
and self-avoiding walks \cite{Brydges_functional_2009,brydges_renormalization_2010,bauerschmidt_structural} (see also the recent works \cite{Brydges_2014-1,Brydges_2014-2,Brydges_2014-3,Brydges_2014-4,Brydges_2014-5,Brydges_2014-6}).
The $\phi^{4}$ field theory problems are also studied in the p-adics setting
by \cite{abdesselam} which yields some strong consequences.
Our method is different from the above two methods, and may be as
well regarded as a variation of the method by Brydges et al. Their
decomposition of covariance scheme, which was also used by other people
such as \cite{gallavotti_1985}, could be implemented by Fourier analysis.
In \cite{brydges_finite_2004}, a decomposition of Gaussian covariance
with every piece of covariance having finite range was constructed
using elliptic partial differential equation techniques, which also
depends to some extent on Fourier analysis, and this decomposition
is the foundation of the simplified version of their RG method (see
also \cite{brydges_finite_2006,bauerschmidt_simple_2012,adams_2013}
for alternative constructions of such decompositions). We do not perform
such a decomposition of covariance. Instead we directly take harmonic
extensions as our basic scheme and use the Poisson kernel to smooth
the Gaussian field. We do not need Fourier analysis; instead, real
space decay rates of Poisson kernels and (derivatives of) Green's
functions are essential. Some complexities in \cite{brydges_finite_2004}
such as proof of elliptic regularity theorem on lattice are avoided.
Many elements of this method such as the polymer expansions and so
on are very close to the method by Brydges et al, especially to \cite{brydges_lectures_2007},
while we also have many new features, such as simpler norms and regulators.
We keep notations as close as possible to \cite{brydges_lectures_2007}
for convenience of the readers who are familiar with \cite{brydges_lectures_2007}.
Very roughly speaking, our method is aimed to study functional integrals
of the form
\[
Z=\mathbb{E}\big[e^{V(\phi)}\big]
\]
where $\phi$ is a Gaussian field and $\mathbb{E}$ is an expectation
with respect to a Gaussian measure. Similarly with \cite{brydges_lectures_2007}
we will rewrite the integrand into a local expansion over subsets $X$
of an explicit part and an implicit remainder.
For instance in the
model considered in this paper, the above quantity $Z$ will be rewritten
into an expression of roughly the following form (more precisely, see Proposition~\ref{prop:firstprop})
\[
\mathbb{E}\Big[\sum_{X}
e^{\sigma\sum_{x\notin X}\left(\partial\phi(x)\right)^{2}}
K(X,\phi)\Big]
\]
where $K(X,\phi)$ depends only on $\phi(x)$ with $x$ in (a neighborhood of) $X$. We will then take
a family of conditional expectations at a sequence of scales parametrized
by integer $j$ - so our approach is a multi-scale analysis.
To give a quick glance of the main idea,
at a scale $j$ we will have expressions, which up to several subtleties look
as follows:
\[
\mathbb{E}\Big[
\sum_{Y}e^{\sigma_{j}\sum_{x\notin Y}
\mathbb{E} \,\left[\,\partial\phi(x)\,|\,B_{x}^{c}\,\right]^{2}}
\,\mathbb{E}
\big[K_{j}^{\prime}(Y,\phi)|Y^{c}\big]
\Big] \;.
\]
The actual expressions will be slightly different and more complicated and we refer to
Section~\ref{subsec:outline} for the exact expressions,
but at this stage we point out that some conditional expectations have appeared
inside the overall expectation.
Indeed,
for any function of the
field $F(\phi)$, the notation
$\mathbb{E}\left[F(\phi)|X^{c}\right]$ means integrating \emph{all} the variables $\{\phi(x):x\in X\}$
with $\{\phi(x):x\in X^{c}\}$ \emph{fixed} ($X^c$ is the complement of $X$).
Also, $B_{x}$ is a block
containing $x$, and
$\sigma_{j}$ is the
most important dynamical parameter (which corresponds to renormalization
of the dielectric constant in the dipole model).
This idea of conditional expectation is close to
Frohlich and Spencer's work on Kosterlitz-Thouless transition \cite{frohlich_kosterlitzPRL_1981,frohlich_kosterlitzCMP_1981}
where the authors take inside an expectation conditional integrations,
each over \emph{all} variables $\{\phi(x):x\in\Omega\}$ where $\Omega$
is a bounded region around a charge density $\rho$ with diameter
$\sim2^{j}$
at a scale $j$.
Such conditional expectations can be carried out by minimizing the
quadratic form in the Gaussian measure with conditioning variables
fixed. Since the Gaussian is associated to a Laplacian these minimizers
are harmonic extensions of $\phi$ from $X^{c}$ into $X$. These
harmonic extensions result in smoother dependence of the integrand
of the expectation on the field. Some elliptic PDE methods along with
random walk estimates will be used. We remark that this variational
viewpoint also shows up in Balaban's RG method (see for instance \cite{balaban_1983}
or Section 2.2 - 2.3 of \cite{dimock_renormalization-1}).
~\\
\noun{Acknowledgement: }I would like to thank my advisor Weinan E
who has been supporting my work on renormalization group methods over
years and giving me many good suggestions. I am very grateful for
the kind hospitality of David Brydges during my visits to University
of British Columbia, as well as a lot of encouragement and helpful
conversations by him from the stage of shaping the basic ideas of this paper to that of the final proofreading. I also appreciate mumerous discussions with
Stefan Adams, Arnulf Jentzen, and especially Roland Bauerschmidt.
\section{Outline of the paper} \label{sec:Outline}
\subsection{Settings, notations and conventions\label{sub:Conventions-about-notations}}
Let $\mathbb{Z}^{d}$ be the $d$ dimensional lattice with $d\geq2$.
Denote the sets of lattice directions as $\mathcal{E}_{+}=\{e_{1},...,e_{d}\}$
and $\mathcal{E}_{-}=\{-e_{1},...,-e_{d}\}$ where $e_{k}=(0,\cdots,1,\cdots,0)$
with only the k-th element being $1$. Let $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{E}_{+}\cup\mathcal{E}_{-}$.
For $e\in\mathcal{E}$, $\partial_{e}f(x)=f(x+e)-f(x)$ is the lattice
derivative. For $x,y\in\mathbb{Z}^{d}$, we say that $(x,y)$ is a
nearest neighbor pair and write $x\sim y$ if there exists an $e\in\mathcal{E}$
such that $x=y+e$. Denote $E(\mathbb{Z}^{d})$ to be the set of all
nearest neighbor pairs of $\mathbb{Z}^{d}$. For $X\subset\mathbb{Z}^{d}$,
we define $E(X):=\{(x,y)\in E(\mathbb{Z}^{d}):x,y\in X\}$.
Let $L$ be a positive odd integer, and $N\in\mathbb{N}$. Let
\[
\Lambda=[-L^{N}/2,L^{N}/2]^{d}\cap\mathbb{Z}^{d} \;,
\]
and we will consider functions on $\Lambda$ with periodic boundary
condition. In other words we view $\Lambda$ as a torus by identifying
the boundary points of $\Lambda$ in the usual way.
For $x,y\in\Lambda$, define $d(x,y)$ to be the length of a shortest
path of nearest neighbor sites in the torus $\Lambda$ connecting
$x$ and $y$. Also define $\partial X$ to be the ``outer boundary'':
$\partial X=\{x\in\Lambda:d(x,X)=1\}$. Write $X^{c}$ to be
the complement of $X$.
For a function $\phi$ on $\mathbb{Z}^{d}$, when it doesn't cause
confusions, we write for short
\[
\sum_{X}(\partial\phi)^{2}=\sum_{x\in X}(\partial\phi(x))^{2}:=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x\in X}\sum_{e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}\phi(x))^{2}
\]
and similarly for other such type of summations. If $\mathbb{E}$
is the expectation over $\phi$, we will use a short-hand notation
for conditional expectation
\[
\mathbb{E}\left[-\big|X\right]:=\mathbb{E}\left[-\big|\{\phi(x)\big|x\in X\}\right] \;,
\]
namely, the expectation with $\phi|_{X}$ fixed.
Unless we specify otherwise, Poisson kernels and Green's functions
will be associated with the operator $-\Delta+m^{2}$ where $m$ is a
small mass regularization. For any set $X$, $P_{X}$ or $P_{X}(x,y)$
($x\in X$, $y\in\partial X$) is the Poisson kernel for $X$. If
$x\notin X$ then $P_{X}f(x)=f(x)$ is always understood. In other
words, $P_{X}f$ is the harmonic extension of $f$ from $X^{c}$ into
$X$ with $f\big|_{X^{c}}$ unchanged.
\subsection{The dipole gas model and the scaling limit\label{sub:Definition-of-model}}
Let $\mu$ be the Gaussian measure on the space of functions $\{\phi(x):x\in\Lambda\}$
with mean zero and covariance $C_{m}=(-\Delta+m^{2})^{-1}$ where
$m>0$. In other words, $\phi$ is the Gaussian free field on the
$\Lambda$ with covariance $C_{m}$. Let $\mathbb{E}$ be the expectation
over $\phi$. Then the classical dipole gas model is defined by the
following measure:
\[
\nu(\phi)=e^{zW(\phi)}\mu(\phi)
\]
where
\[
W(\phi):=\sum_{x\in\Lambda}\sum_{\substack{e\in\mathcal{E}}
}\cos\left(\sqrt{\beta}\partial_{e}\phi(x)\right) \;.
\]
Such a measure is obtained by a definition of the model via
the great canonical ensemble followed by a Sine-Gordon transformation,
for instance, see \cite{brydges_grad_1990}.
We would like to study the problem of scaling limit. More precisely,
let $\tilde{\Lambda}:=[-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]^{d}\subset\mathbb{R}^{d}$.
Given a mean zero function $\tilde{f}\in C^{\infty}(\tilde{\Lambda})$,
$\int_{\tilde{\Lambda}} \tilde f=0$ with periodic boundary condition, we
study the (real) generating function
\begin{equation} \label{eq:scalinglimit-2}
Z_{N}(f):=
\lim_{m\rightarrow0}
\frac{
\mathbb{E} \big[e^{\sum_{x\in\Lambda}f(x)\phi(x)}e^{zW(\phi)}\big]
}{
\mathbb{E}\big[e^{zW(\phi)}\big]}
\end{equation}
where
\[
f(x)=f_{N}(x):=L^{-(d+2)N/2}\tilde{f}(L^{-N}x) \;.
\]
The main question is the scaling limit of $Z_{N}(f)$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$.
\subsection{Some preparative steps before RG\label{sub:Tuning}}
As the start of our strategy to study this problem, we perform an
a priori tuning of the Gaussian measure.
This tuning anticipates the fact that the best Gaussian approximation to $\nu$
is not the Gaussian measure currently defined on $\phi$.
For any $X\subseteq \Lambda$ define
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def_V}
V(X,\phi):=\frac{1}{4}
\sum_{\substack{x\in X,e\in\mathcal{E}}
}\left(\partial_{e}\phi(x)\right)^{2} \;.
\end{equation}
The tuning is to split part of the quadratic form of the Gaussian
measure into the integrand, so that the resulting Gaussian field has
covariance $[\epsilon(-\Delta+m^{2})]^{-1}$, with the associated
expectation called $\mathbb{E}^{\epsilon}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tuned}
Z_{N}(f) =
\lim_{m\rightarrow0}
\frac{\mathbb{E}^{\epsilon}\big[e^{\sum_{x\in\Lambda}f(x)\phi(x)}e^{(\epsilon-1)V(\Lambda,\phi)+zW(\Lambda,\phi)}\big]}
{\mathbb{E}^{\epsilon}
\big[e^{(\epsilon-1)V(\Lambda,\phi)+zW(\Lambda,\phi)}\big]} \;.
\end{equation}
Note that normalization factors caused by re-definition of Gaussian:
\[
\mathbb{E}^{\epsilon}\left[\exp\left((\epsilon-1)V(\Lambda,\phi)\right)\right]
\]
appear in both numerator and denominator and are thus cancelled.
We would like to make the expectation (and thus the RG maps which
we will define later) independent of $\epsilon$. So we rescale $\phi\rightarrow\phi/\sqrt{\epsilon}$
and let $\sigma=\epsilon^{-1}-1$ and obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ZprimebyZ2primes}
Z_{N}(f) =\lim_{m\rightarrow0}
\frac{
\mathbb{E} \big[
e^{\sum_{x\in\Lambda}f(x)\phi(x)/\sqrt{\epsilon}}
\cdot e^{-\sigma V(\phi)+zW(\sqrt{1+\sigma}\phi)}
\big]
}{
\mathbb{E}\big[e^{-\sigma V(\phi)+zW(\sqrt{1+\sigma}\phi)}\big]} \;.
\end{equation}
We also shift the Gaussian field to get rid of the linear term $\sum f\phi/\sqrt{\epsilon}$. Write
$-\Delta_{m}=-\Delta+m^{2}$ and make a translation
$\phi\rightarrow\phi+\xi_m$
where $\xi_m=(-\sqrt{\epsilon}\Delta_{m})^{-1}f$ in the numerator in
(\ref{eq:ZprimebyZ2primes}).
Since the function $\xi_m$ appears frequently below,
we will simply write $\xi=\xi_m$ without explicitly referring to its dependence on $m$.
Then, one has
\begin{equation} \label{eq:generating_good}
Z_{N}(f)=\lim_{m\rightarrow0}e^{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x\in\Lambda}f(x)(-\epsilon\Delta_{m})^{-1}f(x)}Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)\big/Z_{N}^{\prime}(0)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Zprime}
Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)=\mathbb{E}\left[e^{-\sigma V(\Lambda,\phi+\xi)+zW((\phi+\xi)/\sqrt{\epsilon})}\right] \;.
\end{equation}
Let $-\tilde{\Delta}_{m}=-\tilde{\Delta}+m^{2}$, where $\tilde{\Delta}$
is the Laplacian acting on the functions on $\tilde\Lambda$,
and $\tilde{C}_{m}:=(-\tilde{\Delta}_{m})^{-1}$
and $\tilde{\xi}_m:=(-\sqrt{\epsilon}\tilde{\Delta}_{m})^{-1}\tilde{f}$.
We can verify that
\[
L^{2N}\tilde C_{L^{N}m}(L^{-N}x)=C_{m}(x)
\qquad
\mbox{and}
\qquad
L^{-\frac{d-2}{2}N}\tilde \xi_{L^N m}(L^{-N}x)=\xi_m (x) \;.
\]
Let $q<\frac{d}{d-1}$ and define
\[
R:=\sup_{m>0}\max \Big(\Vert\tilde{C}_{m}\Vert_{L^{q}},\Vert\partial\tilde{C}_{m}\Vert_{L^{q}} \Big)
\]
Note that $R<\infty$ since the worst local singularity is $O(|x|^{1-d})$
which is $L^q$ integrable for any $q<\frac{d}{d-1}$.
We will assume that $\Vert\tilde{f}\Vert_{L^{p}}\leq h/R$ ($p>d$),
for a constant $h$ to be specified later, so that for $\alpha=0,1$
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert \partial^{\alpha}\xi\right\Vert _{L^{\infty}}\leq hL^{-(\frac{d-2}{2}+\alpha)N}\label{eq:smallness_xi}
\end{equation}
by Young's inequality.
Before the RG steps, we write both $Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)$ and $Z_{N}^{\prime}(0)$
into a form of ``polymer expansion''. For any set $X\subseteq\Lambda$,
write
\[
W(X,\phi):=\sum_{x\in X}\sum_{\substack{e\in\mathcal{E}}
}\cos\left(\sqrt{\beta}\partial_{e}\phi(x)\right) \;.
\]
\begin{prop} \label{prop:firstprop}
With $W$ defined above and $Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)$ given by (\ref{eq:Zprime}), we have
\begin{equation}
Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)=\mathbb{E}\bigg[\sum_{X\subseteq\Lambda}
I_0(\Lambda\backslash X,\phi+\xi)K_0(X,\phi+\xi)\bigg]\label{eq:Mayer}
\end{equation}
where $I_0(X)=\prod_{x\in X}I_0(\{x\})$ and
\
I_0(\{x\},\phi+\xi)=e^{-\frac{1}{4}\sigma\sum_{e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}\phi(x)+\partial_{e}\xi(x))^{2}} \;,
\
\[
K_0(X,\phi+\xi)=\prod_{x\in X}e^{-\frac{1}{4}\sigma\sum_{e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}\phi(x)+\partial_{e}\xi(x))^{2}}\left(e^{zW\left(\{x\},(\phi+\xi)/\sqrt{\epsilon}\right)}-1\right) \;.
\]
\end{prop}
The subscript $0$ indicates that we are at the $0$-th RG step, and
we will write $\sigma_0=\sigma$.
The quantity $Z_{N}^{\prime}(0)$ has the same expansion with
$\xi=0$.
\begin{proof}
Consider equation (\ref{eq:Zprime}): following Mayer expansion,
\
\begin{aligned}
Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)= & \mathbb{E}\big[
e^{zW(\Lambda)-\sigma V(\Lambda)}\big]\\
= & \mathbb{E}\Big[
\prod_{x\in\Lambda}\Big(
e^{-\sigma V(\{x\})}+ \big(e^{zW(\{x\})}-1\big) e^{-\sigma V(\{x\})}\Big)
\Big] \;
\end{aligned}
\
Expanding the product amounts to associating
a set $X\subseteq \Lambda$ to the second term and the complement $\Lambda\backslash X$ to the first term.
This proves the statement (\ref{eq:Mayer}).
\end{proof}
\subsection{Outline of main ideas} \label{subsec:outline}
Our renormalization group method is based on the idea of rewriting
the expectation into an expectation of an expression involving many
conditional expectations. We will carry out a multiscale analysis;
an RG map will be iterated from one scale to the next one, during
which we will re-arrange the conditional expectations. A basic algebraic
structure and analytical bound will be propagated to every scale.
In order to describe these structures and bounds, we first give some
definitions.
\subsubsection{Basics of polymers} \label{sec:Basics-Polymers}
\begin{enumerate}
\item We call blocks of size $L^{j}$ j-blocks. These are translations of
$\{x\in\mathbb{Z}^{d}:\left|x\right|<\frac{1}{2}(L^{j}-1)\}$ by vectors
in $\left(L^{j}\mathbb{Z}\right)^{d}$. In particular a 0-block is
a single site in $\mathbb{Z}^{d}$. A j-polymer $X$ is a union of
j-blocks. In particular the empty set is also a j-polymer. The number
of lattice sites in $X\subset\mathbb{Z}^{d}$ is denoted by $\left|X\right|$.
The number of j-blocks in a j-polymer $X$ is denoted by $\left|X\right|_{j}$.
\item $X\subset\mathbb{Z}^{d}$ is said to be connected if for any two points
$x,y\in X$ there exists a path $(x_{i}:i=0,\dots,n)$ with $\left|x_{i+1}-x_{i}\right|_{\infty}=1$
connecting $x$ and $y$. Here, $|x|_{\infty}$ is the maximum of
all coordinates of $x$; note that for instance $\{(0,0),(1,1)\}$
is connected if $d=2$. Connected sets are not empty. Two sets $X,Y$
are said to be strictly disjoint if there is no path from $x$ to
$y$ when $x\in X$ and $y\in Y$; otherwise we say that they touch.
\item For any $X\subset\mathbb{Z}^{d}$ we let $\mathcal{C}(X)$ be the set of connected components of $X$.
\item For a j-polymer $X$ we have the following notations. $\mathcal{B}_{j}(X)$
is the set of all j-blocks in $X$. $\mathcal{P}_{j}(X)$ is the set
of all j-polymers in $X$. $\mathcal{P}_{j,c}(X)$ is the set of all
connected j-polymers in $X$. We sometimes just write $\mathcal{B}_{j},\mathcal{P}_{j},\mathcal{P}_{j,c}$
and so on when $X=\Lambda$.
\item Let $X\in\mathcal{P}_{j}$. Define for $j\geq1$
\[
\begin{aligned}
\hat{X} &:=\cup\{B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}:B\mbox{ touches }X\} \;,\\
X^{+}&:=\cup\{x\in\Lambda:d(x,X)\leq\frac{1}{3}L^{j}\} \;, \\
\ddot{X}&:=\cup\{x\in\Lambda:d(x,X)\leq\frac{1}{6}L^{j}\} \;,\\
\dot{X}&:=\cup\{x\in\Lambda:d(x,X)\leq\frac{1}{12}L^{j}\} \;.
\end{aligned}
\]
Note that we have $X\subset\dot{X}\subset\ddot{X}\subset X^{+}\subset\hat{X}$.
Only $X,\hat{X}$ belong to $\mathcal{P}_{j}$.
\item When $j=0$ and $X\in\mathcal{P}_{0}$, we define $\dot{X}=\ddot{X}=X^{+}=\hat{X}=X$,
and the Poisson kernel at scale $0$ is understood as $P_{X^{+}}:=id$.
\end{enumerate}
We also have the following notations for functions of the fields.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Define $\mathcal{N}$ to be the set of functions of $\phi$ and $\xi$.
Define
$\mathcal{N}(X) \subseteq\mathcal{N}$ to be the set of functions of
$\{\phi(x),\xi(x) \big|x\in X\}$. $\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{P}_{j}}$ is the
set of maps $K:\mathcal{P}_{j}\rightarrow\mathcal{N}$ such that $K(X)\in\mathcal{N}(\hat{X})$.
We define $\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{B}_{j}}$, $\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{P}_{j,c}}$
similarly.
\item For $I\in\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{B}_{j}}$ we write
\[
I(X)=I^{X}:=\prod_{B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}(X)}I(B)\qquad\mbox{for }X\in\mathcal{P}_{j} \;.
\]
For $K\in\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{P}_{j}}$ we say that $K$ factorizes
over connected components if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:factorization}
K(X)=\prod_{Y\in\mathcal{C}(X)}K(Y) \;.
\end{equation}
In this case, $K$ is determined by its value
on connected polymers, so
we can write $K\in\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{P}_{j,c}}$.
\end{enumerate}
The \emph{basic structure} that we want to propagate to every scale
of the RG iterations is, for $j\geq0$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:basic_structure}
Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)=e^{\mathcal{E}_{j}}\,
\mathbb{E}\bigg[\sum_{X\in\mathcal{P}_{j}(\Lambda)}I_{j}(\Lambda\backslash\hat{X},\phi,\xi)K_{j}(X,\phi,\xi)\bigg] \;.
\end{equation}
Here, $e^{\mathcal{E}_{j}}$ is a $\phi,\xi$ independent constant
factor. This constant will be shown to be the same for $Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)$
and $Z_{N}^{\prime}(0)$ and thus cancels. $K_{j}(X,\phi,\xi)$ only
depends on the values of $\phi,\xi$ in a small neighborhood of $X$.
Note that there is a ``corridor'' between each $X$ and $\Lambda\backslash\hat{X}$
(namely, the union of $X$ and $\Lambda\backslash \hat X$
is not the entire $\Lambda$, and we call this ``missing part" $\hat X \backslash X$ heuristically as a ``corridor'').
These ``corridors'' will be important in our conditional expectation
method.
Furthermore, for $j<N$, the function $I_{j}$ will have a local form in the sense that it
factorizes over $j$-blocks
$I_{j}(X,\phi,\xi)=\prod_{B\in\mathcal{B}_j(X)}I_{j}(B,\phi,\xi)$
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:defI}
I_{j}(B,\phi,\xi)=e^{-\frac{1}{4}\sigma_{j}\sum_{x\in B,e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}P_{B^{+}}\phi(x)+\partial_{e}\xi(x))^{2}} \;.
\end{equation}
$I_{j}(B)$ is essentially determined by the dynamical parameter $\sigma_{j}$.
On the other hand, $K_{j}$ will only factorize over ``connected
components of polymer''.
The \emph{basic bounds} that hold on every scale about $K_{j}$,
whose form will not be explicit, is as follows. For $X$ connected,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=0}^{4} \frac{1}{n!}
\left\Vert
K_{j}^{(n)}(X,\phi,\xi)
\right\Vert
\leq \left\Vert K\right\Vert _{j}A^{-|X|_{j}}G(\ddot{X},X^{+}) \;.
\end{equation}
Here, $K_j^{(n)}$ is an $n$-th derivative of $K_j$;
the precise definition of it and the norm will be given later.
For any two sets $X\subset Y$, $G(X,Y)$ is a normalized conditional expectation
called the ``regulator''
\begin{equation}
G(X,Y)=\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{X}(\partial\phi)^{2}}\big|\phi_{Y^{c}}\right]\big/N(X,Y)
\end{equation}
and the normalization factor is
\begin{equation}
N(X,Y)=\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{X}(\partial\phi)^{2}}\big|\phi_{Y^{c}}=0\right] \;.
\end{equation}
This form of regulator is different from the one defined in \cite{brydges_lectures_2007};
in particular it is itself a conditional expectation. It will be shown
to have some interesting properties.
Now we outline the steps to go from scale $j$ to scale $j+1$ while
the structure (\ref{eq:basic_structure}) is preserved.
\subsubsection*{1) Extraction and reblocking. }
Reblocking is a procedure which rewrites (\ref{eq:basic_structure})
into an expansion over ``$j+1$ scale polymers''; and we extract
the components that grow too fast under this reblocking.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:extra-reblo}
Suppose that $L$ is sufficiently large. If
at the scale $j$ one has
\begin{equation}
Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)=e^{\mathcal{E}_{j}}\,
\mathbb{E}\bigg[\sum_{X\in\mathcal{P}_{j}}I_{j}^{\Lambda\backslash\hat{X}}(\phi,\xi)K_{j}(X,\phi,\xi)\bigg]\label{eq:form_j}
\end{equation}
with $I_{j}\in\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{B}_j}$ given by (\ref{eq:defI}),
then there exist $\mathcal{E}_{j+1},I_{j+1}\in\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{B}_{j+1}}$
and $K_{j}^{\sharp}\in\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{P}_{j+1,c}}$
(namely $K_{j}^{\sharp}$ factorizes
over connected components in the sense of \eqref{eq:factorization}),
so that the following expansion at the scale $j+1$ holds
\begin{equation} \label{eq:next-scale1}
Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi) =
e^{\mathcal{E}_{j+1}}\,
\mathbb{E}
\bigg[
\sum_{U\in\mathcal{P}_{j+1}}I{}_{j+1}^{\Lambda\backslash\hat{U}}(\phi,\xi) \, K_{j}^{\sharp}(U,\phi,\xi)
\bigg]
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{E}_{j+1}$ is a constant independent of $\phi,\xi$,
and for every $D\in\mathcal{B}_{j+1}$,
\[
I_{j+1}(D)=e^{-\frac{1}{4}\sigma_{j+1}\sum_{x\in D,e\in\mathcal{E}}\left(\partial_{e}P_{D^{+}}\phi(x)+\partial_{e}\xi(x)\right)^{2}}
\]
for some constant $\sigma_{j+1}$.
\end{prop}
We will prove this Lemma in Section \ref{sec:The-renormalization-group}.
\subsubsection*{2) Conditional expectation. }
This step is the main difference between this new method and \cite{brydges_lectures_2007}.
First of all,
we observe that
in \eqref{eq:next-scale1},
the sets $\Lambda\backslash\hat U$ and $U$
do not touch. In other words,
there exists a corridor $\hat{U}\backslash U$ around the set $U$
where $K_j^\sharp$ evaluates on,
and this corridor has width
$L^{j+1}$. We then take conditional expectation
and thus re-write the expectation in \eqref{eq:next-scale1} as follows:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:outlinecond}
\mathbb{E}\bigg[
\sum_{U\in\mathcal{P}_{j+1}}
I_{j+1}^{\Lambda\backslash\hat{U}}(\phi,\xi) \,\mathbb{E}\Big[K_{j}^{\sharp}(U,\phi,\xi)\big|(U^{+})^{c}\Big]
\bigg]
\end{equation}
where $U\subset U^{+}\subset\hat{U}$. For notation conventions, see
subsection \ref{sub:Conventions-about-notations}.
In order to obtain \eqref{eq:outlinecond},
one switches the expectation and the sum in \eqref{eq:next-scale1},
then take the conditional expectation right inside
the expectation. Since
$I_{j+1}^{\Lambda\backslash\hat{U}}$ only
depends on the values of $\phi$ being fixed,
the conditional expectation can be taken only on the $K_j^\sharp$ factor.
One then switches back the expectation and the sum.
This followed by factoring out $\phi,\xi$ independent constant
gives $K_{j+1}$ and we are back to the form (\ref{eq:basic_structure})
with all $j$ replaced by $j+1$. In case $U=\Lambda$, we just integrate
(unconditionally): $\mathbb{E}\big[K_{j}^{\sharp}(\Lambda,\phi)\big]$,
but to streamline expressions we still write (\ref{eq:outlinecond})
keeping in mind the special treatment for the $U=\Lambda$ term.
\begin{rem}
Our discussion below will frequently involve
Laplacian operators acting on functions on a set $U$
with zero Dirichlet boundary condition on $\partial U$,
so we simply refer to them as {\it Dirichlet Laplacian} for $U$.
Similarly, for the Green's function of the Laplacian on $\partial U$
with zero Dirichlet boundary condition on $\partial U$,
we simply call it {\it Dirichlet Green's function} for $U$.
Finally, if $\zeta$ is a Gaussian field on $U$ with Dirichlet Green's function for $U$
as its covariance, then we simply say that $\zeta$ is
the {\it Dirichlet Gaussian field} on $U$.
\end{rem}
We point out two important facts about the conditional expectation
step. The first one is that we can write the Gaussian field $\phi$
into a sum of two decoupled parts. Let $P_{U}$ be the Poisson kernel
for $U$ and recall our convention that $P_{U}\phi(x)=\phi(x)$ for
$x\notin U$ as in subsection \ref{sub:Conventions-about-notations}.
\begin{prop}
Let $U\subset V\subset\Lambda$.
Define $\zeta$ via $\phi(x)=P_{U}\phi(x)+\zeta(x)$.
Then the quadratic form
\begin{equation}
-\sum_{x\in V}\phi(x)\Delta\phi(x)
= -\sum_{x\in U}\zeta(x)\Delta_{U,m}^{D}\zeta(x)
- \sum_{x\in V}P_{U}\phi(x)\Delta_{m}P_{U}\phi(x)
\end{equation}
where $-\Delta_{U,m}^{D}=-\Delta_{U}^{D}+m^{2}$ and $\Delta_{U}^{D}$
is the Dirichlet Laplacian for $U$, $m\geq0$.
\end{prop}
Notice that $x\in U$ does not contribute to the last summation since
$\Delta_{m}P_{U}\phi(x)=0$ in $U$. By this proposition, taking expectation
of a function $K(\phi)$ conditioned on $\{\phi(x)\big|x\in U^{c}\}$
is simply integrating out a Gaussian field $\zeta$:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[K(\phi,\xi)\big|U^{c}\right]=\mathbb{E}_{\zeta}\left[K(P_{U}\phi+\zeta,\xi)\right]\label{eq:simply_int_zeta}
\end{equation}
where the covariance of $\zeta$ is the $C_{U}^{D}$ - the Dirichlet
Green's function for $U$. In particular, we observe that $I_{j}$
defined in (\ref{eq:defI}) has an alternative representation
\begin{equation}
I_{j}(B,\phi,\xi)=e^{-\frac{1}{4}\sigma_{j}\sum_{x\in B,e\in\mathcal{E}}\mathbb{E}\left[\partial_{e}\phi(x)+\partial_{e}\xi(x)\big|(B^{+})^{c}\right]^{2}} \;.
\end{equation}
It is conceptually helpful to keep in mind that we are just re-arranging
the following structure (comparing with \eqref{eq:Mayer})
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\Big[
\sum_{X\in\mathcal{P}_{j}}
e^{-\frac{1}{4}\sigma_{j}\sum_{x\notin\hat{X},e\in\mathcal{E}}\mathbb{E}\left[\partial_{e}\phi(x)+\partial_{e}\xi(x)\big|(B^{+})^{c}\right]^{2}}
\mathbb{E}\big[\cdots\big|(X^{+})^{c}\big]\Big]
\end{equation}
namely an outmost (unconditional) expectation of a simple combination
of many conditional expectations.
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:wellposedness}
In the paper, $P_{U}\phi$ will always be
well-defined: by Prop 1.11 of \cite{kumagai_random_2010}, if the
probability that the random walk starting from any point in $U$ exits
$U$ in finite time is $1$, then the harmonic extension exists and
is unique. Domains $U\subsetneq\Lambda$ will always satisfy this
condition because the random walk hits any point in $\Lambda$ in
finite time with probability one.
\end{rem}
The next fact is as follows:
\begin{prop} \label{prop:scaling}
Let $d\geq2$, $x\in X\subset U\subset\Lambda$. If $d(x,\partial X)\geq cL^{j}$,
then
\begin{equation}
|(\partial_{x}P_{X})C_{U}^{D}(\partial_{x}P_{X})^{\star}(x,x)|\leq O(1)L^{-dj}
\end{equation}
where $O(1)$ depends on $c$, and $C_{U}^{D}$ is the Dirichlet Green's
function for $U$.
\end{prop}
For the proof, see Proposition~\ref{prop:covest}. This result gives the scaling
for the covariance of $\partial P_{X}\zeta$ where $P_{X}$ is a Poisson
kernel obtained from the previous RG step. We take a heuristic test
to see the necessity of this proposition: setting $\xi=0$, for $X\subset U$,
if we perform an expectation conditioned on $\{\phi(x)\big|x\in X^{c}\}$,
followed by another expectation conditioned on $\{\phi(x)\big|x\in U^{c}\}$,
by (\ref{eq:simply_int_zeta}),
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{\zeta_{U}}\mathbb{E}_{\zeta_{X}}
\Big[K\Big(P_{X}(P_{U}\phi+\zeta_{U})+\zeta_{X}\Big)\Big]
=\mathbb{E}_{\zeta_{U}}\mathbb{E}_{\zeta_{X}}
\Big[K\big(P_{U}\phi+P_{X}\zeta_{U}+\zeta_{X}\big)\Big] \;,
\end{equation}
then we need this proposition to deal with $P_{X}\zeta_{U}$ when
integrating over $\zeta_{U}$.
Proofs of the above two results are in the following sections.
\subsubsection*{Linearization and stable manifold theorem}
We have just outlined a single RG map
\[
(\sigma_{j},\sigma_{j+1},E_{j+1},K_{j})\rightarrow K_{j+1} \;.
\]
We will show smoothness of this map in Section \ref{sec:Smoothness-of-RG}.
Note that two issues have not been discussed: 1) choice of $\sigma_{j+1},E_{j+1}$,
which should be a function of $(\sigma_{j},K_{j})$, so that the RG
map becomes $(\sigma_{j},K_{j})\rightarrow(\sigma_{j+1},K_{j+1})$
(notice that we will not regard $E_{j+1}$ as dynamical parameter and
we will factorize it out); 2) choice of $\sigma$ in the a priori tuning
step. We will outline how to treat these two issues now.
Clearly $(\sigma,K)=(0,0)$ is a fixed point of the RG map. In Section
\ref{sec:Linearized-RG} we show that the linearization of the map
$(\sigma_{j},\sigma_{j+1},E_{j+1},K_{j})\rightarrow K_{j+1}$ around
$(0,0,0,0)$ has a form $\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{L}_{1}+\mathcal{L}_{2}+\mathcal{L}_{3}$
where $\mathcal{L}_{1}$ captures the ``large polymers'' contributions
to $K_{j+1}$, and $\mathcal{L}_{2}$ involves the remainder of second
order Taylor expansion of conditionally expected $K_{j}$ on {}``small
polymers'', both of which will be shown contractive with arbitrarily
small norm by suitable choices of constants $L$ and $A$ introduced
above. Furthurmore, $\mathcal{L}_{3}(D)$ will roughly have a form
\begin{equation}
L^{d}E_{j+1}+\sigma_{j+1}\sum_{x\in D}(\partial P_{D^{+}}\phi(x))^{2}-\sigma_{j}\big(\sum_{x\in D}(\partial P_{D^{+}}\phi(x))^{2}+\delta E_{j}\big)+Tay
\end{equation}
where $Tay$ is the second order Taylor expansion of conditionally
expected $K_{j}$ on small polymers, which consists of constant and
quadratic terms, and $D$ is a $j+1$ block. Now it is easy to see
that there is a way to choose $E_{j+1}$ and $\sigma_{j+1}$ so that
$\mathcal{L}_{3}$ is almost $0$, up to a localization procedure
for {}``$Tay$''. For proofs see Section \ref{sec:Linearized-RG}.
Once we have shown a way to choose the constants $\sigma_{j+1},E_{j+1}$
to ensure contractivity of the above linear map, a stable manifold
theorem can be applied to prove that there exists a suitable tuning
of $\sigma$ so that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:sigmaKgoto0}
\left|\sigma_{j}\right|\lesssim2^{-j}\qquad\left\Vert K_{j}\right\Vert _{j}\lesssim2^{-j} \;.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection*{Main result: the scaling limit}
\begin{thm}
For any $p>d$ there exists constants $M>0$ and $z_{0}>0$ so that:
for all $\Vert\tilde{f}\Vert_{L^{p}}\leq M$ and all $\left|z\right|\leq z_{0}$
there exists a constant $\epsilon$ depending on $z$ and
\begin{equation}
\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} Z_{N}(f)
= \exp\left(\frac{1}{2}\int_{\tilde{\Lambda}}\tilde{f}(x)(-\epsilon\tilde{\Delta})^{-1}\tilde{f}(x)d^{d}x\right)\label{eq:main_thm}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\Delta}$ is the Laplacian in continuum,
and $Z_{N}(f)$ is defined in (\ref{eq:generating_good}).
\end{thm}
The main ingredient of the proof is that
with $j=N-1$,
by eq. (\ref{eq:basic_structure}) and (\ref{eq:sigmaKgoto0}),
one can bound $Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)$ essentially by
\begin{equation}
e^{\mathcal{E}_{N-1}}\sum_{X\in\mathcal{P}_{N-1}}(1+2^{-N})^{\Lambda\backslash\hat{X}}2^{-N}
\end{equation}
Bounding the number of terms by $ $$2^{L^{d}}$ we see that it is
almost $e^{\mathcal{E}_{N-1}}$ as $N$ becomes large. The constant
$e^{\mathcal{E}_{N-1}}$ will be the same for $Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)$
and $Z_{N}^{\prime}(0)$. So only the exponential factor in equation
(\ref{eq:generating_good}) survives in the $N\rightarrow\infty$
limit and it goes to the right hand side of (\ref{eq:main_thm}).
The details are given in Section \ref{sec:Proof-of-scaling}. We remark that
the assumption on $\tilde{f}$, which makes $f$ smooth at the scale
$N$ is for simplicity of the demonstration of the method.
\section{The renormalization group steps\label{sec:The-renormalization-group}}
\subsection{Some additional definitions} \label{sub:Definitions}
\begin{enumerate}
\item A j-polymer $X$ is called a small set or small polymer if it is connected
and $\left|X\right|_{j}\leq2^{d}$. Otherwise it is called large. We
write by $\mathcal{S}_{j}(X)$ the set of all small j-polymers in
$X$.
\item Define $\hat{\mathcal{S}_{j}}$ to be the set of pairs $(B,X)$ so
that $X\in\mathcal{S}_{j}$ and $B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}(X)$.
\item We also introduce a notation $Y\in_{X}\mathcal{P}_{j}$ which means
$Y\in\mathcal{P}_{j}$ and that if $X=\emptyset$ then $Y=\emptyset$.
\item Let $X\in\mathcal{P}_{j}$. Define its closure $\bar{X}\in\mathcal{P}_{j+1}$
to be the smallest (j+1)-polymer that contains $X$.
\item
We define a notation $\chi_{\mathcal{A}}^{j}$ where $\mathcal{A}$
is a set of polymers: $\chi_{\mathcal{A}}^{j}=1$ if any two polymers
in $\mathcal{A}$ are strictly disjoint as $j$-polymers and $\chi_{\mathcal{A}}^{j}=0$
otherwise. Also, if $\mathcal{A}$ is a set of polymers, we write
$X_{\mathcal{A}}$ to be the union of all elements of $\mathcal{A}$.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Renormalization group steps} \label{subsec:RG-steps}
Now we focus on a single RG map from scale $j$ to $j+1$. For simpler
notations we omit the subscript $j$ and objects at scale $j+1$ will
be labelled by a prime, e.g. $K^{\prime}$, $\mathcal{P}^{\prime}$.
The guidance principle will be that for all kinds of $I$'s below,
$I-1$ and their difference $\delta I$ and $K$ will be small, so
their products will be higher order small quantities. These remarks
will make more sense after we discuss the linearization of the smooth
RG map in Section~\ref{sec:Linearized-RG}.
\subsubsection*{Extraction and Reblocking}
We start to prove Proposition~\ref{prop:extra-reblo}.
Before the proof,
we describe here the main ideas in the strategies we use below,
and a reader may find helpful to read the proof along with these descriptions.
The way to construct $I^{\prime},K^{\sharp}$ is certainly
not unique. However, our construction (see \eqref{eq:Ksharp} below)
must have the foresight that
$K^{\sharp}$ will be smooth in its arguments (which will be shown
in Section~\ref{sec:Smoothness-of-RG}), with respect to
certain norms defined in Section~\ref{sec:Norms}.
Due to the nature of these norms, the proof of this smoothness in
Section~\ref{sec:Smoothness-of-RG}
will reply on some separation properties of different factors
appeared in the $K^\sharp$ finally constructed in \eqref{eq:Ksharp}.
Ensuring these separation properties complicates the proof.
The proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:extra-reblo} then consists of two steps.
The first step is called an extraction step,
in which we extract $\delta I(B)$ from $I(B)$,
see the third line of \eqref{eq:extraction},
resulting in
a new quantity $\tilde I(B)$ defined as \eqref{eq:Itilde}.
The extracted quantities $\delta I(B)$
will show
up as factors multiplying with $K$ in \eqref{eq:after-expand}.
The second step is called a reblocking step.
In this step, summations over various sets in \eqref{eq:after-expand}
will eventually become one single sum over
next scale polymers
$U\in\mathcal P'$
as in \eqref{eq:combine-everything}.
During this reblocking, some $\tilde I$ factors will also become
factors multiplying with $K$ (see \eqref{eq:Ksharp}).
There are two subtleties which one has to take care and thus complicates the proof.
The first subtlety is that $\delta I(B)$ and $\tilde I(B)$
involve a Poisson kernel for $(\bar B)^+$ which is a set of length size $O(L^{j+1})$.
When these factors $\delta I$ and $\tilde I$
show up as factors multiplying with $K(X)$ as discussed above, the factor $K(X)$ actually only has a corridor $\hat X\backslash X$ of width $L^j$
(formed from the previous RG step),
so the sets $(\bar B)^+$ may intersect with $X$.
This intersection would be disastrous when we estimate the norm
of the product of these $\delta I$, $\tilde I$ and $K$ factors.
Therefore, in the proof we actually only extract $\delta I(B)$
for those $B$ far enough from $X$, that is, outside the set $\left\langle X\right\rangle$ defined below.
Inside $\left\langle X\right\rangle$, we do different extractions
as in the second line of \eqref{eq:extraction}, so that the $L^j$ width corridor of $K(X)$
is sufficient to ensure separation.
The other subtlety is
that according
to the conclusion of Proposition~\ref{prop:extra-reblo},
one has to ensure existence of a corridor around $U$ in \eqref{eq:combine-everything}.
This is not ensured in the ``naive reblocking" \eqref{eq:reblocking} below (though
in \eqref{eq:reblocking} we do obtain one single sum over next scale polymers $V\in\mathcal P'$).
Therefore, as an intermediate
step between extraction and reblocking,
we will perform another expansion by
$\tilde{I}=(\tilde{I}-e^{E^{\prime}})+e^{E^{\prime}}$
right after \eqref{eq:Itilde-and-eE},
and arrange such that
some of the $\tilde{I}-e^{E^{\prime}}$ also show up as multiplying factors in \eqref{eq:Ksharp},
and the other $\tilde{I}$ will be separated away by a corridor (between $\Lambda\backslash \hat U$ and $U$ in the last line of the proof).
\begin{rem}
We also have a remark on notations.
The hats in the notation for a set of pairs such as the $\hat{\mathcal{S}_j}$
defined above in Subsection \ref{sub:Definitions}
and the $\hat{\mathcal Y}$ in the following proof
are simply symbols, which have nothing to do
with the hat operation $\hat{\,}$ on a single polymer defined in Subsection \ref{sec:Basics-Polymers}.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof} [Proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:extra-reblo}]
Define $\tilde{I}\in\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{B}_{j}}$
as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Itilde}
\tilde{I}(B)=e^{E^{\prime}-\frac{1}{4}\sigma^{\prime}\sum_{x\in B,e\in\mathcal{E}}\left(\partial_{e}P_{(\bar{B})^{+}}\phi(x)+\partial_{e}\xi(x)\right)^{2}}
\end{equation}
where $E^{\prime}$ and $\sigma^{\prime}$ will be chosen later.
Note that the above quantity $\tilde I(B)$ differs from
the quantity $I(B)$ defined in (\ref{eq:defI}) by the new constants $E',\sigma'$ and
the Poisson kernel $P_{B^+}$ is replaced by the
Poisson kernel $P_{(\bar B)^+}$.
For a j-polymer $X$, denote
\[
\left\langle X\right\rangle :=\cup\{B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}:(\bar{B})^{+}\cap\hat{X}\neq\emptyset\}
\]
where the $+$ operation is on the scale $j+1$ and the hat is on
the scale $j$. Then we let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:extraction}
\begin{cases}
1(B)=(1-e^{E^{\prime}})+e^{E^{\prime}} & \mbox{if}\; B\subseteq\hat{X}\backslash X\\
I(B)=(I(B)-e^{E^{\prime}})+e^{E^{\prime}} & \mbox{if}\; B\subseteq\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash\hat{X}\\
I(B)=\delta I(B)+\tilde{I}(B) & \mbox{if}\; B\subseteq\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}\\
K(X)=\sum_{B\in\mathcal{B}(X)}\frac{1}{|X|_{j}}K(B,X) & \mbox{if}\; X\in\mathcal{S}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\delta I$ is defined implicitly, and $K(B,X):=K(X)$. Insert
these summations into the product factors in (\ref{eq:form_j}), and
expand. We obtain
\begin{equation} \label{eq:after-expand}
\begin{aligned}
Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)
& = e^{\mathcal{E}}\,\mathbb{E}\bigg[\sum_{X}I^{\Lambda\backslash\hat{X}}1^{\hat{X}\backslash X}\prod_{Y\in\mathcal{C}(X)\backslash\mathcal{S}}K(Y)\prod_{Y\in\mathcal{C}(X)\cap\mathcal{S}}K(Y)\bigg]\\
& =e^{\mathcal{E}}\,\mathbb{E}\bigg[\sum_{\mathcal{X},\hat{\mathcal{Y}}}\chi_{\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{Y}}\sum_{P,Q,Z}(1-e^{E^{\prime}})^{P}(I-e^{E^{\prime}})^{Q}(e^{E^{\prime}})^{(\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash X)\backslash(P\cup Q)}\\
& \qquad\cdot
\delta I^{Z}\tilde{I}^{\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}\backslash Z}
\prod_{Y\in\mathcal{X}}K(Y)\prod_{(B,Y)\in\hat{\mathcal{Y}}}\frac{1}{|Y|_{j}}K(B,Y)\bigg]
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the first summation is over $\mathcal{X}$ which is a family
of connected large polymers, and $\hat{\mathcal{Y}}$ which is a family
of elements in $\hat{\mathcal{S}}$ i.e. $\hat{\mathcal{Y}}=\{(B_{i},Y_{i})\in\hat{\mathcal{S}_{j}}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$
for some $n\geq0$, and we have defined $\mathcal{Y}:=\{Y_{i}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}$.
In the above equation and in the sequel of this proof,
\[
X:=X_{\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{Y}}
\]
and the second summation above is over $P\in\mathcal{P}(\hat{X}\backslash X)$,
$Q\in\mathcal{P}(\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash\hat{X})$,
and $Z\in\mathcal{P}(\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c})$.
Now observe that one can re-arrange the above summations in the following
way:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:reblocking}
\sum_{\mathcal{X},\hat{\mathcal{Y}}}\chi_{\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{Y}}\sum_{P,Q,Z}=\sum_{V\in\mathcal{P}^{\prime}}\sum_{(P,Q,Z,\mathcal{X},\hat{\mathcal{Y}})\rightarrow V}
\end{equation}
where the second summation on the right hand side means
\[
\sum_{(P,Q,Z,\mathcal{X},\hat{\mathcal{Y}})\rightarrow V}
:=\sum_{\mathcal{X},\hat{\mathcal{Y}}}\chi_{\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{Y}}
\sum_{\substack{P\in\mathcal{P}(\hat{X}\backslash X)\\Q\in\mathcal{P}(\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash\hat{X})}}
\sum_{Z\in\mathcal{P}(\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c})}1_{\overline{P\cup Q\cup Z\cup\left(\cup_{i=1}^{n}B_{i}\right)\cup X_{\mathcal{X}}}=V} \;.
\]
We would like to write the factors $\tilde{I}$ and $e^{E^{\prime}}$
into parts in $V$ and outside $V$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Itilde-and-eE}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{I}^{\,\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}\backslash Z}
& =\tilde{I}^{\,V^{c}\,\cap\,\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}}
\, \tilde{I}^{\,V\,\cap\,(\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}\backslash Z)} \;,\\
(e^{E^{\prime}})^{(\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash X)\backslash(P\cup Q)} & =(e^{E^{\prime}})^{V^{c}\,\cap\,(\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash X)}\,(e^{E^{\prime}})^{V\,\cap\,(\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash X)\backslash(P\cup Q)} \;.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that $V^{c}\cap\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}$ (where some
$\tilde{I}$ live on) could possibly touch $V$, so our next step
is to make a corridor so that such touchings will be avoided. Write
$\tilde{I}=(\tilde{I}-e^{E^{\prime}})+e^{E^{\prime}}$ and expand,
\[
\tilde{I}^{V^{c}\cap\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}}=\sum_{W\in\mathcal{P}^{\prime}(V^{c})}(\tilde{I}-e^{E^{\prime}})^{W\cap\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}}(e^{E^{\prime}})^{(V^{c}\backslash W)\cap\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}} \;.
\]
For each $V$ and $W$, define $U$ to be the smallest union of connected
components of $V\cup W$ that contains $V$:
\[
U=U_{W,V}:=\cap\{T\big|T\in\mathcal{UC}(V\cup W),T\supseteq V\}\in\mathcal{P}^{\prime}
\]
where $\mathcal{UC}(V\cup W)$ is the set of unions of ($j+1$ scale)
connected components of $V\cup W$. Observe that if $L$ is sufficiently
large, one has $\left\langle X\right\rangle \subseteq\hat{V}\subseteq\hat{U}$.
So
\[
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{I}^{\,V^{c}\,\cap\,\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}}
=\sum_{W\in\mathcal{P}^{\prime}(V^{c})}
& (\tilde{I}-e^{E^{\prime}})^{W\backslash\hat{U}}
(\tilde{I}-e^{E^{\prime}})^{W\,\cap \,U\,\cap\,\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}} \\
& \times
(e^{E^{\prime}})^{(V^{c}\backslash W)\backslash\hat{U}}
(e^{E^{\prime}})^{(V^{c}\backslash W)\,\cap\,\hat{U}\,\cap\,\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}} \;.
\end{aligned}
\]
Let $R:=W\backslash U=W\backslash\hat{U}$. Note that one has the
following identities for the sets appearing in the above equation:
$W\cap U=U\backslash V$ and
\[
(V^{c}\backslash W)\backslash\hat{U}=(\hat{U})^{c}\backslash R \;,
\]
\[
(V^{c}\backslash W)\cap\hat{U}=\hat{U}\backslash U \;.
\]
The summation over $W$ amounts to a summation over $U$ and $R$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{I}^{\,V^{c}\,\cap\,\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}}
& =\sum_{U\in_{V}\mathcal{P}^{\prime},U\supseteq V}
\sum_{R\in\mathcal{P}^{\prime}(\Lambda\backslash\hat{U})}
(\tilde{I}-e^{E^{\prime}})^{R}
(\tilde{I}-e^{E^{\prime}})^{(U\backslash V)\,\cap\,\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\times
(e^{E^{\prime}})^{(\hat{U})^{c}\backslash R}
(e^{E^{\prime}})^{(\hat{U}\backslash U)\,\cap\,\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}}\\
& =\sum_{U\in_{V}\mathcal{P}^{\prime},U\supseteq V}\tilde{I}^{\Lambda\backslash\hat{U}}(\tilde{I}-e^{E^{\prime}})^{(U\backslash V)\,\cap\,\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}}(e^{E^{\prime}})^{(\hat{U}\backslash U)\,\cap\,\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}} \;.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:ItildeVcXc}
\end{equation}
The factor $(e^{E^{\prime}})^{V^{c}\,\cap\,(\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash X)}$
appearing in (\ref{eq:Itilde-and-eE}) is treated as follows. Since
$\left\langle X\right\rangle \subseteq\hat{U}$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
(e^{E^{\prime}})^{V^{c}\,\cap\,(\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash X)} & =(e^{E^{\prime}})^{V^{c}\,\cap\,\left\langle X\right\rangle }(e^{-E^{\prime}})^{V^{c}\,\cap\, X}\\
& =(e^{E^{\prime}})^{(\hat{U}\backslash U)\,\cap\,\left\langle X\right\rangle }(e^{E^{\prime}})^{V^{c}\,\cap\,\left\langle X\right\rangle \,\cap\, U}(e^{-E^{\prime}})^{V^{c}\,\cap\, X} \;.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:eEtildeVcXX}
\end{equation}
Combine (\ref{eq:after-expand}) - (\ref{eq:eEtildeVcXX}),
\begin{equation}\label{eq:combine-everything}
Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)=e^{\mathcal{E}} \,\mathbb{E}\bigg[\sum_{U\in\mathcal{P}^{\prime}}\tilde{I}^{\Lambda\backslash\hat{U}}(e^{E^{\prime}})^{\hat{U}}K^{\sharp}(U)\bigg]
\end{equation}
where for $U\neq\emptyset$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Ksharp}
\begin{aligned}
K^{\sharp}(U):= &
\sum_{V\subseteq U,V\neq\emptyset}
\sum_{(P,Q,Z,\mathcal{X},\hat{\mathcal{Y}})\rightarrow V}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
(1-e^{E^{\prime}})^{P}
(I-e^{E^{\prime}})^{Q}
\delta I^{Z}
(\tilde{I}-e^{E^{\prime}})^{(U\backslash V)\,\cap\,\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}}\\
& \qquad\times
\,(e^{E^{\prime}})^{(\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash X)\,\cap\, U\backslash(P\cup Q)}
\,(e^{-E^{\prime}})^{U\,\cup\, X}
\,\tilde{I}^{\,V\,\cap\,(\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}\backslash Z)} \\
& \qquad\times
\prod_{Y\in\mathcal{X}}K(Y)\prod_{(B,Y)\in\hat{\mathcal{Y}}}\frac{1}{|Y|_{j}}K(B,Y)\;.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Factorizing the constant $e^{E^{\prime}}$ by letting
\[
\mathcal{E}^{\prime}=\mathcal{E}+E^{\prime}|\Lambda|_{j}
\]
\[
I^{\prime}(D)=e^{-L^{d}E^{\prime}}\prod_{B\in\mathcal{B}(D)}\tilde{I}(B)=e^{-\frac{1}{4}\sigma_{j+1}\sum_{x\in D,e\in\mathcal{E}}\left(\partial_{e}P_{D^{+}}\phi(x)+\partial_{e}\xi(x)\right)^{2}}
\]
for $D\in\mathcal{B}^{\prime}$, we obtain
\[
Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)= e^{\mathcal{E}^{\prime}}\mathbb{E}\bigg[\sum_{U\in\mathcal{P}^{\prime}}(I^{\prime})^{\Lambda\backslash\hat{U}}K^{\sharp}(U)\bigg] \;.
\]
This is precisely the statement \eqref{eq:next-scale1}.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection*{Conditional expectation}
\begin{lem}
$K^{\sharp}$ factorizes over $j+1$ scale connected components, namely
\begin{equation}
K^{\sharp}(U)=\prod_{V\in\mathcal{C}_{j+1}(U)}K^{\sharp}(V)
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{C}_{j+1}(U)$ is the set of connected components of
$U$ as a $j+1$ polymer.\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $V_{1},\dots,V_{|\mathcal{C}(U)|}$ be all the connected components
of $U$. For any $E$ which may stand for $U,Z,P,Q$, elements of
$\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{Y}$, one of the $B_{i}$, or $X=X_{\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{Y}}$,
let $E^{(p)}=E\backslash\cup_{q\neq p}V_{q}$. It is easy to check
that for $i\neq j$, $E^{(i)}$ and $E^{(j)}$ are strictly disjoint
on scale $j$. Then the lemma is proved by the factorization property
of $I,K$ on scale $j$.
\end{proof}
We are now ready to take the expectation of $K^{\sharp}(V)$ conditioned
on $\phi$ outside $V^{+}$ for each $V\in\mathcal{C}(U)\backslash\{\Lambda\}$,
because $\Lambda\backslash\hat{V}$ and $V^{+}$ do not touch. In the
case $V=\Lambda$, we just take expectation of $K^{\sharp}(V)$ without
conditioning, but write
$\mathbb{E}\big[K^{\sharp}(\Lambda)\big|(\Lambda^{+})^{c}\big]:=\mathbb{E}\big[K^{\sharp}(\Lambda)\big]$
to shorten the notations. So we obtain the following structure as announced in \eqref{eq:outlinecond}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def-KnextU}
\begin{aligned}
Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)=e^{\mathcal{E}_{j+1}} \mathbb{E}\bigg[
\sum_{\substack{U\in\mathcal{P}_{j+1}}}
I_{j+1}^{\Lambda\backslash\hat{U}}
K_{j+1}(U)
\bigg] \;, \\
K_{j+1}(U) := \prod_{V\in\mathcal{C}(U)}\mathbb{E}\left[K_{j}^{\sharp}(V)\big|(V^{+})^{c}\right] \;.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Now we have come back to the basic structure (\ref{eq:basic_structure})
with $j$ replaced by $j+1$. Obviously, $K_{j+1}(U)\in\mathcal{P}_{j+1,c}$.
In Section \ref{sec:Norms} we give precise definitions for norms
and spaces of the $K_{j}$ above, and in section \ref{sec:Smoothness-of-RG}
we prove smoothness of the above map $(\sigma_{j},E_{j+1},\sigma_{j+1},K_{j})\mapsto K_{j+1}$.
\subsection{Properties about conditional expectation}
\subsubsection*{The variation principle}
One of our main ideas is to write the Gaussian field $\phi$ into
a sum of two decoupled parts. This is important for the conditional
expectation.
\begin{fact*}
Given any positive definite quadratic form $Q(v)$ for vector $v$,
if $v=(x,y)$, one can write $Q(v)=Q_{1}(x)+L(x,y)+Q_{2}(y)$ where
$Q_{1,2}$ are positive definite quadratic forms and $L(x,y)$ is
the crossing term. Let $\tilde{x}(y)$ be the minimizer of $Q(v)=Q(x,y)$
with $y$ fixed. Then, one can cancel $L(x,y)$ by shifting $x$ by
$\tilde{x}$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:quadratic_fact}
Q(v)=Q_{1}(x-\tilde{x})+Q\left((\tilde{x},y)\right) \;.
\end{equation}
\end{fact*}
Before introducing the next proposition, let us recall our convention
that $P_{U}\phi(x)=\phi(x)$ for $x\notin U$ as in subsection \ref{sub:Conventions-about-notations}.
\begin{prop}
Let $U\subset V\subset\mathbb{Z}^{d}$ be two finite sets. Let $\phi_{U}$
and $\phi_{U^{c}}$ be the restriction of $\phi$ to $U$ and $U^{c}$.
Let $P_{U}$ be the Poisson kernel for $U$ and write $\phi(x)=P_{U}\phi(x)+\zeta(x)$.
Then,
\begin{equation}
-\sum_{x\in V}\phi(x)\Delta_{m}\phi(x)=-\sum_{x\in U}\zeta(x)\Delta_{U}^{D}\zeta(x)-\sum_{x\in V}P_{U}\phi(x)\Delta_{m}P_{U}\phi(x)
\end{equation}
where $\Delta_{U}^{D}$ is the Dirichlet Laplacian for $U$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We can apply the Fact (\ref{eq:quadratic_fact}) for $\phi=(\phi_{U},\phi_{U^{c}})$,
and
\[
\begin{aligned}Q(\phi) & =-\sum_{x\in V}\phi(x)\Delta\phi(x)\\
& =-\sum_{x\in U}\phi_{U}(x)\Delta_{U}^{D}\phi_{U}(x)+L(\phi_{U},\phi_{U^{c}})-\sum_{x\in U^{c}}\phi_{U^{c}}(x)\Delta_{U^{c}}^{D}\phi_{U^{c}}(x)
\end{aligned}
\]
where $L$ is the crossing term, and $\Delta_{U^{c}}^{D}$ is the
Dirichlet Laplacian for $U^{c}$.
Since the minimizer of $Q(\phi)$ with $\phi_{U^{c}}$ fixed is
the harmonic extension of $\phi$ from $U^c$ into $U$,
and the harmonic field is equal to $P_{U}\phi$, one has
\[
\begin{aligned}
Q(\phi)
& =-\sum_{x\in U}\left(\phi_{U}-P_{U}\phi\right)(x)\Delta_{U}^{D}\left(\phi_{U}-P_{U}\phi\right)(x)-Q\left((P_{U}\phi,\phi_{U^{c}})\right)\\
& =-\sum_{x\in U}\zeta(x)\Delta_{U}^{D}\zeta(x)-\sum_{x\in V}P_{U}\phi(x)\Delta P_{U}\phi(x) \;.
\end{aligned}
\]
This completes the proof. We remark that
in the last term, the points $x\in U$ do not actually contribute
to the sum since $\Delta P_U \phi=0$ in $U$.
\end{proof}
By this proposition, taking expectation of a function $K(\phi)$ conditioned
on $\{\phi(x)\big|x\in U^{c}\}$ is equivalent to simply integrating
out $\zeta$:
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[K(\phi)\big|U^{c}\right]=\mathbb{E}_{\zeta}\left[K(P_{U}\phi+\zeta)\right]
\end{equation}
where the covariance of $\zeta$ is the Dirichlet Green's function
for $U$.
As another important fact, we note that $K(X,\phi,\xi)$
constructed above (see \eqref{eq:def-KnextU}) has
a ``special structure'': it only depends on $\phi,\xi$ via $P_{X^{+}}\phi+\xi$;
in other words there exists a function $\widetilde{K}(X,\psi)$ so that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:depend-via}
K(X,\phi,\xi)=\widetilde{K}(X,P_{X^{+}}\phi+\xi) \;.
\end{equation}
In fact, we have the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:only-dep-harmo}
Let $U\subset \Lambda$ be a given set.
For every $k=1,\dots,m$, let $Y_{k}\subset U$, and $H_{k}(\phi,\xi)$ be a given function
of $\phi$ and $\xi$.
Suppose that there exist functions $\widetilde H_k$ such that
\[
H_{k}(\phi,\xi)=\widetilde{H}_{k}(P_{Y_{k}}\phi+\xi) \;,
\]
namely $H_k$ only depends on $\phi$, $\xi$ via $P_{Y_{k}}\phi+\xi$.
Then, the function $\mathbb{E}\left[\prod_{k}H_{k}(\phi,\xi)\big|U^{c}\right]$
only depends on $\phi,\xi$ via $P_{U}\phi+\xi$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We write the expectation conditioned on $\phi\big|_{U^c}$ as expectation over the Dirichlet Gaussian field $\zeta$ on $U$, and then exploit the assumption on $H_k$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:proof-only-dep}
\mathbb{E}\Big[\prod_{k}H_{k}(\phi,\xi)\big|U^{c}\Big]
=\mathbb{E}_{\zeta}\Big[\prod_{k}H_{k}(P_U \phi+\zeta,\xi)\Big]
=\mathbb{E}_{\zeta}\Big[\prod_{k}\widetilde{H}_{k} \Big(P_{Y_{k}}(P_{U}\phi+\zeta)+\xi\Big)\Big] .
\end{equation}
The last quantity
depends on $\phi,\xi$ via $P_U \phi+\xi$ by
noting that $P_{Y_{k}}P_{U}=P_{U}$.
\end{proof}
Note that $K_0(X,\phi,\xi)$ is actually a function
of $\phi+\xi$. By our convention, when $j=0$,
$P_{X^+}$ is understood as the identity operator,
so we do start from functions with this special
structure (\eqref{eq:depend-via}).
Together with the above lemma and \eqref{eq:Ksharp}, \eqref{eq:def-KnextU},
we see that for every $j\ge 0$, the fact
\eqref{eq:depend-via} holds:
\begin{cor}
Let $K_j(X,\phi,\xi)$ be the functions constructed in \eqref{eq:def-KnextU}. Then for every $j\ge 0$,
there exists a function $\widetilde{K}_j(X)$ such that
$K_j(X,\phi,\xi)=\widetilde{K}_j(X,P_{X^{+}}\phi+\xi) $.
\end{cor}
In the following, it will be helpful to have this
point of view in mind.
\subsubsection*{The important scaling}
Our main result in this subsection is Proposition~\ref{prop:covest}.
We first collect some general results about harmonic functions on the
lattice. These will include derivative estimates and ``mean value" type bounds.
\begin{lem}
Let $\mathcal B_R$ be
the discrete ball of radius $R$ centered on the origin, namely
$\mathcal B_R=\{x\in\mathbb Z^d: |x|<R\}$.
There exists a constant $c>0$ such that
the following holds for every $R$ sufficiently large.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $g$ is harmonic in $\mathcal B_R$, then
for every $e\in\mathcal S$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:diff-est-any}
|\partial_e g(0)| \le c R^{-1} \sup_{x\in\mathcal B}
|g(x)| \;.
\end{equation}
\item If $f$ is harmonic and non-negative in $\mathcal B_R$,
then
for every $e\in\mathcal S$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:diff-est-positive}
|\partial_e f(0)| \le c R^{-1} f(0) \;.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This is \cite[Theorem 6.3.8 of Section 6.3]{lawler_random_2010}.
The statement of that theorem is about harmonic functions
related with general ``$\mathcal P_d$ class" (i.e. symmetric, finite range) random walks.
In particular it is true for harmonic functions associated with standard Laplacian
related with simple random walks. The large $R$ requirement was used to deal with the lattice effect on the boundary of the ball in their proof.
\end{proof}
Note that the constant $c$ in the above lemma does not
depend on the function $g$ or $f$. In the second statement, non-negativity condition is necessary: the linear function $f(x)=x$ on $[-1,1]$ would violate the bound \eqref{eq:diff-est-positive}.
The next result is a mean value type bound.
For $R>0$ and $a\in\mathbb{Z}^{d}$,
we define a cube of size $R$ centered at $a$ by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}_{R}
:=\left\{ y\in\mathbb{Z}^{d}\big|\left|y-a\right|_{\infty}\leq R\right\} \;.
\end{equation}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:derbnd}
Given real numbers $s,t$ such that $0<3s<r<1$.
Let $\mathcal{K}_{R}$ and $\mathcal{K}_{rR}$
be cubes of sizes $R$ and $rR$ respectively centered at the same
point. Assume that $u$ is harmonic in the cube $\mathcal{K}_{R}$.
Let $X=\mathcal{K}_{R}\backslash\mathcal{K}_{rR}$,
$x\in\mathcal{K}_{rR}$
and $d(x,\partial\mathcal{K}_{rR})>sR$. Then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:average1}
|u(x)|\leq O(R^{-d})\sum_{y\in X} |u(y)| \;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:average2}
u(x)^{2}\leq O(R^{-d})\sum_{y\in X}u(y)^{2} \;.
\end{equation}
Here, the constants in the big-O notation depend on $s,t$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For any integer $rR \leq b<R$, let $\mathcal{K}_{b}$ be
cubes of sizes $b$ co-centered with $\mathcal{K}_{R}$.
Then since $u$ is harmonic, and the Poisson kernel
$0\le P_{\mathcal{K}_{b}}(x,y) \le c\, b^{-(d-1)}$ for some constant $c>0$
by the assumption on $x$,
one has
\[
|u(x)|
= \Big|
\sum_{y\in\partial\mathcal{K}_{b}} P_{\mathcal{K}_{b}} (x,y) u(y)
\Big|
\leq c\,b^{-(d-1)} \sum_{y\in\partial\mathcal{K}_{b}} |u(y)| \;.
\]
Multiply both sides by $b^{d-1}$ and sum over $rR \leq b\leq R$,
we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:average11}
R^{d}|u(x)|\leq c^{\prime}\sum_{y\in X} |u(y)|
\end{equation}
for some constant $c'>0$ which proves (\ref{eq:average1}). By Cauchy-Schwartz inequality,
\[
|u(x)|
\leq O(R^{-d})\big(\sum_{y\in X}u(y)^{2}\big)^{1/2}|X|^{1/2} \;.
\]
This together with $|X|=O(R^d)$ proves (\ref{eq:average2}).
\end{proof}
The next Proposition plays an important role in controlling the fundamental
scaling. See the paragraph below Proposition~\ref{prop:scaling} for a motivation.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:covest}
Let $x\in X\subset U\subset\Lambda$. If $d(x,\partial X)\geq cL^{j}$,
then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:decay}
\sum_{y_{1},y_{2}\in\partial X}(\partial_{x,e}P_{X})(x,y_{1})\,
C_{U}(y_{1},y_{2})\,
(\partial_{x,e}P_{X})(x,y_{2})\leq O(1)L^{-dj}
\end{equation}
for all $e\in\mathcal{E}$ where the constant $O(1)$ only depends
on the constant $c$. Here $\partial_{x,e}$ is the discrete derivative w.r.t.
the argument $x$ to the direction $e$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Notice that $C_{U}\leq C_{\Lambda}$ as quadratic forms, so it is enough
to prove the statement with $C_{U}$ replaced by $C_{\Lambda}$. Since
$y_{2}\in\partial X$ and $C_{\Lambda}(x-y_{2})$ is $-\Delta_{m}$-harmonic
in $x\in X$, one has
\[
\sum_{y_{1}\in\partial X}
P_{X}(x,y_{1}) C_{\Lambda}(y_{1},y_{2})
=C_{\Lambda}(x,y_{2}) \;.
\]
Taking derivative w.r.t. $x$ on the above equation, we obtain that
the left hand side of eq. (\ref{eq:decay}) is equal to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:alpha12-1}
\sum_{y_{2}\in\partial X}
\partial_{x,e}C_{\Lambda}(x,y_{2}) \, \partial_{x,e}P_{X}(x,y_{2}) \;.
\end{equation}
By Corollary \ref{cor:Cdecay} (for decay rate of $\nabla C_{\Lambda}$)
and the assumption $d(x,\partial X)\geq cL^{j}$, one has
\[
|\partial_{x,e}C_{\Lambda}(x,y_{2})|\leq O(L^{-(d-1)j}) \;.
\]
Using again the same assumption, there exists a discrete ball
$\mathcal B_R(x)\subset X$ centered on $x$ with radius $R=\frac{c}{2}L^j$ (and $R$ is independent of $x$).
For every $y_2\in\partial X$,
$P_X(x,y_2)$ is harmonic and non-negative in $\mathcal B_R(x)$.
Applying \eqref{eq:diff-est-positive},
\[
\left|\partial_{x,e}P_{X}(x,y_{2})\right|
\le c_1 R^{-1} P_{X}(x,y_{2})
\]
with $c_1$ depending on $c$ but independent of $x$ and $y_2$ (since it is independent of the harmonic function).
So (\ref{eq:alpha12-1}) is bounded by
\[
O(L^{-(d-1)j}) O(L^{-j})
\sum_{y_{2}\in\partial X}
P_{X}(x,y_{2}) \;.
\]
Since $\sum_{y_{2}\in\partial X} P_{X}(x,y_{2})\leq1$
for all $m>0$ (where $m$ is the mass in $\Delta_m$
and $P_X$ depends on $m$),
the above quantity is bounded by $O(L^{-dj})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
One may find that our method also resembles Gawedzki and Kupiainen's
approach \cite{gawedzki_rigorous_1980,gawedzki_block_1983} because
the Poisson kernel here plays a similar role as their spin blocking
operator. However, there are many differences. For example, our fluctuation
fields $\zeta$ have finite range covariances; the integrands at different
scales do not have to be in Gibbsian forms; and our polymer arrangements
are closer to Brydges \cite{brydges_lectures_2007}.
\end{rem}
\section{Norms} \label{sec:Norms}
Before we define the norms, we have a remark
about the choices of four important constants: $L$, $A$, $\kappa$ and $h$
where $L$ has already appeared above and $A$, $\kappa$ and $h$ will appear in the definitions of norms below.
We will first fix $L>L_0(d)$ large enough which satisfies
all the largeness requirements in
Lemma~\ref{lem:geometric} (a geometric result), Lemma~\ref{lem:L2} and Proposition~\ref{prop:L3}.
These results establish contractivity of the three linear maps defined in Proposition~\ref{prop:The-linearization}, and $L$ has to be large to overwhelm some $O(1)$ constants appearing in the estimates of the norms of these linear maps.
We then choose $A>A_0(d,L)$ large enough which satisfies
all the largeness requirements in
Proposition~\ref{prop:smoothness} (smoothness of RG) and
Proposition~\ref{prop:large-sets} (contractivity of the linear map $\mathcal L_1$ defined in Proposition~\ref{prop:The-linearization}).
After this, we choose $0<\kappa <\kappa_0(d,L,A)$ small enough which satisfies
all the smallness requirements in Lemma~\ref{lem:intproperties} (integrating ``regulators" defined in \eqref{eq:def-reg}) and Lemma~\ref{lem:integrab_poly}.
Finally, we choose $h>h_0(d,L,A,\kappa)$ large enough for the arguments in the proof
of Lemma~\ref{lem:integrab_poly}.
\subsection{Definitions of norms}
We now define the norm of the fields,
the norm of a function of the fields (i.e. elements in $\mathcal N$) at a fixed field,
and the norm of a function in $\mathcal N^{\mathcal P_j}$.
For $j>0$, the definitions are as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Define $h_{j}=hL^{-(d-2)j/2}$ for constant $h>0$. We first
define the norm for the fields. Let us recall that $\xi$ is the field
introduced in Section \ref{sec:Outline}.
$X\subset Y$ and $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$,
we define
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def_Phi}
\Vert(f,\lambda\xi)\Vert_{\Phi_{j}(X,Y)}:=h_{j}^{-1}\sup_{x\in X,e}\left|L^{j}\partial_{e}(P_{Y}f(x)+\lambda\xi(x))\right| \;.
\end{equation}
The notation $\Vert f\Vert_{\Phi_{j}(X,Y)}$ where $\xi$ part is dropped will be understood as $\Vert(f,0)\Vert_{\Phi_{j}(X,Y)}$.
As a special case, if $X\in\mathcal{P}_{j}$ then we simply write
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def-Phi-j-X}
\Vert(f,\lambda\xi)\Vert_{\Phi_{j}(X)}:=\Vert(f,\lambda\xi)\Vert_{\Phi_{j}(\dot{X},X^{+})} \;.
\end{equation}
\item
We then define differentials for functions of the fields, and their
norm.
Let $K(\phi,\xi)$ be a function of $\phi,\xi$.
For test functions
\[
\left(f,\lambda\right)^{\times n}:=(f_{1},\lambda_{1}\xi,\cdots,f_{n},\lambda_{n}\xi) \;,
\]
the n-th differential of $K(\phi,\xi)$ is
\[
K^{(n)}(\phi,\xi;\left(f,\lambda\right)^{\times n})
:=\frac{\partial^{n}}{\partial t_{1}\dots\partial t_{n}}
K(\phi+\sum_{i=1}^{n}t_{i}f_{i},\xi+\sum_{i=1}^{n}t_{i}\lambda_{i}\xi)\bigg|_{t_{i}=0} \;.
\]
It is normed with a space of test functions $\Phi$ by
\[
\Vert K^{(n)}(\phi,\xi)\Vert_{T_{\phi}^{n}(\Phi)}
:=\sup_{\Vert(f_{i},\lambda_{i}\xi)\Vert_{\Phi}\leq1}
\big|K^{(n)}(\phi,\xi;\left(f,\lambda\right)^{\times n})\big| \;.
\]
We then measure the amplitude of $K(\phi,\xi)$ at a fixed field
$\phi$ by incorporating all its derivatives at $\phi$ that we want
to control:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:allders}
\Vert K(\phi,\xi)\Vert_{T_{\phi}(\Phi)}
:=\sum_{n=0}^{4}\frac{1}{n!}\Vert K^{(n)}(\phi,\xi)\Vert_{T_{\phi}^{n}(\Phi)}
\end{equation}
In most of the discussions,
we actually have a function $K(X,\phi,\xi)$ which is element in $\mathcal N^{\mathcal P_j}$. Then the above $T_\phi(\Phi)$ norm
is taken for every $X\in\mathcal P_j$, and
$\Phi$ will be chosen to be $\Phi_{j}(X)$
defined in \eqref{eq:def-Phi-j-X}.
\item
For $\kappa>0$, we define ``regulators'':
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def-reg}
G(X,Y):=\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{x\in X,e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}\phi(x))^{2}}\big|Y^{c}\right]\big/N(X,Y)
\end{equation}
for $X\subset Y$ where the normalization factor is defined by
\begin{equation}
N(X,Y):=\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{x\in X,e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}\phi(x))^{2}}\big|\phi_{Y^{c}}=0\right]
\end{equation}
For $K\in \mathcal N^{\mathcal P_j}$, define
\begin{equation}
\Vert K(X)\Vert_{j}:=\sup_{\phi}\Vert K(X,\phi,\xi)\Vert_{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(X))}G(\ddot{X},X^{+})^{-1}\label{eq:def_normKXj}
\end{equation}
Finally, for $A>0$,
\begin{equation}
\Vert K\Vert_{j}:=\sup_{X\in\mathcal{P}_{j}}\Vert K(X)\Vert_{j}A^{|X|_{j}}\label{eq:def_normKj}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
For the case $j=0$: (\ref{eq:def_Phi})-(\ref{eq:allders}) are still
defined for $j=0$ with $P_{Y}=id$ and $\dot{X}=X$ (recall these
conventions made in Section \ref{sec:Outline}). (\ref{eq:def_normKXj})
is defined with $G$ replaced by
\begin{equation}
G_{0}(X):=e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{x\in X,e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}\phi(x))^{2}}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Properties}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:Tphiproperties}
Let $F$ be function of $\phi$, $\xi$, and $X\subset Y\subset U$.
We have the following property for the $T_{\phi}(\Phi)$ norms:
\begin{equation}
\Vert F^{(n)}(\phi,\xi)\Vert_{T_{\phi}^{n}(\Phi_{j}(Y,U))}
\leq\Vert F^{(n)}(\phi,\xi)\Vert_{T_{\phi}^{n}(\Phi_{j}(X,U))}
\end{equation}
which also holds without $n$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is immediate because $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{\Phi_{j}(Y,U)}\geq\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{\Phi_{j}(X,U)}$.
\end{proof}
Before the discussion on further properties,
we recall that our functions of the fields have the
special structure \eqref{eq:depend-via}.
It turns out that in view of this structure,
it is sometimes more convenient to consider
a type of function spaces $\widetilde{\Phi}_{j}(X,Y)$ for $X\subset Y$ defined as follows:
\
\widetilde{\Phi}_{j}(X,Y):=\{g: \Delta g=0 \mbox{ on }Y, g=0 \mbox{ on }Y^c\}\oplus\mathbb{R}\xi
\
equipped with semi-norm
\
\Vert g\oplus\lambda\xi\Vert_{\widetilde{\Phi}_{j}(X,Y)}:=h_{j}^{-1}\sup_{x\in X,e}\left|L^{j}\partial_{e}(g(x)+\lambda\xi(x))\right| \;.
\
Note that the above sum is really a direct sum since the test function $f$ in \eqref{eq:scalinglimit-2} is not identically zero.
Now if a function $F(\phi,\xi)=\tilde F(\psi)$ with $\psi=P_Y \phi+\xi$,
one actually has
\
\Vert F^{(n)}(\phi,\xi) \Vert_{T^n_\phi (\Phi_{j}(X,Y))}
= \!\!\!\!
\sup_{\left\Vert g_{i}\oplus\lambda_{i}\xi\right\Vert _{\widetilde{\Phi}_{j}(X,Y)}\leq 1}
\Big|
\partial_{t_{i}}^{n}\big|_{t_{i}=0}
\tilde F(\psi+ \sum_{i=1}^{n} t_{i} (g_{i}+\lambda_{i}\xi))
\Big|
\
for any subset $X\subset Y$ since in this situation, varying $\phi$ by
$t_i f_i$ for generic functions $f_i$ is equivalent with
varying $P_Y \phi$ by harmonic functions on $Y$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:normEleqEnorm}
Assume the setting of Lemma~\ref{lem:only-dep-harmo}.
For every $k=1,\dots,m$, let $X_k\subset Y_{k}\subset U$.
Define $X:=\cup_{k=1}^m X_k$.
Then, one has
\begin{equation} \label{eq:norm-product}
\Big\Vert
\mathbb{E}\Big[\prod_{k=1}^mH_{k}(\phi,\xi)\big|U^{c}\Big]
\Big\Vert_{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(X,U))}
\leq
\mathbb{E}\Big[\prod_{k=1}^m\left\Vert H_{k}(\phi,\xi)\right\Vert _{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(X_{k},Y_{k}))}\big|U^{c}\Big] \;.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
Lemma \ref{lem:normEleqEnorm} is stated in terms of generic functions $H_k$. The typical situation in which we apply this lemma is that
$Y_k=X_k^+$, and $H_k(\phi,\xi)=K_k(X_k,\phi,\xi)$
with each $K_k(X_k,\phi,\xi)$ satisfying \eqref{eq:depend-via}.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
Lemma \ref{lem:normEleqEnorm}
is analogous with \cite[Lemma~6.7]{brydges_lectures_2007}
(the norm of a product bounded by product of norms)
and \cite[Lemma~6.9]{brydges_lectures_2007} (the norm of an expectation bounded by expectation of the norm).
The difference is that in our approach we combine the two results; in fact, here
both sides of \eqref{eq:norm-product} have the conditional expectation
with the same conditioning, so that the two sides are comparable.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:normEleqEnorm}]
Let $\zeta=\phi-P_U \phi$ and define
\[
F(\phi,\xi):=\mathbb{E}_\zeta \Big[\prod_{k}H_{k}(P_U \phi+\zeta,\xi)\Big] \;.
\]
Lemma~\ref{lem:only-dep-harmo} states that there exists $\widetilde F$ such that $F(\phi,\xi)=\tilde F(P_{U}\phi+\xi)$.
Write $\langle t,f\rangle_n:=\sum_{i=1}^n t_i f_i$.
By the discussion before this lemma,
the $T^n_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(X,U)) $ norm of $F^{(n)}(\phi,\xi)$
is equal to
\[
\sup_{\left\Vert g_{i}\oplus\lambda_{i}\xi\right\Vert_{\widetilde{\Phi}_{j}(X,U)}\leq 1}
\bigg|
\partial_{t_{i}}^{n}\big|_{t_{i}=0}
\mathbb{E}_\zeta \Big[\prod_{k}H_{k}\Big(
P_U \phi+\langle t,g\rangle_n+\zeta,\,
\xi+\langle t,\lambda\xi\rangle_n
\Big)\Big]
\bigg| \;.
\]
This is bounded by taking the $\mathbb{E}_\zeta$ outside the supremum,
and we apply the product rule of derivatives.
We then obtain
factors of the form
\[
\sup_{ g_{i}\oplus\lambda_{i}\xi}
\Big| \partial_{t_{i}}^{r}\big|_{t_{i}=0}
H_{k}\Big(
\phi+\langle t,g\rangle_r,\,\xi+\langle t,\lambda\xi\rangle_r
\Big)
\Big|
\]
with the sup over the same set as above.
Since $g_i$ are harmonic on $Y_k$ and by Lemma~\ref{lem:Tphiproperties},
the supremum can be replaced by one taken over all
$g_i\oplus\lambda_i \xi $ such that $g_i$ are harmonic on $Y_k$ and
$ \Vert g_{i}\oplus\lambda_{i}\xi\Vert_{\widetilde{\Phi}_{j}(X_k,Y_k)}\le 1$.
By the assumption on $H_k$, and $P_{Y_k} g =g$,
the above function $H_k$ is equal to
$\widetilde H_k\big(
P_{Y_k}\phi+\langle t,g\rangle_r + \xi+\langle t,\lambda\xi\rangle_r
\big)$.
Again by the discussion before this lemma,
the above quantity is actually bounded by
$\Vert H_k(\phi,\xi)\Vert_{T^r_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(X_k,Y_k))} $.
Summing over multi-indices $(r_1,...,r_m)$ with $|r|=n$,
followed by summing over $n$, one obtains the desired bound.
\end{proof}
Before the next lemma we introduce a short notation
\begin{equation}
(\partial_{m}f)^{2}:=(\partial f)^{2}+m^{2}f^{2}
\end{equation}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:simproperties}
We have the following properties for the
regulator.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{enu:reg1} $G(X,Y,\phi=0)=1$\;.
\item \label{enu:reg2}If $X_{1}\subset Y_{1}$, $X_{2}\subset Y_{2}$,
and $Y_{1}\cup\partial Y_{1},Y_{2}\cup\partial Y_{2}$ are disjoint,
then
\begin{equation}
G(X_{1},Y_{1})G(X_{2},Y_{2})=G(X_{1}\cup X_{2},Y_{1}\cup Y_{2}) \;.
\end{equation}
\item \label{enu:reg3}
We have an alternative representation of $G(X,Y)$
\begin{equation} \label{eq:alt-rep-G}
G(X,Y)=\exp\left(\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{X}(\partial\psi_{1})^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{Y}(\partial_{m}\psi_{1})^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{Y}(\partial_{m}\psi_{2})^{2}\right)
\end{equation}
where $\psi_{1}$ is the minimizer of $\sum_{Y}(\partial_{m}\phi)^{2}-\kappa\sum_{X}(\partial\phi)^{2}$
with $\phi_{Y^{c}}$ fixed, and $\psi_{2}$ is the minimizer of $\sum_{Y}(\partial_{m}\phi)^{2}$
with $\phi_{Y^{c}}$ fixed.
\item \label{enu:reg4}
Fixing $Y$, $G(X,Y)$ is monotonically increasing
in $X$ for all $X\subset Y$.
\item \label{enu:reg2bds}With $\psi_{1,2}$ defined in (\ref{enu:reg3}),
\begin{equation}
\exp\Big(\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{X}(\partial\psi_{2})^{2}\Big)\leq G(X,Y)
\leq
\exp\Big(\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{X}(\partial\psi_{1})^{2}\Big) \;.
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(\ref{enu:reg1})(\ref{enu:reg2}) hold by definition and the fact
that $G(X,Y)$ is a function of $\phi$ on $\partial Y$. For (\ref{enu:reg3}),
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}G(X,Y) & =\frac{\int e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{X}(\partial\phi)^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\Lambda}(\partial_{m}\phi)^{2}}d^{Y}\phi\bigg/\int e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\Lambda}(\partial_{m}\phi)^{2}}d^{Y}\phi}{\int e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{X}(\partial\phi)^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{Y}(\partial_{m}^{D}\phi)^{2}}d^{Y}\phi\bigg/\int e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{Y}(\partial_{m}^{D}\phi)^{2}}d^{Y}\phi}\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $d^{Y}\phi$ is the Lebesgue measure on $\{\phi(x):x\in Y\}\cong\mathbb{R}^{Y}$,
$\partial^{D}$ takes Dirichlet boundary condition on $\partial Y$.
Using Fact (\ref{eq:quadratic_fact}) for both quadratic forms $-\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{X}(\partial\phi)^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\Lambda}(\partial_{m}\phi)^{2}$
and $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\Lambda}(\partial_{m}\phi)^{2}$, we obtain
(\ref{enu:reg3}), where the quantity
\[
\int e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{X}(\partial\phi)^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{Y}(\partial_{m}^{D}\phi)^{2}}d^{Y}\phi
\]
appears in both numerator and denominator and thus cancels, and so
does the quantity
\[
\int e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{Y}(\partial_{m}^{D}\phi)^{2}}d^{Y}\phi \;.
\]
(\ref{enu:reg4}) holds because of (\ref{enu:reg3}) and that
\begin{equation}
\inf_{\phi}\Big\{ \sum_{Y}(\partial_{m}\phi)^{2}-\kappa\sum_{X}(\partial\phi)^{2}\big|Y^{c}\Big\}
\end{equation}
is monotonically decreasing in $X$. The two inequalities in (\ref{enu:reg2bds})
hold by replacing $\psi_{1}$ by $\psi_{2}$ or replacing $\psi_{2}$
by $\psi_{1}$, and using definitions of $\psi_{1},\psi_{2}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The regulator in \cite{brydges_lectures_2007} has the form $e^{\kappa\sum(\partial\phi^{\prime})^{2}+\mbox{the other terms}}$,
since the smoothed field $\phi^{\prime}$ there is analogous to our
$\psi$, the last property above implies that our regulator has about
the same amplitude as the one in \cite{brydges_lectures_2007}, except
that we no longer need the other terms.
\end{rem}
Before proving a furthur property we recall a formula. If $U$ is
a finite set and $\psi=\{\psi(x):x\in U\}$ is a family of centered
Gaussian random variables with covariance identity, and $T:l^{2}(U)\rightarrow l^{2}(U)$
satisfies $\Vert T\Vert<1$ then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Gaussianint}
\mathbb{E}
\Big[\exp\Big(\frac{1}{2}\left(\psi,T\psi\right)_{l^{2}(U)}\Big)\Big]
=\det\left(1-T\right)^{-1/2}
=\exp\Big(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n}Tr(T^{n})\Big)
\end{equation}
The next lemma shows that the conditional expectations almost automatically
do the work when one wants to see how the regulators undergo integrations,
except that we need to manually control a ratio of normalizations.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:intproperties}
Suppose that $\kappa>0$ is sufficiently small.
For $X\subset Y\subset U$, and $d(X,Y^{c})=c_{0}L^{j}$,
one has the bound
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\left[G(X,Y)\big|U^{c}\right]\leq c^{L^{-dj}|X|}G(X,U)
\end{equation}
if $U\neq\Lambda$, for some constant $c$ only depending on $c_{0}$.
One also has, as the special case, the short-hand notation and bound
\[
\mathbb{E}\left[G(X,Y)\big|(\Lambda^{+})^{c}\right]:=\mathbb{E}\left[G(X,Y)\right]\leq c^{L^{-dj}|X|} \;.
\]
In particular if $X=\ddot{X}_{0}$ for some $X_{0}\in\mathcal{P}_{j}$,
then the factor $c^{L^{-dj}|X|}$ can be written as $c^{|X_{0}|_{j}}$.
Furthurmore, $G_{0}$ also satisfies the same bound.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By definition one has
\[
\mathbb{E}\left[G(X,Y)\big|U^{c}\right]=\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{x\in X,e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}\phi(x))^{2}}\big|U^{c}\right]\big/N(X,Y)=G(X,U)\frac{N(X,U)}{N(X,Y)} \;.
\]
Define $\phi=C_{Y}^{1/2}\psi$ so that $\psi$ has covariance identity,
where $C_{Y}$ is the Dirichlet Green's function for $Y$. Then define
$T_{Y}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}C_{Y}^{1/2})^{\star}1_{X}(\partial_{e}C_{Y}^{1/2})$
as an operator on $l^{2}=l^{2}(\Lambda)$. We define similar operators
$C_{U},T_{U}$ in the same way for $U$. Let $\partial_{e}^{D}$,
$-\Delta_{Y}$ take Dirichlet boundary condition on $\partial Y$.
Because $C_{Y}$ is the inverse of $-\Delta_{Y}$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}(f,T_{Y}f)_{l^{2}} & =\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x\in X,e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}C_{Y}^{1/2}f(x))^{2}\leq\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x\in Y,e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}^{D}C_{Y}^{1/2}f(x))^{2}\\
& \leq\sum_{x\in Y}C_{Y}^{1/2}f(x)(-\Delta_{Y})C_{Y}^{1/2}f(x)\\
& \leq(f,f)_{l^{2}}
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:T<1}
\end{equation}
So $\left\Vert T_{Y}\right\Vert \leq1$. Similarly $\left\Vert T_{U}\right\Vert \leq1$.
By (\ref{eq:Gaussianint})
\begin{equation}
\frac{N(X,U)}{N(X,Y)}=\frac{\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}(\psi,T_{U}\psi)}\right]}{\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}(\psi,T_{Y}\psi)}\right]}=\left(\frac{\det(1-\kappa T_{U})}{\det(1-\kappa T_{Y})}\right)^{-1/2}
\end{equation}
Taking logarithm, we need to compute
\[
Tr\left(\log(1-\kappa T_{U})-\log(1-\kappa T_{Y})\right)\leq O(1)Tr\left(\kappa T_{U}-\kappa T_{Y}\right)
\]
where we have used $\left\Vert T_{Y}\right\Vert \leq1$, $\left\Vert T_{U}\right\Vert \leq1$,
$\kappa$ is small, and $\log(1-x)$ is Lipschitz on $x\in[-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]$.
Since $C_{U}-C_{Y}=P_{Y}C_{U}$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}Tr\left(T_{U}-T_{Y}\right) & =\frac{1}{2}\sum_{e\in\mathcal{E},x\in X}\partial_{e}(C_{U}-C_{Y})\partial_{e}^{\star}(x,x)\\
& =\frac{1}{2}\sum_{e\in\mathcal{E},x\in X}\sum_{y\in\partial Y}\partial_{x,e}P_{Y}(x,y)\partial_{x,e}C_{U}(y,x)
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:intprop_trace}
\end{equation}
By Lemma \ref{lem:derbnd} and proceed similarly as eq. (\ref{eq:alpha12-1})
in proof of Proposition \ref{prop:covest}, making use of the $O(L^{j})$
distance between $x$ and $y$, the above expression is bounded by
$O(L^{-jd})\left|X\right|$ which concludes the proof.
The bound on $\mathbb{E}\left[G(X,Y)\big|(\Lambda^{+})^{c}\right]$
is similar. The only modification is to replace $C_{U}$ by $C_{\Lambda}$
which satisfies periodic instead of Dirichlet boundary condition.
For $G_{0}$, we can directly bound $\mathbb{E}\left[e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{x\in X,e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}\phi(x))^{2}}\big|U^{c}\right]$
by $c^{|X|}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Smoothness of RG} \label{sec:Smoothness-of-RG}
In this section we prove that the RG map constructed in Section \ref{sec:The-renormalization-group}
is smooth. First of
all, we need some geometric results from \cite{brydges_lectures_2007}.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:geometric}(Brydges \cite{brydges_lectures_2007}) There
exists an $\eta=\eta(d)>1$ such that for all $L\geq2^{d}+1$ and
for all large connected sets $X\in\mathcal{P}_{j}$, $|X|_{j}\geq\eta|\bar{X}|_{j+1}$.
In addition, for all $X\in\mathcal{P}_{j}$, $|X|_{j}\geq|\bar{X}|_{j+1}$,
and
\begin{equation}
|X|_{j}\geq\frac{1}{2}(1+\eta)|\bar{X}|_{j+1}-\frac{1}{2}(1+\eta)2^{d+1}|\mathcal{C}(X)|
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The lemma is the same with \cite{brydges_lectures_2007} (Lemma 6.15
and 6.16), so we omit the proof.
\end{proof}
In the following result, assuming $j\ge 0$,
we omit subscript $j$ for objects at scale $j$ and write a prime
for objects at scale $j+1$, as in Section \ref{sec:The-renormalization-group}.
Recall that the spaces $\mathcal N^{\mathcal P_c}$, $\mathcal N^{\mathcal P^\prime_c}$ are defined in Subsection~\ref{sec:Basics-Polymers},
and they are equipped with norms defined in Subsection~\ref{eq:def_normKj}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:smoothness}
Let $B^{\prime}(\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{P}_c^\prime})$
be a ball centered on the origin in $\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{P}_c^\prime}$.
There exists $A(d,L,B^{\prime})$ and $A^{\star}(d,A)$ such that
for $A>A(d,L,B^{\prime})$ and $A^{\star}>A^{\star}(d,A)$, the map
$(\sigma_{j},E_{j+1},\sigma_{j+1},K_{j})\mapsto K_{j+1}$ defined
in Subsection~\ref{subsec:RG-steps} is smooth
from $(-A^{\star-1},A^{\star-1})^{3}\times B_{A^{\star-1}}(\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{P}_c})$
to $B^{\prime}(\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{P}_c^\prime})$ where $B_{A^{\star-1}}(\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{P}_c})$
is a ball centered on the origin in $\mathcal{N}^{\mathcal{P}_c}$
with radius $A^{\star-1}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let
$A^{\star-1}\ll\kappa $.
For $U\in\mathcal{P}_{c}^{\prime}$, by definition of $K^{\sharp}$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Kj+1_smoothness}
\begin{aligned}
K^{\prime}(U)&=
\sum_{V\subseteq U,V\neq\emptyset}
\sum_{(P,Q,Z,\mathcal{X},\hat{\mathcal{Y}})\rightarrow V}
\mathbf{E}^{U^{+}} \\
&\qquad\times
\underbrace{
(1-e^{E^{\prime}})^{P}
\,(e^{E^{\prime}})^{(\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash X)\,\cap\, U\backslash(P\cup Q)}
\,(e^{-E^{\prime}})^{U\,\cup\, X}}_{
\leq(A^{\star}/2)^{-|P|_{j}}
\,2^{|(\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash X)\,\cap\, U\backslash(P\cup Q)|_{j}}
\,2^{|U\cup X|_{j}}}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where, with $\prod K:=\prod_{Y\in\mathcal{X}}K(Y)\prod_{(B,Y)\in\hat{\mathcal{Y}}}\frac{1}{|Y|_{j}}K(B,Y)$
as a short-hand notation,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned} & \mathbf{E}^{U^{+}}:=\mathbb{E}\bigg[(\tilde{I}-e^{E^{\prime}})^{(U\backslash V)\cap\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}}\tilde{I}^{V\cap(\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}\backslash Z)}\delta I^{Z}(I-e^{E^{\prime}})^{Q}\prod K\big|(U^{+})^{c}\bigg]\\
= & \mathbb{E}\bigg[\underbrace{\mathbb{E}\bigg[(\tilde{I}-e^{E^{\prime}})^{(U\backslash V)\cap\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}}\tilde{I}^{V\cap(\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}\backslash Z)}\delta I^{Z}(I-e^{E^{\prime}})^{Q}\big|(W^{+})^{c}\bigg]}_{=:\mathbf{E}^{W^{+}}}\prod K\big|(U^{+})^{c}\bigg]
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $W=U\backslash\hat{X}$ (recall that $X:=X_{\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{Y}}$)
and the last step used the corridors around $K(Y)$ in order to make
sense of the $(W^{+})^{c}$ conditional expectation. In the above
$W^{+}$ is a $+$ operation at scale $j$ and $U^{+}$ is a $+$
operation at scale $j+1$.
We first control $\mathbf{E}^{W^{+}}$. With $\phi=P_{W^{+}}\phi+\zeta$
and the inequality $(a+b)^{2}\leq2a^{2}+2b^{2}$, and using assumption
$A^{\star-1}\ll\kappa $, Lemma \ref{lem:estimateV}, we list the estimates
for each factors.
\[
\Vert(I-e^{E^{\prime}})(B)\Vert_{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(B))}\leq5(\kappa A^{\star})^{-1}e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{B}(\partial P_{W^{+}}\phi)^{2}+\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{B}(\partial P_{B^{+}}\zeta)^{2}}
\]
for all $B\in Q$, where $B^{+}\subseteq W^{+}$ since $Q\subseteq\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash\hat{X}$;
and,
\[
\Vert(\tilde{I}-e^{E^{\prime}})(B)\Vert_{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(B))}\leq5(\kappa A^{\star})^{-1}e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{B}(\partial P_{W^{+}}\phi)^{2}+\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{B}(\partial P_{(\bar{B})^{+}}\zeta)^{2}}
\]
for all $B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}((U\backslash V)\cap\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c})$,
where $(\bar{B})^{+}\subseteq W^{+}$ since $\left\langle X\right\rangle $
is designed to ensure that; and
\[
\Vert\tilde{I}(B)\Vert_{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(B))}\leq2e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{B}(\partial P_{W^{+}}\phi)^{2}+\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{B}(\partial P_{(\bar{B})^{+}}\zeta)^{2}}
\]
for all $B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}(V\cap(\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}\backslash Z))$,
where $(\bar{B})^{+}\subseteq W^{+}$ since $B\subseteq\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}$;
and
\[
\begin{aligned}\left\Vert \delta I(B)\right\Vert _{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(B))} & \leq\left\Vert I(B)-1\right\Vert _{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(B))}+\Vert\tilde{I}(B)-1\Vert_{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(B))}\\
& \leq8(\kappa A^{\star})^{-1}e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{B}(\partial P_{W^{+}}\phi)^{2}}e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{B}(\partial P_{B^{+}}\zeta)^{2}+\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{B}(\partial P_{(\bar{B})^{+}}\zeta)^{2}}
\end{aligned}
\]
by $e^{a}+e^{b}\leq2e^{a+b}$ ($a,b>0$) for all $B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}(Z)$,
where $(\bar{B})^{+}\subseteq W^{+}$ since $Z\subseteq\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}$.
Combining all above estimates, together with Lemma \ref{lem:normEleqEnorm},
we have
\begin{equation}
\Vert\mathbf{E}^{W^{+}}\Vert_{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(W))}\leq(\kappa A^{\star}/8)^{-|Q\cup Z\cup((U\backslash V)\backslash\left\langle X\right\rangle )|_{j}}e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{W}(\partial P_{W^{+}}\phi)^{2}}\mathcal{M}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mathcalM}
\mathcal{M}
\leq
\mathbb{E}_{\zeta}\big[
e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}(W)}\sum_{B}(\partial P_{B^{+}}\zeta)^{2}}e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}\left(W\right)}\sum_{B}(\partial P_{(\bar{B})^{+}}\zeta)^{2}}
\big] \;.
\end{equation}
In the next Lemma we show that $\mathcal{M}\leq c^{|U|_{j}}$.
Now we proceed to control $\mathbf{E}^{U^{+}}$. Instead of $(a+b)^{2}\leq2a^{2}+2b^{2}$
we use properties of the regulator established in Section \ref{sec:Norms}.
Since for all $X\in\mathcal{P}_{j,c}$
\[
\Vert K_{j}(X)\Vert_{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(X))}\leq A^{\star-1}G(\ddot{X},X^{+})A^{-|X|_{j}} \;.
\]
By Lemma \ref{lem:normEleqEnorm}, Lemma \ref{lem:simproperties} (\ref{enu:reg2})(\ref{enu:reg4})(\ref{enu:reg2bds})
and Lemma \ref{lem:intproperties},
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \Vert \mathbf{E}^{U^{+}} \Vert_{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(U))}
\leq
c^{|U|_{j}}\,
(\kappa A^{\star}/8)^{
-|Z\,\cup\, Q\,\cup\,\big((U\backslash V)\backslash\left\langle X\right\rangle \big)|_{j}-|\mathcal{X}|-|\mathcal{Y}|}
A^{-|X_{\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{Y}}|_{j}} \\
& \qquad\qquad\qquad\times
\mathbb{E}\Big[e^{\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{W}(\partial P_{W^{+}}\phi)^{2}}
\prod_{Y\in\mathcal{X}}G(\ddot{Y}_{k},Y_{k}^{+})\prod_{Y\in\mathcal{Y}}G(\ddot{Y}_{i},Y_{i}^{+})\big|(U^{+})^{c}\Big]
\\
& \leq c^{|U|_{j}}\cdot(\kappa A^{\star}/8)^{-|Z\cup Q\cup((U\backslash V)\backslash\left\langle X\right\rangle )|_{j}-|\mathcal{X}|-|\mathcal{Y}|}G(\ddot{U},U^{+})c^{\prime|W|_{j}}(A/c^{\prime})^{-|X_{\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{Y}}|_{j}} .
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:EUplus}
\end{equation}
We can bound the number of terms in the summation in (\ref{eq:Kj+1_smoothness})
by $k^{|U|_{j}}$ with $k=2^{7}$, because every $j$-block in $U$
either belongs to $V$ or $V^{c}$, and the same statement is true
if $V$ is replaced by $P,Q,Z,X_{\mathcal{X}},Y_{\mathcal{Y}}$, and
if it is in $Y\in\mathcal{Y}$ it is either the $B$ of $(B,Y)\in\hat{\mathcal{Y}}$
or not. By Lemma \ref{lem:geometric}, for $a=\frac{1}{2}(1+\eta)$,
with $\mathcal{X}=\{X_{k}\}$, $\hat{\mathcal{Y}}=\{(B_{i},Y_{i})\}$,
the quantity $a|U|_{j+1} $ can be bounded by
\[
\begin{aligned}
&
a|\bar{Z}|_{j+1}+a|\cup_{i}\bar{B}_{i}|_{j+1}+a|\cup_{k}\bar{X}_{k}|_{j+1}+a|\bar{Q}|_{j+1}+a|(U\backslash V)\cap\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}|_{j+1}\\
& \leq\big(|Z|_{j}+a2^{d+1}|\mathcal{C}(Z)|\big)+a|\hat{\mathcal{Y}}|+\big(\sum_{k}|X_{k}|_{j}+a2^{d+1}|\mathcal{X}|\big)\\
& \qquad+\big(|Q|_{j}+a2^{d+1}|\mathcal{C}(Q)|\big)+aL^{d}|(U\backslash V)\cap\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}|_{j}\\
& \leq(1+a2^{d+1})\,(|Z|_{j}+|Q|_{j})+a|\hat{\mathcal{Y}}|\\
&\qquad
+(|X_{\mathcal{X}}|_{j}+a2^{d+1}|\mathcal{X}|)+aL^{d}|(U\backslash V)\cap\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}|_{j} \;.
\end{aligned}
\]
Then we can easily check that with $A,A^{\star}$ sufficiently large
as assumed in the proposition
\[
\left\Vert K^{\prime}\right\Vert _{j+1}=\sup_{U\in\mathcal{P}^{\prime}}\left\Vert K^{\prime}(U)\right\Vert _{j+1}A^{a|U|_{j+1}}A^{(1-a)|U|_{j+1}}<r
\]
where $r$ is the radius of $B^{\prime}(\mathcal{N}_{j+1}^{\mathcal{P}_{j+1}})$,
because $A^{|X_{\mathcal{X}}|_{j}}$ is cancelled by its inverse
in (\ref{eq:EUplus}), and
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\lim_{A\rightarrow\infty}
& A^{(1-a)|U|_{j+1}}
\cdot A^{-|X_{\mathcal{Y}}|_{j}}
\,\cdot\, k^{|U|_{j}}
\,\cdot\, c^{|U|_{j}}
\,\cdot\, c^{\prime \,|W|_{j}+|X_{\mathcal{X}\cup\mathcal{Y}}|_{j}}\\
&\qquad\qquad\times
2^{|(\left\langle X\right\rangle \backslash X) \,\cap \,U\backslash(P\cup Q)|_{j}}
\,\cdot\, 2^{|U\cup X|_{j}} =0
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\lim_{A^{\star}\rightarrow\infty} & (\kappa A^{\star}/8)^{-|Q\cup Z\cup((U\backslash V)\backslash\left\langle X\right\rangle )|_{j}-|\mathcal{X}|-|\mathcal{Y}|}\\
& \cdot A^{(1+a2^{d+1})|Q\cup Z|_{j}+a|\hat{\mathcal{Y}}|+a2^{d+1}|\mathcal{X}|+aL^{d}|(U\backslash V)\cap\left\langle X\right\rangle ^{c}|_{j}}=0 \;.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The derivatives of the map $(\sigma_{j},E_{j+1},\sigma_{j+1},K_{j})\mapsto K_{j+1}$
are bounded similarly.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be the quantity introduced in the proof of Proposition
\ref{prop:smoothness}. There exists a constant $c$ independent of
$L,A,A^{\star}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}\leq c^{|U|_{j}} \;.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Defining $\zeta=C_{W^{+}}^{1/2}\psi$ where $C_{W^{+}}$ is the Dirichlet
Green's function for $W^{+}$ and $\psi\in L^{2}(W^{+})$, $\mathcal{M}$
is bounded by
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{\psi}\exp\Big\{ 4\kappa\sum_{x\in W}\psi(x)T\psi(x)\Big\}
\end{equation}
where $\psi$ has identity covariance and
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
T & =\frac{1}{4}\sum_{B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}(W),e\in\mathcal{E}}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\big(C_{U^{+}}^{1/2}P_{B^{+}}^{\star}\partial_{e}^{\star}1_{B}\partial_{e}P_{B^{+}}C_{U^{+}}^{1/2}+C_{U^{+}}^{1/2}P_{(\bar{B})^{+}}^{\star}\partial_{e}^{\star}1_{B}\partial_{e}P_{(\bar{B})^{+}}C_{U^{+}}^{1/2}\big)\\
& =:T_{1}+T_{2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
is a linear map from $L^{2}(W^{+})$ to itself. $T_{1},T_{2}$ are
defined to be the two terms respectively. We have by Proposition \ref{prop:covest},
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}Tr(T) & =\frac{1}{4}\sum_{B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}(W),e\in\mathcal{E}}\bigg(\sum_{x\in B}\partial_{e}P_{B^{+}}C_{U^{+}}\left(\partial_{e}P_{B^{+}}\right)^{\star}(x,x)\\
& \qquad\qquad
+\sum_{x\in B}\partial_{e}P_{(\bar{B})^{+}}C_{U^{+}}
\big(\partial_{e}P_{(\bar{B})^{+}}\big)^{\star}(x,x)\bigg)\\
& \leq O(1)(L^{-dj}+L^{-d(j+1)})|W|\\
& \leq O(1)|W|_{j} \;.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:traceT}
\end{equation}
For the next step we bound $\Vert T\Vert$. In fact,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
(f,T_{1}f)_{l^{2}}
& =\frac{1}{4}\sum_{B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}(W)}
\sum_{x\in B,e}
\big(\partial_{e}P_{B^{+}}C_{U^{+}}^{\frac{1}{2}}f(x)\big)^{2}\\
& \leq
\frac{1}{4}\sum_{B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}(W)}
\sum_{x\in B^{+},e}
\big(\partial_{e}C_{U^{+}}^{\frac{1}{2}}f(x)\big)^{2}\\
& \leq
c_{d}\sum_{x\in W,e}
\big(\partial_{e}C_{U^{+}}^{\frac{1}{2}}f(x)\big)^{2}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we used the fact that the harmonic extension minimizes the Dirichlet
form to get rid of the Poisson kernels. The constant $c_{d}$ comes
from overlapping of $B^{+}$'s. Then we can proceed as (\ref{eq:T<1})
to bound the above expression by $c_{d}(f,f)_{l^{2}}$. $T_{2}$ is
bounded in the same way. Now by $\left|Tr(T^{n})\right|\leq\left|Tr(T)\right|\left\Vert T\right\Vert ^{n-1}$,
and formula (\ref{eq:Gaussianint}) the proof of the lemma is completed.
\end{proof}
\section{Linearized RG} \label{sec:Linearized-RG}
Having established smoothness, in this section we study the linearization
of the RG map in $\sigma_j,K_j,E_{j+1}$ and $\sigma_{j+1}$.
In view of Lemma \ref{lem:normEleqEnorm}, we can show, by induction
along all the RG steps, that $K_{j}(X)$ depends on $\phi,\xi$ via
$P_{X^{+}}\phi+\xi$ (at scale $0$, $I_{0},K_{0}$ depend on $\phi,\xi$
via $\phi+\xi$). We write
\[
Tay\,\mathbb{E}\left[K_{j}(X)|(U^{+})^{c}\right]
\]
to be the second order Taylor expansion of $\mathbb{E}\left[K_{j}(X)|(U^{+})^{c}\right]$
in $P_{U^{+}}\phi+\xi$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:The-linearization}
The linearization of the map $(\sigma_{j},E_{j+1},\sigma_{j+1},K_{j})\rightarrow K_{j+1}$
around $(0,0,0,0)$ is $\mathcal{L}_{1}+\mathcal{L}_{2}+\mathcal{L}_{3}$
where
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{1}K_{j}(U)=\sum_{X\in\mathcal{P}_{j,c}\backslash\mathcal{S}_{j},\bar{X}=U}\mathbb{E}\left[K_{j}(X)\big|(U^{+})^{c}\right] \;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def-CL2}
\mathcal{L}_{2}K_{j}(U)
=\sum_{B\in\mathcal{B}_{j},\bar{B}=U}\sum_{X\in\mathcal{S}_{j},X\supseteq B}
\frac{1}{|X|_{j}} (1-Tay)\mathbb{E}\left[K_{j}(X)\big|(U^{+})^{c}\right] \;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{3}\big(\sigma_{j},E_{j+1}, &\sigma_{j+1},K_{j}\big)(U)
=\sum_{B\in\mathcal{B}_{j},\bar{B}=U}
\bigg(
\frac{\sigma_{j+1}}{4}\sum_{x\in B,e}\left(\partial_{e}P_{(\bar{B})^{+}}\phi(x)+\xi(x)\right)^{2} \\
&\qquad
+E_{j+1}(B)
-\frac{\sigma_{j}}{4}\sum_{x\in B}\mathbb{E}\left[\left(\partial P_{B^{+}}\phi(x)+\xi(x)\right)^{2}\big|(U^{+})^{c}\right]
\\
& \qquad
+ \sum_{X\in\mathcal{S}_{j},X\supseteq B}
\frac{1}{|X|_{j}}\,Tay\,\mathbb{E}\left[K_{j}(X)|(U^{+})^{c}\right]\bigg) \;.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
In Proposition \ref{prop:smoothness} we proved that the map $(\sigma_{j},E_{j+1},\sigma_{j+1},K_{j})\rightarrow K_{j+1}$
is smooth around $(0,0,0,0)$ so that we can linearize the map. In
(\ref{eq:Ksharp}) since $V\neq\emptyset$, the $\tilde{I}_{j}-e^{E_{j+1}}$
factor doesn't contribute to the linear order. Also if $X=\emptyset$
then $\hat{X}=\left\langle X\right\rangle =\emptyset$, so $1-e^{E_{j+1}}$
and $I_{j}-e^{E_{j+1}}$ don't contribute to the linear order either.
The terms that contribute to the linear order correspond to $(Z,|\mathcal{X}|,|\hat{\mathcal{Y}}|)$
equal to $(\emptyset,0,1)$ or $(\emptyset,1,0)$ or $(B,0,0)$ where
$B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}$. Grouping these terms into large sets part
and small sets part with Taylor leading terms and remainder we obtain
the above linear operators.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Large sets}
\begin{prop} \label{prop:large-sets}
Let $L$ be sufficiently large. Let $A$ be sufficiently large depending
on $L$. Then $\mathcal{L}_{1}$ in Proposition \ref{prop:The-linearization}
is a contraction. Moreover,
\lim_{A\rightarrow\infty}\left\Vert \mathcal{L}_{1}\right\Vert =0$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{lem:intproperties}
\begin{equation}
\Vert\mathcal{L}_{1}K_{j}(U)\Vert_{j+1}\leq\sum_{X\in\mathcal{P}_{j,c}\backslash\mathcal{S}_{j},\bar{X}=U}\Vert K_{j}\Vert_{j}c^{|X|_{j}}A^{-|X|_{j}} \;,
\end{equation}
therefore by Lemma \ref{lem:geometric},
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\Vert\mathcal{L}_{1}K_{j}\Vert_{j+1} & =\sup_{U\in\mathcal{P}_{j+1}}\Vert\mathcal{L}_{1}K_{j}(U)\Vert_{j+1}A^{|U|_{j+1}}\\
& \leq\bigg[\sup_{U\in\mathcal{P}_{j+1}}A^{|U|_{j+1}}\sum_{X\in\mathcal{P}_{j,c}\backslash\mathcal{S}_{j},\bar{X}=U}c^{|X|_{j}}A^{-|X|_{j}}\bigg]\Vert K_{j}\Vert_{j}\\
& \leq\bigg[\sup_{U\in\mathcal{P}_{j+1}}A^{|U|_{j+1}}2^{L^{d}|U|_{j+1}}(A/c)^{-\eta|U|_{j+1}}\bigg]\Vert K_{j}\Vert_{j}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\eta>1$ is introduced in Lemma \ref{lem:geometric}. The bracketed
expression goes to zero as $A\rightarrow\infty$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Taylor remainder}
We prepare to show contractivity of $\mathcal{L}_{2}$. We first show
that the Taylor remainder after the second derivative is bounded by
the third derivative. It is a general result about the $T_{\phi}(\Phi)$
norm with no need to specify the test function space $\Phi$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:3rdder}
For $F$ a function of $\phi$ let $Tay_{n}$ be
its n-th order Taylor expansion about $\phi=0$, and $\Phi$ be a
space of test functions, then
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert (1-Tay_2)F(\phi)\right\Vert _{T_{\phi}(\Phi)}\leq\left(1+\Vert\phi\Vert_{\Phi}\right)^{3}\sup_{\substack{t\in[0,1]\\
k=3,4
}
}\left\Vert F^{(k)}(t\phi)\right\Vert _{T_{t\phi}^{k}(\Phi)} \;.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Taylor remainder theorem, with $f^{\times n}:= (f_1,...,f_n)$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \left\Vert (1-Tay_{2})F(\phi)\right\Vert _{T_{\phi}(\Phi)}
=\sum_{n=0}^{4}\frac{1}{n!}
\sup_{\left\Vert f_{i}\right\Vert _{\Phi}\leq1}
\left|\left(F-Tay_{2}F\right)^{(n)}(\phi;f^{\times n})\right|\\
= & \sum_{n=0}^{4}\frac{1}{n!}
\sup_{\left\Vert f_{i}\right\Vert _{\Phi}\leq1}
\left|\left(F^{(n)}-Tay_{2-n}(F^{(n)})\right)(\phi;f^{\times n})\right|\\
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and the absolute valued quantity is equal to
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&\bigg|1_{\{n<3\}}\int_{0}^{1}\frac{(1-t)^{2-n}}{(2-n)!}\partial_{t}^{3-n}F^{(n)}(t\phi;f^{\times n})+1_{\{n\geq3\}}F^{(n)}(\phi;f^{\times n})\bigg|\\
&=
\bigg|1_{\{n<3\}}\int_{0}^{1}\frac{(1-t)^{2-n}}{(2-n)!}F^{(3)}(t\phi;\phi^{\times(3-n)},f^{\times n})+1_{\{n\geq3\}}F^{(n)}(\phi;f^{\times n})\bigg|
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\phi^{\times(3-n)}$ means $3-n$ test functions $\phi$. Calculating
the t integrals,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\Vert(1 & -Tay_{2})F(\phi)\Vert_{T_{\phi}(\Phi)}\\
& \leq\sum_{n=0}^{3}\frac{1}{n!}
\sup_{
\left\Vert f_{i}\right\Vert _{\Phi}\leq
}
\bigg|\frac{1}{(3-n)!}\sup_{t\in[0,1]}F^{(3)}(t\phi;\phi^{\times(3-n)},f^{\times n})\bigg|+\Vert F^{(4)}(\phi)\Vert_{T_{\phi}^{4}(\Phi)}\\
& \leq\left(1+\Vert\phi\Vert_{\Phi}\right)^{3}\sup_{t\in(0,1),k=3,4}\Vert F^{(k)}(t\phi)\Vert_{T_{t\phi}^{k}(\Phi)}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where in the last step binomial theorem is applied.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:integrab_poly}
Let $(B,X)\in\hat{\mathcal{S}}_{j}$, $\bar{B}=U$,
if $\kappa$ is small enough depending on $L$, and $h$ is large
enough depending on $\kappa$ and $L$, then
\begin{equation}
\left(2+\Vert\phi\Vert_{\Phi_{j+1}(\dot{X},U^{+})}\right)^{3}G(\ddot{X},U^{+})\leq qG(\ddot{U},U^{+})\label{eq:integrab_poly}
\end{equation}
for a constant $q$, where the dot(s) operations on $X$ are at scale
$j$, and the dots and $+$ operations on $U$ are at scale $j+1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\psi=P_{U^{+}}\phi$.
For each $e\in\mathcal{E}$, $\partial_{e}\psi$ is harmonic in
$U^{+}\cap(U^{+}-e)$.
Since $X,U$ are $j$ and $j+1$ scale small sets respectively
and $d(X,\partial \ddot{U})=O(L^{j+1})$,
we can find a set $Y\subset\ddot{U}$,
such that: 1) $Y$ is of the form $\mathcal{K}_{R}\backslash\mathcal{K}_{rR}$
for some $r\in(0,\frac{1}{2})$
as in Lemma~\ref{lem:derbnd};
2) $Y\cap \ddot{X} = \emptyset$ and $d(\ddot{X},Y)= O(L^{j})$;
3) $d(Y,\partial\ddot{U})=O(L^{j+1})$;
4) $R=\mbox{diam}(Y)=O(L^j)$.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture} [scale=0.5]
\draw (-5,-5) rectangle (5,5);
\draw (-3,-3) rectangle (3,3);
\draw (-0.3,0.3) -- (-0.3,1) -- (1,1) --(1,-1)--(-1,-1)--(-1,0.3)--(-0.3,0.3);
\node at (0.2,-0.2) {$\ddot{X}$};
\node at (1,3.9) {$Y$};
\draw [dashed] (0,0) circle (2.2);
\node at (0,1.7) {$\tilde X$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
Then by \eqref{eq:average2} of Lemma~\ref{lem:derbnd},
\begin{equation}
\sup_{e\in\mathcal{E},x\in\dot{X}}\left|\partial_{e}\psi(x)\right|^{2}\leq O(L^{-dj})\sum_{e\in E(Y)}\left(\partial_{e}\psi \right)^{2} \;.
\end{equation}
By definition of the norm
$\Vert\phi\Vert_{\Phi_{j+1}(\dot{X},U^{+})}^2 =h^{-2}L^{d(j+1)}
\sup_{e,x\in\dot{X}} \left|\partial_{e}\psi(x)\right|^{2}$,
if we choose $h$ large enough such that $h^{-1}O(L^d)\le 1$, then
\begin{equation}
\Vert\phi\Vert_{\Phi_{j+1}(\dot{X},U^{+})}^{2}
\leq h^{-1}\sum_{e\in E(Y)}\left(\partial_{e}\psi \right)^{2} \;.
\end{equation}
Since there exists a $q\ge 1$
such that for all $s\ge 0$,
$(2+s)^3\le q e^{s^2/2}$, one has
\begin{equation} \label{eq:existsq-1}
\left(2+\Vert\phi\Vert_{\Phi_{j+1}(\dot{X},U^{+})}\right)^{3}
\leq q
\exp\Big(\frac{h^{-1}}{2}\sum_{e\in E(Y)}\left(\partial_{e}\psi \right)^{2}\Big) \;.
\end{equation}
Apply \eqref{eq:alt-rep-G} of Lemma \ref{lem:simproperties}
to $G(\ddot{X},U^{+})$,
and use the fact that $\psi=P_{U^+}\phi$
together with \eqref{eq:existsq-1}, then the left hand side of (\ref{eq:integrab_poly}) is bounded by
\[
q\exp\bigg\{ \frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{e\in E(U^{+})}(a_{e}\partial_{e}\psi_{1})^{2}+\frac{h^{-1}}{2}\sum_{e\in E(Y)}\left(\partial_{e}\psi \right)^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{U^{+}}(\partial\psi_{1})^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{U^{+}}(\partial\psi)^{2}\bigg\}
\]
where the function $a_{e}=1$ if $e\in E(\ddot{X})$ and decays to
zero in a neighborhood of $\ddot{X}$, and the support of $a_{e}$,
that is, $\tilde{X}:=\mbox{supp}(a)=\{x:\exists\bar{e}\in\mathcal{E}\mbox{ s.t. }a_{x,x+\bar{e}}\neq0\}$,
still satisfies $d(\tilde X,Y)=O(L^{j})$,
and $|\nabla^{k}a_{e}|\leq O(L^{-kj})$ for $k=0,...,3$,
and finally
\begin{equation} \label{eq:non-const-prob}
\psi_{1}\mbox{ maximizes }\quad
\kappa \!\!\!\!\! \sum_{e\in E(U^{+})}(a_{e}\partial_{e}\phi)^{2}-\sum_{U^{+}}(\partial\phi)^{2}\mbox{ fixing }\phi\big|_{(U^{+})^{c}} \;.
\end{equation}
Notice that applying \eqref{eq:alt-rep-G} of Lemma \ref{lem:simproperties} to $G(\ddot{X},U^{+})$
results in a term $\frac{\kappa}{2}$ times a Dirichlet form over $\ddot{X}$, and
we ``enlarged'' the set $\ddot{X}$ to $\tilde X$
by smoothing out the coefficient $a_{e}$, followed by a replacement of that Dirichlet form
with that of the maximizer $\psi_{1}$ solving the new elliptic problem \eqref{eq:non-const-prob} - this only makes the above exponential larger.
In
the following we show that by choosing $h$ large enough one has
\begin{equation} \label{eq:polyReg_crucial}
\frac{h^{-1}}{2}\sum_{e\in E(Y)}\left(\partial_{e}\psi\right)^{2}
\leq
\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{e\in E(Y)}\left(\partial_{e}\psi_1\right)^{2} \;.
\end{equation}
Then the left hand side of (\ref{eq:integrab_poly}) is bounded
by
\[
q\exp\bigg\{
\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{e\in E(\ddot{U})}(\partial_{e}\bar\psi)^{2}
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{U^{+}}(\partial\bar \psi)^{2}
+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{U^{+}}(\partial\psi)^{2}
\bigg\} = qG(\ddot{U},U^{+})
\]
which holds by replacing $\psi_{1}$ by $\bar\psi$ which is the maximizer of
$\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_{e\in E(\ddot{U})}(\partial_{e}\phi)^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{U^{+}}(\partial\phi)^{2}$ with $\phi\big|_{(U^{+})^{c}}$ fixed.
To show (\ref{eq:polyReg_crucial}),
let $\bar{a}=1-\kappa a$.
We have
\[
\begin{cases} \Delta\psi =0 \quad &\mbox{in }U^+ \\
\psi =\phi \quad &\mbox{on }\partial U^+ \end{cases}
\qquad\qquad\qquad
\begin{cases}
\Delta_{\bar a}\psi_1 =0 \quad &\mbox{in }U^+ \\
\psi_1 =\phi \quad &\mbox{on }\partial U^+ \end{cases}
\]
where $\Delta_{\bar a} f(x) = \sum_e \bar a_e (f(x+e)-f(x))$.
Subtract them and we obtain a non-constant coefficient elliptic problem for $\psi_1-\psi$
\[
\begin{cases}
\Delta_{\bar{a}} (\psi_1-\psi) = \kappa \Delta_{a} \psi & \qquad\mbox{in }U^{+}
\\
\psi_1-\psi_0 =0 & \qquad \mbox{on }\partial U^{+}
\end{cases}
\]
One has the following representation of derivative of the solution to the above equation
(note that the support of $a$ is $\tilde X$ so $\Delta_a \psi=0$ outside $\tilde X$)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:elli-prob-diff}
\partial_e (\psi_1- \psi)(y)
= \kappa\sum_{x\in \tilde{X}}\partial_{y,e} G_{\bar a}(y,x) \Delta_a \psi(x)
\end{equation}
for $y\in Y,e\in \mathcal E$, where $G_{\bar a}$ is the Dirichlet Green's function associated with $\Delta_{\bar a}$.
Our situation is that for a Laplacian with non-constant coefficient $\Delta_{\bar a}$, although
one has desired bound for
the Green's function $G_{\bar a}$ (i.e. bound with the decay rate as if the Laplacian
was a constant coefficient one), the desired bound for $\partial_y G_{\bar a}(y,x)$
does not hold in general. However, we do have
bound with desired scaling in an averaging sense, i.e.
after a summation over $y$ - the variable w.r.t. which $G_{\bar a}$
is differentiated. Consider
\[
\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{e\in E(Y)} \Big(\partial_e (\psi_1-\psi)\Big)^2
= \kappa^2 \sum_{e\in E(Y)}
\Big( \sum_{x\in \tilde{X}} \partial_{y,e} G_{\bar a}(y,x) \Delta_a \psi(x) \Big)^2 \\
& \qquad = \kappa^2 \!\!\! \sum_{x_1,x_2\in \tilde{X}} \Delta_a \psi(x_1) \Delta_a \psi(x_2)
\sum_{e\in E(Y)} \partial_{y,e} G_{\bar a}(y,x_1) \partial_{y,e} G_{\bar a}(y,x_2)\\
&\leq \frac{\kappa^2}{2} \!\!\!
\sum_{x_1,x_2\in \tilde{X}} \Big| \Delta_a \psi(x_1) \Delta_a \psi(x_2) \Big|
\sum_{e\in E(Y)} \!\!\! \Big(\big(\partial_{y,e} G_{\bar a}(y,x_1)\big)^2+\big( \partial_{y,e} G_{\bar a}(y,x_2)\big)^2\Big) .
\end{aligned}
\]
With this bound at hand, our proof of \eqref{eq:polyReg_crucial} now follows from two claims. The first claim is that for every $x\in \tilde X$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:first-claim}
\sum_{e\in E(Y)} \big(\partial_{y,e} G_{\bar a}(y,x) \big)^2
\le O(L^{-2j}) \sum_{y \in \tilde Y}G_{\bar a}(y,x)^2
\le O(L^{-(d-2)j})
\end{equation}
where $\tilde Y$ is such that $Y\subset \tilde Y$, $d(Y,\tilde Y^c)=O(L^j)$ and $d(\tilde Y,\tilde X)=O(L^j)$.
Note that the last inequality follows from $G_{\bar a}(y,x) \le O(L^{-(d-2)j})$
(this is a standard bound for Green's function of non-constant coefficient Laplacian, see for instance \cite{delmotte_parabolic_1999}) and $|Y|=O(L^{dj})$.
Note that the right side of \eqref{eq:first-claim} does not depend on $x_1,x_2$,
so it remains to bound
$\Big(\sum_{x\in \tilde{X}} \left|\Delta_a \psi(x)\right|\Big)^2$.
The second claim is that for every $x\in\tilde X$,
\begin{equation} \label{eq:second-claim}
|\Delta_a \psi(x) |
\leq O(L^{-\frac{d+2}{2}j}) \Big(\sum_Y |\nabla\psi|^2\Big)^{1/2}
\end{equation}
so that one has
\begin{equation}\label{eq:second-claim-1}
\Big(\sum_{x\in \tilde{X}} \left|\Delta_a \psi(x)\right|\Big)^2
\le O\Big( (L^{dj}\cdot L^{-\frac{d+2}{2}j})^2 \Big) \sum_Y (\nabla\psi)^2
= O(L^{(d-2)j}) \sum_Y (\nabla\psi)^2
\end{equation}
As a consequence of \eqref{eq:first-claim} and \eqref{eq:second-claim-1},
one has
\[
\frac{1}{2} \sum_Y (\nabla \psi)^2
\le \sum_Y (\nabla \psi-\nabla\psi_1)^2+ \sum_Y(\nabla\psi_1)^2
\le O(1)\kappa^2 \sum_Y (\nabla \psi)^2+ \sum_Y(\nabla\psi_1)^2
\]
Choosing $h$ large enough such that $h^{-1}\le \kappa(1/2-O(1)\kappa^2)$
we obtain \eqref{eq:polyReg_crucial}.
The proof to the first inequality of \eqref{eq:first-claim}
is motivated by Cacciopoli's inequality in the continuum setting,
which roughly states that for a solution $u$ to an elliptic problem
one can bound the $L^2$ norm of $u$ by the $L^2$ norm (over a larger domain) of $\nabla u$
(as a reverse of Poincare inequality),
under certain conditions (see for instance \cite[Chapter 3]{giaquinta_multiple_1983}).
We don't provide the proof of its discrete counterpart in full generality,
but only prove a weak version that is sufficient for our purpose.
Fixing $x\in\tilde X$, let $u(y)=G_{\bar a}(y,x)$, which is $\Delta_{\bar a}$-harmonic
in $U^+$ away from the singular point $y=x$: namely
$\sum_{e\in\mathcal E} \bar a_e (u(y+e)-u(y)) =0$ for $y\in U^+ \backslash \{x\}$.
Since $\kappa$ is small, the function $ \bar a_e$ is such that
there exist $0<\lambda<\Lambda$ and $\lambda<\bar a_e<\Lambda $.
Then, for every function $v$ on $\tilde Y$, one has
\[
\sum_{e\in E(\tilde Y)} \bar a_e \, \partial_e u \,\partial_e v =0\;.
\]
Let $v=u\varphi^2$ for some non-negative function $\varphi$ supported on $\tilde Y$,
then $\partial_e v =\partial_e u\cdot \varphi^2 + 2\varphi \partial_e \varphi\cdot u$.
Substituting this into the identity above, one has
\[
\begin{aligned}
\lambda \sum_{y,y+e\in \tilde Y} & \varphi(y)^2 (\partial_e u(y))^2
\le -\!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{y,y+e\in \tilde Y} 2\varphi(y)u(y)\bar a_{(y,y+e)} \partial_e u(x)\partial_e\varphi(y) \\
& \le \frac{\lambda}{2} \sum_{y,y+e\in \tilde Y} \varphi(y)^2 (\partial_e u(y))^2
+ \frac{2}{\lambda} \sum_{y,y+e\in \tilde Y}\bar a_{(y,y+e)}^2 (\partial_e \varphi(y))^2 u(y)^2
\end{aligned}
\]
where the first inequality used $\bar a>\lambda$ and the second inequality is
by Cauchy-Schwartz.
Therefore,
\[
\frac{\lambda}{2} \sum_{y,y+e\in \tilde Y} \varphi(y)^2 (\partial_e u(y))^2
\le
\frac{2\Lambda^2}{\lambda} \sum_{y,y+e\in \tilde Y} (\partial_e \varphi(y))^2 u(y)^2
\]
Choosing $\varphi=1$ on $Y$ and $|\nabla \varphi|\le O(L^{-j})$ we obtain
the first inequality of \eqref{eq:first-claim}.
The proof of \eqref{eq:second-claim} is
based on the idea of writing $\Delta_a \psi$
in terms of (derivatives of) $a$
and constant coefficient derivatives of $\psi$,
in a way analogous to
the relation $\nabla\cdot(a\nabla f)=\nabla a\cdot\nabla f+a\Delta f$
in continuum.
Note that $a_e$ above is defined on edges $e$.
For a lattice site $x$, define $a(x)=(2d)^{-1} \sum_e a_{(x,x+e)}$.
Then
\[
\begin{aligned}
|\Delta_a\psi(x)| &=|\sum_{e\in\mathcal E} a_e (\psi(x+e)-\psi(x)) | \\
&\le
|\sum_{e\in\mathcal E} (a_{(x,x+e)}-a(x)+a(x)) (\psi(x+e)-\psi(x)) |\\
&\leq
\sup_{e\in\mathcal E} |a_{(x,x+e)} -a(x)| |\nabla\psi(x)|+ |a(x)| |\Delta\psi(x) |
\end{aligned}
\]
Note that the last term is zero since $\Delta\psi=0$.
The term $|a_{(x,x+e)} -a(x)|$ is
bounded by $(2d)^{-1} \sum_{e'\in\mathcal E} | a_{(x,x+e)} -a_{(x,x+e')}|$
which by the choice of $a$ is bounded by $O(L^{-j})$.
Lemma~\ref{lem:derbnd} allows us to bound
\[
|\nabla\psi(x)| \le O(L^{-dj/2}) (\sum_Y (\nabla\psi)^2)^{1/2} \;.
\]
Therefore we obtain \eqref{eq:second-claim}.
So \eqref{eq:polyReg_crucial} is shown and the proof of the lemma is completed.
\end{proof}
Before the next Lemma we define
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def-F_X}
F_{X}(U,\phi,\xi):=\mathbb{E}\left[K_{j}(X,\phi,\xi)\big|\left(U^{+}\right)^{c}\right] \;.
\end{equation}
It depends on $\phi,\xi$ via $\psi:=P_{U^{+}}\phi+\xi$,
i.e. there exists a function $\widetilde{F}_{X}$ such that $F_{X}(U,\phi,\xi)=\widetilde{F}_{X}(U,\psi)$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:L2}
Let $L$ be sufficiently large. Then $\mathcal{L}_{2}$
in Proposition \ref{prop:The-linearization} is a contraction
with the norm going to zero as $L\to\infty$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $Tay$ be the second order Taylor expansion in $\psi=P_{U^{+}}\phi+\xi$.
With the the $F_X$ defined in \eqref{eq:def-F_X}, we aim to bound
\begin{equation} \label{eq:lem31-aim}
\big\Vert(1-Tay) F_{X}(U,\phi,\xi) \big\Vert_{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j+1}(U))} \;.
\end{equation}
Recall that $\Phi_{j+1}(U)$ is short for $\Phi_{j+1}(\dot U,U^+)$
and by Lemma \ref{lem:Tphiproperties} this can be replaced by
$\Phi_{j+1}(\dot X,U^+)$.
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:3rdder} with
the test function space $\Phi := \widetilde{\Phi}_{j+1}(\dot{X},U^{+})$, we can
bound \eqref{eq:lem31-aim} by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:-3d/2}
\big\Vert(1-Tay)\widetilde{F}_{X}(U,\psi)\big\Vert_{T_{\psi}(\Phi)}
\leq
\Big(1+\Vert\psi\Vert_{\Phi}\Big)^{3}
\sup_{k=3,4}
\big\Vert\widetilde{F}_{X}^{(k)}(U,\psi)\big\Vert_{T_{\psi}^{k}(\Phi)}
\end{equation}
Now by linearity of $\widetilde{F}_{X}^{(k)}$
in test functions,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\big\Vert & \widetilde{F}_{X}^{(3)} (U,\psi)\big\Vert_{T_{\psi}^{3}(\widetilde{\Phi}_{j+1}(\dot{X},U^{+}))}
\leq L^{-\frac{3}{2}d}
\big\Vert \widetilde{F}_{X}^{(3)}(U,\psi)\big\Vert _{T_{\psi}^{3}(\widetilde{\Phi}_{j}(\dot{X},U^{+}))}\\
& \leq L^{-\frac{3}{2}d}\cdot 3!\cdot \mathbb{E}\left[\Vert K_{j}(X,\phi,\xi)\Vert_{T_{\phi,\xi}(\Phi_{j}(X))}\big|(U^{+})^{c}\right]\\
& \leq O(L^{-\frac{3}{2}d})\, \Vert K_{j}(X)\Vert_{j} \, c^{|X|_{j}} \,G(\ddot{X},U^{+})
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:Ftilde3-1}
\end{equation}
where in the last step Lemma \ref{lem:intproperties} is applied.
We can prove analogously that $\tilde{F}_{X}^{(4)}(U,\psi)$ satisfies a similar bound with a factor $O(L^{-2d})$.
Next we estimate
\begin{equation} \label{eq:estimate-psiPhi}
\begin{aligned}
\Vert\psi\Vert_{\Phi}
& \leq h_{j}^{-1}\sup_{x\in\dot{X},e}
\big|L^{j}\partial_{e}P_{U^{+}}\phi(x)\big|
+h_{j}^{-1}\sup_{x\in\dot{X},e}
\big|L^{j}\partial_{e}\xi(x)\big|\\
& \leq\Vert\phi\Vert_{\Phi_{j+1}(\dot{X},U^{+})}+1
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
by (\ref{eq:smallness_xi}).
Combining \eqref{eq:-3d/2}-
\eqref{eq:estimate-psiPhi},
and applying Lemma \ref{lem:integrab_poly}, followed by (\ref{enu:reg4}) of Lemma
\ref{lem:simproperties}, one obtains
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert (1-Tay)F_{X}(U)\right\Vert _{j+1}
\leq O(L^{-\frac{3d}{2}})\,c^{|X|_{j}}\Vert K_{j}(X)\Vert_{j}\leq O(L^{-\frac{3d}{2}})(\frac{A}{c})^{-|X|_{j}}\Vert K_j\Vert_{j} .
\end{equation}
Note that the sum over $B$ and $X$ in the definition \eqref{eq:def-CL2} of $\mathcal L_2$ gives a factor $O(L^d)$.
Apply the geometric Lemma \ref{lem:geometric} to $|X|_j$, one then has
\[
\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert \mathcal{L}_{2}K_{j}\right\Vert _{j+1}
& \leq O(L^{-3d/2})\bigg[\sup_{U\in\mathcal{P}_{j+1}}A^{|U|_{j+1}}O(L^{d})A^{-|U|_{j+1}}c^{2^{d}}\bigg]\Vert K\Vert_{j}\\
& =O(L^{-d/2})\Vert K_j\Vert_{j} \;.
\end{aligned}
\]
As $L\to \infty$, the factor $L^{-d/2}$ overwhelms the constants
hidden in the big-O notation, and therefore $\mathcal L_2$
has arbitrarily small norm.
\end{proof}
\subsection{$\mathcal{L}_{3}$ and determination of coupling constants}
We now localize the last term in $\mathcal{L}_{3}$, which is the
second order Taylor expansion of $\widetilde{F}_{X}(U,\psi)$ in $\psi$
(which are introduced in \eqref{eq:def-F_X}). To do this we fix a point $z\in B$, and replace
$\psi(x)$ by $x\cdot\partial\psi(z)$ (which according to our convention
means $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{e\in\mathcal{E}}x_{e}\partial_{e}\psi(z)$),
and then average over $z\in B$. We will show that the error of this
replacement is irrelevant. Then
\[
\frac{1}{2}\tilde{F}_{X}^{(2)}(U,0;\psi,\psi)=\text{Loc}K_{j}(B,X,U)+(1-\text{Loc})K_{j}(B,X,U)
\]
where we have defined
\[
\begin{aligned}
\text{Loc}\, &K_{j}(B,X,U)\\
&:= \frac{1}{8|B|}\sum_{\substack{z\in B,\mu,\nu\in\mathcal{E}}
}\partial_{t_{1}t_{2}}^{2}\bigg|_{t_{i}=0}\mathbb{E}_{\zeta}\left[K_{j}(X,t_{1}x_{\mu}+t_{2}x_{\nu}+\zeta)\right]\partial_{\mu}\psi(z)\partial_{\nu}\psi(z)
\end{aligned}
\]
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
&(1-\text{Loc}) K_{j}(B,X,U):=\frac{1}{2|B|}\sum_{\substack{z\in B}}\Big(\partial_{t_{1}t_{2}}^{2}\bigg|_{t_{i}=0}\mathbb{E}_{\zeta}\left[K_{j}(X,t_{1}\psi+t_{2}\psi+\zeta)\right]\\
&\qquad
-\partial_{t_{1}t_{2}}^{2}\bigg|_{t_{i}=0}\mathbb{E}_{\zeta}\left[K(X,t_{1}x\cdot\partial\psi(z)+t_{2}x\cdot\partial\psi(z)+\zeta)\right]\Big)\\
& =
\frac{1}{2|B|}\sum_{\substack{z\in B}
}\Big(\widetilde{F}_{X}^{(2)}(U,0;\psi-x\cdot\partial\psi(z),\psi)+\widetilde{F}_{X}^{(2)}(U,0;\psi-x\cdot\partial\psi(z),x\cdot\partial\psi(z))\Big) .
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:1-loc}
\end{equation}
We show that $\psi-x\cdot\partial\psi(z)$ gives additional contractive
factors as going to the next scale:
\begin{lem} \label{lem:psi-xdpsi}
If $\psi=P_{U^{+}}\phi+\xi\in\widetilde{\Phi}_{j}(\dot{X},U^{+})$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lemma28}
\left\Vert \psi-x\cdot\partial\psi(z)\right\Vert _{\widetilde{\Phi}_{j}(\dot{X},U^{+})}\leq O(L^{-\frac{d}{2}-1})\left(\left\Vert \phi\right\Vert _{\Phi_{j+1}(U)}+1\right) \;.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $P_{U^{+}}x=x$, the left side of \eqref{eq:lemma28} is equal to
\begin{equation}
h_{j}^{-1}\sup_{x\in\dot{X},e}L^{j}\bigg|\partial_{e}P_{U^{+}}\phi(x)+\partial_{e}\xi(x)-\partial_{e}P_{U^{+}}\phi(z)-\partial_{e}\xi(z)\bigg| \;.
\label{eq:ArgOfx-1}
\end{equation}
We apply Newton-Leibniz formula along a curve connecting
$x,z$, and then apply \eqref{eq:diff-est-any} with $R=O(L^{j+1})$ using
the distance $O(L^{j+1})$ between $\dot{X}$ and $\partial\dot{U}$,
\[
\begin{aligned}
h_{j}^{-1} &\sup{}_{x\in\dot{X},e} L^{j} \left|\partial_{e}P_{U^{+}}\phi(x)-\partial_{e}P_{U^{+}}\phi(z)\right|\\
& \leq h_{j}^{-1}\sup{}_{x\in\dot{U}}L^{j}\,\mbox{diam}\,(\dot{X})\,O(L^{-j-1})\left|\partial P_{U^{+}}\phi(x)\right|\\
& \leq O(L^{-\frac{d+2}{2}})\left\Vert \phi\right\Vert _{\Phi_{j+1}(U)}
\end{aligned}
\]
where $\mbox{diam}(\dot{X})=O(L^{j})$ since $X$ is small. The second
term in (\ref{eq:ArgOfx-1}) can be bounded by
\[
h_{j}^{-1}\sup_{x\in\dot{X},e}L^{j}\left|\partial_{e}\xi(x)-\partial_{e}\xi(z)\right|\leq O(L^{-\frac{d}{2}(N-j)})\leq O(L^{-\frac{d+2}{2}})
\]
as long as $j+1<N$, and by $d\geq2$ and (\ref{eq:smallness_xi}).
Combining the above bounds completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:nonlocal}
If $L$ be sufficiently large and define
\begin{equation} \label{eq:def-CL3prime}
\mathcal{L}_{3}^{\prime}K_{j}(U)
=\sum_{\bar{B}=U}\sum_{X\in\mathcal{S}_{j},X\supseteq B}
(1-\text{Loc})K_{j}(B,X,U)
\end{equation}
then $\mathcal{L}_{3}^{\prime}$ is contractive with arbitrarily small
norm; namely, $\left\Vert \mathcal{L}_{3}^{\prime}\right\Vert \rightarrow0$
as $L\rightarrow\infty$.\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
In view of the definition \eqref{eq:1-loc} of $(1-\text{Loc})K_{j}$, we let
\begin{equation}
H_{z,X}(U,\phi,\xi)=\tilde{F}_{X}^{(2)}(U,0;\psi-x\cdot\partial\psi(z),\psi)
\end{equation}
then with $\tilde{f}:=P_{U^{+}}f+\lambda\xi$,
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
H_{z,X}^{(1)} & (U,\phi,\xi; (f,\lambda\xi))\\
& =\tilde{F}_{X}^{(2)}(U,0;\psi-x\cdot\partial\psi(z),\tilde{f})
+ \tilde{F}_{X}^{(2)}(U,0;\tilde{f}-x\cdot\partial\tilde{f}(z),\psi)\;;\\
H_{z,X}^{(2)} & (U,\phi,\xi; (f_{1},\lambda_{1}\xi),(f_{2},\lambda_{2}\xi))\\
& =\tilde{F}_{X}^{(2)}(U,0;\tilde{f}_{1}-x\cdot\partial\tilde{f}_{1}(z),\tilde{f}_{2})+\tilde{F}_{X}^{(2)}(U,0;\tilde{f}_{2}-x\cdot\partial\tilde{f}_{2}(z),\tilde{f}_{1})
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:devsofH}
\end{equation}
and $H_{z,X}^{(3)}=0$. In the calculations here, though $z$ is fixed,
$P_{U^{+}}\phi(z)$ should also participate in the differentiations:
$P_{U^{+}}\phi(z)\rightarrow P_{U^{+}}(\phi+tf)(z)$.
We now bound the all the test functions appeared in \eqref{eq:devsofH}.
The bound for $\psi-x\cdot\partial\psi(z)$ is given in Lemma~\ref{lem:psi-xdpsi}.
Similarly one can bound $\tilde f-x\cdot\partial\tilde f(z)$
by $O(L^{-\frac{d}{2}-1})\big\Vert(f,\lambda\xi)\big\Vert_{\Phi_{j+1}(U)}$.
Since $\left\Vert -\right\Vert _{\Phi_{j}(U)}
\leq L^{-d/2}\left\Vert -\right\Vert _{\Phi_{j+1}(U)}$
we also have estimates
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\| \psi \| _{\Phi_{j}(\dot{X},U^{+})}
& \leq O(L^{-d/2})\big(\| \phi \|_{\Phi_{j+1}(U)}+1\big)\;;\\
\| \tilde f \|_{\Phi_{j}(\dot{X},U^{+})}
& \leq O(L^{-d/2}) \| (f,\lambda \xi) \|_{\Phi_{j+1}(U)} \;.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:psiandPUf}
\end{equation}
Therefore we obtain the bound
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\bigg|H_{z,X}^{(n)}(U,\phi,\xi; & (f,\lambda\xi)^{\times n})\bigg|\leq O(L^{-d-1})\big\Vert\tilde{F}_{X}^{(2)}(U,0)\big\Vert_{T_{0}^{2}(\tilde{\Phi}_{j}(\dot{X},U^{+}))}\\
& \cdot\left(\left\Vert \phi\right\Vert _{\Phi_{j+1}(U)}+1\right)^{2-n}\prod_{i=1}^{n}\big\Vert(f_{i},\lambda_{i}\xi)\big\Vert_{\Phi_{j+1}(U)} \;.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By the same arguments as (\ref{eq:existsq-1}) and Lemma \ref{lem:simproperties}(5), one can bound $(1+\left\Vert \phi\right\Vert _{\Phi_{j+1}(U)})^{2}$
by $G(\ddot{U},U^{+})$. Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\big\Vert H_{z,X}(U,\phi,\xi) \big\Vert_{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j+1}(U))}
\leq O(L^{-d-1})\big\Vert\widetilde{F}_{X}^{(2)}(U,0)
\big\Vert_{T_{\phi}^{2}(\widetilde{\Phi}_{j}(\dot{X},U^{+}))}G(\ddot{U},U^{+}) \;.
\end{equation}
By
Lemma \ref{lem:intproperties} followed by
Lemma \ref{lem:simproperties}(\ref{enu:reg1}), together with $X\in\mathcal{S}_{j}$
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\big\Vert\tilde{F}_{X}^{(2)}(U,0) & \big\Vert_{T_{\phi}^{2}(\tilde{\Phi}_{j}(\dot{X},U^{+}))}\leq\mathbb{E}\left[\left\Vert K_{j}(X,\phi,\xi=0)\right\Vert _{T_{\phi}(\Phi_{j}(\dot{X},U^{+}))}\big|\phi_{(U^{+})^{c}}=0\right]\\
& \leq
\mathbb{E}\left[\left\Vert K_{j}(X)\right\Vert _{j}G(\ddot{X},X^{+})\big|\phi_{(U^{+})^{c}}=0\right]\leq\left\Vert K_{j}(X)\right\Vert _{j}c^{|X|_{j}}\\
& \leq O(1)A^{-1}\left\Vert K_{j}\right\Vert _{j} \;.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Combining the above inequalities, we obtain
\[
\left\Vert H_{z,X}(U)\right\Vert _{j+1}\leq O(L^{-d-1})A^{-1}\left\Vert K\right\Vert _{j} \;.
\]
It can be shown analogously that the other term on the right side of (\ref{eq:1-loc}) satisfies the same bound.
Finally, the sum over $B$ and $X$ in \eqref{eq:def-CL3prime} gives a factor $O(L^d)$, so one has
\begin{equation}
\left\Vert \mathcal{L}_{3}^{\prime}K(U)\right\Vert _{j+1}
\leq
O(L^{-1})A^{-1}\left\Vert K\right\Vert _{j} \;.
\end{equation}
Since $\mathcal{L}_{3}^{\prime}K_{j}(U)=0$ unless $U$ is a block,
$\left\Vert \mathcal{L}_{3}^{\prime}K_{j}\right\Vert _{j+1}\leq O(L^{-1})\left\Vert K\right\Vert _{j}$.
\end{proof}
Now we turn to $\text{Loc}\,K_{j}$. We observe that the coefficient of $\partial_{\mu}\psi(z)\partial_{\nu}\psi(z)$
is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Bdependent_alpha}
\alpha_{\mu\nu}(B):=\frac{1}{8|B|}\sum_{X\in\mathcal{S}_{j},X\supseteq B}\partial_{t_{1}t_{2}}^{2}\bigg|_{t_{i}=0}\mathbb{E}_{\zeta}\left[K_{j}(X,t_{1}x_{\mu}+t_{2}x_{\nu}+\zeta)\right] \;.
\end{equation}
Note that each summand
above is just derivative of $\mathbb{E}_{\zeta} K_j (X)$ at zero field with test functions $x_\mu$ and $x_\nu$. Since
$\| x_{\mu}\|_{\Phi_{j}(X)}\leq h^{-1}L^{dj/2}$ (for this one needs the fact that the Poisson kernel in the definition of $\Phi_{j}$ norm acting on $x_\mu$ still gives $x_\mu$),
we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bound-alphamn}
|\alpha_{\mu\nu}(B)|\leq O(1)h^{-2}\| K_{j}\|_{j}A^{-1} \;.
\end{equation}
Note that for a fixed $D\in\mathcal{B}_{j+1}$, and for all $\bar{B}=D$,
$\alpha_{\mu\nu}(B)$ depends on the position of $B$ in $D$ because
$\zeta$ is not translation invariant. This problem was not present
in the method \cite{brydges_lectures_2007}. We cure this problem
by the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:alpha_nontransinv}
Let $D\in\mathcal{B}_{j+1}$, and let
$B_{ct}\in\mathcal{B}_{j}$ be the $j$-block at the center of $D$.
Then with definition (\ref{eq:Bdependent_alpha}),
\begin{equation}
\left|\alpha_{\mu\nu}(B)-\alpha_{\mu\nu}(B_{ct})\right|\leq O(L^{-d})h^{-4}\| K_{j}\|_{j}A^{-1}
\end{equation}
for all $B\in\mathcal{B}_{j}$ such that $\bar{B}=D$.\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $T$ be a translation so that $TB=B_{ct}$, and $\zeta_{D^{+}},\zeta_{TD^{+}}$
be Gaussian fields on $D^{+},TD^{+}$ with Dirichlet Green's functions
$C_{D^{+}},C_{TD^{+}}$ as covariances respectively.
Then $\alpha_{\mu\nu}(B)$
can be rewritten as the right side of \eqref{eq:Bdependent_alpha}
with $B$ replaced by $B_{ct}$ and $\zeta=\zeta_{D^+}$ replaced by $\zeta=\zeta_{TD^+}$, so that
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\big| &\alpha_{\mu\nu} (B) -\alpha_{\mu\nu}(B_{ct})\big|\\
& \leq
\frac{1}{8|B_{ct}|}\sum_{X\in\mathcal{S}_{j},X\supseteq B_{ct}}
\bigg|\partial_{t_{1}t_{2}}^{2}\big|_{t_{i}=0}
\Big(\mathbb{E}_{\zeta_{TD^{+}}}\left[K_{j}(X,t_{1}x_{\mu}+t_{2}x_{\nu}+\zeta_{TD^{+}})\right]\\
& \qquad\qquad
\:-\mathbb{E}_{\zeta_{D^{+}}}\left[K_{j}(X,t_{1}x_{\mu}+t_{2}x_{\nu}+\zeta_{D^{+}})\right]\Big)
\bigg| \;.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
To estimate the difference of the two expectations, define
\[
C(t):=tC_{D^{+}}+(1-t)C_{TD^{+}}
\]
and recall that $K_{j}$ depends on $\zeta$ via $\nabla\zeta$, let
\[
\mathcal{K}(\nabla\zeta):=K_{j}(X,t_{1}x_{\mu}+t_{2}x_{\nu}+\zeta) \;.
\]
Then, one has the formula
\[
\mathbb{E}_{\nabla^{2}C(1)}\mathcal{K}-\mathbb{E}_{\nabla^{2}C(0)}\mathcal{K}
=\int_{0}^{1}\frac{d}{dt}\mathbb{E}_{\nabla^{2}C(t)}\mathcal{K}dt
=\frac{1}{2}\int_{0}^{1}\mathbb{E}_{\nabla^{2}C(t)}\left[\Delta_{\nabla^{2}\dot{C}(t)}\mathcal{K}\right]dt
\]
where for any covariance $C$ (in our case $C=\nabla^{2}\dot C(t)$) the Laplacian is defined as
\[
\Delta_{C}:=\sum_{x,y}C(x,y)\frac{\delta}{\delta\phi(x)}\frac{\delta}{\delta\phi(y)} \;.
\]
Now we aim to show a pointwise bound for $\nabla^{2}\dot{C}(t)=\nabla^{2}C_{D^{+}}-\nabla^{2}C_{TD^{+}}$.
One has
\[
\nabla^{2}C_{\mathbb Z^d} (x,y) -\nabla^{2}C_{D^{+}}(x,y)
= \nabla^{2}P_{D^{+}}C_{\mathbb Z^d}(x,y)
\]
Observe that $x,y$ have distance of $O(L^{j+1})$ from $\partial D^{+}$,
because $\mathcal K$ only depends on the field on $\partial X^+$.
We can proceed as the arguments following (\ref{eq:alpha12-1}) in
proof of Lemma \ref{lem:derbnd}, or the arguments following (\ref{eq:intprop_trace})
in proof of Lemma \ref{lem:intproperties}, to show that $\nabla^{2}P_{D^{+}}C_{\mathbb Z^d}(x,y)$ is
bounded by $O(L^{-d(j+1)})$.
Analogously, $\nabla^{2}C_{\mathbb Z^d} -\nabla^{2}C_{TD^{+}}$
satisfies the same bound. Therefore
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nabla2Cdot}
|\nabla^{2}\dot{C}(t)|\leq O(L^{-d(j+1)}).
\end{equation}
Our situation is that we would like to bound the fourth derivative of $K_j$ by
$\|K_j\|_j$. This is the reason we incorporated the fourth derivative in the definition
of $\|K_j\|_j$, see \eqref{eq:allders}.
Note that $\partial/\partial\phi(x_0)$ acting on
$\mathcal K$ is equivalent with
\[
\partial_s |_{s=0 } K_j (X,t_1 x_\mu+t_2 x_\nu+\zeta+s\delta_{x_0})
\]
where $\delta_{x_0}$ is the Kronecker function at $x_0$.
In fact, we have $\| \delta_{x_0}\|_{\Phi_{j}(X)}\leq h^{-1}L^{-dj/2}$
because the $\partial_e P_{X^+}$ in the definition of $\Phi_{j}(X)$ norm
acting on $\delta_{x_0}$ gives a factor $O(L^{-dj})$.
Proceeding as in \eqref{eq:bound-alphamn}, we have $\| x_{\mu}\|_{\Phi_{j}(X)}\leq h^{-1}L^{dj/2}$, and $|B_{ct}|^{-1}=O(L^{-dj})$, and the sum $\sum_{x,y}$ gives a factor $O(L^{2dj})$. Combining these with \eqref{eq:nabla2Cdot}, we then
obtain the desired bound.
\end{proof}
Let $D\in\mathcal{B}_{j+1}$. Define $\alpha_{\mu\nu}:=\alpha_{\mu\nu}(B_{ct})$
where $B_{ct}\in\mathcal{B}_{j}$ is at the center of $D$. Clearly
it's well defined (independent of $D$). By reflection and rotation
symmetries, there exists an $\alpha$ so that $\alpha_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\alpha(\delta_{\mu\nu}+\delta_{\mu,-\nu})$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:alpha_munu}
Let $\psi=P_{U^{+}}\phi+\xi$ and $L$ be sufficiently large. Then,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{3}^{\prime\prime}:=\frac{1}{4}\sum_{\bar{B}=D}\bigg(\sum_{\substack{x\in B,e\in\mathcal{E}}
}\alpha\left(\partial_{e}\psi(x)\right)^{2}-\sum_{\substack{x\in B,e\in\mathcal{E}}
}\alpha_{\mu\nu}\left(\partial_{e}\psi(x)\right)^{2}\bigg)
\end{equation}
is contractive with norm going to zero as $L\to\infty$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This is essentially Lemma 10 of \cite{dimock_infinite_2009}, so the
proof is omitted.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:L3}
We can choose $E_{j+1}$ and $\sigma_{j+1}$ so that if $L$ be sufficiently
large then $\mathcal{L}_{3}$ in Proposition \ref{prop:The-linearization}
is contractive, with arbitrarily small norm as $L\to \infty$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
As the first step with $D=\bar{B}\in\mathcal{P}_{j+1}(\Lambda)$,
$\phi=P_{D^{+}}\phi+\zeta$ we compute
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}\bigg[\sum_{x\in B,e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}P_{B^{+}}\phi+\partial_{e}\xi(x))^{2}\big|(D^{+})^{c}\bigg]=\sum_{\substack{x\in B}
,e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}P_{D^{+}}\phi(x)+\partial_{e}\xi(x))^{2}+\delta E_{j}
\end{equation}
where $\delta E_{j}=\sum_{x\in B,e\in\mathcal{E}}\mathbb{E}_{\zeta}\left[(\partial_{e}P_{B^{+}}\zeta)^{2}\right]=O(1)$
by Proposition~\ref{prop:covest}.
Let $\psi=P_{D^{+}}\phi+\xi$. By Lemma \ref{lem:nonlocal}, Lemma
\ref{lem:alpha_nontransinv} and Lemma \ref{lem:alpha_munu}, it remains
to show the contractivity of
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_{3}
= & \sum_{\bar{B}=U}
\Big[ E_{j+1}(B)
+\frac{\sigma_{j+1}}{4} \!\!\!\! \sum_{\substack{x\in B},e\in\mathcal{E}} \!\!\!\!(\partial_{e}\psi(x))^{2}
-\frac{\sigma_{j}}{4} \Big(\!\!\!\! \sum_{\substack{x\in B,e\in\mathcal{E}} \!\!\!\!
}(\partial_{e}\psi(x))^{2}+\delta E_{j}\Big)\\
& \qquad\qquad
+\mathbb{E}_{\zeta}\left[K_{j}(X,\zeta)\right]+\frac{\alpha}{4}\sum_{\substack{x\in B}
,e\in\mathcal{E}}(\partial_{e}\psi(x))^{2}\Big] \;.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is given before Lemma~\ref{lem:alpha_munu}.
Choose
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{j+1} & =\sigma_{j}-\alpha\\
E_{j+1} & =\sigma_{j}\delta E_{j}-\mathbb{E}_{\zeta}\left[K_{j}(X,\zeta)\right]
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
then we actually have $\tilde{\mathcal{L}}_{3}=0$.
\end{proof}
By the above choice of $E_{j+1}$ we can easily see that it's the
same number for $Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)$ and $Z_{N}^{\prime}(0)$. Therefore
$e^{\mathcal{E}_{j}}$ is the same for $Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)$ and
$Z_{N}^{\prime}(0)$, for all $j$.
\section{Proof of scaling limit of the generating function\label{sec:Proof-of-scaling}}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:mainest}
Let $L$ be sufficiently large; $A$ sufficiently
large depending on $L$; $\kappa$ sufficiently small depending on
$L,A$; $h$ sufficiently large depending on $L,A,\kappa$; and $r$
sufficiently small depending on $L,A,\kappa,h$. Then for $|z|<r$
there exists a constant $\sigma$ depending on $z$ so that the dynamic
system
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}\sigma_{j+1} & =\sigma_{j}+\alpha(K_{j})\\
K_{j+1} & =\mathcal{L}K_{j}+f(\sigma_{j},K_{j})
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
satisfies
\begin{equation}
\left|\sigma_{j}\right|\leq r2^{-j}\qquad\left\Vert K_{j}\right\Vert _{j}\leq r2^{-j}\label{eq:mainest}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By contractivity of $\mathcal{L}$ we apply Theorem 2.16 in \cite{brydges_lectures_2007}
(i.e. the stable manifold theorem) to obtain a smooth function $\sigma=h(K_{0})$
so that (\ref{eq:mainest}) hold. Since $K_{0}$ depends on $z$ and
$\sigma$, we solve $\sigma$ from equation $\sigma-h(K_{0}(z,\sigma))=0$,
using Lemma \ref{lem:to_startRG}. Noting that this equation holds
with $(\sigma,z)=0$, and that $K_{0}(z=0,\sigma)=0$, the derivative
of left hand side w.r.t. $\sigma$ is $1$. So by implicit function
theorem there exists a $\sigma$ depending on $z$ so that $\sigma=h(K_{0}(z,\sigma))$.
Therefore the proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
With the generating function $Z_{N}(f)$ defined in (\ref{eq:scalinglimit-2}),
we have
\begin{thm}
For any $p>d$ there exists constants $M>0$ and $z_{0}>0$ so that
for all $\Vert\tilde{f}\Vert_{L^{p}}\leq M$, and all $\left|z\right|\leq z_{0}$
there exists a constant $\epsilon$ depending on $z$ so that
\[
\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}Z_{N}(f)=\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}\int_{\tilde{\Lambda}}\tilde{f}(x)(-\epsilon\bar{\Delta})^{-1}\tilde{f}(x)d^{d}x\right)
\]
where $\bar{\Delta}$ is the Laplacian in continuum.\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By (\ref{eq:generating_good}),
\begin{equation} \label{eq:generating_good-1}
Z_{N}(f)=\lim_{m\rightarrow0}e^{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x\in\Lambda}f(x)(-\epsilon\Delta_{m})^{-1}f(x)}Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)\big/Z_{N}^{\prime}(0) \;.
\end{equation}
In fact, since $\int_{\tilde{\Lambda}}\tilde{f}=0$
\begin{equation}
e^{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{x\in\Lambda}f(x)(\epsilon\Delta_{m})^{-1}f(x)}\rightarrow e^{-\frac{1}{2}\int_{\tilde{\Lambda}}\tilde{f}(x)(-\epsilon\bar{\Delta})^{-1}\tilde{f}(x)d^{d}x}
\end{equation}
as $m\rightarrow0$ followed by $N\rightarrow\infty$.
At scale $N-1$ (we do not want to continue all the way to the last
step since it would be not clear how to define $\tilde{I}_{N-1}$
and $I_{N}$), by Proposition \ref{prop:mainest} and Lemma \ref{lem:intproperties}
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
& \big| Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi) -e^{\mathcal{E}_{N-1}}\big|
= e^{\mathcal{E}_{N-1}}
\big|\mathbb{E} \big[ I_{N-1}(\Lambda\backslash \hat X) K_{N-1}(X) \big]-1\big|\\
& \leq
e^{\mathcal{E}_{N-1}}\Big[
\sum{}_{X\neq \emptyset}
(1+2^{-N+1})^{|\Lambda\backslash\hat{X}|_{N-1}} \cdot 2^{-N+1}\mathbb{E}G(\ddot{X},X^{+})
\big|
+\big| \mathbb E I_{N-1}^{\Lambda}-1\big|\Big]\\
& \leq e^{\mathcal{E}_{N-1}}
\Big[ 2^{L^{d}}(1+2^{-N+1})^{L^{d}} \cdot 2^{-N+1}c^{L^{d}}+2^{-N+1}\Big] \;.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $X\in\mathcal P_{N-1}$.
Since the constant $e^{\mathcal{E}_{N-1}}$ is identical for $Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)$
and $Z_{N}^{\prime}(0)$, and $Z_{N}^{\prime}(0)$ satisfies the same
bound above, one has $Z_{N}^{\prime}(\xi)\big/Z_{N}^{\prime}(0)\rightarrow1$.
Therefore the theorem is proved.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Cooper pairing\cite{Cooper56} is a key ingredient for exploring
condensation, superconductivity and superfluidity in interacting
many-fermion systems\cite{Leggett06}. In an electronic system,
phonon-mediated pairing between two electrons through a singlet
channel accounts for the onset of conventional superconductivity,
which is well described by the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS)
theory invented over a half century ago\cite{Bardeen57}. Since
then, pairing mechanisms via different spin and orbital channels
have been extensively investigated, resulting early in successful
understanding of triplet pair superfluid phases in liquid
$^3$He\cite{Anderson61,Balian63,Anderson73,Leggett75,Wheatley75,Lee97,Leggett06}
or later in active studies on a variety of unconventional
superconductors such as
cuprates\cite{Sigrist91,Dagotto94,Tsuei00,Demler04,Lee06} and iron
pnictides\cite{Stewart11,Chubukov12,Seo08,Mereo09,Wang09,Wu,Hung12}
with singlet pairing order parameters as well as several
heavy-fermion compounds\cite{Joynt02,Pfleiderer09} and strontium
ruthenate Sr$_2$RuO$_4$\cite{Mackenzie03,Maeno12} with triplet
ones.
Multiple pairing effects enable the possibility of a transition
(or crossover) from one energetically favorable pairing state to
another as the system parameters change. In a triplet pairing
case, superfluid $^3$He can undergo a first-order phase transition
between an equal-spin-pairing state and a specific $^3P_0$
spin-orbit pairing state ($^3$He-$A$ and $B$ phases,
respectively)\cite{Leggett75,Leggett06}, as a function of
temperature and pressure. In a singlet pairing case, the BCS-type
superconductor or superfluid with a uniform pairing order
parameter can undergo a transition to a state with spatially
oscillatory ones in the presence of spin imbalance or magnetic
field, such as the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov
state\cite{FF,LO} with its experimental evidence in CeCoIn$_5$
\cite{Matsuda07,Pfleiderer09} and cold $^6$Li gases\cite{Liao10},
or the theoretically proposed $p$-orbital pair
condensate\cite{Zhang10}. In addition, several exotic transitions
between $d$-$(d+is)$-$s$\cite{Musaelian96,Khodas12},
$(p+ip)$-$p$\cite{Gurarie05} and $(p+ip)$-$f$\cite{Cheng10}
orbital pairing orders have also been theoretically discussed.
However, all these cases show the changes of the order parameters
only in the orbital or $z$-component spin space, while the total
spin of the pairing order remains the same (singlet or triplet)
upon the transitions. A transition or crossover between singlet
and triplet pairing states was less studied.
Moreover, in three dimensions there is an interesting state
showing the coexistence of $s$- and $p$-wave pairing orders
(reminiscent of a fragmented condensate), provided the
interparticle potentials in triplet and singlet channels are both
energetically favorable\cite{Balian63}. Such a mixed state
survives merely in a restrictive parameter regime and has not been
much focused\cite{Leggett75}. In two dimensions, the mixed state
has been proposed with the assistance of spin-orbit
couplings\cite{Gorkov01}, interfacial barriers,\cite{Romano13} or
deformation in the Fermi surface.\cite{Kuboki01} Recent findings
have suggested a feasible proposal for this mixture, which is
proximity-induced $p$-wave superconductivity in a
ferromagnets/$s$-wave superconductor heterostructure
\cite{Volkov03,Bergeret05,Keizer06,Eschrig08,Linder10,Almog11,Klose12,Quarterman12,Leksin12,Bergeret13,Hikino13}.
In these devices, even if the competition between singlet and
triplet pairing orders always exists since the attractive
interaction between opposite spins accompanies with the desired
attractive interaction between same spins, they can coexist within
a range across the interface, with thickness comparable to the
superconducting coherence length. Nevertheless, the
ferromagnet/superconductor interface is strongly inhomogeneous
such that the mixed region can hardly be described as a uniform
phase. For effectively characterizing the quantum phases with
singlet, triplet, and mixed pairing order parameters, a
well-defined uniform system and its modeling ought to be further
investigated.
Recently, a lot of interest has been stimulated in one-dimensional
(1D) superconductors for their topological nontrivial properties
and potential application on quantum information
processing\cite{Kitaev01,Wilczek09,Franz10,Alicea12,Beenakker13}.
In a system of spinless fermions on an open chain, the
superconducting state, which has a $p$-wave (triplet) pairing
order parameter, has been shown in a given parameter range as a
topological state that carries one Majorana fermion on each end of
the chain\cite{Kitaev01}. In a case of spin-half fermions, the
Majorana fermion states can emerge within a heterostructure in the
presence of $s$-wave (singlet) pairing order, spin-orbit coupling
and magnetic Zeeman field\cite{Lutchyn10,Oreg10,Stoudenmire11},
which has been experimentally realized in semiconductor nanowires
having a proximity-induced superconducting
gap\cite{Mourik12,Deng12,Rokhinson12,Das12,Finck13,Churchill13}.
On the other hand, a singlet superconductor without spin-orbit and
magnetic couplings is always topologically trivial. Therefore,
regarding the equivalence between a spin-half system and two
copies of spinless ones in the limit of spin decoupling, one could
expect that the tuning between one-dimensional singlet and triplet
pairing states may induce a change in the system's topology and
hence provide a new route for topological manipulation. In
addition, the topological property of a mixed pairing state would
also be an interesting subject. From this point of view, systems
with inside tunable pairing channels would be more appropriate for
investigation.
In this paper, we study an extended one-dimensional Hubbard model
with nearest-neighbor charge and spin interactions, particularly
focusing on the pairing phenomena in uniform and low-filling
regimes. We show that the system contains all four possible
pairing channels in the pair spin space, with coupling strengths
that can be independently varied by the tuning of charge and spin
interactions. We apply a mean-field treatment on a large-size case
with translational invariance and will derive gap equations
characterizing two intraspin triplet, one interspin triplet as
well as one singlet pairing orders, and mixed regions of them. We
shall obtain the effective Bogoliubov--de Gennes (BdG) Hamiltonian
of the model and discuss its topological properties. Beyond the
mean-field treatment, we perform exact diagonalization on an
open-end chain with a fixed number of particles, with
modifications to reduce finite-size effects (see detailed
discussions in Sec.~\ref{sec:ED_a}). We compute pair fractions of
the exact many-body ground state that indicates dominant and
stable pair species toward large-size and low-filling regimes
(reminiscent of a pair condensate). The results will show a change
of dominant pair species from one to another as the corresponding
couplings vary, accompanied with a characteristic behavior of pair
susceptibility or entanglement entropy. The mixed pairing state
will also be identified in regions where more than one pair
species dominate. Finally we compare the mean-field and
exact-diagonalization results.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:Model} we
introduce the model Hamiltonian and phenomenologically discuss the
pairing physics in the system. In Sec.~\ref{sec:MF} we perform the
mean-field treatment on a translation-invariant system to derive
the gap equations, followed by discussions of the pairing behavior
as well as the topological properties of the system. In
Sec.~\ref{sec:ED} we compute the exact ground state of a
fixed-number open-end chain. We present data that show evolution
of dominant pair species as the function of couplings and plot
state diagrams that characterize various stable pairing states
including mixed ones. Finally we summarize this study in
Sec.~\ref{sec:Conclusion}.
\section{Model}\label{sec:Model}
In this section we introduce the model Hamiltonian and
phenomenologically discuss the pairing tendency in the system. We
begin with an extended 1D Hubbard Hamiltonian with charge as well
as spin interactions and represent it in a suggestive form that
directly pinpoints four independently tunable pairing channels. We
then write down a fixed-number BCS-type ansatz to explain how
various pair species energetically compete with each other.
Finally we discuss how the system's symmetry enables a mixed
pairing state.
The extended Hubbard model has a general form of
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde H = \sum\limits_i \Big[ {\sum\limits_{\sigma = \uparrow ,
\downarrow } { - {{t}_\sigma }\left( {\hat c_{\sigma i}^\dag
{{\hat c}_{\sigma i + 1}} + {\rm{H}}{\rm{.c}}{\rm{.}}} \right) -
{{\mu }_\sigma }{{\hat n}_{\sigma i}}}
}\nonumber\\
+ U{{\hat n}_{ \uparrow i}}{{\hat n}_{ \downarrow i}} +
\sum\limits_{\sigma ,\sigma ' = \uparrow , \downarrow } {{{
V}_{\sigma \sigma '}}{{\hat n}_{\sigma i}}{{\hat n}_{\sigma 'i +
1}}} + 4 J{{{\bf{\hat S}}}_i} \cdot {{{\bf{\hat S}}}_{i + 1}}
\Big] \label{eqn:Ham1},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\hat c_{\sigma i}^\dag$ creates a fermion of spin $\sigma$
on site $i$, $\hat n_{\sigma i}= \hat c_{\sigma i}^\dag \hat
c_{\sigma i}$ is the number operator, ${\bf{\hat S}}_i=\hat
c_{\alpha i}^\dag {\vec{\sigma}}_{\alpha \beta} \hat c_{\beta
i}/2$ is the spin operator with ${\vec \sigma }=\{\sigma^x,
\sigma^y, \sigma^z \}$ being Pauli matrices, $t$ is the
nearest-neighbor tunneling strength, and $\mu$ is the chemical
potential. The couplings $U$, $V$ and $J$ represent the on-site
charge, nearest-neighbor charge, and spin interactions,
respectively. The parameters $t$, $\mu$, and $V$\cite{tuningV} are
taken as spin-dependent for the most general case (notice that
${V_{ \uparrow \downarrow }} = {V_{ \downarrow \uparrow }}$ is
required for most physical interactions).
In the following, we consider a case in which two spin species are
balanced and have the same single-particle spectrum, or $t_\sigma
\to t$ and $\mu_\sigma \to \mu$. We also focus on low-filling
regimes in which the double occupancies are dilute such that the
onsite repulsion can be treated as effective contributions to the
chemical potential in a Hartree approximation, ${{\hat n}_{
\uparrow i}}{{\hat n}_{ \downarrow i}} \to \left\langle {{{\hat
n}_{ \downarrow i}}} \right\rangle {{\hat n}_{ \uparrow i}} +
\left\langle {{{\hat n}_{ \uparrow i}}} \right\rangle {{\hat n}_{
\downarrow i}}$. However, the nearest-neighbor charge and spin
interactions account for intersite correlations that are essential
for the pairing behavior (as we will discuss later) and hence can
not be decoupled as single-site quantities. (We will show later in
this section that the physics of interest does not qualitatively
alter even incorporating the onsite interaction as its original
form in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Ham1}), no matter whether it is repulsive or
attractive.) Therefore, with the approximation for the onsite
repulsion, one can pinpoint the pairing channels by rewriting the
Hamiltonian of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Ham1}) in a suggestive form using two
intrapin triplet pair operators ${\hat b_{ \sigma ,i}^\dag = \hat
c_{ \sigma,i+1}^\dag \hat c_{ \sigma, i}^\dag }$ for
$\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow$ as well as two interspin triplet and
singlet pair operators ${\hat b_{ \pm ,i}^\dag = (\hat c_{
\downarrow ,i+1}^\dag \hat c_{ \uparrow , i}^\dag \pm \hat c_{
\uparrow ,i+1}^\dag \hat c_{ \downarrow , i}^\dag })/\sqrt{2}$,
respectively, as
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}=\sum\limits_i \big ( \hat{H}^{0}_i + \hat{H}^{\rm{I}}_i
\big ), \label{eqn:Ham2}
\end{eqnarray}
with the non-interacting part,
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}^{0}_i&= {\sum\limits_{\sigma = \uparrow , \downarrow }
{ -t\left( {\hat c_{\sigma i}^\dag {{\hat c}_{\sigma i + 1}} +
{\rm{H}}{\rm{.c}}{\rm{.}}} \right) - \mu {{\hat n}_{\sigma i}}} },
\end{eqnarray}
and the interacting part,
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}^{\rm{I}}_i&= \sum\limits_{\alpha =
\uparrow,\downarrow,\pm} {{g_\alpha }\hat b^\dag_{\alpha, i} \hat
b_{\alpha, i} }.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the four pair couplings $g_{\uparrow,\downarrow,\pm}$ are
independently tunable via the tuning of the charge and spin
interactions ${V_{ \uparrow \uparrow }}$, ${V_{ \downarrow
\downarrow }}$, ${V_{ \uparrow \downarrow }}$ and $J$ in
Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Ham1}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
{g_{\uparrow ( \downarrow )}} &=&
{V_{\uparrow\uparrow(\downarrow\downarrow) }} + J ,\label{eqn:gupdown}\\
{g_ + } &=& {V_{ \uparrow \downarrow }} + J, \label{eqn:g+}\\
{g_ - } &=& {V_{ \uparrow \downarrow }} - 3J\label{eqn:g-}.
\end{eqnarray}
The Hamiltonian of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Ham2}) conserves the total number
of each spin species $N_{\uparrow(\downarrow)}$. We
phenomenologically discuss the pairing tendency by applying a
generalized number-conserving BCS ansatz\cite{numberconserving} on
the many-body ground state in the momentum space $k$,
\begin{eqnarray}
{{\psi _{{\rm{BCS}}}} = \mathcal{A}{{\prod\limits_{\alpha =
\uparrow,\downarrow , \pm } {\left( {\sum\limits_k {{f_{\alpha
,k}}\hat b_{\alpha ,k}^\dag } } \right)} }^{M_\alpha }}}{\left|
{{\rm{vac}}} \right\rangle }.\label{eqn:BCS}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the pair operators are defined in terms of
Fourier-transformed single-particle operators $\{\hat
c^\dag_{\alpha, k}\}$, as ${\hat b_{ \uparrow ( \downarrow
),k}^\dag = \hat c_{ \uparrow ( \downarrow ),k}^\dag \hat c_{
\uparrow ( \downarrow ), - k}^\dag }$ and ${\hat b_{ \pm ,k}^\dag
= \hat c_{ \downarrow ,k}^\dag \hat c_{ \uparrow , - k}^\dag \pm
\hat c_{ \uparrow ,k}^\dag \hat c_{ \downarrow , - k}^\dag }$,
$f_{\alpha,k}$ is the amplitude for $b_{\alpha ,k}^\dag$, ${\left|
{{\rm{vac}}} \right\rangle }$ is the vacuum state, and
$\mathcal{A}$ is the normalization constant. The total numbers of
each pair species $M_\alpha$ are subject to number conservation
relations $2M_{ \uparrow ( \downarrow )} + M_+ + M_ - = {N_{
\uparrow ( \downarrow )}}$. Such constraints enable an energetic
competition between each pair species. From this point of view, we
expect the ground state with the favor (disfavor) of intraspin
triplet, interspin triplet or singlet pairing [or $M_\alpha$
dominates (diminishes)] if the corresponding coupling $g_\alpha$
is negative (positive) or attractive (repulsive). From
Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:gupdown})--(\ref{eqn:g-}) we note that the
attractive charge interaction (negative $V$) always benefits
pairing. The antiferromagnetic spin coupling (positive $J$) leads
to the favor of singlet pairing, as reminiscent of the singlet
($d$-wave) superconducting order in the two-dimensional $t$-$J$
model\cite{Lee06}, while the ferromagnetic coupling (negative $J$)
favors the triplet pairing, as reminiscent of the
proximity-induced $p$-wave superconducting order in
ferromagnet-superconductor
junctions\cite{Volkov03,Bergeret05,Keizer06,Eschrig08,Linder10,Almog11,Klose12,Gingrich12,Leksin12,Bergeret13,Hikino13}.
If one considers the onsite interaction $U$ as its original form
in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Ham1}), it will energetically contribute only to
the singlet pair species. In this case, one could follow the same
discussion above for the energetic competition between different
pair species, except now the effect considered from the
nearest-neighbor singlet coupling $g_-$ should be replaced by a
combined effect of $g_-$ itself and $U$. Therefore, we do not
expect a qualitative change in the trend of pairing tendency by
incorporating the $U$ term, no matter whether it is attractive or
repulsive, and can thus stay with Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Ham2}) both for
simplicity and without the loss of generality. The ansatz of
Eq.~(\ref{eqn:BCS}) also tells that once a pair species is more
energetically favorable than the others, its total number tends to
maximize. Therefore, only one dominant pairing order is usually
expected in a number-conserving system, unless such trend is
protected by symmetries as discussed below.
The system possesses time-reversal symmetry if
$g_\uparrow=g_\downarrow$ and $SU(2)$ symmetry if
$g_\uparrow=g_\downarrow=g_+$. These symmetries insert a
sufficient condition of the coexistence of multiple triplet
pairing orders. For example, both intraspin pairing orders should
simultaneously emerge in the presence of time-reversal symmetry,
and together accompany the interspin triplet one in the presence
of $SU(2)$ symmetry. We note that the mixture of the two intraspin
pairing orders [e.g., $M_\uparrow=M_\downarrow\neq0$ and $M_\pm=0$
in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:BCS})] is different from the interspin triplet
pairing state (e.g., $M_+\neq 0$ and
$M_{\uparrow,\downarrow,-}=0$). The former is a fragmented state
(which has more than one dominant pair species), while the latter
is spin coherent and known as an equal spin pairing state [${\hat
b_{ + ,k}^\dag \to \hat c_{ \uparrow ,k}^\dag \hat c_{ \uparrow ,
- k}^\dag + \hat c_{ \downarrow ,k}^\dag \hat c_{ \downarrow , -
k}^\dag }$ after an $SU(2)$ roration], analogous to the liquid
$^3$He-A phase~\cite{Leggett06}. In the limit of $g_\pm \to 0$,
the Hamiltonian of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Ham2}) decouples to two
independent chains, each of which is described by Kitaev's
spinless fermionic model\cite{Kitaev01} in the presence of $U(1)$
symmetry breaking, capable of carrying Majorana fermions in a
topologically nontrivial state. Starting from this limit, our
model provides a route studying various couplings between such two
chains and their evolution toward the singlet pairing (topological
trivial) regime, hinting of a topological phase transition.
Finally, we remark that triplet and singlet orders can coexist
without breaking any of the symmetries discussed above. However,
even if they coexist, we expect the mixture in a relatively narrow
parameter range where the two pair species are energetically
compatible, outside which one order can always overcome the other
and become dominant. In Secs.~\ref{sec:MF} and \ref{sec:ED} we use
two different methods investigating the competition between the
four pairing orders as a function of the four couplings and
identifying the dominant regions for each pair species or their
mixture.
\section{Mean-field treatment on a large-size system}\label{sec:MF}
In this section, we establish a mean-field treatment for the
extended Hubbard Hamiltonian $\hat H$ in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Ham2}) with
translational invariance (large-size limit) at zero temperature to
understand the possibility of triplet and singlet pairings. First,
we start from the exact quantum partition function and perform a
Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation with one singlet and three
triplet auxiliary bosonic fields. After the transformation, we
obtain an effective BdG Hamiltonian and turn to discuss its
topology with the four pairings. Back to the main track, we derive
the gap equations of pairings and then find the parameter range
corresponding to the presence of pairing.
Before proceed, we comment that although the mean-field treatment
does not incorporate quantum fluctuations, which could be
essential for studying the 1D physics, it has been widely applied
to describe various 1D superconducting states both qualitatively
and quantitatively. For example, the mean-field
solutions\cite{Mizushima05,*Parish07,*Liu07,*Sun11,*Baksmaty11,*Sun12}
for 1D spin-imbalanced superconductors well match those obtained
from unbiased methods\cite{Orso07,*Feiguin07,*Bolech09} and agree
with experimental findings\cite{Liao10}. In Appendix
\ref{Richardson}, we consider another supportive example of 1D
superconducting systems, the Richardson
model\cite{Roman02,Dukelsky04}, and show the mean-field solution
consistent with the exact one for characterizing the
superconducting phase. Moreover, our BdG Hamiltonian, which
exhibits interesting topological properties as discussed below,
can be effectively applied on nano-wires with proximity-induced
superconducting
gaps\cite{Mourik12,Deng12,Rokhinson12,Das12,Finck13,Churchill13},
producing potential realization of tunable 1D topological
superconductors. Therefore, our mean-field study in this section
is not only valid to a certain extent but is also useful from both
theoretical and practical standpoints.
The quantum partition function of the system can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
Z=\int \prod_{i } \mathfrak{D}{\bf c}_{ i}\mathfrak{D}
{\bf c}_{ i}^\dagger e^{-\int_0^\beta d\tau [ {\bf c}^\dagger_{
i}\partial_\tau {\bf c}_{ i}+\hat{H}_i^0+\hat{H}_i^{\rm{I}}({\bf
c}_i,{\bf c}_i^\dagger) ] },
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf c}_i=(c_{\uparrow i},c_{\downarrow i})^T$. We
introduce four bosonic (scalar) auxiliary fields
$\rho_i=(\Delta_{\uparrow i},\Delta_{\downarrow i},\Delta_{+
i},\Delta_{- i})$ corresponding to pairing $b_{\uparrow i},\
b_{\downarrow i},\ b_{+i}$ and $b_{-i}$ respectively to perform a
Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation for the partition function
\begin{eqnarray}
Z=\int \big ( \prod_{p} \mathfrak{D}{\bf c}_p\mathfrak{D} {\bf
c}_p^\dagger \big ) \prod_i d \rho_i d \rho_i^*e^{-\int_0^\beta
d\tau ({\bf c}^\dagger_{ i}\partial_\tau {\bf c}_{ i}+ S_i)}
,\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf c}_p=(c_{\uparrow p},c_{\downarrow p})^T$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
S_i=\sum_{\alpha=\uparrow,\downarrow,\pm}\left
[-\frac{\Delta_{\alpha i}^*\Delta_{\alpha i}}{g_\alpha}
+\Delta_{\alpha i} b^\dag_{\alpha i}+ {\rm{H.c.}} \right ]+
\hat{H}^{0}_i.
\end{eqnarray}
Although the action gains extra degrees of freedom from the
auxiliary fields ($b_{\alpha i}$), the effective Hamiltonian with
$b_{\alpha i}$ becomes integrable for ${\bf c}^\dagger_{\alpha i}$
and ${\bf c}_{\alpha i}$. Later, ${\bf c}^\dagger_{\alpha i}$ and
${\bf c}_{\alpha i}$ will be integrated out, and the pairing gaps
$\Delta_\alpha$ will be determined by finding the local extremum
of the action. Furthermore, understanding the expression of the
action in momentum space is necessary to compute the gap equation
in the following steps. Before performing Fourier transformation,
we assume the auxiliary fields to be translation invariant so the
site index $i$ can be neglected. In the momentum space, the
partition function with the translation-invariant auxiliary fields
is rewritten as
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{Z}= \int \big( \prod_p \mathfrak{D}{\bf c}_{
p}\mathfrak{D} {\bf c}_{ p}^\dagger \big ) d \rho d \rho^*
e^{-\int_0^\beta d\tau \Big
[L\sum_{\alpha=\uparrow,\downarrow,\pm}\frac{\Delta_\alpha^*\Delta_\alpha}{g_\alpha}+\sum_p({\bf
c}^\dagger_{p}\partial_\tau {\bf c}_{ p}+ \bf C_p^\dag
H_p^{\rm{BdG}}\bf C_p) \Big ]},
\end{eqnarray}
up to a constant multiplier. Here $L$ is the total number of the
system sites,
\begin{eqnarray}
H^{\rm{BdG}}_p= \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{-2t \cos p -\mu}{2} & 0 & i \sin p \Delta_\uparrow & \frac{-i \sin p \Delta_+ - \cos p \Delta_-}{\sqrt{2}} \\
0 & \frac{-2t \cos p -\mu}{2} & \frac{-i \sin p \Delta_+ + \cos p\Delta_-}{\sqrt{2}} & i \sin p \Delta_\downarrow \\
-i \sin p \Delta_\uparrow^* & \frac{i \sin p \Delta_+^* + \cos p \Delta_-^*}{\sqrt{2}} & \frac{2t \cos p +\mu}{2} & 0 \\
\frac{i \sin p \Delta_+^* - \cos p\Delta_-^*}{\sqrt{2}} & -i \sin
p \Delta_\downarrow^* & 0 & \frac{2t \cos p +\mu}{2} \label{BdG H
p} \end{pmatrix},
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
and $\bf C_p= \begin{pmatrix} c_{\uparrow p} & c_{\downarrow p} &
c^\dagger_{\uparrow -p} & c^\dagger_{\downarrow -p} \end{pmatrix}^T $ is a
vector describing particle and hole variables. The effective
Hamiltonian $H^{\rm{BdG}}_p$ is identified as the well-known BdG
Hamiltonian\cite{DeGennes66} describing superconducting systems
in the momentum space. If all the triplet gaps
vanish $\Delta_\uparrow=\Delta_\downarrow=\Delta_+=0$,
$H^{\rm{BdG}}_p$ return to the BCS pairing case. If $\Delta_+ $
and $\Delta_-$ vanish, the system of $H^{\rm{BdG}}_p$ can be
treated as two decoupled Kitaev's 1D chains\cite{Kitaev01}, which
are time-reversal partners.
Let us return to the parent Hamiltonian in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Ham2}).
Before the Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation, the parent
Hamiltonian shows that the system preserves time-reversal symmetry
given $g_\uparrow=g_\downarrow$. Although $U(1)$ symmetry is
broken after the transformation, the time-reversal symmetry should
be preserved in $H^{\rm{BdG}}_p$. For spin-half particles, the
time-reversal symmetry is defined as $\Theta=is_y K$ in the spin
space, where $K$ is the complex conjugation operator, such that
$c^\dagger_\uparrow \rightarrow -c^\dagger_\downarrow$ and
$c^\dagger_\downarrow \rightarrow c^\dagger_\uparrow$. Therefore,
in the hole basis, the time-reversal symmetry is still of the same
form. To preserve time-reversal symmetry in $H^{\rm{BdG}}_p$, the
constraints of the pairing gaps must be imposed:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta_\uparrow=\Delta_\downarrow^*,\ \Delta_+=-\Delta^*_+,\
\Delta_-=\Delta^*_-. \label{Trestrict pair}
\end{eqnarray}
In general, because of the $U(1)$ symmetry breaking, the phase of
each pairing gap can be arbitrarily chosen by a $U(1)$ gauge
transformation. However, under arbitrary $U(1)$ transformation,
the constraints above no longer hold, and the definition of the
time-reversal operator $\Theta$ also changes. Hence, to avoid the
ambiguities of the unfixed pairings and the expression of
$\Theta$, we require the $U(1)$ gauge fixed once the
time-reversal-invariant constraints are imposed.
In the following, we turn to investigate the topological phases of
the $H_p^{\rm{BdG}}$. The BdG Hamiltonian, which possesses
particle and hole bases, automatically preserves particle-hole
symmetry with the corresponding symmetry operator $\Xi=\sigma_x
K$, which exchanges particle and hole. On the other hand, for a
spin-$1/2$ system, the time-reversal operators obeys $\Theta^2=-1$
so this system belongs to the class DIII, which exhibits $\mathbb{Z}_2$
topological property in one dimension. To determine the topology
of the 1D chain, we first consider a simple case where
$\Delta_+=\Delta_-=0$. The BdG Hamiltonian becomes block
diagonalized and each block can be treated as a Kitaev 1D chain.
Hence, the system corresponds to two decoupled Kitaev 1D chains.
We expect that two Majorana modes arise at each end of the entire
1D non-trivial system. Kitaev\cite{Kitaev01} shows that the
nontrivial region is given by $|\mu|<2 t$. Now we recover nonzero
$\Delta_+$ and $\Delta_-$ to discuss the topology. In the absence
of all triplet pairings, the topological phase of the singlet
pairing superconductor is expected to be trivial. This 1D chain is
either nontrivial or trivial so the boundary between the two
phases is to be determined. The boundary is topological phase
transition points where the energy gap is closed. To find the
transition points, we write down the energy spectrum of
$H^{\rm{BdG}}_p$,
\begin{eqnarray}
4 E_{\pm}^2=\left(2t\cos p +\mu\right)^2+\left(\sin p |\Delta_t|
\pm \cos p |\Delta_-|\right)^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
|\Delta_t|^2=&|\Delta_\uparrow|^2+|\Delta_\downarrow|^2+|\Delta_+|^2.
\end{eqnarray}
When $E_{\pm}=0$, the transition occurs. That is,
${2t|\Delta_t|}/{\sqrt{|\Delta_-|^2+|\Delta_t|^2}}=|\mu|$ is the
boundary of the non-trivial region. Because $t>|\mu|$ is the
nontrivial region in the Kitaev model, the region can be extended
to
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{2t|\Delta_t|}{\sqrt{|\Delta_-|^2+|\Delta_t|^2}}>|\mu|,
\label{eqn:topo region}
\end{eqnarray}
for our model. Here we see that the system is always topologically
trivial in a purely singlet pairing state ($\Delta_- \neq 0,
\Delta_t=0$) and has the maximum topologically nontrivial region
(the same region as in Kitaev's model) in a purely triplet pairing
state ($\Delta_-=0, \Delta_t \neq 0$). In a mixed pairing state
($\Delta_-\neq0, \Delta_t \neq 0$), the enhancement of the singlet
pairing strength shrinks the topologically nontrivial region,
which indicates a topological order as a result from the
competition between singlet and triplet pairings. Our finding also
enables a different route for realizing a topological transition
via the tuning of the singlet pairing $|\Delta_-|$, given $t$,
$\mu$ and the triplet pairing $|\Delta_t|$ (the three components
in Kitaev's model) all fixed. The rigorous derivation of the
topologically nontrivial region by computing $\mathbb{Z}_2$ invariant is
provided in Appendix \ref{Z2 compute} for interested readers.
Now our focus is back on the partition function $\mathbf{Z}$ to
determine the values of the pairings. We integrate out all of the
fermion operators $c^\dagger_{\beta p}$ and $c_{\beta p}$ in the
partition function
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbf{Z}=\int d \rho d \rho^* e^{\beta
\sum_{\alpha=\uparrow,\downarrow,\pm}\frac{\Delta_\alpha^*\Delta_\alpha}{g_\alpha}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{p,n}\ln
\det (G_\Delta^{-1}) },
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
G_\Delta^{-1}=H^{\rm{BdG}}_p-i\omega_n \mathbb{I}_{4\times 4},
\end{eqnarray}
and $\omega_n=\pi (2n +1 )\beta$ is the Matsubara frequency. To
obtain the equilibrium state (extremum of the free energy) of the
system, we take a variation of the action with respect to the
pairing gaps, which generates four gap equations,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta^*_\uparrow}{g_\uparrow} &=&
-\frac{\Delta^*_\uparrow}{2\beta L }\sum_{p, n} \frac{\sin^2 p(\omega_n^2+T^2+2D_-)}{(\frac{\omega_n^2+T^2}{2})^2+(\omega_n^2+T^2)D_++|D_-|^2},\nonumber\\ \label{up gap}\\
\frac{\Delta^*_\downarrow}{g_\downarrow} &=&
-\frac{\Delta^*_\downarrow}{2\beta L }\sum_{p, n} \frac{\sin^2 p(\omega_n^2+T^2+2D_-)}{(\frac{\omega_n^2+T^2}{2})^2+(\omega_n^2+T^2)D_++|D_-|^2}, \nonumber\\ \label{down gap}\\
\frac{\Delta^*_+}{g_+} &=&
-\frac{\Delta^*_+}{2\beta L }\sum_{p, n} \frac{\sin^2 p(\omega_n^2+T^2+2D_-)}{(\frac{\omega_n^2+T^2}{2})^2+(\omega_n^2+T^2)D_++|D_-|^2}, \nonumber\\\label{plus gap equation}\\
\frac{\Delta^*_-}{g_-} &=& -\frac{\Delta^*_-}{2\beta L }\sum_{p,
n} \frac{\cos^2
p(\omega_n^2+T^2+2D_-)}{(\frac{\omega_n^2+T^2}{2})^2+(\omega_n^2+T^2)D_++|D_-|^2},\nonumber\\
\label{minus gap equation}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
T&=&t\cos p +\mu, \\
D_\pm&=&\pm\cos^2 p |\Delta_-|^2 +\sin^2 p |\Delta_t|^2.
\end{eqnarray}
Since the strategy to solve these gap equations depends on the
symmetry properties of the triplet couplings, we first focus on
the $SU(2)$-symmetry-preserving case
($g_+=g_\uparrow=g_{\downarrow} $) and then extend the results to
the $SU(2)$-symmetry-breaking case ($g_+\neq
g_\uparrow=g_\downarrow$).
When $SU(2)$ symmetry is preserved, Eqs.~(\ref{up
gap})--(\ref{plus gap equation}) divided by their own pairings are
identical. Only two gap equations are involved in determining the
values of the pairings, which is similar to the
$SU(2)$-symmetry-breaking case. In the following, we solve these
two gap equations in Eq.~(\ref{minus gap equation}) and in the
same form of Eqs.~(\ref{up gap})--(\ref{plus gap equation}) at
zero temperature. Therefore, as $\beta \rightarrow \infty$,
$\frac{\sum_{\omega_n}}{\beta}\rightarrow
\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}$ due to Matsubara
frequency $\omega_n=\pi(2n+1)/\beta$. After the integration of
$\omega$, the gap equations are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{g_\gamma} &=& \frac{1}{L }\sum_{p\geq 0} \sin^2 p \bigg[
\frac{1}{A_+}+\frac{1}{A_-}\nonumber\\ && + \left | \frac{\cos p
\Delta_-}{\sin p \Delta_t} \right |
\left(\frac{1}{A_+}-\frac{1}{A_-} \right) \bigg ]
\label{plus gap simple}\\
\frac{1}{g_-} &=&\frac{1}{2L }\sum_{p} \cos^2 p \bigg [
\frac{1}{A_+}+\frac{1}{A_-}\nonumber\\ && + \left |\frac{\sin p
\Delta_t}{\cos p \Delta_-} \right|
\left(\frac{1}{A_+}-\frac{1}{A_-} \right) \bigg ] , \label{minus
gap simple}
\end{eqnarray}
where $g_\uparrow=g_\downarrow=g_+ \equiv g_\gamma$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
A_\pm= \sqrt{2D_{+} +T^2\pm 2|\sin 2p \Delta_t \Delta_-|}.
\end{eqnarray}
We note that given a set of the coupling constants, the gap
equations simultaneously determine only the two $SU(2)$ invariants
$|\Delta _t|$ and $|\Delta_-|$. In other words, the value of each
triplet pairing can not be determined separately. The reason is
that the mean-field pairings $\Delta_\uparrow,$
$\Delta_\downarrow$ and $\Delta_+$ are actually not individually
invariant under $SU(2)$ transformation as shown in Appendix
\ref{Z2 compute}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{fig_S2_MF.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Mean-field phase diagram characterizing
singlet, triplet and mixed pairing states under time-reversal and $SU(2)$
symmetries (when the three triplet couplings are equal, $g_\uparrow=g_\downarrow=g_+ \equiv g_\gamma$).
The diagram is obtained by numerically solving the gap equations, which determine
the equilibrium state of the system.
Singlet ($|\Delta_-|$) and triplet ($|\Delta_t|$)
pairing strengths are illustrated by vector
arrows $(|\Delta_-|,|\Delta_t|)$ as a function of attractive singlet and
triplet pair couplings, $g_-$ and $g_{\gamma}$, respectively
(notice that both couplings are \emph{negative}). Each
arrow has length proportional to
$\sqrt{|\Delta_-|^2+|\Delta_t|^2}$ and slope equal to
$|\Delta_-/\Delta_t|$. Purely triplet and purely singlet regions
(filled with horizontal and vertical arrows, respectively)
sandwich a relatively narrow mixed-pairing region
(shadowed, filled with finite-slope arrows), with boundaries marked by gray solid lines.
The red dashed line in the mixed region indicates
the boundary between topologically trivial (below) and nontrivial (above) regions as
the chemical potential $\mu=-1.7t$.
There is no pairing beyond the left and bottom axes of this
diagram.}
\label{fig:f3_1} \vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
Numerically solving the gap equations in Eqs.~(\ref{plus gap
simple}) and (\ref{minus gap simple}) gives us the equilibrium
state of the system. We obtain a mixed pairing state (where
$|\Delta_-| \neq 0, |\Delta_t|\neq 0$) only in a restrictive
region in the parameter space of negative (attractive) $g_\gamma$
and $g_-$. Outside this region there is no mixed-pairing solution,
which means one or both of the gaps have to be zero. We thus solve
Eq.~(\ref{plus gap simple}) [Eq.~(\ref{minus gap simple})] for
$|\Delta_t|$ ($|\Delta_-|$) by setting $|\Delta_-|=0$
($|\Delta_t|=0$) in the triplet (singlet) coupling dominant region
$|g_\gamma| >|g_-|$ ($|g_-|>|g_\gamma|$). In Fig.~\ref{fig:f3_1}
we plot a phase diagram in the $|g_-|$-$|g_\gamma|$ plane for a
low-filling case of $\mu=-1.7t$ and draw a boundary (red dashed
curve) between topologically trivial and nontrivial regions. We
use vector arrows $(|\Delta_-|,|\Delta_t|)$ to represent singlet
and triplet pairing strengths, such that an arrow's length is
proportional to $\sqrt{|\Delta_-|^2+|\Delta_t|^2}$ and its slope
is equal to $|\Delta_-/\Delta_t|$. We see that the vector length
increases with the coupling strength. Horizontal and vertical
arrows indicate purely singlet and triplet pairing phases,
respectively, which sandwich a relatively narrow mixed-pairing
region of finite-slope arrows. There is no pairing in regions of
$|g_-|<0.1t$, $|g_\gamma|<0.2t$, or repulsive couplings. The
diagram agrees with the picture of energetic competition between
different pair species discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:Model}; one can
imagine $g_-$ and $g_\gamma$ as two ``forces" that competitively
stretch and orient the vectors. Our data show that the arrow
smoothly rotates along a path from a singlet state to a triplet
one across the mixed region, implying a continuous evolution of
the system's free energy.
When $SU(2)$ symmetry is broken ($ g_+\neq
g_\uparrow=g_\downarrow$), the pairings $\Delta_+$ and
$\Delta_{\uparrow,\downarrow}$ are competing. Some pairings must
vanish to obey Eqs.~(\ref{up gap})--(\ref{plus gap equation}).
Determining the vanishing pairings involves the comparison of the
free energy corresponding to each pairing order. The one with
higher free energy should vanish. However, computing the free
energy is quite difficult. Instead, we give a qualitative argument
as we did in Sec.~\ref{sec:Model}. The negative values of the
coupling constants represent attractive interaction between the
electrons. From the energetic point of view, stronger attractive
force implies a higher possibility of pairing. Therefore, the
pairing with stronger attractive coupling wins the competition. We
can conclude that when $0\geq g_+>g_{\uparrow,\downarrow}$ ($0\geq
g_{\uparrow,\downarrow}> g_+$), $\Delta_+=0$
($\Delta_{\uparrow,\downarrow}=0$) and the pairings
$\Delta_{\uparrow,\downarrow}$ ($\Delta_+$) dominate. In this
case, Eqs.~(\ref{up gap})--(\ref{plus gap equation}) becomes
Eqs.~(\ref{plus gap simple}) and (\ref{minus gap simple}) with
$g_\gamma=g_{\uparrow,\downarrow}$ ($g_+$). As a result, the
survival pairings are also determined by Eqs.~(\ref{plus gap
simple}) and (\ref{minus gap simple}) and hence described by
Fig.~\ref{fig:f3_1}.
From the mean-field approach, the coupling constants control
singlet and triplet pairings. In the next section, we will study
the exact ground state of a fixed-number open-end chain and
compare the pairing behaviors with those in this section.
\section{Exact solutions of a fixed-number open-end system}\label{sec:ED}
In this section we perform exact diagonalization using the Lanczos
algorithm\cite{Lin90,Dagotto94} to solve the Hamiltonian of an
open-end chain with $L$ sites as well as fixed $N$ particles and
discuss the pairing physics showed by the results. The exact
solutions preserve all symmetries of the system and incorporate
effects of quantum fluctuations that are ignored in the mean-field
treatment. The $U(1)$ symmetry makes the Hamiltonian of
Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Ham2}) block-diagonalized with respect to the total
number of each spin species ($N_\uparrow$ and $N_\downarrow$, as
discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:Model}) and hence allows us to deal
with only the block where the ground state locates. However, this
symmetry makes the original BCS-type pairing amplitude $\langle
\hat b_{\alpha}\rangle$ no longer a good order parameter for the
exact ground state.
Here we consider the pairing phenomenon as the condensation of
paired fermions\cite{Yang62,Leggett06}. To study this, one can
make an analogy to the condensation of bosons. In the Bose system,
a condensed state can be identified by macroscopic occupation of a
single-particle state, or mathematically, a macroscopic eigenvalue
of the single-particle density matrix\cite{Penrose56,Leggett06}.
In our Fermi system, it is the pair density matrix that is used to
identify the pairing as a trend toward the macroscopic occupation
of paired fermions. Specifically, we study the pairing tendency
(favor or disfavor of pairing) by comparing the largest eigenvalue
of the pair density matrix of the system with that of a free
system. The pair density matrix ${\rho ^{{\rm{pair}}}}$ is defined
as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho _{{r_1}{\sigma _1},{r_2}{\sigma _2};{{r}_1'}{{\sigma
}_1'},{{r}_2'}{{\sigma }_2'}}^{{\rm{pair}}} = \left\langle {\hat
c_{{\sigma _1}{r_1}}^\dag \hat c_{{\sigma _2}{r_2}}^\dag {{\hat
c}_{{{\sigma}_2'}{{r}_2'}}}{{\hat c}_{{{\sigma}_1'}{{r}_1'}}}}
\right\rangle,\label{eqn:PDM}
\end{eqnarray}
where the matrix indices are denoted by a set of two-particle
states $\{ {r_1}{\sigma _1},{r_2}{\sigma _2}\}$ with $r$ and
$\sigma$ being spatial and spin quantum numbers, respectively. We
compute the eigen functions of ${\rho ^{{\rm{pair}}}}$ and find
that each of them is also an eigen state of a pair's total spin
${\hat {\bf S}^{{\rm{pair}}}}$ and its $z$ component $\hat
S_z^{{\rm{pair}}}$. Therefore, each eigen function falls into one
of the four pair classes including two intraspin triplet states
for $\uparrow/\downarrow$ ($\{
{S^{{\rm{pair}}}},S_z^{{\rm{pair}}}\} = \{ 1,\pm1\}$), one
interspin triplet state ($\{ 1,0\}$), and one singlet state ($\{
0,0\}$). From each class we find the largest eigen value
$\lambda^{(0)}$ and define a relative pair fraction as
\begin{eqnarray}
{P_\alpha } = \frac{{\lambda _\alpha ^{(0)} - 2}}{N}
\label{eqn:P},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha=\uparrow,\downarrow,\pm$ denote the type of pairs in
the same convention as in Sec.~\ref{sec:Model} and $N=N_\uparrow
+N_\downarrow$ is the total number of particles. The relative pair
fraction $P_\alpha$ is evaluated as a comparison with a free
system, whose maximum eigenvalue is always
2~\cite{pairinfreesystem}. Since a free system has no pairing
preference, compared with this, positive (negative) $P_\alpha$
indicates the favor (disfavor) of $\alpha$ pair species. In the
thermodynamic limit, the onset of pair condensation is signaled by
$P \approx \lambda^{(0)} \sim O(1)$, although in most realistic
systems $P= 0.01\%$--$1\%$\cite{Leggett06}. In our case of an open
chain, we take $P$ (i) positive, (ii) increasing as the system
expands (by enlarging $L$ at fixed $N/L$), and (iii) increasing as
the system dilutes (by enlarging $L$ at fixed $N$) as three
signatures to identify a \emph{stable pairing state}. Signature
(ii) helps confirm the pairing tendency in the thermodynamic limit
(see the applications on the Richardson
model\cite{Roman02,Dukelsky04} and the original Hubbard model
discussed in Appendixes \ref{Richardson} and \ref{sec:HubbardU},
respectively), while (iii) does in the dilute regime of our
interest (see discussions in Sec.~\ref{sec:ED_b} and Appendix
\ref{sec:HubbardU}). Strictly speaking, such stable pairing state
of a finite-size chain is \emph{not} physically equivalent to a
pair condensate that should be defined in the thermodynamic limit
but could imply one if the trend persists. According to a theorem
in Ref.~[\onlinecite{Yang62}], the eigenvalues of a finite system
with $N$ fermions and $L$ sites are bounded as $\lambda^{(0)} \leq
N(2L-N+2)/2L$. Substituting a typical set in our calculations,
$L=20$ and $N=8$, we obtain $P \leq 60\%$.
In the following we focus on the time-reversal symmetric case, so
the number of independent couplings and hence that of independent
pair species is reduced by 1, allowing us to denote
$g_\uparrow=g_\downarrow \equiv g_\updownarrow$ and
$P_\uparrow=P_\downarrow \equiv P_\updownarrow$. In
Sec.~\ref{sec:ED_a} we discuss the finite-size effects and the
stability of pairing in the dilute limit. We suggest a
modification to maintain sufficient pairing tendency against the
finite-size effects without the lost of generality. In
Sec.~\ref{sec:ED_b}, we present results showing the evolution of
the system between different pairing states and the competition
between these pairings. We plot state diagrams characterizing
various stable pairing states as a function of couplings and
compare them with the mean-field results obtained in
Sec.~\ref{sec:MF}.
\subsection{Finite-size effects and stability of pairing}\label{sec:ED_a}
In a continuum system, only states within an energy scale of the
pairing gap around the Fermi level mainly participate in Cooper
pairing. In a finite-size chain of $L$ sites, the single particle
spectrum is always discrete and gapped by $O(t/L)$. At a weak
coupling of $|g_\alpha|<t/L$, it is the two degenerate states of
spin up and down at the Fermi level that mainly participate in the
interspin pairing, while the intraspin pairing is expected to be
more suppressed due to the lack of two such available states. In
fact, we explore the Hamiltonian of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Ham2}) with
$N_{\uparrow,\downarrow}=4,L=8 \sim 24$ and find that $P_\pm>0$ in
a wide parameter range but $P_\updownarrow$ is always negative,
even in the range of $g_\updownarrow<0,|g_\updownarrow|\simeq t
\gg t/L$. In order to enhance the intraspin pairing, we increase
the single particle density of states around the Fermi level by
incorporating a second-nearest-neighbor tunneling into
Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Ham2}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum\limits_i {\sum\limits_{\sigma = \uparrow , \downarrow } { -
t'\left( {\hat c_{\sigma i}^\dag {{\hat c}_{\sigma i + 2}} +
{\rm{H}}{\rm{.c}}{\rm{.}}} \right)} }. \label{eqn:Hamt2}
\end{eqnarray}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:f4_1}(a) we plot $P_\updownarrow$ (blue solid
curve) and the single-particle density of state at the Fermi level
(DoS, red dashed curve) as a function of the second
nearest-neighbor tunneling strength $t'$ for the case of an
attractive $g_\updownarrow=-0.1t$, $g_\pm=0$,
$N_\uparrow=N_\downarrow=4$, and $L=20$. We see that both
$P_\updownarrow$ and DoS increase as $t'$ increases from zero,
simultaneously reaching the maxima around $t'=-0.3t$. Such a trend
agrees with our expectation that the more states are around the
Fermi level, the higher pairing tendency the system shows. Below
we consider a combined Hamiltonian of Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:Ham2}) and
(\ref{eqn:Hamt2}) with $t'=-t/3$ so $P_\updownarrow$ is large and
positive ($\gg 0.01\%$) in a sufficiently large parameter regime.
Notice that we implement $t'$ to compensate the discreteness of
states due to the finite-size effects. In a large enough system,
we expect DoS around the Fermi level high enough for significant
pairing even with only the nearest-neighbor tunneling as in
Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Ham2}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig_S3p.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Intraspin pair fraction $P_\updownarrow$
(solid curve, axis on the left of graph) and the single-particle density of states (DoS)
at the Fermi level (dashed curve, axis on the right of graph)
vs the second-nearest-neighbor tunneling $t'$.
(b) Intraspin pair fraction $P_\updownarrow$ vs filling $n$
at attractive ($g_\updownarrow=-0.1t$, solid curve) and repulsive ($0.1t$, dashed)
pairing interactions while the other two couplings are set zero, $g_\pm=0$.
(c),(d) Interspin triplet and singlet
pair fractions $P_\pm$ vs $n$
in attractive ($g_\pm=-0.2t$, respectively, solid curves) and repulsive ($0.2t$, dashed)
cases, with the other two couplings set to zero as denoted in the plots.
The relative pair fraction is measured from that of a free system, so negative values mean
the disfavor of pairing.}
\label{fig:f4_1} \vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
Now we turn to discuss the stability of pairing in the low-filling
regime of our interests. In the mean-field treatment in
Sec.~\ref{sec:MF}, the pairing order vanishes if the corresponding
coupling is positive (repulsive). In an open chain, we find that
the relative pair fraction can be (slightly) positive in the
repulsive regime. We attribute this to a finite-size effect and
expect that attraction instead of repulsion is the relevant
coupling for stable pairing as the system approaches the
low-filling limit via expansion in size. Figures
\ref{fig:f4_1}(b)--\ref{fig:f4_1}(d) show the three relative pair
fractions $P_{\updownarrow,+,-}$ as a function of filling number
$n=(N_\uparrow+N_\downarrow)/L$ at the corresponding coupling been
attractive (solid curves) or repulsive (dashed ones),
respectively. In each panel, we set the corresponding repulsive
(attractive) interaction as $g_{\updownarrow,+,-}>0$ ($<0$) and
keep the other two pairing effects irrelevant by setting the
couplings to zero. The filling is varied by the tuning of $L$ at
fixed $N_\uparrow=N_\downarrow=4$. We see that the pairing
tendencies are inapparent at half filling ($n=1$) in all cases.
Away from it, all the attractive cases show a monotonically
increasing $P$ toward lower fillings, while in the repulsive cases
$P$ either alternates in small positive values or becomes negative
in the low-filling regime. We confirm two of the
stable-pairing-state signatures discussed at the beginning of
Sec.~\ref{sec:ED} as (i) $P$ positive and (ii) monotonically
increasing toward lower filling. Therefore, only the attractive
interactions sustain a stable pairing state, in agreement with the
mean field results in Sec.~\ref{sec:MF}. In Sec.~\ref{sec:ED_b} we
use these two plus (iii) the increase of the pair fraction upon
the system's expansion at fixed filling to identify the stable
pairing states and study the tuning between them in a general case
in which more than one coupling is nonzero.
\subsection{Results and discussions}\label{sec:ED_b}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=13.2cm]{fig_S3_Pvsg.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) Four cases shows relative pair
fractions $P_\alpha$ (bottom panels), entanglement
entropy $\delta S$ (middle) and pair susceptibility $\chi$ (top)
tuned with the pairing couplings $g$. The intraspin, interspin
triplet, and singlet pair fractions ($P_{\alpha=\updownarrow,+,-}$) are
represented by red triangles, blue squares, and green circles, respectively. The
filled (empty) symbols denote states that show (do not show) the three signatures
for a \emph{stable pairing state} discussed in text.
(a) Tuning between singlet and interspin triplet pairings as
the singlet coupling $g_-$ varies, while the top panel shows
pair susceptibilities $\chi_{--}$ (green solid curve) and $\chi_{+-}$ (blue dashed).
(b) Tuning between interspin triplet and singlet pairings as
the interspin triplet coupling $g_+$ varies, presented together with
$\chi_{++}$ (blue solid) and $\chi_{-+}$ (green dashed).
(c) Tuning between intraspin and interspin triplet pairings as
the intraspin coupling $g_\updownarrow$ varies, presented together with
$\chi_{\updownarrow \updownarrow}$ (red solid) and $\chi_{+ \updownarrow}$ (blue dashed).
(d) Tuning between intraspin and singlet pairings as
the intraspin coupling $g_\updownarrow$ varies, presented together with
$\chi_{\updownarrow \updownarrow}$ (red solid) and $\chi_{-\updownarrow}$ (green dashed).
}
\label{fig:f4_2} \vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure*}
In this section, by computing the exact ground state of a
time-reversal symmetric open-end chain with $N=8$ and $L=20$ (thus
$N_\uparrow=N_\downarrow=4$ and the filling $N/L=0.4$) in a
sufficiently wide parameter range of $g_{\updownarrow,+,-}$, we
present results that show the evolution between different pairing
states and thus identify paths of tuning between singlet and
triplet or between multiple triplet pairing states in the
parameter space. We also obtain state diagrams characterizing the
stable regions for different pairing states. Following the three
signatures discussed at the beginning of Sec.~\ref{sec:ED}, a
stable pairing state of pair species $\alpha$ here is identified
by the relative pair fraction $P_\alpha$ (i) being positive, (ii)
increasing as compared with cases of $L=18$ and $L=16$ at fixed
$N=8$, and (iii) increasing as compared with that of $L=10$ at
fixed $N/L=0.4$. In addition, we calculate two other physical
quantities, pair susceptibility and von Neumann entanglement
entropy, and study their behaviors upon the cross between two
different stable-pairing regions. The pair susceptibility
$\chi_{\alpha \beta }$ is defined as a second derivative of the
ground-state energy $E_G$ with respect to the pairing couplings
$g_{\alpha}$ and $g_{\beta}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\chi _{\alpha \beta }} = \frac{{{\partial ^2}{E_G}}}{{\partial
{g_\alpha }\partial {g_\beta }}} \times t \label{eqn:chi},
\end{eqnarray}
with a multiplication of tunneling $t$ that makes $\chi$
dimensionless. According to the Hellmann-Feynman theorem, the
first derivative of $E_G$ with respect to $g_\alpha$, $\partial
{E_G}/\partial {g_\alpha } = \left\langle {\partial H/\partial
{g_\alpha }} \right\rangle$, is hence proportional to the total
number of $\alpha$ pairs on nearest-neighbor sites. Thus
$\chi_{\alpha \beta }$ describes the response of the total number
of such $\alpha$ pairs to $g_\beta$ (or $\beta$ pairs to
$g_\alpha$ since $\chi_{\alpha \beta }$=$\chi_{\beta \alpha }$).
The von Neumann entanglement entropy presented here is a relative
value measured from the free case (where all pairing couplings
vanish),
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta S = - {\rm{Tr}}\left( {{\rho ^{{\rm{red}}}}\ln {\rho
^{{\rm{red}}}} - \rho _0^{{\rm{red}}}\ln \rho _0^{{\rm{red}}}}
\right), \label{eqn:entropy}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${{\rho ^{{\rm{red}}}}}$ is a reduced density matrix
constructed by tracing out the degrees of freedom of the
right-half chain, and ${{\rho_0 ^{{\rm{red}}}}}$ is that of a free
system. The relative entanglement entropy quantifies how much more
or less entangled (positive or negative $\delta S$, respectively)
the system is driven by the pairing couplings.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:f4_2}, we plot $P_{\updownarrow,+,-}$ (red
triangles, blue squares, and green circles, respectively) vs $g$
in four cases that show the tuning between different stable
pairing states (filled symbols in the $P$ curve contract to the
empty ones denoting states that do not satisfy the three stability
criterions). The bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:f4_2}(a) shows the
tuning between interspin triplet and singlet pairing states ($P_+$
and $P_-$ dominates, respectively) as we vary $g_-$ and keep
$g_\updownarrow$ repulsive as well as $g_+$ attractive. We see
that the intraspin triplet pairing is always unfavorable
($P_\updownarrow<0$ everywhere). The interspin triplet pairing is
stable in a region of weakly positive and negative $g_-$, while
the interspin singlet pair fraction rises, overcomes the interspin
triplet one across a switch point where $P_+=P_-$, and becomes
stable as $g_-$ goes more negative. Toward the region of largely
positive (negative) $g_-$, the interspin triplet (singlet) pairing
decreases and becomes unstable. In the bottom panel of (b), we
plot the tuning between the same two pairing states but in a
different path in which $g_+$ is varied and $g_-$ is kept
attractive. We see a similar competition that the singlet pairing
dominates until is conquered by the interspin triplet one as $g_+$
goes sufficiently negative. The bottom panel of (c) [(d)] shows
how the stable intraspin triplet pairing state emerges with the
suppression of interspin triplet (singlet) pairing as
$g_\updownarrow$ varies from positive toward sufficiently negative
regions. In general, we find the tunability from stable
$\beta$-pairing to $\alpha$-pairing states, across a switch point
where $P_\alpha=P_\beta$, by varying $g_\alpha$ from positive to
sufficiently negative values and keeping $g_\beta$ a negative
constant, also in a condition that the other coupling $g_\gamma$
is set positive for the disfavor of $\gamma$ pairing all the time.
Both facts of (1) the switch between stable $\beta$- and
$\alpha$-pairing states around a negative $g_\alpha$ and (2)
increasing $P_\alpha$ accompanied with decreasing $P_\beta$ around
the switch point indicate a competition between the two pair
species: $g_\alpha$ has to overwhelm $g_\beta$ to make the
$\alpha$-pair species dominant. This results agrees with the
phenomenological discussions in Sec.~\ref{sec:Model} using the
number-conserving BCS ansatz of Eq.~(\ref{eqn:BCS}). The
competition also implies that a mixed state of two stable pairings
either hardly occurs or does so in a relatively small parameter
range. In fact, only in (b) do we see a mixture of weakly stable
interspin triplet and singlet pairings ($P\gtrsim 0$) around a
small region of $g_+=-0.2t$, while the other three cases lack such
mixture. We will discuss the mixed pairing state in more details
later.
Here we turn to study the pair susceptibility $\chi$, which could
show more information about the competition. The top panels of
(a)--(d), cases with tuning $g_\alpha$ at negatively constant
$g_\beta$, show $\chi_{\alpha \alpha}$ and $\chi_{\beta \alpha}$
(or the rate of change in numbers of nearest-neighbor $\alpha$ and
$\beta$ pairs with $g_\alpha$) vs $g_\alpha$ (solid and dashed
curves, respectively). We see in (a)--(c) that both $\chi_{\alpha
\alpha}$ and $\chi_{\beta \alpha}$ develop peaks with opposite
signs around the switch point where $P_\alpha=P_\beta$, reflecting
a drastic increase of $\beta$ pairs and drop of $\alpha$ pairs as
$g_\alpha$ increases toward the positive or repulsive region. The
slight mismatch between the switch point and the susceptibility
peaks can be due to the difference between $P$ and $\chi$; the
former represents pairs only for the dominant eigen wavefunction
of the pair density matrix, while the latter counts the
nearest-neighbor pairs only. In (d), neither
$\chi_{\updownarrow\updownarrow}$ nor $\chi_{-\updownarrow}$
exhibits a peak around the switch point $g_\updownarrow=-0.23t$.
This shows that the competition between intraspin triplet and
interspin singlet pairings is much weaker than that between any
other sets of two pairings. In addition, we plot the relative
entanglement entropy $\delta S$ vs $g$ on each of the middle panel
of (a)--(d). We see in most stable pairing regions in (a) and (b)
that the interspin triplet and singlet pairing states are less
entangled than the free system, or $\delta S<0$, while it reaches
a local maximum (slightly positive) around the switch point and
the peak of $\chi$. In the stable pairing regions in (c) and (d),
$\delta S$ monotonically decreases from positive to negative as
$g_\updownarrow$ increases, with its zero value exactly on the
switch point. These results show that the intraspin pairing state
tends to sustain higher long-range entanglement than the free
system, while the two interspin pairing ones do the opposite.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8.5cm]{fig_S3_2D.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) (a)--(f)State diagrams showing stable pairing
regions in $g_+$-$g_{\updownarrow}$ plane
at $g_-/t=0$, $-0.04$, $-0.08$, $-0.1$, $-0.2$, and $-0.4$, respectively.
Red triangles, blue squares and green circles represent intraspin, interspin
triplet and singlet pairing, respectively, while the magenta diamonds and cyan stars
represent a mix of intraspin and interspin pairings as well as that of interspin triplet and
singlet pairings, respectively. The dashed lines $g_+=g_\updownarrow$ indicates $SU(2)$ symmetry
of the system.}
\label{fig:f4_3} \vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:f4_3}, we plot state diagrams characterizing
regions of various stable paring states, including intraspin
triplet (denoted by triangles), interspin triplet (squares), and
singlet pairings (circles), as well as a mixture of the two
triplet pairings (diamonds) and that of the interspin triplet and
singlet pairings (stars), in the $g_\updownarrow$--$g_+$ plane at
a descending series of $g_-/t=0$, $-0.04$, $-0.08$, $-0.1$, $-0.2$
and $-0.4$ [(a)--(f), respectively]. The dashed line on each
diagram denotes the $SU(2)$-symmetric region where
$g_+=g_\updownarrow$. At $g_-=0$ [(a)], the diagram has stable
intraspin and interspin triplet pairing regions, which
qualitatively match $\{g_\updownarrow<0,g_+ > g_\updownarrow\}$
and $\{g_+<0,g_+ < g_\updownarrow\}$, respectively, indicating the
survival pairing state due to both the attractive interaction and
the success in competition against the other one. There is no
stable pairing state in a region where the two couplings are both
repulsive or both strongly attractive such that no one wins the
competition. The diagram also shows no stable singlet pairing
everywhere. Remarkably, we find a mixed pairing state with both
triplet pairings being stable on the overlap between the two
triplet pairing regions along the dashed line denoting $SU(2)$
symmetry. We check that the mixed state has the same pair
fractions of the two triplet pairings $P_\updownarrow=P_+$, in
agreement with the discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:Model} that this
mixture is guaranteed by $SU(2)$ symmetry. [In fact, all data
points along the dashed lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:f4_3} show the same
set of eigenvalues corresponding to the intraspin and interspin
triplet pairings,
$\{\lambda^{(i)}_\updownarrow\}=\{\lambda^{(i)}_+\}$, reflecting
the $SU(2)$ symmetry of the pair density matrix (see details in
Appendix \ref{SU2}).] At $g_-=-0.04t$ [(b)], the two triplet
pairing regions separately move away from the dashed line, no
longer overlap, and hence leave no mixed pairing state. At
$g_-=-0.08t$ [(c)], the two triplet pairing regions further
separate and there appear singlet pairing states in the region of
positive or slightly negative $g_{\updownarrow,+}$. The singlet
pairing region overlaps the intraspin triplet one, producing a
mixed pairing region on a horizontal line of
$\{g_+=-0.16t=2g_-,g_\updownarrow \ge 0\}$. This mixture comprises
triplet and singlet pair species, which have different total spin
angular momentum but the same $\hat z$-component one. Since there
is no symmetry protection here, the pair fractions of both species
are not necessarily equal, or in general, $P_+ \neq P_-$. At
$g_-=-0.1t$ [(d)], the state diagram is similar to (c), with
further withdrawals of intraspin and interspin triplet pairing
regions toward the top-left and bottom-right corners,
respectively, an expansion of singlet pairing region, and a shift
of the mixed region of interspin triplet and singlet pairings to a
horizontal line of $\{g_+=-0.2t=2g_-,g_\updownarrow \ge 0.05t\}$.
At $g_-=-0.2t$ [(e)], the intraspin triplet pairing disappears in
the parameter range of interests, while the interspin triplet and
singlet pairing regions further separate from each other such that
the mixed region disappears as well. Finally, at a relatively
strong $g_-=-0.4t$ [(f)], only a small singlet pairing region
survives in the scope, occupying the top-right corner of the
diagram.
We turn to compare the mean-field results for a
translation-invariant system obtained in Sec.~\ref{sec:MF} and the
exact solutions for a fixed-number open-end chain here. First,
both cases show that a pairing state exists only if the
corresponding pairing coupling is attractive (negative). If two or
more pairing couplings are attractive, the corresponding pairing
states will compete with each other. Second, the quantities that
characterize pairing (the gaps in Sec.~\ref{sec:MF} or the pair
fractions here) always satisfy the same time-reversal or $SU(2)$
symmetry or both as the Hamiltonian does. Given time-reversal
symmetry, both cases can show mixed-pairing solutions of singlet
and triplet pairings. Given both time-reversal and $SU(2)$
symmetries, the mean-field case still shows this mixture but the
open-chain case does not. In addition, the open-chain case does
not exhibit notable topological signatures as the BdG Hamiltonian
does in the mean-field case. We attribute these issues to the
finite-size effects in the open-chain case and expect the two
cases' results closer to each other as the open-end chain size
increases. To achieve this, the study using density matrix
renormalization-group methods\cite{White93,Schollwock05} would be
helpful.
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:Conclusion}
In this paper, we studied a low-filling Hubbard chain model with
nearest-neighbor charge and spin interactions, which produce four
independently tunable pairing couplings, corresponding to two
intrapin triplet, one interspin triplet, and one singlet pairing
channels, respectively. First, we performed a mean-field treatment
on a large-size system with translational invariance and derived
four gap equations characterizing the pairing order parameters.
The BdG Hamiltonian obtained in the treatment can exhibit
nontrivial topology in a chemical potential range that is the same
as Kitaev's model\cite{Kitaev01} in a purely triplet pairing state
but shrinks with the presence of a singlet pairing order. The
mean-field phase diagram under the time-reversal and $SU(2)$
symmetries shows a purely triplet or singlet pairing region if the
corresponding coupling overwhelms the other and a mixed pairing
region when both couplings are compatible. (After the completion
of this work, we perceived that two other works investigating
two-dimensional electronic systems also indicated a topological
phase transition due to the competition between triplet and
singlet pairing states.\cite{Lu13,Yao13}) Second, we employed an
exact-diagonalization algorithm to compute the many-body ground
state of an open-end fixed-number system with modification to
reduce the finite-size effect. We used three signatures of pair
fractions to identify a stable pairing state of the system, which
approaches a pair condensate if such trends persist. Our results
under the time-reversal symmetry show a stable intraspin triplet,
interspin triplet, or singlet pairing state in a region where the
corresponding coupling dominates and an overlapped region of mixed
intraspin and interspin triplet or mixed interspin triplet and
singlet pairing states. The system's switch from the singlet or
intraspin triplet pairing state to the interspin triplet one
accompanies a peak in the pair susceptibility, and that from the
singlet or interspin triplet pairing state to the intraspin
triplet one accompanies a sign change in the relative entanglement
entropy. Both the mean-field and exact-diagonalization cases
agreeably show a competitive nature of these pairings and hence
enable the tuning of the system between different pairing states
as well as mixtures of them.
Finally, we point out two platforms with properties suited for the
potential realization of tunable pairing channels---the key
mechanism in our model. First, recently focused Rydberg or
Rydberg-dressed atomic
gases\cite{Henkel10,*Pupillo10,*Saffman10,*Honer10,*Mukherjee11,*Schmidt-Kaler11,*Sevincli11,*Ji11,*Schaub12,*Viteau12,*Hague12,*Lauer12,*Robert-de-Saint-Vincent13,*Baluktsian13,*Mattioli13,*McQuillen13,*Honing13}
exhibit controllable $s$-wave and $p$-wave two-body
interactions\cite{Hamilton02,Kurz13} as well as significant
nearest-neighbor couplings when loaded in optical
lattices\cite{Pohl10,Weimer10,Viteau11,Anderson11,Saha14}. Second,
multispecies dipolar
gases\cite{Samokhin06,*Wu10,*Shi10,*LiaoR10,*Kain11,*Shi13,*Qi13}
have been investigated for the competition between short-range
singlet and long-range triplet interactions, capable of realizing
various pairing states and their mixture in higher-dimensional
systems. In addition, a recent experiment\cite{Greif13} has
demonstrated a method to measure the spin-correlation in optical
lattices, which is directly related to the pair fraction in our
study. However, how to tailor theses ideas to a practical scheme
for our chain lattices is a challenge. One of the future
directions is to study the model realization and to propose
experimental detection for its pairing order as well as
topological state.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We are grateful to C. J. Bolech, Taylor L. Hughes, A. J. Leggett,
Shinsei Ryu, Nayana Shah and M. Stone for interesting discussions.
We acknowledge computational support from the Center for
Scientific Computing at the CNSI and MRL: NSF MRSEC (DMR-1121053)
and NSF CNS-0960316. This work was supported by DARPA-ARO Award
No. W911NF-07-1-0464 (KS), the University of Cincinnati (KS), the
Max Planck-UBC Center for Quantum Materials (CKC), the NSF
DMR-09-032991 (CKC), the HKRGC through Grant 605512, Grant 602813
and HKUST3/CRF09 (JW), and in part by Perimeter Institute for
Theoretical Physics (HHH). (Research at Perimeter Institute is
supported by the Government of Canada through Industry Canada and
by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Economic
Development and Innovation.) HHH and CKC thank the Department of
Physics at University of Cincinnati for the hospitality, where
part of the collaborative work took place.
|
\section{Introduction}
Plain Kolmogorov complexity $\C(x)$ of a bitstring~$x$ was independently defined
by Ray Solomonoff~\cite{solomonoffI} and later by
Andrei Kolmogorov~\cite{Kolmogorov65} as the minimal length of a program that produces~$x$ on a
Turing machine.
In both definitions programs are strings of zeros and ones written on a work tape; the beginning and
end of the program is marked by blanc symbols.
During the execution, the Turing machine (which we call {\em plain} machine) can scan the beginning
and end of the program and use its length as additional information during the computation.
After the computation, the output string should appear on the work tape, again the beginning and end
should be marked by blank symbols (see~\cite{LiVitanyi,GacsNotes} for details).
Kolmogorov complexity on such a machine is called {\em plain} complexity. It is currently the most
popular notion of Kolmogorov complexity.
A closely related notion of complexity was introduced by
Leonid Levin~\cite{LevinPpi,LevinCK} and Gregory Chaitin~\cite{Chaitin75}
and has many applications in the study of algorithmic randomness.
Imagine a Turing machine on which programs are presented on a separate $2$-symbol input tape.
The tape does not have blanc symbols, only zeros and ones.
During the execution more input is scanned until the machine reaches a halting state, after which
an output $x$ is defined. We write $U(p) = x$ if $p$ is the minimal initial segment of the input
tape that contains all scanned cells and if the result of the computation is~$x$.
During the computation, the length of $p$ is no longer available. Programs on such a machine are
also called {\em self-delimiting}.
Note that the set of programs on which $U$ halts is prefix-free.
The minimal length of a program outputting $x$ on such a machine
is called {\em prefix} complexity $\K(x)$.
Prefix complexity is larger (up to an $O(1)$ constant) than plain complexity
and the difference is at most $O(\log |x|)$, where $|x|$ denotes the length of $x$.
For many applications this difference is not important.
However, for applications in the theory of algorithmic randomness, often $O(1)$-precise relations
are used, and often one raises the question what happens when plain and prefix
complexity are exchanged in a result or a definition.
The goal of the paper is two-fold. First, we present a simple proof on a result that relates plain and prefix
complexity. Secondly, we refine a proof-technique (from~\cite{BauwensCompcomp})
to build strings where plain and prefix complexity
behave differently, and apply it to solve three open questions.
\bigskip
Several results are related to one of the
oldest questions in algorithmic randomness, raised by
Robert Solovay~\cite{Solovay} (see~\cite[page 263]{Downey}).
The maximal plain complexity of a string of length $n$ is $n + O(1)$ and we say that a string has
$c$-maximal complexity if $\C(x) \ge |x|-c$.
Martin-L\"of observed that for no $c$ and no infinite sequence all initial segments $x$ have
$c$-maximal complexity.
On the other hand, the class of sequences for which some $c$ and infinitely many initial segments
$x$ exist with $\C(x) \ge n - c$ has measure one.
Similar observations hold for prefix complexity, (where the maximal complexity is $n + K(n) + O(1)$).
Solovay's question is whether
the classes of sequences with infinitely often maximal plain and prefix complexity are the
same; in other words, is $\liminf_{x \sqsubset \omega} |x| - \C(x)$ finite
iff $\liminf_{x \sqsubset \omega} \K(|x|) + |x| - \K(x)$ is finite?
To answer this question, Solovay investigated whether there was a monotone relation
between $\C(\cdot)$ and $\K(\cdot)$. He found that this was approximately the case
by showing
\begin{eqnarray*}
\K(x) &=& \C(x) + \CC(x) + O(\CCC(x)) \\
\C(x) &=& \K(x) - \KK(x) + O(\KKK(x)) \,,
\end{eqnarray*}
where complexity of a number $n$ is the complexity of the $n$-bit string $00\dots 0$ and
where $\CC(x)$, $\KK(x)$, etc, be short for $\C(\C(x))$, $\K(\K(x))$, etc.
The proof in~\cite{Solovay} is cumbersome and Joseph Miller~\cite{MillerContrasting}
made some simplifications using symmetry of information for prefix complexity.
Here we use this technique to give an even much simpler proof.
(Readers only interested in this result can directly go to
sections~\ref{sec:prerequisites} and \ref{sec:relatingCandK}.)
\smallskip
Solovay showed that the continuation of the first equation with terms up to $O(\CCCC(x))$ does
not hold. He also showed that maximal prefix complexity implies maximal plain complexity,
but the reverse is not true:
there exist infinitely many $n$ and $x$ of length $n$ such that $n - \C(x) \le O(1)$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:prefixDef}
\K(n) + n - \K(x) \ge \log^{(2)} n - O(\log^{(3)} n) \,.
\end{equation}
In~\cite{BauwensCompcomp} a simple proof (and generalizations) are presented.
Here we further develop the proof technique to solve several open questions.
Despite this negative result,
Miller~\cite{Miller2randC,Miller2randK} showed a positive answer for Solovay's question:
the sequences that have infinitely many initial segments with maximal plain and prefix complexity
are the same.
The proof is indirect: it shows that both classes coincide with the class of $2$-random sequences,
i.e. Martin-L\"of random sequences relative to the halting problem (the equivalence of the first class
with $2$-randomness was also shown in~\cite{Nies2rand}).
Miller raised the question whether an (elegant) direct proof exists.
In~\cite{2rand} simple proofs of these equivalences with $2$-randomness are given, but still
no direct proof.
It is also shown that
\[
\liminf_{x \sqsubset \omega} [|x| - \C(x)] = \liminf_{x \sqsubset \omega} [\K(|x|) + |x| - \K(x)] + O(1) \,,
\]
by showing both sides equal $2$-randomness deficiency (see further).
Laurent Bienvenu~\cite{personalBienvenuNov2012} asked whether for a $2$-random sequence,
the initial segments for which plain and prefix-free
complexity are maximal are the same; more precisely, for $2$-random $\omega$, does there exist $c$ and $d$
such that for all $n$: $n-\C(\omega_1\dots\omega_n) \le c$ implies $\K(n) + n - \K(\omega_1\dots\omega_n) \le d$?
(For some $c$ and $d$ the reverse implication is always true.)
We show that this is not the case: for every $3$-random sequence (a subset of the $2$-random
sequences) there are infinitely many initial segments $x$ with $|x| - \C(x) \le O(1)$ for which~\eqref{eq:prefixDef} holds.
This makes the existence of a simple direct proof unlikely.
We refer to section~\ref{sec:contrastingIn3Random} for the proof of this result.
\bigskip
In algorithmic information theory, many relations are known between highly random sequences and
highly compressible sequences~\cite[Section 3.5]{BarmpaliasQuestions}. The second application of our technique
considers one such class called {\em the infinitely often $K$-trivial sequences}:
the sequences $\omega$ for which there exist $c$ and infinitely many $n$ such that
$\K(\omega_1\dots\omega_n) \le \K(n) + c$, i.e.
\[
\liminf_n \left[ \K(\omega_1\dots \omega_n) - \K(n) \right] \le O(1)
\]
This class contains the computably enumerable sequences and the (weakly) $1$-generic sequences.
Similar observations hold for the infinitely often $C$-trivial sequences, i.e. the sequences
for which \[\liminf_n [\C(\omega_1\dots \omega_n) - \C(n)] \le O(1)\,. \]
Question 1 in~\cite{BarmpaliasQuestions} asks whether both classes coincide.
We show that this is not the case.
\bigskip
A last application of the proof technique concerns randomness deficiency for infinite sequences.
Suppose one million zeros are prepended before a random string. The new string is still random, but
one might argue that it is somehow ``less random''.
Randomness deficiency quantifies the amount of structure in a random sequence (see~\cite[Section 3.6.2]{LiVitanyi}
and~\cite{GacsTestsInClass}).
Let $\mu(\omega)$ denote the uniform measure.
Two closely related notions of deficiency exist in literature.
\begin{itemize}
\item
A lower semicomputable\footnote{
A non-negative rational function $f$ on $\{0,1\}^\infty$ is {\em basic} if
$f(\omega)$ is determined by a finite prefix of $\omega$.
A function $f$ into $\overline{\mathbb{R}}^+$,
is {\em lower-semicomputable} if there exist a uniformly computable series of
(non-negative) basic functions $f_i$ such that $f = \sum_i f_i$.
}
function $f:\{0,1\}^\infty \rightarrow \overline{\mathbb{R}}^+$
(i.e. $\mathbb{R}^+$ extended with $+\infty$)
is a {\em probability bounded randomness test} if for each $k$
\[
\mu \left\{ \omega : f(\omega) \ge k \right\} \le k,\,.
\]
\item
A measurable function $f:\{0,1\}^\infty \rightarrow \overline{\mathbb{R}}^+$
is an {\em expectation bounded randomness test} if
\[
\int_{\{0,1\}^{^\infty}} f(\omega) \text{d}\omega \le 1 \,.
\]
\end{itemize}
The first notion is inspired by to the notion of confidence in statistical hypothesis testing,
while the second is closely related, but mathematically more convenient to handle.
There exists a lower semicomputable
expectation bounded test $f_E$ that exceeds any other such test $g$ within a constant factor,
i.e. for all $g$ there exist $c$ such that $g \le cf_E$.
The logarithm of such a universal test is called {\em expectation
bounded randomness deficiency~$d_E$}.
The deficiency depends on the choice of the universal test, but this choice affects the deficiency
by at most an additive constant.
Similar for probability bounded tests and {\em probability bounded deficiency~$d_P$}.
Both deficiencies are related: $d_E = d_P + O(\log d_P)$,
and both deficiencies are finite iff the sequence is Martin-L\"of random.
We argue that the relation between plain and prefix complexity is very similar to
the relation between $d_P$ and $d_E$.
Question 1 in \cite{GacsTestsInClass} asks whether there exists a monotone
relation between probability bounded deficiency and expectation bounded deficiency that holds
within additive $O(1)$ terms. If this is not
the case then there exist two families of sequences $\omega_i$ and $\omega'_i$ such that
\[
d_P(\omega_i) - d_P(\omega'_i) \rightarrow +\infty
\]
for increasing $i$, and
\[
d_E(\omega_i) - d_E(\omega'_i) \rightarrow -\infty ,\,.
\]
In Section \ref{sec:contrastingDeficiencies}, we translate the main proof technique to
deficiencies and construct such sequences.
Hence, no monotone relation exists between the deficiencies.
\bigskip
The paper is organized as follows: first we discuss two old results which will be used throughout
the paper: Levin's formula relating plain and prefix complexity and Levin's formula for symmetry of
information.
In the next section we present a simple proof for Solovay's formulas relating $C$ and $K$.
All further results in the paper demonstrate different behaviour of $C$ and $K$ and the proofs have
a common structure.
In section~\ref{sec:contrastingCandK}, we repeat the simplest such proof by showing that
some strings have maximal plain but non-maximal prefix complexity.
Afterwards, in section~\ref{sec:infOftenTrivial}, we show that the class of infinitely often $C$ and $K$ trivial sequences are different.
In section~\ref{sec:contrastingIn3Random}, we show that each $3$-random sequence has infinitely many initial segments with maximal plain
complexity but non-maximal prefix complexity. Finally, in section~\ref{sec:contrastingDeficiencies}, we show that no monotone relationship exists
between plain and prefix randomness deficiency.
Section \ref{sec:relatingCandK}, sections \ref{sec:contrastingCandK}, \ref{sec:infOftenTrivial}, \ref{sec:contrastingIn3Random},
and section~\ref{sec:contrastingDeficiencies} can be red independently.
\section{Prerequisites} \label{sec:prerequisites}
Two results are central in most proofs.
The first is Levin's symmetry of information~\cite{complexityOfComplexity}: for all $x,y$
\[
\K(x) + \K(y|x,\K(x)) = \K(x,y) \,.
\]
The conditional variant is given by
\[
\K(x|z) + \K(y|x,\K(x|z),z) = \K(x,y|z) \,.
\]
The second result relates plain and prefix complexity for random strings.
For all $n$-bit $x$: $\C(x) = n + O(1)$ iff $\K(x|n) = n + O(1)$.
We will use a more general variant.
\begin{lemma}[Folklore]\label{lem:relateDeficiencies}
For all $j$ and $x$
\[
|j - \C(x)| = \Theta \left(\left| j - \K(x|j)\right| \right)
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The Lemma implies Levin's formula
\[
\C(x) = \K(x|\C(x)) + O(1)\,,
\]
and in fact, it is equivalent to it:
for any $j$ it implies $\K(x|j) = C(x)$ up to terms $O(\log |j - \C(x)|)$, and
by the triangle inequality:
\[
|j - \K(x|j)| = |j - \C(x)| + O\left(\log |j - \C(x)|\right)\,.\qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
\section{Relating plain and prefix complexity} \label{sec:relatingCandK}
Recall that $\KK(x)$, $\CC(x)$, etc, are short for $\K(\K(x))$, $\C(\C(x))$, etc.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:SolovayI}
\begin{eqnarray}
\K(x) &=& \C(x) + \CC(x) + O(\CCC(x)) \nonumber\\
\C(x) &=& \K(x) - \KK(x) + O(\KKK(x)) \label{eq:second}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Using symmetry of information we have
\[
\K(x) = \K(x,\K(x)) = \KK(x) + \K(x|\K(x), \KK(x) ) + O(1)\,.
\]
The last term equals $\K(x|\K(x)-\KK(x)\,) + O(\KKK(x))$.
For $j = \K(x) - \KK(x)$ the equality is
\[
j = \K(x|j) + O\left(\KKK(x)\right)\,.
\]
Thus $\C(x) = j + O\left(\KKK(x)\right)$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:relateDeficiencies}, i.e. \eqref{eq:second}.
\smallskip
We obtain the first equation of the theorem from the second by showing that
\begin{eqnarray}
\CC(x) &=& \KK(x) + O(\KKK(x)) \label{eq:CCvsKK} \\
\KKK(x) &\le& O(\CCC(x)) \label{eq:CCCvsKKK}\,.
\end{eqnarray}
For \eqref{eq:CCvsKK}, note that $a = b - c + O(d)$ implies $\C(a) = \C(b) + O(\K(c) + d)$. Applying
this to \eqref{eq:second} we obtain
\begin{equation*
\C(\C(x)) = \C(\K(x)) + O(\K(\KK(x)) + \KKK(x))\,.
\end{equation*}
Substituting $x \leftarrow \K(x)$ in \eqref{eq:second} gives
\[
\C(\K(x)) = \K(\K(x)) + \KK(\K(x)) + O(\KKK(x))\,.
\]
Combining both equations implies \eqref{eq:CCvsKK}.
\smallskip
It remains to show that \eqref{eq:CCvsKK} implies \eqref{eq:CCCvsKKK}. Using $\K(a) \le
\K(b) + \K(b-a) + O(1)$:
\[
\K(\KK(x)) \le \K(\CC(x)) + \K(\KK(x) - \CC(x)) + O(1)
\]
The first term at the right is bounded by $2\C(\CC(x))+O(1)$.
For the second, note that $\K(d) \le O(\log d)$ for any number $d$,
hence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:relateKKKtoCCCprecise}
\KKK(x) \le 2\CCC(x) + O(\log \KKK(x)) \,,
\end{equation}
i.e. \eqref{eq:CCCvsKKK}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:CCCvsKKK} The proof implies that
$\K(x) = \C(x) + O(\CC(x))$ and $\KK(x) = \CC(x) + O(\CCC(x))$.
Alexander Shen raised the question whether $\KKK(x) = \CCC(x) + O(\CCCC(x))$?
This does not hold. The proof is cumbersome and uses a topological argument
from~\cite{ShenTopological}, see appendix~\ref{sec:CCCvsKKK}.\footnote{
\label{foot:DoubleComplexities}
For later use in the appendix, note that the proof above also implies
\[
\CC(x), \; \mathit{CK}\,(x), \; \mathit{KC}\,(x), \; \KK(x),
\]
are all equal within error $O(\CCC(x))$ and error $O(\KKK(x))$. (Indeed, to relate $\KK(x)$ to
$\mathit{KC}\,(x)$, apply $K(\cdot)$ to \eqref{eq:second}.)
Moreover, for all $U,V,W,X,Y,Z \in \{C,K\}$ we have that
$\mathit{UVW}\,(x) \le O\left(\mathit{XYZ}\,(x)\right)$.
%
Indeed, by
applying $\C(a) = \C(b) + O(\log (a-b))$ on the equalities above,
we obtain that $\mathit{CYZ}\,(x) = \mathit{CCC}\,(x) + O(\log \CCC(x))$.
In the same way one shows that
$\mathit{KYZ}\,(x) = \mathit{KKK}\,(x) + O(\log \KKK(x))$.
The result follows now from \eqref{eq:relateKKKtoCCCprecise}.
}
\end{remark}
\section{Contrasting maximal plain and prefix complexity} \label{sec:contrastingCandK}
To get used to the main proof technique for the remainder of this paper,
we start by showing the subsequent variant of Solovay's theorem.
\begin{theorem}[Solovay~\cite{Solovay}, Bauwens and Shen~\cite{BauwensCompcomp}]\label{th:SolovayII}
There exist infinitely many $x$ such that
$|x| - C(x) \le O(1)$ and $\K(|x|) + |x| - \K(x) \ge \log^{(2)} |x|-O(1)$.
\end{theorem}
The main technique is to combine the two results from Section~\ref{sec:prerequisites}
with a third result: Peter G\'acs' quantification of incomputability
of Kolmogorov complexity~\cite{complexityOfComplexity}.
He showed that for all lengths, there are $x$
such that $\K(\K(x)|x)$ is close to $\log |x|$ (and similar for plain complexity);
if complexity were computable, then this would be bounded by $O(1)$.
The following tight variant from~\cite{BauwensCompcomp} will be used:
\begin{theorem}\label{th:GacsTight}
For some $c$ and all $l$ there exist an $n$ such that $\log n = 2^l$, $\K(n) \ge (\log n)/2$
and $\K(\K(n)|n) \ge l - c$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:GacsTight}
If $n$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem~\ref{th:GacsTight}, then
\[
\log^{(2)} n = \log \K(n) + O(1) = \K(\K(n)|n) + O(1) \,.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Indeed, dropping additive $O(1)$ terms, the left equality follows from
\[
\log^{(2)} n \le \log ((\log n)/2) \le \log K(n) \le \log (2\log n) \le \log^{(2)} n \,.
\]
It remains to show that $\K(\K(n)|n) \le \log^{(2)} n$.
Indeed, $\K(\K(n)|n) \le \K(\K(n) | \log^{(2)} n)$.
and using $\log^{(2)} n = \log \K(n)$ this follows from $\K(i|\log i) \le \log i$.\footnote{
\label{foot:Gacs} For the proof in the appendix note that this argument implies
$\K(\K(n)|\log^{(2)} n) = \log^{(2)} n$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:relateDeficiencies} this implies
$\C(\K(n)) = \log^{(2)} n$.
}
\end{proof}
\bigskip
We informally explain why some strings have maximal plain complexity but non-maximal prefix
complexity.
There exist plain machines $U$ for which a string $w$ exist such that $U(wx) = x$ for all $x$.
If $x$ has $O(1)$-maximal plain complexity, then $wx$ is an $O(1)$-shortest
program for $x$.
In a similar way, there exist a prefix machine $V$
such that for some $w$ we have $V(wx|\,|x|) = x$ for all $x$;
indeed, $V$ just copies the input from the program tape and uses
the condition $|x|$ to know when to stop this operation.
If the length of $x$ is not available in the condition,
no such trivial programs might exist.
To decide when to halt the copying procedure,
the length of $x$ must somehow be represented
in the program in self-delimited form.
If the length of the program is minimal (within an $O(1)$ constant),
this encryption of the length should also be minimal.
Mathematically, this corresponds to the following observations: $\K(x) = \K(n,x)$, (here and below we
omit $O(1)$ terms); and by symmetry of information
\[
\K(n,x) = \K(n) + \K(x|n,\K(n)) \,.
\]
Thus, any shortest program for $x$ can be reorganized into a concatenation of two self-delimiting programs:
the first computes $n$ and the second uses $n$ and the length of the first program to compute $x$.
The prefix deficiency is $\K(n) + n - \K(x) = n - \K(x|n,\K(n))$ and this is different from the
plain deficiency which is close to $n - \K(x|n)$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:relateDeficiencies}.
This explains why small prefix deficiency implies small plain deficiency, but not vice
versa. In particular the deficiencies can only be different if $\K(\K(n)|n)$ is large,
and this might indeed happen because of Theorem~\ref{th:GacsTight}.
For appropriate $n$ the discussion explains how we construct $x$, it should contain $\K(n)$
and then be filled up further with bits independent from $n$ and $\K(n)$ until the plain complexity
is $n$. This is the approach in~\cite{BauwensCompcomp}, here we take advantage of the fact that
the program with largest computation time of length at most $n$ can also compute $\K(n)$ from $n$.
The proof below is even shorter than that of~\cite[Corrolary 6]{BauwensCompcomp}.
\begin{proof}
As discussed above, we choose $n$, the length of $x$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:compOfComp}
\K(\K(n)|n) = \log^{(2)} n +O(1)\,.
\end{equation}
By Theorem~\ref{th:GacsTight} and Lemma~\ref{lem:GacsTight}, there exist infinitely many such $n$.
Let $x = B(n)$ be the program of length at most~$n$ with maximal running time
on a plain machine. We drop $O(1)$ terms. Note that $\C(B(n)) = n = |B(n)|$.
It remains to show $\K(B(n)) \le n + \K(n) - \log^{(2)} n$ and this follows from
\[
\K(B(n)|n,\K(n)) \le n - \log^{(2)} n
\]
(see above or note that $\K(B(n)) = \K(n,B(n)) = \K(n) + \K(B(n)|n,\K(n))$).
From $n$ and $B(n)$ we can compute $\K(n)$, thus $n = \C(B(n)) = \K(B(n)|n)$ also equals
\[
\K(\K(n),B(n)|n) \\
= \K(\K(n)|n) + \K(B(n)|\K(n), \K(\K(n)|n), n)\,.
\]
Applying \eqref{eq:compOfComp} twice implies
$n = \log^{(2)} n + \K(B(n) | \K(n),n)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
As a corollary it follows that
$\K(x) = \C(x) + \CC(x) + \CCC(x) + O(\CCCC(x))$ is false.
To show it contradicts Theorem~\ref{th:SolovayII} note that $\CCCC(x) \le O(\log^{(3)}(n)$.
Let $x$ satisfy the conditions of the theorem and choose $y$ of length~$n$ with maximal plain and prefix
complexity. Now $\K(x) - \K(y) \ge \log^{(2)} n - O(\log^{(3)} n)$.
For similar reasons the following inequality is not an equality
\[
\K(x) \le \K(\C(x)) + \C(x)\,, \\
\]
see also Remark \ref{remark:openQuestion} below.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Miller generalized Solovay's theorem~\cite{MillerContrasting}. The proof above also
implies this generalization.
\begin{theorem*}
If a co-enumerable set (i.e. the complement can be algorithmically enumerated) of strings
contains a string of each length, then it also contains infinitely many strings $x$ such that
$K(|x|) + |x| - \K(x) \ge \log^{(2)} |x| - O(1)$.
\end{theorem*}
This theorem also implies that the set of strings with maximal prefix complexity is not co-enumerable.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $n$ satisfies the conditions of Theorem~\ref{th:GacsTight}.
Let $x$ be the lexicographically first string of length $n$ in the set.
We show that $x$ can be computed from $B(n+c)$ for some constant $c$, and this suffices because
we know from the proof above that $\K(BB(n+c)) \le n + \K(n) - \log^{(2)} n + O(c)$.
Consider a list of all strings of length $n$ and remove the strings outside the set using
an enumeration of its complement. The moment the last string was removed can be computed with
a program of length $n + O(1)$ on a plain machine (by the total number of removed strings
prepended with zeros to have an $n$-bit number). Thus, this moment must be before $B(n+c)$ for
large $c$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The proof above can be used to contrast
{\em computational depth} with plain and prefix complexity. In~\cite[Tentative\footnote{
Although it was called ``tentative'' definition, this version is simpler than the others
and is more often used in literature.
}
definition 1]{Bennett} the computational depth of a string $x$
with precision $c$ is given by the minimal computation time
of a plain program for $x$ of length at most $\C(x) + c$:
\[
\depth_{C,c}(x) = \min \left\{t: |p| \le \C(x) + c \text{ and } U(p) = x \text{ in $t$ steps} \right\}\,.
\]
In a similar way, computational depth $\depth_{K,c}(x)$ with prefix machines can be
defined.\footnote{
We assume in all these definitions that the machine $U$ is universal in the sense that for each other machine $V$ there
exist $w$ such that $U\left( wp \right) = V(p)$ each time $V(p)$ is defined and that simulating
$V$ by $U$ in this way increases the computation time by a computable function.
}
With this assumption it follows easily that there exist a computable $f$
such that $\depth_{K,c+2\log |x|}(x) \le f(\depth_{C,c}(x))$ and that $\depth_{C,c+2\log |x|}(x) \le f(\depth_{K,c}(x))$
for $x$ of large length.
The subsequent proposition shows that with higher precision, the equivalence is not possible. Let
$BB(n)$ be the maximal computation time of a program of length at most $n$ on a plain machine
(i.e. the computation time of $B(n)$).
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition*}\label{prop:compareDepth}
There exist a $c$ and infinitely many $x$ such that
$\depth_{C,c}(x)$ is bounded by a computable function of $x$ (and in fact bounded by a constant for an
appropriate universal machine) and $\depth_{K,\log^{(2)} |x| - c}(x)$
exceeds $BB(|x|-c)$.
\end{proposition*}
\begin{proof}
Consider the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:SolovayII}.
Rather than choosing $x$ to be $B(n)$, we fix some appropriate $c$ (see further),
and choose $x$ to be the lexicographically first $n$-bit string such that $\C(x) \ge n-2$ and
no self-delimiting program of length $n + \K(n)-c$ outputs $x$ in at most $BB(n)$ steps.
$x$ exist because for large $d$ there are at most $O(2^{n-d})$
strings of length $n$ with complexity $n + \K(n)-d$
(see~\cite[Theorem 3.7.6 p. 129]{Downey}, this also follows from the coding theorem).
By construction $\C(x) \ge n - O(1)$ thus a trivial program of $x$ on a plain machine
is shortest within $O(1)$. Hence, the depth of $x$ is small on a plain machine.
Because $x$ can be computed from $B(n)$, the proof above guarantees that for infinitely many $n$ we have
$\K(x) \le \K(B(n)) + O(1) \le n + \K(n) - \log^{(2)} n + O(1)$. Fix such an $n$. To have
$\depth_{K,\log^{(2)} n - e}(x) < BB(n)$, we need a program for $x$ that computes $x$ in time less than
$BB(n)$ of length
$n + \K(n) - \log^{(2)} n + O(1) + (\log^{(2)} n - e) = n + \K(n) + O(1) - e$. For large $e$ this
contradicts the choice of $x$, and hence the depth is at least $BB(n-O(1))$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{remark:openQuestion}
There exist infinitely many $x$ such that $\K(\K(x)|x,\C(x)) \ge \log^{(2)} n - O(1)$. Indeed,
let $n$ be as in Theorem~\ref{th:GacsTight}. Let $x$ of length $n$ have maximal prefix
(and hence plain) complexity such that $\K(\K(n)|x,n) \ge \K(\K(n)|n) - O(1)$.
This implies
\[
\K(\K(x)|x,\C(x)) = \K(n + \K(n)|x,n) = \K(\K(n)|x,n) \ge \K(\K(n)|n) \ge \log^{(2)} n
\]
up to $O(1)$ terms.
On the other hand $\K(\C(x)|x,\K(x))$ must be very small and it is an {\em open question} whether it is bounded by a
constant. In particular this would imply that the inequality
\[
\K(x) \le \K(\C(x)) + \K\left(x|\C(x),\K(\C(x))\right)
\]
is an equality, which is also an {\em open question}.
\end{remark}
\section{Infinitely often $C$ and $K$ trivial sequences} \label{sec:infOftenTrivial}
In the previous section we argued why a shortest self-delimiting program for a string
can contain more information than a shortest plain program. This suggest that the classes of
infinitely often $C$ and $K$ trivial sequences might be different. The following theorem illustrates
this.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:trivialCvsK}
There exists a sequence $\omega$ for which
$\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_N) - \K(N) \le O(1)$ for infinitely many $N$, and for which
$\C(\omega_1\dots \omega_N) - \C(N)$ tends to infinity.
\end{theorem}
\begin{figure}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick,gray] node[anchor=east] {\dots} (0,0)
-- (7,0) node[anchor=west] {\dots};
\draw[very thick,gray] (2,0) -- node[anchor=north,black] {$2^{n-1}$} ++(0,-0.1) ;
\draw[very thick,gray] (4,0) -- node[anchor=north,black] {$2^{n}$} ++(0,-0.1) ;
\draw[very thick,gray] (6,0) -- node[anchor=north,black] {$2^{n+1}$} ++(0,-0.1) ;
\draw[ultra thick] (1.1,0) -- node[anchor=south] {$1w_{n-1}$} (1.95,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (3.1,0) -- node[anchor=south] {$1w_{n}$} (3.95,0);
\draw[ultra thick] (5.1,0) -- node[anchor=south] {$1w_{n+1}$} (5.95,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Construction of $\omega$ in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:trivialCvsK}.}
\label{fig:trivialCvsK}
\end{figure}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $B(n)$ is a program of length at most $n$ with maximal running time on a plain
machine.
$\omega$ consists of zeros, except at small neighborhoods before indexes $2^n$ for all large $n$,
and in these neighborhoods strings $w_n = B(n + \log^{(2)} n)$ are placed,
see Figure~\ref{fig:trivialCvsK};
more precisely $\omega_{2^n - |w_n|} \dots \omega_{2^n} = 1w_n$ (the prepended one in
$1w_n$ allows us to identify the beginning of $w_n$).
We show that $\C(\omega_1\dots \omega_N) - \C(N) \ge \log^{(3)} N - O(1)$ for all $N$, which
obviously tends to infinity.
Fix any $N$ and let $n$ be such that $2^n \le N < 2^{n+1}$.
The initial segment $\omega_1\dots \omega_N$ computes $w_n$,
thus $\C(\omega_1\dots \omega_N) \ge \C(w_n) \ge n + \log^{(2)} n$ (here and below
we omit terms $O(1)$). On the other hand we have $\C(N) \le \log N = n$, hence
\[
\C(\omega_1\dots \omega_N) - \C(N) \ge (n + \log^{(2)} n) - n = \log^{(2)} n = \log^{(3)} N\,.
\]
\smallskip
It remains to construct $c$ and infinitely many $N$ such that $\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_N)\le \K(N)+c$.
The idea is to choose for infinitely many $n$ some $N$ such that
$2^n \le N < 2^{n+1}-|w_{n+1}|$ and such that some shortest program for $N$ can compute $w_n$ with
$O(1)$ of information; thus it can also compute $w_1, w_2, \dots, w_{n-1}$ and
$\omega_1\dots\omega_N$ with $O(1)$ bits of information.
As one might guess, we choose $n$ such that $\K(\K(n)|n) = \log^{(2)} n$.
Let us compute $\K(w_n| n,\K(n))$ in a similar way as before. We drop $O(1)$ terms:
\begin{eqnarray*}
n + \log^{(2)} n & = & \C(w_n) = \K(w_n|n) = \K(\K(n),w_n|n) \\
&=& \K(\K(n)|n) + \K(w_n|\K(n),\K(\K(n)|n),n) \\
&=& \log^{(2)} n + \K(w_n|\K(n),n) \,.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus $\K(w_n| n,\K(n)) = n$.
Let $N$ in binary be the first $n-2$ bits of a program witnessing this equation
(i.e. a program of length at most $n+O(1)$ computing $w_n$ from $n$ and $\K(n)$) prepended with
the string ``$10$''. Prepending ``$10$'' guarantees that $2^n \le N < 2^{n+1} - |w_{n+1}|$ for large $n$.
By construction, if $n$ and $\K(n)$ are given, $N$ can compute $w_n$ with $O(1)$ bits of
information. Thus it also computes $w_1, \dots, w_{n-1}$ and
$\omega_1\dots\omega_N$.
On the other hand, every shortest program for $N$ can also compute $n$ and $\K(n)$
with $O(1)$ bits of information. Indeed,
\[
\K(N) = \K(N,n) = \K(n) + \K(N|n,\K(n))\,;
\]
thus on a universal prefix machine, there exist a $O(1)$-shortest program for $N$
that is the concatenation of two self-delimiting programs
and the length of the first is $\K(n)$.
Together:
\[
\K(N) = \K(n,\K(n),N) = \K(w_1,\dots,w_n,n,\K(n),N)
\ge \K(\omega_1\dots \omega_N)\,. \qedhere
\]
\end{proof}
\section{Contrasting plain and prefix complexity in $3$-random sequences} \label{sec:contrastingIn3Random}
\begin{theorem}\label{th:unboundedK_boundedC}
For every $3$-random sequence $\omega$ there are a $c$ and infinitely many $j$ such that
$j - \C(\omega_1\dots \omega_j) \le c$
and $\K(j) + j - \K(\omega_1\dots \omega_j) \ge \log^{(2)} j -c$.
\end{theorem}
We conjecture that the result holds for all $2$-random sequences. It is possible to present the
proof in game structure, but both the game and the strategy are quite complicated. We give
a proof that has the same core structure as the other proofs above.
In the proof we use two lemmas. The first roughly states that randomness deficiency of a string is bounded by
the deficiency of an initial segment.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:deficiencyInitialSegment}
Let $j = |x|$ and $n = |xy|$
\begin{eqnarray*}
j - \K(x|j) \le n - \K(xy|j,n) + O(1) \\
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We omit $O(1)$ terms. Observe that $\K(xy|j,n) = \K(x,y|j,n)$, and this is bounded by
\[
\le \K(x|j,n) + \K(y|x,j,n) \le \K(x|j) + n-j \,,
\]
because $\K(y | \,|y|) \le |y|$ for all strings $y$ and $|y|=n-j$ is computable from the condition.
The inequality of the lemma follows after rearranging.
\end{proof}
Let $a$ and $b$ be two strings of the same length. Let $XOR(a,b)$ denote the bitwise XOR
operator on these strings. The following lemma states that if $a$ is incompressible,
and $b$ is incompressible given $a$, then also $b$ is incompressible relative to $XOR(a,b)$.
In fact, we will use a generalization which states
that if an extension $bw$ is incompressible given $a$, then this extension is incompressible
given $XOR(a,b)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:XORencryption}
Let $a$ and $b$ be strings of equal length $\ell$, let $w$ be any string, let $n = |bw|$, and let $i$ be
any number. If
\[
K(a|\ell,n,i) \ge \ell -c \text{\;\;\; and \;\;\; } K(bw|a,n,i) \ge n - c\,,
\]
then
\[
\K(bw|XOR(a,b),n,i) \ge n - O(c)\,.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof
In the lemma all complexities are conditional to $i$.
The proof of the conditional form follows the unconditional one, presented here.
We first consider the case where $w$ is the empty string,
the proof for non-empty $w$ follows the same
structure and will be presented afterwards. We need to show that for all $c,\ell,a,b$ such that
$|a|=|b|=\ell$, $\K(a|\ell) \ge \ell-c$ and $\K(b|a) \ge \ell -c$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lemXorGoalSimple}
\K(b|XOR(a,b)) \ge \ell + O(c) \,.
\end{equation}
\smallskip
Indeed,
\[
\K(a,b|\ell) = \K(a|\ell) + \K(b|a,\ell,\K(a|\ell)) + O(1)\,.
\]
By assumption $\K(a|\ell) \ge \ell-c$, thus $\K(a|\ell) = \ell + O(c)$ and the last term simplifies to
$\K(b|a,\ell) + O(c)$ and this equals $\ell + O(c)$. Hence $\K(a,b|\ell) = 2\ell + O(c)$.
Let $xor = XOR(a,b)$. Because $a = XOR(b,xor)$ we have up to additive terms $O(c)$:
\[
2\ell = \K(a,b|\ell) \le \K(xor, b|\ell) \le \K(xor|\ell) + \K(b|xor,\ell) \le \ell + \K(b|xor)\,,
\]
and this implies \eqref{eq:lemXorGoalSimple}.
\smallskip
We modify the equations above for the case where $w$ is not empty. Let $n = |bw|$ and remind that
$|a|=\ell$. We start with
\[
\K(a,b,w|\ell,n) = \K(a|\ell,n) + \K(b,w|a,\K(a|\ell,n),n) \ge \ell + n - O(c)\,.
\]
Note that because $\ell=|b|$ we have $\K(bw,\dots|\ell,\dots) = \K(b,w,\dots|\ell,\dots)$.
The left-hand also equals
\[
\K(xor, b,w|\ell,n) \le \K(xor|\ell,n) + \K(b,w|xor,\ell,n) \le \ell + \K(b,w|xor,n)\,,
\]
hence $\K(b,w|xor,n) \ge n - O(c)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:unboundedK_boundedC}]
Let $\omega$ be $3$-random.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:relateDeficiencies}, it suffices to construct infinitely many~$j$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:condC}
\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_j|j) \ge j - O(1)
\end{equation}
and $\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_j|j,\K(j)) \le j - \log^{(2)} j + O(1)$. (Indeed, the last inequality implies
$\K(\dots) \le j + \K(j) - \log^{(2)} j + O(1)$ for the same reasons as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{th:SolovayII}.)
The second inequality follows from
\begin{equation}\label{eq:condK}
\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_{\log^{(2)} j}|j,\K(j)) \le O(1)\,.
\end{equation}
\medskip
\textbf{Sketch of the proof.}
As usual, we construct $j$ such that $\K(\K(j)|j) \ge \log^{(2)} j - O(1)$. For technical reasons,
we start with an index $i$ that will have almost the same information as $j$ and that
satisfies $\K(\K(i)|i) \ge \log^{(2)} i - O(1)$.
We also show that $i$ can be chosen such that $i$ and $K(i)$ are independent from $\omega_1\dots\omega_n$
for an initial segment with maximal plain complexity (for this we need that $\omega$ is $3$-random).
The main idea is to use $K(i)$ to encrypt the first $\log \K(i)$ bits of~$\omega$ (using the bitwise XOR operator).
Let $q$ be this encryption. We show (using Lemma~\ref{lem:XORencryption}) that
\[
K(\omega_1\dots \omega_n|i,q,n) \ge n-O(1)\,.
\]
But with our encryption key $\K(i)$, we can decrypt the initial segment of $\omega$, thus
\[
\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_{\log \K(i)}|i,q,\K(i)) \le O(1)\,.
\]
Finally, we define $j \le n$ by applying a bijective computable function of $i$ and~$q$.
Thus the pair $(q,i)$ contains the same information as $j$, i.e.
$\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_n|i,q,n) = \K(\omega_1\dots \omega_n|j,n) + O(1)$.
Thus $\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_j|j,n) \ge j - O(1)$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:deficiencyInitialSegment}.
On the other hand, the construction implies that $\log^{(2)} j = \log \K(i) + O(1)$ and that
$\K(i)$ and $\K(j)$ carry the same information. Hence
\begin{equation*
\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_{\log^{(2)} j}|j,\K(j)) =
\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_{\log \K(i)}|i,q,\K(i)) + O(1)\le O(1)\,,
\end{equation*}
and this finishes the proof.
\medskip
\textbf{Requirements for $n,i$ and $q$.}
We choose infinitely many triples $(n,i,q)$ and start with formulating five requirements
from which equations \eqref{eq:condC} and \eqref{eq:condK} follow.
Let $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ be a computable bijective pairing function from numbers and strings to
numbers. For later use we assume that $\log \langle k,x \rangle = \log k + O(|x|)$ for all $k$ and $x$.
Equation \eqref{eq:condC} with $j = \langle i,q \rangle$, follows from
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(a)$] $\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_n|i,q,n) \ge n - O(1)$,
\item[$(b)$] $\langle i,q\rangle \le n$ for large $n$,
\end{itemize}
and Lemma~\ref{lem:deficiencyInitialSegment}.
Equation~\eqref{eq:condK} follows from:
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(A)$] $\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_{\log \K(i)} | \K(i),q) \le O(1)$,
\item[$(B)$] $\log \K(i) = \log^{(2)} \langle i,q \rangle + O(1)$,
\item[$(C)$] $\K(i,q) = \K(i) + \log \K(i) + O(1)$.
\end{itemize}
Indeed, for all $z$, $(C)$ implies
$\K(z|i,q,\K(i)) = \K(z|i,q,\K(j)) + O(1)$.
\medskip
\textbf{Construction of $n$ and $i$.}
We use the characterization of $2$-random sequences with plain complexity:
\begin{theorem*}[Joseph Miller~\cite{Miller2randC}, Nies--Stephan--Terwijn~\cite{Nies2rand}]
A sequence $\omega$ is Martin-L\"of random relative to the Halting problem if and only if there exist a
$c$ and infinitely many $n$ such that $\C(\omega_1\dots\omega_n) \ge n - c$.
\end{theorem*}
The proof of this theorem relativizes to the halting problem $\mathbf{0'}$, i.e., a sequence is $3$-random
if and only if there are a $c$ and infinitely many $n$ such that
$\CH(\omega_1\dots\omega_n) \ge n - c$.
Fix such an $n$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:relateDeficiencies}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:select_n}
\KH(\omega_1\dots\omega_n| n)\ge n - O(1)\,.
\end{equation}
From now on we only use complexities that are conditional to~$n$. For notational
simplicity we drop $n$ from the condition, thus $\K(a) \equiv \K(a|n)$, $\K(a|b) \equiv
\K(a|b,n)$, etc.
Let $i$ be the largest number such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[$(i)$]
$\K(\K(i)|i) \ge \log^{(2)} i - c$ and $\K(i) \ge (\log i)/2$,
where $c$ is the constant from Theorem~\ref{th:GacsTight}.
\item[$(ii)$]
$\langle i,x \rangle \le n$ for all $x$ of length at most $1 + \log^{(2)} i$.
\end{itemize}
Such $i$ exists because also the conditional version of Theorem~\ref{th:GacsTight} holds.
In fact, for increasing choices of $n$, we find infinitely many such $i$.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:GacsTight}, the first condition implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:logKiVsLoggi}
\log \K(i) = \log^{(2)} i + O(1)\,.
\end{equation}
Note that $i$ and $\K(i)$ can be computed from $\mathbf{0'}$ and $n$, hence \eqref{eq:select_n} implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:select_i}
\K(\omega_1\dots\omega_n| i,\K(i)) \ge n - O(1)\,.
\end{equation}
\medskip
\textbf{Construction of $q$.}
$q$ is given by the bitwise XOR-function of $K(i)$ in binary,
and the initial segment of $\omega$ with the same length:
\[
q = XOR\left(\omega_1\dots \omega_{\log K(i)}, \langle K(i) \rangle \right) \,.
\]
Because $XOR(a,XOR(a,b)) = b$ this implies $(A)$.
Recall that all complexities implicitly have $n$ in the condition and that $\K(\K(i)|i) \ge \log^{(2)} i + O(1)$.
Together with \eqref{eq:select_i}, this can be applied to Lemma~\ref{lem:XORencryption} (with $l = \log \K(i) = \log^{(2)} i + O(1)$,
$bw = \omega_1\dots \omega_n$ and $a = \langle \K(i) \rangle$)
and we conclude that $\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_n|i,q,n) \ge n - O(1)$, i.e. condition $(a)$.
For large $n$, we have large $i$, and hence $|q| = \log \K(i) \le \log (2\log i) = 1 + \log^{(2)} i$.
By choice of $i$ (the second condition) this implies $(b)$.
We assumed that the pairing function satisfies $\log \langle i,q \rangle = \log i + O(|q|) = \log i +
O(\log^{(2)} i)$. Thus $\log^{(2)} \langle i,q \rangle = \log^{(2)} i + O(1)$. By~\eqref{eq:logKiVsLoggi} this implies $(B)$.
It remains to show $(C)$.
Note that
\[
\K(i,q) = \K(i) + \K\left(q | i, \K(i)\right)\,.
\]
The last term equals
$\K(\omega_1\dots \omega_{\log \K(i)}|i, \K(i))$. By \eqref{eq:select_i} and
Lemma~\ref{lem:deficiencyInitialSegment} this is at least
$\log \K(i) + O(1)$, and in fact it is equal to this, because $K(z|\,|z|) \le |z|$ for all $z$.
\end{proof}
\section{Contrasting expectation and probabilistically bounded deficiency} \label{sec:contrastingDeficiencies}
Recall from the introduction that there exist two different notions
of randomness deficiency for a sequence $\omega$.
We start by showing that the two notions are related.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:characterize_d_P}
\[
d_P(\omega) = \sup \{k: d_E(\omega|k) \ge k\} + O(1)\;\;\;
\footnote{
Conditional probability bounded deficiency is defined in the natural way: it
is the logarithm of a multiplicatively maximal function $f(\cdot|k)$ that is
lower semicomputable uniformly in $k$, such that for each $k$ the function is a
probability bounded test.
}
\]
\end{proposition}
This characterization is closely related to a characterization of plain complexity in terms of prefix complexity
(see~\cite[Lemma 3.1.1 p. 203]{LiVitanyi}):
\[
\C(x) = \min \left\{k: \K(x|k) \le k \right\} + O(1)\,.
\]
Many results relating and contrasting prefix and plain complexity on one side,
can be translated to results about expectation and probability bounded
deficiency. (In these results $d_E(\cdot)$ corresponds to $\K(\cdot)$ and $d_P(\cdot)$ to $\C(\cdot)$.)
\begin{proof}
For the $\ge$-direction
we need to show that the exponent of the supremum defines a lower-semicomputable probability bounded test.
$d_E$ is lower semicomputable, thus also the supremum is lower semicomputable,
and it remains to show that the measure where it exceeds $\ell$ is bounded by $O(2^{-\ell})$.
%
By definition we have $\int 2^{d_E(\omega|k)} \text{d}\omega \le 1$ for all $k$, thus the measure of
$\omega$ such that $d_E(\omega|k) \ge k$ is at most $2^{-k}$.
If the supremum exceeds $\ell$ for some $\omega$, then
$d_E(\omega|k) \ge k$ for some $k \ge \ell$. The total measure for which this can happen is
at most $2^{-\ell} + 2^{-\ell-1} + \dots \le O(2^{-\ell})$.
For the $\le$-direction note that every probability bounded test $f$
defines a family of expectation bounded tests $g(\cdot|k)$ such that
$g(\omega|k) = 2^k$ iff $f(\omega) \ge 2^k$.
Indeed the condition implies $\int f(\omega|k) \text{d}\omega \le 2^k\cdot 2^{-k} = 1$.
Obviously, if $f$ is lower semicomputable, the tests $g(\cdot|k)$
are lower semicomputable uniformly in $k$.
If $f$ is the universal test corresponding to $d_P$, then $d_P(\omega) \ge k$ implies
$f(\omega) \ge 2^k$, which implies $g(\omega|k) \ge 2^k$ thus $d_E(\omega|k) \ge k - O(1)$.
\end{proof}
The question was raised in~\cite[Question 1]{GacsTestsInClass} whether the two deficiencies
are related by a monotone function, or
\textit{does there exist two families of sequences $\omega^{\ell}$ and $\omega'^{\ell}$ such that
\[
d_A(\omega^{\ell}) - d_A(\omega'^{\ell}) \rightarrow \infty
\]
for $\ell \rightarrow \infty$ and
\[
d_P(\omega^{\ell}) - d_P(\omega'^{\ell}) \rightarrow -\infty\,.
\]
} \!We show this is indeed the case.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:averageVsProbDeficiency}
There exist families of sequences $\omega^{\ell}$ and $\omega'^\ell$ such that for infinitely many~$\ell$
\[
|d_P(\omega^{\ell}) - d_P(\omega'^\ell)| \le O(1)
\]
if $\ell \rightarrow \infty$ and
\[
d_E(\omega^\ell) - d_E(\omega'^\ell) \ge \ell - O(1)\,.
\]
\end{theorem}
The positive answer to the question above follows by
prepending $\ell/2$ zeros to $\omega'^\ell$ for all $\ell$.
This decreases the complexities in the definition of $d_P(\omega'^\ell)$ and $d_E(\omega'^\ell)$ by
$\ell/2 + O(\log \ell)$
and hence increases these deficiencies by the same amount; and this is enough for the question.
Before presenting the proof, we show two lemmas that play the same role as symmetry of information
and Levin's result relating plain and prefix complexity (i.e. Lemma~\ref{lem:relateDeficiencies}).
\begin{lemma}[Symmetry of deficiency]\label{lem:symmetryOfDeficiency}
For all $\omega$ and all $x$ that belong to a prefix-free computably enumerable set, we have
\[
d_E(x\omega) = |x| - \K(x) + d_E(\omega|x,\K(x)) + O(1)\,,
\]
here $x\omega$ denotes concatenation of $x$ and $\omega$.
The $O(1)$-term depends on the choice of the computably enumerable set.
\end{lemma}
The proof uses a characterization of expectation bounded deficiency
in terms of prefix Kolmogorov complexity (see for example~\cite[Proposition 2.22]{GacsTestsInClass}):
\begin{theorem*}
$ d_E(\omega|z) = \sup_n \left\{n - \K(\omega_1\dots\omega_n|z)\right\} + O(1) $
\end{theorem*}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:symmetryOfDeficiency}.]
Let $x$ be a member of the prefix-free computably enumerable set. From $xy$ we can
compute $x$ by enumerating the prefix-free set until an initial segment of $xy$
and this segment can only be $x$. Symmetry of information implies
\[
\K(xy) = \K(x,y) + O(1) = \K(x) + \K(y|x,\K(x)) + O(1)\,,
\]
i.e.
\[
|xy| - \K(xy) = |x|-\K(x) + |y| - \K(y|x,\K(x))\,.
\]
If we take on both sides the supremum of $y$ over all prefixes of $\omega$, we \textit{almost}
obtain the equation of the lemma; the problem is that in the definition of $d_E(x\omega)$
we also need to consider prefixes $z$ of $x$. It remains to verify that
\[
|z| - \K(z) \le |x| - \K(x) + O(1)
\]
for all prefixes $z$ of $x$.
In general this is false, but for $x$ in a prefix-free enumerable set it holds.
For any $z$ and $x$,
let $P(x|z) = 2^{-|x|+|z|}$ if $x$ is an extension of $z$ that belongs to the prefix-free set,
otherwise let $P(x|z) = 0$.
Note that $\sum_x P(x|z) \le 1$ and $P(x|z)$ is lower-semicomputable, hence
the coding theorem implies $\K(x|z) \le -\log P(x|z) + O(1) \le |x|-|z| + O(1)$.
Symmetry of information implies
\[
K(x) \le \K(x,z) \le \K(z) + \K(x|z) + O(1) \le \K(z) + |x| - |z| + O(1)\,,
\]
and this implies the equation above.
\end{proof}
The analogue of Lemma~\ref{lem:relateDeficiencies} for deficiencies of sequences is
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:relateInfDeficiency}
For all $j$ and $\omega$
\[
\left|j - d_E(\omega|j) \right| = \Theta \left|j - d_P(\omega)\right| \,.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For fixed random $\omega$, the map $t \rightarrow d_E(\omega|t)$ maps points at distance $d$
to points at distance $O(\log d)$. Hence,
the map has a unique fixed point $t$ within precision $O(1)$, i.e. $d_E(\omega|t) = t + O(1)$ for
some $t$.
This implies that $t$ is $O(1)$-close to the minimal $s$ such that $d_E(\omega|s) \ge s$,
i.e. $d_P(\omega)$.
Our observation implies that $d_E(\omega|t+d) = t + O(\log d)$,
thus for $j = t + d$ we have $j - d_E(\omega|j) = j - d_P(\omega) + O(\log (j-d_P(\omega)))$,
and this implies the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{th:averageVsProbDeficiency}.]
For each $\ell$ we choose a $k$ such that $\log^{(2)} k \le \ell$ and
$\K(\K(k)|k) \ge \log^{(2)} k - c$ where $c$ is the constant
from Theorem~\ref{th:GacsTight}.
By Lemma~\ref{lem:GacsTight}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:annoying}
\ell = \log^{(2)} k = \log \K(k) + O(1) \,.
\end{equation}
We choose $\omega$ such that
\[d_P(\omega|k,\K(k)) \le O(1)\,.\]
Let $0^k1\omega$ be the sequence that starts with $k$ zeros, followed by a one
and followed by $\omega$. Let $0^k1\langle\K(k)\rangle\omega$ be $0^k1$ followed
by $\K(k)$ in binary, followed by~$\omega$.
The theorem follows from the values of the expectation and probability bounded deficiencies of
these strings, given in the table below:
\[
\begin{array}{r|l|l}
\alpha & d_E(\alpha) & d_P(\alpha) \\
\hline
0^k1\omega & k - \K(k) + O(1) & k + O(1) \\
0^k1\langle\K(k)\rangle^l\omega & k - \K(k) + \ell + O(1) & k + O(1)
\end{array}
\]
It remains to prove that the values in the table are correct.
\medskip
The values of $d_E(\cdot)$ in the first column are obtained from Lemma~\ref{lem:symmetryOfDeficiency}.
In the first case, the prefix-free set is the set of strings $0^m1$ for all~$m$, thus
\[
d_E(0^k1\omega) = k - \K(k) + d_E(\omega|k,\K(k)) + O(1)\,.
\]
In the second case, the prefix-free set is the of all strings $0^m1z$ for all~$m$ and all $z$ of
length $\log^{(2)} m$. Recall that $\K(k,\K(k)) = \K(k) + O(1)$, thus
\[
d_E(0^k1\langle\K(k)\rangle\omega) = k + \log^{(2)} k - \K(k) + d_E(\omega|k,\K(k)) + O(1)\,.
\]
\medskip
To evaluate $d_P(\cdot)$ we use Lemma~\ref{lem:relateInfDeficiency}. Hence, let us compute
$d_E(0^k1\omega|k)$. Again we use Lemma~\ref{lem:symmetryOfDeficiency}:
\[
d_E(0^k1\omega|k) = k - \K(0^k1|k) + d_E(\omega|\K(0^k1|k),k) + O(1) = k + d_E(\omega|k) + O(1)\,.
\]
This implies $d_P(0^k1\omega) = k + O(1)$.
For the second case, note that $\K(0^k1\langle\K(k)\rangle|k) = \K(\K(k)|k) + O(1) = \log^{(2)} k + O(1)$ by choice of $k$.
With similar reasoning we determine $d_P(0^k1\langle \K(k) \rangle\omega)$:
\[
d_E(0^k1\langle\K(k)\rangle\omega|k) = (k + \log^{(2)} k) - \K(\K(k)|k) + d_E(\omega|\K(k), k) + O(1) \,.\\
\]
This equals $k + O(1)$ by \eqref{eq:annoying}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introductions}
The notion of finite type mappings defined on the submanifolds of semi-Euclidean spaces has been extensively studied by several geometers after it was introduced by B. Y. Chen in late 1970's. Let $\mathbb E^m_s$ denote the semi-Euclidean space with dimension $m$ and index $s$ whose metric tensor is given by
$$\tilde g=\langle\ ,\ \rangle=-\sum\limits_{i=1}^sx_i^2+\sum\limits_{j=s+1}^mx_j^2$$
and consider a submanifold $M$ of the semi-Euclidean space $\mathbb E^m_s$. A smooth mapping $\phi$ defined on $M$ into another semi-Euclidean space $\mathbb E^N_S$ is said to be $k$-type if it can be expressed as a sum of finitely many eigenvectors of the Laplace operator of $M$, \cite{ChenKitap,ChenMakale1986,ChenRapor}. Many important results about finite type mappings defined on semi-Riemannian submanifolds have appeared so far (cf. \cite{Bleecker-Weiner,ReillyHelvaci}).
In particular, the Gauss map of submanifolds has been worked in several articles in this direction after some results on the submanifolds with 1-type Gauss map or 2-type Gauss map had been given in \cite{Chen-Piccinni}.
The Gauss map $\nu$ of $M$ is said to be $k$-type if it can be expressed as a sum of
\begin{equation}\label{FiniteTypeGaussDef}
\nu=\nu_0+\nu_1+\nu_2+\hdots+\nu_k,
\end{equation}
where $\nu_0$ is a constant vector and $\nu_i$ is a non-constant eigenvector of $\Delta$ corresponding to eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ for $i=1,2,\hdots,k$ with $\lambda_1<\lambda_2<\hdots< \lambda_k$ and $\Delta$ is the Laplace operator of $M$ with respect to the induced metric of $M$. In addition, if one of these eigenvalues is zero, then $\nu$ is said to be a null $k$-type mapping.
However, the Laplacian of the Gauss map of several surfaces and hypersurfaces such as
helicoids of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd kind, conjugate Enneper's surface of the second kind and
B-scrolls in a 3-dimensional Minkowski space $\mathbb E^3_1$,
generalized catenoids, spherical n-cones, hyperbolical n-cones and
Enneper's hypersurfaces in $\mathbb E^{n+1}_1$ take the form
\begin{equation}\label{PW1TypeDefinition}
\Delta \nu =f(\nu +C)
\end{equation}
for some smooth function $f$ on $M$ and some constant vector
$C$ (\cite{UDur2,Kim-Yoon}).
A submanifold of a pseudo-Euclidean space is said to have
{\it pointwise 1-type Gauss map} if its Gauss map satisfies
\eqref{PW1TypeDefinition} for some smooth function $f$ on $M$ and some
constant vector $C$. In particular, if $C$ is zero, it is
said to be of {\it the first kind}.
Otherwise, it is said to be of {\it the second kind}
(cf. \cite{Arslan-and,CCK,KKKM,Choi-Kim,UDur,UDur3,Kim-Yoon-2}).
On the other hand, the theory of minimal and quasi-minimal surfaces is one of the most interesting topics in the semi-Euclidean geometry. A surface in $\mathbb E^m_s$ is said to be minimal or quasi-minimal if its mean curvature vector is zero or light-like respectively. In the very recent past, the classification of these type of surfaces are studied in some papers, in terms of type of their Gauss map, \cite{Dursun-Arsan,MinkowskiDursunTurgay, MILOUSHEVA01, NCTGenRelGrav}. In this paper, we focus on Lorentzian minimal surfaces in the Minkowski space-time $\mathbb E^4_1$ with finite type Gauss map. In the Section 2, after we describe the notation that we will use in this paper, we give a short brief on the basic facts and definitions on the theory of submanifolds. In the Section 3, we focus on the Lorentzian surfaces with pointwise 1-type Gauss map. In the section 4, we study minimal Lorentzian surfaces with 2-type Gauss map.
The surfaces we are dealing with are smooth and connected unless otherwise stated.
\section{Prelimineries}
Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian submanifold of the
pseu\-do-Euclidean space $\mathbb E^m_s$.
We denote Levi-Civita connections of $\mathbb E^m_s$ and $M$ by $\widetilde{\nabla}$ and $\nabla$,
respectively. The Gauss and Weingarten formulas are given, respectively, by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{MEtomGauss} \widetilde\nabla_X Y&=& \nabla_X Y + h(X,Y),\\
\label{MEtomWeingarten} \widetilde\nabla_X \xi&=& -A_\xi(X)+D_X \xi,
\end{eqnarray}
for any tangent vector field $X,\ Y$ and normal vector field $\xi$ on $M$, where $h$, $D$ and $A$ are the second fundamental form, the normal
connection and the shape operator of $M$, respectively. On the other hand, the shape operator $A$ and the second fundamental form $h$ of $M$ are related by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{MinkAhhRelatedby} \langle A_\xi X,Y\rangle&=&\langle h(X,Y),\xi\rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
Relative null space at $p$ of $M$ is defined as
$$\mathcal N_p(M)=\{X\in T_pM|h(X,Y)=0, \ \mbox{for all} \ Y\in T_pM\}.$$
We say $M$ has degenerated relative null bundle if $(\mathcal N_p(M),\langle\ ,\ \rangle)$ is a degenerated inner product space for all $p\in M$.
The Gauss, Codazzi and Ricci equations are given, respectively, by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{MinkGaussEquation} \langle R(X,Y,)Z,W\rangle&=&\langle h(Y,Z),h(X,W)\rangle-
\langle h(X,Z),h(Y,W)\rangle,\\
\label{MinkCodazzi} (\bar \nabla_X h )(Y,Z)&=&(\bar \nabla_Y h )(X,Z),\\
\label{MinkRicciEquation} \langle R^D(X,Y)\xi,\eta\rangle&=&\langle[A_\xi,A_\eta]X,Y\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
where $R,\; R^D$ are the curvature tensors associated with connections $\nabla$
and $D$, respectively, and
$$(\bar \nabla_X h)(Y,Z)=D_X h(Y,Z)-h(\nabla_X Y,Z)-h(Y,\nabla_X Z).$$
Consider a Lorentzian surface $M$in $\mathbb E^4_1$ and let $\{e_1,e_2;e_3,e_4\}$ be a positively oriented local orthogonal frame field on $M$ and $\{f_1,f_2\}$ the pseudo-orthogonal base field of the tangent bundle of $M$ given by $f_1=(e_1-e_2)/\sqrt 2$ and $f_2=(-e_1-e_2)/\sqrt 2$. Then, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{LorSurfDelta}\Delta&=&f_1f_2+f_2f_1-\nabla_{f_1}f_2-\nabla_{f_2}f_1,\\
\label{LorSurfH}H&=& -h(f_1,f_2),\\
K&=&R(f_1,f_2,f_2,f_1)
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta$, $H$ and $K$ are the Laplace operator, the mean curvature vector and the Gaussian curvature of $M$.
The smooth mapping
\begin{equation}\label{MinkGaussTasvTanim}
\begin{array}{rcl}\nu:M&\rightarrow&\subset \mathbb S^{5}_3(1)\subset \mathbb E^6_3\\
p&\mapsto&\nu(p)=(f_{1}\wedge f_{2})(p)\end{array}
\end{equation}
is called the (tangent) Gauss map of $M$.
From \eqref{LorSurfDelta} one can obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Deltafu}\Delta(\phi \xi)&=&(\Delta \phi ) \xi+\phi \Delta \xi-2\nabla\phi (\xi)
\end{eqnarray}
for any smooth function $\phi :M\rightarrow \mathbb R$ and any smooth mappings $\xi,\eta:M\rightarrow \mathbb E^6_3$, where $\nabla\phi$ is the gradient of $\phi$ defined by
$$\nabla\phi=-f_1(\phi) f_2-f_2(\phi) f_1.$$
We will use the following well-known lemmas, \cite{ONeillKitap}.
\begin{Lemma}\label{WellKnownLemmaLghtlks}
In a non-degenerated inner product space with index of 1, two light-like vector are lindearly dependent if and only if they are orthogonal.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{Lemma}\label{WellKnownLemmaNonDeg}
Let $U$ be a subspace of a non-degenerated inner product space $V$. U is non-degenerated if and only if $U\cap U^\perp=\{0\}.$
\end{Lemma}
The following lemma obtained in \cite{FuHou2010} is very useful.
\begin{Lemma}\cite{FuHou2010}\label{EMsLorSurfgf1f2}
Let $M$ be a Lorentzian surface in a semi Euclidean space $\mathbb E^m_s$. Then there exist local coordinates $(s,t)$ such that the induced metric is of the form of
$$g=-m^2(dsdt+dsdt), \quad s\in I_1,\ t\in I_2,$$ where $m=m(s,t)$ is a non-vanishing function, $I_1$, $I_2$ are some open intervals. Moreover, the Levi-Civita connection of $M$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{EMsLorSurfgf1f2Levi} \nabla_{\partial_s}\partial_s= \frac{2m_s}{m}\partial_s,\quad\nabla_{\partial_s}\partial_t= 0,\quad\nabla_{\partial_t}\partial_t= \frac{2m_t}{m}\partial_t.
\end{equation}
\end{Lemma}
\section{Minimal Lorentzian surfaces and their Gauss map}
\begin{Lemma}\label{LemmaDeltaf1f2}
Let $M$ be a Lorentzian minimal surface. Then its tangent and normal Gauss map $\nu$ and $\mu$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{LemmaDeltaf1f2EQ} \Delta \nu= 2K \nu+2K^D \mu,
\end{equation}
where $K$ and $K^D$ are the Gaussian and the normal curvature, respectively.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider a pseudo-orthogonal base field $\{f_1,f_2\}$ of the tangent bundle of $M$. As $M$ is minimal, we have $H=0$ from which and \eqref{LorSurfH} we have $h(f_1,f_2)=0$. By a direct calculation, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{LemmaDeltaf1f2Ara1}
\begin{split}
\Delta \nu=&f_1f_2(f_1\wedge f_2)+f_2f_1(f_1\wedge f_2)-\nabla_{f_1}f_2(f_1\wedge f_2)-\nabla_{f_2}f_1(f_1\wedge f_2)\\
=&f_1\left(f_1\wedge h \left(f_2,f_2\right)\right)+f_2\left(h \left(f_1,f_1\right)\wedge f_2\right)+\zeta_1f_1\wedge h \left(f_2,f_2\right)-\zeta_2h \left(f_1,f_1\right)\wedge f_2\\
=&\zeta_1f_1\wedge h(f_2,f_2)+h(f_1,f_1)\wedge h(f_2,f_2)-f_1\wedge A_{h(f_2,f_2)}f_1\\
&+f_1\wedge D_{f_1}h(f_2,f_2)- A_{h(f_1,f_1)}f_2\wedge f_2+D_{f_2}h(f_1,f_1)\wedge f_2\\
&-\zeta_2h(f_1,f_1)\wedge f_2+h(f_1,f_1)\wedge h(f_2,f_2)+\zeta_1f_1\wedge h \left(f_2,f_2\right)-\zeta_2h \left(f_1,f_1\right)\wedge f_2\\
=&2h(f_1,f_1)\wedge h(f_2,f_2)-\Big(f_1\wedge A_{h(f_2,f_2)}f_1+A_{h(f_1,f_1)}f_2\wedge f_2\Big)\\
&+\Big(D_{f_2}h(f_1,f_1)-2\zeta_2h(f_1,f_1)\Big)\wedge f_2+f_1\wedge \Big(D_{f_1}h(f_2,f_2)+2\zeta_1D_{f_1}h(f_2,f_2)\Big),
\end{split}
\end {align}
where $\zeta_i$ is a function defined by $\nabla_{f_i}f_1=\zeta_i f_1$ for $i=1,2$. As $h(f_1,f_2)=0$, Codazzi equation \eqref{MinkCodazzi} implies
\begin{equation}\label{LemmaDeltaf1f2Ara2}
D_{f_2}h(f_1,f_1)-2\zeta_2h(f_1,f_1)=D_{f_1}h(f_2,f_2)+2\zeta_1 D_{f_1}h(f_2,f_2)=0.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, using Gauss and Ricci equations \eqref{MinkGaussEquation} and \eqref{MinkRicciEquation}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{LemmaDeltaf1f2Ara3} \langle\Delta\nu,\nu\rangle&=&-2K\\
\label{LemmaDeltaf1f2Ara4} \langle\Delta\nu,\mu\rangle&=&2K^D.
\end{eqnarray}
From \eqref{LemmaDeltaf1f2Ara1}-\eqref{LemmaDeltaf1f2Ara4} we obtain \eqref{LemmaDeltaf1f2EQ}.
\end{proof}
\begin{Prop}\label{PropE41MinLor1stkind}
There exist two families of Lorentzian minimal surfaces in the Minkowski space $E^4_1$ with pointwise 1-type Gauss map of the first kind.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] A minimal surface lying in a Lorentzian hyperplane of $\mathbb E^4_1$;
\item[(ii)] A surface with degenerated relative null bundle.
\end{enumerate}
Conversely, every Lorentzian minimal surface with pointwise 1-type Gauss map of the first kind in the Minkowski space $E^4_1$ is congruent to an open portion of a surface obtained from these type of surfaces.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
First, we prove these type of surfaces given above has pointwise 1-type Gauss map.
If $M$ is a minimal surface lying in a Lorentzian hyperplane $\Pi$ of $\mathbb E^4_1$, then \cite[Lemma 3.2.]{UDur2} implies that $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map (also see \cite{UDur}).
Now, let $M$ be a surface with degenerated relative null bundle. Then, there exists a local pseudo-orthonormal base field $\{f_1,f_2\}$ of the tangent bundle of $M$ such that $h(f_1,f_1)=h(f_1,f_2)=0$. Thus, $M$ is minimal and $h(f_1,f_1)\wedge h(f_2,f_2)=0$ from which and the equation $K^D e_3\wedge e_4=h(f_1,f_1)\wedge h(f_2,f_2)$ we obtain that $K^D\equiv 0$. Hence, \eqref{LemmaDeltaf1f2EQ} implies that $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map.
Now, we want to prove the remaining part of the proposition.
Let $M$ be a Lorentzian surface in $\mathbb E^4_1$ and $s,t$ be the local coordinates given in Lemma \ref{EMsLorSurfgf1f2}. Consider the pseudo-orthogonal basis $\{f_1,f_2\}$ given by
$$f_1=\frac 1m \partial_s\quad\mbox{and}\quad f_2=\frac 1m \partial_t.$$
If we suppose that $M$ is minimal, i.e., $H\equiv0$, then \eqref{LorSurfH} implies that $h(f_1,f_2)=0.$ On the other hand, the Gauss map $\nu=f_1\wedge f_2$ of $M$ satisfies \eqref{LemmaDeltaf1f2EQ}.
Now, we assume that $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map of the first kind. Then \eqref{PW1TypeDefinition} is satisfied for $C=0$. From \eqref{PW1TypeDefinition} and \eqref{LemmaDeltaf1f2EQ} we obtain $2K^D e_3\wedge e_4=0$ from which we get $h(f_1,f_1)\wedge h(f_2,f_2)=0$. Thus, $h(\partial_s,\partial_s)$ and $h(\partial_t,\partial_t)$ are linearly dependent.
Let $x:I_1\times I_2 \rightarrow \mathbb E^4_1$ be an isometric immersion of $M$ and consider the functions
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\psi_1:I_1\times I_2&\rightarrow&\mathbb R\\
(s_0,t_0)&\mapsto &\langle h(\partial_s,\partial_s),h(\partial_s,\partial_s)\rangle\big|_{x(s_0,t_0)}
\end{array}
$$
and
$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\psi_2:I_1\times I_2&\rightarrow&\mathbb R\\
(s_0,t_0)&\mapsto &\langle h(\partial_t,\partial_t),h(\partial_t,\partial_t)\rangle\big|_{x(s_0,t_0)}
\end{array}.
$$
\textit{Case (1):} $\psi_1\equiv0$ or $\psi_2\equiv0$. In this case, $M$ has degenerated relative null bundle.
\textit{Case (2):} $\psi_1\neq0$ and $\psi_2\neq0$. In this case, the initial value problems
$$\phi_1'=\psi_1(\phi_2)^{-1/4},\quad \phi_1(0)=s_0 $$
and
$$\phi_2'=\psi_1(\phi_2)^{-1/4},\quad \phi_2(0)=t_0 $$
admit unique solutions, say $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$, respecetively, where $s_0\in I_1$ and $t_0\in I_2$. Let $S,T$ be local coordinates given by $S=\phi_1(s)$ and $T=\phi_2(t)$. Then, we have
$g=-\hat m^2(S,T)(dSdT+dTdS),$
where $\hat m(S,T)=m(\phi_1(s),\phi_2(t))$.
Moreover, the normal vector fields $h(\partial_S,\partial_S)$ and $h(\partial_T,\partial_T)$ are linearly dependent and unit. Thus, we have
\begin{equation}\label{TransSurfhsshtt}
h(\partial_S,\partial_S)=\pm h(\partial_T,\partial_T).
\end{equation}
Now, let $\{e_3,e_4\}$ be an orthonormal base field of normal bundle of $M$ with $e_3=h(\partial_S,\partial_S)$. From Codazzi equation \eqref{MinkCodazzi} we obtain $D_{\partial_T}h(\partial_S,\partial_S)=D_{\partial_S}h(\partial_T,\partial_T)=0$. Therefore \eqref{TransSurfhsshtt} implies that $D e_3=0$, i.e., $e_3$ is parallel. As $M$ has codimension of 2, $e_4$ is also parallel. Moreover, by using \eqref{MinkAhhRelatedby}, we obtain $A_4=0$ because of \eqref{TransSurfhsshtt}. Thus, we have $\widetilde\nabla e_4=0$, i.e., $e_4$ is constant. Hence, $M$ is contained in a hyperplane $\Pi$. As $e_4$ is space-like, $\Pi$ is Lorentzian.
\end{proof}
Next, we obtain the following proposition.
\begin{Prop}
Let $M$ be a Lorentzian minimal surface in $\mathbb E^4_1$. If $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map, then it is of the first kind.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
If $M$ is a Lorentzian minimal surface, then \eqref{LorSurfH} implies $h(f_1,f_2)=0$ from which and \eqref{MinkAhhRelatedby} we have $\langle A_3f_1,f_2\rangle=\langle A_4f_1,f_2\rangle=0$ for any pseudo-orthonormal frame field $\{f_1,f_2,e_3,e_4\}$. In addition, the Gauss map $\nu=f_1\wedge f_2$ of $M$ satisfies \eqref{LemmaDeltaf1f2EQ}.
Now, we assume that the Gauss map $\nu$ of $M$ satifies \eqref{PW1TypeDefinition} for $C\neq0$. From \eqref{PW1TypeDefinition} and \eqref{LemmaDeltaf1f2EQ}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{THMFULLCLASSC}
C=C_{12}f_1\wedge f_2+C_{34}e_3\wedge e_4.
\end{equation}
As $C$ is a constant vector, we have $f_i(C)=0,\ i=1,2$ from which and \eqref{THMFULLCLASSC} we obtain $f_i(C_{12})=f_i(C_{34})=0$ and
\begin{subequations}\label{THMFULLCLASSfiCALL}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{THMFULLCLASSf1C} C_{12}h(f_1,f_1)\wedge f_2&=&-C_{34}(-A_3f_1\wedge e_4+A_4f_1\wedge e_3 ), \\
\label{THMFULLCLASSf2C} C_{12}f_1\wedge h(f_2,f_2)&=&-C_{34}(-A_3f_2\wedge e_4+A_4f_2\wedge e_3 ).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Thus, $C_{12},\ C_{34}$ are constants. On the other hand, from \eqref{THMFULLCLASSfiCALL} we have
\begin{equation}\label{THMFULLCLASSAra001}
C_{12}^2\langle h(f_1,f_1)\wedge f_2,f_1\wedge h(f_2,f_2) \rangle=C_{34}^2\langle -A_3f_1\wedge e_4+A_4f_1\wedge e_3,-A_3f_2\wedge e_4+A_4f_2\wedge e_3 \rangle.
\end{equation}
By a direct calculation, we have
\begin{subequations}\label{THMFULLCLASSAra002ALL}
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle h(f_1,f_1)\wedge f_2,f_1\wedge h(f_2,f_2) \rangle&=&\langle h(f_1,f_1),h(f_2,f_2) \rangle,\\
\langle A_3f_1\wedge e_4,A_4f_2\wedge e_3 \rangle&=&0,\\
\langle A_4f_1\wedge e_3,A_3f_2\wedge e_4&=&0,\\
\langle A_3f_1\wedge e_4,A_3f_2\wedge e_4 \rangle&=&-\langle h(f_1,f_1),e_3 \rangle\langle h(f_2,f_2),e_3 \rangle.\\
\langle A_4f_1\wedge e_3,A_4f_2\wedge e_3\rangle&=&-\langle h(f_1,f_1),e_4 \rangle\langle h(f_2,f_2),e_4 \rangle.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
By combaining \eqref{THMFULLCLASSAra001}-\eqref{THMFULLCLASSAra002ALL}, we obtain
$$\left( C_{12}^2+C_{34}^2\right)\langle h(f_1,f_1),h(f_2,f_2) \rangle=0.$$
As $C\neq0$, from the last equation we have $h(f_1,f_1)$ and $h(f_2,f_2)$ are orthogonal.
Consider the open subset $\mathcal U=\{p\in M| h(f_1,f_1)\neq0 \ \mbox{or} \ h(f_2,f_2)\neq0\}$ of $M$ is not empty and let $\{e_3,e_4\}$ be a local orthonormal base field of the normal bundle of $M$ such that $h(f_1,f_1)=\alpha_3 e_3$ {and} $h(f_2,f_2)=\alpha_4 e_4$ over $\mathcal U$, where $\alpha_3$ and $\alpha_4$ are some functions. From \eqref{THMFULLCLASSfiCALL}, we have
\begin{subequations}\nonumber
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber C_{12}\alpha_3f_2\wedge e_3&=&-C_{34}(-A_3f_1\wedge e_4+A_4f_1\wedge e_3 ), \\
\nonumber C_{12}\alpha_4f_1\wedge e_4&=&-C_{34}(-A_3f_2\wedge e_4+A_4f_2\wedge e_3 )
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
on $\mathcal U$. From these equations, we have $A_3f_1=A_4f_2=0$ on $\mathcal U$ which implies $h\Big|_\mathcal U=0$, because of \eqref{MinkAhhRelatedby}. However, this is a contradiction if $\mathcal U$ is not empty.
Therefore, we have $h(f_1,f_1)=0$ or $h(f_2,f_2)=0$ which yields that $M$ has degenerated relative null bundle. Thus, Proposition \ref{PropE41MinLor1stkind} implies $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map of the first kind which leads a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{Prop}\label{THMDegNull}
Let $M$ be a Lorentzian surface in $\mathbb E^m_s$. Then $M$ has degenerated relative null bundle, if and only if it is congruent to the surface given by
\begin{equation}\label{DegRelNullSpaceSurfPosVect}
x(s,t)=s\eta_0+\beta(t)
\end{equation}
where $\eta_0$ is a constant light-like vector and $\beta$ is a null curve in $\mathbb E^m_s$ with $\langle\eta_0,\beta(t)\rangle\neq0$.
\end{Prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be a Lorentzian surface in $\mathbb E^m_s$, $x$ its position vector and $\{s,t\}$ some local coordinates given in Lemma \ref{EMsLorSurfgf1f2} satisfying \eqref{EMsLorSurfgf1f2Levi}. Consider the tangent vector fields $f_1=\frac 1m\partial_s$ and $f_2=\frac 1m\partial_t$.
Now, assume that $\mathcal N_p(M)$ is degenerated for all $p\in M$. Because of Lemma \ref{WellKnownLemmaNonDeg}, we may assume $\mathcal N_p(M)=\mbox{span} \{f_1\}$. which implies $h(f_1,f_1)=h(f_1,f_2)=0$. From these equations and \eqref{EMsLorSurfgf1f2Levi}
we have
$\widetilde\nabla_{\partial_s}\partial_s=\nabla_{\partial_s}\partial_s$ {and} $\widetilde\nabla_{\partial_s}\partial_t=0$
from which we obtain
$x_{ss}=2\frac{m_s}{m}x_s$ {and} $x_{st}=0$
By integrating these equations and re-defining $s$ properly, we obtain that $M$ is congruent to the surface given by \eqref{DegRelNullSpaceSurfPosVect}.
\end{proof}
By combaining all of the results given in this section, we state
\begin{theorem}\label{L4MinimalFullCLASSTHEOPW1Type}
Let $M$ be a Lorentzian minimal surface in $\mathbb E^4_1$. Also suppose that no open part of $M$ is contained in a hyperplane of $\mathbb E^4_1$. Then, the following conditions are logically equivalent
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map;
\item[(ii)] $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map of the first kind;
\item[(iii)] $M$ has harmonic Gauss map;
\item[(iv)] $M$ has degenerated relative null bundle;
\item[(v)] $M$ has flat normal bundle;
\item[(vi)] $M$ is congruent to the surface given by \eqref{DegRelNullSpaceSurfPosVect}
for a constant light-like vector $\eta_0\in\mathbb E^4_1$ and a null curve $\beta$ in $\mathbb E^4_1$ satisfying $\langle\eta_0,\beta(t)\rangle\neq0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
We also want to state the following corollary of this theorem.
\begin{Corol}
A Lorentzian minimal surface in $\mathbb E^4_1$ has proper pointwise 1-type Gauss map if and only if it lies in an Lorentzian hyperplane of $\mathbb E^4_1$ and it has non-constant Gaussian curvature.
\end{Corol}
\section{Minimal surfaces with 2-type Gauss map}
\begin{Lemma}\label{LemmaDeltaSQRf1f2}
Let $M$ be a Lorentzian minimal surface. Then its tangent and normal Gauss map $\nu$ and $\mu$ satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{LemmaDeltaSQRf1f2EQ}
\Delta^2\nu=2\Big(\Delta K+2K^2-2{K^D}^2\Big)\nu+2\Big(\Delta K^D+4KK^D\Big)\mu -4(\nabla K)(\nu)-4(\nabla K^D)(\mu)
\end{equation}
where $K$ and $K^D$ are the Gaussian and the normal curvature, respectively.
\end{Lemma}
Let $M$ be a Lorentzian surface in the Minkowski space $\mathbb E^4_1$ and $\nu$ and $\mu$ its tangent and normal Gauss map. We assume that $\nu$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{Delta2nufDnu}
\Delta^2\nu=f\Delta\nu
\end{equation}
for a smooth fuction $f$. We note that
\begin{equation}\label{KKDinLambda}
(\nabla K)\nu),(\nabla K^D)(\mu)\in \Lambda^\perp,
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda=\mathrm{span}\{\nu,\mu\}.$ From \eqref{LemmaDeltaf1f2EQ} and \eqref{LemmaDeltaSQRf1f2EQ}-\eqref{KKDinLambda} we obtain
\begin{subequations}\label{Delta2nufDnuEqAll}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Delta2nufDnuEq01} \Delta K+2K^2-2{K^D}^2&=&fK,\\
\label{Delta2nufDnuEq02} \Delta K^D+4KK^D&=&fK^D,\\
\label{Delta2nufDnuEq03} (\nabla K)(\nu)+(\nabla K^D)(\mu)&=&0.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Now, we consider a pseudo orthogonal frame field $\{f_1,f_2,e_3,e_4\}$ on $M$. Then we have
\begin{align}\nonumber
\begin{split}\nonumber
(\nabla K)(\nu)+(\nabla K^D)(\mu)=&\Big(f_1(K)h^3_{22}-f_1(K^D)h^4_{22}\Big)f_1\wedge e_3+ \Big(f_1(K)h^4_{22}+f_1(K^D)h^3_{22}\Big)f_1\wedge e_4\\
&-\Big(f_2(K)h^3_{11}+f_2(K^D)h^4_{11}\Big)f_2\wedge e_3- \Big(f_2(K)h^4_{11}-f_2(K^D)h^3_{11}\Big)f_2\wedge e_4
\end{split}
\end{align}
from which and \eqref{Delta2nufDnuEq03} we have
\begin{subequations}\label{Delta2nufDnuEq02ALL}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Delta2nufDnuEq02a}\left(\begin{array} {cc}
h^3_{22}& -h^4_{22}\\
h^4_{22}&h^3_{22}
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array} {cc}
f_1(K)\\
f_1(K^D)
\end{array}\right)
&=&0\\
\label{Delta2nufDnuEq02b}
\left(\begin{array} {cc}
h^3_{11}&h^4_{11}\\
h^4_{11}&-h^3_{11}
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array} {c}
f_2(K)\\
f_2(K^D)
\end{array}\right)
&=&0
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
Now, consider the open subset $\mathcal U=\{p| \nabla K\neq0 \mbox{ or } \nabla K^D\neq0\}$ of $M$ and assume that it is non-empty, i.e. either $K$ or $K^D$ is non-constant. From \eqref{Delta2nufDnuEq02ALL}, we have either $({h^3_{11}})^2+({h^4_{11}})^2=0$ or $({h^3_{22}})^2+({h^4_{22}})^2=0$ on $\mathcal U$. Thus, we have $\langle h(f_1,f_1), h(f_2,f_2)\rangle=0$ and $\langle [A_3,A_4]f_!,f_2 \rangle=0$ on $\mathcal U$. From these equations, \eqref{MinkGaussEquation} and \eqref{MinkRicciEquation} we obtain $K=K^D=0$ on $\mathcal U$ which yields a contradiction.
Therefore, we have $K$ and $K^D$ are constants. Note that if $K^D=0$, then \eqref{LemmaDeltaf1f2EQ} implies that $M$ has 1-type Gauss map. Therefore, from \eqref{Delta2nufDnuEq02} we have $f=4K$. Next, we put this equation into \eqref{Delta2nufDnuEq01} and obtain $K=K^D=0$. Hence, \eqref{LemmaDeltaf1f2EQ} implies $\Delta\nu=0.$ Hence, we have
\begin{theorem}
Let $M$ be a Lorentzian minimal surface in the Minkowski space $\mathbb E^4_1$. If the Gauss map $\nu$ of $M$ satisfies \eqref{Delta2nufDnu}, then $f$ is constant and $M$ is 1-type.
\end{theorem}
\begin{Corol}
There exists no Lorentzian minimal surface with biharmonic Gauss map in the Minkowski space $\mathbb E^4_1$.
\end{Corol}
\begin{Corol}
There exists no Lorentzian minimal surface with null 2-type Gauss map in the Minkowski space $\mathbb E^4_1$.
\end{Corol}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{}
Many boundedness results have been proven for singular multilinear oscillatory integrals with nonstandard symbols, e.g. \citep{0238019,1491450,1999,2013,2127985,2420,1957079,2199086}. One of the earliest examples is a theorem attributed to Menshov and Zygmund which states that the bilinear operator $\tilde{C}_2$ defined pointwise by
\begin{eqnarray*}\label{1}
\tilde{C}_2(\vec{f})(x)= \int_{x_1<x_2}f_1(x_1) f_2(x_2) e^{2 \pi i x( x_1 +x_2)} dx_1 dx_2
\end{eqnarray*}
is a continuous map from $L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R})$ into $L^{\frac{p_1^\prime p_2^\prime}{p_1^\prime + p_2^\prime}}(\mathbb{R})$ whenever $f\in L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R})$ and $g \in L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R})$ for $1\leq p_1, p_2 <2$, see \citep{2013}. Much later, Lacey and Thiele generated renewed interest in the subject by proving a large range of $L^p$ estimates in \cite{1491450} for the bilinear Hilbert transform given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
BHT(\vec{f})(x)= \int_{x_1 <x_2} \hat{f}_1(x_1) \hat{f}_2(x_2) e^{2\pi i x (x_1 +x_2)} dx_1 dx_2,
\end{eqnarray*}
after which estimates were proved by Muscalu, Tao, and Thiele in \citep{2127985} for a trilinear variant of the BHT called the Biest, defined as
\begin{eqnarray*}
C^{1,1,1}_3(\vec{f})(x)=\int_{x_1<x_2<x_3} \hat{f}_1(x_1)\hat{f}_2(x_2) \hat{f}_3(x_3) e^{2\pi i x(x_1 +x_2+x_3)} dx_1 dx_2 dx_3.
\end{eqnarray*}
However, oscillatory integrals with sign degeneracies such as the operator
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_3^{-1,1,1}(\vec{f})(z)= \int_{x_1 < x_2 <x_3} \hat{f}_1(x_1) \hat{f}_2(x_2) \hat{f}_3(x_3) e^{ 2\pi i z (-x_1+x_2+x_3)} dx_1dx_2 dx_3
\end{eqnarray*}
have been shown to satisfy no $L^p$ estimates, see \citep{2013}. Despite this fact, we prove in theorem \ref{OT} that there exists a constant $C_{p_1, p_2, p_3}$ such that for all $f_1 \in L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R})$ satisfying $\hat{f}_1 \in L^{p_1^\prime}(\mathbb{R})$ along with $f_2 \in L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R})$ and $f_3 \in L^{p_3}(\mathbb{R})$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
||C_3^{-1,1,1}(\vec{f})||_{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_3}}} \leq C_{p_1, p_2, p_3} ||\hat{f}_1||_{p^\prime_1} ||f_2||_{p_2}||f_3||_{p_3}
\end{eqnarray*}
as long as $p_1 >2, \frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2} <1$ and $\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_3} <3/2$. Because continuity holds on the restricted domain $\{ f_1 \in L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R}): \hat{f}_1 \in L^{p_1^\prime}(\mathbb{R})\} \times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_3}(\mathbb{R})$ for some set of exponents, we say $C_3^{-1,1,1}$ satisfies mixed estimates.
\subsection{Structure of the Paper}
In section 2, we establish a large variety of mixed boundedness results for degenerate multilinear oscillatory integrals motivated by the bilinear Hilbert transform by combining facts from time-frequency analysis with the Christ-Kiselev type martingale structure decomposition used to prove the Menshov-Zygmund theorem. For a detailed account of martingale structures, see the excellent paper by Christ and Kiselev \citep{1809116}. In the proofs, we come across a generalized version of the Littlewood-Paley inequality of Rubio de Francia for $L^p$ functions with $p<2$ and a maximal $l^2$ vector-valued inequality for the bilinear Hilbert transform and its generalizations. To show our results are, in a sense, the best possible, we prove in section 3 that boundedness fails for almost all of the remaining exponent cases.
We later extend our study in section 4 to tensor products of several nondegenerate operators, which are known to satisfy no $L^p$ estimates from \citep{2134868}, and prove new statements in this setting as well. For instance, theorem \ref{ATP} establishes continuity for $BHT \otimes BHT : W_p(\mathbb{R}^2) \times L^2(\mathbb{R}^2) \rightarrow L^{\frac{2p}{2+p}}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ where $W_p(\mathbb{R}^2) = \{ f \in L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^2) : \hat{f} \in L^{p^\prime}(\mathbb{R}^2)\}$ and $p >2$. Also of note is a short proof that a higher-dimensional version of the Carelson-Hunt theorem holds for functions whose Fourier transforms live in Lebesgue spaces with low exponents, even though it is false for generic $L^p$ functions. We conclude in section 5 with an application to AKNS systems, which requires a boundedness result for a maximal variant of the tensor product of $C_n^{\vec{\epsilon}}$ with itself.
NOTE: $A \lesssim B$ means there is a constant $C$, which may change from line to line, such that $A \leq CB$. The relations $A \gtrsim B$ and $A \simeq B$ are defined similarly. The space $L^p=L^p(\mathbb{R})$ unless otherwise stated.
\section{Mixed Estimates}
To introduce the martingale structure decomposition originally due to Christ and Kiselev, we recreate the proof of the Menshov-Zygmund theorem as found in \citep{2013}. Continuity of the map $\tilde{C}_2^{\alpha_1, \alpha_2}: L^{p_1}(\mathbb{R}) \times L^{p_2}(\mathbb{R}) \rightarrow L^{\frac{p_1^\prime p_2^\prime}{p_1^\prime + p_2^\prime}}(\mathbb{R})$ given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde{C}^{\alpha_1, \alpha_2}_2(f_1, f_2)(x):= \int_{x_1 < x_2} f_1 (x_1) f_2(x_2) e^{2 \pi i x (\alpha _1 x_1 +\alpha _2 x_2)} dx_1 dx_2
\end{eqnarray*}
for $p_1<2$, $p_2=2$ and $\alpha_1, \alpha _2 \not =0$ is shown by first splitting the domain of integration $\{(x_1,x_2): x_1<x_2\}$ into disjoint sets depending on the weighted distance between $x_1$ and $x_2$. Specifically, define a map $\gamma_{f_2}:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow [0, 1]$ given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\gamma_{f_2}(x) = \frac{\int_{-\infty} ^x | f_2(x_2)|^{2} dx_2}{||f_2||_2^2}
\end{eqnarray}
and form for every $m \in \mathbb{Z}^+ \cup \{0\}$ and $0 \leq j <2^m$, the martingale structure $E^{m}_{j}=\gamma_{f_2}^{-1}([j2^{-m}, (j+1)2^{-m})).$ Then define $E^{m}_{j,l}=\gamma_{f_2}^{-1}([j2^{-m}, (j+1/2)2^{-m}))$ and $E^{m}_{j,r}=\gamma_{f_2}^{-1}([(j+1/2)2^{-m}, (j+1)2^{-m}))$ and construct the partition
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Part}
\{(x_1, x_2) \in \mathbb{R}^2: x_1 <x_2\} = \bigcup_{m \in \mathbb{Z}^+ \cup \{0\}} \bigcup_{0 \leq j <2^m} E^m_{j,l} \times E^m_{j,r}.
\end{eqnarray}
This decomposition separates points according to the smallest dyadic interval that contains both $\gamma(x_1)$ and $\gamma(x_2)$.
\vspace{5mm}
A quick computation then yields the result:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& ||\tilde{C}_2(f_1, f_2) ||_{\frac{1}{1/2+1/p^\prime}} \\&=& \left| \left| \sum_{m \geq 0} \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1} \tilde{C}_2(f_1 \chi_{E^m_{j,r} },f_2 \chi_{E^m_{j,l}} ) \right| \right| _{\frac{1}{1/2+1/p^\prime}} ~\text{(using (\ref{Part}))} \\ &\leq& \sum_{m \geq 0} \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1} \left| \left| \widehat{ f_1 \chi_{E^m_{j, r}} } (\alpha _1 \cdot) \widehat{ f_2 \chi_{E^m_{j, l}}}(\alpha _2 \cdot) \right| \right|_{\frac{1}{1/2+ 1/p^\prime}} \\ &\lesssim& \sum_{m \geq 0} \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1} || f_1 \chi_{E^m_{j, r}} ||_{p} || f_2 \chi_{E^m_{j,l}} ||_2 ~(\text{by H\"older and Hausdorff-Young)} \\ &=& \sum_{m \geq 0}2^m \left( \frac{1}{2^m} \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1}|| f_1 \chi_{E^m_{j,l}}||^{p/p}_p \right) | | f_2||_22^{-m/2}\\ &\leq& \sum_{m \geq 0} 2^{m/2} \left( \frac{1}{2^m} \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1} ||f_1 \chi_{E^m_{j,l}}||_p ^p \right)^{1/p} ||f_2||_2~\text{(by concavity)} \\ &\lesssim&\sum_{m \geq 0} 2^{m(1/2-1/p)} ||f_1||_2 ||f_2||_p ~\text{(by disjointness)} \\ &\lesssim& ||f_1||_p ||f_2||_2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that the above proof adapted the martingale structure to the $L^2$ function. It is worth pointing out that one could just as well have adapted the martingale to the $L^p$ function, with a slightly modified proof. This second approach to the Menshov-Zygmund turns out to be the right one to generalize to more complicated operators. Before we illustrate this idea in theorem \ref{OT}, we first record the following generalized Rubio de Francia inequality for arbitrary dimensions:
\begin{theorem}[\citep{2293255}, \citep{850681}]\label{RdF}
Let $\{I_j\}_{j \in \mathbb{Z}}$ be a collection of disjoint rectangles in $\mathbb{R}^n$ for $n \geq 1$. Then the modified square function $\mathfrak{S}_r: L^p(\mathbb{R}^n) \rightarrow L^p(\mathbb{R}^n)$ given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathfrak{S}_r(f)=\left( \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} | f* \check{\chi}_{I_j}|^r \right)^{1/r}
\end{eqnarray*}
is continuous provided $r >p^\prime$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{definition} For $n \geq 1$ and $\vec{\epsilon} \in \{\pm 1\}^n$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_n^{\vec{\epsilon}}(f_1, ..., f_n)(x)= \int_{x_1<... <x_n} \hat{f}_1(x_1) ... \hat{f}_n(x_n) e^{2 \pi i x(\vec{\epsilon}\cdot \vec{x})} d\vec{x}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
For $1 \leq p \leq \infty$, the Wiener space $W_p$ is defined by
\begin{eqnarray*}
W_p(\mathbb{R})=\{ f \in L^p(\mathbb{R}): \hat{f} \in L^{p^\prime}(\mathbb{R})\}
\end{eqnarray*}
and given the structure of a normed vector space with $||f||_{W_p} = ||\hat{f}||_{p^\prime}$.
\end{definition}
Note that as sets, $W_p \subset L^p$ is properly included for $p >2$ while $W_p=L^p$ in the case $p \leq 2$. Before arriving at the main result in this section, namely theorem \ref{MT}, we prove a few special cases.
\begin{theorem}\label{OT}
The trilinear operator $C_3^{-1,1,1}: W_{p_1} \times L^{p_2} \times L^{p_3}\rightarrow L^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_3}}}$ is continuous provided $\frac{1}{p_1} +\frac{1}{p_2} <1$ and $\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_3} < 3/2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We introduce a martingale structure $E^m_j$ ala Christ and Kiselev given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_{f_1}(x)&=&\frac{\int_{-\infty}^x |\hat{f}_1|^{p_1^\prime} dx}{||\hat{f}_1||_{{p_1^\prime}}^{p_1^\prime}}\\
E^m_j&=&\gamma_{f_1}^{-1}([j 2^{-m}, (j+1) 2^{-m}))
\end{eqnarray*}
so that $||\hat{f}_1 \chi_{E^{m}_j}||_{{p_1}^\prime} =2^{-m/p_1^\prime}$~for all $0 \leq j < 2^{m}$. As before, it is helpful to define
\begin{eqnarray*}
E^m_{j,l}&=&\gamma_{f_1}^{-1}([j 2^{-m}, (j+1/2)2^{-m}))\\
E^m_{j,r}&=&\gamma_{f_1}^{-1}([(j+1/2)2^{-m}, (j+1)2^{-m}))
\end{eqnarray*}
and construct the partition
\begin{eqnarray*}
\{(x_1, x_2) \in \mathbb{R}^2: x_1 < x_2\} = \bigcup_{m \in \mathbb{Z}^+ \cup \{0\}} \bigcup_{j=0}^{2^m-1} E^m_{j,l} \times E^m_{j,r}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We next split the problem into two cases, depending on whether the target exponent lies above or below 1. Perhaps it is a little surprising that our quasi-Banach analysis is not much different from the Banach version.
CASE 1: q:= $\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_3}} \geq 1.$ Splitting the connection $x_1 <x_2$ gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& ||C_3^{-1,1,1}(f_1, f_2, f_3)||_q \\ &=& \left |\left| \sum_{m \geq 0} \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1}( f_1* \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}} ) \cdot BHT(f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}, f_3) \right|\right|_q \\&\leq& \sum_{m \geq 0} \left| \left| \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1}( f_1* \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}} ) \cdot BHT(f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}, f_3) \right|\right|_q \\ &\leq& \sum_{m \geq 0} \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1}| f_1* \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2}\left( \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1} | BHT(f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}, f_3)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right|\right|_q.
\end{eqnarray*}
As before, the idea is produce a convergent geometric sum over scales. Thus, it suffices to observe for $\frac{1}{q_1}=\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_3}$ that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1}| f_1* \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2}\left( \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1} | BHT(f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}, f_3)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right|\right|_q\\ &\leq& \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1}| f_1* \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{p_1} \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1} | BHT(f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}, f_3)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right|\right|_{q_1} \\ &\lesssim& \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1}| f_1* \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{p_1} \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1} |f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{p_2} ||f_3||_{p_3},
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last line follows from an application of lemma \ref{L1} and the boundedness of bilinear Hilbert transform. The advantage in writing the sum as a product in this way is that one may use H\"{o}lder's inequality even in the quasi-Banach case.
Next, use convexity of $x \mapsto |x|^{{p_1}/2}$ and the Hausdorff-Young inequality to see
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \left| \left( \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1}| f_1* \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{p_1} & \leq& 2^{ m(1/2-1/p_1)} \left(\sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1}||f_1* \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{p_1}^{p_1} \right)^{1/p_1} \\&\leq& 2^{ m(1/2-1/p_1)} \left(\sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1}||\hat{f}_1 \chi_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{p^\prime_1}^{p_1} \right)^{1/p_1} \\ &=& 2^{m(1/2-1/p_1)} 2^{m(1/p_1-1/p_1^\prime)} \\ &=& 2^{m(1/2-1/p_1^\prime)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The remaining factor is $\left| \left| \left( \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1} |f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{p_2}$. If $p_2 \geq 2$, we may pass this problem to the original Rubio de Francia inequality and conclude the theorem for CASE 1. So, we may assume without loss of generality that $p_2<2$. For this, we need to invoke the generalized Rubio de Francia estimate, which is stated as theorem \ref{RdF}, by first raising the $l^2$ norm at an acceptable cost. Specifically, for any $r > p_2^\prime$, we compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1} |f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{p_2} \\&\leq& 2^{m(1/2-1/r)}\left| \left| \left( \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1} |f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}|^r \right)^{1/r} \right| \right|_{p_2} \\ &\lesssim& 2^{m(1/2-1/r)} ||f_2||_{p_2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
One checks that this loss does not affect the convergence of the sum over scales because $1/2-1/p_1^\prime +1/2-1/r<0$ provided one chooses r close enough to $p_2^\prime$.
CASE 2: $q<1$. Because one still has recourse to H\"{o}lder's inequality, the only computational difference with CASE 1 is how one moves the sum over scales outside the $L^q$ norm in the absence of the triangle inequality. For this, it suffices to observe
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left |\left| \sum_{m \geq 0} \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1}( f_1* \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}} ) \cdot BHT(f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}, f_3) \right|\right|_q \\ &\leq& \left( \sum_{m \geq 0} \left| \left| \sum_{j=0}^{2^m-1}( f_1* \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}} ) \cdot BHT(f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}, f_3) \right|\right|_q^q \right)^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
To prove the next theorem, we will need the following fact:
\begin{lemma}[Bicarleson Estimates]
The operator $\sup BHT (f_1, f_2)(x)$ given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{N} \left| \int_{x _1<x_2< N} \hat{f}_1(x_1) \hat{f}_2(x_2) e^{2 \pi i x(x_1+x_2)} dx_1 dx_2\right|
\end{eqnarray*}
is bounded from $L^{p_1} \times L^{p_2}$ into $L^{\frac{p_1 p_2}{p_1+p_2}}$ provided $\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2} <3/2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}
The operator $C_5^{1,1,-1,1,1}:L^{p_1} \times L^{p_2} \times W_{p_3} \times L^{p_4} \times L^{p_5}\rightarrow L^{\frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^5 \frac{1}{p_i}}}$ is continuous provided $\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}, \frac{1}{p_4}+\frac{1}{p_5} < 3/2$ while $\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_3}, \frac{1}{p_3}+\frac{1}{p_4} <1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
One may try on a first attempt to introduce two copies of the same martingale structure, namely $E^{m_1}_{j_1}$ and $E^{m_2}_{j_2}$ adapted to $f_3$ this time, and split $C_5^{1,1,-1,1,1}$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0}\sum_{j_1, j_2} BHT(f_1, f_2 * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}) (f_3* \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1, r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}}) BHT(f_4*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}}, f_5).
\end{eqnarray*}
A computation similar to theorem \ref{OT} yields in the Banach case, setting $\frac{1}{q_1}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}$ and $\frac{1}{q_2}=\frac{1}{p_4}+\frac{1}{p_5}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&||C_5^{1,1,-1,1,1} (\vec{f})||_q\\ \lesssim \sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} && \left|\left| \left(\sum_{j_1} |BHT(f_1, f_2 * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1, l}})|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right|\right|_{q_1} \times \\ && \left|\left| \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2} |f_3* \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1, r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2, l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right |\right|_{p_3} \times \\ && \left|\left| \left( \sum_{j_2} |BHT(f_4*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}},f_5)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right|\right|_{q_2} \\ &=& \sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} A_{m_1} \times B_{m_1, m_2} \times C_{m_2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
As before, the goal is to produce a convergent geometric series over the scales $m_1$ and $m_2$. The factors $A_{m_1}$ and $C_{m_2}$ are both handled by the $l^2$ vector-valued inequality for the $BHT$ followed by the generalized Rubio de Francia estimate. If both $p_2, p_4 <2$, this part can be bounded above by
\begin{eqnarray*}
2^{m_1(1/2-1/p_2^\prime)} 2^{m_2(1/2-1/p_4^\prime)} ||f_1||_{p_1} ||f_2||_{p_2} ||f_4||_{p_4} ||f_5||_{p_5}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The decay which enables the geometric series to converge of course comes from the middle factor, namely $B_{m_1, m_2}$. Using the convexity of $x \mapsto |x|^{p_3/2}$ and the Hausdorff-Young inequality, we can bound $B_{m_1, m_2}$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left(\sum_{j_1, j_2} ||\hat{f}_3\chi_{j_1, r}\chi_{j_2, l}||_{p^\prime_3}^{p_3}\right)^{1/p_3} = 2^{\max\{m_1, m_2\}(1/p_3-1/p_3^\prime)},
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last equality follows from the nesting property of dyadic intervals. To finish in this case, we must require
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0}=2^{m_1(1/2-1/p_2^\prime)} 2^{m_2(1/2-1/p_4^\prime)} 2^{\max\{m_1, m_2\}(1/2-1/p_3^\prime)}
\end{eqnarray*}
converge, which happens if and only if $\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_4}+\frac{1}{p_3} <3/2$.
This condition implies $\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_3}, \frac{1}{p_3}+\frac{1}{p_4} <1$ by the assumption $p_2, p_4 <2$, so we have proven only a subset of the exponent range claimed in the theorem. What cost us is the fact that
\begin{eqnarray*}
B_{m_1, m_2}=2^{\max\{m_1, m_2\}(1/2-1/p_3^\prime)},
\end{eqnarray*}
which does not decay fast enough for the sum over scales to converge. The key idea to get the full range is to adopt a different martingale structure decomposition that yields $B_{m_1, m_2}=2^{(m_1+m_2)(1/2-1/p_3^\prime)}$, which \emph{will} be enough to conclude the result.
\vspace{5mm}
First construct $E^{m_1}_{j_2}$ given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_{f_3}(x)&=&\frac{\int_{-\infty}^x |\hat{f}_3|^{p_3^\prime} dx}{||\hat{f}_3||_{p_3^\prime}^{p_3^\prime}}\\
E^{m_1}_{j_1}&=&\gamma_{f_3}^{-1}([j_12^{-m_1}, (j_1+1)2^{-m_1})).
\end{eqnarray*}
Next, define the \emph{restricted} martingale structure $E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2}$ by setting
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_{m_1, j_1, f_3}(x)&=&\frac{ \int_{-\infty}^x |\hat{f}_3|^{p_3^\prime} \chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}} dx}{||\hat{f}_3 \chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}}||_{p_3^\prime}^{p_3^\prime}}\\
E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2}&=&\gamma_{m_1, j_1, f_3}^{-1}([j_22^{-m_2}, (j_2+1)2^{-m_2})).
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, $||\hat{f}_3 \chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}} \chi_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2}}||^{p_3^\prime}_{p_3^\prime} = 2^{-(m_1+m_2)}~\forall~0 \leq j_1 <2^{m_1},0 \leq j_2 < 2^{m_2}$. We now partition the domain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\{ (x_2, x_3, x_4): x_2 <x_3 <x_4\}= \bigcup_{m_1, m_2} \bigcup_{j_1, j_2} E^{m_1}_{j_1, l} \times (E^{m_1}_{j_1, r} \cap E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2, l} )\times E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2, r}.
\end{eqnarray*}
CASE 1: $q:=\frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^{5} \frac{1}{p_i}} \leq 1$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left| \left| C_{5}^{1,1,-1,1,1} (\vec{f}) \right| \right|_q \\
&\leq& \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} \left| \left| \sum_{j_1,j_2} BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}) \times f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,j_2,r}}, f_5) \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We now want to split the sum over $j_1, j_2$ as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{j_1, j_2} =\sum_{j_1=0}^{2^{m_1}-1} \sum_{j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} +\left. \sum_{j_1=0}^{2^{m_1}-1} \right|_{j_2=2^{m_2}-1}
\end{eqnarray*}
to reflect the fact that $\{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2, r}\}_{j_1, j_2}$ is not a disjoint collection of intervals, while $\{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,r}\}_{j_1, j_2: j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1}$ is.
CASE 1a: We now deal with the first term, which corresponds to $\sum_{j_1=0}^{2^{m_1}-1} \sum_{j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1}$. Now the computation becomes
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left( \sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} \left| \left|\sum_{j_1,j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}) \times f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}} \times \right. \right. \right. \\&& \left. \left. \left. BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,j_2,r}}, f_5) \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q} \\ &\leq& \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} \left| \left| \sup_{j_1}| BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}})| \times \right. \right. \right.\\ &&\left. \left. \left. \left(\sum_{j_1,j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} |f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1, r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} |BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,j_2,r}}, f_5)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q}\\ &\leq& \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} \left| \left| \sup_{j_1} |BHT(f_1, f_2 * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}})| \right| \right|^q_{q_1} \right. \times \\ && \left. \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_1}\sum_{j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} |f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right|\right|_{p_1}^q\times \right. \\ && \left. \left|\left| \left(\sum_{j_1}\sum_{j_2 \not = 0, 2^{m_2}-1}|BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1,j_2,r}}, f_5)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{q_2}^q \right)^{1/q} \\&=& \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} A_{m_1} \times B_{m_1, m_2} \times C_{m_1, m_2} \right)^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
To deal with $A_{m_1}$, we will use estimates for the Bicarleson operator. For $B_{m_1, m_2}$, we use the martingale structure to obtain $B_{m_1, m_2}<2^{q(m_1+m_2)(1/2-1/p_3^\prime)}$, and $C_{m_1, m_2}$ can be passed to the $l^2$ vector-valued story combined with the generalized Rubio de Francia estimate. Following the same argument as before, the resulting geometric sum will be given for any $r > p_4^\prime$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} 2^{q(m_1+m_2)(1/2-1/p_3^\prime+1/2-1/r)}
\end{eqnarray*}
which again converges provided one chooses r close enough to $p_4^\prime$ one recalls that $\frac{1}{p_3}+\frac{1}{p_4}<1$ by assumption.
CASE 1b:
It only remains to tackle the endpoint case, i.e. the sum is over all $j_1$ for fixed $j_2 = 2^{m_2}-1$. Here, it is important to realize that the intervals $\{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, 2^{m_2}-1, r}\}$ all overlap.
The calculation is
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left( \sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} \left| \left|\sum_{j_1} BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}) \times f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, 2^{m_2}-1,l}} \times \right. \right. \right. \\&& \left. \left. \left. BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,2^{m_2}-1,r}}, f_5) \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q} \\ &\leq&\left( \sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_1} |BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}})|^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \left( \sum_{j_1} |f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, 2^{m_2}-1,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \right. \right. \right. \\&& \left. \left. \left. \sup_{j_1} |BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,2^{m_2}-1,r}}, f_5)| \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q} \\ &\leq&\left( \sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_1} |BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}})|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{q_1}^q \times \right. \\ && \left. \left| \left|\left( \sum_{j_1} |f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, 2^{m_2}-1,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|^q_{p_3} \times\right. \\&& \left. \left| \left| \sup_{j_1} |BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,2^{m_2}-1,r}}, f_5)| \right| \right|_{q_2}^q \right)^{1/q} \\ &=& \left(\sum_{m_1, m_2} A_{m_1} \times B_{m_1, m_2} \times C_{m_1, m_2} \right)^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This time we pass $A_{m_1}$ to the $l^2$ vector-valued story followed by generalized Rubio de Francia, $B_{m_1, m_2} < 2^{qm_1(1/2-1/p_3^\prime)} 2^{-qm_2/p_3^\prime}$, and $C_{m_1, m_2}$ can be handled using the Bicarleson estimates. Therefore, the geometric sum one eventually faces is of the form
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} 2^{qm_1(1/2-1/p_2^\prime)} 2^{qm_1 (1/2-1/p_3^\prime)} 2^{-qm_2 / p_3^\prime},
\end{eqnarray*}
which again converges because of the assumption $\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_3} <1$.
CASE 2: $q>1$. One passes the sum over scales outside the $L^q$ norm using the triangle inequality before proceeding exactly as before.
\end{proof}
Before proving the main result of this section, we record the following result:
\begin{theorem}\label{PR}
The operator $C_8^{1,1,-1,1,1,-1, 1,1}:L^{p_1} \times L^{p_2} \times W_{p_3} \times L^{p_4} \times L^{p_5} \times W_{p_6} \times L^{p_7} \times L^{p_8}\rightarrow L^{\frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^8 \frac{1}{p_i}}}$ is bounded provided $\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}, \frac{1}{p_4}+\frac{1}{p_5},\frac{1}{p_7}+\frac{1}{p_8} <3/2$ and $\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_3}, \frac{1}{p_3}+\frac{1}{p_4}, \frac{1}{p_5}+\frac{1}{p_6}, \frac{1}{p_6}+\frac{1}{p_7} <1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The idea is two construct 4 martingale structures given by $E^{m_1}_{j_1}, E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2},$ $E^{m_3}_{j_3},$ and $E^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4}$, where the first two are adapted to $f_3$, and the last two are adapted to $f_6$. Specifically, we define
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_{f_3}(x)&=&\frac{\int_{-\infty}^x |\hat{f}_3|^{p_3^\prime} dx }{||\hat{f}_3||_{p_3^\prime}^{p_3^\prime}} \\
E^{m_1}_{j_1}&=&\gamma_{f_3}^{-1}([j_12^{-m_1}, (j_1+1)2^{-m_1}))\\
\gamma_{m_1, j_1, f_3}(x)&=&\frac{\int_{-\infty}^x |\hat{f}_3|^{p_3^\prime} \chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}} dx}{||\hat{f}_3 \chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}}||_{p_3^\prime}^{p_3^\prime}} \\ E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2} &=&\gamma_{m_1, j_1, f_3}^{-1}([j_22^{-m_2}, (j_2+1)2^{-m_2}))\\
\gamma_{f_6}(x)&=&\frac{\int_{-\infty}^x |\hat{f}_6|^{p_3^\prime} dx }{||\hat{f}_6||_{p_6^\prime}^{p_6^\prime}} \\
\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3}&=&\gamma_{f_6}^{-1}([j_32^{-m_3}, (j_3+1)2^{-m_3}))\\
\gamma_{m_3, j_3, f_6}(x)&=&\frac{\int_{-\infty}^x |\hat{f}_6|^{p_6^\prime} \chi_{E^{m_3}_{j_3}} dx}{||\hat{f}_6 \chi_{E^{m_3}_{j_3}}||_{p_6^\prime}^{p_6^\prime}} \\ \tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4} &=&\gamma_{m_3, j_3, f_6}^{-1}([j_22^{-m_2}, (j_2+1)2^{-m_2})).
\end{eqnarray*}
The hardest case is when $p_2, p_4, p_5, p_7 <2$, which places us in the quasi-Banach setting. We assume this now without loss of generality. Decomposing the operator $C^{1,1,-1,1,1,-1,1,1}$ yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left| \left| C_{5}^{1,1,-1,1,1} (\vec{f}) \right| \right|_q \\
&\leq& \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} \left| \left| \sum_{j_1,j_2,j_3, j_4} BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}) \times f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,j_2,r}}, f_5* \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,l}}) \times (f_6*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,r}} * \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, l}} ) \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. BHT(f_7*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, r}},f_8) \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We now separate the sum
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{j_1, j_2, j_3, j_4}&=&\sum_{j_1, j_3, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1, j_4 \not = 2^{m_4}-1} \\&+&\left. \sum_{j_1, j_3, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} \right|_{j_4=2^{m_4}-1} \\&+& \left. \sum_{j_1, j_3, j_4 \not = 2^{m_4}-1} \right|_{j_2=2^{m_2}-1} \\&+& \left. \sum_{j_1, j_3} \right|_{j_2=2^{m_2}-1, j_4=2^{m_4}-1} \\ &=& A + B +C +D,
\end{eqnarray*}
so that the corresponding estimate is broken intro four pieces, $\tilde{A}, \tilde{B}, \tilde{C},$ and $\tilde{D}$,
The plan is now to bound each piece individually. To save space, it is helpful to define $\frac{1}{q_1}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}, \frac{1}{q_2}=\frac{1}{p_4}+\frac{1}{p_5}, \frac{1}{q_3}=\frac{1}{p_7}+\frac{1}{p_8}$. First,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \tilde{A} := \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} \left| \left| \sum_{j_1,j_3, j_2 \not =2^{m_2}-1 , j_4\not = 2^{m_4}-1} BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}) \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. (f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}} )\times BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,j_2,r}}, f_5* \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,l}}) \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. (f_6*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,r}} * \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, l}} ) \times BHT(f_7*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, r}},f_8) \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This can be bounded above by
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} \left| \left| \sum_{j_3 , j_4\not = 2^{m_4}-1} \sup_{j_1} |BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}})| \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} | f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}} |^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} |BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,j_2,r}}, f_5* \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,l}})|^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. |f_6*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,r}} * \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, l}} | \times |BHT(f_7*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, r}},f_8)| \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q} \\ &\leq& \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} \left| \left| \sup_{j_1} |BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}})| \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} | f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}} |^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \sup_{j_3}\left( \sum_{j_1, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} |BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,j_2,r}}, f_5* \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,l}})|^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \left( \sum_{j_3, j_4 \not = 2^{m_4}-1} |f_6*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,r}} * \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, l}} |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \times \left( \sum_{j_3, j_4 \not = 2^{m_4}-1} |BHT(f_7*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, r}},f_8)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q} .
\end{eqnarray*}
We now use H\"{o}lder's inequality to deduce an upper bound of the form
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} \left| \left| \sup_{j_1} |BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}})| \right| \right|_{q_1}^q \times \right. \\ && \left. \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} | f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}} |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|^q_{p_3} \times \right. \\ && \left. \left| \left| \sup_{j_3}\left( \sum_{j_1, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} |BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,j_2,r}}, f_5* \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,l}})|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{q_2}^q \times \right. \\ && \left. \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_3, j_4 \not = 2^{m_4}-1} |f_6*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,r}} * \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, l}} |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right| _{p_6}^q \right. \\ && \left. \times \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_3, j_4 \not = 2^{m_4}-1} |BHT(f_7*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, r}},f_8)|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{q_3}^q \right)^{1/q} \\&=& \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} A_{m_1} B_{m_1, m_2} C_{m_1, m_2,m_3}, D_{j_3, j_4}, F_{m_3, m_4} \right)^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The factor $A_{m_1}$ is handled by the Bicarleson operator estimates. For the other factors, $B_{m_1, m_2} < 2^{q(m_1+m_2)(1/2-1/p_3^\prime)}||\hat{f}_3||_{p_3^\prime}^q$, $C_{m_1, m_2, m_3}$ is handled using lemma \ref{L2} in the appendix, $D_{m_3, m_4}<2^{q(m_3+m_4)(1/2-1/p_6^\prime)}||\hat{f}_6||_{p_6^\prime}^{q}$, and $F_{m_3, m_4}$ is is handled using lemma \ref{L1}.
Since we are assuming $p_2, p_4, p_5, p_7<2$, the geometric sum one eventually faces takes the form
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4} 2^{q(m_1 + m_2)(1/2-1/p_3^\prime+1/2-1/p_4^\prime)} 2^{q(m_3+m_4)(1/2-1/p_6^\prime+1/2-1/p_7^\prime)},
\end{eqnarray*}
which converges because $\frac{1}{p_3}+\frac{1}{p_4} , \frac{1}{p_6}+\frac{1}{p_7} <1$. The next term we face is
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \tilde{B} := \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} \left| \left|\left. \sum_{j_1,j_3, j_2 \not =2^{m_2}-1 ,} \right|_{j_4 = 2^{m_4}-1} BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}) \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. (f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}} )\times BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,j_2,r}}, f_5* \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,l}}) \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. (f_6*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,r}} * \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, l}} ) \times BHT(f_7*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, r}},f_8) \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
It is readily seen that one has an upper bound of the form
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde{B} &\leq& \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} \left| \left| \sup_{j_1} |BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}| \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} |f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \left( \sum_{j_1, j_3, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} |BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,j_2,r}}, f_5* \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \left( \sum_{j_3} |f_6*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,r}} * \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, 2^{m_4}-1, l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \sup_{j_3} |BHT(f_7*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, 2^{m_4}-1, r}},f_8)| \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q},
\end{eqnarray*}
which is passed to H\"{o}lder's inequality as before, giving the expression
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} \left| \left| \sup_{j_1} |BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}| \right| \right|_{q_1}^q \times \right. \\ && \left. \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} |f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{p_3}^q \times \right. \\ && \left.\left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_1, j_3, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} |BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,j_2,r}}, f_5* \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{q_2}^q \times \right. \\ && \left. \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_3} |f_6*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,r}} * \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, 2^{m_4}-1, l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{p_6}^q \times \right. \\ &&\left. \left| \left| \sup_{j_3} |BHT(f_7*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, 2^{m_4}-1, r}},f_8)| \right| \right|_{q_3}^q \right)^{1/q} \\ &=& \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} A_{m_1} \times B_{m_1, m_2}\times C_{m_1, m_2, m_3} \times D_{m_3, m_4} \times F_{m_3, m_4} \right)^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We pass $A_{m_1}$ and $F_{m_3, m_4}$ to the Bicarleson estimates, use the standard decay for $B_{m_1, m_2}$, use lemma \ref{L1} and generalized Rubio de Francia for $C_{m_1, m_2, m_3}$, and observe $D_{m_3, m_4}<2^{qm_3(1/2-1/p_6^\prime)} 2^{-qm_4/p_6^\prime}$. Doing this, gives the geometric series
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} 2^{q(m_1+m_2)(1/2-1/p_3^\prime + 1/2-1/p_4^\prime)} 2^{qm_3(1/2-1/p_6^\prime + 1/2-1/p_5^\prime)} 2^{-qm_4/p_6^\prime},
\end{eqnarray*}
which converges because $\frac{1}{p_3}+\frac{1}{p_4}, \frac{1}{p_5}+\frac{1}{p_6} <1$.
The analysis for $\tilde{C}$ is the same as the analysis for $\tilde{B}$ except that the roles of $j_1, j_2$ and $j_3, j_4$ are reversed.
Thus, it only remains to bound $\tilde{D}$ to obtain the result. For this, we observe
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \tilde{D} := \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} \left| \left|\left. \sum_{j_1,j_3} \right|_{j_2 = 2^{m_2}-1, j_4 = 2^{m_4}-1} BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}) \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. (f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}} )\times BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,j_2,r}}, f_5* \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,l}}) \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. (f_6*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,r}} * \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, l}} ) \times BHT(f_7*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, r}},f_8) \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q} \\ &\leq&\left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} \left| \left| \sum_{j_1} |BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}})| \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. |f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, 2^{m_2}-1,l}} |\times \left( \sum_{j_3} |BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,2^{m_2}-1,r}}, f_5* \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \left( \sum_{j_3} |f_6*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,r}} * \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, 2^{m_4}-1, l}} |^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \sup_{j_3} |BHT(f_7*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, 2^{m_4}-1, r}},f_8)| \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q} \\&\leq& \left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_1} |BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}})|^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left.\left( \sum_{j_1} |f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, 2^{m_2}-1,l}} |^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \sup_{j_1} \left( \sum_{j_3} |BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,2^{m_2}-1,r}}, f_5* \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \right. \right. \right. \\ && \left. \left. \left. \left( \sum_{j_3} |f_6*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,r}} * \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, 2^{m_4}-1, l}} |^2 \right)^{1/2} \times \sup_{j_3} |BHT(f_7*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, 2^{m_4}-1, r}},f_8)| \right| \right|_q^q \right)^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Using H\"{o}lder's inequality once more, we obtain the upper bound
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left( \sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3, m_4 \geq 0} \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_1} |BHT(f_1, ,f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}})|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{q_1}^q \times \right. \\ && \left. \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_1} |f_{3}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j,r}} * \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, 2^{m_2}-1,l}} |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{p_3}^q \times \right. \\ && \left.\left| \left| \sup_{j_1} \left( \sum_{j_3} |BHT(f_{4}*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,2^{m_2}-1,r}}, f_5* \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,l}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{q_2}^q \times \right. \\ && \left. \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_3} |f_6*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3}_{j_3,r}} * \check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, 2^{m_4}-1, l}} |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{p_6}^q \times \right. \\ &&\left.\left| \left| \sup_{j_3} |BHT(f_7*\check{\chi}_{\tilde{E}^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, 2^{m_4}-1, r}},f_8)| \right| \right|_{q_3}^q \right)^{1/q} \\ &=& \left( \sum_{m_1,m_2, m_3, m_4} A_{m_1} B_{m_1, m_2} C_{m_1, m_2, m_3} D_{m_3, m_4} F_{m_3, m_4} \right)^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
One handles $A_{m_1}$ using the $l^2$ vector-valued for the BHT and generalized Rubio de Francia, $B_{m_1, m_2} < 2^{qm_1(1/2-1/p_3^\prime)} 2^{-qm_2/p_3^\prime}$, $C_{m_1, m_2, m_3}$ using lemma \ref{L2}, $D_{m_3, m_4} < 2^{q m_3(1/2-1/p_6^\prime)} 2^{-q m_4 /p_6^\prime}$, and $F_{m_3, m_4}$ using Bicarleson estimates.
The geometric series one eventually faces in this case is
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{m_1, m_2, m_3,m_4 \geq 0} 2^{q m_1 ( 1/2-1/p_2^\prime +1/2 - 1/p_3^\prime)} 2^{-q m_2 /p_3^\prime} 2^{qm_3(1/2-1/p_5^\prime +1/2-1/p_6^\prime)} 2^{-qm_4/p_6^\prime},
\end{eqnarray*}
which converges because $\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_3}, \frac{1}{p_5}+\frac{1}{p_6} <1$.
\end{proof}
It is important to note that each BHT in the previous proof could have been replaced by $C_n^{1,...,1}$ provided we had estimates for the maximal variant
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup C_n^{1,...,1}(\vec{f})(x):= \sup_{M,N} \left| \int_{M<x_1 < ... < x_n <N} \hat{f}_1(x_1) ... \hat{f}_n(x_n) e^{2\pi i x (x_1 + ... + x_n)} d\vec{x} \right|.
\end{eqnarray*}
While such results have not yet appeared in published form, we shall assume them for the purposes of this paper based on personal communication with C. Muscalu. Also, having proved mixed estimates for $C_8^{1,1,-1,1,1,-1,1,1}$, it is reasonable to think that the same method of proof works for operators that continue the sequence $1,1,-1,1,1,-1,...$ for arbitrarily long lengths. This is indeed the case as we prove in theorem \ref{MT}, but some care has to be taken with the order in which we use suprema and Cauchy-Schwarz inequalities. At this point, we need to introduce a few definitions.
\begin{definition}
A set of consecutive positive integers $\{ i_1, ..., i_1 +m\} \subset [n]$ forms a Lebesgue block $\mathfrak{B}$ for the operator $C_n^{\epsilon}$ provided $\epsilon_{i_1+l} + \epsilon_{i_{1}+l+1} \not = 0$ for all $0 \leq l < m$ and $\{i_1, ...,i_1+m\}$ is maximal with respect to this property.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
We say a sign degeneracy occurs between indices $i$ and $i+1$ of the operator $C_n^{\vec{\epsilon}}$ if $\epsilon_i+ \epsilon_{i+1} =0$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Suppose $C_n^{\vec{\epsilon}}: \otimes_{i=1}^n X^i \rightarrow L^q$ where for each $1 \leq i \leq n$, $X^i \in \{ L^{p_i},W_{p_i}\}.$ Then $W_{C_n^{\vec{\epsilon}}}^*:= \{ 1 \leq i \leq n : X^i = W_{p_i}.\}$
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}[Main Theorem]\label{MT}
For $n \geq 2$, fix $\vec{\epsilon} \in \{\pm 1\}^n$. Form the operator $C_n^{\vec{\epsilon}}$ with domain $\otimes _{i=1}^n X^i$ and assume for every $i : 1 \leq i \leq n$ either $X^i = L^{p_i}$ for some $1 <p_i<\infty $ or $X^i = W_{p_i}$ for some $p_i \not =2$. In addition, suppose the following three conditions:
1) The restricted maximal operator on each Lebesgue block $\mathfrak{B}$ is bounded.
2) For all $i \in W^*_{C_n^{\vec{\epsilon}}}$,
$\epsilon_i+\epsilon_{i-1}=\epsilon_i+\epsilon_{i+1} =0$.
3) Whenever $\epsilon_{i}+\epsilon_{i+1} =0$, $\frac{1}{p_i}+\frac{1}{p_{i+1}} \not = 1$.
Then $C_n^{\vec{\epsilon}}: \otimes _{i=1}^n X^i \rightarrow L^{\frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{p_i}}}$ is bounded if and only if
1) $p_i >2$ for all $i \in W^*_{C_n^{\vec{\epsilon}}}$,
2) whenever $\epsilon_{i-1}+\epsilon_i =0$ or $\epsilon_{i}+\epsilon_{i+1}=0$, then $\{i-1,i,i+1\} \cap W^*_{C_n^{\vec{\epsilon}}} \not = \emptyset$,
3) $\epsilon_i +\epsilon_{i+1} =0$ implies $\frac{1}{p_i} + \frac{1}{p_{i+1}} <1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The ``only if" part of the theorem will follow from corollary \ref{CE} in the next section on counterexamples and shows that our results are, in a sense, the best possible. To prove the ``if" statement, it is enough by the remark at the end of the previous theorem to assume all Lebesgue blocks have length 1 or 2. In fact, we now specialize to the case where each Lebesgue block has length 2 and there is only 1 function in a Wiener space between each Lebesgue block. The same type of proof will work for the cases where a Lebesgue block has length one or there is more than one Wiener function separating a Lebesgue block. So, we will restrict our attention to the operator $C_{3n-1}^{1,1,-1,1,1,-1,...,-1,1,1}$ and prove bounds for it. To this end, we introduce two martingale structures for each $f_{3i} \in W_{p_{3i}}$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_{f_{3i}}(x)&=&\frac{ \int_{-\infty}^x |\hat{f}_{3i}|^{p_{3i}^\prime}d\bar{x}}{|| \hat{f}_{3i}||_{p_{3i}^\prime}^{p_{3i}^\prime}}\\
_{3i}E^{m_1}_{j_1}&=&\gamma_{f_{3i}}^{-1}([j_12^{-m_1}, (j_1+1)2^{-m_1}))\\
\gamma_{m_1, j_1, f_{3i}}(x)&=& \frac{ \int_{-\infty}^x |\hat{f}_{3i}|^{p_{3i}^\prime} d\bar{x}}{ ||\hat{f}_{3i} \chi_{ _{3i}E^{m_1}_{j_1}} ||_{p_{3i}^\prime}^{p_{3i}^\prime}}\\
_{3i}E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2} &=& \gamma_{m_1, j_1, f_{3i}}^{-1}([j_22^{-m_2}, (j_2 +1)2^{-m_2})).
\end{eqnarray*}
Using the standard partition for each $i: 1 \leq i \leq n-1$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\{x_{3i-1} < x_{3i} < x_{3i+1}\}= \bigcup_{m_1, m_2} \bigcup_{j_1, j_2} ~_{3i}E^{m_1}_{j_1, l} \times (_{3i}E^{m_1}_{j_1,r} \cap~ _{3i}E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2, l}) \times~ _{3i}E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2, r},
\end{eqnarray*}
we decompose $C_n^{1,1,-1,1,1,-1,...,-1,1,1}$. By moving the sum over $n-1$ scales outside the $L^q$ norm as usual, we are left inside with a sum over $2(n-1)$ indices $j_1, ..., j_{2(n-1)}$. Of course, we can split the sum over $\vec{j}$ into $2^{n-1}$ pieces by restricting each even index $j_{2k}$ either to $0 \leq j_{2k}<2^{m_{2k}}-1$ or to the endpoint $2^{m_{2k}}-1$. We say a given scale $m_{2k}:1 \leq k \leq n-1$ is Type A if the corresponding $j_{2k}$ is restricted to $0 \leq j_{2k}<2^{m_{2k}}-1$ and $m_{2k}$ is Type B if $j_{2k}$ is restricted to $2^{m_{2k}}-1$. For example, in theorem \ref{PR} we broke apart the original sum into four smaller sums as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{j_1, j_2, j_3, j_4} &=& \sum_{j_1, j_2 \not =2^{m_2}-1, j_3, j_4 \not = 2^{m_4}-1} \\&+&\left. \sum_{j_1, j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1, j_3} \right|_{j_4=2^{m_4}-1} \\&+& \left. \sum_{j_1, j_3, j_4 \not = 2^{m_4}-1} \right|_{j_2=2^{m_2}-1} \\&+& \left. \sum_{j_1, j_3} \right|_{j_2=2^{m_2}-1, j_4=2^{m_4}-1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
For the first sum on the right hand side, the scales $m_2$ and $m_4$ are both Type A. For the second sum, the $m_2$ is Type A and $m_4$ Type B. For the third sum, $m_2$ is Type B and $m_1$ is Type A. For the last sum, both $m_1$ and $m_2$ are Type B. For convenience, say that the first sum is type $AA$, the second type $AB$, the third type $BA$, and the fourth type $BB$.
It is instructive to recall how sums of type AA in the decomposition of $C_8^{1,1,-1,1,1,-1,1,1}$ were handled in theorem \ref{PR}. Setting
\begin{eqnarray*}
A^{m_1}_{j_1}&=&BHT(f_1, f_2*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}})\\
B^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2}&=& f_3 *\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1, r}} *\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1,j_2, l}}\\
C^{m_1, m_2, m_3}_{j_1, j_2, j_3}&=&BHT(f_4*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2, r}}, f_5*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_3}_{j_3,l}})\\
D^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2} &=& f_6*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_3}_{j_3, r}} *\check{\chi}_{E^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4,l}}\\
F^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2}&=& BHT(f_7*\check{\chi}_{E^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, r}}, f_8),
\end{eqnarray*}
we observed
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left| \sum_{j_1, j_2 : j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1, j_3, j_4 \not = 2^{m_4}-1} A^{m_1}_{j_1} B^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1, j_2} C^{m_1, m_2, m_3}_{j_1, j_2, j_3} D^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4} F^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4} \right| \\&\leq&\sup_{j_1} | A^{m_1}_{j_1}| \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2: j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1} |B_{j_1, j_2}^{m_1, m_2}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \times\\ && \sup_{j_3} \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2 : j_2\not = 2^{m_2}-1} |C^{m_1, m_2, m_3}_{j_1, j_2, j_3}|^2 \right)^{1/2}\times \\&& \left( \sum_{j_3, j_4:j_4 \not = 2^{m_4}-1} |D^{m_3,m_4}_{j_3, j_4}|^2 \right)^{1/2}\times \\ && \left( \sum_{j_3, j_4 :j_4 \not= 2^{m_4}-1} |F^{m_3,m_4}_{j_3,j_4}|^2 \right)^{1/2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that we used a supremum and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for the pair $(j_1, j_2)$ \emph{before} proceeding to use a supremum and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for the pair $(j_3, j_4)$. This order ensures that one takes the $l^2$ norm over $j_1, j_2$ for the cross factor $C_{m_1, m_2, m_3}$ before the $l^\infty$ norm over $j_3$. That the supremum over $j_3$ appears outside the sum over $j_1$ and $j_2$ is necessary for applying lemma \ref{L2}. We summarize this observation by saying one resolves sums of type AA from ``left to right."
One quickly checks that for sums of type $AB$, the cross factor took the form $\left( \sum_{j_1, j_2:j_2 \not = 2^{m_2}-1, j_3} |C_{m_1, m_2, m_3}|^2 \right)^{1/2}$, which we were able to handle using standard $l^2$ vector-valued inequalities, while sums of type $BA$ gave us cross factors like $\sup_{j_1, j_3} |C_{j_1, 2^{m_2}-1, j_3}|$, which we could pass to the Bicarleson estimate. Neither sums of type $AB$ nor sums of type $BA$ required one to estimate the factors containing $(j_1, j_2)$ before those containing $(j_3, j_4)$ or the factors containing $(j_3, j_4)$ before those containing $(j_1, j_2)$. Lastly, sums of type BB required us to resolve from ``right to left." The cross factor here took the form $\sup_{j_1} \left( \sum_{j_3} |C_{j_1, 2^{{m_2}-1}, j_3}|^2 \right)^{1/2}$. It is easy to check that resolving ``left to right" gives a convergent sum for a block consisting of an arbitrary number of As, and similarly resolving ``right to left" gives a convergent sum for a block consisting of an arbitrary number of Bs.
Now, for a given sum in the decomposition of $\sum_{j_1, ..., j_{2(n-1)}}$, its type can be represented as a string of As and Bs of length $n-1$. This string can be separated into blocks of As and blocks of Bs of varying lengths. For each block of As, one resolves each j pair from ``left to right." Then, for each block of Bs, one resolves each j pair from ``right to left." Doing this yields a convergent geometric series for each of the $2^{(n-1)}$ pieces of the sum $\sum_{j_1, ...,j_{2(n-1)}}$.
\end{proof}
\section{Counterexamples}
The following proposition is a well-known counterexample to the boundedness of $C_3^{1,-1,1}$ originally due to C. Fefferman:
\begin{prop}[\citep{2013}] The operator $C_3^{1,-1,1}$ satisfies no $L^p$ estimates.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We provide a sketch. It is a routine calculation to see that $C_3^{1,-1,1}$ is up to harmless modifications the operator
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde{C}_3^{1,-1,1}(\vec{f})(x)=p.v. \int_{\mathbb{R}^2}f_1(x-s) f_2(s-t-x) f_3(x+t) \frac{ ds dt}{s \cdot t}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Setting $f_1=f_3=e^{2 \pi i x^2} \chi_{[-N,N]}$, $f_2=e^{-2\pi i x^2} \chi_{[-N,N]}$, yields $|C_3^{1,-1,1}(\vec{f})(x)|$
\begin{eqnarray*}
= \left| \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} e^{-4\pi i st} \chi_{[-N,N]}(x-s) \chi_{[-N,N]}(x-s+t) \chi_{[-N,N]}(x+t) \frac{ ds dt}{s \cdot t} \right|.
\end{eqnarray*}
For all $|x| < N/1000$, say, the support of the integrand contains a small box centered at the origin of side length $N/10$. Then one can compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \int_{-N/10}^{N/10} \int_{-N/10}^{N/10} e^{-4\pi i st} \frac{ ds dt}{s \cdot t} \right| \gtrsim \log N
\end{eqnarray*}
to conclude $||C_3^{1,-1,1}||_r \gtrsim \log N N^{1/r}$ while $||f_1||_{p_1} ||f_2||_{p_2} ||f_3||_{p_3} \simeq N^{1/r}$. Taking N large yields a contradiction to the boundedness of $C_3^{1,-1,1}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
$||C_3^{1,-1,1}(g^+_{N}, g^-_{N}, g^+_{N})||_{q} \simeq \log N N^\frac{1}{q}$ for all $q > 0$.
\end{corollary}
Remark: The above proof also works if one takes $e^{\pm 2 \pi i x^2} (\tilde{\chi}_{[-N, N]})$ where $\tilde{\chi}_{[-N,N]}:=Dil_N (\rho * \chi_{[-1,1]})$ is a dilated mollified characteristic function with the additional benefit of being in the Schwartz class. Thus, the proceeding proof shows that T cannot be uniformly bounded on the family of functions $\{ g_N^{\pm}\}_{N \in \mathbb{Z}^+}$ where $g^{\pm}_N=(e^{\pm 2 \pi i x^2} \tilde{\chi}_{[-N,N]})$. For more detail in the proof using Fefferman's counterexample, see \citep{2013}.
\begin{definition} $\mathcal{F}_c=\{f \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}): supp(\hat{f}) ~is~compact\}.$
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
The function $g^\pm_{N,M} =(e^{\pm 2 \pi i x^2}(\tilde{\chi}_{[-N,N]}))* \check{\chi}_{[-M,M]}$.
\end{definition}
We can now prove the following:
\begin{prop} The operator $C_3^{1,-1,1}$ is not bounded from
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{F}_c \cap L^{p} \times \mathcal{F}_c\cap L^{q} \times \mathcal{F}_c \cap L^{r}~\text{into}~L^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q} + \frac{1}{r}}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
In fact, for a given N there exists M such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
||C_3^{1,-1,1}(g_{N,M}^+, g_{N,M}^-, g_{N,M}^+)||_q \simeq_q \log N N^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose for a contradiction that $C_3^{1,-1,1}$ was bounded. Then for any $f,g,h \in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{N \rightarrow -\infty}C_3^{1,-1,1}(f( 1-\chi_{[-N, N]}), g , h) (x)=0~\forall~x \in \mathbb{R},
\end{eqnarray*}
so by dominated convergence, Fatou's lemma, our assumption on the boundedness of $C_3^{1,-1,1}$, and Hausdorff-Young,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left| \left| \int_{x_1 < x_2 < x_3} \hat{f}(x_1) \hat{g}(x_2) \hat{h}(x_3) e^{2 \pi i x ( x_1 - x_2 + x_3)} d\vec{x} \right| \right| _{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{q} + \frac{1}{r}}} \\ &=&\left| \left| \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \left| \int_{-N<x_1 < x_2 < x_3<N} \hat{f}(x_1) \hat{g}(x_2) \hat{h}(x_3) e^{2 \pi i x ( x_1 - x_2 + x_3)} d\vec{x} \right| \right| \right| _{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{q} + \frac{1}{r}}} \\ &\leq& \liminf_{N \rightarrow \infty} \left| \left| \int_{-N<x_1<x_2 < x_3<N}\hat{f}(x_1) \hat{g}(x_2) \hat{h}(x_3) e^{2 \pi i x ( x_1 - x_2 + x_3)} d\vec{x} \right| \right| _{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p} + \frac{1}{q} + \frac{1}{r}}} \\ &\lesssim& \liminf_{N \rightarrow \infty} || f * \check{\chi}_{[-N, N]}||_p ||g * \check{\chi}_{[-N,N]}||_q || h * \check{\chi}_{[-N,N]}||_r \\ &\lesssim& ||f||_p ||g||_q ||h||_r.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then $C_3^{1,-1,1}$ would be continuous from $\mathcal{S} \cap L^p \times \mathcal{S} \cap L^q \times \mathcal{S} \cap L^r$, which contradicts our previous observation.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
The operator $C_3^{1, 1,-1}$ is not bounded from $\mathcal{F}_c \cap L^{p} \times \mathcal{F}_c\cap L^{q} \times \mathcal{F}_c \cap L^{r}$ into $L^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q} + \frac{1}{r}}}$ for any $p,q,r \geq 1.$
\end{corollary}
The usefulness in establishing such results for $C_3^{1,-1,1}$ on the restricted spaces $\mathcal{F}_c$ arises when one asks boundedness questions some multilinear generalizations. First, we need the following lemma:
\begin{lemma}
The following relation holds for $p >1$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left| \left| \widehat{ e^{2 \pi i x^2} \chi_{[-N,N]}} \right| \right|_p \simeq N^{1/p}.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We compute explicitly
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \int_\mathbb{R} e^{ 2 \pi i x^2} \chi_{[-N,N]}(x) e^{ - 2 \pi i x \xi} dx \right|
&=& \left| \int_{-N}^N e^{ 2 \pi i (x+\xi)^2} dx \right|\\
&=& \left| \int_{-N + \xi}^{N+\xi} e^{2\pi i x^2} dx \right|.
\end{eqnarray*}
For N is sufficiently large, there is $C,c>0$ so that $C \geq \left| \int_{-N + \xi}^{N+\xi} e^{2\pi i x^2} dx \right| \geq c$
for all $|\xi| \leq N/2$. If $k \geq 0$ and $100 N 2^{k+1} \geq |\xi| \geq 100 N 2^{k}$, say, then we can estimate
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \int_{-N+\xi}^{N+\xi} e^{2 \pi i x^2 }dx \right| \simeq \frac{1}{N2^k},
\end{eqnarray*}
which ensures
\begin{eqnarray*}
N \lesssim \int_\mathbb{R} \left| \int_{-N+\xi}^{N+\xi} e^{2 \pi i x^2} \right|^p dx \simeq N + \sum_{k \geq 0} \int_{100N 2^k \leq |\xi| \leq 100 N2^{k+1} } \frac{d\xi}{N^p2^{kp}} \simeq N.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
The above proof also shows that $||\widehat{e^{2 \pi i x^2} \chi_{[-N,N]} } || _1 =\infty$.
\begin{corollary}\label{C2}
The operator $C_n^{1, 1, ...., -1, 1}$ is not bounded from $L^{p_1} \times ... \times L^{p_n}$ into $L^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1} + ... + \frac{1}{p_n}}}$ for any $p_1 , ..., p_n \geq 1.$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Fix $N \in \mathbb{Z}^+$ large. By the proceeding remark, there exists M such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left|\left|\int_{x_1 < x_2 <x_3} \hat{g}^+_{N,M} (x_1)\hat{g}^-_{N,M}(x_2) \hat{g}^+_{N,M}(x_3) e^{2 \pi i x ( x_1 -x_2 + x_3)} d \vec{x}\right|\right|_{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} + \frac{1}{p_3}}} \\&\gtrsim& \log N ||g_{N,M}^+||_{p_1} ||g_{N,M}^-||_{p_2} || g_{N,M}^+||_{p_3}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now pick $\{b_j\}_{j=1}^{n-3}$ and define $f_j(x)= e^{2 \pi i b_j x}C_3^{1,-1,1}(g^+_{N,M}, g^-_{N,M}, g^+_{N,M})(x)$ in a way that ensures $\{supp ~\hat{f_j}\}_{j=1}^{n-3}$ are disjoint sets and outside $[-M,M]$. Observe for $\frac{1}{r}=\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{p_i}$
\begin{eqnarray*}
|| C_n^{+, ..., -,+}(f_1, ..., f_n) ||_r=|| C_n^{+,...,-,+}(g_{N,M}^+, g_{N,M}^-, g_{N,M}^+)^{n-2}||_r \gtrsim (\log N)^{n-2} N^\frac{1}{r}.
\end{eqnarray*}
However, $||C_3^{1,-1,1}(g^+_{N,M}, g^-_{N,M}, g^+_{N,M})||_{p_j} \simeq \log N N^\frac{1}{p_j}.$
Putting it all together,
\begin{eqnarray*}
||C_n^{+,...,-,+}(f_1, ..., f_n)||_r \gtrsim \log N \prod_{i=1}^n ||f_i||_{p_i}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
$C_n^{(1,1, ..., 1, -1)}$ is not bounded from $L^{p_1} \times ... \times L^{p_n}$ into $L^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1} + ... + \frac{1}{p_n}}}$ in the case where $\frac{1}{p_{n-1}}+\frac{1}{p_n} <1$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Set $q=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_3}}$. The first claim is for sufficiently large M
\begin{eqnarray*}
|| C^{1,1,-1}_3(g^+_{N, M(N)}, g^+_{N,M(N)}, g^-_{N,M(N)})||_q \simeq _q \log N N^{1/q}
\end{eqnarray*}
for $\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{p_3} <1$. To see this, note $\int_{x_1< x_2} \hat{f}(x_1) \hat{g}(x_2) e^{2 \pi i x (x_1 -x_2)} dx_1 dx_2= \frac{1}{2} f(x) \tilde{g}(x) + \frac{i}{2} H( ~(\widetilde{ \hat{f} *\hat{\tilde{g}}})~\check{}~))(x)$ where $\tilde{g}(x) =g(-x)$ so by the boundedness of the Hilbert transform and the triangle inequality
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& N^{1/q} \\&\gtrsim_q&|| g^+_{N,M(N)}(x) H(g^+_{N,M} \cdot g^-_{N,M(N)})||_q\\ &=& || C^{1,1,-1}_3(g^+_{N, M}, g^+_{N,M}, g^-_{N,M}) \\ & +& C_3^{1,-1,1} (g^+_{N, M}, g^-_{N,M}, g^+_{N,M(N)} )||_q \\ &\gtrsim_q& -|| C_3^{1,1,-1}(g^+_{N, M}, g^+_{N,M}, g^-_{N,M})||_q \\&+&|| C^{1,-1,1} _3(g^+_{N, M}, g^-_{N,M}, g^+_{N,M} ) ||_q \\ &\simeq_q& -|| C^{1,1,-1}_3(g^+_{N, M}, g^+_{N,M}, g^-_{N,M})||_q +\log N N^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, $||C_3^{1,1,-1}(g^+_{N, M}, g^+_{N,M}, g^-_{N,M})||_q \gtrsim \log N N^{1/q}$.
The second claim is $|| C^{1,1,-1}_3(g^+_{N, M}, g^+_{N,M}, g^-_{N,M})||_q \lesssim _q \log N N^{1/q}$. For this, it suffices to observe
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&|| C^{1,1,-1}_3(g^+_{N, M}, g^+_{N,M}, g^-_{N,M})||_q\\& \lesssim_q& || g^+_{N,M} H(g^+_{N,M} g^-_{N,M}) ||_q + || C^{1,-1,1}_3(g^+_{N, M}, g^-_{N,M}, g^+_{N,M} ) ||_q \\ &\lesssim_q& \log N N^{1/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, $|| C^{1,1,-1}_3(g^+_{N, M}, g^+_{N,M}, g^-_{N,M})||_q \simeq_q \log N N^{1/q}$, and by similar arguments as in corollary \ref{C2} the result follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{$C^{\vec{\epsilon}}_n$ on domains containing $W_p$ with $p<2$ }
\begin{prop} $C_3^{1,1,1} (f,g,h)(x):= \int_{x_1 < x_2 < x_3} \hat{f}(x_1) \hat{g}(x_2) \hat{h}(x_3) e^{2\pi i x ( x_1 + x_2 +x_3)} d \vec{x}$ satisfies no estimates of the form $L^{p_1} \times L^{p_2} \times W_{p_3} \rightarrow L^{ \frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} + \frac{1}{p_3}}}$ for any $p_1, p_2, p_3 > 1$ and $p_3 <2$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Recall $g^+_{N,M}(x) = (e^{ 2 \pi i x^2}(\tilde{\chi}_{[-N,N]}))*\check{\chi}_{[-M,M]}(x)$. By dominated convergence one may pick $M$ such that for all $p, ||g^{+}_{N,M}||_{p} \simeq_p N^{1/p}$ for all $p >1$ as well as for all $q > 1, ||\hat{g}^+_{N,M}||_q^q \simeq_q || e^{2 \pi i x^2} * (\hat{\tilde{\chi}}_{[-N,N]})||_q^q \lesssim_q N.$
Now modulate 3 copies of $g_{N,M}$ to ensure they have mutually disjoint Fourier supports, label them $f,g,h$, and observe
\begin{eqnarray*}
|| C_3^{1,1,1}(f,g,h)||_{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} +\frac{1}{p_3}}} = || g^+_{N,M}||^3_{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{3p_1} + \frac{1}{3 p_2} + \frac{1}{3 p_3}}} \simeq_{p_1, p_2, p_3} N^{\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} + \frac{1}{p_3}}
\end{eqnarray*}
whereas $||g^+_{N,M}||_{p_1} || g^+_{N,M}||_{p_2}||\hat{g}^+_{N,M}||_{p^\prime_3} \lesssim N^{\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} + \frac{1}{p_3^\prime}}$. Boundedness requires $\frac{1}{p_3} \leq \frac{1}{p_3^\prime}$, which is not the case for $p_3<2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} $C_n^{1,1,...,1}$ is not bounded from $W_{p_1} \times ... \times W_{p_n}$ into $L^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1} +... + \frac{1}{p_n}}}$ if there exists some $i$ for which $p_i <2$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Set $F_{N,M}^1 =g^+_{N,M}$ and $F_{N,M}^2= \tilde{\chi}_{[-N,N]}* \check{\chi}_{[-M,M]}$. Observe that for sufficiently large M, $||( \tilde{\chi}_{[-N,N]} * \check{\chi}_{[-M,M]}) \hspace{.5mm} \check{} \hspace{.5mm}||_{p^\prime_j} \simeq N^{\frac{1}{p_j}}$ where $||(g^+_{N,M}) \hspace{.5mm} \check{} \hspace{.5mm}||_{p_i^\prime} \simeq N^{\frac{1}{p_i^\prime}}$. By taking suitable modulations of $F^1$ for $f_j$ with $j \not = i$ and $F^2$ for $f_i$, it is readily seen that
\begin{eqnarray*}
||C_n^{1,1,...,1}(f_1, ..., f_n)||_{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1} + ... + \frac{1}{p_n}}} &\simeq& N^{\frac{1}{p_1}+...+\frac{1}{p_n}}\\
||\hat{f}_1||_{p_1^\prime} ... ||\hat{f}_n||_{p_n^\prime} &\simeq& N^{\frac{1}{p_i^\prime} + \sum_{j \not = i} \frac{1}{p_j}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
As $\frac{1}{p_i} > \frac{1}{p_i^\prime}$ when $p_i <2$, the claim follows.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Connections between $L^q$ and $W_p$ where $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q} >1$}
Recall $ \int_{x_1< x_2} \hat{f}(x_1) \hat{g}(x_2) e^{2 \pi i x (x_1 -x_2)} dx_1 dx_2= \frac{1}{2} f(x) \hat{\hat{g}}(x) + \frac{i}{2} H( ~(\widetilde{ \hat{f} *\hat{\tilde{g}}})~\check{}~))(x)$. Therefore, $C_2^{+,-}$ is essentially the Hilbert transform of a product, so we expect that that for $\frac{1}{p_1} +\frac{1}{p_2} \geq 1$, it fails to be continuous. The next proposition proves that this is indeed the case even if one of the functions is in a Wiener space.
\begin{prop}
Assume $\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} \geq 1$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_2^{+,-} : W_{p_1} \times L^{p_2} \not \rightarrow L^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2}}}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
CASE 1: $\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} \geq 1$ and $p_2 > 1$. Take $f_1(x)=f_2(x)=\check{\chi}_{[-1,1]}(x)$. Then, a brief calculation gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_2^{+,-} (f_1, f_2)(x)&=&\int_{-1 <x_1 < x_2 < 1} e^{2 \pi i x (x_1-x_2)} dx_1 dx_2 \\
&=& \int_{-1 < x_2 < 1} \frac{1}{2 \pi i x} - \frac{ e^{ 2 \pi i x ( -1 -x_2)}}{2 \pi i x} dx_2 \\ &=& \frac{1}{ \pi i x} - \frac{ e^{ 2 \pi i x(-2)}}{4 \pi^2 x^2} + \frac{1}{4 \pi^2 x^2} \\&=& \frac{1}{\pi i x} + \frac{1-e^{-4 \pi i x}}{4 \pi^2 x^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, by considering the large x behavior $C^{+,-}(f_1, f_2)(x) \sim \frac{1}{x}$, we conclude $||C_2^{+,-}||_{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}}}=\infty$. However, both $||\hat{f_1}||_{p_1^\prime} , ||f_2||_{p_2} <\infty$ because $p_2 >1$.
\vspace{5mm}
CASE 2: $p_1>2, p_2=1$. The only impediment to our previous method handling this case as well was the fact that $||\check{\chi}_{[-1,1]}||_1 =\infty$. To fix this issue, we may let $\epsilon>0$ and consider $f_1=f_2=( \chi_{[-1,1]} * \rho_\epsilon)~\check{}$ where $\rho$ is any standard smooth mollifier and $\rho_\epsilon=\frac{1}{\epsilon}\rho(x/\epsilon)$. Because $\chi_{[-1,1]}*\rho_\epsilon$ is a Schwartz function, $||\chi_{[-1,1]} * \rho_{\epsilon}||_{p_1}, ||(\chi_{[-1,1]}*\rho_\epsilon)~\check{}~||_1 <_\epsilon \infty$. However,
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_2^{+,-}((\chi_{[-1,1]}* \rho_\epsilon)~\check{}~, (\chi_{[-1,1]}* \rho_\epsilon)~\check{}~)(x) \sim \frac{1}{x}
\end{eqnarray*}
for small enough $\epsilon$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{C2BHT}
$C_2^{-1,1}$ is bounded from $L^{p_1} \times W_{p_2}$ into $L^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2}}}$ if and only if $\frac{1}{p_1} + \frac{1}{p_2} < 1$and $p_2 >2$. \end{corollary}
\begin{theorem}
If for some $ 1 \leq i \leq n-1$, $\frac{1}{p_{i}}+\frac{1}{p_{i+1}} > 1$, $\epsilon_i =- \epsilon_{i+1}, X^i=W_{p_i},$ and $ X^{i+1} = L^{p_{i+1}}$, then $C_n^{\vec{\epsilon}}$ is not bounded from $ \otimes_{i=1}^n X^i$ into $L^q$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Fix $N \in \mathbb{Z}^+$ large. For each positive integer M, fix $\{b_j\}_{j \not = i,i+1}$ along with $f^M_j (x)=(\tilde{\chi}_{[1,N]}* \check{\chi}_{[-M,M]})e^{2 \pi i b_j x}$ and $f^M_i = f^M_{i+1} =\check{\tilde{ \chi}}_{[-1,1]}$, so that the supports of the functions $\{\hat{f}^M_j\}$ (except for $\hat{f}^M_i$ and $\hat{f}^M_{i+1}$) are mutually disjoint. By Fatou's lemma, it follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\liminf_{M \rightarrow \infty} ||C_n(f^M_1, ..., f^M_n)||_{\frac{1}{\sum_i \frac{1}{p_i}}} &\geq& \left| \left| \lim_{M \rightarrow \infty} |C_n(f_1^M,...,f_n^M)| ~\right| \right|\\& \simeq &\left| \left|\frac{\chi_{[1,N]}}{x}\right|\right|_{\frac{1}{\sum_i \frac{1}{p_i}}}\\& = &N^{\sum_i \frac{1}{p_i} -1} \\ &>>& N^{\sum_{j \not= i, i+1} \frac{1}{p_i}} \\ &\geq& \lim_{M \rightarrow \infty} \prod_{i} ||f^M_i||_{X^i},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\sum_{j \not= i, i+1} \frac{1}{p_i} <\sum_i \frac{1}{p_i} -1$ because $\frac{1}{p_i}+\frac{1}{p_{i+1}}>1$.
\end{proof}
Putting together all the results in this section, we obtain the following:
\begin{corollary}\label{CE}
The ``only if" part of theorem \ref{MT} holds.
\end{corollary}
\section{Tensor Product Generalizations}
A natural question to ask is whether one has estimates available for the bilinear operator $BHT \otimes BHT$ which is given pointwise by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{x_1 < x_2; y_1 < y_2} \hat{f}(x_1, y_1) \hat{g}(x_2, y_2) e^{2\pi i ( z_1 ( x_1 + x_2) + z_2 (y_1 + y_2))} dx_1 dx_2 dy_1 dy_2.
\end{eqnarray*}
It is straightforward to verify that this expression is (up to harmless modifications) expressible as
\begin{eqnarray*}
p.v. \int \int f(z_1 -s-t, z_2-s-t) g(z_1 +s+t, z_2+s+t) \frac{ds dt}{s t},
\end{eqnarray*}
and Muscalu, Tao, Pipher, and others observed that this principal value integral does not admit any $L^p$ estimates, see \citep{2134868}. If we define $(f)\hat{}_1(x, y)=\int_{\mathbb{R}} f(\xi,y) e^{ - 2\pi i \xi x} d\xi$ as well as $(f)\hat{}_2(x, y)=\int_{\mathbb{R}} f(x,\xi) e^{ - 2\pi i \xi y} d\xi$ and in addition set
\begin{eqnarray*}
W^1_p[L_2^q](\mathbb{R}^2) &= &\left\{ f : \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \left| \left( \int_{\mathbb{R}} \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}} |(f)~\hat{}_1(x,y)|^q dy \right)^{p^\prime/q} dx \right)^{1/p^\prime} <\infty\right\} \right. \\
L_2^q[W^1_p](\mathbb{R}^2) &=& \left \{ f:\mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \left| \left( \int_\mathbb{R} \left( \int_\mathbb{R} |(f)~\hat{}_1(x,y)|^{p^\prime} dx \right)^{q/p^\prime} dy \right)^{1/q} <\infty \right\} \right.\\
W^{2}_p[L_1^q](\mathbb{R}^2) &=& \left\{ f : \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{C} \left| \left( \int_{\mathbb{R}} \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}} |(f)~\hat{}_2(x,y)|^q dx \right)^{p^\prime/q} dy \right)^{1/p^\prime} <\infty \right.\right\}
\end{eqnarray*}
along with $W^2_p[L_1^q]$, $L_1^q[W^2_p]$ in the obvious way, one may ask whether any of the following estimates hold:
\begin{eqnarray*}
BHT \otimes BHT& :& W^1_{p_1}[L^{p_2}] \otimes L^{p_3}[L^{p_4}] \rightarrow L^{\frac{p_1 p_3}{p_1+p_3}} [ L^{\frac{p_2 p_4}{p_2+p_4}}] (\mathbb{R}^2) \\ BHT \otimes BHT &:& L^{p_1}[W_{p_2}] \otimes L^{p_3}[L^{p_4}] \rightarrow L^{\frac{p_1 p_3}{p_1+p_3}} [ L^{\frac{p_2 p_4}{p_2+p_4}}] (\mathbb{R}^2).
\end{eqnarray*}
The answer is sometimes in the first case and never in the second. To see this, we first state and prove a lemma:
\begin{lemma}
\begin{eqnarray*}
||~(e^{2 \pi ixy} \chi_{[-N,N]}(x) \chi_{[-N,N]}(y)))~\hat{}_1~||_{W_{p}[L^{q}](\mathbb{R}^2)} &\simeq& \max \{ N^{\frac{p^\prime+q^\prime}{p^\prime q^\prime}} , N^{\frac{p+q}{pq}} \}\\
||(e^{2 \pi ixy} \chi_{[-N,N]}(x) \chi_{[-N,N]}(y) )~\hat{}_1~||_{L^{q}[W_{p}](\mathbb{R}^2)}& \simeq& N^{\frac{p+q}{pq}} .
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
First write down
\begin{eqnarray*}
(e^{2 \pi i\cdot_x y} \chi_{[-N,N]}(\cdot_x) \chi_{[-N,N]}(y)~\hat{}_1(\xi) =\chi_{[-N,N]}(y) \left(\frac{ e^{2 \pi iN(y-\xi)}-e^{-2 \pi iN(y-\xi)}}{2 \pi i(y-\xi)} \right)
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, as long as $p^\prime >1$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& ||(e^{2 \pi ixy} \chi_{[-N,N]}(x) \chi_{[-N,N]}(y)))~\hat{}_1~||_{L^{q}[W^1_{p}](\mathbb{R}^2)} \\
&=& \left( \int_\mathbb{R} \left( \int_\mathbb{R} |(f)~\hat{}_1(\xi,y)|^{p^\prime} d\xi \right)^{q/p^\prime} dy \right)^{1/q} \\
&=& \left( \int_\mathbb{R} \left( \int_\mathbb{R} |\chi_{[-N,N]}(y) \left(\frac{ e^{2 \pi iN(y-\xi)}-e^{-2 \pi iN(y-\xi)}}{2 \pi i(y-\xi)} \right)
|^{p^\prime} d\xi \right)^{q/p^\prime} dy \right)^{1/q} \\
&\simeq& N \left( \int_{-N}^N \left( \int_\mathbb{R} \left| \left(\frac{ \sin(2 \pi N(y-\xi))}{2 \pi iN(y-\xi)} \right)
\right|^{p^\prime} d\xi \right)^{q/p^\prime} dy \right)^{1/q} \\&\simeq& N N^{-1/p^\prime} \left( \int_{-N}^N dy \right)^{1/q} \\&\simeq& N^{\frac {p+q}{pq}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Similarly,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& ||(e^{2 \pi ixy} \chi_{[-N,N]}(x) \chi_{[-N,N]}(y)))~\hat{}_1~||_{W^1_{p}[L^q](\mathbb{R}^2)} \\
&=& \left( \int_\mathbb{R} \left( \int_\mathbb{R} |(f)~\hat{}_1(\xi,y)|^{q} dy \right)^{p^\prime/q} d\xi \right)^{1/p^\prime} \\
&=& \left( \int_\mathbb{R} \left( \int_\mathbb{R} |\chi_{[-N,N]}(y) \left(\frac{ e^{2 \pi iN(y-\xi)}-e^{-2 \pi iN(y-\xi)}}{2 \pi i(y-\xi)} \right)
|^{q} dy \right)^{p^\prime/q} d\xi \right)^{1/p^\prime} \\
&=&N N^{-1/q} \left( \int_\mathbb{R} \left( \int_{-N^2-N\xi}^{N^2-N\xi}| \left(\frac{ e^{2 \pi i\bar{y}}-e^{-2 \pi i\bar{y}}}{2 \pi i\bar{y}} \right)
|^{q} d\bar{y} \right)^{p^\prime/q} d\xi \right)^{1/p^\prime} \\
&\simeq& NN^{-1/q} \left(\int_{|\xi| \leq 100N} \left( \int_{-N^2-N\xi}^{N^2-N\xi}| \left(\frac{ \sin(2 \pi \bar{y})}{2 \pi \bar{y}} \right)
|^{q} dy \right)^{p^\prime/q} d\xi \right)^{1/p^\prime} \\
&+& NN^{-1/q} \left(\int_{|\xi| \geq 100N} \left( \int_{-N^2-N\xi}^{N^2-N\xi}| \left(\frac{ \sin(2 \pi \bar{y}) }{2 \pi \bar{y}} \right)
|^{q} dy \right)^{p^\prime/q} d\xi \right)^{1/p^\prime} \\
&=& I + II.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
I &\simeq &NN^{-1/q} \left(\int_{|\xi| \leq 100N} \left( \int_{1}^{N^2}| \left(\frac{1}{\bar{y}} \right)
|^{q} d\bar{y} \right)^{p^\prime/q} d\xi \right)^{1/p^\prime}\\
&\simeq& NN^{-1/q} \left(\int_{|\xi| \leq 100N} \left( \int_{1}^{N^2}| \left(\frac{1}{\bar{y}} \right)
|^{q} d\bar{y} \right)^{p^\prime/q} d\xi \right)^{1/p^\prime}
\\ &\simeq& N^{\frac{p^\prime+q^\prime}{p^\prime q^\prime}}
\end{eqnarray*}
as well as
\begin{eqnarray*}
II &\simeq& NN^{-1/q} \left(\int_{|\xi| \geq 100N} \left( \int_{-N^2-N\xi}^{N^2-N\xi}| \left(\frac{ \sin(2 \pi \bar{y}) }{2 \pi \bar{y}} \right)
|^{q} d\bar{y} \right)^{p^\prime/q} d\xi \right)^{1/p^\prime} \\
&\simeq& NN^{-1/q}N^{2/q} \left(\int_{|\xi| \geq 100N} \left( \frac{1 }{N \xi} \right)^{p^\prime} d\xi \right)^{1/p^\prime} \\
\\ &\simeq& N^{1/q} N^{1-\frac{1}{p^\prime}}\\ &=&
N^{\frac{p+q}{pq}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
If $BHT \otimes BHT$ is continuous, then the factor $L^q[W_p]$ may never appear as a factor in its domain. If $\frac{1}{p^\prime}+\frac{1}{q^\prime} \leq \frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}$, i.e. $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q} \geq1$, then $W_{p}[L^{q}]$ cannot be a factor in its domain.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
This follows immediately from the counterexample constructed by Muscalu, Pipher, Tao, and Thiele in \citep{2134868}, where they set $h=e^{i xy} \chi_{[-N,N]}(x) \chi_{[-N,N]}(y)$ and show $||BHT \otimes BHT(f,f)||_q \gtrsim \log N ||f||_{p_1} ||f||_{p_2}$ for $\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2}$. \end{proof}
Remark: Observe by Minkowski's integral inequality that $L^q[W_p] (\mathbb{R}^2) \supseteq W_p[L^q](\mathbb{R}^2)$ when $q \geq p^\prime$, i.e. $\frac{1}{p^\prime} \geq \frac{1}{q}$, or $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q} \leq 1$. So, we may still have estimates of the form
\begin{eqnarray*}
BHT \otimes BHT : W_{p_1}[L^{q_1}] \otimes L^{p_3}[L^{p_4}] \rightarrow L^{\frac{p_1 p_3}{p_1+p_3}} [ L^{\frac{p_2 p_4}{p_2+p_4}}]
\end{eqnarray*}
whenever $\frac{1}{q_1}+\frac{1}{p_1}<1$ and at least sometimes do as the following theorems show. Of course, in the endpoint case when $q=p^\prime$, no mixed estimates can hold.
\subsection{Statement and Proof of Estimates for Tensor Product Operators}
\begin{theorem}\label{ATP}
For any $N \in \mathbb{N}_{even}$ and $\vec{\epsilon} \in \{ \pm 1\}^n$, the map $C_N^{\vec{\epsilon}} \otimes C_N^{\vec{\epsilon}}$ is continuous from $W_{p_1}[W_{p_1}] \otimes L^{p_2}[L^{p_2}] \otimes ... \otimes W_{p_{N-1}}[W_{p_{N-1}}] \otimes L^{p_N}[L^{p_N}]$ into $L^{\frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{p_i}}}[L^{\frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{p_i}}}]$
provided $\frac{1}{p_i}+\max_{j\in \{ i-1, i+1\}} \frac{2}{p_{j}}<3/2$ for all odd i, where
\begin{eqnarray*}
L^q[L^q](\mathbb{R}^2)&:=& \left\{ f : \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{C} : \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} |f(x,y)|^q dx dy <\infty \right \} \\
W_q[W_q] (\mathbb{R}^2)&:=& \left\{ f : \mathbb{R}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{C} : \int_{\mathbb{R}^2} |\hat{f}(x,y)|^q dx dy <\infty\right \}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first prove the theorem for the case $N=2$ and $\vec{\epsilon}=\vec{1}$ under slightly weaker conditions, namely $\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2} <1$. So, let $f \in W_q[W_q](\mathbb{R}^2)$ and define the map $\gamma_{f}: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow [0,1]$ given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_{f}(\bar{x}) = \frac{ \int_{-\infty}^{\bar{x}} \int_{\mathbb{R}} |\hat{f}(x,y)|^{q^\prime} dy dx}{||f||^{q^\prime}_{W_q[W_q](\mathbb{R}^2)}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then let $E^{m_1}_j(f)=\gamma_{f}^{-1}([j_12^{-m_1}, (j_1+1)2^{-m_1}))$. Fix $m_1, j_1$ and define another map $\gamma_{m_1, j_1, f}:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow [0,1]$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_{m_1,j_1,f}(\bar{y}) = \frac{ \int_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}} \int_{-\infty}^{\bar{y}} |\hat{f}(x,y)|^{q^\prime} dy dx}{||f*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}}||^{q^\prime}_{W_q[W_q](\mathbb{R}^2)}}
\end{eqnarray*}
and set $E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2} = \gamma_{m_1, j_1, f}^{-1}([j_2 2^{-m_2}, (j_2+1)2^{-m_2}))$. Note that by construction, for any $0 \leq j_1 <2^{m_1}$ and $0 \leq j_2 < 2^{m_2}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
|| f*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2}} ||^{q^\prime}_{W_q[W_q](\mathbb{R}^2)} =2^{-(m_1+m_2)} ||f||_{W_q[W_q](\mathbb{R}^2)}^{q^\prime}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The harder case occurs when $p_2 <2$. Fix $\epsilon>0$ such that $\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2} -1+\epsilon <0$. Choose $r$ such that $\frac{1}{r}=\frac{1}{p_2^\prime}-\epsilon$ and select $\alpha$ such that $\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{\alpha}$. Set $Q=\frac{p_1p_2}{p_1+p_2}$. We perform the decomposition of $C_2^{1,1} \otimes C_2^{1,1}$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left| \left| C_2^{1,1} \otimes C_2^{1,1} (f_1, f_2) \right| \right|_{L_{\times 2}^{Q}} \\
&=& \left| \left| \sum_{m_1, m_2} \sum_{j_1, j_2} f_1*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}} \cdot f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,r}} \right| \right|_{L_{\times 2}^{Q}}\\
&\leq& \sum_{m_1, m_2} \left| \left|\sum_{j_1, j_2} f_1*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}}\cdot f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,r}}\right| \right|_{L_{\times 2}^Q}
\\ &\leq& \sum_{m_1, m_2} \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2} |f_1*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}} |^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{L_{\times 2}^{p_1}} \times \\ && \left| \left| \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2} |f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,r}}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{L_{\times 2}^{p_2} } \\ &\leq& \sum_{m_1, m_2} \left( \sum_{j_1, j_2} 2^{ (m_1+m_2)(p_1/2-1)}\left| \left|f_1*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}}\right| \right|^{p_1}_{L_{\times 2}^{p_1}} \right) ^{1/p_1}\times \\ && \left| \left| 2^{ \frac{(m_1+m_2)}{2\alpha } }\left( \sum_{j_1, j_2} |f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,r}}|^r \right)^{1/r} \right| \right|_{L_{\times 2}^{p_2} }:= A. \\
\end{eqnarray*}
We then use generalized Rubio de Francia estimates in higher dimensions, see \citep{2293255}, together with the defining property of the martingale structures $E^{m_1}_{j_1}$ and $E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2}$ to observe
\begin{eqnarray*}
A &\leq& \sum_{m_1, m_2}\left( 2^{ (m_1+m_2)(p_1/2)}2^{-(m_1+m_2)p_1/p^\prime} ||f_1||^{p_1}_{W_{p_1}[W_{p_1}]} \right)^{1/p_1} \times \\ &&2^{(m_1+m_2)/\alpha } ||f_2||_{L^{p_2}[L^{p_2}]} \\ &\leq& \sum_{m_1, m_2}2^{ (m_1+m_2)(1/2-1/p_1^\prime)}2^{(m_1+m_2)( 1/2-/p_2^\prime+\epsilon)} \times \\ &&||f_1||_{W_{p_1}[W_{p_1}]} ||f_2||_{L^{p_2}[L^{p_2}]}.
\end{eqnarray*}
The geometric sum converges because $\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{p_2} - 1 +\epsilon <0$ for small enough $\epsilon$. The case when $p_2 \geq 2$ is easier because one can apply Rubio de Francia's inequality directly.
\vspace{5mm}
INDUCTION STEP:
Having proved the theorem for the $N=2$ case, we suppose the $N=n-2$ case has also been shown and prove the $N=n$ case. For this, we first need to recall that because $C_{n-2}^{1,...,1} \otimes C_{n-2}^{1,...,1}$ is assumed continuous, it admits the following $l^2$ vector-valued extension, see Grafakos and Martell's paper \cite{2030573}:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left| \left| \left( \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} |C_{n-2}^{1,...1} \otimes C_{n-2}^{1,...,1} (f_1, ..., f^j_{n-2})|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{L^{Q_1} [L^{Q_1}]} \\&\lesssim& ||\hat{f}_1||_{W_{p_1}[W_{p_1}]} \times ... \times ||\hat{f}_{n-3}||_{W_{p_{n-3}}[W_{p_{n-3}}]} \times \left| \left|\left( \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} | f^j_{n-2}|^2 \right)^{1/2} \right| \right|_{L^{p_{n-2}}[L^{p_{n-2}}]}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This fact follows from lemma \ref{L2} included in the appendix. Now we carve the 4 connections betweens $f_{n-2}$, $f_{n-1}$, and $f_{n}$ using two copies of the two-dimensional grid martingale structure introduced earlier. This will introduce 4 scales, so we are naturally faced with the following situation:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left| \left| \sum_{\vec{m}} \sum_{\vec{j}} C_{n-2}^{1,...,1} \otimes C_{n-2}^{1,...,1} (f_1, ..., f_{n-2} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_3}_{j_1, j_3,l}}) \right. \right. \times \\ &&~~ f_{n-1}*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_3}_{j_1, j_3,r}} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2, m_4}_{j_2, j_4,l}} \times\\ &&\left. \left.~ f_n *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2, m_4}_{j_2, j_4,r }} \right| \right|_{L^Q[L^Q]} := A.
\end{eqnarray*}
CASE 1: $m_1+m_3 \leq m_2 + m_4.$
\vspace{2mm}
Restricting our sum to all such $\vec{m}$, we compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
A &\leq& \left( \sum_{m_1 \leq m_2; m_3 \leq m_4}\left|\left| \left| \left| C_{n-2}^{1,...,1} \otimes C_{n-2}^{1,...,1} (f_1, ..., f_{n-2} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_3}_{j_1, j_3,l}}) \right| \right| _{l^2_{j_1, j_3}} \right. \right. \right. \times \\ && || f_{n-1}*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_3}_{j_1, j_3,r}} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2, m_4}_{j_2, j_4,l}} ||_{l^2_{j_1, ..., j_4}} \times \\&& \left. \left. \left. || f_n *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2, m_4}_{j_2, j_4,r}} || _{l^2_{j_2, j_4}} \right| \right| ^Q_{L^Q[L^Q]} \right)^{1/Q} \\
&\lesssim& \left( \sum_{m_1 \leq m_2; m_3 \leq m_4}\left|\left| \left| \left| f_{n-2} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_3}_{j_1, j_3,l}} \right| \right| _{l^2_{j_1, j_3}} \right| \right|^Q_{L^{p_{n-2}}[L^{p_{n-2}}]} \right. \times \\ &&|| ~ || f_{n-1}*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1,m_3}_{j_1, j_3,l}} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2, m_4}_{j_2, j_4,r}} ||_{l^2_{j_1, ..., j_4}} ||_{L^{p_{n-1}}[L^{p_{n-1}}]}^Q \times \\&& \left. \left| \left|~|| f_n *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2, m_4}_{j_2, j_4,r}} || _{l^2_{j_2, j_4}} \right| \right| ^Q_{L^{p_n}[L^{p_n}]} \right)^{1/Q} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Further computation given upper bounds of the form
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \left( \sum_{m_1 \leq m_2; m_3 \leq m_4} 2^{Q(m_1+m_3)\max\{1/2-1/p_{n-2}^\prime+\epsilon,0\}}\left| \left| f_{n-2} \right| \right|^Q_{L^{p_{n-2}}[L^{p_{n-2}}]} \right. \times \\ &&|| ~ || f_{n-1} \chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}} \chi_{E^{m_1,m_3}_{j_1, j_3}}\chi_{E^{m_2}_{j_2}} \chi_{E^{m_2, m_4}_{j_2, j_4}} ||_{W_{p_{n-1}}[W_{p_{n-1}}]} ||_{l^2_{j_1, ..., j_4}}^Q \times \\&& \left. 2^{Q(m_2+m_4)\max\{ 1/2-1/p_n^\prime+\epsilon,0\}} \left| \left|f_n \right| \right| ^Q_{L^{p_n}[L^{p_n}]} \right)^{1/Q} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Focusing just on factor inside the sum,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& || ~ || f_{n-1} \chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}} \chi_{E^{m_1,m_3}_{j_1, j_3}}\chi_{E^{m_2}_{j_2}} \chi_{E^{m_2, m_4}_{j_2, j_4}} ||_{W_{p_{n-1}}[W_{p_{n-1}}]} ||_{l^2_{j_1, ..., j_4}} \\&\leq&||~|| ~ || f_{n-1} \chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}} \chi_{E^{m_1,m_3}_{j_1, j_3}}\chi_{E^{m_2}_{j_2}} \chi_{E^{m_2, m_4}_{j_2, j_4}} ||_{W_{p_{n-1}}[W_{p_{n-1}}]} ||_{l^{p_{n-1}^\prime}_{j_1, j_3}} ||_{l^2_{j_2, j_4}} \\ &=&|| ~ || f_{n-1} \chi_{E^{m_2}_{j_2}} \chi_{E^{m_2, m_4}_{j_2, j_4}} ||_{W_{p_{n-1}}[W_{p_{n-1}}]} ||_{l^2_{j_2, j_4}} \\ &=& 2^{(m_2+m_4)(1/2-1/p_{n-1}^\prime) }.
\end{eqnarray*}
The correct upper bound is attained by the convergence of
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{m_1+m_3 \leq m_2+m_4} 2^{(m_2 + m_4) [\max\{ 1/2-1/p_{n-2}^\prime+\epsilon,0\}+1/2-1/p_{n-1}^\prime + \max\{ 1/2-1/p_n^\prime+\epsilon, 0\}]}.
\end{eqnarray*}
CASE 2: $m_1 + m_3 \geq m_2 + m_4$. This case is entirely symmetric to CASE 1, so it is omitted.
As the above argument generalizes to any choice of sign $\vec{\epsilon} \in \{\pm 1\}^n$, the theorem follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
We may take $p_i =p$ for odd i and $p_i = 2$ for even i in the previous theorem to obtain the boundedness of $W_{p}[W_{p}] \otimes L^{2}[L^{2}] \otimes ... \otimes W_{p}[W_{p}] \otimes L^{2}[L^{2}]$ into $L^{\frac{1}{\frac{N}{4} +\frac{N}{2p}}}[L^{\frac{1}{\frac{N}{4} +\frac{N}{2p}}}]$.
\end{corollary}
This result will be used later in our application to biparameter AKNS systems. Before moving on, we note that because we have a multi-dimensional generalized Rubio de Francia estimate along with a multiparameter carving designed to handle the tensor product, continuity results are attainable in this more complex setting. As in the original case, the sum over scales one gets in the decomposition can always be placed outside the integral norms in either the Banach or Quasi-Banach case without trouble.
It is perhaps a little surprising that one can also establish continuity results for $BHT \otimes BHT$ in the case where the first function is Wiener only in first variable and the second function is Wiener only in the second.
\begin{theorem}
Let $p_1, p_2 >2$. Fix $p_1^\prime < q_1 < p_1; p_2^\prime < q_2 < p_2$. Assume
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{q_2} < \min \left(1, \frac{3}{2} - \frac{1}{q_1}\right) \\
\frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{q_1} < \min \left(1, \frac{3}{2}-\frac{1}{q_2} \right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Then the operator
\begin{eqnarray*}
BHT \otimes BHT : W^1_{p_1}[L_2^{q_1}] (\mathbb{R}^2) \times W^2_{p_2}[L_1^{q_2}] (\mathbb{R}^2)\rightarrow L_1^{\frac{p_1q_2}{p_1+q_2}} [L_2^{\frac{p_2 q_1}{p_2+q_1}}] (\mathbb{R}^2)
\end{eqnarray*}
is bounded.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
One introduces the usual carving and computes as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&||~||~||~||( f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}}) ( f_2*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}}) ||_{l_1^1}||_{l^1_2} ||_{L_2^{\frac{p_2q_1}{p_2+q_1}}}||_{L_1^{\frac{ p_1 q_2}{p_1+q_2}}} \\
&\leq& ||~||~||~|| f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}} ||_{l_1^2}||_{l_2^2} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{L_1^{p_1}} \times \\&& ||~||~||~|| f_2*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} ||_{l_1^2}||_{l^2_2} ||_{L_2^{p_2}}||_{L_1^{q_2}} \\&\leq& ||~||~||~|| f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}} ||_{L_1^{p_1}} ||_{l_1^2}||_{l_2^2} ||_{L_2^{q_1}} \times \\&& ~||~||~||~|| f_2*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} ||_{L_2^{p_2}}||_{l_1^2}||_{l^2_2} ||_{L_1^{q_2}} \\&\leq& ||~||~||~|| (f_1)\hat{}_1\chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}} ||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} ||_{l_1^2}||_{l_2^2} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}\times \\&& ||~||~||~|| (f_2)\hat{}_2\chi_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} *_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} ||_{L_2^{p^\prime_2}}||_{l_1^2}||_{l^2_2} ||_{L_1^{q_2}}. \\ &:=&A
\end{eqnarray*}
CASE 1: $q_1\leq 2, q_2\leq 2$. We compute as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
A &\leq& ||~||~||~|| (f_1)\hat{}_1\chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}} ||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} ||_{l_2^2} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{l_1^{q_1}}\times \\ && ||~||~||~|| (f_2)\hat{}_2\chi_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} *_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} ||_{L_2^{p^\prime_2}}||_{l^2_2} ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{l_1^{q_2}} \\ &\leq& ||~||~||~|| (f_1)\hat{}_1\chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}} ||_{l_2^2} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} ||_{l_1^{q_1}}\times\\&&||~||~||~|| (f_2)\hat{}_2\chi_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} *_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} ||_{l^2_1} ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{p^\prime_2}}||_{l_2^{q_2}} \\&\leq& 2^{m_1(1/2-1/q_2^\prime+\epsilon)} ||~||~||~|| (f_1)\hat{}_1\chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}} ||_{l_2^{r_1}} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} ||_{l_1^{q_1}}\times \\&&2^{m_2(1/2-1/q_1^\prime+\epsilon)}~||~||~||~|| (f_2)\hat{}_2\chi_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} *_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} ||_{l^{r_2}_1} ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{p^\prime_2}}||_{l_2^{q_2}} \\ &\leq&2^{m_1(1/2-1/q_2^\prime+\epsilon)} ||~||~|| (f_1)\hat{}_1\chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} ||_{l_1^{q_1}}\times \\&&2^{m_2(1/2-1/q_1^\prime+\epsilon)}~ ||~||~|| (f_2)\hat{}_2\chi_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{p^\prime_2}}||_{l_2^{q_2}} \\&\leq&2^{m_1(1/2-1/q_2^\prime+\epsilon)} ||~||~|| (f_1)\hat{}_1 ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}}2^{-m_1p_1^\prime}2^{m_1/q_1}\times\\&& 2^{m_2(1/2-1/q_1^\prime+\epsilon)} ~||~||~|| (f_2)\hat{}_2 ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{p^\prime_2}} 2^{-m_2/p_2^\prime} 2^{m_2/q_2} .
\end{eqnarray*}
The two geometric series over $m_1$ and $m_2$ are summable for small enough $\epsilon$ when $1/2-1/q_2^\prime -1/p_1^\prime +1/q_1, 1/2-1/q_1^\prime-1/p_2^\prime +1/q_2 <0$. These two conditions may be rephrased as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{q_2} < 3/2-1/q_1, \frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{q_1} <3/2-1/q_2.
\end{eqnarray*}
CASE 2: If $q_1 > 2$ and $q_2 \leq2$, we compute as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
A &\leq& ||~||~||~|| (f_1)\hat{}_1\chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}} ||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} ||_{l_2^2} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{l_1^{2}}\times \\&& ||~||~||~|| (f_2)\hat{}_2\chi_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} *_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} ||_{L_2^{p^\prime_2}}||_{l^2_2} ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{l_1^{q_2}} \\ &\leq& ||~||~||~|| (f_1)\hat{}_1\chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}} ||_{l_2^2} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} ||_{l_1^{2}}\times \\&& ||~||~||~|| (f_2)\hat{}_2\chi_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} *_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} ||_{l^2_1} ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{p^\prime_2}}||_{l_2^{q_2}} \\&\leq&2^{m_1(1/2-1/q_2^\prime+\epsilon)} ||~||~||~|| (f_1)\hat{}_1\chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}} ||_{l_2^2} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} ||_{l_1^{2}}\times \\&&~||~||~||~|| (f_2)\hat{}_2\chi_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} *_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} ||_{l^{r_2}_1} ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{p^\prime_2}}||_{l_2^{q_2}} \\ &\leq&2^{m_1(1/2-1/q_2^\prime+\epsilon)} ||~||~|| (f_1)\hat{}_1\chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} ||_{l_1^{2}}\times \\&&||~||~|| (f_2)\hat{}_2\chi_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,r}} ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{p^\prime_2}}||_{l_2^{q_2}} \\&\leq&2^{m_1(1/2-1/q_2^\prime+\epsilon)} ||~||~|| (f_1)\hat{}_1 ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}}2^{-m_1p_1^\prime}2^{m_1/2}\times \\&&~||~||~|| (f_2)\hat{}_2 ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{p^\prime_2}} 2^{-m_2/p_2^\prime} 2^{m_2/q_2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
As $\frac{1}{q_2}+\frac{1}{p_1}, \frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{q_2}<1$, the geometric series converge for small enough $\epsilon$.
CASE 3: if $q_1 \leq 2$ and $q_2 >2$, we can apply CASE 2 with the roles of 1 and 2 interchanged.
CASE 4: If both $q_1, q_2 >2$, then a similar calculation to the ones already described gives a product of two geometric series, both summable because
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{q_1}, \frac{1}{p_2}+\frac{1}{q_2}<1.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
Remark: This argument does not depend on signs in the exponential appearing in $C(f_1, f_2)$.
It is also interesting to consider the case where one faces one Wiener space and 3 Lebesgue spaces in the tensor product setting.
\begin{theorem}
The operator $BHT \otimes BHT: W_{p_1}^1[L_2^{q_1}] \times L_2^{q_3}[L_1^{q_2}] \rightarrow L_1^{\frac{p_1q_2}{p_1+q_2}}[L_2^{\frac{q_1 q_3}{q_1+q_3}}]$ is bounded provided $\frac{1}{q_1}+\frac{1}{q_3} <3/2, p_1^\prime <\min_i\{ q_i\} \leq \max_i\{q_i\} < p_1, \frac{1}{q_1}+\frac{1}{q_2}+\frac{1}{q_3}+\frac{1}{p_1} <2$, and $q_3 \leq q_2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Begin by observing
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&||BHT\otimes BHT(f_1,f_2)||_{L_1^{\frac{p_1q_2}{p_1+q_2}}[L_2^{\frac{q_1 q_3}{q_1+q_3}}]} \\ &=&||~ ||BHT\otimes BHT(f_1,f_2)||_{L_2^{\frac{q_1 q_3}{q_1+q_3}}} ||_{ L_1^{\frac{p_1q_2}{p_1+q_2}}} \\ &\leq&\left( \sum_{m \geq 0} ||~||~ BHT_2(f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}, f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}})||_{l^1_j}||_{L_2^{\frac{q_1 q_3}{q_1+q_3}}} ||^Q_{ L_1^{\frac{p_1q_2}{p_1+q_2}}} \right)^{1/Q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now split according to three cases.
CASE 1: $\frac{1}{q_1}+\frac{1}{q_3} \leq 1, q_3 \leq 2$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\leq& ||~||~BHT_2(f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}, f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}})||_{L_2^{\frac{q_1 q_3}{q_1+q_3}}}||_{l^1_j} ||_{ L_1^{\frac{p_1q_2}{p_1+q_2}}} \\ &\lesssim& ||~||f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{L_2^{q_1}} ~|| f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}||_{L_2^{q_3}}||_{l_j^1} ||_{ L_1^{\frac{p_1q_2}{p_1+q_2}}} \\&\leq& ||~ ||~||f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{L_2^{q_1}} ~||_{l_j^{2}} ||_{L_1^{p_1}} \cdot||~||~|| f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}||_{L_2^{q_3}}||_{l_j^2}||_{L_1^{q_2}} \\ &\leq& ||~ ||~||f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{L_1^{p_1}} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}~||_{l_j^{2}} \cdot~||~|| f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}||_{l_j^{2}}||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{q_3}} \\&\leq& ||~ ||~||f_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}~||_{l_j^{2}} ~2^{m \max\{ 1/2-1/q_2^\prime+\epsilon,0\}}||~|| f_2 ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{q_3}} \\ &\leq&2^{m(1/2-1/p_1^\prime)} ||~||f_1 ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} \cdot 2^{m\max\{ 1/2 -1/q_2^\prime+\epsilon ,0\}}||~|| f_2 ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{q_3}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
As $\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{q_2}<1$ and $p_1 >2$, this concludes CASE 1.
CASE 2: $\frac{1}{q_1}+\frac{1}{q_3} \leq 1$, $q_3 \geq 2$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\leq& ||~||~ BHT_2(f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}, f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}})||_{L_2^{\frac{q_1 q_3}{q_1+q_3}}}||_{l^1_j} ||_{ L_1^{\frac{p_1q_2}{p_1+q_2}}} \\ &\lesssim& ||~||f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{L_2^{q_1}} ~|| f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}||_{L_2^{q_3}}||_{l_j}^{1} ||_{ L_1^{\frac{p_1q_2}{p_1+q_2}}} \\&\leq& ||~ ||~||f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{L_2^{q_1}} ~||_{l_j^{2}} ||_{L_1^{p_1}} \cdot||~||~|| f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}||_{L_2^{q_3}}||_{l_j^2}||_{L_1^{q_2}} \\ &\leq& ||~ ||~||f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{L_1^{p_1}} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}~||_{l_j^{2}} \cdot||~||~|| f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}||_{l_j^{q_3}}||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{q_3}}2^{m(1/2-1/q_3)} \\&\leq& ||~ ||~||f_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}~||_{l_j^{2}}\cdot ||~|| f_2 ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{q_3}} 2^{m(1/2-1/q_3)} \\ &\leq&2^{m(1/2-1/p_1^\prime)} ||~||f_1 ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} \cdot ||~|| f_2 ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{q_3}} 2^{m(1/2-1/q_3)}
\end{eqnarray*}
As $\frac{1}{p_1}<\frac{1}{q_3}$, this concludes CASE 2.
CASE 3: $\frac{1}{q_1}+\frac{1}{q_3} >1$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\leq& ||~||~ BHT_2(f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}, f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}})||_{L_2^{\frac{q_1 q_3}{q_1+q_3}}}||_{l^1_j} ||_{ L_1^{\frac{p_1q_2}{p_1+q_2}}} \\ &\lesssim& ||~||f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{L_2^{q_1}} ~|| f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}||_{L_2^{q_3}}||_{l_j^{\frac{q_1q_3}{q_1+q_3}}} ||_{ L_1^{\frac{p_1q_2}{p_1+q_2}}} \\&\leq& ||~ ||~||f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{L_2^{q_1}} ~||_{l_j^{q_1}} ||_{L_1^{p_1}} \cdot||~||~|| f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}||_{L_2^{q_3}}||_{l_j^{q_3}}||_{L_1^{q_2}} \\ &\leq& ||~ ||~||f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{L_1^{p_1}} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}~||_{l_j^{q_1}} \cdot||~||~|| f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,r}}||_{l_j^{q_3}}||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{q_3}} \\&\leq& ||~ ||~||f_1 \check{\chi}_{E^m_{j,l}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} ||_{L_2^{q_1}}~||_{l_j^{q_1}} \cdot 2^{m(1/q_3 -1/q_2^\prime)} ||~||~|| f_2 ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{q_3}} \\ &\leq&2^{m(1/q_1-1/p_1^\prime)} ||~||f_1 ||_{L_2^{q_1}}||_{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} \cdot 2^{m(1/q_3 -1/q_2^\prime)} ||~|| f_2 ||_{L_1^{q_2}} ||_{L_2^{q_3}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
As $\frac{1}{q_1}+\frac{1}{q_2}+\frac{1}{q_3} +\frac{1}{p_1}<2$, the resulting geometric converges.
\end{proof}
As the structure of the previous proof reveals, there are many possible generalizations to tensor products of more complicated operators and to an arbitrary number of tensor products of the BHT. We list one example of each and then provide proofs.
\begin{theorem}Fix any $N \equiv 0 \mod 3$ and $\vec{\epsilon} \in \{\pm 1\}^n$. Then the operator
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_{N/3}^{\vec{\epsilon}} \otimes C_{N/3}^{1,...,1} : W^1_{p_1}[L_2^{q_1}]\times L_2^{q_3}[L_1^{q_2}] \times W^1_{p_2}[L_2^{q_4}] \times L_2^{q_6}[L_1^{q_5}] \times ... \times L_2^{q_N}[L_1^{q_{N-1}}]
\end{eqnarray*}
is continuous into $L_1^{\frac{1}{\sum_{i \equiv 2 \mod 3} \frac{1}{q_i}+\sum_j \frac{1}{p_j}}}
[L_2^{\frac{1}{\sum_{i \equiv 0,1 \mod 3} \frac{1}{q_i}}}]$ provided the following conditions hold:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&1)~~ C_{N/3}^{1,...,1} : \otimes_{i \equiv 0,1 \mod 3} L^{q_i} \rightarrow L^{\frac{1}{\sum_{i \equiv 0,1 \mod 3}\frac{1}{q_i}}}~\text{is bounded}\\
&&2)~~ \max_{i} \{p^\prime_i \}< \min_i \{q_i\} \leq \max_i \{q_i\} < \min_i \{p_i\} \\
&&3)~~\sum_{i \equiv 0,1 \mod 3} \frac{1}{q_i} \leq 1\\
&&4)~~q_{3j} \leq q_{3j-1}~~\forall~j\\
&& 5) \max\left\{\frac{1}{q_{3j-4}}-\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q_{3j-3}},0\right\}+\frac{1}{p_j} \\&&~~+\max\left\{ \frac{1}{q_{3j-1}}-\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}- \frac{1}{q_{3j}},0\right\}<1/2 \\&&~~~\forall ~2 \leq j \leq N/3.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Set $Q_1 = \frac{1}{\sum_{i \equiv 2 \mod 3} \frac{1}{q_i}+\sum_j \frac{1}{p_j}}$ and $Q_2=\frac{1}{\sum_{i \equiv 0,1 \mod 3} \frac{1}{q_i}}$. Introduce a martingale structure for every connection in the first variable between a Wiener function and a Lebesgue function. First assume $\vec{\epsilon}=\vec{1}$. Then pass the sums over scales through the integration and compute with the $m_1$ scale (ignoring all other $m_i$ values) as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&||C_{N/3}^{1,...,1}\otimes C_{N/3}^{1,...,1} (f_1, ..., f_{N/3})||_{L_1^{Q_1}[L_2^{Q_2}]} \\
&\leq& || ~||~|| C_{N/3}^{1,...,1}(f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}, f_2*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}} , ..., f_{N/3} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_{N-1}}_{j_{N-1},r}}) ||_{l^1_{\vec{j}}}||_{L_2^{Q_2}} ||_{L_1^{Q_1}} \\&\leq& || ~||~|| C_{N/3}^{1,...,1}(f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}, f_2*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}} , ..., f_{N/3} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_{N-1}}_{j_{N-1},r}}) ||_{L_2^{Q_2}}||_{l^1_{\vec{j}}} ||_{L_1^{Q_1}} \\&\lesssim&||~|| ~||f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}||_{L_2^{q_1}} ~|| f_2*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}}||_{L_2^{q_3}} \\&&\times ... \times ~|| f_{N/3} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_{N-1}}_{j_{N-1},r}}|| _{L_2^{q_N}} ||_{l^1_{\vec{j}}} ||_{L_1^{Q_1}} \\ &\leq&||~|| ~||f_1*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}}||_{L_2^{q_1}} ||_{l^2_{j_1}} || _{L_1^{p_1}} ||~||~|| f_2*_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2,l}}||_{L_2^{q_3}} ||_{l^2_{j_1, j_2}} ||_{L_1^{q_2}} \\&&\times ... \times||~ ||~|| f_{N/3} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_{N-1}}_{j_{N-1},r}}|| _{L_2^{q_N}} ||_{l^2_{j_{N-1}}} ||_{L_1^{q_{N-1}}} \\ &:=& A.
\end{eqnarray*}
The reader will no doubt note that in an abuse of notation, $E^{m_1}_{j_1}$ and $E^{m_{N-1}}_{j_{N-1}}$ are martingale structures adapted to different functions.
CASE 1: $q_3,q_2 \leq 2$. Then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
A &\lesssim&||~|| ~||f_1||_{L_2^{q_1}} || _{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} 2^{-m_1/p_1^\prime}2^{m_1/2} ||_{l^2_{j_1}}||~||~|| f_2 ||_{L_1^{q_2}}||_{L_2^{q_3}} 2^{m_1(1/2-1/q_2^\prime)} \\&&\times ... \times||~ ||~|| f_{N/3}||_{L_1^{q_{N-1}}} || _{L_2^{q_N}}
\end{eqnarray*}
and since $\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{q_2} <1$, the geometric sum over the $m_1$ scale converges.
CASE 2: $q_3 \leq 2$, $q_2 >2$
\begin{eqnarray*}
A &\lesssim&||~|| ~||f_1||_{L_2^{q_1}} || _{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} 2^{-m_1/p_1^\prime}2^{m_1/2} ||_{l^2_{j_1}}||~||~|| f_2 ||_{L_1^{q_2}}||_{L_2^{q_3}} \\&&\times ... \times||~ ||~|| f_{N/3}||_{L_1^{q_{N-1}}} || _{L_2^{q_N}}
\end{eqnarray*}
and since $\frac{1}{p_1}+\frac{1}{2} <1$, the geometric sum over the $m_1$ scale converges.
CASE 3: $q_3 >2$. Then we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
A &\leq&||~|| ~||f_1||_{L_2^{q_1}} || _{L_1^{p^\prime_1}} 2^{-m_1/p_1^\prime}2^{m_1/2} ||_{l^2_{j_1}}||~||~|| f_2 ||_{L_1^{q_2}}||_{L_2^{q_3}} 2^{(m_1)(1/2-1/q_3)} \\&&\times ... \times||~ ||~|| f_{N/3}||_{L_1^{q_{N-1}}} || _{L_2^{q_N}} .
\end{eqnarray*}
As $q_3 <p_1$, the geometric sum over the $m_1$ scale again converges.
For the $m_2$ and $m_3$ scales, the same decompositions leaves us with
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&||...||f_2*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}}*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2}}||_{L_2^{q_3}} ||_{l^2_{j_1, j_2}}||_{L_1^{q_2}} \cdot ||... ||f_3*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_2}_{j_2}} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_3}_{j_3}}||_{L_2^{q_4}} ||_{l^2_{j_2,j_3}}||_{L_1^{p_2}} \\ &\times& ||...||f_4 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_3}_{j_3}} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_4}_{j_4}} ||_{L_2^{q_6}}||_{l^2_{j_3,j_4}} ||_{L_1^{q_5}}
\end{eqnarray*}
The first factor contributes at most $2^{m_2\left(\max\left\{\frac{1}{q_{2}}-\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q_{3}},0 \right\}\right)}$, the second factor contributes $2^{\max\{m_2, m_3\} (1/2-1/p_2^\prime)}$ and the third factor contributes at most $2^{m_3 \left(\max\left\{ \frac{1}{q_{5}}-\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}- \frac{1}{q_{6}},0\right\}\right)}$. For the sum over the $m_2$ and $m_3$ scales to be a convergent geometric series, we then require condition 5) in the statement of the theorem. The remaining scales behave similarly, so we omit the details. The above argument generalizes to arbitrary $\vec{\epsilon} \in \{ \pm 1\}^n$, and the theorem follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Let $N \in \mathbb{Z}^+_{odd}.$ Then, the operator
\begin{eqnarray*}
\otimes^{N+1} BHT &:& W^1_{P_1}[W^2_{P_1} [... [W_{P_1}^{N/2}[L_{N/2+1}^{q_1}[L_{N/2+2}^{q_3}[ ...[L_{N}^{q_{2N-1}}[L_{N+1}^{q_{2N+1}}]]...]]]]...]] \\&\times& W^{N/2+1}_{P_2}[W^{N/2+2}_{P_2} [... [W_{P_2}^{N}[L_{1}^{q_2}[L_{2}^{q_4}[ ...[L_{N/2}^{q_{2N}}[L_{N+1}^{q_{2N+2}}]]...]]]]...]] \\&\rightarrow&L_1^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{P_1}+\frac{1}{q_2}}}[L_2^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{P_1}+\frac{1}{q_4}}}[L_3^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{P_1}+\frac{1}{q_6}}}[.... [L_{N+1}^{\frac{1}{\frac{1}{q_{2N+1}}+\frac{1}{q_{2N+2}}}}]...]]]]
\end{eqnarray*}
is bounded provided the following conditions hold:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&~1)~q_{2N+2} \leq q_{2N} \leq q_{2N-2} \leq ... \leq q_2\leq P_2 \\
&&~2) ~q_{2N+1} \leq q_{2N-1} \leq q_{2N-3} \leq ... \leq q_1\leq P_1\\
&& ~3)~\frac{1}{q_{2N+1}}+\frac{1}{q_{2N+2}} \leq 1\\
&&~4) \max\left\{ \frac{1}{q_{2N+2}} - \frac{1}{P_2^\prime}, \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{P_2^\prime}\right\} +\max\left\{ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q_1},\frac{1}{q_{2N+1}}-\frac{1}{q_1}, \frac{1}{q_{2N+1}}-\frac{1}{q^\prime_{2N+1}}\right\} <0\\
&&~5) \max\left\{ \frac{1}{q_{2N+1}}-\frac{1}{P_1^\prime}, \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{P_1^\prime} \right\} + \max\left\{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{q_2}, \frac{1}{q_{2N+2}}-\frac{1}{q_2}, \frac{1}{q_{2N+2}}-\frac{1}{q_{2N+2}^\prime} \right\}<0.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We introduce a martingale structure for every variable from $x_1$ through $x_N$ and then pass the behavior in the $N+1$ variable to the story of the BHT. For convenience, we set
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_0&=&W^1_{P_1}[W^2_{P_1} [... [W_{P_1}^{N/2}[L_{N/2+1}^{q_1}[L_{N/2+2}^{q_3}[ ...[L_{N}^{q_{2N-1}}[L_{N+1}^{q_{2N+1}}]]...]]]]...]]\\
X_1&=&W^{N/2+1}_{P_2}[W^{N/2+2}_{P_2} [... [W_{P_2}^{N}[L_{1}^{q_2}[L_{2}^{q_4}[ ...[L_{N/2}^{q_{2N}}[L_{N+1}^{q_{2N+2}}]]...]]]]...]]
\end{eqnarray*}
and inductively construct $N/2$ martingale structures based on $f_1$ and $N/2$ martingale structures based on $f_2$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_{f_1}(\bar{x})&=&\frac{ || \chi(x_1)_{(-\infty, \bar{x})} f_1||_{X_0}}{ || f_1||_{X_0}}\\
_0E^{m_1}_{j_1}&=&\gamma_{f_1}^{-1}([j_1 2^{-m_1}, (j_1+1)2^{-m_1})) \\
\gamma_{m_1, j_1, f_1}(\bar{x})&=&\frac{ ||\chi_{E^{m_1, j_1}} (x_1) \chi(x_2)_{(-\infty, \bar{x})} f_1||_{X_0}}{ || \chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}} f_1||_{X_0}}\\
_0E^{m_1,m_2}_{j_1,j_2}&=&_0~ \gamma_{m_1, j_1, f_1}^{-1} ([j_22^{-m_2} (j_2+1)2^{-m_2})) \\
&\vdots&\\
\gamma_{m_1, j_1, ..., m_{k-1}, j_{k-1}, f_1}(\bar{x}) &=& \frac{ || \chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}}(x_1) ... \chi_{E^{m_1, ..., m_{k-1}}_{j_1, ..., j_{k-1}}}(x_{k-1})\chi(x_k)_{(-\infty, \bar{x})} f_1||_{X_0}}{ || \chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}}(x_1) ... \chi_{E^{m_1, ..., m_{k-1}}_{j_1, ..., j_{k-1}}}(x_{k-1}) f_1||_{X_0}}\\
_0E^{m_1, ..., m_k}_{j_1, ..., j_k} &=& \gamma_{m_1, j_1, ..., m_{k-1}, j_{k-1}, f_1}^{-1}([j_k2^{-m_k}, (j_k+1)2^{-m_k}))
\end{eqnarray*}
up to $k=N/2$ along with
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_{f_2}(\bar{x})&=&\frac{ || \chi(x_1)_{(-\infty, \bar{x})} f_2||_{X_1}}{ || f_2||_{X_1}}\\
_1E^{m_{1}}_{j_{1}}&=&\gamma_{f_2}^{-1}([j_{1} 2^{-m_{1}}, (j_{1}+1)2^{-m_{1}})) \\
\gamma_{m_{1}, j_{1}, f_2}(\bar{x})&=&\frac{ ||\chi_{E^{m_{1}}_{j_{1}} }(x_1) \chi(x_2)_{(-\infty, \bar{x})} f_2||_{X_1}}{ || \chi_{E^{m_{1}}_{j_{1}} }f_2||_{X_1}}\\
_1E^{m_{1},m_{2}}_{j_{1},j_{2}}&=& \gamma_{m_{1}, j_{1}, f_{2}}^{-1} ([j_{2} 2^{-m_{2}} (j_{2}+1)2^{-m_{2}})) \\
&\vdots&\\
\gamma_{m_{1}, j_{1},..., f_2}(\bar{x}) &=& \frac{ || \chi_{E^{m_{1}}_{j_{1}}}(x_1) ... \chi_{E^{m_1, ..., m_{k-1}}_{j_{1}, ..., j_{k-1}}}(x_{N/2+k-1})\chi(x_k)_{(-\infty, \bar{x})} f_2||_{X_1}}{ || \chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}}(x_1) ... \chi_{E^{m_1, ..., m_{k-1}}_{j_1, ..., j_{k-1}}}(x_{k-1}) f_1||_{X_0}}\\
_1E^{m_{1}, ..., m_{k}}_{j_{1}, ..., j_{k}} &=& \gamma_{m_{N/2_1}, j_{1}, ..., m_{k-1}, j_{k-1}, f_1}^{-1}([j_{k}2^{-m_{k}}, (j_{k}+1)2^{-m_{k}}))
\end{eqnarray*}
up to $k=N$.
For $1 \leq j \leq N/2$, For convenience, define for $j \leq N/2$, $Q_j=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{P_1}+\frac{1}{2j}}$, for $ 1 \leq j \leq N$, $Q_j=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{P_2}+\frac{1}{q_{2(j-N/2)-1}}}$, and for $j=N+1$, $Q_j=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{q_{2N+1}}+\frac{1}{q_{2N+2}}}$.
CASE 1: $q_{2N+1}, q_{2N+2} \geq 2$.
Performing the standard decomposition and moving the sum over scales outside norms gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&||~...||~||~|| BHT_{N+1}(f_1*_1 \check{\chi}_{_0E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 ... *_N \check{\chi}_{_1E^{\vec{m}}_{\vec{j},l}}, f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 ... *_N \check{\chi}_{_1E^{\vec{m}}_{\vec{j},r}}) ||_{l^1_{\vec{j}}} ||_{L_{N+1}^{Q_{N+1}}} || ... ||_{L_1^{Q_1}} \\ &\leq&||~...||~||~|| BHT_{N+1}(f_1*_1 \check{\chi}_{_0E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 ... *_N \check{\chi}_{_1E^{\vec{m}}_{\vec{j}}}, f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{_0E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 ... *_N \check{\chi}_{_1E^{\vec{m}}_{\vec{j},r}}) ||_{L_{N+1}^{Q_{N+1}}}||_{l^1_{\vec{j}}} || ... ||_{L_1^{Q_1}} \\&\lesssim&||~...||~|| f_1*_1 \check{\chi}_{_0E^{m_1}_{j_1}} *_2 ... *_N \check{\chi}_{_1E^{\vec{m}}_{\vec{j}},l}||_{L_{N+1}^{q_{2N+1}}}~ ||f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{_0E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 ... *_N \check{\chi}_{_1E^{\vec{m}}_{\vec{j},r}}||_{L_2^{q_{2N+2}}} ||_{l^1_{\vec{j}}} ... ||_{L_1^{Q_1}} \\ &\leq&||~... || f_1*_1 \check{\chi}_{_0E^{m_1}_{j_1}} *_2 ... *_N \check{\chi}_{_1E^{\vec{m}}_{\vec{j},l}}||_{L_{N+1}^{q_{2N+1}}} ||_{l^2_{\vec{j}}} ||_{L_{N}^{q_{2N-1}}} ...||_{L_{N/2+1}^{q_1}} ||_{L_{N/2}^{P_1}}...||_{L_1^{P_1}}\times \\&&||~... ||f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{_0E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 ... *_N \check{\chi}_{_1E^{\vec{m}}_{\vec{j},r}}||_{L_{N+1}^{q_{2N+2}}} ||_{l^2_{\vec{j}}} ||_{L_{N}^{P_2}} ... ||_{L_{N/2+1}^{P_2}} ||_{L_{N/2}^{q_{2N}}} ...||_{L_1^{q_2}} \\ &\leq&||~... || f_1*_1 \check{\chi}_{_0E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 ... *_N \check{\chi}_{_1E^{\vec{m}}_{\vec{j},l}}||_{L_{N+1}^{q_{2N+1}}} ||_{l^{q_{2N+1}}_{\vec{j}_2}} ||_{l^2_{\vec{j}_1}} ||_{L_{N}^{q_{2N-1}}} ...||_{L_{N/2+1}^{q_1}} ||_{L_{N/2}^{P_1}}...||_{L_1^{P_1}}\times \\ &&||~...||f_2 *_1 \check{\chi}_{_0E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_2 ... *_N \check{\chi}_{_1E^{\vec{m}}_{\vec{j},r}}||_{L_{N+1}^{q_{2N+2}}} ||_{l^{q_{2N+2}}_{\vec{j}_1}} ||_{l^2_{\vec{j}_2}} ||_{L_{N}^{P_2}} ... ||_{L_{N/2+1}^{P_2}} ||_{L_{N/2}^{q_{2N}}} ...||_{L_1^{q_2}} \times \\&& 2^{(m_1+...+m_{N/2}) (1/2-1/q_{2N+1})} 2^{(m_{N/2+1}+...+m_N) (1/2-1/q_{2N+2})},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\vec{j}_1=(j_1, ..., j_{N/2})$ and $\vec{j}_2=(j_{N/2+1},...,j_N)$.
Setting the norms of $f_1$ and $f_2$ to be 1 gives us the upper bound
\begin{eqnarray*}
2^{(m_{N/2+1}+...+m_N)(1/2-1/q_1+1/2-1/P_2^\prime)} 2^{(m_1+....+m_{N/2})(1/2-1/q_{2}+1/2-1/P_1^\prime)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that the resulting sum over each scale converges because of assumptions 4 and 5 in the statement of the theorem.
CASE 2: $q_{2N+1} <2$ and $q_{2N+2} \geq 2$. One eventually faces an upper bound of the form
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&2^{(m_1+...+m_{N/2})(1/2-1/q_{2} +1/q_{2N+1}-1/P_1^\prime)} \times \\ &&2^{(m_{N/2}+...+m_N)( \max\left\{ \frac{1}{q_{2N+1}}-\frac{1}{q_1}, \frac{1}{q_{2N+1}}-\frac{1}{q^\prime_{2N+1}}\right\} +1/2-1/P_2^\prime )}.
\end{eqnarray*} This is again acceptable by assumptions 4 and 5.
CASE 3: $q_{2N+1} \geq 2$ and $q_{2N+1} <2$. This situation is similar to CASE 2 and is omitted.
CASE 4: $q_{2N+1}, q_{2N+2} <2$. This cannot occur because of assumption 3.
\end{proof}
\section{An Application to Bi-Parameter AKNS Systems}
AKNS systems play an important role in nuclear physics and arise naturally as systems of differential equations whose solutions can be expressed as multilinear oscillatory integrals, see \citep{642018,2013}. In this section, we will construct a biparameter generalization of the generic AKNS system and write down solutions as tensor products of singular integral operators. That a large subset of these multiparameter solutions remain bounded for almost every parameter value will follow immediately from the continuity of a maximal variant of the tensor product of $C_N^{1,...,1}$ with itself.
\subsection{Setup for Bi-Parameter AKNS Systems} The 1-parameter generic upper triangular AKNS system is given in matrix form by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\quad
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{d}{dx}u_1 \\
\frac{d}{dx}u_2 \\
\vdots \\
\frac{d}{dx}u_N
\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix}
i \lambda & V_{12} &...& V_{1n}\\
0 & i \lambda &...&V_{2n} \\
\vdots& \vdots &... & \vdots\\
0&0 &...& i \lambda
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
u_1 \\
u_2 \\
\vdots \\
u_N
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{eqnarray*}
We now want to extend this system to the biparameter setting. As initial data, suppose we are given $N-1$ functions $(V_1, ..., V_{N-1})$ such that $V_j \in W_p[W_p](\mathbb{R}^2)$ for all odd j for some $p>2$, and $V_j \in L^2[L^2](\mathbb{R}^2)$ for all even j, and in addition, suppose $\{c_{j,1}, c_{j,2}\}_{j=1}^{N}$ is such that $c_{j,1} \not =c_{j+1,1} $ along with $c_{j,2} \not =c_{j+1,2}$. For each j and real parameters $(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)$, construct the differential operator
\begin{eqnarray*}
D_j= D^{(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)}_j=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} - i c_{j,1} \lambda_1 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} - i c_{j,2} \lambda_2 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} .
\end{eqnarray*}
Our goal is now to study the boundedness properties for solutions to the following biparameter AKNS system:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\quad
\begin{pmatrix}
D_1 u_1 \\
D_2u_2\\
\vdots\\
D_Nu_N
\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix}
c_{1,1}c_{1,2} \lambda_1\lambda_2 & V_1 &0&0&...& 0\\
0 & c_{2,1}c_{2,2} \lambda_1\lambda_2 & V_2&0&...&0 \\
\vdots &\vdots &\vdots &\vdots&...& \vdots \\
0&0 &\vdots&\vdots&...& c_{N,1} c_{N,2} \lambda_1 \lambda_2
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
u_1 \\
u_2\\
\vdots\\
u_N
\end{pmatrix},
\end{eqnarray*}
that is $D\vec{u}=M \vec{u}$ where $M_{jj}=c_{j,1}c_{j,2} \lambda_1\lambda_2$ for $1 \leq j \leq N$, $M_{j-1, j} =V_{j-1}$ for $2 \leq j \leq N$ and $M_{ij}\equiv 0$ otherwise. It is helpful to assign $\tilde{u}_j(x_1, x_2)=e^{- i (c_{j,1}\lambda_1 x_1 + c_{j,2} \lambda_2 x_2)}u_j(x_1, x_2)$ along with $\alpha_{j,1}=c_{j,1}-c_{j+1,1}$ and $\alpha_{j,2}=c_{j,2}-c_{j+1,2}$, which yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} \tilde{u}_j (x_1, x_2)= V_j (x_1, x_2) \tilde{u}_{j+1} (x_1, x_2) e^{ -i(\alpha_{j,1} \lambda_1 x_1 + \alpha_{j,2} \lambda_2 x_2)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, a general solution of the above system will be given for each $j$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\tilde{u}_j(x_1, x_2)- \int_0^{x_2} C_j(\bar{x}_2) d \bar{x}_2 - D_j(x_1)\\&=&\int_{\begin{array}{c} 0 < \bar{x}_1 < x_1 \\ 0< \bar{x}_2 < x_2 \end{array} } V_j(\bar{x}_1, \bar{x}_2)\tilde{u}_{j+1}(\bar{x}_1, \bar{x}_2) e^{ -i(\alpha_{j,1} \lambda_1 \bar{x}_1 + \alpha_{j,2} \lambda_2 \bar{x}_2)} d\bar{x}_1 d\bar{x}_2
\end{eqnarray*}
in the quadrant $S:=\{ (x_1, x_2) : x_1 , x_2 \geq 0\}$. For simplicity, we choose the family of solutions satisfying $C_j(x), D_j(x)\equiv0$ for $j \not = N$. For $j=N$, we set $\tilde{u}_{N}(x_1, x_2)\equiv\tilde{u}_{N}(0,0)=1$. By induction, $\tilde{u}_j(x_1,x_2)$ is then
\begin{eqnarray*}
C_{N-j}^{\alpha_{j,1}, ... } \otimes C_{N-j}^{\alpha_{j,2}, ...} (V_{N-1}*_1\check{\chi}_{[0,x_1)} *_2\check{\chi}_{[0,x_2)},...,V_j*_1 \check{\chi}_{[0,x_1)}*_2\check{\chi}_{[0,x_2)} ).
\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{Boundedness of $u_j$ for odd j}
We now claim that whenever $j$ is odd, the quantity $\sup_{(x_1, x_2) \in S} |u_j(x_1, x_2)|$ is finite for almost every pair of parameter values $(\lambda_1, \lambda_2)$. Since $\sup_{(x_1, x_2) \in S} |u_j|$ is finite if and only if $\sup_{(x_1, x_2) \in S} |\tilde{u}_j|$ is finite, it suffices to show that the $L^q$ norm of $\sup C_{N-1}^{\vec{\epsilon}} \otimes \sup C_{N-1}^{\vec{\epsilon}}$ is finite for some $q >0$. Note that if we did not have to face the supremum, finiteness would follow directly from theorem \ref{ATP}. However, we can adapt an argument from \citep{2013} to deal with this obstacle, which we do first for the case where one faces only a single function in $W_p[W_p]$.
\begin{prop}
The operator $\sup C_1^1 \otimes \sup C_1^1 : W_p[W_p] \rightarrow L^p[L^p]$ is bounded.
\end{prop}
Remark: This proposition is interesting even by itself since the corresponding generalization of the Carleson-Hunt theorem is false, which is to say the map $f \mapsto \sup_{ I \times J \subset \mathbb{R}^2} | f * \check{\chi}_{I \times J}|$ is not a bounded operator on any $L^p$ space.
\begin{proof}
By definition, $\sup C_1^1 \otimes \sup C_1^1 (f)(\xi_1, \xi_2)$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{(x_1, x_2) \in \mathbb{R}^2} \int_{\begin{array}{c} \bar{x}_1 < x_1 \\ \bar{x}_2 < x_2 \end{array}} \hat{f}(\bar{x}_1, \bar{x}_2) e^{ 2 \pi i (\xi_1 \bar{x}_1 + \xi_2 \bar{x}_2)} d\bar{x}_1 d\bar{x}_2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $(N_1(\xi_1, \xi_1), N_2(\xi_1, \xi_2))$ be the point where the supremum is attained. Construct
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_{f}(x)&=&\frac{ \int_{-\infty}^x \int_\mathbb{R} |\hat{f}|^{p^\prime}(\bar{x}_1, \bar{x}_2) d\bar{x}_1 d\bar{x}_2}{||f||^{p^\prime}_{W_p[W_p]}} \\
E^{m_1}_{j_1} &=& \gamma_{f}^{-1} ([j_12^{-m_1}, (j_1+1)2^{-m_1}))\\
\gamma_{m_1, j_1,f}(y) &=&\frac{ \int_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}} \int_{-\infty}^y |\hat{f}|^{p^\prime} (\bar{x}_1, \bar{x}_2) d \bar{x}_1 d \bar{x}_2}{|| f *_1\check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1}} ||^{p^\prime}_{W_p[W_p]}}\\
E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2}&=&\gamma_{m_1, j_1,f}^{-1}([j_22^{-m_2}, (j_2+1)2^{-m_2})).\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Then we decompose:
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&|| \sup C_1^1 \otimes C_1^1 (f) ||_{L^p[L^p]} \\&=& \left| \left| \sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} \sum_{j_1=0}^{2^{m_1}-1} \sum_{j_2=0}^{2^{m_2}-1} f*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}}\times \right. \right.\\ &&~ \left. \left. \chi(\xi_1, \xi_2)_{\{N_1(\xi_1, \xi_2) \in E^{m_1}_{j_1, r} , N_2(\xi_1, \xi_2) \in E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2, r}\}} \right| \right|_{L^p[L^p]} \\ &\leq& \sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} \left| \left| \sum_{j_1=0}^{2^{m_1}-1} \sum_{j_2=0}^{2^{m_2}-1} f*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}}\times \right. \right.\\ &&~ \left. \left. \chi(\xi_1, \xi_2)_{\{N_1(\xi_1, \xi_2) \in E^{m_1}_{j_1, r} , N_2(\xi_1, \xi_2) \in E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2, r}\}} \right| \right|_{L^p[L^p]} \\ &\leq& \sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} \left( \sum_{j_1=0}^{2^{m_1}-1} \sum_{j_2=0}^{2^{m_2}-1} \left| \left| f*_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}} \right| \right|^p_{L^p[L^p]} \right)^{1/p} \\ &\leq& \sum_{m_1, m_2 \geq 0} \left( 2^{m_1}2^{m_2} 2^{-m_1 p/p^\prime} 2^{-m_2 p/p^\prime} \right)^{1/p} \\ &=& \sum_{m_1,m_2 \geq 0} 2^{(m_1+m_2)(1/p-1/p^\prime)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
As $p >2$, the double geometric series is convergent.
\end{proof}
Since we may always assume each potential $V_1, ..., V_{N-1}$ is supported on $S$ along with $\vec{\epsilon}=\vec{1}$, it suffices to prove the following maximal result:
\begin{theorem}
The operator $\sup C_{N-1}^{1,...,1} \otimes \sup C_{N-1}^{1,...,1}: W_{p}[W_{p}] \times L^2[L^2] \times ... \times W_p[W_p] \rightarrow L^{\frac{1}{\frac{(N-1)/2}{2}+\frac{(N+1)/2}{p}}}[L^{\frac{1}{\frac{(N-1)/2}{2}+\frac{(N+1)/2}{p}}}]:= L^{Q_1}[L^{Q_1}]$ is bounded.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof uses our previous result without the supremum, i.e. theorem \ref{ATP}, along with four carvings and lemma \ref{L2} in the appendix. We introduce two carvings between the rightmost $W_p[W_p]$ factor and the $L^2[L^2]$ to its immediate left and two carvings between the rightmost $W_p[W_p]$ and the supremum to its right. Passing sums over scales to the outside as usual, we need only estimate
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\left|\left| \left( \sum_{j_1,j_2,j_3,j_4}C^{1,...,1}_{N-2} \otimes C_{N-2}^{1,...,1} (f_1, ..., f_{N-1} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}}) \right. \times \right. \right. \\ &&\left. \left. \left. (f_N *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_3}_{j_3,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,r}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3,j_4,l}}) \right. \right. \right. \times \\&& \left. \left. \left. \chi(\xi_1, \xi_2)_{\{N_1(\xi_1, \xi_2) \in E^{m_3}_{j_3, r} , N_2(\xi_1, \xi_2) \in E^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, r}\}} \right)\right|\right|_{L^{Q_1}[L^{Q_1}]}\\ &\leq& ||~|| C^{1,...,1}_{N-2} \otimes C^{1,...,1}_{N-2} (f_1, ..., f_{N-2} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}})||_{l^2_{j_1, j_2}} ||_{L^{Q_2}[L^{Q_2}]} \times \\ &&||~ ||\sum_{j_3,j_4} (f_{N-1} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_3}_{j_3,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,r}}*_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_3,m_4}_{j_3,j_4,l}} ) \times \\ && \chi(\xi_1, \xi_2)_{\{N_1(\xi_1, \xi_2) \in E^{m_3}_{j_3, r} , N_2(\xi_1, \xi_2) \in E^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, r}\}} ||_{l^2_{j_1, j_2}} ||_{L^p[L^p]} \\ &\lesssim& ||f_1||_{W_p[W_p]} ... ||~|| f_{N-2} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}}||_{l^2_{j_1, j_2}} ||_{L^2[L^2]} \times \\ &&||~ ||\sum_{j_3,j_4} (f_{N-1} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_3}_{j_3,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,r}}*_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_3,m_4}_{j_3,j_4,l}} ) \times \\ && \chi(\xi_1, \xi_2)_{\{N_1(\xi_1, \xi_2) \in E^{m_3}_{j_3, r} , N_2(\xi_1, \xi_2) \in E^{m_3, m_4}_{j_3, j_4, r}\}}||_{L^p[L^p]} ||_{l^2_{j_1, j_2}} \\ &\lesssim& ||f_1||_{W_p[W_p]} ... ||~|| f_{N-2} *_1 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,l}} *_2 \check{\chi}_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,l}}||_{l^2_{j_1, j_2}} ||_{L^2[L^2]} \times \\ && ||\left( \sum_{j_3,j_4} || (\hat{f}_{N-1} \chi_{E^{m_1}_{j_1,r}}\chi_{E^{m_3}_{j_3,l}} \chi_{E^{m_1, m_2}_{j_1, j_2,r}} \chi_{E^{m_3,m_4}_{j_3,j_4,l}} ) ||^p_{L^{p^\prime}[L^{p^\prime}]} \right)^{1/p} ||_{l^2_{j_1, j_2}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
CASE 1: $m_1+m_2 \geq m_3+ m_4$. The relevant sum is
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{ m_1+m_2 \geq m_3 + m_4} 2^{(m_1+m_2)(1/2-1/p^\prime)} \leq \sum_{m_1, m_2 , m_3 , m_4} 2^{(m_1 + m_2+ m_3 + m_4)(1/4-1/2p^\prime)} .
\end{eqnarray*}
CASE 2: $m_3+m_4 > m_1+m_2$.
We have an upper bound of the form
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{m_3 + m_4 > m_1 + m_2} 2^{(m_3+m_4)(1/p-1/p^\prime)} 2^{(m_1+m_2 )(1/2 - 1/p)} \\&\leq& \sum_{m_3 + m_4 > m_1 + m_2} 2^{ (m_3 + m_4)(1/2-1/p^\prime)} \\&\leq& \sum_{ m_1,m_2 , m_3 , m_4} 2^{(m_1+m_2+m_3+m_4)(1/4-1/2p^\prime)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
As the geometric sum over scales is convergent, the theorem follows.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
The critical behavior of pure lattice gauge theories (LGTs) at finite temperatures is well
understood for non-abelian $SU(N)$ theories in various dimensions. In particular, the phase
structure of a finite-temperature three-dimensional ($3D$) pure $SU(N)$ LGT with the standard
Wilson action is thoroughly investigated both for $N=2,3$ and for the
large-$N$ limit (see, {\it e.g.},~\cite{3D_sun} and references therein). The
transition is second order for $N=2,3$ and first order for $N>4$. In the case
of the $SU(4)$ gauge group, most works agree that the transition is weakly
first order. The deconfining transition in $SU(N=2,3)$ LGTs belongs to the
universality class of $2D$ $Z(N=2,3)$ Potts models. All these phase transitions are characterized
by the spontaneous symmetry breaking of a $Z(N)$ global symmetry of the lattice action in the
high-temperature deconfining phase.
Surprisingly, the situation is much less clear for the $3D$ $U(1)$ LGT.
The present state of affairs can be briefly summarized as follows. $3D$ theory was
studied by Parga using Lagrangian formulation of the theory \cite{parga}.
At high temperatures the system becomes effectively two-dimensional, in particular
the monopoles of the original $U(1)$ gauge theory become vortices of the $2D$
system. The partition function turns out to coincide (in the leading order of the
high-temperature expansion) with the $2D$ $XY$ model in the Villain representation.
The $XY$ model is known to have the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT)
phase transition of the infinite order \cite{berezin,kosterlitz1}.
According to the Svetitsky-Yaffe conjecture the finite-temperature phase transition
in the $3D$ $U(1)$ LGT should belong to the universality class of
the $2D$ XY model \cite{svetitsky}. This means, firstly that the global $U(1)$
symmetry cannot be broken spontaneously because of the Mermin-Wagner
theorem \cite{mwtheorem} and, consequently the local order parameter does not exist for this type of
the phase transition. Secondly, the correlation function of the Polyakov loops (which become spins of the $XY$
model) decreases with the power law at $\beta \geq \beta_c$ implying a logarithmic potential between heavy electrons
\begin{equation}
P(R) \ \asymp \ \frac{1}{R^{\eta (T)}} \ ,
\label{PLhight}
\end{equation}
where the $R\gg 1$ is the distance between test charges.
The critical index $\eta (T)$ is known from the renormalization-group analysis
of Ref.\cite{kosterlitz1} and equals $\eta (T_c) =1/4$ at the critical point of the BKT
transition. For $\beta < \beta_c$, $t=\beta_c/\beta -1$ one has
\begin{equation}
P(R) \ \asymp \ \exp \left [ -R/\xi (t) \right ] \ ,
\label{PLlowt}
\end{equation}
where the correlation length $\xi \sim e^{bt^{-\nu}}$ and the critical index $\nu=1/2$.
Therefore, the critical indices $\eta$ and $\nu$ should be the same in the finite-temperature
$U(1)$ model if the Svetitsky-Yaffe conjecture holds in this case.
The first numerical check of these predictions was performed on the lattices
$L^2\times N_t$ with $L=16, 32$ and $N_t=4,6,8$ in \cite{mcfinitet}.
Though authors of \cite{mcfinitet} confirm the expected BKT nature of the phase transition,
the reported critical index is almost three times larger of that predicted for the $XY$ model,
$\eta \approx 0.78$. More recent analytical and numerical studies of Ref.\cite{beta_szero}
indicate that at least on the anisotropic lattice in the limit of vanishing spatial coupling $\beta_s$
(where space-like plaquettes are decoupled) the $3D$ $U(1)$ gauge model exhibits the critical behavior
similar to the $XY$ spin model. However, numerical simulations of the isotropic model on the lattices
up to $L=256$ and $N_t=8$ reveal that $\eta\approx 0.49$, {\it i.e.} still far from the $XY$
value \cite{u1_isotropic}. Thus, so far there is no numerical indications that critical indices
of $3D$ $U(1)$ LGT coincide with those of the $2D$ $XY$ model and the question of the universality
remains open if $\beta_s$ is non-vanishing.
On the analytical side one should mention a renormalization group (RG) study of
Refs.\cite{svetitsky,borisenko}. In both cases a high-temperature and a dilute monopole gas
approximations were used for the Villain formulation which helped to derive an effective
sine-Gordon model. Resulting RG equations were shown to converge rapidly with iterations
to RG equations of the $2D$ $XY$ model. It gives a strong indication that, indeed the nature
of the phase transitions in both models is the same. Moreover, since the scaling
of the lattice spacing coincides in both cases the critical index $\nu$ should also be the same
(this however was not proven). Furthermore, neither critical points nor index $\eta$ has been
determined in previous studies.
In this work we re-examine the critical behavior of the Villain formulation of the $3D$ $U(1)$ LGT
aiming to compute both critical indices $\nu$ and $\eta$ as well as to determine the location
of the critical points. In order to achieve this goal we calculate the free energy of the model
in the presence of a twist and express it like a function of a bare coupling, a monopole activity
and adimensional ratio of the anisotropic couplings. Varying the lattice cut-off one then finds
the RG equations in a standard manner. We analyze the equations thus obtained for different
values of $N_t$. Also, we present results for the correlation function of the Polyakov loops
which allow to extract the index $\eta$ at the critical point.
\section{Definition of the model and its dual}
We work on a periodic $3D$ lattice $\Lambda = L^2\times N_t$ with spatial extension $L$
and temporal extension $N_t$. We introduce anisotropic dimensionless couplings as
\begin{equation}
\beta_t = \frac{1}{g^2a_t} \ , \;\;\;\;\; \beta_s = \frac{\xi}{g^2a_s} \ = \
\beta_t \ \xi^2 \ , \;\;\;\;\; \xi = \frac{a_t}{a_s} \ ,
\label{ancoupl}
\end{equation}
where $a_t$ ($a_s$) is lattice spacing in the time (space) direction,
$g^2$ is the continuum coupling constant with dimension $a^{-1}$.
$\beta = a_tN_t$ is an inverse temperature.
The compact $3D$ $U(1)$ LGT on the anisotropic lattice in the presence of the twist
is defined through its partition function as
\begin{equation}
Z(\beta_t,\beta_s) = \int_0^{2\pi}\prod_{x\in\Lambda}\: \prod_{n=1}^3
\frac{d\omega_n (x)}{2\pi} \ \exp{S[\omega + \theta]} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $S$ is the Wilson action
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{wilsonaction}
S[\omega] &=& \beta_s\sum_{p_s} \cos\omega (p_s) +
\beta_t\sum_{p_t} \cos\omega (p_t) \ , \\
\omega (p) \ &=& \ \omega_n(x)\ + \ \omega_m(x+e_n) \ - \
\omega_n(x+e_m) \ - \ \omega_m(x) \
\label{plaq_angle}
\end{eqnarray}
and sums run over all space-like ($p_s$) and time-like ($p_t$) plaquettes.
We take a constant shift $\theta_n$ on a stack of plaquettes wrapping
around the lattice in the spatial directions, {\it e.g.} the shift $\theta_1$ on the plaquettes with
coordinates $p=(n_2,n_3;x_1,0,0)$ and the shift $\theta_2$ on the plaquettes with
coordinates $p=(n_1,n_3;0,x_2,0)$ (for a detailed description of the twist in LGT we refer the reader to
Ref.~\cite{twist_gauge} where also some properties of the twisted partition function are discussed).
In order to calculate the free energy in the presence of the twist we make the following quite
standard steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item Perform duality transformations with the twisted partition function;
\item Replace the dual Boltzmann weight with the Villain formulation
and calculate an effective monopole theory;
\item Sum up over monopole configurations in the dilute gas approximation.
\end{itemize}
All these steps are well known in the context of the $3D$ $U(1)$ LGT and can be easily generalized for
the anisotropic lattice in the presence of the twist. For the duality transformations we need an
approach of Ref.~\cite{u1dual_pbc} which takes correctly into account the periodic boundary conditions
on the abelian gauge fields. For the anisotropic theory with twist we find
\begin{equation}
Z(\theta_n) \ = \ \sum_{h_n = -\infty}^{\infty} e^{i \sum_{n=1}^{2} \ h_n \theta_n} \ Z(h_n) \ ,
\label{dualPF_twist}
\end{equation}
where the global summation over $h_n$ enforces the global Bianchi constraint on the periodic system and
$Z(h_n)$ is the dual partition function
\begin{equation}
Z(h_n) \ = \ \sum_{r(x)=-\infty}^{\infty} \
\prod_x \ \prod_{n=1}^{3} \ I_{r(x)-r(x+e_n)+\eta_n(x)}(\beta_n) \ .
\label{Zh}
\end{equation}
Here $I_r(x)$ is the modified Bessel function and we have introduced sources $\eta_n(x)=\eta (l)$ as
\begin{equation}
\eta (l) \ = \
\begin{cases}
h_n, & l\in P_d \ , \\
0, & \text{otherwise} \ ,
\end{cases}
\label{source}
\end{equation}
where $P_d$ is a set of links dual to twisted plaquettes (this set forms a closed loop on the dual lattice),
$\beta_n=\beta_s, n=3$ and $\beta_n=\beta_t, n=1,2$.
In the limit $\beta_s=0$ and in the absence of the twist the partition function (\ref{dualPF_twist})
reduces to ($x=(x_1,x_2)$ runs now over two-dimensional lattice $L^2$)
\begin{equation}
Z(0) \ = \ \sum_{r(x)=-\infty}^{\infty} \
\prod_x \ \prod_{n=1}^{2} \ I_{r(x)-r(x+e_n)}^{N_t}(\beta_n) \ .
\label{betas_0}
\end{equation}
In this limit the model becomes a generalized version of the $XY$ model, and it was studied both analytically
and by Monte-Carlo simulations in Ref.\cite{beta_szero}. The firm conclusion of Ref.\cite{beta_szero} was
that the model (\ref{betas_0}) is in the same universality class as the $XY$ model.
Here we are going to study an opposite limit, namely $\beta_t > \beta_s\gg 1$ which lies close to the continuum
limit of the full $3D$ $U(1)$ model.
When both couplings are large it is customary to use the Villain approximation, {\it i.e.}
\begin{equation}
I_r(x)/I_0(x) \ \approx \ \exp \left ( - \frac{1}{2x} r^2 \right ) \ .
\label{PTVillainDef}
\end{equation}
This dual form of the twisted partition function, Eqs.~(\ref{dualPF_twist})-(\ref{PTVillainDef}), is a starting point
of the analysis in the next Sections.
\section{Free energy of a twist}
Substituting (\ref{PTVillainDef}) into the partition function (\ref{Zh}) we use the Poisson summation
formula to perform summation over $r(x)$ variables. The partition function is factorized in the product
of the dual massless photon contribution and the contribution from the monopole configurations
\begin{equation}
Z(h_n) \ = \ Z_{ph} \ Z_m \ .
\label{PT_fact}
\end{equation}
Taking into account the definition (\ref{source}) and performing summation over the lattice
we write these contributions in the presence of the twist as
\begin{equation}
Z_{ph} \ = \ \exp \left[ -\frac{N_t}{2 \beta_t} \left( h_1^2 + h_2^2 \right) \right] \ ,
\label{Z_ph}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
Z_m \ = \ \sum_{\{m_x\}} \exp \left[ -\pi^2 \sum_{x,x'} m_x G_{x x'} m_{x'}
- \frac{2 \pi i}{L}\sum_x m_x \left( h_1 x_1 + h_2 x_2 \right) \right] \;.
\label{twisted_pf}
\end{equation}
Here, $G_{x x'}$ is the three-dimensional Green function on anisotropic lattice.
For our purposes it is convenient to present it in the form ($x_3=t$)
\begin{equation}
\label{GreenFunc}
G_{x,t;x',t'} \ = \ \frac{\beta_t}{N_t} \left( G_{x,x'}^{2d} +
\sum_{k=1}^{N_t-1} e^{\frac{2\pi i}{N_t} k (t-t')} G_{x,x'}^{2d}(M_k) \right) \ ,
\end{equation}
where $G_{x}^{2d}$ is massless and $G_{x}^{2d}(M_k)$ massive $2D$ Green function with a mass
\begin{equation}
M_k^2 \ = \ \beta_t/\beta_s (1 - \cos 2 \pi k /N_t)\;.
\label{M_k}
\end{equation}
Since massive Green functions are exponentially suppressed for $x \neq x'$ near the continuum limit like
$\exp(-M_k R)$ we keep in the sum over temporal momenta $k$ in (\ref{GreenFunc}) only the terms with
smallest $M_k$, corresponding to $k = 1, N_t -1$. Introducing notations $m_x = \sum_{t=0}^{N_t - 1} m_{x,t}$,
$r_x^k = \sum_{t=0}^{N_t - 1} m_{x,t} \exp \frac{2 \pi i k t}{N_t}$ and keeping only leading contribution in the Taylor
expansion of the terms with $x \neq x'$ we bring $Z_m$ to the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
&& Z_m = \sum_{\{m_{x,t}\}} \exp -\frac{\pi^2 \beta_t}{N_t} \left( \sum_{x,x'} m_x G_{x x'}^{2d} m_{x'}
+ \sum_{k=1}^{N_t - 1} \sum_{x} r_x^k G_0^{2d}(M_k) r_x^{-k} \right) \nonumber \\
&& \prod_{x \neq x'} \left(1 - \frac{2 \pi^2 \beta_t}{N_t} r_x^1 G_{x x'}^{2d}(M_1) r_{x'}^{-1} \right)
\exp \left[- \frac{2 \pi i}{L} \sum_{x} m_x \left( h_1 x_1 + h_2 x_2 \right)\right] \;.
\label{zm2d}
\end{eqnarray}
Consider a set of $m_{x,t}$ variables at one spatial $x$ position.
Since all non-vanishing $r_x^k$ are suppressed by massive Green functions,
the dominant contribution arises from the following configurations: 1) $m_x = 0, r_x^k = 0$;
2) $m_x = 0$, $r_x^k = \pm \left(1 - \exp \frac{2 \pi i k}{N_t} \right) \exp \frac{2 \pi i k \tau}{N_t}$;
3) $m_x = \pm 1$, $r_x^k = \pm \exp \frac{2 \pi i k \tau}{N_t}$.
Since $G_{x}^{2d}$ diverges logarithmically in the large-volume limit, only neutral configurations
$\sum_x m_x=0$ contribute in this limit. If $\frac{\beta_t}{N_t}=T/g^2$ is large enough we can restrict
ourselves only to leading contribution with $m_z = 1$, $m_{z^{\prime}} = -1$ and sum over $(z,z^{\prime})$.
Summing up over all these configurations we finally obtain after a long algebra
\begin{equation}
Z_m \ \approx \ \exp \left [ L^2 \ \sum_{z \neq 0} \exp \left[-\frac{2 \pi^2 \beta_t}{N_t} \ D(z)
+ \frac{2 \pi i}{L} \left( h_1 z_1 +h_2 z_2 \right) \right] F(z) \right ] \ .
\label{zm_final}
\end{equation}
The constant overall factor has been omitted. Here, $D(z)$ is the infrared-finite Green function
whose asymptotics is given by $D(z) \ \asymp \ \frac{1}{\pi} \ \log (z_1^2+z_2^2)^{1/2} + \frac{1}{2}$.
If $F(z)=1$, the partition function (\ref{zm_final}) coincides with the vortex partition function
of the $XY$ model in the presence of the twist. For the case of the finite-temperature $U(1)$ LGT
the function $F(z)$ reads
\begin{equation}
F(z) \ = \ C_1+C_2 \left ( G_z^{2d}(M_1) \right)^2 \ .
\label{Fz}
\end{equation}
It incorporates two new contributions. The constant contribution
\begin{equation}
C_1 \ = \ \left(\frac{N_t W_0}{1 + 2 N_t W_1}\right)^2 \ \left ( 1+
\frac{16 \pi^4 \beta_t^2}{N_t^2} U(1-U) \sum_{x \neq 0} \left ( G_x^{2d}(M_1) \right)^2 \right )
\label{C1}
\end{equation}
renormalizes a monopole activity while the second one proportional to $C_2$
\begin{equation}
C_2 \ = \ \frac{8 \pi^4 \beta_t^2}{N_t^2} \ \left(\frac{N_t W_0}{1 + 2 N_t W_1}\right)^2 \ (1-U)^2 \ ,
\label{C2}
\end{equation}
gives an additional renormalization for the monopole-antimonopole logarithmic interaction at high temperatures.
The constants introduced in the above equations are given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
U &=& 2 (1 - \cos \frac{2 \pi}{N_t} )
\left( \frac{2 N_t W_1} {1 + 2 N_t W_1} \right) \;,
\label{sum_zm} \\
W_m &=& \exp \left [ -\frac{\pi^2 \beta_t}{N_t} \sum_{k=1}^{N_t - 1}
\left(2-m-\cos \frac{2 \pi k}{N_t} m \right) G_0^{2d}(M_k) \right ] , m=0,1 \;. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray*}
Noting that both $D(z)$ and $F(z)$ depend only on $r=(z_1^2+z_2^2)^{1/2}$ we can factorize the angular
dependence of the twist. Integrating over the polar angle and replacing the summation over $r$ with
integration near the continuum limit we find for the exponent of Eq.~(\ref{zm_final})
\begin{equation}
L^2 \ \int_{1}^{+\infty} \exp \left[-\frac{2 \pi^2 \beta_t}{N_t} \ D(r) \right] F(r) \
J_0\left (\frac{2 \pi i}{L}r \right ) d r\ ,
\label{zm_exp}
\end{equation}
where $J_0(x)$ is the Bessel function. Combining this result with Eq.~(\ref{Z_ph}) and
summing up over $h_n$ in Eq.~(\ref{dualPF_twist}) gives us the following expression
for the twisted partition function in the thermodynamic limit
\begin{equation}
Z(\theta) \ = \ \sum_{n_i=-\infty}^{+\infty}
\exp {\left( -\frac{\beta_{eff}}{2} \sum_{i = 1,2}(\theta_i - 2 \pi n_i )^2 \right) } \ .
\label{Ztw_final}
\end{equation}
We have introduced here the renormalized coupling constant $\beta_{eff}$
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\beta_{eff}} \ = \ \frac{N_t}{\beta_t} +
2 \pi^3 y^2 \int_{1}^{+\infty} r^{3- 2\pi \frac{\beta_t}{N_t}} \left( 1 + \frac{C_2}{C_1} \ \left( G_r^{2d}(M_1) \right)^2 \right) d r \ .
\label{tpart}
\end{equation}
The first term corresponds to the massless photon contribution while the second one arises due to
monopole-antimonopole interaction. The monopole activity $y$ is given by
\begin{equation}
y \ = \ 2 \ C_1^{1/2} \exp \left({-\frac{1}{2} \pi^2 \frac{\beta_t}{N_t}}\right) \ .
\label{mon_y}
\end{equation}
Following the same strategy one can compute the two-point correlation function of the Polyakov loops
in the representation $j$ which appears to have a power-like decay of the form
\begin{equation}
P_j(R) \ \approx \ \exp \left[ - \frac{j^2}{2 \pi \beta_{eff}} \ \ln R \right] \ .
\label{PL}
\end{equation}
\section{The renormalization group equations}
The RG equations can be derived from the expression for $\beta_{eff}$ by integrating
in Eq.~(\ref{tpart}) between length scales $a$ and $a+\delta a$, see {\it e.g} \cite{nelson}.
Renormalizing masses $M_k$ in such a way to preserve $G_r^{2d}(M_k)$ we obtain RG equations in
a differential form as ($t=\ln a$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d \beta_t}{d t} &=& - 2 \pi^3 y^2 \frac{\beta_t^2}{N_t} \left( 1 +
\frac{C_2}{C_1} \ \left( G_1^{2d}(M_1) \right)^2 \right)\ , \nonumber \\
\frac{d y}{d t} &=& y \; \left(2 - \pi \frac{\beta_t}{N_t}\right) \ , \
\frac{d M_k}{d t} = M_k \ .
\label{rg2}
\end{eqnarray}
When $N_t=1$ these equations are reduced to the equations of the $2D$ $XY$ model.
The equations for $M_k$ can be solved explicitly $M_k(t) = M_k(0) e^{t}$. Thus,
$M_k$ grows exponentially with $t$ and in the limit $M_k \to \infty$ we again obtain
RG equations of the $2D$ $XY$ model.
Hence, we can expect that the critical indices of the model that describe the solution around a fixed point
coincide with those of the $2D$ $XY$ model.
To check that this is the case we solve the equations (\ref{rg2}) numerically in the vicinity
of the fixed point $\beta_t = 2 N_t / \pi, \ y = 0$.
Fixing $\beta_s/\beta_t$ gives us an initial value for $M_k$. It should be sufficiently large to ensure
the fast convergence of the Taylor expansion in Eq.~(\ref{zm2d}). We have studied several initial values
and have found no difference in the final result. As an example, in the Fig.~\ref{rgflow} we compare the renormalization
flow for $N_t = 1$ ($2D$ $XY$ model) with that of $N_t = 8$ taken $M_1 = 4$ as the initial value.
The critical index $\nu$ can be obtained from fitting the values of the cut-off $a$ at which $\beta_t(a)$ flows
to the fixed point $2 N_t / \pi$ from above (massive phase). As a fitting function we use
$a \sim \exp A(\beta_t - \beta_{t,\rm crit})^{-\nu}$.
Our results for the critical points and $\nu$ values are summarized in the Table~\ref{tb1_crit_betas}.
We observe that for all $N_t$ the value of $\nu$ is compatible with the $XY$ value $\nu=1/2$.
The critical index $\eta$ can also be determined at the fixed point. Since
$\beta_{eff}(\beta_{t,\rm crit}) = 2/\pi$ we find from Eq.~(\ref{PL}) $\eta=1/4$ for $j=1$.
To construct the continuum limit we fitted the critical couplings $\beta_{t,\rm crit}$
using several dependence on $N_t$. The best result is obtained with the fitting function
$\beta_{t,\rm crit} = 0.139 + 0.661 N_t$. Thus, in the continuum limit the critical point
is defined by $T_c \approx 0.661 g^2$. The Fig.~\ref{betac_fit} shows the fitting function
together with values of $\beta_{t,\rm crit}$ from the Table~\ref{tb1_crit_betas}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{plot_nt1.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{plot_nt8.eps}
\caption{Renormalization flow for $N_t = 1$ (left) and $N_t = 8$ (right) obtained from numerical solution
of RG equations. Green line defines the initial points, dashed red line is the critical line,
blue lines show RG flow in the massless phase ($\beta > \beta_{t,\rm crit}$),
red lines show RG flow in the massive phase ($\beta < \beta_{t,\rm crit}$).}
\label{rgflow}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
$N_t$ & $\beta_{t,\rm crit}$ & $\nu$ \\
\hline
1 & 0.748 & 0.498 \\
2 & 1.447 & 0.499 \\
4 & 2.785 & 0.506 \\
6 & 4.122 & 0.503 \\
8 & 5.445 & 0.503 \\
12 & 8.082 & 0.504 \\
16 & 10.718 & 0.504 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of $\beta_{t,\rm crit}$ and $\nu$ obtained
for various $N_t$.}
\label{tb1_crit_betas}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{critline.eps}
\caption{Critical points for $N_t = 1,2,4,6,8,12,16$ fitted with the line
$\beta_{t,\rm crit} = 0.139 + 0.661 N_t$.}
\label{betac_fit}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary}
In this paper we have computed the twist free energy of the finite-temperature $3D$ $U(1)$ LGT
in the Villain formulation. This enabled us to obtain and analyze the RG equations which
describe the critical behavior of the model across the deconfinement phase transition.
Our main findings can be shortly summarized as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item We have computed the critical points for various temporal extension $N_t$.
In the continuum limit we find $T_c \approx 0.661 g^2$.
\item The scaling of the correlation length $\xi\sim a$ is compatible with a phase
transition of the infinite order. Moreover, the critical index $\nu\approx 1/2$.
\item We have also derived the leading asymptotic behavior of the Polyakov loop
correlation function. This allowed us to determine the critical index $\eta$ at
the critical point $\eta (\beta_{t,\rm crit})=1/4$.
\end{itemize}
This supports the Svetitsky-Yaffe conjecture that the deconfinement phase transition
in the finite-temperature $3D$ $U(1)$ LGT belongs to the universality class of the $2D$ $XY$ model,
at least in the region of bare coupling constants where our approximations hold, {\it i.e.}
for $\beta_t/\beta_s > 1$. For isotropic lattices, used in \cite{u1_isotropic},
the initial value becomes $\beta_t/\beta_s = 1$. In this case one should take into account
higher order terms of the Taylor expansion in the calculation of $Z_m$ which is hard to accomplish
analytically. Still, we feel that the universality can be demonstrated also in this case
by performing large-scale Monte-Carlo simulations of the isotropic model.
Such computations are now in progress.
|
\section{Introduction}
The controlled large-population (LP) or multi-agent (MA) systems have been widely applied in a variety of fields including biology, engineering, operational research, mathematical finance and economics, social science, etc. The most special feature of controlled LP system lies in the existence of considerable insignificant agents whose dynamics and (or) cost functionals are coupled via the state-average across the whole population. It is remarkable that the classical centralized strategies by consolidating all agent's exact states, turn out to be infeasible and ineffective due to the highly complicated coupling structure in LP system. Alternatively, it is more tractable and effective to study the related decentralized strategies by considering its own individual state and some off-line quantities only. Along this research line, one important approach is the mean-field games (see e.g., \cite{ll}) which enables us to obtain the decentralized strategies through the limiting auxiliary tracking problem and the related consistency condition. During the last few decades, there has a growing literature to the study of mean-field games and their applications. The interested readers may refer the following partial list of recent works including \cite{B12,B11,hcm07,HCM12,hmc06,LZ08} for mean-field linear-quadratic-Gaussian (LQG) games of large-population system, \cite{H10} for mean-field games with major and minor players, \cite{TZB11} for risk-sensitive mean-field games. In addition, the stochastic control problems with a mean-field term in dynamics and cost functional can be found in \cite{AD,BDL,MOZ,Yong13} etc.\\
It is remarkable that the individual states in above mentioned literature, are all formulated by (forward) stochastic differential equations (SDEs) with prescribed initial condition only.
In contrast, this paper investigates the dynamic optimizations of LP system where the individual states are governed by forward-backward stochastic differential equations (FBSDEs). Unlike the SDEs with forward state only, the solution structure of FBSDEs consists of three components: the forward state $x_t$ with given initial condition and the backward state pair $(y_t, z_t)$ with pre-specified terminal condition. In particular, the second backward component $z_t$ is actually necessary to achieve the terminal condition and ensure the adapted solution due to martingale representation. The FBSDEs have been extensively discussed in academic literature. The reader is referred to \cite{BBM,CVM,PengWu99,SW10,W2013,Xu,Yu2012} for motivations and backgrounds of FBSDE. The forward-backward large population dynamic optimization problems arise naturally in many practical situations. One typical situation is when we consider the collective behaviors of many small agents which have the nonlinear expectation or recursive utilities (e.g., \cite{my}). Another typical situation is from the large population system with constrained terminal condition (see e.g., \cite{CWZ}).\\
To our knowledge, this paper is the first try to formulate the large-population dynamic optimizations in forward-backward setting, and to investigate the related mean-field linear-quadratic-Gaussian (LQG) games. Here, the forward-backward large-population system under consideration is partially coupled in which the forward state does not explicitly depend on the backward states. The decentralized control policy is derived from the consistency condition and the approximation scheme. The $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium property is also verified. A simple summary to the novelties of our work is as follows. (i) Our individual states follow the forward-backward system with initial and terminal conditions; (ii) the decoupling procedure involves six Riccati and force rate equations for Hamiltonian system; (iii) the initial and terminal condition in Hamiltonian system is in the ``mixed" sense (see \cite{Yong10}); (iv) the verification of $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium applies the estimates of forward-backward system. In addition, the information structure of forward-backward LP system is different to forward LP system due to the adaptiveness requirement.\\
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we formulate the large population LQG games of forward-backward systems. Section 3 aims to study the optimal control of auxiliary track system. The NCE consistency conditions are derived in Section 4. In Section 5, we obtain the $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium property of our original problem. Section 6 concludes our work.
\section{Problem formulation}
Throughout this paper, we denote by $\mathbb{R}^m$ the $m$-dimensional Euclidean space.
For a given Euclidean space, denote by $|\cdot|$ its norm. Consider a finite time horizon $[0,T]$ for a fixed $T>0$. Suppose $(\Omega,
\mathcal F, \{\mathcal F_t\}_{0\leq t\leq T}, P)$ is a complete
filtered probability space on which a standard $N$-dimensional Brownian motion $\{W_i(t),\ 1\le i\leq N\}_{0 \leq t \leq T}$ is defined.
Denote by $\{\mathcal F^{w_i}_t\}_{0\leq t\leq T}$ the filtration generated by $\{W_i(s), 0\leq s\leq t\}.$ For a given filtration $\{\mathcal G_t\}_{0\leq t\leq T},$ let $L^{2}_{\mathcal{G}_t}(0, T; \mathbb{R}^m)$ denote the space of all $\mathcal{G}_t$-progressively measurable processes with values in $\mathbb{R}^m$ satisfying $\mathbb{E}\int_0^{T}|x(t)|^{2}dt<+\infty;$ $L^{2}(0, T; \mathbb{R}^m)$ the space of all deterministic functions defined on $[0,T]$ in $\mathbb{R}^m$ satisfying $\int_0^{T}|x(t)|^{2}dt<+\infty;$ $C(0,T;\mathbb{R}^m)$ the space of all continuous functions defined on $[0,T]$ in $\mathbb{R}^m$. For notational simplicity, in what follows we focus on the case where all processes are 1-dimensional.\\
Consider a large-population system with $N$ individual agents, denoted by $\{\mathcal{A}_{i}\}_{1 \leq i \leq N}.$ The dynamics for individual agent involves three components. The forward components $\{x_i\}_{1 \leq i \leq N}$ of $\{\mathcal{A}_{i}\}_{1 \leq i \leq N}$ satisfy\begin{subequations}\label{Eq1}
\begin{equation}\label{Eq1a}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
dx_{i}(t)=& \big(Ax_{i}(t)+Bu_{i}(t)+Fx^{(N)}(t)\big)dt+\sigma x_i(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
x_{i}(0)=& x_{i0}
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $\{x_{i0}\}_{i=1}^N$ are initial conditions of the forward system \eqref{Eq1a}, and the backward states are
\begin{equation}\label{Eq1b}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
-dy_{i}(t)=& \big(Cy_{i}(t)+Du_{i}(t)+Hx_{i}(t)+Lx^{(N)}(t)\big)dt-\sum_{j=1}^Nz_{ij}(t)dW_{j}(t),\\
y_{i}(T)=& Kx_{i}(T)
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}where $x^{(N)}(t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits^{N}_{i=1}x_{i}(t)$ is the (forward) state-average. Here, $A, B, F, C, D, H, L, K, \sigma$ are scalar constants. Equation \eqref{Eq1a} and \eqref{Eq1b} together become a partially-coupled FBSDE, referred by \eqref{Eq1} hereafter. By ``partially-coupled", we mean the dynamics of forward state does not depend on the backward components. Introduce $\mathcal F_t\triangleq\sigma\{W_i(s),x_{i0};0\leq s\leq t,1\leq i\leq N\}$ as the full information accessible to the LP system up to time $t$. Different to forward LP system, the backward diffusion term $\sum_{j=1}^Nz_{ij}(t)dW_{j}(t)$ driving by all Brownian motions (not $W_i$ only), should be introduced in the dynamics of $\mathcal{A}_i$ by considering $x^{(N)}_t \in \mathcal F_t$ (even through Eq.\eqref{Eq1a}, the forward state of $\mathcal{A}_i$ is only driven by $W_i$ only). The admissible control $u_i\in \mathcal{U}_i$ where the admissible set $\mathcal{U}_i$ satisfies$$
\mathcal{U}_i\triangleq\big\{u_i|u_i(t)\in L^{2}_{\mathcal{F}_t}(0, T; \mathbb{R})\big\},\ 1\leq i \leq N.
$$Let $u=(u_1, \cdots, u_{N})$ denote the set of control strategies of all $N$ agents; $u_{-i}=(u_1, \cdots, u_{i-1},$ $u_{i+1}, \cdots u_{N})$ the control strategies except $i^{th}$ agent $\mathcal{A}_i.$ The individual cost functional is given by
\begin{equation}\label{Eq2}
\begin{aligned}
J_{i}(u_{i}(\cdot), u_{-i}(\cdot))=&\frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E}\left\{ \int_{0}^{T}\left[Q\Big(x_{i}(t)-\big(Sx^{(N)}(t)+\eta\big)\Big)^{2}+Ru_{i}^{2}(t)\right]dt+N_{0}y_{i}^{2}(0) \right\}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $S,\eta $ are scalar constants and $Q\geq 0, R>0, N_{0}\geq 0.$
\begin{remark}\emph{Unlike the forward LP literature, the new term of backward state $N_{0}y_{i}^{2}(0)$ is introduced in \eqref{Eq2} to denote some recursive evaluation or nonlinear expectation. One practical meaning of it is the initial hedging deposits in the pension fund industry. In addition, one explanation of above forward-backward system \eqref{Eq1a} and \eqref{Eq1b} is as follows: the forward state $x_i$ in \eqref{Eq1a} represents some underlying asset/product dynamics while the state-average $x^{(N)}(t)$ denotes some average market index on it;
the backward state $y_i$ denotes the dynamics of some derivative asset on $x_i$ (for example, the option on real product such as raw-oil). In this case, \eqref{Eq2} implies the minimization of the average deviation from market price, and the initial hedging cost for some future commitment at the same time.} \end{remark}
We introduce the following assumption:
\begin{description}
\item[(H1)] $\{x_{i0}\}_{i=1}^N$ are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d) with $\mathbb{E}|x_{i0}|^{2}<+\infty,$ and also independent of $\{W_i,1\leq i\leq N\}$.
\end{description}
Now, we formulate the large-population dynamic optimization problem.\\
\textbf{Problem (I).}
Find a control strategies set $\bar{u}=(\bar{u}_1,\cdots,\bar{u}_N)$ which satisfies
$$
J_i(\bar{u}_i(\cdot),\bar{u}_{-i}(\cdot))=\inf_{u_i\in \mathcal{U}_i}J_i(u_i(\cdot),\bar{u}_{-i}(\cdot))
$$where $\bar{u}_{-i}$ represents $(\bar{u}_1,\cdots,\bar{u}_{i-1},\bar{u}_{i+1},\cdots, \bar{u}_N)$.
\section{The Limiting Control Problem}
To study Problem \textbf{(I)}, one efficient approach is to discuss the associated mean-field games via limiting problem when the agent number $N$ tends to infinity. As $N \longrightarrow +\infty,$ suppose $x^{(N)}$ can be approximated by a deterministic function $\bar{x}$ and introduce the following auxiliary (forward) state dynamics
\begin{subequations}\label{Eq3}
\begin{equation}\label{Eq3a}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
dx_{i}(t)=& \big(Ax_{i}(t)+Bu_{i}(t)+F\bar{x}(t)\big)dt+\sigma x_{i}(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
x_{i}(0)=& x_{i0}
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}and
\begin{equation}\label{Eq3b}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
-dy_{i}(t)=& \big(Cy_{i}(t)+Du_{i}(t)+Hx_{i}(t)+L\bar{x}(t)\big)dt-z_{i}(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
y_{i}(T)=& Kx_{i}(T).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
The associated limiting cost functional becomes
\begin{equation}\label{Eq4}
\begin{aligned}
\bar{J}_{i}(u_{i}(\cdot))=&\frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E}\left\{ \int_{0}^{T}\left[Q\Big(x_{i}(t)-\big(S\bar{x}(t)+\eta\big)\Big)^{2}+Ru_{i}^{2}(t)\right]dt+N_{0}y_{i}^{2}(0) \right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}Thus, we formulate the limiting LQG game \textbf{(II)} as follows. \\
\textbf{Problem (II).} For the $i^{th}$ agent $\mathcal{A}_i$, $i=1,2,\cdots,N,$ find $\bar{u}_i\in \mathcal{U}_i$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{pro2}
\bar{J}_i(\bar{u}_i(\cdot))=\inf_{u_i\in \mathcal{U}_i}\bar{J}_i(u_i(\cdot)).
\end{equation}
$\bar{u}_i$ satisfying \eqref{pro2} is called an optimal control for (\textbf{II}). Applying the standard variational method, we have:
\begin{lemma}\label{Lem3.1}
Under \emph{(H1)}, the optimal control for Problem \emph{(\textbf{II})} is given by\begin{equation}\label{Eq5}
\bar{u}_{i}(t)=R^{-1}\big(D\hat{k}_{i}(t)-B\hat{p}_{i}(t)\big)
\end{equation}where the adjoint process $(\hat{k}_{i}, \hat{p}_{i}, \hat{q}_{i})$ and the
optimal trajectory $(\hat{x}_{i}, \hat{y}_{i}, \hat{z}_{i})$ satisfy the forward SDE
\begin{subequations}\label{Eq6}
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6a}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
d\hat{x}_{i}(t)=& \big(A\hat{x}_{i}(t)+R^{-1}BD\hat{k}_{i}(t)-R^{-1}B^{2}\hat{p}_{i}(t)+F\bar{x}(t)\big)dt+\sigma \hat{x}_{i}(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
\hat{x}_{i}(0)=& x_{i0},\\
d\hat{k}_{i}(t)=& C\hat{k}_{i}(t)dt,\\
\hat{k}_{i}(0)=& -N_{0}\hat{y}_{i}(0)
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}and backward SDE (BSDE)
\begin{equation}\label{Eq6b}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
-d\hat{y}_{i}(t)=& \big(C\hat{y}_{i}(t)+R^{-1}D^{2}\hat{k}_{i}(t)-R^{-1}BD\hat{p}_{i}(t)+H\hat{x}_{i}(t)+L\bar{x}(t)\big)dt-\hat{z}_{i}(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
\hat{y}_{i}(T)=& K\hat{x}_{i}(T),\\
-d\hat{p}_{i}(t)=& \big(A\hat{p}_{i}(t)-H\hat{k}_{i}(t)+Q\hat{x}_{i}(t)-QS\bar{x}(t)-Q\eta+\hat{q}_{i}(t)\sigma^T\big)dt-\hat{q}_{i}(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
\hat{p}_{i}(T)=& -K\hat{k}_{i}(T).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\end{lemma}
The proof is similar to that of \cite{Yu2012}. In the following, we aim to decouple the FBSDE system \eqref{Eq6}. Let $\beta(t)$ be the unique solution of the Riccati equation
\begin{equation}\label{Eq7}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d\beta(t)}{dt}+\big(2A+\sigma^{2}\big)\beta(t)-R^{-1}B^{2}\beta^{2}(t)+Q=0,\\
&\beta(T)=0,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
$\alpha(t)$ the unique solution of the ordinary differential equation (ODE)
\begin{equation}\label{Eq8}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d\alpha(t)}{dt}+\big(A+C-R^{-1}B^{2}\beta(t)\big)\alpha(t)+R^{-1}BD\beta(t)-H=0,\\
&\alpha(T)=-K,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
$\zeta(t)$ the unique solution of the ODE
\begin{equation}\label{Eq9}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d\zeta(t)}{dt}+\big(A+C-R^{-1}B^{2}\beta(t)\big)\zeta(t)-\big(R^{-1}BD\beta(t)-H\big)=0,\\
&\zeta(T)= K,
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
and $\xi(t)$ the unique solution of the ODE
\begin{equation}\label{Eq10}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d\xi(t)}{dt}+2C\xi(t)+\big(R^{-1}BD-R^{-1}B^{2}\alpha(t)\big)\zeta(t)+R^{-1}D^{2}-R^{-1}BD\alpha(t)=0,\\
&\xi(T)= 0.
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
Introduce
\begin{equation}\label{Eq11}
\hat{p}_{i}(t)=\alpha(t)\hat{k}_{i}(t)+\beta(t)\hat{x}_{i}(t)+\gamma(t),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Eq12}
\hat{ y}_{i}(t)=\xi(t)\hat{k}_{i}(t)+\zeta(t)\hat{x}_{i}(t)+\tau(t)
\end{equation}
where $\gamma(t)$ and $\tau(t)$ are deterministic functions to be determined. By It\^{o}'s formula, it follows that \eqref{Eq6b} is equivalent to the following BSDEs
\begin{subequations}\label{Eq13}
\begin{equation}\label{Eq13a}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
-d\gamma(t)=& \big[\big(A-R^{-1}B^{2}\beta(t)\big)\gamma(t)+\big(F\beta(t)-QS\big)\bar{x}(t)-Q\eta\big]dt\\
& -\big(\hat{q}_{i}(t)-\sigma\beta(t)\hat{x}_i(t)\big)dW_{i}(t),\\
\gamma(T)=& 0\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Eq13b}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
-d\tau(t)=& \big[C\tau(t)-\big(R^{-1}B^{2}\zeta(t)+R^{-1}BD\big)\gamma(t)+\big(F\zeta(t)+L\big)\bar{x}(t)\big]dt\\
& -\big(\hat{z}_{i}(t)-\sigma\zeta(t)\hat{x}_i(t)\big)dW_{i}(t),\\
\tau(T)=& 0.\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
In terms of the existence and uniqueness of solutions of BSDEs (see \cite{PP1990}), \eqref{Eq13} is equivalent to the following equations
\begin{subequations}\label{Eq14}
\begin{equation}\label{Eq14a}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d\gamma(t)}{dt}+\big(A-R^{-1}B^{2}\beta(t)\big)\gamma(t)+\big(F\beta(t)-QS\big)\bar{x}(t)-Q\eta=0,\\
&\gamma(T)= 0,\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Eq14c}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d\tau(t)}{dt}+C\tau(t)-\big(R^{-1}B^{2}\zeta(t)+R^{-1}BD\big)\gamma(t)+\big(F\zeta(t)+L\big)\bar{x}(t)=0,\\
& \tau(T)= 0,\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Eq14b}
\hat{q}_{i}(t)=\sigma\beta(t)\hat{x}_i(t)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Eq14d}
\hat{z}_{i}(t)=\sigma\zeta(t)\hat{x}_i(t).
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Note that both \eqref{Eq14a} and \eqref{Eq14c} are the ODEs. Letting $t=0$ in \eqref{Eq12}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Eq15}
\hat{ y}_{i}(0)=\xi(0)\hat{k}_{i}(0)+\zeta(0)\hat{x}_{i}(0)+\tau(0).
\end{equation}
From \eqref{Eq6a}, we know that
\begin{equation}\label{Eq16}
\hat{k}_{i}(0)=-N_{0}\hat{y}_{i}(0)\hspace{3mm} {\rm and}\hspace{3mm} \hat{x}_{i}(0)=x_{i0}.
\end{equation}
Supposing $1+\xi(0)N_{0}\neq0$ and substituting \eqref{Eq16} into \eqref{Eq15} yield
\begin{equation}\label{Eq17}
\hat{ y}_{i}(0)=\frac{\zeta(0)x_{i0}+\tau(0)}{1+\xi(0)N_{0}}.
\end{equation}
Then computing $\hat{k}_{i}(t)$ in \eqref{Eq6a}, we obtain the unique solution
\begin{equation}\label{Eq18}
\hat{k}_{i}(t)=-\frac{N_{0}\big(\zeta(0)x_{i0}+\tau(0)\big) e^{Ct}}{1+\xi(0)N_{0}}.
\end{equation}
Based on \eqref{Eq5}, \eqref{Eq11} and \eqref{Eq18}, we can rewrite \eqref{Eq5} and the first equation in \eqref{Eq6a} as
\begin{align}\label{Eq19}
\bar{u}_{i}(t)=-R^{-1}B\beta(t)\hat{x}_{i}(t)+\frac{\big(R^{-1}B\alpha(t)-R^{-1}D\big)N_{0}\big(\zeta(0)x_{i0}+\tau(0)\big) e^{Ct}}{1+\xi(0)N_{0}}-R^{-1}B\gamma(t)
\end{align}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Eq20}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
d\hat{x}_{i}(t)=&\left[\big(A-R^{-1}B^{2}\beta(t)\big)\hat{x}_{i}(t)+\frac{\Big(R^{-1}B^{2}\alpha(t)-R^{-1}B D\Big)N_{0}\big(\zeta(0)x_{i0}+\tau(0)\big) e^{Ct}}{1+\xi(0)N_{0}}\right.\\
& -R^{-1}B^{2}\gamma(t)+F\bar{x}(t)\Bigg]dt+\sigma \hat{x}_i(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
\hat{x}_{i}(0)=& x_{i0}.\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}Equation \eqref{Eq20} admits a unique solution $\hat{x}_{i}(\cdot),$ which together with \eqref{Eq18} in turn determines unique solutions $\hat{p}_{i}(\cdot)$ and $\hat{y}_{i}(\cdot)$ of equations \eqref{Eq11} and \eqref{Eq12}, respectively. Meanwhile, $\hat{q}_{i}(\cdot)$ and $\hat{z}_{i}(\cdot)$ are
uniquely determined by \eqref{Eq14b} and \eqref{Eq14d}, respectively.
\begin{remark}
\emph{From \eqref{Eq7}-\eqref{Eq10}, \eqref{Eq14a} and \eqref{Eq14c}, it follows that $(\beta, \alpha, \zeta, \xi)$ is independent of the undetermined limiting state-average $\bar{x}$ whereas $(\gamma, \tau)$ depends on $\bar{x}$. }\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
\emph{It is required that $1+\xi(0)N_{0}\neq0.$ One special case is that $N_0=0,$ and in this case, our problem is reduced to the forward large population problem by considering system \eqref{Eq20} only. On the other hand, a direct calculation implies$$\xi(0)=\int_0^{T}e^{2Cv}R^{-1}\big(-2BD\alpha(v)+B^{2}\alpha^{2}(v)+D^{2}\big)dv=\int_0^{T}e^{2Cv}R^{-1}\big(B\alpha(v)-D\big)^{2}dv \geq 0.$$ Therefore, $1+\xi(0)N_{0}\neq0$ whenever $N_0>0.$ In summary, $1+\xi(0)N_{0}\neq0$ is always true provided $N_0 \geq 0.$}\end{remark}
\section{The Consistency Condition System}
For simplicity of presentation, we introduce the following notations
\begin{equation}\label{Eq67}
\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{A}(t)\triangleq A-R^{-1}B^{2}\beta(t),\\
&\Gamma_{s}^{t}\triangleq e^{\int_{s}^{t}\mathbb{A}(r)dr},\quad t\geq s,\\
&\bar{\Gamma}\triangleq e^{\int_{0}^{T}|\mathbb{A}(r)|dr},\\
&\Theta_{1}(s)\triangleq \frac{\big(R^{-1}B^{2}\alpha(s)-R^{-1}B D\big)N_{0}}{1+\xi(0)N_{0}},\\
&\Theta_{2}(s)\triangleq -\big(R^{-1}B^{2}\zeta(s)+R^{-1}BD\big),\\
&\Theta_{3}(s)\triangleq F\beta(s)-QS,\\
&\Theta_{4}(s)\triangleq F\zeta(s)+L,\\
&\Theta_{5}(s)\triangleq \frac{\big(R^{-1}B\alpha(s)-R^{-1}D\big)N_{0}}{1+\xi(0)N_{0}},\\
&\Theta_{6}(s)\triangleq R^{-1}BD\beta(s)-H,\\
&\bar{\Theta}_{i}\triangleq \int_{0}^{T}|\Theta_{i}(s)|ds,\; i=1,\cdots, 4.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Note that the terms defined in \eqref{Eq67} are not dependent on $\bar{x}(\cdot).$ We present the following result.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop4.1}
Assume $A,B,Q$ are nonzero, then $\bar{\Theta}_{i}, i=1,\cdots, 4$ is bounded.
\end{proposition}
{\it Proof.} Denote by $\mathcal{A}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
A+\frac{\sigma^2}{2} & -\frac{B^2}{R} \\
-Q & -A-\frac{\sigma^2}{2} \\
\end{array}
\right),
$
and $\lambda=\sqrt{(A+\frac{\sigma^2}{2})^2+\frac{B^2Q}{R}}$ as the positive eigenvalue of $\mathcal{A}$. Then we have
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
e^{\mathcal{A}t}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
=\frac{1}{2\lambda}\Big[\Big(\lambda-A-\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\Big)e^{\lambda t}+\Big(\lambda+A+\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\Big)e^{-\lambda t}\Big]>0.
\end{equation}According to \cite{my}, we get the explicit expression of $\beta(t)$ as follows
\begin{equation}\label{beta}\begin{aligned}
\beta(t)&=-\left[\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
e^{\mathcal{A}(T-t)}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\right]^{-1}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
e^{\mathcal{A}(T-t)}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0 \\
\end{array}
\right)\\
&=Q\big(e^{2\lambda(T-t)}-1\big)\Big[\Big(\lambda-A-\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\Big)e^{2\lambda(T-t)}+\Big(\lambda+A+\frac{\sigma^2}{2}\Big)\Big]^{-1}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}and we can see $\beta'(t)<0,\ t\in[0,T]$. Thus, for $\forall\ t\in[0,T]$
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
0\leq\beta(t)\leq \beta(0)<Q+\frac{R}{B^2}\big[1+(A+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)^2\big].
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}Then we get $$\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|\mathbb{A}(t)|= \sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|A-R^{-1}B^{2}\beta(t)|<1+|A|+(A+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)^2+R^{-1}B^2Q$$ and
$$\bar{\Gamma}=e^{\int_{0}^{T}|\mathbb{A}(r)|dr}<e^{\big[1+|A|+(A+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)^2+R^{-1}B^2Q\big]T}.$$
Based on \eqref{beta}, we can directly solve the ODEs \eqref{Eq8}-\eqref{Eq10} as follows
\begin{equation}\label{azx}\left\{\begin{aligned}
\alpha(t)&=-Ke^{C(T-t)}\Gamma_t^T+\int_t^Te^{C(v-t)}\Gamma_t^v\Theta_6(v)dv,\\
\zeta(t)&=-\alpha(t),\\
\xi(t)&=\int_t^Te^{2C(v-t)}\Big[\big(R^{-1}BD-R^{-1}B^2\alpha(v)\big)\zeta(v)+R^{-1}D^2-R^{-1}BD\alpha(v)\Big]dv.
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
Thus, we obtain
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{aligned}
\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|\alpha(t)|=&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|\zeta(t)|\\
\leq&\Big[|K|+T\Big(\frac{|BD|Q}{R}+\frac{|D|}{|B|}[1+(A+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)^2]+|H|\Big)\Big] \\
&\cdot e^{\big[1+|A|+(A+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)^2+|C|+R^{-1}B^2Q\big]T},\\
R(1+\xi(0)N_0)&=R+N_0\int_0^Te^{2Cv}(B\alpha(v)-D)^2dv.
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
In addition, we get
\begin{equation}\label{theta}\left\{\begin{aligned}
\bar{\Theta}_1&=\int_0^T\frac{N_0|B||B\alpha(s)-D|}{R+N_0\int_0^Te^{2Cv}(B\alpha(v)-D)^2dv}ds,\\
\bar{\Theta}_2&=\int_0^T\frac{|B||B\alpha(s)-D|}{R}ds,\\
\bar{\Theta}_3&=\int_0^T|F\beta(s)-QS|ds\leq T\left(|F|Q+\frac{|F|R}{B^2}[1+(A+\frac{1}{2}\sigma^2)^2]+Q|S|\right),\\
\bar{\Theta}_4&=\int_0^T|F\alpha(s)-L|ds
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
which yields the boundness of $\bar{\Theta}_{i}, i=1,\cdots, 4.$ The proof is completed. \hfill $\Box$
For the given deterministic continuous function $\bar{x}$ defined on $[0,T]$, solving the ODEs \eqref{Eq14a} and \eqref{Eq14c},
\begin{equation}\label{gamatao}\left\{\begin{aligned}
\gamma(t)=&\int_{t}^{T}\Gamma_{t}^{v}\big(\Theta_{3}(v)\bar{x}(v)-Q\eta\big)dv,\\
\tau(t)=&\int_{t}^{T}e^{C(r-t)}\Theta_{2}(r)\left(\int_{r}^{T}\Gamma_{r}^{v}\Big(\Theta_{3}(v)\bar{x}(v)-Q\eta\Big)dv\right)dr+\int_{t}^{T}e^{C(r-t)}\Theta_{4}(r)\bar{x}(r)dr.
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}
Now we can introduce the decentralized feedback strategy for $\mathcal{A}_i$ as follows:\begin{align}\label{Eq19'}
\bar{u}_{i}(t)=-R^{-1}B\beta(t)x_{i}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x_{i0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{5}(t) e^{Ct}-R^{-1}B\gamma(t).
\end{align}
Applying the decentralized control law \eqref{Eq19'} to $\mathcal{A}_i$, its realized closed-loop state becomes\begin{subequations}\label{Eq47}
\begin{equation}\label{Eq21}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
dx_{i}(t)=&\Big[\mathbb{A}(t)x_{i}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x_{i0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{1}(t) e^{Ct}\\
&\; -R^{-1}B^{2}\gamma(t)+Fx^{(N)}(t)\Big]dt+\sigma x_i(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
x_{i}(0)=&\, x_{i0}\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{Eq28}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
-dy_{i}(t)=&\,\Big[Cy_{i}(t)+\big(H-R^{-1}BD\beta(t)\big)x_{i}(t)+D\big(\zeta(0)x_{i0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{5}(t)e^{Ct}\\
& \quad -R^{-1}BD\gamma(t)+Lx^{(N)}(t)\Big]dt-\sum_{j=1}^Nz_{ij}(t)dW_{j}(t),\\
y_{i}(T)=&\, Kx_{i}(T).
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
Taking summation of the above $N$ equations of \eqref{Eq21} and dividing by $N$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{xN}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
dx^{(N)}(t)=&\Big[\mathbb{A}(t)x^{(N)}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x^{(N)}_0+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{1}(t) e^{Ct}\\
&\; -R^{-1}B^{2}\gamma(t)+Fx^{(N)}(t)\Big]dt+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\sigma x_i(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
x^{(N)}(0)=&x^{(N)}_0
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
where $x^{(N)}(t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{i=1}^Nx_i(t),\ x^{(N)}_0=\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{i=1}^Nx_{i0}$. On the other hand,$$\lim\limits_{N\rightarrow +\infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \int_0^t\sigma x_i(s)dW_{i}(s)= 0.$$ Letting $N\rightarrow +\infty$ and replacing $x^{(N)}$ by $\bar{x}$, we obtain the following limiting system
\begin{equation}\label{xbar}\left\{\begin{aligned}
d\bar{x}(t)&=\Big[\big(\mathbb{A}(t)+F\big)\bar{x}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x_0+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{1}(t)e^{Ct}-R^{-1}B^{2}\gamma(t)\Big]dt,\\
\bar{x}(0)&=x_0.
\end{aligned}\right.\end{equation}We call \eqref{gamatao} and \eqref{xbar} the consistency condition system by which the limiting state-average process can be determined through the fixed-point analysis, as discussed below. Solving the ODE \eqref{xbar} directly and noting \eqref{azx} and \eqref{gamatao}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{xbar2}\begin{aligned}
\bar{x}(t)=&x_0\Gamma_0^te^{Ft}+\int_0^t\Gamma_s^te^{F(t-s)}x_0\Theta_1(s)e^{Cs}\cdot K\Gamma_0^Te^{CT}ds\\
&-\int_{0}^{t}\Gamma_{s}^{t}e^{F(t-s)}x_0\Theta_{1}(s)e^{Cs}ds\cdot\int_{0}^{T}e^{Cr}\Gamma_0^r\Theta_{6}(r)dr\\
&+\int_{0}^{t}\Gamma_{s}^{t}e^{F(t-s)}\Theta_{1}(s)e^{Cs}ds\cdot\int_{0}^{T}e^{Cr}\Theta_{2}(r)\Bigg(\int_{r}^{T}\Gamma_{r}^{v}\Big(\Theta_{3}(v)\bar{x}(v)-Q\eta\Big)dv\Bigg)dr\\
&+\int_{0}^{t}\Gamma_{s}^{t}e^{F(t-s)}\Theta_{1}(s)e^{Cs}ds\cdot\int_{0}^{T}e^{Cr}\Theta_{4}(r)\bar{x}(r)dr\\
&-\int_{0}^{t}\Gamma_{s}^{t}e^{F(t-s)}R^{-1}B^{2}\left(\int_{s}^{T}\Gamma_{s}^{v}\Big(\Theta_{3}(v)\bar{x}(v)-Q\eta\Big)dv\right)ds\\
\triangleq& (\mathcal{T}\bar{x})(t).
\end{aligned}\end{equation}Introduce the norm as follows: for any $f(t)\in C(0,T;\mathbb{R})$, $$\|f(t)\|_\infty\triangleq\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}|f(t)|.$$To apply the contraction mapping, hereafter we introduce the following assumption:
\begin{description}
\item[(H2)] $e^{(2|C|+|F|)T}\bar{\Gamma}^{2}\bar{\Theta}_{1}\bar{\Theta}_{2}\bar{\Theta}_{3}+
e^{(2|C|+|F|)T}\bar{\Gamma}\bar{\Theta}_{1}\bar{\Theta}_{4}+e^{|F|T}R^{-1}B^{2}T\bar{\Gamma}^{2}\bar{\Theta}_{3}<1.$
\end{description}Then the following theorem is obtained.
\begin{theorem}\label{Thm4.1}
Under \emph{(H2)}, the map $\mathcal{T}:C(0,T;\mathbb{R})\rightarrow C(0,T;\mathbb{R})$ described by \eqref{xbar2} has a unique fixed point. Moreover, the decentralized feedback strategy $\bar{u}_i,\ 1\leq i\leq N$ in \eqref{Eq19'} is uniquely determined .
\end{theorem}
{\it Proof.} For any $x, y\in C(0,T;\mathbb{R})$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{Eq27}
\begin{aligned}
& \big\|(\mathcal{T}x-\mathcal{T}y)(t)\big\|_\infty\\
=&\Bigg\|\int_{0}^{t}\Gamma_{s}^{t}e^{F(t-s)}\Theta_{1}(s)e^{Cs}ds\cdot\int_{0}^{T}e^{Cr}\Theta_{2}(r)\Bigg[\int_{r}^{T}\Gamma_{r}^{v}\Theta_{3}(v)\big(x(v)-y(v)\big)dv\Bigg]dr\\
&+\int_{0}^{t}\Gamma_{s}^{t}e^{F(t-s)}\Theta_{1}(s)e^{Cs}ds\cdot\int_{0}^{T}e^{Cr}\Theta_{4}(r)\big(x(r)-y(r)\big)dr\\
&-\int_{0}^{t}\Gamma_{s}^{t}e^{F(t-s)}R^{-1}B^{2}\left(\int_{s}^{T}\Gamma_{s}^{v}\Theta_{3}(v)\big(x(v)-y(v)\big)dv\right)ds
\Bigg\|_\infty\\
\leq& \big\|x-y\big\|_\infty\Big(e^{(2|C|+|F|)T}\bar{\Gamma}^{2}\bar{\Theta}_{1}\bar{\Theta}_{2}\bar{\Theta}_{3}+
e^{(2|C|+|F|)T}\bar{\Gamma}\bar{\Theta}_{1}\bar{\Theta}_{4}+e^{|F|T}R^{-1}B^{2}T\bar{\Gamma}^{2}\bar{\Theta}_{3}\Big).
\end{aligned}\end{equation}From (H2), $\mathcal{T}$ defined by \eqref{xbar2} is a contraction and has a unique fixed point $\bar{x}\in C(0,T;\mathbb{R})$ which is equivalently given by \eqref{xbar} and in turn uniquely determines $\gamma$ and $\tau$ in \eqref{gamatao}. Meanwhile, the solutions $\gamma$ and $\tau$ to \eqref{Eq14a} and \eqref{Eq14c} are equivalently given by \eqref{gamatao}, respectively. Then $\bar{u}_i$ is uniquely determined, which completes the proof. \hfill$\Box$
\begin{remark}
\emph{(1) From Theorem {\ref{Thm4.1}}, there exists a unique deterministic function $\bar{x}$ in $C(0,T;\mathbb{R})$ to approximate the state-average of forward system. In next section, we specify more details of their difference when applying the system \eqref{xbar}.}
\emph{(2) The limit process $\bar{x}$ in forward equation \eqref{xbar} only involves $\tau(0)$ and $\gamma(t)$. On the other hand, \eqref{gamatao} satisfies the backward system \eqref{Eq14a} and \eqref{Eq14c} which actually depends on $\bar{x}$. Thus \eqref{xbar} and \eqref{gamatao} constitute a forward-backward ordinary differential equation (FBODE) system. Here, we focus on the fixed point analysis in {Theorem \ref{Thm4.1}} which provides one sufficient condition for the well-posedness of FBODE system \eqref{xbar} and \eqref{gamatao}.}\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\emph{By Proposition {\ref{prop4.1}}, if $R$ is large enough and $|F|$ is small enough (it corresponds to the weak-coupling of state-average, see e.g., \cite{hmc06}), we get that $\bar{\Theta}_1\bar{\Theta}_2\bar{\Theta}_3$, $\bar{\Theta}_1\bar{\Theta}_4$ and $R^{-1}\bar{\Theta}_3$ should be small enough hence {(H2)} follows.}\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\emph{(1) One interesting special case is when $N_0=0$ which corresponds to the forward large population problem only. In this case, we have $\bar{\Theta}_1=0,$ and {(H2)} reads as below:\begin{description}
\item[(H2)'] $e^{|F|T}R^{-1}B^{2}T\bar{\Gamma}^{2}\bar{\Theta}_{3}<1$
\end{description}
which is similar to that of \cite{hcm07} but noting our diffusion term in \eqref{Eq1a} depends on state itself while in \cite{hcm07} the diffusion term is constant. In addition, different to (H2), (H2)' does not depend on $C$. This is because the dynamic system in this case is irrelevant with the backward one.}
\emph{(2) Another interesting special case is when $N_0>0$ but $Q=0.$ In this case, the cost functional becomes \begin{equation}\nonumber
\begin{aligned}
J_{i}(u_{i}(\cdot), u_{-i}(\cdot))=&\frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E}\left\{ \int_{0}^{T}Ru_{i}^{2}(t)dt+N_{0}y_{i}^{2}(0) \right\}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}which takes into account the initial hedging cost via $N_0y_{i}^{2}(0),$ and we have $\beta(t)\equiv 0$ and thus $\bar{\Theta}_3= 0.$
Now {(H2)} reads as follows
\begin{description}
\item[(H2)''] $e^{(2|C|+|F|)T}\bar{\Gamma}\bar{\Theta}_{1}\bar{\Theta}_{4}<1.$
\end{description}
To get a more clear result, further assume $H=K=0,AC\neq0,A\pm C\neq0$.
In this case, we have $\mathbb{A}(t)\equiv A$, $\Gamma_s^{t}=e^{A(t-s)},$ $\bar{\Gamma}=e^{|A|T}$, $\Theta_6(t)\equiv0$ and $\alpha(t)\equiv0.$ Then we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
&\int_0^Te^{2Cv}\big(B\alpha(v)-D\big)^2dv=\frac{D^2}{2C}(e^{2CT}-1),\\
&\bar{\Theta}_1=\frac{2C|B||D|N_0T}{2CR+D^2N_0(e^{2CT}-1)},\\
&\bar{\Theta}_4=|L|T.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
Thus, (H2)'' implies$$\frac{2C|B||D||L|N_0T^2}{2CR+D^2N_0(e^{2CT}-1)}e^{(|A|+2|C|+|F|)T}<1.$$}
\end{remark}
\iffals
Similarly, we assume that $\bar{y}$ is given for approximation of $y^{(N)}$. By {\it law of large numbers}, for very large $N$ it is plausible to express $\bar{y}=\bar{y}^{(N)}$. Combining \eqref{Eq28} and Theorem \ref{Thm4.1}, we have \begin{align*}
-\frac{d\bar{y}(t)}{dt}=C\bar{y}(t)+\big(H-R^{-1}BD\beta(t)\big)\bar{x}(t)+D\tau(0)\Theta_{5}(t)e^{Ct}-R^{-1}BD\gamma(t)
+L\bar{x}(t)
\end{align*}
with the terminal condition $\bar{y}(T)=K\bar{x}(T).$
\f
\section{$\epsilon$-Nash Equilibrium Analysis}
In above sections, we obtained the optimal control $\bar{u}_i(\cdot), 1\le i\le N$ of Problem (\textbf{II}) through the consistency condition system. Now we turn to verify the $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium of Problem (\textbf{I}). Due to its own forward-backward structure, our analysis here is not simple extension of that in the forward LP system. More details are as follows. To start, we first present the definition of $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium.
\begin{definition}\label{Def1}
A set of controls $u_k\in \mathcal{U}_k,\ 1\leq k\leq N,$ for $N$ agents is called to satisfy an $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium with respect to the costs $J_k,\ 1\leq k\leq N,$ if there exists $\epsilon\geq0$ such that for any fixed $1\leq i\leq N$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{DNE}
J_i(u_i,u_{-i})\leq J_i(u'_i,u_{-i})+\epsilon
\end{equation}
when any alternative control $u'_i\in \mathcal{U}_i$ is applied by $\mathcal{A}_i$.
\end{definition}Now, we state the following result and its proof will be given later.
\begin{theorem}\label{main}
Under \emph{(H1)-(H2)}, $(\tilde{u}_1,\tilde{u}_2,\cdots,\tilde{u}_N)$ in Problem \emph{(\textbf{I})} satisfies the $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium where, for $1\le i\le N,$ $\tilde{u}_i$ is given by\begin{equation}\label{utilde}
\tilde{u}_i(t)=-R^{-1}B\beta(t)\tilde{x}_{i}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x_{i0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{5}(t) e^{Ct}-R^{-1}B\gamma(t)
\end{equation}for $\tilde{x}_{i}(\cdot)$ satisfying \eqref{Eq21}, the decentralized state trajectory for $\mathcal{A}_i.$
\end{theorem}
The proof of above theorem needs several lemmas which are presented later. We first introduce the optimal control and state of auxiliary limiting system as
$$\bar{u}_i(t)=-R^{-1}B\beta(t)\hat{x}_{i}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x_{i0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{5}(t) e^{Ct}-R^{-1}B\gamma(t).$$
Note that $\{\tilde{u}_i(\cdot)\}_{i=1}^N$ are different from $\{\bar{u}_i(\cdot)\}_{i=1}^N$, as $\tilde{x}_{i}(\cdot)$ differs from $\hat{x}_{i}(\cdot)$ which is the decentralized state of auxiliary system. Applying $\tilde{u}_i(\cdot)$ for $\mathcal{A}_i$, we have the following close-loop system
\begin{subequations}\label{cl}
\begin{equation}\label{cla}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
d\tilde{x}_{i}(t)=&\Big[\mathbb{A}(t)\tilde{x}_{i}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x_{i0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{1}(t) e^{Ct}\\
&-R^{-1}B^{2}\gamma(t)+F\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)\Big]dt+\sigma \tilde{x}_{i}(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
\tilde{x}_{i}(0)=&x_{i0}\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}and\begin{equation}\label{clb}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
-d\tilde{y}_{i}(t)=&\,\Big[C\tilde{y}_{i}(t)+\big(H-R^{-1}BD\beta(t)\big)\tilde{x}_{i}(t)+D\big(\zeta(0)x_{i0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{5}(t)e^{Ct}\\
&-R^{-1}BD\gamma(t)+L\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)\Big]dt-\sum_{j=1}^N\tilde{z}_{ij}(t)dW_{j}(t),\\
\tilde{y}_{i}(T)=&\, K\tilde{x}_{i}(T)
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
with the cost functional
\begin{equation}\label{clc}
\begin{aligned}
J_{i}(\tilde{u}_{i}(\cdot), \tilde{u}_{-i}(\cdot))=&\frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E}\left\{ \int_{0}^{T}\Big[Q\Big(\tilde{x}_{i}(t)-\big(S\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)+\eta\big)\Big)^{2}+R\tilde{u}_{i}^{2}(t)\Big]dt+N_{0}\tilde{y}_{i}^{2}(0) \right\}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits^{N}_{i=1}\tilde{x}_{i}(t)$.
\end{subequations}The auxiliary system (of limiting problem) is given by
\begin{subequations}\label{limiting}
\begin{equation}\label{limitinga}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
d\hat{x}_{i}(t)=&\Big[\mathbb{A}(t)\hat{x}_{i}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x_{i0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{1}(t) e^{Ct}\\
&-R^{-1}B^{2}\gamma(t)+F\bar{x}(t)\Big]dt+\sigma \hat{x}_{i}(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
\hat{x}_{i}(0)=&x_{i0}\\
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{limitingb}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
-d\hat{y}_{i}(t)=&\,\Big[C\hat{y}_{i}(t)+\big(H-R^{-1}BD\beta(t)\big)\hat{x}_{i}(t)+D\big(\zeta(0)x_{i0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{5}(t)e^{Ct}\\
&-R^{-1}BD\gamma(t)+L\bar{x}(t)\Big]dt-\hat{z}_{i}(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
\hat{y}_{i}(T)=&\, K\hat{x}_{i}(T)
\end{aligned}
\right.
\end{equation}
with the cost functional
\begin{equation}\label{limitingc}
\begin{aligned}
\bar{J}_{i}(\bar{u}_{i}(\cdot))=&\frac{1}{2} \mathbb{E}\left\{ \int_{0}^{T}\Big[Q\Big(\hat{x}_{i}(t)-\big(S\bar{x}(t)+\eta\big)\Big)^{2}+R\bar{u}_{i}^{2}(t)\Big]dt+N_{0}\hat{y}_{i}^{2}(0) \right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
We have
\begin{lemma}\label{nash1}
\begin{equation}
\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\Big|^2=O\Big(\frac{1}{N}\Big).\label{e1}
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof.} By \eqref{cla}, we have
\begin{equation*}\left\{\begin{aligned}
d\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)=&\Big[\big(\mathbb{A}(t)+F\big)\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x^{(N)}_0+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{1}(t) e^{Ct}-R^{-1}B^{2}\gamma(t)\Big]dt\\
&+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\sigma \tilde{x}_{i}(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
\tilde{x}^{(N)}(0)=&x^{(N)}_0\\
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation*}
where $x^{(N)}_0$ is given in \eqref{xN}. Noting \eqref{xbar}, we get
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{aligned}
d\Big(\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\Big)=&\Big[\big(\mathbb{A}(t)+F\big)\big(\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\big)+\zeta(0)\Theta_{1}(t) e^{Ct}\big(x^{(N)}_0-x_0\big)\Big]dt\\
&+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\sigma \tilde{x}_{i}(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
\tilde{x}^{(N)}(0)-\bar{x}(0)=&x^{(N)}_0-x_0.\\
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
Thus
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
\Big|\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\Big|^2\leq &3\Big|x^{(N)}_0-x_0\Big|^2+6t\int_0^t\Big(\Big|\mathbb{A}(s)+F\Big|^2\Big|\tilde{x}^{(N)}(s)-\bar{x}(s)\Big|^2\\
&+\Big|\zeta(0)\Theta_{1}(s) e^{Cs}\Big|^2\Big|x^{(N)}_0-x_0\Big|^2\Big)ds+3\Big|\int_0^t\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\sigma \tilde{x}_{i}(s)dW_i(s)\Big|^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
By (H1), we have
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\Big|x^{(N)}_0-x_0\Big|^2=\mathbb{E}\Big|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^Nx_{i0}-x_0\Big|^2=O\Big(\frac{1}{N}\Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Noting
$\sup\limits_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\tilde{x}_i^2(t)< +\infty$, we have
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\left|\int_0^T\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N\sigma \tilde{x}_i(s)dW_i(s)\right|^2=O\Big(\frac{1}{N}\Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}So \eqref{e1} follows by Gronwall's inequality. \hfill $\Box$
Considering the difference between the decentralized and centralized states and controls, we have the following estimates:
\begin{lemma}\label{nash2}
\begin{flalign}
&\sup_{1\leq i\leq N}\left[\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|\tilde{x}_i(t)-\hat{x}_i(t)\Big|^2\right]=O\Big(\frac{1}{N}\Big),\label{e3}\\
&\sup_{1\leq i\leq N}\left[\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|\tilde{u}_i(t)-\bar{u}_i(t)\Big|^2\right]=O\Big(\frac{1}{N}\Big),\label{e4}\\
&\sup_{1\leq i\leq N}\left[\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|\tilde{y}_i(t)-\hat{y}_i(t)\Big|^2\right]=O\Big(\frac{1}{N}\Big).\label{e5}
\end{flalign}
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof.} For $\forall\ 1\leq i\leq N,$ by \eqref{cla} and \eqref{limitinga}, we get
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|\tilde{x}_i(t)-\hat{x}_i(t)\Big|^2\leq & 3\Big[T\|\mathbb{A}(t)\|^2_\infty+\sigma^2\Big]\int_0^T\mathbb{E}\Big|\tilde{x}_i(s)-\hat{x}_i(s)\Big|^2ds\\
&+3T|F|^2\int_0^T\mathbb{E}\Big|\tilde{x}^{(N)}(s)-\bar{x}(s)\Big|^2ds.
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
Then \eqref{e3} follows from Lemma \ref{nash1}. Noting the difference between $\tilde{u}_i(\cdot)$ and $\bar{u}_i(\cdot)$, \eqref{e4} is obtained by \eqref{e3}. From \eqref{clb} and \eqref{limitingb}, we have
\begin{equation}\left\{\begin{aligned}
-d\Big(\tilde{y}_i(t)-\hat{y}_i(t)\Big)=&\Big[C\big(\tilde{y}_i(t)-\hat{y}_i(t)\big)+\big(H-R^{-1}BD\beta(t)\big)\big(\tilde{x}_i(t)-\hat{x}_i(t)\big)\\
&+L\big(\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\big)\Big]dt-\big(\tilde{z}_{ii}(t)-\hat{z}_i(t)\big)dW_i(t)\\
&-\sum_{j=1,j\neq i}^N\tilde{z}_{ij}(t) dW_{j}(t),\\
\tilde{y}_i(T)-\hat{y}_i(T)=&K\big(\tilde{x}_i(T)-\hat{x}_i(T)\big).\\
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
Applying the basic estimate of BSDE, we get
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}\left[\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\Big|\tilde{y}_i(t)-\hat{y}_i(t)\Big|^2\right]+\mathbb{E}\int_0^T\Big|\tilde{z}_{ii}(t)-\hat{z}_i(t)\Big|^2dt+\sum_{j=1,j\neq i}^N\mathbb{E}\int_0^T\Big|\tilde{z}_{ij}(t)\Big|^2dt\\
\leq &C_1\left\{\mathbb{E}\Big|\tilde{x}_i(T)-\hat{x}_i(T)\Big|^2+\mathbb{E}\int_0^T\Big|H-R^{-1}BD\beta(t)\Big|^2\Big|\tilde{x}_i(t)-\hat{x}_i(t)\Big|^2dt\right.\\
&\left.+\mathbb{E}\int_0^T\Big|\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\Big|^2dt\right\},
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
where $C_1$ is a positive constant. Thus, we get \eqref{e5} by Lemma \ref{nash1} and \eqref{e3}. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{lemma}\label{nash3}For $\forall\ 1\leq i\leq N,$
\begin{equation}\label{e6}
\Big|J_i(\tilde{u}_i,\tilde{u}_{-i})-\bar{J}_i(\bar{u}_i)\Big|=O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof.} For $\forall\ 1\leq i\leq N,$ by \eqref{xbar} and \eqref{limitinga}, we easily get $\sup\limits_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\big|\hat{x}_{i}(t)-\big(S\bar{x}(t)+\eta\big)\big|^2<+\infty$. Applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|\big|\tilde{x}_{i}(t)-\big(S\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)+\eta\big)\big|^2-\big|\hat{x}_{i}(t)-\big(S\bar{x}(t)+\eta\big)\big|^2\Big|\\
\leq& \sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\big|\tilde{x}_{i}(t)-\big(S\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)+\eta\big)-\hat{x}_{i}(t)+\big(S\bar{x}(t)+\eta\big)\big|^2\\
&+2\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big[\big|\hat{x}_{i}(t)-\big(S\bar{x}(t)+\eta\big)\big|\big|\tilde{x}_{i}(t)-\big(S\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)+\eta\big)-\hat{x}_{i}(t)+\big(S\bar{x}(t)+\eta\big)\big|\Big]\\
\leq&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\big|\tilde{x}_{i}(t)-\hat{x}_{i}(t)-S\big(\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\big)\big|^2\\
&+2\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\big|\hat{x}_{i}(t)-\big(S\bar{x}(t)+\eta\big)\big|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\big|\tilde{x}_{i}(t)-\hat{x}_{i}(t)-S\big(\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\big)\big|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
=&O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the last equality is obtained by using the fact
$$\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\big|\tilde{x}_{i}(t)-\hat{x}_{i}(t)-S\big(\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\big)\big|^2\leq2\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\big|\tilde{x}_{i}(t)-\hat{x}_{i}(t)\big|^2+2S^2 \sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\big|\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\big|^2$$
and Lemma \ref{nash1}, \ref{nash2}. Similarly, by \eqref{e4} and \eqref{e5}, we get
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|\big|\tilde{u}_i(t)\big|^2-\big|\bar{u}_i(t)\big|^2\Big|=O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation} and
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|\big|\tilde{y}_i(t)\big|^2-\big|\hat{y}_i(t)\big|^2\Big|=O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Further, \begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\Big|\big|\tilde{y}_i(0)\big|^2-\big|\hat{y}_i(0)\big|^2\Big|=O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
Then \begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
&\Big|J_i(\tilde{u}_i,\tilde{u}_{-i})-\bar{J}_i(\bar{u}_i)\Big|\\
\leq& \quad\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\int_0^T \left[ Q\Big|\Big(\tilde{x}_{i}(t)-\big(S\tilde{x}^{(N)}(t)+\eta\big)\Big)^2-\Big(\hat{x}_{i}(t)-\big(S\bar{x}(t)+\eta\big)\Big)^{2}\Big|+R\Big|\tilde{u}_i^2(t)-\bar{u}_i^2(t)\Big|\right]dt\\
&+ \frac{1}{2}N_0\mathbb{E}\Big|\tilde{y}_{i}^{2}(0)-\hat{y}_{i}^{2}(0)\Big|\\
=& O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big),
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
which completes the proof. \hfill $\Box$
Now, we already present some estimates of states and costs corresponding to control $\tilde{u}_i$ and $\bar{u}_i$,$1\le i\le N$. Our next work is to prove that the control strategies set $(\tilde{u}_1,\tilde{u}_2,\cdots,\tilde{u}_N)$ is an $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium for (\textbf{I}). For any fixed $i$, $1\le i\le N$, consider a perturbed control $u_i \in \mathcal{U}_i$ for $\mathcal{A}_i$ and introduce
\begin{subequations}\label{lmn}
\begin{equation}\label{lmn1}\left\{\begin{aligned}
dl_i(t)=&\Big[Al_i(t)+Bu_i(t)+F l^{(N)}(t)\Big]dt +\sigma l_i(t)dW_i(t),\\
l_i(0)=&x_{i0}
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}whereas other agents keep the control $\tilde{u}_j, 1\le j\le N,j\neq i$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{lmn2}\left\{\begin{aligned}
dl_j(t)=&\Big[\mathbb{A}(t)l_{j}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x_{j0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{1}(t) e^{Ct}\\
&-R^{-1}B^{2}\gamma(t)+Fl^{(N)}(t)\Big]dt+\sigma l_j(t)dW_{j}(t),\\
l_j(0)=&x_{j0}
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}where $l^{(N)}(t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{k=1}^Nl_k(t)$. Similar to the forward system, the backward system is introduced as
\begin{equation}\label{lmn3}\left\{\begin{aligned}
-dm_i(t)=&\Big[Cm_{i}(t)+Du_i(t)+Hl_i(t)+Ll^{(N)}(t)\Big]dt-\sum_{k=1}^Nn_{ik}(t)dW_{k}(t),\\
m_i(T)=&Kl_i(T)
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}while for $j\neq i$,
\begin{equation}\label{lmn4}\left\{\begin{aligned}
-dm_{j}(t)=&\Big[Cm_{j}(t)+\big(H-R^{-1}BD\beta(t)\big)l_{j}(t)+D\big(\zeta(0)x_{j0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{5}(t)e^{Ct}\\
&-R^{-1}BD\gamma(t)+Ll^{(N)}(t)\Big]dt-\sum_{k=1}^Nn_{jk}(t)dW_{k}(t),\\
m_j(T)=&Kl_j(T).
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}If $\tilde{u}_i,\ 1\leq i\leq N$ is an $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium with respect to cost $J_i$, it holds that
$$J_i(\tilde{u}_i,\tilde{u}_{-i})\geq \inf_{u_i\in \mathcal{U}_i}J_i(u_i,\tilde{u}_{-i})\geq J_i(\tilde{u}_i,\tilde{u}_{-i})-\epsilon.$$
Then, when making the perturbation, we just need to consider $u_i\in \mathcal{U}_i$ such that $J_i(u_i,\tilde{u}_{-i})\leq J_i(\tilde{u}_i,\tilde{u}_{-i}),$ which implies
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\int_0^TRu_i^2(t)dt\leq J_i(u_i,\tilde{u}_{-i})\leq J_i(\tilde{u}_i,\tilde{u}_{-i})=\bar{J}_i(\bar{u}_i)+O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{ubound}
\mathbb{E}\int_0^Tu_i^2(t)dt\leq C_2
\end{equation}where $C_2$ is a positive constant which is independent of $N$. Then we have the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{lbound}
$\sup\limits_{1\le j\le N}\left[\sup\limits_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\big|l_j(t)\big|^2 \right]$ is bounded.
\end{proposition}
{\it Proof.} By \eqref{lmn1} and \eqref{lmn2}, it holds that
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
|l_i(t)|^2\leq& C_3\left\{|x_{i0}|^2+\int_0^t\Big[|l_i(s)|^2+|u_i(s)|^2+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N|l_k(s)|^2\Big]ds+\Big|\int_0^t\sigma l_i(s)dW_i(s)\Big|^2\right\}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
and for $j\neq i$,
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
|l_j(t)|^2\leq& C_3\left\{|x_{j0}|^2+\int_0^t\Big[|l_j(s)|^2+|\tilde{u}_j(s)|^2+\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N|l_k(s)|^2\Big]ds+\Big|\int_0^t\sigma l_j(s) dW_j(s)\Big|^2\right\}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}where $C_3$ is a positive constant. Thus,
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\Big[\sum_{k=1}^N|l_k(t)|^2\Big]\leq & C_3\left\{\mathbb{E}\Big[\sum_{k=1}^N|x_{k0}|^2\Big]+\mathbb{E}\int_0^t\Big[\sum_{k=1}^N|l_k(s)|^2+|u_i(s)|^2+\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^N|\tilde{u}_k(s)|^2\right.\\
&\left.+\sum_{k=1}^N|l_k(s)|^2\Big]ds+\sum_{k=1}^N\mathbb{E}\Big|\int_0^t\sigma l_k(s)dW_k(s)\Big|^2\right\}\\
\leq& C_3\left\{\sum_{k=1}^N\mathbb{E}|x_{k0}|^2+\int_0^t\Big[2\sum_{k=1}^N\mathbb{E}|l_k(s)|^2+\mathbb{E}|u_i(s)|^2\right.\\
&\left.+\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^N\mathbb{E}|\tilde{u}_k(s)|^2\Big]ds+\int_0^t\sum_{k=1}^N\mathbb{E}|l_k(s)|^2ds\right\}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}By \eqref{ubound}, we can see that $u_i(\cdot)$ is $L^2$-bounded. Besides, the decentralized optimal controls $\tilde{u}_k(\cdot),k\neq i$ are $L^2$-bounded. Then by Gronwall's inequality, it follows that
\begin{equation}\nonumber
\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\left[\sum_{k=1}^N|l_k(t)|^2\right]=O(N),
\end{equation}and for any $1\leq j\leq N,$ $\sup\limits_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}|l_j(t)|^2$ is bounded. \hfill $\Box$
Correspondingly, the system for agent $\mathcal{A}_i$ under control $u_i$ in \textbf{(II)} is as follows
\begin{subequations}\label{2lmn}
\begin{equation}\label{2lmn1}\left\{\begin{aligned}
dl_i^0(t)=&\Big[Al_i^0(t)+Bu_i(t)+F \bar{x}(t)\Big]dt +\sigma l_i^0(t)dW_i(t),\\
l_i^0(0)=&x_{i0}
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation} and for agent $\mathcal{A}_j,\ j\neq i$,
\begin{equation}\label{2lmn2}\left\{\begin{aligned}
d\hat{l}_j(t)=&\Big[\mathbb{A}(t)\hat{l}_{j}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x_{j0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{1}(t) e^{Ct}\\
&-R^{-1}B^{2}\gamma(t)+F\bar{x}(t)\Big]dt+\sigma \hat{l}_j(t)dW_{j}(t),\\
\hat{l}_j(0)=&x_{j0}
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}coupled with the backward systems
\begin{equation}\label{2lmn3}\left\{\begin{aligned}
-dm_i^0(t)=&\Big[Cm_{i}^0(t)+Du_i(t)+Hl_i^0(t)+L\bar{x}(t)\Big]dt-n_{i}^0(t)dW_{i}(t),\\
m_i^0(T)=&Kl_i^0(T)
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}for $j\neq i$,
\begin{equation}\label{2lmn4}\left\{\begin{aligned}
-d\hat{m}_{j}(t)=&\Big[C\hat{m}_{j}(t)+\big(H-R^{-1}BD\beta(t)\big)\hat{l}_{j}(t)+D\big(\zeta(0)x_{j0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{5}(t)e^{Ct}\\
&-R^{-1}BD\gamma(t)+L\bar{x}(t)\Big]dt-\hat{n}_{j}(t)dW_{j}(t),\\
\hat{m}_j(T)=&K\hat{l}_j(T).
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}In order to give necessary estimates in Problem (\textbf{I}) and (\textbf{II}), we introduce the intermediate states as
\begin{subequations}\label{lhat}
\begin{equation}\label{lhat1}\left\{\begin{aligned}
d\check{l}_i(t)=&\left[A\check{l}_i(t)+Bu_i(t)+\frac{N-1}{N}F \check{l}^{(N-1)}(t)\right]dt +\sigma \check{l}_i(t)dW_i(t),\\
\check{l}_i(0)=&x_{i0}
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}and for $j\neq i$,
\begin{equation}\label{lhat2}\left\{\begin{aligned}
d\check{l}_j(t)=&\Big[\mathbb{A}(t)\check{l}_{j}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x_{j0}+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{1}(t) e^{Ct}\\
&-R^{-1}B^{2}\gamma(t)+\frac{N-1}{N}F \check{l}^{(N-1)}(t)\Big]dt+\sigma \check{l}_j(t)dW_{j}(t),\\
\check{l}_j(0)=&x_{j0}
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
where $\check{l}^{(N-1)}(t)=\frac{1}{N-1}\sum\limits_{j=1,j\neq i}^N\check{l}_j(t)$.
\end{subequations}Denoting $l^{(N-1)}(t)=\frac{1}{N-1}\sum\limits_{j=1,j\neq i}^Nl_j(t)$, by \eqref{lmn2} and \eqref{lhat2}, we get
\begin{subequations}\label{lN}
\begin{equation}\label{lN1}\left\{\begin{aligned}
dl^{(N-1)}(t)=&\left[\big(\mathbb{A}(t)+\frac{N-1}{N}F\big)l^{(N-1)}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x^{(N-1)}_0+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{1}(t) e^{Ct}\right.\\
&\left.-R^{-1}B^{2}\gamma(t)+\frac{F}{N}l_i(t)\right]dt +\frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{j=1,j\neq i}^N\sigma l_j(t)dW_j(t),\\
l^{(N-1)}(0)=&x^{(N-1)}_0
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}and
\begin{equation}\label{lN2}\left\{\begin{aligned}
d\check{l}^{(N-1)}(t)=&\Big[\big(\mathbb{A}(t)+\frac{N-1}{N}F\big)\check{l}^{(N-1)}(t)+\big(\zeta(0)x^{(N-1)}_0+\tau(0)\big)\Theta_{1}(t) e^{Ct}\\
&-R^{-1}B^{2}\gamma(t)\Big]dt +\frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{j=1,j\neq i}^N\sigma \check{l}_j(t)dW_j(t),\\
\check{l}^{(N-1)}(0)=&x^{(N-1)}_0
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
where $x^{(N-1)}_0=\frac{1}{N-1}\sum\limits_{j=1,j\neq i}^Nx_{j0}$.
\end{subequations}We have the following estimates on these states.
\begin{proposition}\label{Pro2}
\begin{align}
\label{Pr1}
&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|l^{(N-1)}(t)-\check{l}^{(N-1)}(t)\Big|^2=O\Big(\frac{1}{N}\Big),\\
\label{Pr2}
&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|l^{(N)}(t)-l^{(N-1)}(t)\Big|^2=O\Big(\frac{1}{N}\Big),\\
\label{Pr3}
&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|\check{l}^{(N-1)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\Big|^2=O\Big(\frac{1}{N}\Big).
\end{align}
\end{proposition}
{\it Proof.} By \eqref{lN}, we have
\begin{equation}\nonumber\left\{\begin{aligned}
d\Big(l^{(N-1)}(t)-\check{l}^{(N-1)}(t)\Big)=&\left[\big(\mathbb{A}(t)+\frac{N-1}{N}F\big)\big(l^{(N-1)}(t)-\check{l}^{(N-1)}(t)\big)+\frac{F}{N}l_i(t)\right]dt\\
&+\frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{j=1,j\neq i}^N\sigma \big(l_j(t)-\check{l}_j(t)\big)dW_j(t),\\
l^{(N-1)}(0)-\check{l}^{(N-1)}(0)=&0.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
Then by Proposition \ref{lbound} and Gronwall's inequality, the assertion \eqref{Pr1} holds. \eqref{Pr2} follows from assumption (H2) and the $L^2$-boundness of controls $u_i(\cdot)$ and $\tilde{u}_j(\cdot),j\neq i.$ From \eqref{xbar} and \eqref{lN2}, we get
\begin{equation}\nonumber\left\{\begin{aligned}
d\Big(\check{l}^{(N-1)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\Big)=&\Big[\big(\mathbb{A}(t)+\frac{N-1}{N}F\big)\big(\check{l}^{(N-1)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\big)-\frac{F}{N}\bar{x}(t)\\
&+\zeta(0)\big(x^{(N-1)}_0-x_0\big)\Theta_{1}(t) e^{Ct}\Big]dt +\frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{j=1,j\neq i}^N\sigma \check{l}_j(t)dW_j(t),\\
\check{l}^{(N-1)}(0)-\bar{x}(0)=&x^{(N-1)}_0-x_0.
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
Thus, \eqref{Pr3} is obtained. \hfill $\Box$
In addition, based on Proposition \ref{Pro2}, we have
\begin{lemma}\label{nash4}
\begin{align}\label{Le1}
&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|l^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\Big|^2=O\Big(\frac{1}{N}\Big),\\ \label{Le2}
&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|l_i(t)-l^0_i(t)\Big|^2=O\Big(\frac{1}{N}\Big),\\ \label{Le3}
&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big||m_i(t)|^2-|m^0_i(t)|^2\Big|=O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big),\\ \label{Le4}
&\Big|J_i(u_i,\tilde{u}_{-i})-\bar{J}_i(u_i)\Big|=O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big).
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof.} \eqref{Le1} follows from Proposition \ref{Pro2} directly. By \eqref{lmn1},\eqref{2lmn1}, and using \eqref{Le1}, we get \eqref{Le2}. Noting \eqref{lmn3} and \eqref{2lmn3}, we have
\begin{equation}\nonumber\left\{\begin{aligned}
-d\Big(m_i(t)-m_i^0(t)\Big)=&\Big[C\big(m_i(t)-m_i^0(t)\big)+H\big(l_i(t)-l_i^0(t)\big)+L\big(l^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\big)\Big]dt\\
&-\big(n_{ii}(t)-n_{i}^0(t)\big)dW_{i}(t)-\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^Nn_{ik}(t)dW_{k}(t),\\
m_i(T)-m_i^0(T)=&K\big(l_i(T)-l_i^0(T)\big)
\end{aligned}\right.
\end{equation}
Applying the estimate of BSDE, we get
\begin{equation*}\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{E}\left[\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\Big|m_i(t)-m_i^0(t)\Big|^2\right]+\mathbb{E}\int_0^T\Big|n_{ii}(t)-n_{i}^0(t)\Big|^2dt+\sum_{k=1,k\neq i}^N\mathbb{E}\int_0^T\Big|n_{ik}(t)\Big|^2dt\\
\leq &C_4\left\{\mathbb{E}\Big|l_i(T)-l_i^0(T)\Big|^2+\mathbb{E}\int_0^T\Big|l_i(t)-l_i^0(t)\Big|^2dt+\mathbb{E}\int_0^T\Big|l^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\Big|^2dt\right\}.
\end{aligned}\end{equation*}
Then by \eqref{Le1} and \eqref{Le2}, we have
\begin{align}\nonumber
&\mathbb{E}\left[\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\Big|m_i(t)-m_i^0(t)\Big|^2\right]=O\Big(\frac{1}{N}\Big).
\end{align}We can see that both $\sup\limits_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}|m^0_i(t)|^2$ and $\sup\limits_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\big|l^0_{i}(t)-\big(S\bar{x}(t)+\eta\big)\big|^2$ are bounded. Similar to the proof in Lemma \ref{nash3}, we get
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big||m_i(t)|^2-|m^0_i(t)|^2\Big|\\
\leq&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}|m_i(t)-m^0_i(t)|^2+2\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}|m^0_i(t)|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}|m_i(t)-m^0_i(t)|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
=&O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which is \eqref{Le3}. Further, we have
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\Big||m_i(0)|^2-|m^0_i(0)|^2\Big|=O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}Moreover,
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\left|\Big(l_{i}(t)-\big(Sl^{(N)}(t)+\eta\big)\Big)^2-\Big(l^0_{i}(t)-\big(S\bar{x}(t)+\eta\big)\Big)^{2}\right|\\
\leq&\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\Big|l_{i}(t)-l^0_{i}(t)-S\big(l^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\big)\Big|^2\\
&+2\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\big|l^0_{i}(t)-\big(S\bar{x}(t)+\eta\big)\big|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\big|l_{i}(t)-l^0_{i}(t)-S\big(l^{(N)}(t)-\bar{x}(t)\big)\big|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
=&O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big),
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
then \begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
&\Big|J_i(u_i,\tilde{u}_{-i})-\bar{J}_i(u_i)\Big|\\
\leq&\quad\frac{1}{2}\mathbb{E}\int_0^T Q\Big|\Big(l_{i}(t)-\big(Sl^{(N)}(t)+\eta\big)\Big)^2-\Big(l^0_{i}(t)-\big(S\bar{x}(t)+\eta\big)\Big)^{2}\Big|dt\\
&+ \frac{1}{2}N_0\mathbb{E}\Big|m_{i}^{2}(0)-\big(m^0_{i}(0)\big)^{2}\Big|\\
=& O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
which implies \eqref{Le4}. \hfill $\Box$
\emph{Proof of Theorem} \ref{main}: Now, we consider the $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium for $\mathcal{A}_i$. Combining Lemma \ref{nash3} and \ref{nash4}, we have
\begin{equation}\nonumber\begin{aligned}
J_i(\tilde{u}_i,\tilde{u}_{-i})&=\bar{J}_i(\bar{u}_i)+O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big)\\
&\leq \bar{J}_i(u_i)+O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big)\\
&=J_i(u_i,\tilde{u}_{-i})+O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}Thus, Theorem \ref{main} follows by taking $\epsilon=O\Big(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\Big)$.
\section{Conclusions} This paper discusses the large-population (LP) LQG games with forward-backward structure. The decentralized control is derived based on the consistency condition. The $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium property is also verified based on the estimates of forward-backward stochastic systems. The current work also suggests some research directions for future studies. One possible direction is to investigate the \emph{fully coupled} forward-backward mean-field LQG games where the forward state dynamics involves the backward states. Another direction is to study the mean-field LQG games which include the \emph{backward} state average.
|
\section{Introduction}
The Gibbs formalism (DLR equations, variational principle) plays a crucial role in
statistical mechanics of equilibrium systems. Roughly speaking a lattice spin system is called ``Gibbs''
if it can be described in terms of Boltzmann-Gibbs weights with an interaction such that
the total interaction of the spin at the origin with all other spins is finite, uniformly in
all configurations.
Beyond equilibrium, the appearance of
Gibbs measures is less obvious as is illustrated both by the loss of Gibbs property
in the course of stochastic dynamics of Glauber type shown in \cite{efhr} (modeling heating and cooling),
as well as by the expected non-Gibbsianness of non-equilibrium stationary states.
Outside equilibrium it is natural to think of a Gibbsian description in terms of histories,
i.e., using trajectories of the system. In the context of translation invariant lattice spin systems,
one then ends up naturally with a description of the system modulo translations, i.e.,
on the level of the trajectory of the empirical measure.
In \cite{efhr2} we explained how Gibbs-non-Gibbs transitions in lattice spin systems can be related
to a bifurcation phenomenon for the optimal trajectories -in the sense of large deviations-
of the empirical measure conditioned to arrive at a given measure at a fixed time $T>0$.
In \cite{kuel}, \cite{RW} this idea was developed in the mean-field context, i.e., for
the trajectory of the magnetization.
The idea is to consider a translation invariant stochastic dynamics, and study the trajectory of the empirical measure.
More precisely, one conditions the trajectory to arrive at time
$T>0$ at a given empirical measure $\nu$, and at time zero one
gives a certain cost $i_0(\mu)$ to each translation invariant starting measure $\mu$. This cost is determined by the choice of the Gibbs measure
$\mu^G_0$ from which the dynamics is started, i.e., this cost
equals the relative entropy density $s(\mu|\mu^G_0)$ of $\mu$ w.r.t.\ this initial Gibbs measure.
The total cost of a trajectory arriving at time $T$ at $\nu$ is then the sum of $i_0(\mu)$ with the path space cost
$\Psi(\mu,\nu,T)$ of the optimal (in the sense of large deviations) trajectory starting from $\mu$ at time zero and
arriving at $\nu$ at time $T>0$. The set of minimizers $\caO_T(\nu)$ of this total cost of trajectories arriving at $\nu$ at
time $T$ is then the object which should be investigated
in order to understand whether or not the initial Gibbs measure, evolved over a time $T$ (denoted by $(\mu^G_0)_T$) is a Gibbs measure.
The precise conjecture is the following. If we have uniqueness for every conditioning of the empirical measure at time $T>0$, i.e., if
$\caO_T (\nu)$ is a singleton for
every choice of $\nu$, then this should correspond to Gibbsianness of the time-evolved measure $(\mu^G_0)_T$. Conversely, if we have
non-uniqueness for a particular conditioning of the empirical measure at time $T$ (a so-called ``bad measure''), then we have non-Gibbsianness
of the distribution $(\mu^G_0)_T$ at time $T$.
As stated before, the total cost to arrive at time $T>0$ at a given empirical measure is the sum of the initial cost and a path cost, determined by the Markovian dynamics.
The path cost is usually of the form of a Lagrangian action. This means,
informally written, that the probability of a trajectory of the empirical measure, where one averages
shifts of the point mass of the lattice-spin configuration over the box $[-N,N]^d$,is expected to
behave as
\[
\pee \left((\bbL_N (\si_t))_{0\leq t\leq T}\approx (\mu_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}\right) \approx \exp\left(-(2N+1)^d\int_0^T \Xi (\mu_s,\dot{\mu}_s) \ ds\right)
\]
where $\approx$ has to be interpreted in the sense of the large deviation principle on the space of trajectories of translation invariant probability measures.
The Lagrangian
$\Xi (\mu_s,\dot{\mu}_s)$ is the object we are after in the present paper.
More precisely, we consider two cases in the present paper.
First, in the context of {\em independent Markov processes} on a general state space $E$, we study the Lagrangian of the associated to the large deviations of the trajectory of {\em the empirical
distribution}
\[
\loc_N= \frac1N\sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{X^i_t}
\]
which is a random probability measure on $E$.
We compute explicitly the Hamiltonian and provide information
on the associated Hamiltonian trajectories for finite state space Markov chains.
For diffusion processes, the Lagrangian is a quadratic form associated to the generator.
For Markov chains, the Lagrangian is less explicit (except for two state Markov chains), but can still
be characterized as a relative entropy production.
The study of the large deviations of the trajectory of the empirical distribution has to be considered as {\em the intermediate step} between the magnetization
(studied in \cite{kuel}, \cite{RW}) and the empirical measure. In particular, for finite state space Markov chains,
the empirical distribution is still a finite dimensional object.
The corresponding Gibbs-non-Gibbs transitions associated to uniqueness or non-uniqueness of optimal trajectories are then
situated
in the context of general mean field models, and the notion of Gibbsianness developed there, see e.g. \cite{kuel}.
Second, in the context of {\em translation invariant locally interacting Markov processes}, we consider {\em the trajectory of the empirical
measure}, and compute explicitly the Hamiltonian, both for (interacting) diffusion processes and for jump processes in the class of interacting particle
systems
\cite{ligg}.
In the context of diffusion processes, the Lagrangian is a quadratic form, while in the context of jump processes
(of interacting particle systems type),
the Lagrangian is less explicit, but also in that setting a relative entropy production (density) characterization can be given.
This study is a step in the research programme proposed in \cite{efhr2}. Given the Hamiltonians
and Lagrangians computed in the present paper, one can then characterize bifurcation phenomena,
i.e., non-uniqueness of optimal trajectories for particular choices of initial costs.
We leave this problem for future work and focus here on the explicit form of the Hamiltonian
and Lagrangian. The full and mathematically complete proof of the validity of the trajectory large deviation principle both for the empirical distribution as well as for the empirical measure will be considered in two future works \cite{k}, \cite{kr}. This amounts to prove that
the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian that we compute here correspond to a unique non-linear semigroup, coinciding with the Nisio semigroup associated to the Lagrangian \cite{fk}.
Our paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we give a general computation of the Feng-Kurtz Hamiltonian
for the trajectory of the empirical distribution. In section 3 we study the case of finite continuous-time
Markov chains. In section 4 we consider the case of diffusion processes. In section 5 we consider the
case of interacting Markov processes, both of jump type (interacting particle systems
in the spirit of \cite{ligg}) and of diffusion type.
\section{The trajectory of the empirical distribution: general case}
We consider $\{X_t:0\leq t\leq T\}$ a (Feller) Markov process
on a state space $E$. We assume $E$ to be a locally compact Polish space. Relevant cases for
the present paper are, $E$ a finite set (finite Markov chains), or
$E=\R^k$ or a compact submanifold of $\R^k$ (diffusions, diffusions in a domain). The computation of this section is however
valid for general $E$.
We denote by $Q$ the generator of the process $\{X_t:0\leq t\leq T\}$, i.e.,
\[
Q f(x)= \lim_{t\to 0}\frac1t\left( \E_x f(X_t)- f(x) \right)
\]
for $f\in \caD (Q)$, and where $\E_x$ denotes expectation in the process starting from $X_0=x$.
The corresponding semigroup is denoted by $S_t$, i.e., $S_t f(x)= \E_x f(X_t)$. For $E$ compact
$S_t$ acts on $\caC(E)$, the space of continuous functions, for cases such as
$E=\R^d$, $S_t$ acts on $\caC_0(E)$, the space of continuous functions vanishing at
infinity. We further denote $\caC_b (E)$ the space of bounded continuous
functions on $E$ (of course in the compact case we have $\caC(E)=\caC_b(E)$).
For $\mu$ a finite Borel measure on $E$
and $f\in \caC (E)$, we denote $\lo \mu, f\ra=\int fd\mu$.
We denote by $\caP(E)$ the set of probability measures on $E$.
We now let $\{X^i_t:0\leq t\leq T\}$
be independent copies of the process $\{X_t:0\leq t\leq T\}$
starting at initial points $X^i_0= x_i$, and consider the empirical distribution
\be\label{empdis}
\caM_N(t) =\frac1N\sum_{i=1}^N \delta_{X^i_t}
\ee
This is a random probability measure on $E$, i.e., a random element of $\caP(E)$,
which in the limit $N\to\infty$ converges
to the solution of the Kolmogorov forward equation.
More precisely, if at time zero, $\caM_N(0)\to \mu$ (where $\mu$ is a probability measure on $E$), then
at time $t$, $\caM_N (t)\to \mu_t$, where
$\mu_t$ solves
\be\label{kolmo}
\frac{d\mu_t}{dt}= Q^*\mu_t
\ee
where $Q^*$ denotes the dual generator defined via
\[
\lo \mu, Q f\ra = \lo Q^* \mu, f\ra
\]
for all $f$ in the domain of $Q$.
Indeed, by the law of large numbers, for all $f\in \caC_b(E)$,
\[
\lo \caM_N (t), f\ra=\frac1N\sum_{i=1}^N \E_{x_i}f(X^i_t)\to \int f\ d\mu_t
\]
where $\mu_t= S^*(t)\mu$ denotes the law of $X_t$ when started initially from $X_0$ distributed
according to $\mu$, and where $\to$ denotes convergence almost surely.
The convergence $\caM_N(t)\to\mu_t$ is a manifestation of the law of large numbers, and therefore
it is natural to expect an associated large deviation principle, i.e.,
\be\label{large}
\pee \left(\{\caM_N(t):0\leq t\leq T\}\approx \{\mu_t: 0\leq t\leq T\}\right)
\approx
\exp\left(-N\caI (\{\mu_t: 0\leq t\leq T\})\right)
\ee
Where $\approx$ has to be interpreted in the sense of the large deviation principle \cite{dz}, in
a suitable topology on the space of trajectories, i.e.,
lower bound for open sets $G$ of trajectories
\be\label{largeopen}
\liminf_{N\to\infty}\frac1N\log\pee \left(\{\caM_N(t):0\leq t\leq T\}\in G\right)
\geq -\inf_{\gamma\in G}\caI (\gamma)
\ee
and for upper bound for closed
sets $F$ of trajectories
\be\label{largeclosed}
\limsup_{N\to\infty}\frac1N\log\pee \left(\{\caM_N(t):0\leq t\leq T\}\in F\right)
\leq -\inf_{\gamma\in F}\caI (\gamma)
\ee
By the Markov property, the rate function $\caI$ has the form of a Lagrangian ``action''
\be
\caI \left(\{\mu_t: 0\leq t\leq T\}\right)=\int_0^T \caL (\mu_s, \dot{\mu}_s) \ ds
\ee
where $\dot{\mu}_s$ denotes the weak derivative of the trajectory at time $s$, defined via
\be\label{rororo}
\lo \dot{\mu}_s, f\ra = \frac{d}{ds} \lo \mu_s, f\ra
\ee
Notice that $\dot{\mu}_s$ is certainly well-defined on functions $f$ in \eqref{rororo}
in the domain of the generator $Q$, but can possibly not be extended as a finite signed measure
on the whole space. We leave the formulation of the precise space on which $\dot{\mu}_s$ lives
to the companion papers \cite{k,kr} where full proofs are given.
Our aim here is to compute the Lagrangian $\caL$.
As explained in the introduction, this opens the road to an analysis of bifurcation phenomena related to Gibbs-non-Gibbs
transitions, as is done on the level of the magnetization in \cite{kuel}, \cite{efhr2}, \cite{RW}. The case
of the empirical distribution should correspond to Gibbs-non-Gibbs phenomena in the context of mean-field
models, where the mean field interaction is a function of possibly several empirical averages (rather than only of
the magnetization).
Notice that the {\em expression for the Lagrangian $\caL$} is independent of the
precise topology (on the space of trajectories of probability measures on $E$)
in which the large deviation principle \eqref{large}
holds. Usually, one then first considers the weakest topology which is the
product topology (point-wise convergence at every time), and if one wants to strengthen
the topology to e.g.\ uniform topology, one proves exponential tightness in that
topology.
In this paper we focus on the computation of the lagrangian $\caL$ with
the scheme of Feng and Kurtz \cite{fk}, explained e.g. in \cite{RW}.
In our context this means that we first compute the non-linear generator. To explain this, we need
some more notation. First notice that $(X^1_t,X^2_t, \ldots, X^N_t)$ is a Markov process with
generator
\be\label{indgen}
\caQ_N f(x_1,\ldots, x_n)= \sum_{i=1}^N Q_i f
\ee
where $Q_i$ denotes the generator $Q$ applied to the $i$-th coordinate.
The first computation in the Feng-Kurtz scheme is then the non-linear generator
\be\label{nonlin}
H F (\mu)=\lim_{N\to\infty, \caM_N(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\to\mu} \frac1N\left(e^{-NF(\caM_N)} \caQ_N e^{NF(\caM_N)}\right)
\ee
If $\caH F$ is of the form $\caH (\mu, \nabla F)$, with $\caH$ a strictly convex function
in the second variable, then we call $\caH (\mu, f)$ the Hamiltonian, and
the corresponding Lagrangian is then given by the Legendre transform of $\caH$:
\be\label{lagleg}
\caL (\mu, \alpha) =\sup_{f\in \caC(E)}\left(\int f \ d\alpha - \caH (\mu, f)\right)
\ee
The interpretation of the ``gradient''
$\nabla F$ is straightforward when we are in the context of finite state space Markov chains, because
the set $\caP(E)$ is then finite dimensional. In the context of diffusion processes or more general
Markov processes, the gradient will be a (context dependent) functional derivative.
The second variable of the Lagrangian \eqref{lagleg}
is the velocity variable, which in our context is a signed measure of
total mass zero.
The Hamiltonian $\caH(\mu, f)$ can be obtained as follows:
\be\label{ham}
\caH (\mu,f)=\lim_{N\to\infty, \caM_N\to\mu} \frac1Ne^{-N\lo\caM_N, f\ra} \caQ_N e^{N\lo\caM_N, f\ra}
\ee
Notice here that for a given $f\in \caC (E)$, the function
$e^{N\lo\caM_N, f\ra}=e^{\sum_{i=1}^N f(x_i)}$ is a function from $E^N$ to $\R$, on which
the generator $\caQ_N$ can act, i.e., the notation in
$\caQ_N e^{N\lo\caM_N, f\ra}$ means the generator $\caQ_N$ acting on that
function of $x_1,\ldots,x_N$.
The $\mu$ variable is interpreted as the ``position'' and the $f$ variable as
the ``momentum'' (dual to the velocity variable in the Lagrangian formalism).
By the form \eqref{indgen} of the independent generator, we can compute the Hamiltonian $\caH(\mu, f)$:
\beq\label{hamco}
\caH (\mu,f) &=&\lim_{N\to\infty, \caM_N\to\mu}\frac1N e^{-N\lo\caM_N, f\ra} \caQ_N e^{N\lo\caM_N, f\ra}
\nonumber\\
&=&
\lim_{N\to\infty, \caM_N\to\mu}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N e^{-f(x_i)} Q e^{ f(x_i)}
\nonumber\\
&=&
\int e^{-f} Q e^f \ d\mu
\eeq
Notice that since $\caH (\mu, 0)=0$, for
the corresponding Lagrangian \eqref{lagleg}
we have
\[
\caL (\mu, \alpha) \geq \left(\lo\alpha, 0\ra -\caH (\mu, 0)\right)=0
\]
i.e., the Lagrangian is automatically non-negative (as it should be since it is the integrand of the rate function).
\section{Finite state space continuous-time Markov chains}
\subsection{Hamiltonian and Lagrangian}
In this case $E=\{a_1,\ldots, a_k\}$ is a finite set, of which we denote the elements
by $a,b,\ldots$.
A function $f:E\to\R$ is identified with a column of numbers
$f_a, a\in E$, so we will use both notations $f(a)$, or $f_a$, idem
for probability measures (identified with rows $\mu_a, a\in E$).
The continuous-time Markov chain is defined via its transition rates between states $a,b\in E$,
denoted by $r(a,b)$. The generator is given by
\be\label{fingen}
Q f(a)= \sum_{b\in E} r(a,b) (f(b)-f(a))
\ee
For a probability measure $\mu_a, a\in E$ we then have
the Kolmogorov forward equation for the distribution at time $t$, denoted $\mu_a(t), a\in E$:
\be\label{velo}
\frac{d\mu_a(t)}{dt} = \sum_{b} \left(r(b,a) \mu_b (t)-r(a,b)\mu_a(t)\right)
\ee
with initial condition $\mu_a(0)=\mu_a, a\in E$.
The Hamiltonian \eqref{hamco} is given by
\be\label{finham}
\caH (\mu, f) =\sum_{a,b\in E} \mu_a r(a,b)(e^{f_b-f_a}-1)
\ee
The corresponding Lagrangian is given by
\be\label{finlag}
\caL(\mu, \alpha)= \sup_f \left(\sum_a f_a \alpha_a-\caH(\mu,f)\right)
\ee
The $f=f^*(\alpha)$ which realizes the supremum satisfies
\be\label{optf}
\alpha_b =\sum_{a} \left(\mu_a r(a,b) e^{f^*_b-f^*_a}-\mu_b r(b,a) e^{f^*_a-f^*_b}\right)
\ee
This leads to
\be
L(\mu, \alpha)=\sum_{a,b} \mu_b r(b,a)\left(f^*_ae^{f^*_a- f^*_b}- f^*_b e^{f^*_a-f^*_b}-(e^{f^*_a-f^*_b}-1)\right)
\ee
Defining the ``modified'' rates
\[
r^* (b,a)= r(b,a)e^{f^*_a- f^*_b}
\]
the equation \eqref{optf} reads
\be\label{optf1}
\alpha_b =\sum_{a} \left(\mu_a r^*(a,b)-\mu_b r^*(b,a) \right)
\ee
which can be interpreted as follows. The modified rates are such that
they produce ``velocity'' (\eqref{velo}) equal to $\alpha$, when started from initial measure $\mu$.
In terms of these modified rates $r^*$, the Lagrangian reads
\be
L(\mu, \alpha)=\sum_{a,b} \mu_b r^*(b,a)\log\left(\frac{r^*(b,a)}{r(b,a)}\right)- \sum_{a,b}\mu_b(r^*(b,a)-r(b,a))
\ee
This can be interpreted in terms of relative entropy as follows.
The Radon Nikodym derivative of the path space measure of the process with rates $r^*$ w.r.t.\ the process
with rates $r$ is given by the Girsanov formula
\be\label{fingirs}
\frac{d\pee^{[0,T]}_{r^*}}{d\pee^{[0,T]}_r}=
\exp\left(\sum_{a,b}\left( \log\left(\frac{r^*(b,a)}{r(b,a)}\right) N^{b,a}_T - (r^*(b,a)-r(b,a))T\right)\right)
\ee
where $N^{(b,a)}_T$ denotes the number of transitions from $b$ to $a$ in $[0,T]$
The corresponding relative entropy of these two processes is then given by
\[
s(\pee^{[0,T]}_{r^*}|\pee^{[0,T]}_r)=\int d\pee_{r^*}^{[0,T]} \log\left(\frac{d\pee^{[0,T]}_{r^*}}{d\pee^{[0,T]}_r}\right)
\]
Taking the limit $T\to 0$ in this expression, starting from initial distribution $\mu$, we find
the connection with the Lagrangian:
\be\label{relentlag}
\lim_{T\to 0} \frac1T s(\pee^{[0,T]}_{r^*}|\pee^{[0,T]}_r)=\caL (\mu, \alpha)
\ee
In words this means the following. In order to compute $\caL (\mu, \alpha)$, we have to consider an auxiliary
Markov process with rates that from starting from $\mu$ produce velocity
(in the sense of \eqref{velo}) equal to $\alpha$. The relative entropy of this
process w.r.t.\ the original process in a small interval of time $[0,t]$ is then given by
$t\caL (\mu, \alpha) + O(t^2)$. The Lagrangian $\caL (\mu, \alpha)$ can thus be viewed as
{\em ``relative entropy production'' needed to force the process to have speed $\alpha$ when started from $\mu$}.
In particular for the evolution according to the Kolmogorov forward equation: $\alpha= Q^*\mu$, the cost is of course zero,
and we indeed have in that case $r^*= r$ and $\loc(\mu, Q^*\mu)=0$.
\subsection{Hamiltonian trajectories for finite Markov chains}
The Hamiltonian \eqref{finham} has Hamiltonian trajectories given by
\beq\label{dishameq}
\dot{f}_a &=& -\frac{\partial \caH}{\partial \mu_a}=-\sum_{b} r(a,b) (e^{f_a-f_b}-1)\nonumber\\
\dot{\mu}_a &=& \frac{\partial \caH}{\partial f_a}=\sum_b \left(\mu_b r(b,a) e^{f_a-f_b}-\mu_a r(a,b) e^{f_b-f_a}\right)
\eeq
The interpretation of the second equation is the following.
For a trajectory with ``momentum'' $f$, the motion of the probability measure is that of a Markov process
with rates which are modified according to $f$ via
\be\label{modr}
\tilde{r}(a,b)= r(a,b) e^{f_b-f_a}
\ee
Indeed, for the modified rates $\tilde{r}$, the second equation of \eqref{dishameq} reads simply
\[
\dot{\mu}_a = \sum_{b} \mu_b \tilde{r} (b,a)-\mu_a \tilde{r}(a,b)
\]
which is precisely the Kolomogorov forwards equation for the evolution of a probability distribution in
a Markov chain with rates $\tilde{r}$.
The equation for the momenta, i.e., the first equation of \eqref{dishameq} can be rewritten using
the variables $u_a= e^{f_a}, a\in E$:
\[
\dot{u}_a = -\sum_b r(a,b) (u_b-u_a) = -(Q u)_a
\]
which has the solution
\be\label{momentsol}
u(t)= e^{-tQ} u(0)
\ee
The equation for the ``position variables '' $\mu_a$ is linear and reads
\be\label{poseq}
\mu (t) = M(u(t))\mu (t)
\ee
with $M$ a matrix depending on the solution of the momentum variables, given by
\be\label{posmat}
M_{a,b}(f)= r(b,a) \frac{u_a}{u_b} -\left(\sum_c r(a,c) \frac{u_c}{u_a}\right)\delta_{a,b}
\ee
This matrix has column sums equal to zero, i.e., for all $b\in E$ we have $\sum_{a} M_{a,b}=0$, which corresponds to the conservation
of mass $\sum_{a} \mu_a(t)=1$ in the Hamiltonian evolution. More precisely, the matrix $M_{a,b}$ is precisely
the adjoint of the generator corresponding to the modified rates $\tilde{r}$ defined in
\eqref{modr}.
We thus conclude that the Hamiltonian trajectories are still Markovian, corresponding with
time-dependendent rates, steered by the solution of the momentum equation \eqref{momentsol}.
The solution of \eqref{poseq} is given by
\be\label{optimal}
\mu (t) = e^{\int_0^t M(u(s))} \mu(0)
\ee
which means that we have the form of the optimal trajectories, up to the determination of the integration constants
given by $u(0)$ and $\mu(0)$.
Although the form \eqref{optimal}, \eqref{momentsol}
looks quite explicit, it is not easy in general to find explicit tractable formulas for $\mu(t)$.
The action or path-space cost of an optimal trajectory
\[
\caI =\int_0^T \loc (\mu_s,\dot{\mu}_s)\ ds
\]
can be rewritten in Hamiltonian formalism as
\be\label{hamcost}
\caJ (\{ \mu(s), f(s):0\leq s\leq T\})= \left(\sum_a \int_0^T f_a(t) \dot{\mu}_a(t)\ dt\right) - T\caH(\mu(0), f(0))
\ee
This means that in order to find the optimal cost to travel from a starting measure $\mu(0)=\mu$ towards
a measure $\mu(T)=\nu$ at time $T$, one has to plug in
the solution
\eqref{optimal}, \eqref{poseq} into the expression \eqref{hamcost}, and determine the integration constants
$\mu(0), f(0)$ by initial and final condition.
This leads to a function $\Psi (\mu,\nu,T)$ which is the optimal path cost to travel from $\mu$ to
$\nu$ in time $T$. In concrete situations beyond two state Markov chains, in practice, this function
is hard to obtain closed formulas for (an issue which we do not want to pursue here).
{\bf Example: Two state symmetric flipping}\\
To see a concrete example of an explicit solution, we consider the case of two states flipping at rate 1, which corresponds
with mean-field independent spin flip
dynamics, treated before in \cite{kuel}, \cite{efhr2}, \cite{RW}.
In that case, the state space is given by $E=\{1,2\}$, the matrix $Q$ is given by
\[
Q=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-1 & 1\\
1 & -1
\end{array}
\right)
\]
and the matrix $M$ of \eqref{posmat}
is given by
\[
M=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
-\frac{u_2}{u_1} & \frac{u_1}{u_2}\\
\frac{u_2}{u_1} & -\frac{u_1}{u_2}
\end{array}
\right)
\]
where $u= (u_1,u_2)^T$ satisfies
\be\label{quu}
\dot{u} = -Q u
\ee
The equation
\[
\dot{\mu} = M\mu
\]
can be differentiated w.r.t.\ time once more, which gives
\[
\frac{d^2\mu}{dt^2}= \left(\frac{dM}{dt} + M^2\right)\mu
\]
Explicit computation, using \eqref{quu} then gives
\[
\frac{dM}{dt} + M^2=
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & -2\\
-2 & 2
\end{array}
\right)
\]
which gives the equations
\[
\frac{d^2\mu_1(t)}{dt^2}= 2\mu_1(t)-2\mu_2(t)=-2\frac{d^2\mu_2(t)}{dt^2}
\]
Putting $\mu_1-\mu_2= x$ we have,
\[
\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}= 4x
\]
which gives $x_t = C_1 e^{2t} + C_2 e^{-2t}$ as solutions as found before in
\cite{kuel}, or \cite{efhr2}. From this the optimal trajectory starting at $\mu$
arriving at $\nu$ and its cost can easily be inferred.
\br
The fact that $\frac{dM}{dt} + M^2$ is a constant matrix is quite exceptional. Even in the two state case,
if the rates $r(1,2)=\alpha\not= r(2,1)=\beta$, the matrix $\frac{dM}{dt} + M^2$ is not
constant and differentiating the equation \eqref{poseq} once more does not lead to further simplification.
\er
\section{Diffusion processes}
\subsection{Hamiltonian and Lagrangian}
Here we consider the state space $E=\R^n$ and diffusion processes with generator
\be\label{difgen}
Q= \sum_i b_i(x)\partial_i + \sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x) \partial^2_{ij}
\ee
where
$\partial_i$ denotes partial derivative w.r.t. $x_i$.
Here $b_i(x)$, $a_{ij} (x)$ are supposed to be Lipschitz and sufficiently smooth, ensuring uniqueness of the solution
of the corresponding stochastic differential equation.
The covariance $a_{ij}(x)$ is assumed to be a non-degenerate positive definite matrix, i.e., we assume
that it is bounded from below by a multiple of the identity.
The Hamiltonian $\caH(\mu, f)$ given in \eqref{hamco} can then be computed
and this yields:
\beq\label{difham}
\caH(\mu, f) &=&
e^{-f} Q e^f \ d\mu
\nonumber\\
&=&
\int \left(Qf + \sum_{ij}\partial_i f (x) \partial_j f(x) a_{ij} (x)\right) \ d\mu (x)
\eeq
The measures $\mu$ that we will have to consider are absolutely continuous probability measures
w.r.t.\ Lebesgue measure, $\mu = \mu(x) dx$, where with slight abuse of
notation we use the symbol $\mu$ both for the measure and its density.
Although we are in the infinite dimensional context here, because the Hamiltonian
is a quadratic form, the corresponding Lagrangian can be obtained more easily than in the previous
subsection.
Define the quadratic
form
\be\label{quad}
J_\mu (f,f)= \int\left(\sum_{ij}\partial_i f (x) \partial_j f(x) a_{ij} (x)\right) \ d\mu (x)
\ee
for $f$ in the domain of $A_\mu$.
\br
Notice that this quadratic form corresponds to the carr\'e du champ operator, i.e.,
\[
J_\mu (f,f)= \int\Gamma^Q_2 (f,f) d\mu
\]
where
\[
\Gamma^Q_2(f,f)= Qf^2 - 2fQ f
\]
is the carr\'e du champ operator.
\er
To this quadratic form corresponds a positive self-adjoint operator $A_\mu$ (linearly depending on $\mu$) such that
\[
J_\mu (f, f)= \frac12\lo f, A_\mu f\ra
\]
where $\lo f,g\ra=\int f(x) g(x) \ dx$ is the usual $L^2$ inner product.
With this notation, the Hamiltonian can be written in the form
\be
\caH (\mu, f)= \lo \mu, Qf\ra + \frac12\lo f, A_\mu f\ra = \lo Q^*\mu, f\ra + \frac12\lo f, A_\mu f\ra
\ee
Then, the corresponding Lagrangian is computed
\beq\label{genlagdif}
\caL (\mu, \alpha) &=& \sup_{f} \left(\lo f, \alpha\ra- \lo Q^*\mu, f\ra - \frac12\lo f, A_\mu f\ra \right)
\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac12 \lo (\alpha- Q^* \mu), A_\mu^{-1} (\alpha-Q^*\mu) \ra
\eeq
Where $\lo f, A_\mu^{-1} f\ra$ is to be interpreted in the sense of the spectral theorem, i.e.,
$ \|A_\mu^{-1/2}f\|_2^2$
for $f$ in the domain of $A_\mu^{-1/2}$. The Lagrangian is then defined to be infinite
when $(\alpha- Q^* \mu)$ is not in the domain of $A_\mu^{-1/2}$ (cf.\ the abstract form of Schilder's theorem
in abstract Wiener spaces
see \cite{dz}).
We see that the ``typical trajectory'' which follows
the Kolmogorov forward equation has zero cost, since in that case $\dot{\mu}=\alpha= Q^*\mu$, and
hence $\caL(\mu,\alpha)=0$, and in general, the Lagrangian is a quadratic expression in the deviation
of the trajectory
from the Kolmogorov forward equation.
To illustrate this formula, let us consider first the simplest example of the present context, i.e., dimension $n=1$,
drift $b=0$, $a=1/2$, corresponding
to a one-dimensional Brownian motion. The generator is
\[
Q= \frac12 \frac{d^2}{dx^2}
\]
$Q^*=Q$.
The quadratic form \eqref{quad} reads in this case
\[
J_\mu (f,f)=\frac12 \int \mu(x)(f')^2 dx
\]
and the corresponding operator
\[
A_\mu = \frac{d}{dx}\left( \mu(x)\frac{d}{dx}\right)
\]
which gives
\be\label{brownlagra}
\caL (\mu, \alpha) = \frac12 \left\lo\nabla^{-1}\left(\alpha-\frac12 \mu''\right), \frac1\mu\nabla^{-1}\left(\alpha-\frac12 \mu'' \right)\right\ra
\ee
The rigorous meaning of the formal expression
$\lo\nabla^{-1} f, \nabla^{-1} g\ra$ is the innerproduct in
the space $H_{-1}$, i.e., $\lo (-\Delta)^{-1/2} f, (-\Delta)^{-1/2}g\ra$, with
$\Delta= \frac{d^2}{dx^2}$, or equivalently the dual space of
the Hilbert space $H_1$.
\br
The rate function \eqref{brownlagra} has also been obtained in the context
of the study of the hydrodynamic limit for independent Brownian particles,
in \cite{ko}. In general, it is an interesting question to understand the relation
between the rate functions which are computed in this paper and the rate functions
for deviations of the hydrodynamic limit, see e.g. \cite{kl}.
For Brownian particles, they coincide because of scale invariance of the Brownian motion.
\er
\subsection{Relative entropy interpretation}
As in the case of finite state space Markov chains, also for diffusion processes, the Lagrangian \eqref{brownlagra} can be interpreted in terms of relative entropy. Let us illustrate this for one-dimensional Brownian motion as the reference process, i.e., $n=1$ with $b=0, a=1/2$
in \eqref{difgen}.
A diffusion process on $\R$ with drift $b(x)$ and variance equal to one has the generator
\[
Q_b= b(x)\frac{d}{dx} + \frac12 \frac{d^2}{dx^2}
\]
if we start this process from a measure $\mu=\mu(x) dx$, then the infinitesimal change
at time zero is given by the adjoint generator working on $\mu$, i.e.,
\be\label{apdri}
\frac12 \frac{d^2\mu (x)}{dx^2} + \frac{d}{dx} (b(x) \mu(x))= (Q_b^* \mu) (x)
\ee
In particular, for $\alpha$, a given absolutely continuous signed measure of total mass zero,
we can find the drift $b$ that corresponds to it by solving the equation
\be\label{ap}
\frac12 \frac{d^2\mu (x)}{dx^2} + \frac{d}{dx} (b(x) \mu(x))=\alpha(x)
\ee
The process with drift $b$ has a corresponding path space measure on the Wiener space of continuous trajectories
denoted by $\pee^{[0,T]}_b$, and we have the Girsanov formula
\be\label{girsdif}
\frac{d\pee_b}{d\pee_0} =\exp \left(\int_0^T b(W_s) dW_s -\frac12 \int_0^T b^2 (W_s) ds\right)
\ee
relating $\pee^{[0,T]}_b$ with the path space measure of the reference process $\pee^{[0,T]}_0$
The relative entropy of the process with drift $b$ w.r.t. the zero drift process is thus given by
\beq
&&s(\pee^{[0,T]}_b|\pee^{[0,T]}_0)= \int d\pee_b \log \left(\frac{d\pee_b}{d\pee_0}\right)
\nonumber\\
&=&
\E^{(0)} \left(\exp \left(\int_0^T b(W_s) dW_s -\frac12 \int_0^T b^2 (W_s) ds\right)\left(\int_0^T b(W_s) dW_s -\frac12 \int_0^T b^2 (W_s) ds\right)\right)
\nonumber\\
\eeq
where the expectation $\E^{(0)}$ is over the standard Brownian motion, i.e., w.r.t. $\pee^{[0,T]}_0$.
Computing then
\[
\lim_{T\to 0} \frac1T s(\pee^{[0,T]}_b|\pee^{[0,T]}_0)
\]
starting from a distribution $\mu$ for the reference process, and using
\[
\E^{(0)}\left(\int_0^T b(W_s) dW_s\right)^2= \E^{(0)}\left(\int_0^T b^2(W_s) ds\right)
\]
gives
\[
\lim_{T\to 0} \frac1T s(\pee^{[0,T]}_b|\pee^{[0,T]}_0)=\frac12\int b^2 (x) \mu(x) dx
\]
which is equal to $\loc(\mu, \alpha)$ given in \eqref{brownlagra},
because by \eqref{ap}
\[
\frac{d}{dx} (b(x) \mu(x))= \alpha -\frac12 \mu''(x)
\]
Hence, as in the finite Markov chain case, we see that the Lagrangian can be interpreted as
the infinitesimal relative entropy cost to produce a ``velocity'' $\alpha$ when started from $\mu$.
In particular, when $\alpha=Q^*\mu$ this cost is zero, corresponding to the fact that
the evolution according to the Kolmogorov forward equation is
an optimal trajectory with zero cost.
\section{Trajectory of the empirical measure}
\subsection{Context and notation}
In the context of translation invariant interacting systems, the empirical distribution is no longer a natural object
because of interactions. In particular, the empirical distribution as a function of time is no longer a Markov process.
The natural object capturing the essential information about the time evolution, modulo translations
is then given by the empirical measure. In order to describe this setting, we need some more notation.
For $N\in\N$ we denote $ V_N = \{ -N,\ldots,N\}^d$ and denote by $\tor$ the $d$-dimensional torus, i.e.,
$V_N$ endowed with addition modulo $2N+1$.
We will consider translation invariant
systems on this torus which for large $N$ have to be thought of as approximations of an infinite interacting system where the individual components
live on the lattice $\Zd$.
The configuration space is $\Omega_N= E^\tor$, where $E$, the single-site space, is a locally compact Polish space.
Further we denote $\Omega= E^{\Zd}$ the state space of the infinite volume process.
As in the previous sections, we mostly consider $E$ or a finite set (interacting particle systems) or $E=\R^n$ (or a submanifold
of $\R^n$) (interacting diffusion processes). Elements of $\Omega_N$ are denoted $\si,\eta,\xi,\ldots$, and for
$\si\in\Omega_N$, $i\in\tor_N$, $\si_i$ denotes the value of the configuration at site $i$.
On $\tor$ we have the addition modulo $2N+1$, and correspondingly, the shift $\tau_i$ defined on $\Omega_N$ via
\be\label{shift}
\left(\tau_i (\si)\right)_j = \si_{j+i}
\ee
on functions
$f:\Omega_N\to\R$ via $\tau_i f(\si)=f(\tau_i\si)$, and on probability measures via $\int f d (\tau_i\mu)=\int \tau_i f d\mu$.
If $A$ is a linear operator on functions $f:\Omega_N\to\R$ then we define its shift over $i$ to be
$\tau_i A \tau_{-i}$, and an operator is called translation invariant if for all $i$, $\tau_i A\tau_{-i}= Q$.
A measure is translation invariant if $\tau_i\mu=\mu$. Natural translation invariant measures on $\Omega_N$ are obtained
by periodizing translation invariant measures on $\Omega$, i.e., starting from $\si$ distributed according to a translation
invariant measure on $\Omega$, we consider
$\si^N_i = \si_i, i\in V_N$, periodically extended to the whole lattice.
Conversely, if we have a probability measure $\mu_N$ on $\Omega_N$ we naturally associate to it
a probability measure on the infinite configuration space $\Omega$, namely we consider the periodic extension
of a configuration drawn from $\mu_N$ to the whole lattice $\Zd$.
This justifies the fact that with slight abuse of notation
we will use sometimes the same symbol $\mu_N$ for a translation invariant measure on $\Omega_N$ as well as for the corresponding
translation invariant measure on $\Omega$.
We denote by $\pee_{inv} (\Omega)$ the set of translation invariant probability measures on $\Omega$.
A function $f:\Omega\to\R$ is called local if it depends on a finite number of coordinates, i.e., if there
exists a (minimal) finite set $D_f$, called the dependence set of $f$ such that for all $\si,\eta\in\Omega$:
$f(\si_{D_f}\eta_{\Zd\setminus D_f} ) = f(\si)$, i.e., the value of the function is not influenced by changing
the configuration outside $D_f$. Obviously, a local function $f:\Omega\to\R$ can be thought of as being a function
$f:\Omega_N\to\R$ as well, for $N$ large enough such that $V_N\supset D_f$.
The translation $\tau_i f$ of local function is obviously local, with dependence set $D_{\tau_i f} =D_f +i= \{x+i:x\in D_f\}$.
An linear operator (possibly unbounded) $A: \caD(A)\subset \caC(\Omega)\to \caC(\Omega)$ is local
if it acts only on $\eta_i$, for $i$ a finite set $D=D_A\subset\Zd$ of vertices. A local operator
acts naturally on functions $f:\Omega_N\to\R$ for $N$ large enough, such that $D_A$ is contained
in $V_N$.
\subsection{Translation invariant sequence of local generators}
\bd
A translation invariant sequence of local generators is defined to be a
a sequence of generators of the form
$\loc_N = \sum_{i\in \tor} \tau_i Q\tau_{-i}$, with $Q$ a local generator, such that
the corresponding infinite volume generator
$\loc = \sum_{i\in \Zd} \tau_i Q\tau_{-i}$ is well-defined, corresponds to a unique Markov process on $\Omega$,
and has a subset of local functions
as a core. The generator $Q$ is then called the ``source generator''.
\ed
As a consequence, the corresponding processes $\{\si_{N,t}:t\geq 0\}$ converge weakly in path space to
the infinite volume process $\{\si_t:0\leq t\leq T\}$ with generator $\loc$.
Moreover, for the associated semigroups we have that
$S^N_t f\to S_t f$ uniformly as $N\to\infty$, for all local functions $f$.
Let us give some examples in order to make this concept more concrete.
\ben
\item {\bf Independent Markov processes.} For $Q$ a generator of a Markov process on $E$, we define
\[
\loc_N = \sum_{i\in\tor} \tau_i Q_0\tau_{-i}
\]
Where $Q_0$ is the operator $Q$ working on the variable $\si_0$.
Under the process with this generator $\loc_N$ different components evolve independently, as copies of the process
with generator $Q$.
\item {\bf Spin-flip dynamics.} $E$ is finite set (e.g. $E=\{-1,1\}$ for Ising spins), $\theta: E\to E$ a bijection
such that $\theta (a)\not= a$ for all $a\in E$. Furthermore, a local function $r:\Omega\to\R^+$, with dependence set containing
the origin, is given. The local generator is then defined
$Qf (\si) = r(\si) (f(\theta_0 \si) -f(\si))$, where $\theta_0$ means applying $\theta$ to the coordinate $\si_0$ and leaving
all other coordinates unchanged (similarly we denote $\theta_i$).
The corresponding sequence of generators is then given by
\[
\loc_N f(\si) = \sum_{i} ((\tau_i Q \tau_{-i})f)(\si) = \sum_{i\in \tor} r(\tau_i \si) (f(\theta_i\si)- f(\si))
\]
\item {\bf Interacting diffusions.} For $E=\R$ and for a finite set $D\subset\Zd$, we consider the local
generator
\[
Q f(\si) = \left(\sum_{j\in D} \frac{\partial V(\si_D)}{\partial \si_j} \frac{\partial f}{\partial \si_j} \right) + \frac12\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \si_0^2}
\]
and the corresponding
\[
\loc_N = \sum_{i}\tau_i Q \tau_{-i}f
\]
This represents a system of diffusions, interacting via the potential $V$. E.g. for a nearest neighbor potential $V:\R\to\R$
in $d=1$, the full generator has the form
\[
\sum_i V'(|\si_i-\si_{i-1}|) \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \si_i}- \frac{\partial}{\partial \si_{i-1}}\right) + \frac12 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \si_i^2}
\]
corresponding to $D= \{0,1\}$, $V(\si_D) = V(|\si_1-\si_0|)$.
The core for the generator of the infinite volume process is the set of local smooth ($\caC^\infty_0$) test functions.
\item {\bf Local interacting particle systems.} $E$ is a finite
set. For finite
subsets $D_\alpha\subset\Zd$, a collection of $T_\alpha: E^{D_\alpha}\to E^{D_\alpha}$
$\alpha\in \{1,\ldots,k\}$, and corresponding rates $c(\alpha, \si)$
we consider the local generator
\[
Q f(\si)= \sum_{\alpha} c(\alpha, \si)( f(T_\alpha\si_{D_\alpha}\si_{D_\alpha^c})-f(\si))
\]
the corresponding local generators then include of course the previous spin-flip case but also
translation invariant spin-exchange (Kawasaki) dynamics, combination of
spin-flip and spin-exchange, etc.
\item {\bf Local averaging.} For $0\in D\subset\Zd$ finite, and $m_D$ a probability
measure on $E^D$, consider
\[
Q f(\si)= r(\si)\int \left(f(\si'_D\si_{D^c})- f(\si)\right) m_D(d\si'_D)
\]
with $r$ a local function.
In words, this means that with rate $r$, the configuration inside
$D$ is replaced by its average over the measure $m_D$.
Examples of this class are the KMP model (a model of heat conduction) \cite{kmp}, or more generally the thermalized BEP process
\cite{cggr}.
\een
\subsection{Trajectory of the empirical measure}
For a configuration $\si\in\Omega_N$, its corresponding empirical measure is defined by
\be\label{empmeas}
\bbL_N (\si) = \frac{1}{|\tor|}\sum_{i\in\tor} \delta_{\tau_i\si}
\ee
This is a translation invariant probability measure on $\Omega_N$, capturing all information
about $\si$, modulo translations.
For a configuration on the full lattice, $\si\in\Omega$, with a slight abuse of notation
we also denote
\be
\bbL_N (\si) = \avtor \delta_{\tau_i (\si^N)}
\ee
where $\si^N$ is the periodized configuration obtained from $\si$.
If $\mu$ is a probability measure on $\Omega$, which is ergodic under translations, then, by the Birkhoff ergodic theorem, with
$\mu$ probability one
\[
\bbL_N (\si)\to \mu
\]
as $N\to\infty$, and where ``$\to$'' means weak convergence.
If $(\loc_N)_N$ is a translation invariant sequence of local generators, then we have the
associated Markov processes $\si_{N,t}$ with semigroups $S^N_t= e^{t\loc_N}$. For a probability measure
$\mu$ on $\Omega$, let us denote $\mu_t$ to be the distribution at time $t>0$ in the infinite volume process
$\{\si_t:t\geq 0\}$, started at initial state distributed according to $\mu$. By locality of the generator $\loc$, for
$\mu$ ergodic,
we have that $\mu_t$ is ergodic as well and hence
\[
\bbL_N (\si_t)\to \mu_t
\]
weakly, with probability one.
Therefore the random trajectory of translation invariant probability measures
$\{ \bbL_N (\si_t): 0\leq t\leq T\}$ converges, as $N \to\infty$ to the deterministic
trajectory $\{\mu_t: 0\leq t\leq T\}$. This convergence of a random $\caP_{inv} (\Omega)$-valued
trajectory to a deterministic
$\caP_{inv} (\Omega)$-valued trajectory can be thought of as a law of large numbers
(in an infinite dimensional space), and therefore it is natural to ask for an associated large deviation principle.
For spin-flip dynamics, this was studied in \cite{efhr2}. Here we treat the general case of
a translation invariant sequence of local generators.
This will naturally lead to a {\em local non-linear
operator $\caK_Q$ associated to the local source generator $Q$}, which is in the present context of interacting systems
the analogue
of the non-linear operator $e^{-f} Q e^f$ in section 2.
More precisely, we want to identify the ``path space Lagrangian'' (which is in this section is denoted
by $\Xi$) such that,
in $\caP_{inv} (\Omega)$:
\[
\pee\left(\{ \bbL_N (\si_t): 0\leq t\leq T\}\approx \{ \nu_t: 0\leq t\leq T\}\right) \approx
\exp\left({-|\tor| \int_0^T \Xi (\nu_t, \dot{\nu}_t)}\right)
\]
The Lagrangian is now a function
of a translation invariant probability measure and a translation invariant signed measure of total mass zero
(or a more general distribution on the space of functions belonging to the domain of the generator), and as before,
$\approx$ has to be interpreted in the sense of the large deviation principle, in this case, on the space of trajectories with values in the
set $\caP_{inv}(\Omega)$ of translation invariant probability measures on $\Omega$.
\subsection{The Hamiltonian}
In this section we compute the
Feng-Kurtz Hamiltonian. This Hamiltonian is now a function
from $\caC(\Omega)\times \caP_{inv} (\Omega)$ to $\R$, where the first variable
has to be thought of the ``position'' variable, whereas the second variable as the ``momentum''
variable.
The Hamiltonian is then
defined as the limit
\be\label{measham}
\caH(\mu, f) =\lim_{N\to\infty, \loc_N(\si)\to\mu} \frac{1}{|\tor|}\left(e^{-|\tor| \lo \bbL_N (\si), f\ra} \loc_N e^{|\tor| \lo \bbL_N (\si), f\ra}\right)
\ee
Note that
$|\tor| \lo \bbL_N (\si), f\ra=\sum_{i\in\tor} \tau_i f(\si)$.
For the computation of \eqref{measham}, we assume $f$ to be a local function. Because the source generator $Q$ is
local we have, that $Q (\tau_k f) =0$ for all $k$ outside the set $D(Q,f)=\{ k: D_Q \cap D_f+k\not=\emptyset\}$.
Therefore, for $\la\subset\Zd$ finite,
\be\label{locprod}
Q \left(\prod_{i\in \la}\tau_i e^f\right) =\left(\prod_{i\in \la\setminus D(Q,f)}\tau_i e^f\right) Q
\left(\prod_{i\in \la\cap D(Q,f)}\tau_i e^ f\right)
\ee
Use \eqref{locprod} to compute
\beq\label{hami}
\caH(\mu, f)&=& \lim_{N\to\infty, \loc_N(\si)\to\mu} \frac{1}{|\tor|} e^{-\sum_i \tau_i f} \sum_j \tau_j\left(Q e^{\sum_{i} \tau_{i-j} f}\right)
\nonumber\\
&=&
\lim_{N\to\infty, \loc_N(\si)\to\mu} \frac{1}{|\tor|} e^{\sum_i -\tau_i f}\sum_{j\in \tor} \tau_{j}\left(Q e^{\sum_{i\in D(f,Q)+j}\tau_{i-j}f} \right)
e^{\sum_{i\not\in D(f,Q)+j}\tau_i f}
\nonumber\\
&=&
\lim_{N\to\infty, \loc_N(\si)\to\mu} \frac{1}{|\tor|}\sum_{j\in \tor} \tau_j\left( e^{-\sum_{i\in D(f,Q)+j}\tau_{i-j} f }Q e^{\sum_{i\in D(f,Q)+j}\tau_{i-j} f }\right)
\nonumber\\
&=& \lim_{N\to\infty, \loc_N(\si)\to\mu} \frac{1}{|\tor|}
\sum_{j\in \tor} \tau_j\left( e^{-\sum_{k\in D(f,Q)}\tau_{k} f }Q e^{\sum_{k\in D(f,Q)}
\tau_{k} f }\right)
\eeq
We can now introduce the non-linear operator associated to the ``source'' generator $Q$, working on
local functions $f$:
\be\label{kaaq}
\caK_Q f= e^{-\sum_{k\in D(f,Q)} \tau_k f} Q e^{\sum_{k\in D(f,Q)}\tau_k f}
\ee
Using this notation, we obtain from \eqref{hami}
\be\label{hames}
\caH(\mu,f) = \int \caK_Q (f) d\mu
\ee
This Hamiltonian has to be thought of as the analogue of \eqref{hamco} in the present context.
\br
Note that we can write, informally,
\[
\caK_Q f= e^{-\sum_{k\in \Zd} \tau_k f} Q e^{\sum_{k\in\Zd}\tau_k f}
\]
since the terms $k\not\in D(f,Q)$ ``cancel''. This is of course not rigorous
because the infinite sum $\sum_{k\in\Zd}\tau_k f$ does not make sense, but in the ``same way''
as for a formal infinite volume Hamiltonian, where only {\em local energy differences} are well defined.
The advantage of this formal representation is that we clearly see that
$\caK$ is a translation invariant operator, i.e.,
$\caK_Q (f) = \caK_Q (\tau_i f)$, and as a consequence, the Hamiltonian $\caH(\mu, f)$ is translation invariant as well, both in the
measure and in the function, i.e.,
\[
\caH (\tau_k \mu, \tau_r f) = \caH (\mu, f)
\]
for all $k, r\in \Zd$.
Another advantage is that one clearly sees the analogy with the corresponding formula for the
empirical distribution
\eqref{hamco}.
\er
The corresponding Lagrangian is then found by Legendre transformation, i.e.,
\be\label{measlag}
\Xi (\mu, \dot{\mu}) = \sup_{f\in \caC(\Omega)} \left(\int f d\dot{\mu} - \caH(\mu, f) \right)
\ee
where $\dot{\mu}$ denotes a translation invariant signed measure of total mass zero, and
$\mu$ a translation invariant probability measure on $\Omega$.
In general, an explicit expression for $\Xi$ cannot be obtained easily. In the examples below we will compute
$\Xi$ quite explicitly for diffusion processes and show a relative entropy interpretation of $\Xi$ in the context
of interacting particle systems (analogue of finite Markov chains in the previous section) and in the context
of interacting diffusions.
\subsection{Interacting particle systems: the Lagrangian}
We now compute $\caK_Q$ for some of the examples discussed before, starting with interacting particle systems.
The local generator is of the form.
\[
Q f= \sum_{\alpha} r_\alpha (T_\alpha f- f)
\]
where $T_\alpha$ are local transformations, which change coordinates only
in a finite set $D_\alpha$ containing the origin.
This gives
\be\label{intfeng}
\caK_Q f = \sum_\alpha r_\alpha \left( e^{\caD_\alpha (f)} -1\right)
\ee
where the operator $\caD_\alpha$ is defined
by
\[
\caD_\alpha f = \sum_{k\in \Zd}\left(T_\alpha (\tau_k f) -\tau_k f\right)
\]
Notice that the sum is in fact a finite sum since $f$ is local, and the transformation $T_\alpha$ is local as well.
Let us now first zoom in into two familiar examples.
\begin{itemize}
\item[a)] {\bf Independent spin-flip}.
For $E= \{-1,1\}$, and for a single transformation $T\si = \si^0$ (spin-flip), we get
\[
\caD (f) = \sum_{k\in -D_f} (\tau_k f (\si^0)- \tau_k f)
\]
for the special functions $f(\si) = H_A (\si) =\prod_{i\in A} \si_i$ we get
\[
\caD (H_A) = \sum_{k\in -A} -2H_{A+k}
\]
as we found before in \cite{efhr2}.
\item[b)] {\bf Symmetric exclusion process}.
For $E= \{0,1\}$, $d=1$ and $T(\si )= \si^{01}$, where $\si^{01}$ denotes exchange of the values at site $0$ and $1$, i.e.,
$(\si^{01})_j = \si_1 \delta_{j,0} + \si_0 \delta_{j,1} + \si_j (1-\delta_{j,0}-\delta_{j,1})$. We have
\[
\caD (f)(\eta) = \sum_{k: k+D_f\cap \{0,1\} \not= \emptyset} f(\tau_k(\eta^{01}))- f(\eta)
\]
Notice that for $f=\eta_0$ we find only two terms contributing to $\caD(f)$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\caD(f)&=& \left(((\eta^{01}))_0 - (\eta)_0\right) + \left((\tau_{1}(\eta^{01}))_0 - (\tau_{1}(\eta))_0\right)
\\
&=&
\eta_1-\eta_0 + \eta_0-\eta_1=0
\end{eqnarray*}
which corresponds to the fact that the density of particles is conserved in this process.
\end{itemize}
Returning to the general case now,
the Lagrangian associated with \eqref{intfeng} is
\be\label{intfenglag}
\Xi (\mu,\dot{\mu}) =\sup_{f\in \caC(\Omega)}\left(\int f d\dmu- \int\left(\sum_\alpha r_\alpha \left( e^{\caD_\alpha (f)} -1\right)\right)d\mu\right)
\ee
This expression is reminiscent of
\eqref{finlag} in section 3 (empirical distribution for finite Markov chains). Indeed, a similar relative entropy interpretation of this expression
can be given. We will describe this rather informally, as it is quite analogous to the Girsanov formula computation of the section on finite Markov chains.
First we note that for a translation invariant measure $\mu$, its ``derivative at time zero''
$\loc^*\mu$ is formally given by
\[
(\loc^* \mu )(\si)= \sum_i\sum_\alpha \left(r_\alpha (\tau_i\si) \mu (\tau_i T_\alpha \tau_{-i}\si) - r_\alpha (\tau_i\si) \mu(\tau_i\si)\right)
\]
This object is to be interpreted as working on local functions, i.e., as a distribution.
Suppose now we consider modified rates $\tilde{r}_\alpha (\si)= r_\alpha (\si) e^{f(\si)-f(T_\alpha(\si))}$, and the associated modified local generator
$\tilde{Q} = \sum_\alpha \tilde{r}_\alpha (T_\alpha-I)$, i.e., the {\em same transformations} are applied but now {\em with new rates}.
Then for a given translation invariant signed measure of total mass zero, we look for those modified rates, i.e., choice of $f$,
such that with the starting measure $\mu$ they produce ``derivative at time zero'' equal to $\dot{\mu}$, i.e.,
\[
\dot{\mu} (\si) = \sum_i\sum_\alpha \left(\tilde{r}_\alpha (\tau_i\si) \mu (\tau_i T_\alpha \tau_{-i}\si) - \tilde{r}_\alpha (\tau_i\si) \mu(\tau_i\si)\right)
\]
The Radon Nikodym derivative of the path space measure of the finite-volume
process (in $\tor$) with rates
$\tilde{r}$ w.r.t.\ the process with rates $r$ is given by the Girsanov formula:
\[
\frac{d\pee^{[0,T],N}{\tilde{r}}}{d\pee^{[0,T],N}{\tilde{r}} }
=
\exp \left( \sum_{i\in \tor}\sum_\alpha\left(\int_0^T\log\frac{\tilde{r}^i_\alpha{\si_s}}{r^i_\alpha(\si_s)}dN^{i,\alpha}_s - \int_0^T\left(\tilde{r}^i_\alpha(\si_s)-r^i_\alpha(\si_s)\right)\right)ds\right)
\]
where $r^i_\alpha$, resp. $\tilde{r}^i_\alpha$ denote the rate to flip
from $\si$ to $\tau_i T_\alpha \tau_{-i} (\si)$, i.e., to apply the transformation $T_\alpha$ around
the lattice site $i$, and $N^{i,\alpha}_t$ the corresponding counting process counting
how many transitions $\si$ to $\tau_i T_\alpha \tau_{-i} (\si)$ have happened in the time
interval $[0,t]$.
We then find, analogously to \eqref{relentlag}
that
the Lagrangian is equal to the limit
\[
\Xi (\mu, \dot{\mu})=\lim_{T\to 0 } \frac1{T}\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{1}{|\tor|}s(\pee^{[0,T]}_{\tilde{r}, N}|\pee^{[0,T]}_{{r}, N})
\]
i.e., the analogue of \eqref{relentlag}, replacing relative entropy by {\em relative entropy density}.
\subsection{Diffusion processes: the Lagrangian.}
For diffusion processes, let us start with the simplest case of independent Brownian motions in $d=1$.
The general case will be analogous, but the quadratic forms appearing there will be less explicit.
The source generator $Q$ is thus given by
\[
Q f(\si) = \frac12\partial^2_0 f(\si)
\]
where we abbreviated $\partial_0$ to denote the partial derivative w.r.t.\ $\si_0$.
As a consequence, for a local function $f$:
\[
\caK_Q f = \sum_k Q (\tau_k f) + \frac12\left(\sum_k \partial_0 (\tau_k f)\right)^2
\]
and, reminding that the full generator is the sum of shifts of $Q$, we have
\beq\label{difhammeas}
\caH(\mu, f) &=& \int \caK_Q f d\mu = \int \loc f d\mu + \caJ_\mu (f,f)
\nonumber\\
&=& \lo f, \caL^* \mu \ra + \caJ_\mu (f,f)
\eeq
where
\[
\caJ_\mu (f,f) = \frac12 \int\left(\sum_k \partial_0 (\tau_k f)\right)^2 d\mu
\]
is a $\mu$ dependent quadratic form. This quadratic form is the analogue of \eqref{quad}. Hence,
for the Lagrangian we have
\[
\Xi (\mu, \dot{\mu})= \sup_{f}\left( \lo \dot{\mu}-\loc^*\mu, f\ra -\caJ_\mu (f,f)\right)= \caJ_\mu^* (\dot{\mu}-\loc^*\mu,\dot{\mu}-\loc^*\mu)
\]
where $\caJ_\mu^*$ is a dual quadratic form defined via
\be\label{dualqua}
\caJ_\mu^*(\nu,\nu)= \sup_f \left(\lo\nu,f\ra - \caJ_\mu (f,f)\right)
\ee
for $\nu$ a signed measure of total mass zero.
Notice that this indeed defines a quadratic form
because for $\lambda>0$ (and similarly for $\lambda<0$)
\begin{eqnarray*}
\caJ_\mu^* (\lambda\nu,\lambda\nu) &=& \sup_f (\lambda \lo \nu, f\ra - \caJ_\mu (f,f))
\\
&=&\lambda^2\sup_f (\lo\nu,f/\lambda\ra - \caJ_\mu (f/\lambda,f/\lambda))
\\
&=& \lambda^2 \caJ_\mu^* (\nu,\nu)
\end{eqnarray*}
We see in particular that
$\Xi (\mu, \dot{\mu})$ is zero for a solution of the Kolmogorov forward equation, i.e., if $\dot{\mu} = \loc^* \mu$, which shows also in the present context
that the Markovian evolution
of the distribution $\mu$ is an optimal zero cost trajectory.
Finally, let us turn to the general diffusion case. We split $Q$, the source generator, into a first order part and a second order part:
\[
Q= Q_1+ Q_2
\]
where $Q_2$ contains all second order derivatives (variance part of the diffusion), $Q_1$ all first order derivatives
(drift part).
To $Q_2$ is then associated the quadratic form
\be\label{genquad}
\caJ^Q_\mu (f,f) = \int \left(e^{-\sum_k \tau_k f} Q_2 e^{\sum_k \tau_k f} - Q_2\left(\sum_k \tau_k f\right)\right)d\mu
\ee
Notice that this corresponds to the operator carr\'e du champ associated to $Q_2$, i.e.,
\[
\caJ^Q_\mu (f,f)= \Gamma_2^{Q_2}\left[\sum_k \tau_k f\right]
\]
The Lagrangian is then given by
\be\label{laggendif}
\Xi (\mu,\dot{\mu})= (\caJ^Q_\mu)^* ( \dot{\mu}-\loc^*\mu, \dot{\mu}-\loc^*\mu)
\ee
where $(\caJ^Q_\mu)^*$ is the dual quadratic form of $\caJ^Q$ (as in \eqref{dualqua}).
|
\section{Introduction}
The research objective of ultra-relativistic heavy-ion collisions is to explore the properties of the quark-gluon
plasma (QGP), a deconfined state of quarks and gluons. Many experimental and theoretical studies of the QGP have been
obtained from the study of hadron jets, the fragmentation products of high transverse momentum ($\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$)
partons\cite{HIP,IArsen1,IArsen1,IArsen2,IArsen3,IArsen4}. It is generally accepted that prior to hadronization,
partons lose energy in the extreme hot and dense medium due to gluon radiation and multiple collisions. These phenomena
are broadly known as ``jet quenching''\cite{JetQuenching1,JetQuenching2,JetQuenching3}.
At the LHC, the strong jet quenching in central heavy-ion collisions has been reported by ALICE,
ATLAS and CMS collaborations\cite{Raa1,Raa2,Raa3}. The nuclear suppression factor $R_{\rm AA}$, which quantifies the suppression of charged hadrons,
in central Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76~\tev$ is about 0.14 at $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}\sim7~\gmom$\cite{Raa1,Raa3}. Furthermore,
a strong di-jet energy asymmetry for leading jet transverse momenta above $100~\gmom$ has been reported\cite{jetAsy1,jetAsy2}. At low
transverse momenta ($p_{\rm T,jet} < 50~\gmom$), background fluctuations due to the underlying event dominate\cite{bkg}
and event-by-event jet reconstruction becomes difficult. Two-particle correlations allow the study of medium effects
on the jet fragmentation without the need for jet reconstruction.
Especially, direct photon-hadron correlations offer two major advantages as compared to di-jet measurements
because of the nature of the photon. First, in contrast to partons, photons do not carry color charge and hence
do not interact strongly when traversing the medium\cite{photonwithMedium}. Second, the direct photon
production at leading order (LO) in pp and A+A collisions is dominated by the QCD compton scattering process,
$q + g \rightarrow q + \gamma$ and $q + q \rightarrow g + \gamma$ annihilation process, and the photon momentum in the
center-of-mass frame is exactly balanced by that of the recoil parton. For these reasons, direct photon-hadron
correlations have been considered as a ``golden channel'' for studying the properties of parton energy loss
including parton fragmentation function without the need of the jet reconstruction\cite{godenChannel1,godenChannel2}.
Furthermore, significant measurements about parton energy loss in the medium by isolated photon-jet correlations at CMS
are presented in\cite{CMSphoton}.
This proceeding is organized as follows: Sec.~\ref{analysisData} briefly presents the ALICE detector relevant to this
analysis and data sample. Sec.~\ref{twoparticlecorr} shows the method of two-particle correlations. The near-side jet shape
analysis is discussed in Sec.~\ref{nearsidejetshape} and the modification factor of jet-particle yield is discussed in
Sec.~\ref{modificationfactor}. Sec.~\ref{fragmentationfun} has the discussion of fragmentation function estimation from
isolated photon-hadron correlations. Sec.~\ref{summary} summarizes the results from this proceeding.
\section{Detector and data sample}
\label{analysisData}
The analyzed data were taken with the ALICE detector described in detail in\cite{ALICEdetector}. The collision vertex finding
and tracking are performed using information from the Inner Tracking System (ITS) and the Time Projection Chamber (TPC). The ITS consists of six
layers equipped with Slicon Pixel Detector (SPD), Silicon Drift Detector (SDD) and Silicon Strip Detector (SSD). The TPC is a
cylindrical drift detector with uniform acceptance in azimuth angle ($\phi$) and a pseudorapidity coverage of $|\eta| <0.9$.
The reconstructed vertex information is used to select primary track candidates and constrain the $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ of the track. The
forward scintillators (VZERO) determine the centrality of the Pb-Pb collisions. Details can be found in\cite{ALICEdetails}.
The photon is detected using the electromagnetic calorimeter (EMCal) which is a Pb-Scintillator sampling calorimeter covering
$\Delta\phi = 100^{\circ}$ in the azimuthal angle and $|\eta| < 0.7$ in pseudorapidity.
Photon candidates are selected from energy clusters deposited in the $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ range at 8 to 25 $\gmom$ by photon identification
cuts. The photon identification cuts include track matching, cluster time and the cluster shower shape long axis parameter,
$\lambda_{0}^{2}$, defined as:
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{0}^{2}=0.5\times(d_{\eta\eta}+d_{\phi\phi})+\sqrt{0.25\times(d_{\eta\eta}-d_{\phi\phi})^{2}+d_{\eta\phi}^{2}}
\end{equation}
where $d_{ii}$ is the cluster position in $i$ direction weighted by the cell energy.
In the di-hadron correlation analysis, about 14 millions minimum-bias Pb-Pb collision events with an integrated luminosity
($L_{\rm int}$) of 1.7 $\mu b^{-1}$ at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 2.76~\tev$ collected in fall 2010 and 37 millions pp events with
the $L_{\rm int}$ of 6.8 $n b^{-1}$ from March 2011 at $\sqrt{s} = 2.76~\tev$ are used. In the isolated photon-hadron correlation
analysis, 10 million pp events with the $L_{\rm int}$ of 500 $n b^{-1}$ at $\sqrt{s} = 7~\tev$ triggered by the EMCal
with a trigger threshold about $5~\gmom$ is used for achieving the measurement of high-$\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ photons up to $25~\gmom$ with
enough rate.
\section{Correlation analysis}
\label{twoparticlecorr}
The $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ dependence of the correlation is studied by measuring triggered correlations. In such an analysis, a particle is
chosen from a $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ region and called the $trigger~particle$. The so called $associated~particles$ from another $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ region
are correlated to the trigger particle where $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, assoc}} < \ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}}$. The associated per-trigger yield is measured as a
function of the azimuthal angle difference $\Delta\phi = \phi_{\rm trig} - \phi_{\rm assoc}$ and pseudorapidity difference
$\Delta\eta = \eta_{\rm trig} - \eta_{\rm assoc}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{corrpair}
Y(\Delta\phi, \Delta\eta) = \frac{1}{N_{\rm trig}}\frac{dN_{\rm assoc}}{d\Delta\phi d\Delta\eta}
\end{equation}
where $N_{\rm assoc}$ is the number of particles associated to a number of trigger particles $N_{\rm trig}$.
This quantity is measured for different ranges of $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}}$ and $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, assoc}}$.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{figure/samemixed}
\caption[]{\label{samemixed}Correlation constructed from pairs of particles from the same events (left panel) and the
mixed events (middle panel)\cite{Jan1}.}
\end{figure}
To obtain the fully corrected per-trigger associated primary particle yield, two steps are performed on the
raw correlations. Firstly, two-track efficiency and acceptance are assessed by using a mixed-event technique: the
differential yield defined in Eq.~\ref{corrpair} is also constructed for pairs where the trigger and the associated
particle come from different events with similar centrality (or multiplicity in pp) and $z$-vertex position. The angular
correlation constructed from particles within the same event and mixed events are shown in the left and right panel in
Fig.~\ref{samemixed}. The acceptance corrected distribution can be obtained from the ratio of pair distributions from the same
and mixed events with a proper normalization factor. The normalization factor is chosen in a way which the distribution
in mixed events is 1 at $\Delta\phi = \Delta\eta = 0$. Secondly, tracking efficiency and track contamination from secondary particles are used to correct
the correlation function.
\subsection{Near-side jet shape}
\label{nearsidejetshape}
A typical per-trigger yield is shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{nearsideshape}. At low $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$, per-trigger yield includes a
sizable contribution from collective flow with a strong modulation in $\Delta\phi$ but independent of $\Delta\eta$. For isolating
jet-like correlations to study the shape of the near-side jet peak, the flow contributions are determined in the long-range
correlation region at $1 < |\Delta\eta| < 1.6$ and subtracted from the short-range correlation region at $|\Delta\eta| < 1$.
This prescription called the $\eta$-gap method provides a measurement independent of the flow strength.
The middle panel of Fig.~\ref{nearsideshape} shows the projection to azimuthal $\Delta\phi$ in $1 < |\Delta\eta| < 1.6$ (red)
and $|\Delta\eta| < 1$ (black). The difference between the two distributions in the near-side is the signal to be searched.
The away-side peak is removed by construction in this procedure. Hence, the away-side region can not be studied with this method.
The right panel of Fig.~\ref{nearsideshape} shows the subtracted per-trigger yield distribution in $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$
with $4 < \ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}} < 8~\gmom$ and $1 < \ensuremath{p_{\rm T, assoc}} < 2~\gmom$ in most central Pb-Pb collisions.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{figure/dihadrondPhidEta}
\includegraphics[scale=0.14]{figure/dihadronSignal}
\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{figure/dihadronEtaGap}
\caption[]{\label{nearsideshape}Left: per-trigger yield; middle: per-trigger yield projection to $\Delta\phi$ in
$1 < |\Delta\eta| < 1.6$ (red) and $|\Delta\eta| < 1$ (black); right: per-trigger yield subtracted flow contributions.
Shown is at trigger $4 < \ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}} < 8~\gmom$, associated $1 < \ensuremath{p_{\rm T, assoc}} < 2~\gmom$ in most central Pb-Pb collisions\cite{Jan1}.}
\end{figure}
In order to quantify the near-side peak shape, the peak is fitted with a sum of two 2D Gaussians with the center at
$\Delta\phi = \Delta\eta = 0$. The fit parameters are used to calculate the $rms$ (equal to the square root of the variance,
$\sigma$, for distributions centered at 0) in $\Delta\phi$ and $\Delta\eta$ direction ($\sigma_{\Delta\phi}$, $\sigma_{\Delta\eta}$).
Fig.~\ref{sigmaphieta} presents the centrality dependence of $\sigma_{\Delta\phi}$ and $\sigma_{\Delta\eta}$ together with
reference results from pp collisions in five different bins of $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}}$ and $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, assoc}}$. The results indicate that
the $\sigma_{\Delta\phi}$ is independent of centrality within the errors, and decreases with increasing $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}}$
and $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, assoc}}$, whereas the $\sigma_{\Delta\eta}$ has a significant increase of moving from pp to central collisions
and also decreases with higher $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}}$ and $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, assoc}}$. More details about this analysis can be found
in\cite{Jan1,Jan2}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{figure/dihadronSigmaPhiFit}
\includegraphics[scale=0.22]{figure/dihadronSigmaEtaFit}
\caption[]{\label{sigmaphieta}Centrality dependence of $\sigma_{\Delta\phi}$ (left) and $\sigma_{\Delta\eta}$ (right) in
five different $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}}$ and $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, assoc}}$ $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ bins.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Modification of the jet-particle yield}
\label{modificationfactor}
At higher $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ ($\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}} > 8~\gmom$, $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, assoc}} > 3~\gmom$) where collective effects are small and jet-like
correlations dominate, the medium modification of the jet-particle yield has been studied by calculating ratios of yields
on the near-side and away-side. In order to remove uncorrelated background from the yield, a pedestal value is determined
by a constant fitting the region close to the minimum of the $\Delta\phi$ distribution ($\Delta\phi \approx \pm \frac{\pi}{2}$)
where uncorrelated background is dominated. A background shape considering the elliptic flow parameter $v_{2}$ is also analyzed.
For a given $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ bin, the $v_{2}$ background is calculated
as $2\langle v_{\rm 2,trig} \rangle \langle v_{\rm 2,assoc} \rangle \cos 2\Delta\phi$. The $v_{2}$ values are taken from an
independent measurement\cite{ALICEflow}. The $\eta$-gap method, described in Sec.~\ref{nearsidejetshape},
is also used to remove the contributions from $\Delta\eta$-independent correlations on the near-side of the per-trigger yield.
Subsequent to the background subtraction, the near-side and away-side yields are integrated within $|\Delta\phi| < 0.7$ and
$|\Delta\phi \pm \pi| < 0.7$, respectively.
The modification of the jet-particle yield is calculated by the ratio of the per-trigger yield in Pb-Pb to pp collisions
($I_{\rm AA}$) and the yield in central to peripheral in Pb-Pb collisions ($I_{\rm CP}$) with $I_{\rm AA} = Y_{\rm Pb-Pb}/Y_{\rm pp}$
and $I_{\rm CP} = Y_{\rm central}^{\rm Pb-Pb}/Y_{\rm peripheral}^{\rm Pb-Pb}$, respectively. The top panel in Fig.~\ref{IAAICP} presents
the yield modification factor $I_{\rm AA}$ for central and peripheral Pb-Pb collisions using the three
background subtraction schemes as discussed. The main significant difference is in the lowest $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, assoc}}$ interval that
confirms the small bias due to flow anisotropies in this $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ region. In central collisions, an away-side suppression
from in-medium energy loss is observed ($I_{\rm AA} \approx 0.6$). Moreover, there is an enhancement above unity of
($I_{\rm AA} \approx 1.2$) on the near-side which has not been observed with any significance at lower collision energies\cite{lowIAA}.
In peripheral collisions, both near-side and away-side are consistent with unity.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{figure/IAA}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{figure/ICP}
\caption[]{\label{IAAICP} $I_{\rm AA}$ (top panel) for central (open black symbols) and peripheral (filled red symbols) collisions
, and $I_{\rm CP}$ (bottom panel). Different background subtraction schemes, a flat pedestal (squares), $v_{2}$ subtraction
(diamonds) and $\eta$-gap subtraction (circles, only near-side) are presented\cite{IAAPaper,Jan3}.
}
\end{figure}
Furthermore, the bottom panel in Fig.~\ref{IAAICP} shows the ratio of the yield in central and peripheral collisions, $I_{\rm CP}$.
The result of $I_{\rm CP}$ is consistent with $I_{\rm AA}$ in central collisions with respect to the near-side enhancement and the away-side
suppression.
A significant near-side enhancement of $I_{\rm AA}$ and $I_{\rm CP}$ in the $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ region observed shows that the near-side parton
is also subject to medium effects. $I_{\rm AA}$ is sensitive to (i) a change of the fragmentation function, (ii) a possible change
of the quark/gluon jet ratio in the final state due to the different coupling to the medium, and (iii) a bias on the parton
$\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ spectrum after energy loss due to the trigger particle selection. More details about this analysis can be found
in\cite{IAAPaper,Jan3}.
\subsection{Fragmentation function}
\label{fragmentationfun}
In isolated photon-hadron correlations, the away-side distribution provides a measurement of the full fragmentation function of
the jet at the opposite azimuthal direction of the isolated photon. In leading order pQCD, the fragmentation function of the recoil
jet from the away-side parton should be given to a good approximation by the imbalance parameter $x_{\rm E}$ distribution as:
\begin{equation}
x_{\rm E} = - \frac{\vec{p}_{T}^{\gamma}\cdot\vec{p}_{T}^{h^{\pm}}}{|\vec{p}_{T}^{\gamma}|^{2}} =
-\frac{|\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}^{h^{\pm}}|\cos\Delta\phi}{|\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}^{\gamma}|}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta\phi$ is the azimuthal angle between isolated photons and hadrons.
The transverse and longitudinal momenta of away-side parton does not exactly balance with the isolated photon. Hence,
the parameter $x_{\rm E}$ is an approximation rather than an exact measurement to the fragmentation function of the away-side
jet\cite{PHENIXFF}. This analysis is only performed with pp collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 7~\tev$.
The left panel in Fig.~\ref{diphox} shows the $x_{\rm E}$ distribution computed from Diphox $\gamma$-jet
production\cite{Diphox} and comparison with DSS quark and gluon fragmentation function\cite{DSS}. It indicates that the
$x_{\rm E}$ distribution mainly follows the quark fragmentation behaviour in a large range (0.2 to 0.8) because of the
dominant contribution of compton scattering process.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm, height=5.85cm]{figure/diPhox}
\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{figure/IsolationCluster}
\caption[]{\label{diphox} Left: $x_{\rm E}$ distribution from $\gamma$-jet production produced by Diphox, and compared to
DSS quark and gluon fragmentation; right: $x_{\rm E}$ distribution of isolated cluster (photon candidate)-hadron correlations
in three $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}}$ bins\cite{ALICEIsoPhoton}.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figure/IsolationPi0}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figure/DDS}
\caption[]{\label{pi0xE}Left: $x_{\rm E}$ distributions of isolated $\pi^{0}$-hadron correlations in three $\ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}}$ bins;
right: slopes extracted from exponential fit of isolated $\pi^{0}$-hadron correlations and compared to DSS quark-gluons
fragmentation functions\cite{ALICEIsoPhoton}.}
\end{figure}
Clusters filtered by EMCal photon identification cuts, photon candidates, are dominated by a large fraction of decay photons of neutral
mesons (mostly $\pi^{0}$). The fraction is reduced about 80\% by applied isolation criteria. In this analysis, the isolation
criteria requires no particles including charged and neutral particles with $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}} > 0.5~\gmom$ in a cone of radius
$R=\sqrt{\Delta\phi^{2}+\Delta\eta^{2}} = 0.4$ around a photon candidate with largest $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ in one event. The right panel in
Fig.~\ref{diphox} presents the $x_{\rm E}$ distribution from isolated cluster (photon candidate)-hadron correlations with isolated
leading cluster $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ at $8 < \ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}} < 12~\gmom$ (black), $12 < \ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}} < 16~\gmom$ (red), and $16 < \ensuremath{p_{\rm T, trig}} < 25~\gmom$ (blue).
Two decay photons from high $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$ $\pi^{0}$ are generally close and their two electromagnetic showers overlapping in the calorimeter cells
are clustered. A fraction of the clusters rejected unsuccessfully by photon identification cuts are the dominant contamination
of isolated photons. In order to subtract the contamination, the $x_{\rm E}$ distribution of isolated $\pi^{0}$-hadron correlations
is measured, see the left panel in Fig.~\ref{pi0xE}. Compared to inclusive $\pi^{0}$, the isolated $\pi^{0}$ equally
carries a large fraction of its parent parton energy from 0.5 to 0.8. An exponential slope is extracted from fitting
the $x_{\rm E}$ distribution of isolated $\pi^{0}$-hadron correlations and compared to DSS fragmentation functions shown in
the right panel in Fig.~\ref{pi0xE}. The comparison indicates that the isolated $\pi^{0}$ is a parton fragmentation product
and $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}^{\pi^{0}} < \ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}^{\rm parton}$.
To subtract the contamination contribution to the $x_{\rm E}$ distribution, the isolated photon purity is estimated firstly by
two-component binned likelihood method: a mix of scaled signal and contamination distribution is used to fit all clusters in pp
collision data at shower shape long axis $\lambda_{0}^{2}$ distribution, see the left panel in Fig.~\ref{islaotedPhoton}. Here,
the signal component is obtained from $\gamma$-jet events generated with PYTHIA and propagated through the detectors with
GEANT3, and the contamination component is extracted from data by selecting events which have failed the isolation
criteria. The typical purity values obtained from this method in $8 < \ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}} < 25~\gmom$ increase from about 5\% to 70\%.
The $x_{\rm E}$ distribution of isolated $\pi^{0}$-hadron correlations scaled with respect to the isolated photon purity
estimated previous is subtracted from isolated cluster-hadron correlations. In the meanwhile, the underlying events $x_{\rm E}$
contributions which are estimated at two different regions $\frac{\pi}{3} < \Delta\phi < \frac{2\pi}{3}$ and
$\frac{4\pi}{3} < \Delta\phi < \frac{5\pi}{3}$ are also removed from the isolated cluster-hadron correlations. The $x_{\rm E}$
distribution of isolated photon-hadron correlations is shown in the right panel in Fig.~\ref{islaotedPhoton}, and a slope
$7.8 \pm 0.9$ is obtained from the fitting of $x_{\rm E}$ distribution at $0.2 < x_{\rm E} < 0.8$. More details about this analysis
can be found in\cite{ALICEIsoPhoton}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figure/IsolationPurityShowerShape}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{figure/IsolationPhoton}
\caption[]{\label{islaotedPhoton}Left: isolated cluster shower shape long axis $\lambda_{0}^{2}$ distribution fitted by a
two-component binned likelihood; right: $x_{\rm E}$ distributions of isolated photon-hadron correlations at
$8 < \ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}^{\rm iso~\gamma} < 25~\gmom$\cite{ALICEIsoPhoton}.}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary}
\label{summary}
Two-particle correlations have been used to study the properties of the hot and dense medium with ALICE at LHC. In di-hadron correlations,
the medium effect on the near-side jet peak is quantified at transverse momenta below $10~\gmom$. A broadening at lower $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$
intervals of trigger and associated particles and in more central Pb-Pb collisions is observed. The near-side peaks show a
significant increase in $\Delta\eta$ moving from pp to central Pb-Pb collisions and no centrality dependence in $\Delta\phi$ within
errors. This might be an indication of interaction of jets with longitudinal flow. At higher $\ensuremath{p_{\rm{T}}}$, the modification factors
$I_{\rm AA}$ and $I_{\rm CP}$ of the jet-particle yield show a strong suppression on the away-side consistent with strong
medium energy loss as well as an interesting near-side enhancement by effect of medium at the LHC. The fragmentation function
in pp collisions is calculated by the imbalance parameter $x_{\rm E}$ extracted from isolated leading photon-hadron
correlations.
\section{Acknowledgement}
This work is partly supported by the ``973'' Grant of MOST of China 2013CB837803, the NSFC Key Grant 11020101060,
IRG11221504, 11375071, 11005044, the CCNU Key Grant CCNU13F026 and QLPL2012P01.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
There are many combinatorial optimization problems intractable with modern digital computers and existing algorithms \cite{bib:NPC}.
Among these, NP problems can be solved in a polynomial time only with a hypothetical non-deterministic Turing machine.
In NP problems, it is examined if given instances meet certain conditions.
On the other hand, NP-hard problems basically require the most optimized solutions in various kinds of combinatorial optimization problems
and are as difficult as NP problems at least.
Both of them are believed to require the computational time growing exponentially with the problem size.
The problems that can be both NP and NP-hard are called NP-complete problems.
NP-complete problems can be mapped to each other with polynomial-time overheads.
Thus, solving an NP-complete problem efficiently is a holy grail for computer science and information technology \cite{bib:P_vs_NP}.
From the viewpoint of statistical physics, the ground state of the Ising Hamiltonian
${\cal H} = \sum _{i < j} J_{ij} \sigma _i \sigma _j + \sum _{i} \lambda _i \sigma _i$ is important to understand mysterious properties of spin glasses and magnetic disorders.
However, finding a ground state of the Ising Hamiltonian (Ising problem) of two dimensional lattices with external fields and that of three dimensional lattices are known to be NP-hard \cite{bib:Barahona}.
They can be reduced to NP-complete problems when we consider the decision problem if there is a state with an energy eigenvalue smaller than a prescribed value.
Also, other NP-complete problems such as MAX-CUT and graph partitioning can be easily mapped to anti-ferromagnetic Ising problems \cite{bib:Barahona2,bib:SP_Glass}.
Various computational schemes, such as simulated annealing \cite{bib:SA},
quantum annealing \cite{bib:QA_Ising},
and adiabatic quantum computation \cite{bib:AQC}
have been proposed and developed to solve such combinatorial optimization problems.
Especially, the adiabatic quantum computation has shown a good result for the NP-complete Exact Cover problem in small problem sizes \cite{bib:AQC_NPC}.
However, a further study has revealed that the problem size dependence of the computational time has a transition into an exponential scaling at a large problem size $M \sim 100$ \cite{bib:Young}.
Nevertheless, such an idea has triggered an experimental implementation of various quantum simulators and quantum annealers \cite{bib:QS_exp1,*bib:QS_exp2,*bib:QS_exp3,*bib:QS_exp4,*bib:QS_exp5}.
Also, the non-Hermitian quantum annealing scheme has recently achieved a high transition probability to get the target state in Grover's search problem \cite{bib:NLAQC}.
We have recently proposed a new computational machine \cite{bib:Utsunomiya_Takata_Yamamoto,bib:Takata_Utsunomiya_Yamamoto} for the Ising problem based on an injection-locked laser network [Fig. \ref{fig:laser_network}(a)].
In this coherent Ising machine, the normalized amplitude difference in circularly polarized modes of each slave laser is regarded as
an artificial spin with a continuous value.
Then, the Hamiltonian relaxed to a continuous function is embedded into the sum of the gain coefficients for all the slave lasers as a modulation induced by the mutual injection,
and gets dependent on the polarization configuration of the slave lasers ($\{|R \rangle, \, |L \rangle\}^M$).
The minimum gain coefficient means the minimum effective loss of photons and then the maximum number of photons in a laser.
Thus, when the mutual injection is introduced, the system spontaneously searches for a ground state of the mapped Hamiltonian with its bosonic nature.
In this paper, we study two operational schemes of the coherent Ising machine to improve its performance.
The first scheme is named ``gradual pumping'' (GP) scheme, where the pumping power into the slave lasers, i.e. the gain, is slowly increased [Fig. \ref{fig:laser_network}(b)].
In other well-known schemes such as simulated annealing and quantum annealing, the system temperature is gradually decreased and the quantum tunneling is gradually turned off, respectively.
In these cases, however, the system may be trapped in metastable excited states whose number increases exponentially in a hard instance of NP-complete/NP-hard problems.
In order to resolve such a dilemma, we map the energy landscape of a given problem to the net loss landscape of the network of gain media.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[clip, scale=0.3]{figure1.eps
\caption{Schematic illustrations for (a) the coherent Ising machine with mutual optical coupling, (b) the loss and gain landscape in the gradual pumping scheme and (c) the gradual path between the initial and final states in the gradual coupling scheme.}\label{fig:laser_network}
\end{figure}
When we gradually increase the pumping power which is equivalent to the effective negative temperature of the inverted medium,
the first contact between the gain and polarization-dependent loss occurs at the ground state with the minimum loss.
Here, it is expected the system undergoes the phase transition from the initial state to the ground state in a way that the metastable excited states do not interfere with a computational process.
Note that the loss difference between the ground state and first excited state does not explicitly depend on the problem size $M$,
while the total spontaneous emission noise of the slave laser network is only proportional to $M$.
The second scheme is called ``gradual coupling'' (GC) scheme, which is inspired by the non-Hermitian annealing \cite{bib:NLAQC}.
In this case, each slave laser originally has fixed pumping level and only the vertically polarized injection signal ($ |V \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|R \rangle + |L \rangle) $).
Then, the mutual coupling between slave lasers is gradually increased [Fig. \ref{fig:laser_network}(c)].
Thus, the system is expected to show the phase transition from the master signal dominant state to the mutual injection dominant state
with the minimum total loss.
Note that this scheme is distinct from quantum annealing, because the coherent Ising machine utilizes macroscopic
coherent states of light in the open system with continual inflow and outflow of energy.
On the other hand, quantum entanglement between single particles cannot be exploited in this machine.
For a benchmark of them, we code a random $M$-bit data file $\{+1, \, -1 \}^M$ into the Ising (Mattis) Hamiltonian \cite{bib:Nishimori} in particular cubic graphs.
Here, the Hamiltonian reflecting the picked target state as a ground state is loaded to the system.
The ground state should be trivial, so the problem does not have any frustration and hard instances.
Instead, we expect consistent parameter dependence properties of the result.
Such an algorithm is equivalent to information decoding with a spin glass model and can be regarded as a simple associative memory .
We numerically simulate the Ising machine with the two operational schemes for the problem described above.
The parameter dependent performance of the GP and GC schemes shows that (i) stronger mutual coupling gives better results, and (ii) slower processes and higher pumping levels lead to higher success probabilities.
The problem size dependence of the success probability gradually decreases in the problem size up to $M = 1000$ with typical parameters.
However, the computational time scales almost linearly with the problem size around $M = 1000$.
Also, we get a finite success probability for $M = 2000$ with realistic tuning of the parameters.
We start in Sec. \ref{sec:model} with the working equations of the laser Ising machine and explain the problems in the cubic graphs used here.
In Sec. \ref{sec:result}, we show the simulation results such as an example of dynamics of the system,
the performance dependent on parameters and the scaling of the computational time with the problem size.
Next, we discuss the properties of this machine in Sec. \ref{sec:discussion}.
Finally, we conclude the paper in Sec. \ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{THEORETICAL MODEL}\label{sec:model}
\subsection{Langevin equations}
The field density operator of each slave laser is expanded with Glauber-Sudarshan $P(\alpha _{i})$ representation of coherent states and substituted into the master equation of
an injection-locked laser \cite{bib:laser_phys,bib:Haus_Yamamoto}.
The resulting Fokker-Planck equation corresponds to the c-number Langevin equation for the eigenvalue of the coherent state $\alpha _{i}$ via the Kramers-Moyal expansion coefficients \cite{bib:FPE}:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt} \alpha _{i} = \left[ - \frac{1}{2} \frac{\omega}{Q} + G_{i} - S_{i} |\alpha _{i}|^2 \right] \alpha _{i} + \frac{\omega}{Q} \beta _{i} + \sqrt{G_{i}} \, F_{i}. \label{eq:Langevin}
\end{equation}
Here, $\omega/Q$ is the cavity photon decay rate, $G _{i}$ is the linear gain coefficient and $S _{i}$ is the gain saturation coefficient.
$\beta _{i}$ is the sum of the amplitudes of the master injection signal and the mutual injection signal from other slave lasers.
It is assumed all the slave lasers are injection-locked to the master laser, and the Q factors of all lasers are the same.
$F_{i}$ is the Gaussian noise term and satisfy $\langle F_{i}(t) \rangle = 0$ and $\langle F_{i}(t) F_{i}(t') \rangle = 2 \delta (t - t')$.
More rigorously, the stochastic differential equation corresponding to Eq.(\ref{eq:Langevin}) is derived with Ito's rule \cite{bib:Gardiner},
and the link between them is given by Feynman-Kac formula \cite{bib:Feynman,bib:Kac}.
Eq.(\ref{eq:Langevin}) is decomposed into the equations for the real number amplitude $\{A_{Xi}\}$ and phase $\{\phi _{Xi}\}$ for the diagonal linear polarization modes \cite{bib:Utsunomiya_Takata_Yamamoto}:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{dt}A_{Xi}&=&-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\omega}{Q}-E_{CVi}\right)A_{Xi}+\frac{\omega}{Q} \zeta A_M \cos \left(-\phi_{Xi}\right)
- \sum_{j \neq i}\frac{1}{2} \frac{\omega}{Q} \xi_{ij} \left\{ A_{Xj} \cos \big[\phi_{Xj}-\phi_{Xi} \big] - A_{\bar{X}j} \cos \big[\phi_{\bar{X}j}-\phi_{Xi} \big] \right\} + F_{AXi}, \label{eq:SDE AXi}\\
\frac{d}{dt}\phi_{Xi}& = & \frac{\omega}{Q}\frac{1}{A_{Xi}} \Big\{ \zeta A_M \sin \left(-\phi_{Xi}\right)
- \sum_{j\neq i}\frac{1}{2}\xi_{ij}\left[ A_{Xj} \sin \big(\phi_{Xj} - \phi_{Xi} \big)- A_{\bar{X}j} \sin \big(\phi_{\bar{X}j} - \phi_{Xi} \big)\right] \Big\}
+ F_{\phi Xi}, \label{eq:SDE phiXi}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
where $\{ X, \bar{X} \} = \{D, \bar{D}\}$ are combinations of the two linear polarization modes along $\pm 45^\circ$ with
respect to the vertical linear polarization. $i, j = 1,2, \ldots M$ are indices for slave lasers and $M$ is the problem size (the number of Ising spins).
$\zeta$ is the coupling coefficient for the master laser signal, whose amplitude is denoted by $A_M$.
The mutual coupling constant $\xi _{ij} = \alpha(t) \, J_{ij}$ is determined by the transmission coefficient $\alpha(t)$ and the Ising interaction parameter $J_{ij}$.
The gain term $G_{i} - S_{i} |\alpha _{i}|^2$ and the diffusion coefficient $G _{i}$ in Eq.(\ref{eq:Langevin}) correspond to the gain $E_{CVi}$ induced by the active carrier
and the pumping rate $P(t)$, respectively.
We add the following equation of motion for the carrier number $\{N_{Ci}\}$
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt} N_{Ci} = P(t) - \frac{N_{Ci}}{\tau _{sp}} - E_{CVi} (A_{Di}^2 + A_{\bar{D}i}^2) + F_{NCi}, \label{eq:rateNC}
\end{equation}
where $E_{CVi} = \beta N_{Ci}/\tau _{sp}$ and $\beta$ is the spontaneous emission coupling efficiency.
$F_{AXi}$, $F_{\phi Xi}$ and $F_{NCi}$ are noise terms.
We consider only spontaneous emission noise with the rate $E_{CVi}$ in the numerical simulation,
since it is a dominant noise source fluctuating the phases of the diagonal polarization modes \cite{bib:Utsunomiya_Takata_Yamamoto,bib:Henry}.
Spontaneous emission processes are treated as the discrete random Poisson process for each numerical integration time step $\Delta t$,
and each spontaneous emission photon coupled to the laser field has unit norm and random phase.
Ref. \onlinecite{bib:Henry} has shown that this model reproduces the correct Langevin forces in the continuous time unit.
We numerically integrate Eqs. (\ref{eq:SDE AXi}), (\ref{eq:SDE phiXi}) and (\ref{eq:rateNC}) and continuously monitor the mapped collective spins $\sigma _i = (A_{Ri} - A_{Li})/\sqrt{A_{Ri}^2 + A_{Li}^2}$
using Eqs.(35) and (36) in Ref. \onlinecite{bib:Utsunomiya_Takata_Yamamoto}.
Here $A_{Ri}$ and $A_{Li}$ are the slowly-varying amplitudes of the right and left circularly polarized modes of the $i$th slave laser.
Signs of $\{\sigma _i\}$ are used to determine the Ising spin $\{\sigma _i\} = +1$ or $-1$.
\subsection{Problem setting}
In Fig. \ref{fig:prob}(a), we show an example of cubic graphs with $M = 8$ for the data search problem considered in this study.
Here, the nodes align in a ring shape. Each node has the couplings to the nearest neighbors and the diameter chord.
The Ising coupling term are set for a picked target state $\{\sigma _{Ai}\} = \{+1, -1\}$ as
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[clip, scale=0.25]{figure2.eps}
\caption{(a) An example of cubic graphs considered here with $M=8$. (b) An example of energy (or effective loss) landscape in a problem with $M=20$.}\label{fig:prob}
\end{figure}
\begin{equation}
J_{ij} = \begin{cases}
-\sigma _{Ai}\sigma _{Aj} & ({\rm if \ node } \ i \ {\rm and } \ j \ {\rm are \ connected}), \\
0 & ({\rm otherwise}).
\end{cases} \label{eq:Jij}
\end{equation}
Fig. \ref{fig:prob}(b) is an example of energy (net loss) landscapes in this Ising problem with $M = 20$.
This Hamiltonian does not have any frustration so that it has only two ground states, while the total number of states is $10^6$.
By definition of the couplings, one of the ground states is identical to the target state.
The difference between the mapped energy of the ground states ($E_{\rm g}$) and the first excited states ($E_{\rm 1e}$) is independent of $M$ and equal to $6 |J_{ij}| = 6$.
This is because of the highly symmetric property of the graph. We show a concise proof with induction in the Appendix.
Similar problems are also discussed in the context of information coding and decoding with statistical mechanics \cite{bib:Nishimori}.
\section{SIMULATION RESULT}\label{sec:result}
\subsection{Dynamics of the system}
Here, we show a variety of simulation results of the machine for the setting described in the previous sections.
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\includegraphics[clip, trim= 0 0 0 0, scale=0.25]{figure3.eps}
\caption{A set of examples of time evolution of (a) the polarization states (collective spins) and (b) the carrier numbers for a target file with $M=4$ in the gradual pumping scheme. Transit of (c) the spins and (d) the carrier numbers in the gradual coupling scheme.
The inset of (a) and (c) are the scheduling of the pumping level and coupling coefficient.}\label{fig:transit}
\end{figure*}
Fig. \ref{fig:transit}(a) and (b) show the time evolution of the polarization states (collective spins) and the carrier numbers in the GP scheme for $M=4$.
The inset of Fig. \ref{fig:transit}(a) is the schematic pumping schedule of all slave lasers. The pumping schedule is composed of the two linear parts
(rapid and slow increase) with the turning point $t_{\rm mid} = 10 \ {\rm ns}$ (fixed for all the simulations here),
and the pumping gets constant at $t = t_{\rm f}$.
The process time is defined as $t_{\rm P} \equiv t_{\rm f} - t_{\rm mid}$.
The parameters commonly used in this study are $\omega/Q = 10^{11} \ {\rm s}^{-1}$, $\tau _{\rm sp} = 10^{-9} \ {\rm s}$ and $\beta = 10^{-6}$.
The threshold pumping current is $I_{\rm th} = e P_{\rm th} = 16 \ {\rm mA}$, where $e$ is the elementary charge and $P_{\rm th}$ is the threshold pumping rate.
In the GP scheme, the master laser signal is injected at $t = 0$ and the slave laser amplifies this signal so that the collective spin
is prepared in $\sigma _{i} = 0$ for all $i$.
With a proper intermediate value $P_{\rm mid} = P(t_{\rm mid})$, the collective spins bifurcate at a time between $t_{\rm mid}$ and $t_{\rm f}$ (here $t_{\rm f} = 1010 \ {\rm ns}$).
The plot of carrier numbers has a small overshoot at the bifurcation point, which indicates that once the minimum loss (ground) state is selected, the gain is decreased accordingly.
Fig. \ref{fig:transit}(c) and (d) show the transient examples of the collective spins and carrier numbers in the GC scheme,
and the inset of Fig. \ref{fig:transit}(c) is the coupling schedule. In this scheme, the total gain monotonically decreases as the optical coupling increases.
Here, all the slave lasers bifurcate their polarizations and produce the clear signals in both schemes.
However, in a large problem size the polarization bifurcation can be degraded by noise and the system can fail to find a ground state.
In this case, the values of the collective spins get non-uniform and some slave lasers have nearly $\sigma _i \sim 0$.
Also, the system occasionally shows strong bifurcation into $D$ and $\bar{D}$ polarization modes (not $R$ and $L$ modes).
In this case, however, a correct ground state can be recovered with the decision based on the $\{D, \bar{D}\}$
basis, i.e. via the new definition of the collective spin $\sigma _i = (A_{Di} - A_{\bar{D}i})/\sqrt{A_{Di}^2 + A_{\bar{D}i}^2}$.
Note that the coupling optics with a horizontal polarizer \cite{bib:Utsunomiya_Takata_Yamamoto,bib:Takata_Utsunomiya_Yamamoto} can implement the identical
loss modulation for $D$ and $\bar{D}$ modes as the $R$ and $L$ modes.
\subsection{Parameter dependence of performance}
Fig. \ref{fig:parameter dep}(a) and (b) show the dependence of the success probability and computational time on the coupling coefficient $\alpha$ in the GP scheme.
We pick a 100-spin problem and run the simulation 50 times for each value of the parameter considered.
We change the coupling coefficient $\zeta$ of the master laser signal proportional to $\alpha$ to keep the good balance between them. Other parameters are fixed.
We define the computational time as the time where a ground state is found with all the collective spins above a certain threshold $|\sigma _{\rm i}| = 0.071$.
This value achieves a measurement signal-to-noise ratio of $ S/N \sim 10^3$ with a detection quantum efficiency $\eta _{D} = 0.01$, an integration time $T = 1 \ {\rm ns}$ and a total photon number $n_{Ti} = 10^4$ in a slave laser \cite{bib:Utsunomiya_Takata_Yamamoto}.
Here, $n_{Ti} \ll 1/\beta = 10^6$, thus any pumping rates above the threshold have better $S/N$ ratios.
The resulting upper bound of the measurement error rate is $P_{\rm e} \sim 6.4 \times 10^{-57}$ for a single slave laser and negligible even in a 1000 laser system.
Collective spins are basically monitored with the circular polarization basis.
The check with the diagonal mode basis is conducted at the final state and reflected in the success probability.
The net computational time denotes the worst computational time divided by the success probability.
Fig. \ref{fig:parameter dep}(a) shows that a stronger mutual coupling $\alpha$ tends to give a higher success probability.
Also, a relatively large noise effect with a small $\alpha$ leads to bifurcation in the $D$ or $\bar{D}$ mode then a low overall success probability.
In Fig. \ref{fig:parameter dep}(b), the computational time decreases with increasing $\alpha$ and saturates at $\alpha \gtrsim 0.01$.
With a small $\alpha$, the system can give a slow transition process and need a long time to find a ground state.
Fig. \ref{fig:parameter dep}(c) and (d) show the dependence of the success probability and simulated computational time on the rate of increasing the mutual coupling between
$t_{\rm mid}$ and $t_{\rm f}$ in the GC scheme.
Fig. \ref{fig:parameter dep}(c) shows a clear tendency that a slower process gives a better success probability.
The process with ${\rm d}\alpha/{\rm d}t \rightarrow \infty$ can be regarded as the abrupt introduction of the mutual injection in the previous study,
thus it can be said the GC scheme improves the success probability compared to the abrupt scheme \cite{bib:Utsunomiya_Takata_Yamamoto,bib:Takata_Utsunomiya_Yamamoto}.
We have got a similar result also in the GP scheme.
In Fig. \ref{fig:parameter dep}(d), a slower process (a longer $t_{\rm P}$) requires a longer computational time nearly linear with $t_{\rm P}$ when other conditions keep unchanged.
Fig. \ref{fig:parameter dep}(e) and (f) show the dependence of the success probability and computational time on the final pumping level $I_{\rm sf}$ normalized by the threshold pumping $I_{\rm th}$ in the GP scheme.
Here, the end time of the process $t_{\rm f}$ is fixed, thus the slope ${\rm d}P/{\rm d}t$ is variable.
A large coherent slave laser signal with a high pumping level leads to clear computation against noise.
At the same time, however, a higher pumping results in a higher slope ${\rm d}P/{\rm d}t$ which degrades the performance as seen in Fig. \ref{fig:parameter dep}(c) and (d).
Thus, Fig. \ref{fig:parameter dep}(e) and (f) have the optimum points at $I_{\rm sf}/I_{\rm th} = 7$ out of these two effects.
\subsection{Net computational time}
Fig. \ref{fig:M dep}(a) and (b) show the problem size dependence of the success probability and the net computational time for the three schemes.
For each problem size, we pick five targets and run the simulation ten times for each target (for $M=1000$ in the abrupt scheme, we take 15 targets).
The success probability is determined with the combined readouts using both circular and diagonal measurement bases.
The ratio $P_{\rm mid}/P_{\rm f} = 0.5$ (GP) and $\alpha _{\rm mid}/\alpha _{\rm f} = 0.6$ (GC) are selected to obtain close bifurcation times.
Other parameters are identical: $\alpha({\rm GP}) = \alpha _{\rm f}({\rm GC}) = 0.02$, $I _{\rm sf}({\rm GP}) = I _{\rm s}({\rm GC}) = 3 \ I _{\rm th}$ and $t_{\rm P} = 1 \ {\rm \mu s}$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[clip, scale=0.19]{figure4.eps}
\caption{(a) The success probability and (b) the net computational time dependent on the coupling coefficient $\alpha$ in the GP scheme.
(c) The success probability and (d) the net computational time dependent on the process speed ${\rm d}\alpha /{\rm d}t$ in the GC scheme.
(e) The success probability and (f) the net computational time dependent on the normalized final pumping level $I_{\rm sf}/I_{\rm th}$ in the GP scheme.}\label{fig:parameter dep}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:M dep}(a), the success probability shows the gradual decrease in large problem sizes in the gradual pumping and coupling schemes.
In contrast, the probability for the abrupt scheme gets lower.
In Fig. \ref{fig:M dep}(b), the net computational time for the GP and GC schemes keep nearly constant up to $M = 200$ and turn into nearly linear increase.
On the other hand, the computational time for the abrupt scheme monotonically increases and gets longer than those for the gradual pumping and coupling schemes over $M=400$.
Here, we add the performance of the GC scheme with a sign flip for a random coupling coefficient $J_{ij} \ (=J_{ji})$.
This keeps a good success probability and a better computational time than those for the abrupt scheme over $M=400$.
A sign flip of $J_{ij}$ induces a single frustrated part in the original ground state.
However, originally $E_{\rm g} - E_{\rm 1e} = 6$, thus the ground states remain still.
This means the cubic graph system is insusceptible to a single phase flip error in the mutual coupling configuration,
i.e. the encoded data of the target state.
Note that a simpler implementation with 1D rings does not have such robustness.
We add the scaling of brute force search $(2^{M})$ for the information.
The net computational time with the laser Ising machine has a much better scaling,
probably because of the simple structure of the benchmarked problem.
We can increase the success probability for a large problem size by using even an slower process and a higher pumping power.
We have got the success probability of $34\%$ with $ \{ t_{\rm P}, I_{\rm sf}/I_{\rm th} \} = \{3 \ {\rm \mu s}, 20\} $ for $M = 1000$ and
$15\%$ with $ \{ t_{\rm P}, I_{\rm sf}/I_{\rm th} \} = \{10 \ {\rm \mu s}, 50\} $ for $M = 2000$ in the GC scheme.
Here the numbers of the candidate states $2^M$ differ by $2^{1000} \simeq 10^{300}$ times between $M = 1000$ and 2000,
but the system does not need a large ratio for $t_{\rm P}$ and $I_{\rm sf}$ to obtain a reasonable success probability.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[clip,trim= 0 0 0 0, scale=0.33]{figure5.eps
\caption{(a) The success probability and (b) the net computational time dependent on the number of spins $M$.}\label{fig:M dep}
\end{figure}
This indicates the time and pumping resource required to solve this problem does not grow exponentially even for a relatively large problem size.
Here, we note it has been shown some open quantum systems with frustration-free Hamiltonians can converge at steady states in sub-exponential time \cite{bib:Verstraete}.
\section{DISCUSSION}\label{sec:discussion}
\subsection{Success probability}
Here we discuss properties of the coherent laser machine from various points of view.
First, we take a closer look at the success probability. Fig. \ref{fig:prob_small_size} shows the ratio of the number of degenerate ground states $N_{\rm g}$ to those of degenerate excited states.
Here, $N_{\rm 1e}$ and $N_{\rm 2e}$ denote the number of first and second excited states, respectively.
These values have been computed with the brute force search up to $M = 32$, and extrapolated for larger problem sizes.
We add the success probability with the GP scheme out of 50 trials and that with the abrupt scheme out of 200 trials for each $M$.
We took only a single problem randomly for each $M$, however, the computed numbers of states are exactly along with the extrapolation curves
$N_{\rm 1e} = 2 M$ and $N_{\rm 2e} = M (M + 6)/4$ for $M \ge 6$.
This fact indicates the universality of the considered problem due to its graphic symmetry.
Here, from the data of failure, we expect the local minima which mostly affects the laser machine are second excited states.
The ratios $N_{\rm g}/(N_{\rm g} + N_{\rm 1e})$ and $N_{\rm g}/(N_{\rm g} + N_{\rm 1e} + N_{\rm 2e})$ are inversely proportional to $M$ and $M^2$,
while the laser network keeps the high success probability: 100 \% for the GP scheme and $\ge 90$ \% for the abrupt pumping scheme up to $M=40$.
This clearly shows this machine is distinct from simple probabilistic searches and preferably takes the minimum gain states, especially in the gradual schemes.
A possible reason for failure in the GP scheme can be probabilistic errors due to a finite time necessary for the system to detect and amplify the final state.
The machine keeps increasing the gain in the process because of the unknown gain of the ground states.
Therefore, if it remains at the initial state long, it may get an enough gain with which an excited state can oscillate.
This malfunction can be overcome by slowing the pumping process.
Another possibility is disturbance by noise.
The sum of the gain coefficients at the steady state, which determines the absolute photonic loss of the whole system, is given by \cite{bib:Utsunomiya_Takata_Yamamoto}
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i} E_{CVi} = M \frac{\omega}{Q} - \zeta \sum_{i} \sqrt{2 - \sigma_{i}^{2}} + \alpha \sum_{i<j} J_{ij} \sigma_{i} \sigma_{j},
\end{equation}
where the first, second and third term are associated with the cold cavity dissipation, the master and mutual injection, respectively.
Thus, when the mutual injection gets dominant at the phase transition, a minimum loss state corresponds to a ground state of Ising Hamiltonian.
Then, the energy gap between a ground state and a first excited state is expected to depend only on the coupling coefficient $\alpha J_{ij}$.
On the other hand, the total noise power in the whole system is proportional to $M$.
Thus, the success probability is considered to decrease with the problem size $\propto M^{-1}$ above a certain threshold,
and the simulation result seems to support this behavior.
Note that the GC scheme also shows such characteristics.
The difference in performance of the GP and GC methods is not significant and can be explained by the small difference in the parameter ratio
($P_{\rm mid}/P_{\rm f}$ and $\alpha _{\rm mid}/\alpha _{\rm f}$) and then the slope of these.
Thus, we expect these two have almost the same computational ability.
\subsection{Response speed of the machine}
Next, we discuss the response of the laser network machine at the onset of bifurcation.
If we neglect the noise terms including spontaneous emission, the equation for the amplitude difference in circular polarization is given by \cite{bib:Utsunomiya_Takata_Yamamoto,bib:Takata_Utsunomiya_Yamamoto}
\begin{widetext}
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}\left(A_{Ri} - A_{Li}\right) = - \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\omega}{Q} - E_{CVi}\right) \left(A_{Ri} - A_{Li}\right) - \frac{\omega}{Q} \sum_{j \neq i} \xi_{ij} \left(A_{Rj} - A_{Lj}\right).\label{eq:difference}
\end{equation}
\end{widetext}
Here, note that the master signal term vanishes in the equation.
We do not consider the time dependence of $E_{CVi}$ i.e. $N_{Ci}$ because the field response is much faster: $\omega/Q \gg 1/\tau_{\rm sp}$.
By assuming that all the slave lasers are homogeneously driven into a target state as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:transit}, we can set $\xi _{ij} (A_{Rj} - A_{Lj}) \approx - \alpha |A_{Ri} - A_{Li}|$.
With this and Eq. (\ref{eq:difference}), we derive the approximate response around the bifurcation point by the cubic graph system as
\begin{equation}
|\sigma _i | = \frac{|A_{Ri} - A_{Li}|}{\sqrt{n_{Ti}}} \approx C \exp \biggl[ \biggl( \frac{- \omega /Q + E_{CVi}}{2} + 3 \alpha \frac{\omega}{Q} \biggr) t \biggr], \label{eq:approx}
\end{equation}
where the small change in $n_{Ti}$ due to injection is neglected. $C$ is an integral constant.
We see, when the bifurcation occurs, the polarization configuration is formed with the exponentially fast modulation by the injection signal in ideal cases.
The gradual schemes enhance the success probability by changing in $E_{CVi}$ or $\alpha$ slowly.
Also, Eq. (\ref{eq:approx}) indicates the magnitude of injection signals directly affect the response speed of the system \cite{bib:Takata_Utsunomiya_Yamamoto}, and possibly the distribution of the values of collective spins.
For NP-hard problems with frustration, the system often has imbalance of the response speeds and the collective spins in the slave lasers then get unable to read a correct answer.
Thus, the previous abrupt injection scheme needs a self-learning algorithm to compensate for it \cite{bib:Kai}.
\subsection{Algorithmic properties}
Finally, we discuss the laser Ising machine as an algorithm.
The laser machine itself is a kind of relaxation algorithms in the meaning that it maps discrete variables to continuous variables.
This point is in common with the well-known semi-definite programming (SDP) algorithm for optimization problems \cite{bib:Vazirani}.
The laser network machine utilizes the three-dimensional Poincar\'e sphere for each spin, while SDP exploits an $M$-dimensional vector.
SDP requires an algorithm to drive the state to an optimum one, as typified by interior point methods,
and such a method costs the order ${\rm O}(M^3)$ of basic operations at least \cite{bib:Korte}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\includegraphics[clip,trim= 0 34 0 10, scale=0.33]{figure6.eps
\caption{The ratio of the number of ground states in a single problem up to $M = 40$. The success probability with the GP scheme and the abrupt scheme are concurrently shown.}\label{fig:prob_small_size}
\end{figure}
Also, if SDP can be solved with an arbitrarily small error,
a rounding algorithm to map the vectors back to discrete variables guarantees the worst approximation rate of 87.8$\%$ for the MAX-CUT problem \cite{bib:0.878_alg}.
The laser network depends on the dynamics of the coupled differential equations for finding an optimum state.
As an experimental system, the laser machine shows a nearly ${\rm O}(M)$ scaling of the computational time up to $M=1000$ for the data search problem studied here.
Also, Ref. \onlinecite{bib:Kai} shows some good results of comparison between the simulated performance of the laser machine and SDP for hard optimization problems.
As an computational simulation, however, we need some additional time complexities.
For limited numbers of couplings for each spin (sparse interaction matrices), numerical integration costs ${\rm O}(M)$ operations multiplied by the order of the net computational time the machine needs.
Thus, the overall time complexity for simulations of the laser machine here is about ${\rm O}(M^2)$.
In addition, the numerical integration method used here (fixed-step $4 \times 4$ Runge-Kutta method and additional stochastic noise) requires a large coefficient outside the complexity.
Thus the simulation for the laser network seems to take more time than SDP in practice.
\section{CONCLUSION}\label{sec:conclusion}
In conclusion, we have studied two gradual driving schemes for the coherent Ising machine.
The GP scheme is to find a minimum-loss ground state by increasing the gain (or increasing the temperature in the negative region)
and the GC scheme to exploit the gradual path between the two minimum loss ground states of the initial and final mapped Hamiltonian.
The numerical simulation with the Langevin equations on a data search problem with the Ising model in particular cubic graphs shows that
we can improve the success probability with slowing the pumping or coupling schedule, and increasing the final pumping power.
With typical parameters, the laser network and these gradual schemes give an almost constant computational time up to $M = 200$, and turns into a nearly linear
scale holding up to $M=1000$ in the problem.
This scaling is better than that with the previously studied abrupt scheme in large problem sizes.
In addition, simulations with varying parameters indicates that the required time and pumping resources to find a target do not scale exponentially up to $M = 2000$.
Now we are aiming at implementing an experimental system that works much faster and hopefully better than algorithms for digital computers,
especially on hard optimization problems.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank Kai Wen for his preliminary work and discussion and Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi for fruitful discussion about approximate optimization algorithms.
This work is supported by the JSPS through its FIRST program, Navy/SPAWAR Grant N 66001-09-1-2024, and the Special Coordination Funds
for Promoting Science and Technology. K.T. is a JSPS research fellow and thanks for Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Over the past couple of decades the amount of raw data available has started to grow at an exponential rate, doubling approximately every 12 months \cite{HowMuchInfo}, while the amount of data being consumed by users remains linear \cite{DataGrowth}.
The so-called `Big Data' phenomenon imposes an urgent need to develop, possibly with the aid of high-speed computing and cheap data storage, efficient pattern detection methods and data mining techniques aimed at identifying a few but highly relevant pieces of information in an ever-increasing noisy or irrelevant background.
One of the most important and widespread examples of the Big Data phenomenon is time series data, as witnessed by the impressive growth of databases of electronic and mobile-device communication patterns in large social systems, financial returns in stock markets, physiological signals such as heartbeat and brain dynamics, gene expression profiles, and finally climate, weather and earthquake activity.
In all these examples, high-dimensional (multiple) time series originate from the dynamical activity of the constituent units (such as stocks, people, neurons, genes, etc.) of large systems with complicated internal interactions.
For this reason, `Big time series Data' offer an unprecedented empirical resource for the science of complex systems.
Multiple time series are in fact the key ingredient required in order to face one of the main challenges for our modern understanding of real-world complex systems: the identification of an emergent, mesoscopic level of dynamical organization which is intermediate between the microscopic dynamics of indivual units (e.g. neurons) and the macroscopic dynamics of the system as a whole (e.g. the brain).
Many complex systems are indeed organized in a modular way, with functionally related units being correlated with each other, while at the same time being relatively less (or even negatively) correlated with functionally dissimilar ones.
While the existence of such a modular organization is intuitively plausible, its empirical identification is still an open problem, complicated by the fact that modules are typically emergent, in the sense that they are not evident \emph{a priori} from a local inspection of static, or even dynamic, similarities or connections among individual units.
In neuroscience, for instance, `functional brain networks' are precisely defined by the correlated dynamical activity of neurons, as opposed to `structural brain networks' which are instead defined by static neuronal connections \cite{neuro}.
Remarkably, it has been proposed that the observed divergence between functional and structural brain networks represents a signature of the brain's many-to-one (degenerate) function-structure relationships which allow diverse functions to arise from a static neuronal anatomy \cite{neuro}.
Similarly, in the analysis of financial markets it has been observed that groups of correlated stocks evolve in time and only partially overlap with industrial sectors, implying that the (static) industrial classification fails to capture the dynamical modularity of real markets~\cite {Econophysics,FinancialRisk,PhysRevE.70.026110,2005AcPPB..36.2767P,PhysRevE.65.066126}.
The approaches proposed so far to infer some form of modular or hierarchical organization from multiple time series are based on (necessarily arbitrary) criteria used to filter information \cite{mantegna,Econophysics,FinancialRisk}.
As we discuss in more detail below, these filtering criteria are either the introduction of thresholds or a geometric embedding in some metric space with pre-defined properties.
Our aim in the present paper is that of going beyond the limitations imposed by these arbitrary criteria.
We propose that, both conceptually and algorithmically, the identification of mesocopic modules whose dynamical activity is more correlated internally than with that of other modules, requires iterated recursions into many attempted partitions of the system, an inherently non-local operation.
By their nature, threshold-based or geometric methods are unfortunately not suited to deal with this sort of iterative partitioning problem\footnote{One might think of community detection itself as a geometric method, but this is not what we mean here. The geometric methods we are referring to consist in embedding techniques that reduce the complexity of the original system by projecting the latter into some metric space of low dimensionality.}.
Our strategy towards a solution is the adaptation of a different class of rapidly developing techniques, specifically those aimed at identifying the static mesoscopic organization in complex networks, a problem known as \emph{community detection} \cite{Fortunato_2010,NewmanNetworks}.
Communities within networks are groups of nodes that are more densely connected to each other than would be expected under a suitable null hypothesis.
Additionally, the nodes within a community are less connected to the nodes within other communities of the same network.
Several methods have been proposed over the last decade in order to empirically detect communities within networks.
Different techniques have explored different ways to optimize the search over all possible partitions of the system.
Conceptually, these methods contain precisely the ingredients that we need in order to solve our problem of identifying the hidden mesoscopic organization encoded within multiple time series.
Adapting the existing community detection techniques to deal with time series data is the main goal of this paper.
While the idea of using community detection algorithms in order to analyse time series data has been already exploited a few times in the past \cite{saramaki_correlations,mason_correlations,isogai}, the attempts made so far have basically replaced network data with cross-correlation matrices.
Here we show that this procedure suffers from the limitation that the underlying null hypotheses used in network-based community detection algorithms are inconsistent with the properties of correlation matrices.
We illustrate that one of the undesired consequences is a systematic bias in the search over partitions, that becomes stronger as the heterogeneity of the size of the `true' communities increases.
Here we propose a solution to this problem by introducing appropriate redefinitions of the so-called \emph{modularity} \cite{Fortunato_2010}, the core quantity that most methods aim at maximizing when searching the space of possible partitions.
While in ordinary community detection methods the modularity is defined in terms of a \emph{null model} that is (approximately) correct for networks, in the methods we propose the modularity is defined in terms of different null models that are appropriate for time series data and therefore dictated by random matrix theory (RMT) \cite{1955,2005AcPPB..36.2767P,RMT}.
We also adapt three popular algorithms that have been proposed to find the optimal partition (in networks), i.e. the one that maximizes the modularity.
As a result, we end up with three community detection algorithms that are consistent with time series data and represent the counterparts of the most popular techniques used in network analysis.
We also provide extensions to resolve hierarchically nested subcommunities (multiresolution community detection) and `hard' cores versus `soft' peripheries inside communities (multifrequency and time dependent community detection).
After introducing our theoretical framework, we put special emphasis on financial applications, where the units of the system are assets and the corresponding time series are sequences of logarithmic price increments \cite{mantegna,Econophysics,FinancialRisk}.
Even though advanced techniques to analyse correlations have been developed in other fields as well, financial time series analysis is one of the most active domains in this respect (another important example is that of functional brain networks, as we have already mentioned).
We show that our methods allow us to efficiently probe the mesoscopic structure of different financial markets and ascertain communities of corporations, based on the time series of their daily stock returns.
We uncover a variety of correlations between stocks of different industry sectors, not intuitively obvious from the sectorial taxonomy alone, thus confirming in a more rigorous manner the aforementioned result that market correlations only partially overlap with industry classifications.
More importantly, the communities we detect after removing noisy and market-wide dependencies turn out to be internally correlated and mutually anti-correlated, a feature of particular relevance for portfolio optimization and risk management.
We also analyse the stability of communities over different frequency resolutions and time horizons, thereby identifying groups of `hard stocks' that reside stably in the core of communities and groups of `soft stocks' that alternate between communities.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in section \ref{sec:existing} we briefly describe the most important approaches that have been proposed in order to filter correlation matrices and highlight their issues with characterizing the modular properties of systems described by multiple time series.
In section \ref{sec:inconsistencies} we show that the existing community detection algorithms are based on a null hypothesis that is inconsistent for time series data, making these methods inadequate as well.
In sec. \ref{sec:methods} we then introduce alternative and appropriate null models based on RMT, and exploit them in order to redefine three of the most popular community detection algorithms, in a way that makes them consistent with time series data.
In sec. \ref{sec:results} we apply our methods to several time series of daily stock returns, from various financial markets around the globe.
In sec. \ref{sec:resol} we analyse the dependence of community structure on the temporal resolution (i.e. the frequency) of the original time series.
In sec. \ref{sec:dyn} we investigate the evolution of community structure over time.
Finally, in sec. \ref{sec:conclusions} we summarize our results and provide some conclusions.
\section{Existing approaches\label{sec:existing}}
We start by introducing some useful notation. Let us consider a system with $N$ units.
The single time series
\begin{equation}
X_i\equiv\{x_i(1),x_i(2),\dots, x_i(T)\}
\end{equation}
represents the temporally ordered activity of the $i$-th unit of the system over $T$ timesteps.
In the case of financial markets, $i$ is typically one particular stock and $x_i(t)$ is the `log-return' of stock $i$, i.e. the difference between the logarithms of the price of $i$ at times $t$ and $t-1$ (more details will be given later).
The whole set of $N$ time series, denoted by $\{X_1,X_2,\dots, X_N\}$, describes the synchronous activity of all the units of the system.
The vast majority of the available techniques aimed at quantifying the level of mutual dependency within such a set of multiple time series exploit the information encoded in the $N\times N$ \emph{cross-correlation matrix}.
The cross-correlation matrix $\mathbf{C}$ measures the mutual dependencies among $N$ time series on a scale between $-1$ and $1$.
The $ij^{th}$ entry of $\mathbf{C}$ is defined as the Pearson correlation coefficient
\begin{equation}
{C}_{ij} \equiv \textrm{Corr}[X_i,X_j] \equiv\frac{\textrm{Cov}[X_i,X_j]}{\sqrt{\textrm{Var}[X_i]\cdot \textrm{Var}[X_j]}},
\label{eq:corrg}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\textrm{Cov}[X_i,X_j]\equiv \overline{X_i X_j}-\overline{X_i}\cdot\overline{X_j}
\label{eq:cov}
\end{equation}
is the covariance of $X_i$ and $X_j$ and
\begin{equation}
\textrm{Var}[X_i]\equiv\sigma^2_i\equiv\overline{X_i^2}-\overline{X_i}^2=\textrm{Cov}[X_i,X_i]
\end{equation}
is the variance of $X_i$.
In the above equations, the bar denotes a temporal average, i.e.
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{X_i}&\equiv& T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T x_i(t),\\
\overline{X^2_i}&\equiv& T^{-1}\sum_{t=1}^T x^2_i(t),\\
\overline{X_i X_j} &\equiv& T^{-1}{\sum_{t=1}^T x_i(t)x_j(t)}.
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly, the diagonal entries of the correlation matrix are ${C}_{ii} =1$.
We will assume, as routinely done in order to filter out the intrinsic heterogeneity of time series, that each series $X_i$ has been \emph{standardized} by subtracting out the temporal average $\overline{X_i}$ and dividing the result by the standard deviation $\sigma_i$, i.e. that $X_i$ has been redefined to $(X_i-\overline{X_i})/\sigma_i$.
Then the following expressions hold:
\begin{eqnarray}
&\overline{X_i}= 0,&\\
&\textrm{Var}[X_i]= \overline{X^2_i}=1,&\\
&{C}_{ij}=\textrm{Cov}[X_i,X_j] = \overline{X_i X_j}.&
\label{eq:corrs}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that, despite in statistics the notation $\textrm{Corr}[X_i,X_j]$, $\textrm{Cov}[X_i,X_j]$ or $\textrm{Var}[X_i]$ usually denotes a \emph{population} value, i.e. a theoretical value calculated using the knowledge of the (joint) probability distributions for $X_i$ and $X_j$, all quantities we have defined so far are instead \emph{sample} quantities, i.e. measured on the specific realized values of a set of time series.
Our choice of a somewhat unconventional notation is merely due to the fact that it allow us to describe various operations more compactly.
We will need to denote the population value of a quantity only in a few cases, and when this happens such population value will coincide with the expected value $\langle f(X,Y,\dots)\rangle$ (over the joint probability distribution of the random variables $X,Y,\dots$ involved) of the corresponding sample quantity $f(X,Y,\dots)$. We will therefore directly express population quantities in terms of expected values when necessary.
We stress that empirical cross-correlation matrices are intrinsically limited by the fact that they assume \emph{temporally stationary} and \emph{linearly interdependent} time series.
Clearly, both assumptions are in general violated in real financial markets and many other complex systems.
Nonetheless, cross-correlations are still the most widely used quantity. Improving the definition of correlations is a very important open problem, but is beyond the scope of this paper.
Here, we want to overcome the limitations encountered when the methods introduced so far to process or filter correlation matrices are used in order to identify a mesoscopic modular structure.
These current limitations are in place even when correlations are an appropriate measure, i.e. for stationary and linearly interdependent time series.
Therefore, our goal is that of introducing a consistent methodology that makes optimal use of correlation matrices in order to resolve the mesoscopic organization of complex systems.
If improved measures of interdependency are introduced, our approach will still represent a valuable guideline in order to implement a consistent community detection framework in that case as well.
In what follows, we review the most important correlation-based approaches and their limitations.
We will put special emphasis on financial time series, even if our discussion is more general.
\subsection{Asset Graphs\label{sec:AG}}
Among the proposed approaches to filter cross-correlation matrices, the simplest one is perhaps that of focusing on the strongest (off-diagonal) correlations by introducing a threshold value and discarding all the correlations below the threshold.
The result can be represented as a network, also known as an \emph{Asset Graph} (AG) in the Econophysics literature \cite{ag1,maxspanasset,Econophysics}, connecting the nodes whose time series are more strongly correlated.
Since the method entirely depends on the choice of the threshold, one usually investigates how the properties of the AG change as the threshold is varied.
The method is quite robust to noise, precisely because it discards the weakest correlations that are more subject to random fluctuations.
However, for the same reason it fails in detecting a mesoscopic organization (if present) of the system.
In fact, the use of a global threshold prevents the identification of modules whose internal correlations, even if below the threshold because they are weak with respect to the strongest ones, are still significantly stronger than the external correlations with different modules.
Therefore, while valuable as a filtering technique, the AG discards a significant amount of information and is not best suited to detect emergent groups of correlated time series.
We provide additional information about AGs, along with an explicit example, when we analyze real financial data in sec.\ref{sec:standard}.
\subsection{Minimal Spanning Trees}
Another filtering approach looks for the \emph{Minimal Spanning Tree} (MST) obtained again from the strongest correlations, but now retaining only the $N-1$ correlations that are required for each node to be reachable from any other node via a connected path, while discarding those that produce loops \cite{mantegna}.
This procedure automatically produces an agglomerative hierarchical clustering (a dendrogram) of the original time series and requires that the correlation matrix is `renormalized' at each iteration of the clustering according to some protocol (the one having some distinct theoretical advantage is the so-called Single-Linkage clustering algorithm \cite{mantegna}), until a final filtered matrix is obtained.
The MST method does not require the introduction of an arbitrary threshold, but it assumes that the original correlations are well approximated by the filtered ones.
At a geometrical level, this corresponds to the assumption that the metric space in which the original time series are embedded (via the definition of a proper correlation-based distance) effectively reduces to a so-called \emph{ultrametric} space where well-separated clusters of points are hierarchically nested within larger well-separated clusters \cite{ultrametricity}.
Even if the method exploits the correlations required for the MST to span the entire set of time series, it discards all the weaker correlations.
Moreover, the approximating (renormalized) correlations are progressively more distant from the original ones as higher and higher levels of the taxonomic tree are resolved.
This means that the method is more reliable when using the strongest correlations to determine the low-level structure of the taxonomic tree (small clusters of time series), while it is progressively less reliable when using the weaker correlations to determine the high-level taxonomy (medium-sized and large clusters).
With the above warning in mind, the method allows one to identify correlated groups of stocks lying on separate `branches' of the MST or that become disconnected when the associated dendrogram is cut at some level.
However, this comes at the price of introducing an arbitrary threshold on the value of the correlation again.
Moreover, just like the AG technique, the MST one does not compare internal and cross-group correlations (possibly with the aid of a null model) in order to identify emergent mesoscopic modules.
\subsection{Planar Maximally Filtered Graphs}
An alternative approach, which is similar in spirit to the MST but discards less information, is the so-called \emph{Planar Maximally Filtered Graph} (PMFG) \cite{planar0,planar}.
This method allows one to retain not just the correlations required to form the MST, but also a number of additional ones, provided that the resulting structure is a \emph{planar graph} (a network that can be drawn on a plane without creating intersecting links).
A nice feature of the PMFG is that it always contains the entire MST, so that the former provides additional, and not just different, information with respect to the latter.
However, also this method is affected by some degree of arbitrariness, which lies again in the properties of the postulated, approximating structure. There is no obvious reason why stocks (or other time series) should find a natural embedding in a bidimensional plane.
In fact, the PMFG has also been described as the simplest case of a more general procedure based on the embedding of high-dimensional data in lower-dimensional manifolds with a controllable \emph{genus} (number of `handles' or `holes') \cite{planar}.
The PMFG corresponds to the case when the genus is zero.
So the arbitrariness of the method can be rephrased as its dependence on some value of the genus that must be fixed \emph{a priori}.
The method has been extended in a variety of ways in order to produce a nested hierarchy of time series by exploiting the properties of the embedding space \cite{tiziana1,tiziana2,tiziana3}.
However, as with the MST, the target of these methods is that of finding the postulated approximating structure, rather than optimizing the search of groups of time series that are more correlated internally than with each other.
\subsection{Random matrix theory\label{sec:RMT}}
We finally mention an important technique, based on random matrix theory (RMT)~\cite{1955,2005AcPPB..36.2767P,RMT}, which is widely used in order to identify the non-random properties of empirical correlation matrices.
We will use this technique extensively in the paper.
A correlation matrix constructed from $N$ completely random time series of duration $T$ has (in the limits $N\to+\infty$ and $T\to+\infty$ with $1<T/N<+\infty$) a very specific distribution of its eigenvalues, known as the Marcenko-Pastur or Sengupta-Mitra distribution~\cite{PhysRevLett.83.1471,PhysRevLett.83.1467}. This distribution reads
\begin{equation}\label{RMTDensity}
\rho(\lambda) = \frac{T}{N}\frac{\sqrt{(\lambda_{+} - \lambda)(\lambda - \lambda_{-})}}{2\pi\lambda}\quad \textrm{if}\quad \lambda_{+} \le \lambda\le \lambda_{-}
\end{equation}
and $\rho(\lambda) =0$ otherwise, where the maximum ($\lambda_{+}$) and minimum ($\lambda_{-}$) eigenvalues are given by
\begin {equation}
\lambda_{\pm} = \left[1 \pm \sqrt{\frac{N}{T}}\right]^2.
\label{eq:lambda+-}
\end{equation}
The bulk of the eigenvalues of an empirical correlation matrix that fall within the range $[\lambda_-,\lambda_+]$ can be considered to be mostly due to random noise. Thus, any eigenvalues larger than the maximum eigenvalue $\lambda_{+}$ predicted by the Marcenko-Pastur distribution are deemed to represent meaningful structure in the data ~\cite {PhysRevE.70.026110,2005AcPPB..36.2767P,PhysRevE.65.066126}. That being the case, any empirical correlation matrix $\mathbf{C}$ can be decomposed as the sum of two matrices:
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}=\mathbf{C}^{(r)}
+\mathbf{C}^{(s)},
\label{eq:rmt+}
\end{equation}
where (using $\langle bra |$ and $| ket\rangle$ notation)
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}^{(r)}\equiv\sum_{i:\lambda_i\leq\lambda_+}\lambda_i |v_i\rangle\langle v_i|
\label{eq:cr}
\end{equation}
is the `random' component constituted from the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_i\}$ less than or equal to $\lambda_{+}$ (usually, the eigenvalues smaller than $\lambda_-$ are included as well) and their corresponding eigenvectors $\{|v_i\rangle\}$, and $\mathbf{C}^{(s)}=\mathbf{C}-\mathbf{C}^{(r)}$ is the `structured' component constituted from the remaining eigenvalues corresponding to eigenvalues larger than $\lambda_+$.
The deviation of the spectra of real correlation matrices from the RMT prediction provides an effective way to filter out noise from empirical data, and also illustrates some robust property of financial markets.
For instance, in Fig. \ref{fig:eigendensity} we superimpose the eigenvalue density of the empirical correlation matrix obtained from $T=2500$ log-returns of daily closing prices of $N=445$ stocks of the S\&P 500 index (from 2001 to 2011) and the corresponding expectation given by the Marcenko-Pastur distribution with the same values of $N$ and $T$.
As also observed in a multitude of previous studies \cite{Econophysics,FinancialRisk}, a typical feature of the spectrum of empirical correlation matrices is that the largest observed eigenvalue $\lambda_m$ is much larger than all other eigenvalues (see inset of fig. \ref{fig:eigendensity}).
The corresponding eigenvector $|v_m\rangle$ has all positive signs and one can therefore identify this eigencomponent of the correlations as the so-called \emph{market mode} ~\cite{Econophysics,FinancialRisk}, i.e. a common factor influencing all stocks within a given market.
Interpreting this, the bulk of the correlation between pairs of stocks is attributed to a single common factor, much as all boats in a harbor will rise and fall with the tide.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = .48\textwidth]{fig1.pdf}}
\caption{The eigenvalue density of the empirical correlation matrix of $T=2500$ log-returns (of daily closing prices from 2001Q4 to 2011Q3) for $N=445$ stocks of the S\&P500 index (purple) and the Marcenko-Pastur prediction for a random correlation matrix with the same values of $N$ and $T$ (blue), denoting a maximum expected eigenvalue of approximately 2. The orange plot is the eigenvalue density obtained by randomly shuffling (i.e. permuting with uniform probability) the empirical increments within each of the observed time series, confirming the agreement with random matrix theory for uncorrelated data. The inset is the fully zoomed-out version of the plot, showing that the empirical correlation matrix has a maximum eigenvalue of about 175 (`market mode'), as well as a handful of other leading eigenvalues above the predicted maximum value.}
\label{fig:eigendensity}
\end{figure}
In order to clearly see which `boats' are rising and falling relative to one another, one must subtract out the common `tide', which in terms of the correlation matrix leads to the further decomposition
\begin {equation}
\mathbf{C} = \mathbf{C}^{(r)} + \mathbf{C}^{(g)} + \mathbf{C}^{(m)},
\label{eq:rmt++}
\end {equation}
where we have rewritten the structured component as $\mathbf{C}^{(s)}=\mathbf{C}^{(g)} + \mathbf{C}^{(m)}$, with
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}^{(m)}\equiv\lambda_m |v_m\rangle\langle v_m|
\label{eq:cm}
\end{equation}
(representing the `market' mode) and
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}^{(g)}\equiv\sum_{i:\lambda_+<\lambda_i<\lambda_m}\lambda_i |v_i\rangle\langle v_i|
\label{eq:cg}
\end{equation}
(representing the remaining correlations).
The correlations embodied by $\mathbf{C}^{(g)}$ act neither at the level of individual stocks (uncorrelated noise), nor at that of the entire market.
Such correlations act at the level of sub-groups of stocks within a market, and they are often referred to as the `group' mode \cite{PhysRevLett.83.1467,Econophysics}.
The eigenvectors contributing to $\mathbf{C}^{(g)}$ have alternating signs, and this allows the identification of groups of stocks that are influenced in a similar manner by one or more common factors ~\cite {PhysRevE.70.026110,2005AcPPB..36.2767P,PhysRevE.65.066126}.
Broadly speaking, these groups are expected to reflect some sectorial or sub-sectorial classification of stocks according to their industrial category, however the overlap between nominal asset classes and groups of empirically correlated stocks is only partial~\cite {PhysRevE.70.026110,2005AcPPB..36.2767P,PhysRevE.65.066126}.
We should at this point stress that the above discussion makes some strong assumptions, which have been recently criticized.
In particular, the interpretation of the largest eigenvalue in terms of a `market' mode and the assumption that the elimination of the market and `noise' modes does not alter the information present in the remaining subspace are not correct in general, and sometimes only approximate \cite{tumminello_spectral,tumminello_nested}.
Moreover, the eigencomponents of the correlation matrix, and consequently the filtered correlation matrix itself, can end up being not proper correlation matrices, and alternative constructions enforcing the required properties have been proposed \cite{higham,rebonato,simonian,shrinkage}.
Finally, the way to filter out the `market' and `noise' modes is not unique \cite{tumminello_KL}.
Bearing these limitations is mind, RMT is still to be considered a valuable tool to filter empirical correlation matrices and clean them from both stock-level (random) and market-wide fluctuations.
However, after this pre-processing, filtered correlation data still needs to be analyzed according to the particular research question.
For instance, the matrix $\mathbf{C}^{(g)}$ is often processed further and used as an alternative, filtered input in all the algorithms (AG, MST and PMGF) described above.
So RMT alone is not enough in order to resolve the mesoscopic organization of markets, in the sense defined above.
\section{Community detection in graphs and its inconsistency with correlation matrices \label{sec:inconsistencies}}
In the previous section, we clarified that many of the available techniques used to identify the most relevant correlations are not designed to isolate groups of time series whose dynamical activity is more correlated internally than with that of other groups.
At an abstract level, achieving this task would require iterated recursions into many attempted partitions of the system, an inherently non-local and computationally demanding operation.
Notably, an entire branch of Network Science is devoted to an analogous problem, known as \emph{community detection} \cite{Fortunato_2010}.
In this section, we briefly illustrate the principles of community detection in networks and show how that knowledge can be in principle transferred to our initial problem, namely the identification of a mesoscopic organization across multiple time series.
We also show that despite the many progressive inroads made in this direction so far, they often rely on an inherently biased approach.
\subsection{Community detection in networks}
In network analysis, community detection is the process of identifying relatively dense clusters of nodes.
There has been a flurry of research in the area of community detection over the last decade \cite{Fortunato_2010}.
In this paper we focus on the method of \emph{modularity optimization} ~\cite{PhysRevE.69.026113}, which is one of the most popular methods identifying \emph{non-overlapping} communities.
It should be noted that various alternative methods other than modularity optimization exist, including techniques that resolve overlapping communities \cite{Fortunato_2010,communities_mason}.
However, this method has the advantage of being based on a null model, acting as a community-free benchmark to which the real network is compared.
It is the appropriate modification of such benchmarks that will lead us, in sec.\ref{sec:methods}, to a redefinition of modularity optimization methods valid for correlation matrices.
We restrict ourselves to undirected networks, since they exhibit the same symmetry property as correlation matrices.
Given a network with $N$ nodes, one can introduce a number of partitions of the $N$ nodes into non-overlapping sets. Each such partition can be mathematically represented by an $N$-dimensional vector $\vec{\sigma}$ where the $i$-th component $\sigma_i$ denotes the set in which node $i$ is placed by that particular partition.
Then, one can introduce the so-called \emph{modularity} $Q(\vec{\sigma})$ as a measure of the effectiveness of a particular partition $\vec{\sigma}$ in identifying densely connected groups of nodes.
The process of modularity optimization seeks to find the optimal partition that maximizes the value of $Q(\vec{\sigma})$, by varying the communities to which the different nodes of the network belong.
The modularity $Q(\vec{\sigma})$ is expressed in the form
\begin {equation} \label{QNewman}
Q (\vec{\sigma})= \frac {1}{A_{tot}}\sum_{i,j} \Big[A_{ij} -\langle A_{ij}\rangle \Big] \delta(\sigma_i,\sigma_j),
\end {equation}
where, here and throughout the paper, the sum is intended to run over \emph{all} pairs of nodes even if we are considering undirected networks, and we are also including the diagonal elements corresponding to $i=j$ since many expressions become simpler with this choice. The meaning of the different terms of the above expression is as follows.
The delta function is $\delta(\sigma_i,\sigma_j)=1$ if $\sigma_i=\sigma_j$ and $\delta(\sigma_i,\sigma_j)=0$ if $\sigma_i\ne \sigma_j$, ensuring that only nodes within the same community contribute to the sum.
For binary networks, $A_{ij}$ is the entry of the adjacency matrix representing the presence ($A_{ij}=1$) or absence ($A_{ij}=0$) of a link between nodes $i$ and $j$ in the observed network.
The initial pre-factor works to normalize the value of $Q(\vec{\sigma})$ between $-1$ and $1$, where $A_{tot}\equiv\sum_{i,j} A_{ij}=2m$ is twice the total number $m$ of links.
The term $\langle A_{ij}\rangle$ is a key element determining the outcome of the entire community detection process.
It mathematically represents a null model for the network, i.e. an expectation for $A_{ij}$ under some suitable null hypothesis.
The most popular null model for a binary network, known as the \emph{Configuration Model}, is one where the expected value $\langle k_i\rangle$ of the degree $k_i$ (number of links) of each node $i$ is equal to the value $\sum_{j=1}^N A_{ij}$ observed in the real network and where the topology is otherwise completely random.
This null hypothesis ensures that the local heterogeneity of nodes, e.g. the fact that more popular people naturally have more friends in social networks, is appropriately controlled for.
Mathematically, this model is approximately (i.e. only when the heterogeneity of the degrees is weak \cite{mylikelihood,mymethod}) represented by the expression
\begin{equation}
\langle A_{ij}\rangle =\frac{k_i k_j}{2m},
\label{eq:null}
\end{equation}
which gives a rough estimate of the probability that nodes $i$ and $j$ are connected, \emph{under the null hypothesis that the observed network's structure is completely explained on the basis of the different degrees of vertices}.
For weighted networks, $A_{ij}$ denotes the weight of the link between nodes $i$ and $j$, $k_i$ is called the \emph{strength} of node $i$ and $2m$ is twice the total weight (of all links in the network). Still, eq.(\ref{eq:null}) is used without modifications \cite{Fortunato_2010} to determine the (again approximate \cite{mymethod,mybosefermi}) expected edge weight \emph{under the null hypothesis that the network's structure is completely explained on the basis of the observed strengths of all vertices}.
The accuracy and usefulness of the results obtained from the process of modularity optimization depend heavily on the choice and suitability of the null model.
When the null hypothesis is true, no higher-order patterns (including communities) are present.
Consistently, one expects the modularity in eq.(\ref{QNewman}) to be close to zero for every partition.
In maximizing the modularity for a network which does have community structure, the nodes that are more tightly connected than one would expect on the basis of their individual characteristics will be clustered together in the same community, while the nodes for which the opposite occurs will be placed in different communities.
It should be noted that, in the context of network analysis, the modularity function defined in eq.(\ref{QNewman}) suffers from a main drawback: it cannot resolve communities below a typical scale \cite{resolution}.
This \emph{resolution limit} was proven to be rooted in the specific mathematical form of eq.(\ref{eq:null}) used to represent the null model.
However, it was not proven to be due to the concept of the null model itself, i.e. to the choice of comparing the real network with an ensemble of graphs with given degrees (or strenghts).
In particular, we stress again that eq.(\ref{eq:null}) only approximately represents such an ensemble, the exact formula being a more complicated nonlinear equation \cite{mylikelihood,mymethod,mybosefermi}.
Whether the resolution limit disappears if the exact expression is used in place of eq.(\ref{eq:null}) has never been investigated.
Rather, it has been proposed \cite{potts} that a way to change the resolution of the community detection is the introduction of an extra resolution parameter $\phi>0$ in the null model, i.e. replacing eq.(\ref{eq:null}) with
\begin{equation}
\langle A_{ij}\rangle =\phi\frac{k_i k_j}{2m}.
\label{eq:multinull}
\end{equation}
Many studies have indeed shown that, as $\phi$ is varied, different hierarchical levels of the community structure can be revealed, so that a so-called \emph{multiresolution method} can be obtained \cite{potts,multiarenas,multilambiotte}.
In general, multiresolution methods can resolve smaller subcommunities, which are nested inside larger communities.
One should however bear in mind that the resolution parameter was originally introduced in an \emph{ad hoc} fashion and without a theoretical foundation, its main justification being an agreement \emph{a posteriori} with the hierarchical community structure expected in some real-world networks. Only later, it was shown to have some physical interpretation in terms of an inverse time required to explore the network under certain assumptions \cite{multilambiotte}.
When extending modularity-based algorithms to the analysis of multiple time series, we will address the problem of multiresolution community detection in a fundamentally different way, which avoids \emph{ad hoc} parameters and is theoretically consistent with the properties of correlation matrices (see sec. \ref{sec:multi}).
\subsection{The inconsistency of modularity for cross-correlation matrices\label{sec:inconsistency}}
The appealing properties of community detection in networks clearly have the potential to solve our initial problem of finding groups of time series that are more correlated than we would expect.
However, one should be very careful in identifying the correlation-based problem with the network-based one.
A na\"ive approach would be that of treating the empirical correlation matrix $\mathbf{C}$ as a weighted network, and looking for communities using the modularity as defined in eq.(\ref{QNewman}), i.e. setting $A_{ij}=C_{ij}$.
This would result in a modularity of the form
\begin {equation} \label{eq:Qcorr}
Q(\vec{\sigma}) = \frac {1}{C_{norm}}\sum_{i,j} \Big[C_{ij} -\langle C_{ij}\rangle \Big] \delta(\sigma_i, \sigma_j),
\end{equation}
where $C_{norm}=\sum_{i,j}C_{ij}$, $\langle C_{ij}\rangle =k_i k_j/C_{norm}$ and $k_i=\sum_{j=1}^N C_{ij}$.
This idea has been recently exploited, sometimes with modifications, to study communities of interest rates \cite{mason_correlations} and stocks \cite{saramaki_correlations,isogai} in financial markets.
Unfortunately, although the above approach has made a lot of headway, it suffers from some fundamental flaws and can lead to biased results, as we now show.
The problem arises because the null model defined in eq.(\ref{eq:null}), while (approximately \cite{mylikelihood,mymethod,mybosefermi}) valid when the matrix $\mathbf{A}$ describes a network, is inconsistent if $\mathbf{A}$ is replaced by a correlation matrix $\mathbf{C}$.
To see this, note that if $A_{ij}=C_{ij}$ and if $X_i$ denotes a standardized time series $i$ (see sec. \ref{sec:existing}), then eq.(\ref{eq:corrs}) implies
\begin{equation}
k_i\equiv\sum_{j=1}^N C_{ij}=\sum_{j=1}^N \textrm{Cov}[X_i, X_j]=\textrm{Cov}[X_i,X_{tot}],
\label{eq:ki}
\end{equation}
where $X_{tot}=\{x_{tot}(1),x_{tot}(2),\dots,x_{tot}(T)\}$ is the time series of the total increment $x_{tot}(t)\equiv \sum_{j=1}^N x_j(t)$.
Note that, even if all $X_i$'s are standardized, $X_{tot}$ has zero mean but non-unit variance, and is therefore \emph{not} standardized.
Similarly,
\begin{equation}
2m=\sum_{i=1}^N k_i =\textrm{Cov}[X_{tot},X_{tot}]=\textrm{Var}[X_{tot}].
\label{eq:2m}
\end{equation}
It then follows that
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{k_i k_j}{2m}&=&\frac{\textrm{Cov}[X_i,X_{tot}]\cdot \textrm{Cov}[X_i,X_{tot}]}{\textrm{Var}[X_{tot}]}\nonumber\\
&=&\textrm{Corr}[X_i,X_{tot}]\cdot \textrm{Corr}[X_j,X_{tot}].
\label{eq:badnull1}
\end{eqnarray}
We therefore arrive at an important conclusion: for correlation matrices, the `na\"ive' modularity as ordinarily defined in eq.(\ref{QNewman}) with the ordinary specification given in eq.(\ref{eq:null}) corresponds to the following null hypothesis:
\begin{equation}
\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}=\textrm{Corr}[X_i,X_{tot}]\cdot \textrm{Corr}[X_j,X_{tot}].
\label{eq:badnull2}
\end{equation}
When used within the modularity function, the above null model will not necessarily give more importance to pairs of strongly correlated time series, but rather to pairs of time series whose `direct' correlation $C_{ij}$ is larger than the product of the correlations of each time series with the `common signal' $X_{tot}$.
On the other hand, if we want to detect communities of time series that are empirically more correlated than expected under the hypothesis that all time series are independent of each other, we know that the correct null model (at least for infinitely long time series, a hypothesis that we will relax later) is
\begin{equation}
\langle C_{ij}\rangle=\delta_{ij},
\label{eq:goodnull}
\end{equation}
i.e. the expected correlation matrix $\langle\mathbf{C}\rangle$ should be the $N\times N$ identity matrix $\mathbf{I}$.
Other acceptable forms of $\langle C_{ij}\rangle$ based on realistic properties of correlation matrices will be discussed later.
The origin of the problematic discrepancy between eq.(\ref{eq:badnull2}) and eq.(\ref{eq:goodnull}) is the fact that the null model defined in eq.(\ref{eq:null}) is meant to represent networks with given degrees, i.e. matrices with given column and row sums.
Any matrix that matches this constraint is admissible, in the sense that it represents a possible\footnote{This is true as long as the degrees are \emph{graphic}, i.e. realized by at least one network. This is always the case here, since the values of the degrees used in the null model are the observed ones and are therefore realized by at least the empirical network.} network consistent with the hypothesis that degrees are an important structural constraint.
By contrast, sums over rows or columns of correlation matrices do not represent any meaningful constraint, as evident from eq.(\ref{eq:ki}).
Moreover, not every symmetric real matrix with given row and column sums is a possible correlation matrix. Correlation matrices must also be \emph{positive-semidefinite}, i.e. have non-negative eigenvalues.
A little algebra shows that eq.\eqref{eq:badnull2} fulfills this property, but in a very extreme way: the eigenvalues of the matrix having elements $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}$ are $\lambda=0$ (with multiplicity $N-1$) and
\begin{equation}
\lambda=\sum_{i=1}^N\big(\textrm{Corr}[X_i,X_{tot}]\big)^2
\label{eq:eigenvalue}
\end{equation}
(with multiplicity $1$).
This result holds irrespective of the original data, e.g. also for correlated and finite-length time series.
Our discussion of the spectrum of realistic correlation matrices in sec. \ref{sec:RMT} strongly indicates that a sensible null model for correlation matrices should feature an eigenvalue distribution that is not easily reducible to the extremely simple one found above.
Similar conceptual limitations are encountered also in more sophisticated null models, which while allowing for both positive and negative link weights \cite{arenas}, still consider all possible matrices (many of which are inconsistent with correlation matrices) with given sums over rows and columns.
More importantly, the above problems cannot be solved by the introduction of resolution parameters. If, in analogy with eq.(\ref{eq:multinull}), we consider the generalized null model
\begin{equation}
\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}=\phi\cdot \textrm{Corr}[X_i,X_{tot}]\cdot \textrm{Corr}[X_j,X_{tot}]
\label{eq:badmultinull}
\end{equation}
(with $\phi>0$), we are still left with an expression that cannot be reduced to eq.(\ref{eq:goodnull}) or some other meaningful alternatives, which we will introduce later in sec. \ref{sec:ourmod}.
For instance, the eigenvalues become $\phi\lambda$, where $\lambda$ still takes only the two values shown above.
Further aspects of this limitation are explicitly illustrated in a benchmark case below, and imply that appropriate multiresolution community detection methods for correlation matrices should be implemented in a completely different way (see sec. \ref{sec:multi}).
\subsection{The bias produced by the na\"ive approach\label{sec:bias}}
To have an idea of the consequence of using the na\"ive approach, i.e. the application of a network-based modularity directly to a cross-correlation matrix, we consider an ideal benchmark case where $N$ \emph{infinitely long} time series are divided into $c$ `true' communities, specified by a `true' partition $\vec{\sigma}^*$.
We assume that each community $A$ is made of $n_A$ standardized time series (with $\sum_{A=1}^c n_A=N$) that are perfectly correlated with each other and completely uncorrelated to the time series in other communities, i.e.
\begin{equation}
C_{ij}=\textrm{Corr}[X_i,X_j]=\textrm{Cov}[X_i,X_j]=\delta(\sigma_i^*,\sigma_j^*).
\end{equation}
In such a case,
\begin{equation}
\textrm{Cov}[X_i,X_{tot}]=\sum_{j=1}^N \textrm{Cov}[X_i,X_j]=n_{\sigma_i^*}
\end{equation}
(where $n_{\sigma_i^*}$ is the number of time series in the community of the time series $i$) and
\begin{equation}
\textrm{Var}[X_{tot}]=\sum_{i,j}\textrm{Cov}[X_i,X_j]=\sum_{A=1}^c n^2_{A}.
\end{equation}
From the last two equations it follows that eq.(\ref{eq:badnull2}), or more generally eq.\eqref{eq:badmultinull}, can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}=\phi\frac{n_{\sigma_i^*}n_{\sigma_j^*}}{\sum_{A=1}^c n^2_{A}}
\label{eq:badnull3}
\end{equation}
(with $\phi>0$), which is the fundamental result showing the inconsistency of the na\"ive approach, and the nature of the resulting bias. Equation (\ref{eq:badnull3}) can never lead to the correct expectation (\ref{eq:goodnull})
because it cannot produce off-diagonal zeros.
If there are $c$ equally sized communities of $n=N/c$ time series each, then $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}={\phi/c}$ for all $i,j$, i.e. the distribution of $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}$ has a single peak and zero standard deviation.
In this case, apart from the minor \footnote{For homogeneously sized communities, the problem of non-unit diagonal entries can be avoided if we require $i\ne j$ in the summation defining $Q$. However, for heterogeneously sized community the bias of the na\"ive approach cannot be eliminated.} problem of non-unit diagonal entries, the use of $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}$ in eq.(\ref{QNewman}) can still be justified on the basis of the fact that $\phi/c$ is a constant term having no effect on the modularity maximization.
However, for heterogeneously sized communities, eq.(\ref{eq:badnull3}) does not lead to a mere overall shift in the modularity.
As the size heterogeneity increases, the distribution of the off-diagonal entries of $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}$ will become broader.
In general, $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}$ is larger for pairs of time series belonging to larger communities.
This effect is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:offdiag} for three choices of benchmark communities.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.82\textwidth]{fig2.pdf}}
\caption{The biasing effect of the heterogeneity of community size on the na\"ive (network-based) modularity. The left panels show the entries $\delta(\sigma^*_i,\sigma^*_j)$ of three benchmark community matrices (white=0, red=1), each with $N=1000$ time series and $c=8$ communities of increasingly heterogeneous sizes. The right panels show the corresponding distribution of the off-diagonal entries $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}$ of the null model defined in eq.\eqref{eq:badnull3}, with $\phi=1$ (the bin size of the histograms is of the order of $10^{-5}$, which makes the distributions correctly normalized).
For perfectly homogeneous community sizes, i.e. if each community contains exactly 125 time series (a), the distribution has a single peak at $1/c=0.125$ (b). For moderately heterogeneous sizes, i.e. if the 8 communities contain 35, 60, 85, 110, 140, 165, 190, and 215 time series respectively (c), the distribution has several peaks (d) coming from the 64 different combinations of $n_{\sigma_i^*}n_{\sigma_j^*}$ in eq.\eqref{eq:badnull3}.
For strongly heterogeneous sizes, i.e. if the 8 communities contain 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 246, and 502 time series respectively (e), the distribution has still 64 different peaks but is much broader (f). The two dominant peaks are located at $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}=0.7536$ (coming from pairs of time series inside the largest community) and $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}=0.3694$ (coming from pairs of time series across the largest and the second-largest communities).}\label{fig:offdiag}
\end{figure*}
The above consideration implies that the standard deviation (irrespective of the average) of the off-diagonal ($i\ne j$) entries of $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}$ can be taken as a quantitative measure of the \emph{bias} induced by eq.\eqref{eq:badnull3}.
This definition depends linearly on the multiresolution parameter $\phi$.
Alternatively, the \emph{coefficient of variation} (standard deviation divided by average value) of the off-diagonal entries of $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}$ is a measure of the \emph{relative bias} of the na\"ive approach, and is independent of $\phi$.
One should bear in mind that when the value of the coefficient of variation is much lower than one, the heterogeneity is moderate while when it approaches or exceeds one then the heterogeneity is such that the average value is no longer representative of the distribution.
In Fig. \ref{fig:bias} we show both the bias (for $\phi=1$) and the relative bias as a function of size heterogeneity, the latter being in turn defined as the coefficient of variation of community size.
We see that the (relative) bias first steadily increases as the size heterogeneity increases from zero to approximately two, and then decreases when the heterogeneity further increases. This decrease corresponds to entering an extremely heterogeneous regime where there is a giant community of $O(N)$ nodes, and other very small communities of $O(1)$ nodes.
In this regime, the effective number of communities is practically one and the distribution of $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}$ becomes sharp again, as most entries have the same value.
So, for a very broad range of heterogeneity (say, when the coefficient of variation of community sizes is between 0.5 and 2.5), the (relative) bias is very strong.
In this regime, eq.(\ref{eq:badnull3}) gives a prediction $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}\approx 0$ (close to the correct expectation) only for pairs of time series belonging to the smallest community.
For such time series the difference $C_{ij}-\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}$ is still close to one, and one therefore expects that the smallest community will be detected correctly.
However, for time series belonging to larger communities $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}$ increases, progressively biasing the community detection.
For the largest community, the expected internal correlation is always larger than the correlation among any pair of communities, so $C_{ij}-\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}$ is very low and this community is paradoxically difficult to detect.
It should be noted that the use of the multiresolution parameter $\phi$ does not help reduce the relative bias, as the latter is independent of $\phi$.
In order to reduce the absolute bias (which for $\phi=1$ has values around $0.3$ in the relevant regime, see fig. \ref{fig:bias}) to small values (say of the order of $0.01$), $\phi$ should be set to very small values (around $0.03$), which is another way of saying that the null model in eq.\eqref{eq:badmultinull} should effectively be replaced by that in eq.\eqref{eq:goodnull} (we recall that we are referring only to the off-diagonal entries here), thus confirming our previous discussion.
The above results lead us to conclude that the ordinary definition of modularity, even with the introduction of a multiresolution parameter, cannot properly detect communities.
This limitation would systematically bias any modularity-based community detection algorithm.
It is therefore clear that ordinary network-based clustering methods, when used with correlation matrices, lead to incorrect results.
In the rest of the paper, we try to overcome this limitation.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{fig3.pdf}}
\caption{Dependence of the (relative) bias of the na\"ive approach on the heterogeneity (coefficient of variation) of community size, for various benchmarks with $N=1000$ time series and $c=8$ communities.
The bias is defined as the standard deviation (coefficient of variation) of the off-diagonal entries $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_{naive}$ of the null model defined in eq.\eqref{eq:badnull3} with $\phi=1$, while the relative bias is defined as the coefficient of variation of the same entries (and is independent of $\phi$).}\label{fig:bias}
\end{figure}
\section{Redefining community detection methods for multiple time series\label{sec:methods}}
We now come to the most pertinent of our results, i.e. the introduction of improved and consistent methods to cluster multiple time series using appropriate null models.
In sec.\ref{sec:ourmod} we give three redefinitions of the modularity $Q(\vec{\sigma})$ that make use of the results of RMT, which we summarized in sec.\ref{sec:RMT}. In sec.\ref{sec:redef} we introduce the correlation-based counterparts of three of the most popular community detection algorithms used in network analysis.
In sec.\ref{sec:multi} we discuss how these algorithms can be further extended in order to obtain appropriate, multiresolution community detection methods.
Finally, in sec.\ref{sec:bench} we benchmark our methods on various test cases.
\subsection{Correlation-based redefinitions of modularity\label{sec:ourmod}}
From our previous discussion it should be clear that simply replacing network data with correlation matrices in eq.(\ref{QNewman}) leads to eq.(\ref{eq:Qcorr}) where $C_{norm}$ is $\sum_{i,j}C_{ij}$ and the null model $\langle C_{ij}\rangle$ is incorrectly given by eq.(\ref{eq:badnull2}).
We now introduce three redefinitions of modularity based on appropriate null models.
The end result of this redefinition will be a set of modularity functions that correctly identify communities of correlated time series.
For compactness, we postpone the possible (re)definition of $C_{norm}$ to the end of this discussion, in sec. \ref{sec:unif}.
\subsubsection{Infinite time series without global mode}
We have already noted that, for infinitely long time series, the correct expression corresponding to the null hypothesis of independency is given by eq.(\ref{eq:goodnull}).
This leads us to a first redefinition of modularity with expectation $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_1\equiv\delta_{ij}$, i.e.
\begin {eqnarray}
Q_1(\vec{\sigma}) &= &\frac {1}{C_{norm}}\sum_{i,j} \Big[C_{ij} - \delta_{ij}\Big] \delta(\sigma_i,\sigma_j)\nonumber\\
&= &\frac {1}{C_{norm}}\sum_{i,j} C_{ij}^{(\delta)}\delta(\sigma_i,\sigma_j),
\label{QCor}
\end {eqnarray}
where $\mathbf{C}^{(\delta)}\equiv \mathbf{C}-\mathbf{I}$ ($\mathbf{I}$ being the $N\times N$ identity matrix), so that $C_{ii}^{(\delta)}=0$.
\subsubsection{Finite time series without global mode}
For finite-length independent time series, we should further modify our null model to one which anticipates a certain amount of noise, as determined by RMT (see sec.\ref{sec:RMT}). In such a case, we know that the correct null hypothesis is $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_2\equiv C^{(r)}_{ij}$ where $\mathbf{C}^{(r)}$ is given by eq.(\ref{eq:cr}).
This gives us a second redefinition of modularity for dealing with noisy correlation matrices:
\begin {eqnarray}
Q_2(\vec{\sigma})&=& \frac {1}{C_{norm}}\sum_{i,j} \Big[C_{ij} - C_{ij}^{(r)}\Big] \delta(\sigma_i,\sigma_j)\nonumber\\
&=& \frac {1}{C_{norm}}\sum_{i,j} C_{ij}^{(s)} \delta(\sigma_i,\sigma_j),
\label{QNoise}
\end {eqnarray}
Note that now in general $C_{ii}^{(s)}\ne 0$ as a result of the eigendecomposition defined in eq.(\ref{eq:rmt+}).
However, the diagonal terms with $i=j$ give an irrelevant constant contribution to the modularity, due to the fact that $\delta(\sigma_i,\sigma_i)=1$ for all $i$, independently of the particular partition $\vec{\sigma}$.
This makes the above definition well defined even in the presence of non-zero diagonal entries.
\subsubsection{Finite time series with global mode}
Lastly, we consider the case where we expect an overall level of positive correlation among all time series, or `global mode'.
For instance, we have already mentioned that in financial markets the presence of the `market mode' (see sec. \ref{sec:RMT}) generally results in a positive correlation affecting all pairs of stocks altogether.
The corresponding dominant positive component $\mathbf{C}^{(m)}$ of $\mathbf{C}$ would make $Q(\vec{\sigma})$ be maximized by the (trivial) partition where all time series are in the same community.
In order to detect non-trivial communities, we can choose a null model that includes both the random component of the correlation matrix and the global or market mode, i.e. $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_3\equiv C^{(r)}_{ij}+C^{(m)}_{ij}$ where $\mathbf{C}^{(r)}$ and $\mathbf{C}^{(m)}$ are given by eqs.(\ref{eq:cr}) and (\ref{eq:cm}) respectively.
This yields our third and final formulation for the modularity:
\begin {eqnarray}
Q_3(\vec{\sigma})&=& \frac {1}{C_{norm}}\sum_{i,j} \Big[C_{ij} - C_{ij}^{(r)} - C_{ij}^{(m)}\Big] \delta(\sigma_i, \sigma_j)\nonumber\\
&=& \frac {1}{C_{norm}}\sum_{i,j} C_{ij}^{(g)} \delta(\sigma_i,\sigma_j), \label{QFinance}
\end {eqnarray}
In this case as well, $C_{ii}^{(g)}\ne 0$ as a result of the eigendecomposition defined in eq.(\ref{eq:rmt++}), but this does not affect the outcome of the community detection.
The above definition is now explicitly aimed at detecting mesoscopic communities, which are in between the `microscopic' level of unit-specific noise and the `macroscopic' level of system-wide fluctuations.
While the existence of the market mode is well established in finance, for other types of time series it might be inappropriate to postulate the existence of a global mode.
However, we also expect that, whenever the use of $Q_1(\vec{\sigma})$ or $Q_2(\vec{\sigma})$ yields only a single community, the most plausible reason is the existence of a global mode.
Accordingly, we expect that the use of $Q_3(\vec{\sigma})$ might be the most appropriate way to filter out global dependencies for a variety of systems, not only for financial markets.
Moreover, as we discuss at length in sec.\ref{sec:multi}, iteratively filtering out the global mode from the correlation matrices restricted to individual communities can result in the definition of a useful multiresolution method to resolve multiple hierarchical levels of community structure, if present.
\subsubsection{A unified redefinition\label{sec:unif}}
For simplicity in what follows, it is useful to express the three definitions of modularity we gave in eqs. (\ref{QCor}), (\ref{QNoise}) and (\ref{QFinance}) in unified form:
\begin {equation}
Q_l(\vec{\sigma})\equiv \frac {1}{C_{norm}}\sum_{i,j} C_{ij}^{(l)} \delta(\sigma_i,\sigma_j), \label{eq:Qunified}
\end {equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{C}^{(l)}\equiv \mathbf{C}-\langle \mathbf{C}\rangle_l =\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}\mathbf{C}^{(\delta)}&l=1\\
\mathbf{C}^{(s)}&l=2\\
\mathbf{C}^{(g)}&l=3\end{array}
\right. .
\label{eq:l}
\end{equation}
In what follows, given a choice of $l$ we will refer to $\mathbf{C}^{(l)}$ as the `filtered' correlation matrix.
The overall constant $C_{norm}$ has no role in determining the final partition, but it does have a role when different systems, or different snapshots of the same system (including dynamical analyses of community structure), are compared.
For simplicity we keep the same definition as in eq.\eqref{eq:Qcorr}, i.e.
\begin{equation}
C_{norm}\equiv \sum_{i,j}C_{ij}=\textrm{Var}[X_{tot}].
\label{eq:norm}
\end{equation}
This definition implies that the modularity is the sum of intra-community (filtered) correlations, divided by the variance of the total increment $X_{tot}$.
This variance is a natural measure of the \emph{volatility} of the system over the considered time window, which in the case of financial time series is an important property of the market.
In other words, eq. \eqref{eq:norm} automatically controls for the volatility of the system, a feature that is typically desirable when analysing the evolution of (the community structure of) wildly fluctuating systems.
However, in some cases it might be interesting to compare the above modularity with one calculated using a different definition of $C_{norm}$, e.g. one that does not control for the volatility.
It should be noted that the above definition is such that the typical (for real-world systems like financial markets) values of the modularity defined in eq.\eqref{eq:Qunified} will tend to be much lower than the typical (for real-world networks) values of the modularity defined in eq.\eqref{QNewman}, even for systems with well-defined communities.
One should bear this consideration in mind when interpreting the (maximized) modularity value as a measure of the strength of community structure in the system.
Unlike its network counterpart, our definition of the modularity does not quantify the strength of community structure in an absolute scale between $-1$ and $+1$. It only has a meaning in relative terms, and the more information is contained in the null model, the lower the value of the resulting modularity.
We remind the reader of the fact that, since the results of RMT used in the above definition hold only in the regime where $N$ and $T$ are both large (with $T>N$), we require the original time series to respect these conditions.
The requirement $T>N$ is sometimes referred to as the `curse of dimensionality' in the literature, since it implies that, in order to study the cross-correlations of a large set of time series, one needs to extend the time interval so much that the assumption of stationarity (implicit, as we mentioned, in the definition of cross-correlations themselves) is violated.
On the other hand, choosing sufficiently short time intervals to make the time series approximately stationary implies that the number $N$ of time series be severely reduced.
One should therefore choose the data in such a way that a reasonable compromise is achieved.
This is an ordinary trade-off to be made in the analysis of any empirical (financial) cross-correlation matrix.
We finally stress that the three RMT-based null models we have adopted do not represent the only possible choices.
One might for instance exploit more sophisticated results \cite{tumminello_spectral,tumminello_nested,tumminello_KL,higham,rebonato,simonian,shrinkage} and introduce refined null models that overcome some of the limitations of RMT that we mentioned in sec. \ref{sec:RMT}.
These alternative choices can then be incorporated into our approach by redefining $\langle \mathbf{C}\rangle_l $ and consequently $\mathbf{C}^{(l)}$.
Exploring the entire space of possibilities is beyond the scope of this paper.
The key point we are stressing here is that, whatever the choice of the null model, it must respect some realistic properties of correlation matrices.
The network-based definition of modularity, which has been used so far, does not do so and as such is not the best choice.
Our approach can therefore be considered as a guideline, in order to introduce improved techniques in the future.
\subsection{Maximizing the new modularity\label{sec:redef}}
The discussion so far completes our first task of introducing modularity functions which are consistent with the properties of correlation matrices.
Our second task is that of incorporating the above definition(s) into community detection algorithms that seek to maximize the modularity.
Below, we start by briefly mentioning the algorithms we adapted in order to search for the optimal partition (more extended descriptions are in the Appendix) and then prove an important property of the optimal partition itself, namely the fact that its communities are internally positively correlated and mutually negatively correlated.
\subsubsection{Redefining three community detection algorithms}
Given our new definition of modularity in eq.(\ref{eq:Qunified}), we cannot directly apply the traditional optimization algorithms devised for graphs, since the majority of these algorithms rely in some way or another on the properties of the original network-based definition of modularity, where the degrees of nodes are used to construct the null model.
For this reason, we selected three of the most popular network-based community detection algorithms and reformulated them to be compatible with time series data and our new definition of modularity.
The three algorithms we selected are known as the Potts (or spin glass) method \cite{potts,Reichardt_Bornholdt_2006}, the Louvain method ~\cite{1742-5468-2008-10-P10008} and the spectral method~\cite{Newman_2006}.
Note that even if these techniques are customarily referred to as `methods', they can actually be considered as three different algorithms implementing the same method of modularity maximization.
Since the appropriate redefinition of these algorithms can require quite technical discussions, it is described in the Appendix.
We note that there exist many modularity maximization algorithms, some of which may already be much better suited to our definition of modularity. However, we wanted to choose popular algorithms whose original specifications required varying levels of rework, ranging from verification of its suitability to accommodate time series based modularity through to modifications of the underlying tenets of the algorithm itself.
Doing so, allows us the possibility to illustrate further differences between network-based and correlation-based community detection problems.
The reader is again referred to the Appendix for a detailed discussion of these differences.
\subsubsection{Identifying anti-correlated communities\label{sec:anti}}
We now prove the result that the partition maximizing the modularity (whichever method is used to search for it) is characterized by positive intra-community (filtered) correlations and negative inter-community (filtered) correlations.
Let us first define the `renormalized' inter-community correlations (also see the Appendix)
\begin{equation}
\tilde{C}_{AB}^{(l)}\equiv\sum_{i\in A}\sum_{j\in B}C^{(l)}_{ij},
\label{eq:meatball}
\end{equation}
where the notation $i\in A$ indicates that the node $i$ belongs to the community $A$, and the sum is over all such nodes.
Now, assume that we have identified the optimal partition maximizing the modularity, and consider the modularity change $\Delta Q_l$ that would be obtained by further merging two different communities of the optimal partition, say $A$ and $B$. From eq.\eqref{eq:Qunified}, we can write this change as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta Q_l &=&\big[\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{AA}+
\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{BB}+\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{AB}
+\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{BA}\big]
-\big[\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{AA}+\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{BB}\big]\nonumber\\
&=&2\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{AB}.
\end{eqnarray}
The above change cannot be positive, otherwise merging $A$ and $B$ would further increase the modularity, which is impossible since $A$ and $B$ are communities of the optimal partition.
Therefore $\Delta Q_l \le 0$ which also implies $\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{AB}\le 0$.
On the other hand, for every community $A$ of the optimal partition we must have $\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{AA}\ge 0$, otherwise $A$ would give a negative contribution to the modularity, which is impossible as the partition where all nodes of $A$ are isolated communities would have higher modularity than the optimal partition.
Taken together, these considerations imply that
\begin{equation}
\tilde{C}_{AB}^{(l)}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\ge 0&\textrm{if }A=B\\
\le 0&\textrm{if }A\ne B
\end{array}\right. .
\label{eq:split}
\end{equation}
The above result follows simply from the maximization of eq.(\ref{eq:Qunified}) and will be confirmed empirically in sec.\ref{sec:anticorrelation}.
So our algorithms effectively partition the network into mutually anti-correlated communities of positively correlated time series, where it is intended that the term `(anti-)correlated' refers to the residual correlations remaining after applying the filtering procedure defined by eq.(\ref{eq:l}).
For this reason, we will sometimes use the term `residually (anti-)correlated' when referring to the sign of filtered correlations.
As we will discuss in more detail in sec.\ref{sec:anticorrelation}, this property has important consequences for portfolio optimization and risk management.
\subsection{Multiresolution community detection \label{sec:multi}}
We now come to the problem of introducing an appropriate multiresolution method.
As we mentioned, one way to resolve a hierarchical community structure in ordinary networks using a modularity-based community detection algorithm is that of introducing a resolution parameter $\phi$ as in eq.(\ref{eq:multinull}).
We have already noted, in our discussion of eq.(\ref{eq:badmultinull}), that the same operation would not cluster correlation matrices appropriately if applied to the na\"ive null model appearing in eq.(\ref{eq:badnull2}).
The same kind of limitation persists if we introduce a resolution parameter multiplying any of the three improved null models $\langle \mathbf{C}\rangle_l$ defining eq.(\ref{eq:Qunified}) through eq.(\ref{eq:l}).
While the range of any observed correlation coefficient $C_{ij}$ is ${[-1,+1]}$ by construction, a resolution paramater would unreasonably map the range of the expected correlation $\langle C_{ij}\rangle$ to ${[-\phi,+\phi]}$.
Similarly, since the null correlation matrices $\langle \mathbf{C}\rangle_l$ we introduced are obtained from the eigencomponents of the observed correlation matrix $\mathbf{C}$, rescaling them by $\phi$ is equivalent to an overall rescaling of the corresponding eigenvalues of $\mathbf{C}$, which is again an unjustified operation.
Given the above limitations, which indicate a lack of theoretical foundation for resolution parameters in the case of correlation matrices, we introduce a completely different multiresolution approach that is specifically designed for multiple time series, and has no counterpart in network analysis.
After running one of our newly introduced community detection algorithms on the original empirical correlation matrix $\mathbf{C}$, for each community of size $s$ in the optimal partition we consider the corresponding $s\times s$ sub-matrix $\mathbf{C}_*$ of $\mathbf{C}$.
For this sub-matrix, we define the three null models $\langle \mathbf{C}_*\rangle_l$ as discussed in sec.\ref{sec:ourmod} for the original matrix $\mathbf{C}$.
By running our community detection algorithms recursively inside each of the communities, we can thus resolve subcommunities within communities.
Iterating this procedure identifies a hierarchical community structure, if present.
Within each community, the procedure stops automatically when it resolves no further subcommunities.
At each iteration, the `noise' component $\mathbf{C}^{(r)}_*$ will have the same interpretation as when it is identified on the entire correlation matrix, since $\mathbf{C}_*$ is the sub-matrix of the original matrix $\mathbf{C}$ and \emph{not} of the filtered matrix $\mathbf{C}^{(l)}$ defined in eq.(\ref{eq:l}), so it still contains the node-specific noise component (the reason why we do not consider the sub-matrix of $\mathbf{C}^{(l)}$ is because, as we mentioned, the latter may not be a proper correlation matrix \cite{higham,rebonato,simonian,shrinkage} and cannot thus be filtered further using RMT).
The `global' mode $\mathbf{C}^{(m)}_*$ is now interpreted as the `community' mode, i.e. a common factor influencing all the time series within that particular community.
This will now include both the system-wide mode $\mathbf{C}^{(m)}$, restricted to the subspace relative to $\mathbf{C}_*$, that would be identified on the entire matrix $\mathbf{C}$ (e.g., in the case of financial time series, the market mode) \emph{and} a genuinely community-specific mode not shared with the time series in other communities.
Different communities are therefore possibly characterized by different community modes, and the fact that both this mode and the restriction of the global mode are filtered out is precisely what allows the algorithm to resolve deeper hierarchical modules.
Finally, the `group' component $\mathbf{C}^{(g)}_*$
represents the effect of subgroups nested within the specific community, if present.
It should be noted that the original correlation matrix $\mathbf{C}$ typically has large dimensionality (large $N$), a property ensuring that the results of RMT, in particular the expected eigenvalue distribution appearing in eq.\eqref{RMTDensity}, hold to a satisfactory level.
However, when considering smaller subcommunities, RMT becomes less reliable because eq.\eqref{RMTDensity} no longer holds for small sets of nodes.
For this reason, for small submatrices (low-dimensional $\mathbf{C}_*$) it is preferable to determine the eigenvalues $\lambda_{\pm}$ not via eq.\eqref{eq:lambda+-}, but by randomly shuffling the temporal increments of the original time series and constructing the corresponding spectrum as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:eigendensity}.
We conclude by noting that, for the particular case of multiple time series, there is another `multiresolution' character, which can be attached to the problem of community detection, namely the fact that different communities can in principle be obtained for different choices of the initial temporal resolution, i.e. for different choices of the frequency of the original time series (e.g. second, minute, or daily returns).
Note that this notion of temporal resolution is specific to correlation matrices and has no analogue in the ordinary problem of community detection in networks.
It is also not necessarily attached to an idea of hierarchy, in the sense that we do not expect e.g. communities obtained at higher frequency to be necessarily nested within communities obtained at lower frequency (even if this can reasonably happen in some cases).
To distinguish this specific notion from the usual one of multiresolution community detection, we will refer to it as the `multifrequency' problem and address it separately in sec.\ref{sec:resol}.
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.99\textwidth]{fig4.pdf}}
\caption{Performance of our method on 9 benchmark sets of correlated time series with varying levels of noise ($\nu$) and market mode ($\mu$) components.
For each combination of $\mu$ and $\nu$, $N=1000$ time series of length $T=50000$, partitioned into $c=8$ communities (always containing 35, 60, 85, 110, 140, 165, 190, and 215 time series respectively), were initially generated according to eq.\eqref{eq:bench}.
Then, the $1000\times 1000$ correlation matrix $\mathbf{C}$ was calculated.
The heat maps in this figure show the values of the entries of the filtered matrix $\mathbf{C}^{(g)}$ defined in eq.\eqref{eq:cg} and obtained by removing the noise and `market-mode' components from the original correlation matrix.
Blocks along the diagonal represent the residual correlations within each community, while off-diagonal blocks show the residual negative cross-correlations among communities.
Our method, here using the Potts algorithm (see Appendix) to maximize the modularity $Q_3(\vec{\sigma})$ defined in eq.\eqref{QFinance}, was always able to correctly identify the target communities, even for values of $\mu$ and $\nu$ exceeding one.
This is indicated by the value of $VI$ (averaged over 10 runs of the community detection algorithm) calculated between the `true' and the detected partition in each benchmark.
The average (over multiple runs) maximum modularity value $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ is also shown in each case.}
\label{CgHM}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Benchmarking our methods\label{sec:bench}}
Before applying our methods to the analysis of real correlation matrices, we ran a series of tests confirming that we can correctly detect correlated sets of time series in controlled benchmark cases.
Our benchmarks consist of heterogeneously sized communities of time series that are internally correlated and additionally display varying levels of noise and global signal (market mode).
The reason why we consider heterogeneous community sizes is because this is the more challenging case where we showed the na\"ive method to display a higher bias (see sec. \ref{sec:bias}).
We constructed these benchmarks by first choosing the number $N$ of time series, the number $c$ of communities and the desired number $n_A$ of time series in each community $A$, such that $\sum_{A=1}^c n_A=N$ (as in sec. \ref{sec:bias}).
Then we generated $c$ random and uncorrelated time series (with $T>N$) with values $\gamma_A(t)$ (where $1\le A\le c$) drawn independently from a normal distribution with zero mean and unit variance.
Then, we created $n_A$ identical copies of the $A$-th time series, for all $A$.
To each of the resulting $N$ time series, each labeled by an index $i$, we added a local noise $\beta_i(t)$ (a new normally distributed random variable with zero mean and unit variance, independent of all the other ones) multiplied by a `noise parameter' $\nu\ge 0$ and a global signal $\alpha(t)$ (again, an independent normally distributed random variable with zero mean and unit variance) multiplied by a `market-mode parameter' $\mu\ge 0$.
This resulted in a set $\{Y_1,\dots,Y_N\}$ of $N$ time series with values
\begin{equation}
y_i(t)=\mu\cdot \alpha(t) +\nu\cdot \beta_i(t)+\gamma_A(t)\quad i\in A, \quad A=1,c.
\label{eq:bench}
\end{equation}
Note that this procedure is similar to the so-called `factor models' used in financial analysis \cite{FinancialRisk,tumminello_spectral,tumminello_nested, FamaFrench, FamaFrenchII, Sharpe}.
The time series $\{Y_1,\dots,Y_N\}$ were further standardized to obtain a final set $\{X_1,\dots,X_N\}$ of $N$ time series, each with zero mean and unit variance, in compliance with the general prescription mentioned in sec. \ref{sec:existing}.
We generated several benchmarks according to the recipe described above, for various choices of $N$, $c$, $\{n_A\}$, $\mu$ and $\nu$.
In general, when $\mu=\nu=0$ the benchmark is similar to the ideal one described in sec.\ref{sec:bias}: the communities are completely correlated internally (all the time series in the same communities are identical) and uncorrelated with the time series in other communities.
This results in a benchmark partition $\vec{\sigma}^*$ such that, for infinite time series, $C_{ij}=\delta(\sigma_i^*,\sigma_j^*)$. However, for finite (but still such that $T>N$ as prescribed by random matrix theory, see sec.\ref{sec:RMT}) time series, $C_{ij}$ will be affected by noise.
As $\mu$ and $\nu$ increase, additional noise will be generated and the community structure will be more difficult to detect.
If $\mu=1$ ($\nu=1$) then the amplitude of the global mode (local noise) is the same as that of the community signal.
Therefore when $\mu$ and/or $\nu$ approach or exceed one, the community detection problem becomes more challenging.
Still, the ambition of our method is that of correctly identifying the benchmark partition $\vec{\sigma}^*$ even in this `hard' regime.
In Fig. \ref{CgHM} we show nine benchmarks, organized in a $3\times 3$ table with different combinations of values for $\mu$ and $\nu$. In all these cases, the communities to detect are the same set of $c=8$ heterogeneously sized communities shown previously in fig.\ref{fig:offdiag}c.
The color maps show the values of the entries of the filtered correlation matrix $\mathbf{C}^{(g)}$ defined in eq.\eqref{eq:cg}, i.e. the residual correlations obtained after removing the noise and market-mode components.
It can be seen that, even for values of $\mu$ and $\nu$ exceeding one, the filtered matrices always display a clear block-diagonal structure with a visible contrast across diagonal and off-diagonal blocks.
In all these benchmarks we confirmed that, using the corresponding modularity $Q_3(\vec{\sigma})$ defined in eq.\eqref{QFinance}, our method succeeded in detecting the correct partition $\vec{\sigma}^*$.
We quantitatively measured the performance of our method in terms of a metric known as Variation of Information ($VI$) ~\cite{Meila2007873,978-3-540-45167-9_14}, which measures the entropy difference between two partitions of the same network, providing a rigorous way for us to quantify the similarity between the `true' partition and the one identified by our method.
More precisely, $VI$ involves the use of Shannon's entropy to measure the amount of uncertainty that exists across the set of communities of two different partitions of the same network.
It provides a quantitative measure of the difference between two partitions, a normalized value where zero implies the two partitions are completely identical and one implies that they are completely unrelated.
As can be seen from Fig. \ref{CgHM}, the values of $VI$ (averaged over multiple runs of the community detection algorithm) are zero or extremely small, indicating a perfect or almost perfect performance of the method.
The average (over multiple runs) maximum modularity value $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ obtained in the above benchmarks is also illustrated in Fig. \ref{CgHM}.
Lower values of the modularity imply that the network as a whole is more homogeneous in its construction, to the extent that the detected communities exhibit only a relatively weak increase in their collective correlation, above the ambient level.
As expected, we see that the modularity decreases for increasing levels of market mode. Increasing levels of noise however do not have such a strong effect, since noisy time series tend to diminish the strength of the intra-community correlations, which enter in both the numerator and denominator of the modularity. In contrast, the market mode has significant impact on the inter-community correlations, which primarily end up only in the denominator of the modularity. Hence the observed decrease in modularity with an increase in market mode.
The corresponding low values of the modularity confirm what we had anticipated about the effects of eq.\eqref{eq:norm}.
We should bear these effects in mind when interpreting the (low) values of the modularity arising from the partition of real financial time series, where the market mode is very strong.
The fact that our method correctly identifies the benchmark partitions even for strong market mode (and low resulting modularity) makes us confident that it will also properly detect the community structure of real markets.
\section{The mesoscopic organization of real financial markets\label{sec:results}}
Having redefined the modularity consistently with the properties of correlation matrices and appropriately reconfigured three different techniques for optimizing it, we are now in a position to apply our methodology to a variety of real-world data sets and evaluate the quality of the results.
In particular we will apply our three algorithms and the null model expressed in eq.\eqref{QFinance} to time series representing stock prices from a variety of stock indexes that span multiple industries and multiple countries.
We first obtained static results, including the multiresolution community structure as introduced in sec. \ref{sec:multi}, using time series of log-returns of daily closing prices for all the three indexes. These results are shown in this section.
Then, we considered different temporal (frequency) resolutions and studied the time dynamics of community structure. These additional results are described in secs.\ref{sec:resol} and \ref{sec:dyn} respectively.
\subsection{Data and pre-processing}
The indexes we used are the S\&P 500 (US Large Cap. Stocks), the FTSE 100 (British Large Cap.) and the Nikkei 225 (Japanese Large Cap.).
For each of these indexes, we considered a period of 2500 trading days, corresponding to approximately 10 years of market activity, from 2001Q4 to 2011Q3.
We selected all stocks for which complete data are available during this period.
This resulted in the selection of 445 S\&P stocks, 78 FTSE stocks and 193 Nikkei stocks.
All these stocks are classified within the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS)\footnote{Standard \& Poor's developed what is known as the Global Industry Classification Standard (GCIS) as an industry taxonomy, for use by the financial sector. All stocks in the three indexes we work with are classified using this single taxonomy.}.
The complete taxonomy can be found online \footnote{http://www.standardandpoors.com/products-services/GICS/en/us}, however we briefly mention that there are ten top-level `sectors' (see table \ref{tbl:GICScolors}) split into 24 sub-categories called `industry groups', which are in turn divided into 68 `industries'.
\begin{table}[t]
\center
\begin{tabular}{|lc|lc|}
\hline
Consumer Discretionary: &\color{Purple} $\blacksquare$ \color{black} & Consumer Staples: &\color{Aquamarine}$\blacksquare$ \color{black}\\
Energy: &\color{CadetBlue} $\blacksquare$ \color{black} & Financials: &\color{Green} $\blacksquare$ \color{black}\\
Health Care: &\color{Red} $\blacksquare$ \color{black} & Industrials: &\color{Orange} $\blacksquare$ \color{black}\\
Information Technology: &\color{Blue} $\blacksquare$ \color{black} & Materials: &\color{Yellow} $\blacksquare$ \color{black}\\
Telecom. Services: &\color{Magenta} $\blacksquare$ \color{black} & Utilities: &\color{Brown} $\blacksquare$ \color{black}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The 10 industry sectors in the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS), with the color representation used to highlight the sectors in the following figures.}
\label{tbl:GICScolors}
\end{table}
It is important to note that, although we would expect stocks within certain industry sectors to be correlated with each other, we do not expect to observe this effect within and throughout all industry sectors.
Previous research in the area of stock clustering \cite{Econophysics,FinancialRisk,maxspanasset,PhysRevE.72.046133,PhysRevE.70.026110,PhysRevE.76.046116} (see also our discussion in sec.\ref{sec:existing}) has shown some relationships between the industry sectors and clusters of stocks identified by the various methods.
We therefore expect to find a certain degree of overlap with this research. However, our choice of null models in conjunction with our tailored community detection algorithms is designed to uncover nontrivial correlations, beyond a direct mapping to industry sectors, such as finding stocks from different industry sectors that tend to move together, and even in opposition to other stocks in their own sector.
It is therefore useful to use industry sectors not as a target, but as a baseline to highlight important and non-trivial deviations identified by the community detection algorithms.
As with the benchmarks described in sec.\ref{sec:bench}, each set of financial time series was used to initially create a correlation matrix $\mathbf{C}$ that was then filtered to produce the matrix $\mathbf{C}^{(g)}$ following the procedure described in secs. \ref{sec:RMT} and \ref{sec:ourmod}.
Each such matrix was then operated on individually by the three community detection algorithms described in sec. \ref{sec:methods}.
We found that all algorithms always generate very similar partitions.
This important result, which for the sake of exposition, is postponed to sec. \ref{sec:comparative}, implies that we can refrain from showing the results of every algorithm.
For brevity, we will instead select representative exemplars, with the understanding that any one of the algorithms would generate very similar results.
\subsection{Standard approaches\label{sec:standard}}
Before showing the main results of our own methodology, as a preliminary study we illustrate what would be obtained using some of the standard approaches available, in particular the correlation thresholding described in sec.\ref{sec:AG} and the community detection built on the network-based modularity, described in secs.\ref{sec:inconsistency} and \ref{sec:bias}.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{fig5.pdf}
\vskip -3cm
\caption{Asset graph for the S\&P 500 (log-returns of daily closing prices from 2001Q4 to 2011Q3). The network is generated from the correlation matrix of the constituent stocks, after taking the Fisher transform and setting a threshold at 2 standard deviations. The color of each node represents the industry sector to which that stock belongs (see Table \ref{tbl:GICScolors}). The force-based layout clearly indicates the existence of strong connections between stocks of the same industry sector, however this approach (like any other threshold-based approach) cannot identify communities of stocks that are internally more correlated than with the rest of the market, and mutually anti-correlated.}
\label{fig:assetgraph}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Asset Graph from Fisher-transformed correlations}
As we discussed in sec.\ref{sec:AG}, imposing a threshold on the entries of a correlation matrix $\mathbf{C}$ allows us to obtain an \emph{Asset Graph} where links connect the more strongly correlated pairs of stocks \cite{ag1,maxspanasset,Econophysics}.
In fig. \ref{fig:assetgraph} we show the effect of this procedure on our S\&P 500 data.
Rather than showing the results for multiple choices of the threshold, we used a rough criterion to select a unique threshold that would in principle correspond to a standard level of statistical significance. This criterion is as follows.
Using general results in statistics \cite{1915}, one can easily show that, under the null hypothesis, two time series $X_i$ and $X_j$ of length $T$ representing $T$ realizations of two independent and normally distributed random variables, the quantity
\begin{equation}
z_{ij}\equiv \textrm{artanh } C_{ij}
=\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{1+C_{ij}}{1-C_{ij}}
\label{eq:fisher}
\end{equation}
(where $C_{ij}$ is the sample correlation coefficient) is distributed as a normal variable with zero mean (representing the population correlation coefficient in the case of independent variables) and standard error
\begin{equation}
\sigma=(T-3)^{-1/2}.
\end{equation}
In other words, under the above null hypothesis we expect a concentration of values of $z_{ij}$ around zero, with standard error $\sigma$.
In order to detect significant deviations from the null hypothesis, one may select a threshold $\tau$ such that only the values outside $\tau$ standard errors, i.e. $|z_{ij}|>\tau \sigma$, are considered as statistically significant.
This means that one can select a threshold $z_\tau\equiv\tau\sigma$ for $z_{ij}$.
In terms of the correlations $C_{ij}$, the corresponding critical value is
\begin{equation}
C_\tau
\equiv\tanh z_\tau
=\frac{\exp{\Big(\frac{2\tau}{\sqrt{T-3}}\Big)}-1}{\exp{\Big(\frac{2\tau}{\sqrt{T-3}}\Big)}+1}.
\end{equation}
A suitable choice of the value of $\tau$ can be used to threshold the correlation matrix into an Asset Graph at the corresponding significance level: specifically, one can draw a link only if $|C_{ij}|>C_\tau$.
The advantage of introducing the above criterion is that, at least in principle, it associates a precise statistical significance level to any value of the threshold (there are however various problems with this approach, as we briefly comment later).
This makes it possible to select a unique threshold value corresponding to a standard accepted level of significance.
We used the above approach as a rough criterion to select an indicative threshold, choosing $\tau=2$ so that only the correlations lying two standard deviations away from the null hypothesis are in principle retained.
The resulting Asset Graph for the stocks of the S\&P 500, plotted in fig.\ref{fig:assetgraph}, was visualized using a clustered rendering ~\cite{ICWSM09154} of all the stocks that do not end up completely isolated after the filtration, according to the Fruchterman-Reingold~\cite{SPE:SPE4380211102} force-based algorithm.
As expected, we immediately see a significant correspondence between groups of densely connected nodes and industry sectors.
However, there is no linear relationship between the attractive and repulsive forces defined by the graph drawing algorithm and the contribution of the corresponding correlations to the modularity. As such, the visualization of the graph cannot be directly used to partition the network into communities.
Moreover, it should be noted that the approach we have used to define a threshold has two main theoretical disadvantages: first, it assumes normally distributed log-returns (while it is well known that real log-return distributions are fat-tailed \cite{Kurtosis, fattails}); secondly, it does not introduce multiple hypothesis test corrections.
A more rigorous way to statistically validate links in a correlation-based network would be that of using numerical bootstrapping methods such as the one considered in ref.\cite{validated}.
In any case, since no search over the space of possible partitions is performed, the Asset Graph method cannot identify communities of stocks that are more strongly correlated internally than with the rest of the market.
As we anticipated in sec.\ref{sec:AG}, this leaves the problem we started with unsolved.
We also recall from sec. \ref{sec:anti} that our methodology detects residually anti-correlated communities.
This property, which we will illustrate in sec. \ref{sec:anticorrelation} for the data considered here, cannot be achieved by any threshold-based method, or any of the other available methods we described in sec.\ref{sec:existing}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width = 0.3\textwidth]{fig6.pdf}
\caption{The trivial, single community containing all stocks of the S\&P 500 (log-returns of daily closing prices from 2001Q4 to 2011Q3), obtained by either na\"ively treating the correlation matrix as a weighted network and using the ordinary network-based modularity, or alternatively using the correlation-based modularity $Q_1(\vec{\sigma})$ (i.e. without filtering the correlation matrix). In both cases, the Louvain algorithm (see Appendix) has been used. The colors represent different GICS sectors (color legend in Table \ref{tbl:GICScolors}) and span an area proportional to the number of stocks in each sector.}
\label{fig:oneCommunity}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Na\"ive application of community detection}
As another baseline reference, in fig.\ref{fig:oneCommunity} we show the result of applying to the same S\&P 500 data, the community detection described in sec. \ref{sec:inconsistency}, i.e. by treating the correlation matrix $\mathbf{C}$ as a weighted network and running an ordinary (network-based) community detection algorithm \cite{saramaki_correlations,mason_correlations}.
We see that the resulting, trivial, community is a single one spanning the entire set of stocks.
In such a case, the pie chart depicting the community merely illustrates the distribution of industries within the S\&P 500.
The same result is obtained if one uses the correlation-based modularity $Q_1(\vec{\sigma})$ defined in eq.\eqref{QCor} in terms of the null model $\langle\mathbf{C}\rangle=\mathbf{1}$ (i.e. assuming that all time series are completely independent and of infinite length).
In the first case, this result is due to the inconsistent structure of the modularity and to the resulting bias of the algorithms used to maximize it, as we discussed in sec.\ref{sec:inconsistency}.
In the second case, it is due to the inadequacy of the null model defined in eq.(\ref{eq:goodnull}) for financial correlations (see sec.\ref{sec:ourmod}): the community detection algorithm finds only a single community because of the systemic correlation of the market mode affecting all stocks simultaneously.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width = 0.49\textwidth]{fig7.pdf}
\caption{Communities of the S\&P 500 (log-returns of daily closing prices from 2001Q4 to 2011Q3) generated using our correlation-based modularity $Q_3(\vec{\sigma})$ with the Louvain algorithm (see Appendix). Individual communities are labeled $A$ through $E$ and the pie chart represents the relative composition of each community based on the industry sectors of the constituent stocks (color legend in Table \ref{tbl:GICScolors}). The blue inter-community link weights are negative, indicating that the communities are all residually anti-correlated. The red circles around each community indicate that the total intra-community correlations are all positive.}
\label{fig:SPCommunities}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Community detection using our method}
We now come to the application of our own methodology described in sec.\ref{sec:methods}. In fig.\ref{fig:SPCommunities} we show the result of the application, to the same daily S\&P 500 data, of the appropriately redefined community detection methods introduced in sec.\ref{sec:redef}. Specifically, making use of the modularity $Q_3(\vec{\sigma})$ defined in eq.\eqref{QFinance}.
Since such null models discount both random and market-wide correlations, the community detection algorithms are now able to successfully find correlations that exist in between the microscopic and macroscopic levels.
For the S\&P 500, the result is a set of five mesoscopic communities whose relative size (the number of nodes in each community) is expressed by the size of the pie chart in the graph. The relative breakdown of the stocks in each community, classified according to their top level GICS sector (see table \ref{tbl:GICScolors}), is represented by the fraction of the pie chart for that community.
In addition to the communities presented for the S\&P 500, in figs. \ref{fig:FCommunities} and \ref{fig:NCommunities} we also provide the communities for the FTSE 100 and the Nikkei 225 respectively, again detected using the null model from eq.\eqref{QFinance}.
As before, the na\"ive community detection would place all stocks into a single community (not shown).
For all these data sets, the values of the maximized modularity $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ achieved by the optimal partitions will be shown later in sec.\ref{sec:comparative}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width = .45\textwidth]{fig8.pdf}
\caption{Communities of the FTSE 100 (log-returns of daily closing prices from 2001Q4 to 2011Q3) generated using our correlation-based modularity $Q_3(\vec{\sigma})$ with the Louvain algorithm (see Appendix). Individual communities are labeled $A$ through $E$ and the pie chart represents the relative composition of each community based on the industry sectors of the constituent stocks (color legend in Table \ref{tbl:GICScolors}). The blue inter-community link weights are negative, indicating that the communities are all residually anti-correlated. The red circles around each community indicate that the total intra-community correlations are all positive.}
\label{fig:FCommunities}
\end{figure}
While at first glance it may seem as though there is no particular pattern to the community structures in the three markets (as each community contains a plethora of stocks from different industry sectors), a closer look at the industries to which the stocks belong though does in fact yield some interesting observations.
First and foremost, some of the industry sectors tend to dominate communities, where in some cases 100\% of the stocks for a particular industry sector are in the same community, meaning that on average over the past ten years they have all remained correlated.
Examples of this include Energy (\color{CadetBlue} $\blacksquare$\color{black}, community $B$), Financials (\color{Green}$\blacksquare$\color{black}, community $C$) and Information Technology (\color{Blue}$\blacksquare$\color{black}, community $D$) in the S\&P, Utilities (\color{Brown}$\blacksquare$\color{black}, community $A$), Health Care (\color{Red}$\blacksquare$\color{black}, community $A$),
Information Technology (\color{Blue}$\blacksquare$\color{black}, community $C$),
Telecom. Services (\color{Magenta}$\blacksquare$\color{black}, community $C$) and Energy (\color{CadetBlue} $\blacksquare$\color{black}, community $E$) in the FTSE, and finally Utilities (\color{Brown}$\blacksquare$\color{black}, community $B$),
Energy (\color{CadetBlue} $\blacksquare$\color{black}, community $B$) and Consumer Staples (\color{Aquamarine}$\blacksquare$\color{black}, community $B$) in the Nikkei.
There are also instances where top-level sectors are split among different communities according to their subclassification (Industry Group and Industry).
This is very interesting because it shows that subgroups of stocks within one sector are often more correlated with a different sector than their own sector.
\begin{figure}[t]
\includegraphics[width=.49\textwidth]{fig9.pdf}
\caption{Communities of the Nikkei 225 (log-returns of daily closing prices from 2001Q4 to 2011Q3) generated using our correlation-based modularity $Q_3(\vec{\sigma})$ with the Louvain algorithm (see Appendix). Individual communities are labeled $A$ through $D$ and the pie chart represents the relative composition of each community based on the industry sectors of the constituent stocks (color legend in Table \ref{tbl:GICScolors}). The blue inter-community link weights are negative, indicating that the communities are all residually anti-correlated. The red circles around each community indicate that the total intra-community correlations are all positive.}
\label{fig:NCommunities}
\end{figure}
Other interesting cross-sector correlations can be found too, with Health Care for example. In the FTSE communities, Health Care stocks (\color{Red}$\blacksquare$\color{black}) are exclusively in community $A$, whereas in the S\&P they are predominately in community $E$, with some in community $D$.
Interestingly enough, in the latter case the one \textit{Health Care Technology} industry sector stock from the Health Care sector is in community $D$, which also happens to be the community containing all of the Information Technology (IT) stocks (\color{Blue}$\blacksquare$\color{black}), whereas all of the Pharmaceutical stocks are in community $E$, which contains the bulk of the Consumer Staples (\color{Aquamarine}$\blacksquare$\color{black}) stocks.
The reader might at this point notice that the FTSE community $A$ containing all Health Care (\color{Red}$\blacksquare$\color{black}) stocks also contains the bulk of the Consumer Staples (\color{Aquamarine}$\blacksquare$\color{black}) stocks. It is probably not surprising then to discover that those Health Care stocks are comprised of entirely Pharmaceuticals.
We find an identical relationship between Pharmaceuticals and Consumer Staples in community $B$ of the Nikkei 225 as well. Furthermore, the one other Health Care stock, a \textit{Health Care Equipment \& Supplies} stock trades in the same community as the IT stocks. This might not be particularly interesting except for the fact that in the Nikkei, the vast majority of IT sector stocks are sub-classified as Electronic Equipment.
One might continue finding interesting trends such as these, however our purpose is not to glean specific qualitative information regarding financial markets, but rather to illustrate how the underlying quantitative information can be ascertained from the raw data, through the appropriate choice of null models in conjunction with the process of community detection.
The most important result of this process is the successful identification of mesoscopic communities of correlated stocks that are irreducible to a standard sectorial taxonomy and also anti-correlated with each other, as we now discuss.
\subsection{Residually anti-correlated communities and portfolio optimization\label{sec:anticorrelation}}
The age old proverb, \emph{``Don't put all your eggs in one basket''}, could never be more insightful than when deciding how to invest one's money. Entire departments of almost every investment bank, insurance firm and hedge fund are dedicated to picking the right baskets for their customers' nest eggs.
This process is often referred to as \emph{portfolio optimization} (or \emph{asset allocation}) and involves optimizing the way in which a sum of money is divided up between a variety of financial instruments such that one maximizes the return for a given risk, or alternatively minimizes the risk for a given return.
According to Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT)~\cite{MPT, MPTII, MPTIA}, which is widely used in the financial world to calculate asset allocations, one of the most effective ways to accomplish this is through diversification, that is to select groups of assets which are as uncorrelated as possible, or even anti-correlated.
Clearly, we can identify numerous parallels between MPT and our community detection method. As we anticipated in our proof of eq.(\ref{eq:split}), a key property of the correlation-based modularity is that its maximization will identify mutually anti-correlated groups of time series (where anti-correlations are intended as residual, if some filtering has been applied).
Indeed, in figs. \ref{fig:SPCommunities}, \ref{fig:FCommunities} and \ref{fig:NCommunities}, all the links connecting different communities have negative weights, i.e. all communities are mutually anti-correlated.
The (residual) anti-correlations among communities allow us to identify combinations of stocks, which on top of the overall market mode and purely random fluctuations, move in opposition to each other.
Recalling from eqs. \eqref{eq:l1}, \eqref{eq:l2} and \eqref{eq:borrowed} that
\begin{equation}
\tilde{C}_{AB}^{(l)}=\textrm{Cov}[\tilde{X}_A,\tilde{X}_B]-\langle \textrm{Cov}[\tilde{X}_A,\tilde{X}_B]\rangle_l
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{X}_A\equiv \sum_{i\in A}X_i$, we obtain a practical recipe to construct a set $\{\tilde{X}_A\}$ of community-specific indexes (each built as the sum of the time series of the stocks within a community) such that, as follows from eq.\eqref{eq:split},
\begin{equation}
\textrm{Cov}[\tilde{X}_A,\tilde{X}_B]<\langle \textrm{Cov}[\tilde{X}_A,\tilde{X}_B]\rangle_l\qquad\textrm{if }A\ne B.
\end{equation}
In other words, the two indexes are residually less correlated with each other than expected under the null model, i.e. their mutual filtered correlations are negative.
This is a desirable trait from the point of view of risk management and portfolio optimization.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width =.45 \textwidth]{fig10.pdf}}
\caption{Maximized modularity values $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ for each of the three markets (log-returns of daily closing prices from 2001Q4 to 2011Q3).
Green is the Potts algorithm, orange is the Louvain algorithm and blue is the spectral algorithm.}
\label{fig:IndexMetricsA}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Comparative analysis of the three algorithms\label{sec:comparative}}
We now show a result that we anticipated at the beginning of this section, i.e. the fact that the three algorithms we introduced in sec.\ref{sec:redef} identify a very similar community structure on the data we considered.
This makes the results shown so far quite robust under changes of the protocol used to derive them.
\begin{table*}[t]
\center
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{S\&P 500}& \textbf{Potts} & \textbf{Louvain} & \textbf{Spectral} \\
\hline
\textbf{Potts} & 0 & 0.019 & 0.09 \\
\hline
\textbf{Louvain} & 0.019 & 0 & 0.08 \\
\hline
\textbf{Spectral} & 0.09 & 0.08 & 0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
\hskip .3cm
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Nikkei 225}& \textbf{Potts} & \textbf{Louvain} & \textbf{Spectral} \\
\hline
\textbf{Potts} & 0 & 0.007 & 0.04 \\
\hline
\textbf{Louvain} & 0.007 & 0 & 0.04 \\
\hline
\textbf{Spectral} & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
\hskip .3cm
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{FTSE 100}& \textbf{Potts} & \textbf{Louvain} & \textbf{Spectral} \\
\hline
\textbf{Potts} & 0 & 0.11 & 0.11 \\
\hline
\textbf{Louvain} & 0.11 & 0 & 0.05 \\
\hline
\textbf{Spectral} & 0.11 & 0.05 & 0\\
\hline
\end{tabular}%
\caption{Comparison of the relative Variation of Information between the optimal partitions found by all algorithms, for the S\&P 500, the Nikkei 225 and the FTSE 100. The data are log-returns of daily closing prices from 2001Q4 to 2011Q3.}
\label{VI}
\end{table*}
In figs. \ref{fig:IndexMetricsA} and \ref{fig:IndexMetricsB} we show the value of the maximized modularity $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ and number of detected communities as the result of running all our three algorithms on the filtered correlation matrices for the S\&P 500, the Nikkei 225 and the FTSE 100.
We recall from the discussion following eq.\eqref{eq:norm} and from the benchmarks studied in sec. \ref{sec:bench} that, unlike the corresponding problem in network analysis, our choice of $C_{norm}$ implies very small values of the maximized modularity, even in the presence of well-defined communities, when the market mode is strong.
So the small values of $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ shown in fig. \ref{fig:IndexMetricsA} do not imply a poor or weak community structure.
It can be seen from fig. \ref{fig:IndexMetricsA} that all three algorithms perform very closely in terms of the maximized modularity value they achieve.
Similarly, if we compare the number of communities found by the three methods (see fig.\ref{fig:IndexMetricsB}) we find that the number of communities is quite stable as well.
In table \ref{VI} we quantify more rigorously the differences in the composition of the communities detected by the three algorithms, by showing the $VI$ (see sec.\ref{sec:bench}) among all pairs of algorithms, for all the three indexes.
The values are quite low, indicating that the partitions found by different algorithms are very similar.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.45\textwidth]{fig11.pdf}}
\caption{Number of communities detected in each of the three markets (log-returns of daily closing prices from 2001Q4 to 2011Q3).
Green is the Potts algorithm, orange is the Louvain algorithm and blue is the spectral algorithm.}
\label{fig:IndexMetricsB}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width = .54\textwidth]{fig12a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width = .45\textwidth]{fig12b.pdf}
\includegraphics[width = .42\textwidth]{fig12c.pdf}
\includegraphics[width = .45\textwidth]{fig12d.pdf}
\includegraphics[width = .5\textwidth]{fig12e.pdf}
\caption{Our multiresolution community detection method resolves the sub-community structure of the five communities of the S\&P 500 (see fig. \ref{fig:SPCommunities}).
Community $A$ mainly comprises Consumer Discretionary and Industrial stocks, $B$ all the Energy stocks, $C$ all the Finance stocks, $D$ all the IT stocks, while $E$ is highly heterogeneous but very well resolved into five separate sub-communities mainly comprising Utilities, Industrial, Health Care, Telecommunication Services, and Consumer Staples stocks respectively.
Besides this relatively predictable partition, we note that Industrials stocks, and to a lesser extent also Materials and Consumer Discretionary stocks, are quite dispersed across different communities. (From cross-correlations of log-returns of daily closing prices from 2001Q4 to 2011Q3; the Louvain algorithm has been used).}
\label{fig:SubCommunitiesA}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\includegraphics[width = .99\textwidth]{fig13.pdf}
\caption{Multiresolution community detection reveals the hierarchical structure of the communities of the S\&P 500 (from cross-correlations of log-returns of daily closing prices from 2001Q4 to 2011Q3). The dendrogram gives an alternative, combined representation of figs. \ref{fig:oneCommunity}, \ref{fig:SPCommunities} and \ref{fig:SubCommunitiesA}.
(The modified Louvain algorithm has been used).}
\label{fig:ComHierarchy}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Hierarchical community structure of the market\label{sec:hiera}}
We now come to the application of the multiresolution community detection approach we introduced in sec.\ref{sec:multi}.
In the case of financial markets, the community-specific correlation responsible for the modular structure shown so far can be regarded, from the perspective of all stocks within one community, as a `micro market mode'.
Just as the market mode discussed previously is responsible for the collective tide of an entire market, a similar force can be extrapolated at the community level.
As discussed in sec.\ref{sec:multi}, accounting for this `community mode' in the leading eigenvalue and corresponding eigenvector of the correlation submatrix restricted to an individual community allows us to incorporate its effects, together with those of the overall market mode into the null model and again, detect any underlying structure, which surfaces upon the removal of its influence.
Figure \ref{fig:SubCommunitiesA} shows the result of a single layer of recursion into the five communities of the S\&P 500 (depicted previously in fig. \ref{fig:SPCommunities}). Again, we note that the sub-communities are all residually anti-correlated with each other (within each parent community) but maintain an internal positive correlation.
Although not obvious from the graph, the sub-communities tend to fall along GICS industry sector lines, with some interesting exceptions, as before.
To call out a few examples, in community $D$ (fig.\ref{fig:SubCommunitiesA}), which contains all of the IT stocks, we see the sub-communities separating along Industry Group and Industry lines \footnote{The GICS hierarchy follows the form of ``Sector''\textbackslash ``Industry Group''\textbackslash ``Industry'' and so the examples in this section will follow the same form, e.g. ``Information Technology''\textbackslash ``Software \& Services''\textbackslash ``Software''. However, since our discussion will be predominantly focused on similarities at the Industry level, for brevity we will often omit the full GICS label. In such cases we will delineate this using italics, e.g \textit{Software} in the example above.}. Sub-community $D5$ is comprised of only \textit{Software} stocks, $D4$ contains all of the \textit{Semiconductor \& Semiconductor Equipment} stocks, and $D2$ contains all of the \textit{Internet Software \& Services} stocks. Interestingly enough though, $D2$ also contains Amazon Inc. and Priceline Inc. from the Consumer Discretionary Sector, which one could argue are quite aligned with the Internet.
Continuing the analysis further, we see that in community $C$ the Finance community sub-community $C2$ contains all of the \textit{Commercial Bank} stocks, while $C3$ contains all but one of the \textit{Insurance} companies.
$C4$ is exclusively \textit{Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)} and accounts for all of them.
Similar partitions can be seen in the other sub communities and further recursion into these communities produce still further separation, close to but not exactly in line with the GICS classification.
Figure \ref{fig:ComHierarchy} depicts the hierarchical nature of the S\&P 500 to three layers deep. The process can be continued until no single community can be partitioned further into any combination of two or more sets which are anti correlated with each other.
For instance, community $E$ (fig.\ref{fig:SubCommunitiesA}) which contains a variety of stocks from various GICS sectors separates out such that the bulk of the stocks in the different sectors find themselves in their own sub community. If we further probe into community $E1$, which contains all of the Health Care stocks we see that the sub-communities (not shown) fall very closely along Industry lines, with five communities each comprised predominantly of \textit{Pharmaceutical}, \textit{Biotechnology} and \textit{Life Science Tools}, \textit{Health Care Providers \& Services}, \textit{Health Care Equipment \& Supplies} and everything else, respectively. Albeit interesting, these results invite inspection of the stocks that end up in the ``everything else'' community. These stocks were deemed correlated with the other Health Care stocks, when they were all placed in community $E1$, and include McGraw Hill Inc., H\&R Block and Waste Management Inc.
None of these stocks immediately stand out as being fundamentally related to Health Care.
Similar outliers exist in the other communities as well.
It may well be the case that there is good reason for their association, for example a shared parent company, sizable investment, common board members or some other significant relationship, or it may be purely coincidental. Gaining a better understand of this takes us to our next lines of experimentation.
\section{Multifrequency community detection \label{sec:resol}}
Having examined the mesoscopic structure of a set of financial markets, one might be curious as to whether that structure is specific to the chosen frequency of the original time series. That is, one would like to check whether the same communities would be retrieved if the returns which comprised the original time series were calculated every minute, every half hour or every two days. To answer this `multifrequency' community detection problem, in this section we evaluate the robustness of partitions at a variety of temporal resolutions.
\subsection{Multiple-frequency data}
In order to maintain consistency with the results previously described in this paper, we use the same time frame but, instead of working with daily log-returns, we created new data using minute log-returns for the S\&P 500 stocks. This has the initial effect of greatly increasing the amount of data being using: from 2500 data points per stock for the daily returns to approximately 900,000 for the minute returns.
In order to accommodate some missing data from the minute returns, we had to reduce the set of 445 to 413 stocks, noting that the removed stocks were relatively evenly distributed across the top level sectors of the GICS, so as not to deplete any one particular sector.
With the minute return time data of these 413 stocks we created nine new sets of time series, corresponding to a variety of different resolutions $\Delta_t$ spanning the same ten-year period:
\begin {equation}
\Delta_t \in \{ \text{1, 5, 10, 15 \& 30 mins, 1 hour, 0.5, 1 \& 2 days} \}. \nonumber
\end {equation}
For example, the 5-min data was created by taking the price of every stock every 5th minute throughout the day. From these nine sets of time series we then proceeded in the same fashion as was previously described for daily return data, creating correlation matrices and leveraging RMT filtering to produce the respective null models.
\subsection{Robustness over multiple frequencies}
To measure the effects of resolution we applied all three of the community detection algorithms discussed above to all nine data sets, yielding various values for the modularity $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ of the partition (see fig. \ref{fig:ResQplot}).
Since there can be multiple peaks within a modularity landscape ~\cite{landscape}, all yielding the same value of $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ but exhibiting different community structures, we use $VI$ (see Sec. \ref{sec:bench}) as a measure of the difference between the partitions.
Since $VI$ is a comparative measure, we (arbitrarily) use the community structure previously ascertained from the daily returns as the point of reference.
Thus, as can be seen in fig. \ref{fig:ResVIplot}, the $VI$ for the 1-day returns is 0 by construction, indicating perfect similarity, whereas the community structure for every other resolution shows some level of deviation.
Overall, it can be seen from the combination of figs. \ref{fig:ResQplot} and \ref{fig:ResVIplot} that there exists a considerable amount of consistency between the communities detected at differing resolutions, with the $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ values remaining almost constant and $VI$ deviating slightly with each resolution interval but indicating in most cases no more than a 10\% difference between the communities of a particular resolution and those of the 1-day resolution.
This means that the correlations between large groups of stocks are not strongly dependent on the resolution of the chosen time step.
One might expect to see fluctuations in the variance of stocks at smaller time resolutions, where the more volatile periods of trading (such as market open and market close) are captured.
However since we are dealing with correlation matrices, this variance is normalized away. Moreover, we recall that our definition of $C_{norm}$ in eq.\eqref{eq:norm} controls for the varying volatitily (variance of the total log-return over all stocks), allowing us to focus solely on the relationships between the stocks themselves.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = .45\textwidth]{fig14.pdf}}
\caption{Multifrequency analysis of the modularity $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ for the different methods, as the resolution goes from one-minute intervals to two-day intervals. A relatively consistent value of the modularity can been seen across all time step resolutions. (Potts algorithm in green squares, Louvain algorithm in orange circles and Spectral algorithm in blue triangles).}
\label{fig:ResQplot}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = .45\textwidth]{fig15.pdf}}
\caption{Multifrequency analysis of the Variation of Information between each of the nine data sets of different time resolutions and the partition for the data set of daily time steps. It can be seen that all data sets yield partitions quite similar to each other, but there is still slight degradation as the resolution gets finer. (Potts algorithm in green squares, Louvain algorithm in orange circles and Spectral algorithm in blue triangles).}
\label{fig:ResVIplot}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Detection of `hard' and `soft' stocks: overlapping community structure}
Although the values of $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ and $VI$ do provide reasonable insight into the robustness of community structure at the different resolutions, we take the analysis one step further and examine the communities from the perspective of the individual stocks.
That is, we can further examine the community affiliation of individual stocks at the various resolutions to ascertain the frequency of times any two stocks find themselves in the same community as each other.
We show the results of this analysis in fig. \ref{fig:ResolutionHM}, which is a heat map of the different stocks, such that the color of every pair indicates the frequency of co-occurrence in the same community, across all resolutions.
For example, if two stocks were always in the same community (unit frequency) then their entry in the heat map is white, while if they were never in the same community regardless of the time step chosen (zero frequency) then their entry is black.
Stocks which share a community for some time steps are shades of red (lower frequency) or yellow (higher frequency).
As we can see, the results are in line with the graph of $VI$ in fig. \ref{fig:ResVIplot}. That is, the communities tend to consist of a large core of `hard' stocks that are unwavering over the different resolutions, plus
a small amount of `soft' stocks that fluctuate between communities, presumably giving rise to the 10\% fluctuation in community structure observed with the $VI$ analysis. A significant finding is the existence of a group of soft stocks that alternate across the Utilities, Health Care and Consumer Staples communities, and of another group of soft stocks alternating across the Consumer Discretionary and Financials communities.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig16.pdf}}
\caption{Multifrequency heat map showing the normalized co-occurrence of different pairs of stocks within the same community, for the same time period but over various temporal resolutions of the original time series (white: unit frequency, black: zero frequency).
The stocks have been ordered using simulated annealing to position stocks with high degree of cross correlations next to each other. To further inform the graph, the GICS sectors have been specified, emphasizing which groupings of stocks tend to associate with a particular sector. Overall, the blocks of large black and white areas indicate a high degree of coherence of the communities at different resolutions.
However, there are two groups of `soft' stocks, one alternating across Utilities, Health Care and Consumer Staples, and one alternating across Consumer Discretionary and Financials. (Produced using the Louvain algorithm).}
\label{fig:ResolutionHM}
\end{figure}
It should be noted that our identification of the `hard' stocks that are most of the time part of the core of a community and the `soft' ones that are instead alternating across communities is a way to take the potentially overlapping nature of communities into account, even if using a non-overlapping method like modularity maximization.
This possibility has no counterpart in the standard network-based community detection problem, and is offered by the intrinsic dependence of correlation matrices on the frequency of the original time series.
In what follows, we will use the dynamical evolution of correlations to explore another dimension of variability leading to an alternative way to resolve overlapping communities of multiple time series.
\section{Time Dynamics\label{sec:dyn}}
When optimizing a portfolio, there is a constant need to choose an adequate period of history from which to try to predict future behavior of the assets in the portfolio. Choosing too short a period will inaccurately bias one's results, because extreme events are weighted too heavily. Similarly, choosing too long a history can imply stability where none exists.
In general, analyzing the stability of communities over time provides us with reassurance that our models are in fact producing statistically significant results as well as providing insightful information about the data itself.
For example, it is well known in finance that markets become much more globally correlated during periods of economic decline.
Stated in the terminology we have been using throughout this paper, they fall more under the influence of the market mode and relinquish the structure provided by the group mode.
That being the case, we would expect to see communities lose coherence during periods in the dataset that we know to have been economically troublesome, for example the tech bubble bursting in 2000 - 2001 or the sub-prime lending crisis, 2007 - 2008.
Since we have shown that the 15-minute data set yield very similar communities to the daily data set for the S\&P, we can feel reasonably assured that we can use 15-minute data instead of the daily data, which will allow us to examine the S\&P data set using a sliding time window of 2 years, corresponding to a ratio $T/N=6$, and even look at more fine grained windows, e.g. 6 months.
\subsection{Two-year window}
We now seek to examine the community structure over sequential periods of two years to unearth any anomalies which might exist.
We again apply the different methods of community detection using the two-year window time series sets of the S\&P 500 and subsequent null models created using RMT filtering.
As we did for our analysis of resolution, here we evaluate the modularity function $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ for each period (see fig. \ref{fig:QTimeSPX2Year}) along with the $VI$ (see fig. \ref{fig:VITimeSPX2Year}), where for $VI$ we are comparing each window with the initial two-year window.
As before, we see that all three algorithms perform in a reasonably similar manner.
However, unlike our analysis of robustness over different resolutions (which showed little change in community structure or in the modularity), here we see that $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ fluctuates over the different windows.
We recall again that, as we mentioned in our discussion following eq.\eqref{eq:norm}, our choice of $C_{norm}$ is already discounting (the evolution of) the volatility of the market.
Still, we see that $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ rises slowly from the period ending in 2003 to the period ending in 2007, implying an increase in the strength of communities, and then falls by more than 50\% by the end of the period ending in 2009. This drop implies a de-coherence of the communities throughout that period, quite possibly attributed to the financial crash of 2007 - 2008.
This seems in line with the observation that during periods of financial crisis, markets tend to become more globally correlated, overwhelming the effect of group-level correlations.
However, it is interesting that the values of $VI$ have remained quite small and stationary (fig. \ref{fig:VITimeSPX2Year}).
This indicates that, despite the fluctuating value of the modularity (i.e. of the relative intra-community correlations), the composition of the communities has remained very stable over time.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{fig17.pdf}}
\caption{Temporal trend in the values of $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ for the different methods over a 2-year sliding window spanning the time frame from Oct 2001 to Oct 2011. (Potts method in green squares, Louvain method in orange circles and Spectral method in blue triangles).}
\label{fig:QTimeSPX2Year}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Six-month window}
We can continue to probe this system at a finer grained resolution of time periods, to see if the observations made with the two year window hold up.
Again, we plot both $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ and $VI$ for the same ten-year period of the S\&P and present the results in figs. \ref{fig:QTimeSPX6Month} and \ref{fig:VITimeSPX6Month} respectively. We can immediately see that the homogeneity of community structure that we see when probing the data using two-year time windows still exists for the most part, but there exists some fluctuations in modularity and community composition over the various six-month periods. The graph of $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ in fig. \ref{fig:QTimeSPX6Month} reinforces the observation from fig. \ref{fig:QTimeSPX2Year} of a significant drop in modularity around the time of the most recent financial crisis, and more accurately pinpoints it to the last half of 2007.
The $VI$ plot in figure \ref{fig:VITimeSPX6Month} indicates again that although the strength of community structure, as measured by $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$, may have been decreasing, the overall composition of the communities remained relatively constant.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = 0.45\textwidth]{fig18.pdf}}
\caption{Temporal trend of $VI$ showing the similarity in community structure for the different algorithms over a 2-year sliding window spanning the time frame from Oct 2001 to Oct 2011. (Potts algorithm in green squares, Louvain algorithm in orange circles and Spectral algorithm in blue triangles).}
\label{fig:VITimeSPX2Year}
\end{figure}
To further examine the coherence and fluctuations in communities across all of the six-month windows, in fig. \ref{fig:VISPX6MonthHM} we provide a heat map showing the mutual $VI$ between every two pairs of 6-month windows. Each square in the matrix is a colored representation of the value of $VI$ between the $i^{th}$ and $j^{th}$ 6-month period. Of particular interest, we can see in the lower right corner of the image (which displays the $VI$ between the most recent time windows) that the communities are slightly more similar than communities generated from the other windows. This indicates that there was less movement of stocks between communities during the most recent couple of years of the past decade. Additionally, these periods are closer to the community structure observed when we measured the entire ten-year period.
As far as explaining this behavior in financial and economical terms, we are again left to hypothesize. Perhaps the observed effect is due to a solidification of communities of stocks caused by the financial collapse, or perhaps it is merely the result of increased accessibility to the markets.
With the advent of smartphones, tablets, ease of streaming and subscribing to news feeds and social networks in conjunction with faster trading systems, quantitative and high frequency trading, it is conceivable that our increased access to information and the ability to act on it in near real-time has caused a solidifying behavior of the stocks within communities.
\subsection{Temporal coherence of communities:\\
`hard' and `soft' stocks again}
We display here one final take on the results obtained from our sliding time window, but this time with a stock-centric view, similar to that which we performed for the multifrequency analysis in sec.\ref{sec:resol}.
In the previous sections we have alluded to how communities change with time.
One question that should be addressed in conjunction with the previous discussion of time scales is then how the composition of a community changes over time. We have already seen from a variety of $VI$ plots that across each of the six-month periods, the sets of communities look slightly different from each other, but what changes are actually taking place?
Are there groups of stocks that form tight knit, unwavering cores of communities? Or do they morph fluidly from one to the other, maintaining no coherence over the entire span of ten years?
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = 0.45\textwidth]{fig19.pdf}}
\caption{Temporal trend in the values of $Q_3(\vec{\sigma}^*)$ for the different algorithms over a 6-month sliding window spanning the time frame from Oct 2001 to Oct 2011. (Potts algorithm in green squares, Louvain algorithm in orange circles and Spectral algorithm in blue triangles).}
\label{fig:QTimeSPX6Month}
\end{figure}
To address this, we examined the sets of stocks that comprised the communities of each six-month time frame of the S\&P over the course of ten years and created a co-occurrence matrix like the one previously shown in fig.\ref{fig:ResolutionHM}, where we calculated the frequency of periods during which any pair of stocks resided in the same community.
The resulting heat map is presented in figure \ref{fig:ComHM6Months}.
Again, pairs of stocks which were in the same community all the time are white, and those which were never in the same community are black.
The list of stocks is too long to place on the figure as axis labels, but from observing the raw results we can make some very interesting observations, which we have tried to summarize by labeling again the graph with GICS industry sectors.
We can see that over the course of ten years, the communities do exhibit strong cores which are unwavering in their construction and constantly anti-correlated with each other. For example there exists a set of core energy, IT and financial stocks which always reside in their own community, but never share a community with each other. Groups of Energy, Materials and Utilities stocks almost always share the same community, but there have been instances when they did not. Finance is broken into a couple of segments of stocks, such as Banks, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), etc. where the smaller groups always trade with each other but not necessarily aggregated together in a larger community. Similarly, Health Care stocks are fractured in subsets of highly correlated groups of Pharmaceuticals, Services and Biotech, whose allegiance to the larger industry sectors, such as IT and Consumer Staples is more fluid. These trends display interesting overlap with the hierarchical community structure of the S\&P discussed earlier in sec.\ref{sec:hiera}. We also see individual stocks from one top-level industry sector spending most of their time in communities comprised predominantly of a different top-level industry sector, for example Amazon (Consumer Discretionary) spends 90\% of the time in the IT group, as does Motorola (Telecommunications).
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = 0.45\textwidth]{fig20.pdf}}
\caption{Temporal trend of $VI$ showing the similarity in community structure for the different algorithms over a 6-month sliding window spanning the time frame from Oct 2001 to Oct 2011. (Potts algorithm in green squares, Louvain algorithm in orange circles and Spectral algorithm in blue triangles).}
\label{fig:VITimeSPX6Month}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{fig21.pdf}}
\caption{Heat map showing the value of $VI$ between every pair of 6-month time windows, as well as the $VI$ between each window and the total 10-year period (leftmost column and top row). Most notably, there is a slight increase in the similarity of the communities of the last 5 periods 2009 - 2011. (Produced using the Louvain algorithm).}
\label{fig:VISPX6MonthHM}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=.5\textwidth]{fig22.pdf}}
\caption{Coherence of communities over time.
The heat map shows the frequency of co-occurrence of different pairs of stocks within the same community over time (white: unit frequency, black: zero frequency).
The stocks have been ordered using simulated annealing to position stocks with high degree of cross correlations next to each other. To further inform the graph, the GICS sectors have been specified, emphasizing which groupings of stocks tend to associate with a particular sector. (Produced using the Louvain algorithm).
}
\label{fig:ComHM6Months}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions\label{sec:conclusions}}
In this paper we have addressed the challenging problem of the detection of communities of strongly correlated time series, whose importance resides in the possibility of identifying a mesoscopic level of organization in the dynamics of complex systems.
While the available techniques to analyze correlation matrices failed to detect such modules, we have shown how the concepts of null models, modularity and community detection developed in network theory can be appropriately modified in order to successfully cluster matrices of multiple time series.
Our redefinitions of the standard methods solve a number of problems encountered when correlation matrices are na\"ively regarded as weighted networks and when ordinary community detection methods are used improperly.
Through the use of various financial markets as examples, we have demonstrated how community detection can be used as a tool to extract specific structural information from time series data.
By surfacing group correlations and trends of the stocks in the S\&P 500, the FTSE 100 and the Nikkei 225, we were able to isolate well-defined communities of stocks such that each community exhibited an internal positive correlation between its constituent stocks, where those same stocks exhibited an aggregate residual anti-correlation with the stocks of each of the other communities.
While some of these communities showed an association with the more qualitative classification expressed in the GICS industry sector taxonomy, our approach was able to uncover a host of interesting correlations between stocks of different sectors and industry groups, as well as unsuspected residual anti-correlations between stocks of the same sector.
As such, our methods and results show that the observed patterns are irreducible to a standard taxonomy, and therefore highlight nontrivial patterns. Moreover, they could prove particularly useful in a number of different fields of finance, such as portfolio optimization and risk management.
It is worth pointing out that our modifications to the Potts, Louvain and Spectral Optimization algorithms for community detection, although beneficial in and of themselves, act as a proof of concept opening the door to the adaptation of other techniques existing in the field of community detection, allowing e.g. for overlapping, multiresolution, or hierarchical communities \cite{Fortunato_2010,zohar1,zohar2}.
Similarly, alternative null models controlling for additional or more sophisticated features of the data can also be developed and incorporated in our approach. The key point is that these models, unlike the na\"ive approach, which has been used so far, should always be consistent with correlation matrices. We hope that our approach will stimulate further research in this direction.
Moreover, although we have focused on financial time series as our primary example of real-world data, our general methodology can of course be applied or adapted to any type of time series data, hopefully yielding equally promising results.
We conclude by noting that, abstractly, the ordinary (network-based) community detection techniques and the (correlation-based) clustering that we have introduced can be thought of as lying at two opposite extremes of a more general problem, in the following sense.
The network-based clustering is in the vast majority of cases aimed at identifying groups of statically linked objects (as captured by a single temporal snapshot of the network) while disregarding their possibly correlated evolution.
By contrast, the correlation-based clustering that we have introduced assumes that the community-defining features are precisely those determining synchronized trends of dynamical activity among nodes, and that the presence (if any) of static dependencies among the latter can be disregarded.
One could of course imagine a more general framework where both static linkages and temporal correlations contribute to the definition of communities, possibly overcoming the `functional versus structural' dichotomy such as the one existing in brain network analysis that we mentioned in the Introduction.
The present work thus represents one step towards the introduction of a fundamentally more general interpolating formalism.
\begin{acknowledgments}
DG acknowledges support from the Dutch Econophysics Foundation (Stichting Econophysics, Leiden, the Netherlands) with funds from beneficiaries of Duyfken Trading Knowledge BV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
This work was also supported by the EU project MULTIPLEX (contract 317532) and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO/OCW).
\end{acknowledgments}
\begin{appendix}
\section{Redefining community detection methods\label{sec:redefining}}
In this Appendix we show that we can successfully reformulate three of the most popular network-based community detection algorithms in order to properly detect communities of correlated time series using the modified modularity function defined in eq.(\ref{eq:Qunified}).
We stress again that even if the techniques, which we are going to describe, can be considered as three different algorithms implementing the same method of modularity maximization, they are often referred to as different `methods' in the literature.
In what follows, we will sometimes make use of this somewhat improper terminology.
We will also necessarily use a vocabulary that applies more properly to networks than to time series: for instance, a time series will be often denoted as a `node' (or `vertex') of the `network', and the correlation between two time series will be denoted as the weight of the `link' (or `edge') between the corresponding nodes.
\subsection{Modified Potts method}
The first of the three methods we have selected is based on the so-called $q$-state Potts model \cite{potts,Reichardt_Bornholdt_2006}. It represents the system as a $q$-state spin glass, where each node maintains a spin state $\sigma_i$ (as given by some attempted partition $\vec{\sigma}$) and the weights of the edges between nodes map to coupling strengths.
So any partition of the network is regarded as a spin configuration $\vec{\sigma}$.
In this paradigm, the modularity $Q(\vec{\sigma})$ is proportional to the negative energy $-\mathcal{H}(\vec{\sigma})$ of the system.
The goal of optimization is then to find the ground state of a spin glass, which corresponds to the maximum value for the modularity.
The use of a multi-state super-paramagnetic model for graph clustering was first introduced by Blatt, Wiseman and Domany~\cite{PhysRevLett.76.3251} and later revised by Reichardt and Bornholdt~\cite{potts,Reichardt_Bornholdt_2006}; it is upon the latter that we base our extension to incorporate multiple time series.
Within the $q$-state Potts spin glass model, Reichardt and Bornholdt construct a Hamiltonian by rationalizing a number of energy contributions from the edges between nodes within the same community and nodes in different communities:
\begin {eqnarray}
\mathcal{H}(\vec{\sigma}) & = & - \sum_{i,j}a_{ij}\overbrace{A_{ij}\delta(\sigma_i, \sigma_j)}^\text{internal links} + \sum_{i,j}b_{ij}\overbrace{(1-A_{ij})\delta(\sigma_i, \sigma_j)}^\text{internal non-links}\nonumber \\
& & + \sum_{i,j}c_{ij}\underbrace{A_{ij}[1-\delta(\sigma_i, \sigma_j)]}_\text{external links}\nonumber\\
& & - \sum_{i,j}d_{ij}\underbrace{(1-A_{ij})[1-\delta(\sigma_i, \sigma_j)]}_\text{external non-links},
\label{Hamiltonian}
\end {eqnarray}
where the contributions from the various types of links can be tuned through the set of coefficients, $a_{ij}$, $b_{ij}$, $c_{ij}$, $d_{ij}$. Instead of directly maximizing the modularity $Q(\vec{\sigma})$ defined in eq.\eqref{QNewman}, Reichardt and Bornholdt minimize the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(\vec{\sigma})$. The latter (under certain conditions and some simplifying assumptions) can be condensed to
\begin {equation} \label{HamiltonianCompact}
\mathcal{H}(\vec{\sigma}) = - \sum_{i,j}\big[A_{ij} - \langle A_{ij}\rangle\big]\delta(\sigma_i, \sigma_j),
\end {equation}
where $A_{ij}$ is the observed value and $\langle A_{ij}\rangle$ is the corresponding null model for that edge.
The actual search over spin configurations is done using Simulated Annealing \cite{Kirkpatrick83optimizationby}, which is an approximate technique that in general returns a different solution each time it is used.
In the same vein, introducing a Hamiltonian corresponding to our correlation-based modularity is equally straightforward, however we need to ensure that the logic and derivation that was used to develop the original network-based Hamiltonian holds true for a network created from time series data.
For a correlation-based network we have the situation where every node is connected to every other node, in principle eliminating the energy contributed by non-links in eq.(\ref{Hamiltonian}) above.
However, as is ordinarily done when applying the Potts model to weighted networks, we can replace the energy contribution of non-links with the energy contribution of links whose weight is less than expected, allowing us to immediately introduce our null model.
Maintaining the balance between internal and external edges ($a_{ij}$ = $c_{ij}$ and $b_{ij}$ = $d_{ij}$) as was done by Reichardt and Bornholdt in their original derivation of the Hamiltonian, we end up with a variant of eq. \eqref{HamiltonianCompact} directly derived from a complete weighted network where $A_{ij}$ and $\langle A_{ij}\rangle$ are replaced by the observed correlation $C_{ij}$ and one of our three null models $\langle C_{ij}\rangle_l$ defined in sec. \ref{sec:ourmod}, giving
\begin {equation} \label{HamiltonianCovariance}
\mathcal{H}_l(\vec{\sigma}) = - \sum_{i,j}C^{(l)}_{ij}\delta(\sigma_i, \sigma_j).
\end {equation}
Apart from the absence of $C_{norm}$, the r.h.s. of the above expression is the opposite of the r.h.s. of eq.\eqref{eq:Qunified}. Therefore our optimization method using the Potts model will attempt to find the lowest value of the Hamiltonian, which will correspond to the highest modularity.
For the rest, our algorithm is identical to the procedure described by Reichardt and Bornholdt \cite{potts,Reichardt_Bornholdt_2006}.
Therefore the Potts model is a simple algorithm to adapt to correlation matrices, the reason being that although the modularity of the system is explained using a spin-glass model, the actual optimization process is performed using Simulated Annealing, which keeps working even if we use our redefinition of modularity as the cost function \cite{Kirkpatrick83optimizationby}.
\subsection{Modified Louvain method\label{sec:louvain}}
We now consider a second approach to the problem of modularity optimization.
Possibly one of the most successful approaches, the Louvain method~\cite{1742-5468-2008-10-P10008} (named after the University from which it emerged) is a simple, greedy, agglomerative algorithm whose strength lies in the fact that it is computationally fast. Unlike the spin-glass model, the Louvain method does not set up a framework for its optimization problem. It simply starts from the definition of modularity specified in eq. \eqref{QNewman} and derives a new, more computationally efficient equation for testing the relative gain in modularity by moving a node from one community to another. It is this equation that allows the Louvain method to perform so well.
The method initially considers all nodes as placed in individual communities, and then calculates (sequentially for each node $i$) the gain of modularity associated with moving node $i$ to the same community where each of its neighbours $j$ belong.
The algorithm explores all possible such moves and implements those that give the maximum gain in modularity, and the first iteration stops when no further improvement is possible.
Then, a new `renormalized' network is built by merging all nodes within the previously found communities into a single `hypernode', and the algorithm is iterated again until there are no more possible changes and a maximum of modularity is attained.
To do so, the renormalized weight of the link
between two hypernodes is defined as the sum of the weight of the links between nodes
in the corresponding two communities.
Links between nodes of the same community
lead to self-loops for the corresponding hypernode.
The key requirement of the Louvain method is that the system can be properly renormalized, i.e. that successive coarse-grainings of the system remain consistent with the meaning of the modularity at the corresponding level of aggregation.
In an ordinary network this is relatively straightforward to show, i.e. a hypernode obtained merging two or more nodes can be legitimately interpreted (from the point of view of the modularity function) as a coarse-grained node with a self-loop to itself and renormalized interactions to all other (hyper)nodes.
It is however not intuitively obvious whether our modularity defined in eq.(\ref{eq:Qunified}) admits an equivalently consistent definition of `renormalized time series' obtained by `merging' two or more time series.
And even if such a definition exists, one should understand how to correctly define also the renormalized interactions and self-loops.
To this end, we recall from eq.(\ref{eq:corrs}) that if $X_i$ and $X_j$ are two standardized time series then $C_{ij}=\textrm{Cov}[X_i,X_j]$.
We can therefore exploit the fact that the covariance is a bilinear function of its arguments to calculate the following renormalized interactions between two hypernodes (communities) $A$ and $B$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{i\in A}\sum_{j\in B}C_{ij}&=&\sum_{i\in A}\sum_{j\in B}\textrm{Cov}[X_{i},X_{j}]\nonumber\\
&=&\textrm{Cov}\Big[\sum_{i\in A}X_i,\sum_{j\in B}X_{j}\Big].
\end{eqnarray}
The above formula shows that, if we define the `renormalized time series' of community $A$ as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{X}_A\equiv\sum_{i\in A}X_i,
\end{equation}
then we can consistently define the renormalized interactions as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{C}_{AB}\equiv \sum_{i\in A}\sum_{j\in B}C_{ij}=\textrm{Cov}\big[\tilde{X}_A,\tilde{X}_B\big]
\label{eq:l1}
\end{equation}
and the renormalized self-loops as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{C}_{AA}=\textrm{Cov}\big[\tilde{X}_A,\tilde{X}_A\big]=\textrm{Var}\big[\tilde{X}_A\big].
\end{equation}
We therefore find that, for a graph composed of financial time series, renormalized interactions have a correct interpretation in terms of covariances, rather than correlations.
They also show that the summation of a group of time series yields something that resembles an index fund of the set of stocks, so the concept of aggregating nodes maintains a strong grounding in reality.
We now have to check whether the modularity function remains consistent with the null model when defined at the level of renormalized nodes.
Note that the linearity of the definition of $\tilde{C}_{AB}$ ensures that, given any of our null models defined in sec.\ref{sec:ourmod}, we can write
\begin{equation}
\langle\tilde{C}_{AB}\rangle_l= \sum_{i\in A}\sum_{j\in B}\langle C_{ij}\rangle_l.
\label{eq:l2}
\end{equation}
This means that the filtered quantity $C_{ij}-\langle C_{ij}\rangle_l$ can be similarly renormalized as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{C}_{AB}^{(l)}\equiv\sum_{i\in A}\sum_{j\in B}C_{ij}^{(l)}
\label{eq:borrowed}
\end{equation}
for each of the three cases in eq.(\ref{eq:l}).
Now, imagine that in subsequent iterations of the model the hypernodes are further merged into `communities of communities'.
The resulting `metapartition' can be specified by a vector $\vec{\tilde{\sigma}}$ of dimension smaller than (or equal to, if the metapartition is trivial) any of the original vectors $\vec{{\sigma}}$. Each element $\tilde{\sigma}_A$ denotes the community to which the hypernode $A$ is placed by the metapartition.
If $\vec{\sigma}$ denotes the underlying (node-level) partition identified by the metapartition $\vec{\tilde{\sigma}}$ (i.e. $\sigma_i=\tilde{\sigma}_A$ for all $i\in A$), we can define the renormalized modularity
\begin {eqnarray}
\tilde{Q}_l(\vec{\tilde{\sigma}})&\equiv& \frac {1}{\tilde{C}_{norm}}\sum_{A,B} \tilde{C}_{AB}^{(l)}\delta(\tilde{\sigma}_A,\tilde{\sigma}_B)\nonumber\\
&=& \frac {1}{\tilde{C}_{norm}}\sum_{A,B} \sum_{i\in A}\sum_{j\in B}C_{ij}^{(l)}\delta(\tilde{\sigma}_A,\tilde{\sigma}_B)\nonumber\\
&=& \frac {1}{\tilde{C}_{norm}}\sum_{i,j}C_{ij}^{(l)}\delta({\sigma}_i,{\sigma}_j)\nonumber\\
&=& Q_l(\vec{\sigma}),
\label{eq:Qinvariant}
\end {eqnarray}
where, in analogy with eq.\eqref{eq:norm}, we have defined
\begin{equation}
\tilde{C}_{norm}\equiv \sum_{A,B}\tilde{C}_{AB}=
\sum_{A,B}\sum_{i\in A}\sum_{j\in B}C_{ij}=
\sum_{i,j}C_{ij}=C_{norm}.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{eq:Qinvariant} coincides with the original modularity defined at the level of individual nodes.
This means that the modularity is manifestly invariant under renormalization, implying that we can indeed consistently redefine a coarse-grained modularity at each iteration of the Louvain method.
The second requirement of the Louvain method is the fact that the change in the modularity obtained by adding a previously isolated node to a given pre-existing community can be easily calculated.
This ensures the computational efficiency of the algorithm.
In adapting the model to correlation-based networks, we must start from eq. \eqref{eq:Qunified} and check whether this is still the case, and if so arrive at a new corresponding expression for the modularity change.
We will do so using directly the invariant modularity defined in eq.(\ref{eq:Qinvariant}), so that we are sure that the result will hold at any aggregation level.
Given the modularity $\tilde{Q}_l(\vec{\tilde{\sigma}})$, we denote the modularity change obtained by adding the (hyper)node $I$ to the community $J$ by $\Delta \tilde{Q}_l^{(I\to J)}$ and calculate it as the difference between $\tilde{Q}_l(\vec{\tilde{\sigma}}')$ for a (meta)partition $\vec{\tilde{\sigma}}'$ where $I$ is part of the community $J$ (i.e. $\tilde{\sigma}'_I=J$) and $\tilde{Q}_l(\vec{\tilde{\sigma}}'')$ for a (meta)partition $\vec{\tilde{\sigma}}''$ where $I$ is isolated in its own community (i.e. $\tilde{\sigma}_I''\ne J$).
Since $\tilde{\sigma}'_A=\tilde{\sigma}''_A$ for all $A\ne I$ and $\delta(\tilde{\sigma}''_I,\tilde{\sigma}''_A)=0$ for all $A\ne I$, we can write this difference as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta \tilde{Q}_l^{(I\to J)} & = & \tilde{Q}_l(\vec{\tilde{\sigma}}')
-\tilde{Q}_l(\vec{\tilde{\sigma}}'')\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{C_{norm}}\sum_{A,B}\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{AB}
\Big[\delta(\tilde{\sigma}'_A,\tilde{\sigma}'_B)-\delta(\tilde{\sigma}''_A\tilde{\sigma}''_B)\Big]\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{C_{norm}}\sum_{A}\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{IA}\Big[\delta(\tilde{\sigma}'_I,\tilde{\sigma}'_A)-\delta(\tilde{\sigma}''_I,\tilde{\sigma}''_A)\Big]\nonumber\\
& = & \frac{1}{C_{norm}} \sum_{A \in J} \tilde{C}^{(l)}_{IA}\nonumber\\
& = & \frac{\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{IJ}}{C_{norm}}.
\label{eq:K}
\end{eqnarray}
That is, the change in modularity obtained from adding a (hyper)node $I$ to a pre-existing community $J$ is simply proportional to the renormalized interaction between $I$ and $J$, i.e. the sum of the (filtered) correlations of all time series within $I$ with all those within $J$.
Note that in the above formula the notation $A\in J$ implies $A\ne I$, since $I$ does not (yet) belong to $J$.
Similarly, it is possible to calculate the change in modularity $-\Delta \tilde{Q}_l^{(I\to J')}$ obtained when a (hyper)node $I$ belonging to a community $J'$ is disconnected from the latter and placed in its own isolated community.
Combining these two contributions, we can easily calculate the change in modularity \begin{equation}
-\Delta \tilde{Q}_l^{(I\to J')}+\Delta \tilde{Q}_l^{(I\to J)}=\frac{\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{IJ}-\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{IJ'}}{C_{norm}}
\end{equation}
obtained by moving a (hyper)node $I$ from a community $J'$ to a different community $J$.
So our reformulation above satisfies also the second requirement of the Louvain method at all aggregation levels, and allows us to define a computationally efficient method to detect communities of time series.
\subsection{Modified spectral method}
We now come to the third and final method of optimizing the modularity cost function.
Spectral Optimization is the process of using matrix eigendecomposition to recursively bisect a network into communities of nodes according to the principle of maximizing the modularity function~\cite{Newman_2006}.
The matrix which is the subject of the eigendecomposition is the so-called \emph{modularity matrix} appearing in eq.\eqref{QNewman} and having entries $B_{ij} = A_{ij} - \frac{k_i k_j}{2m}$.
In other words, the modularity matrix $\mathbf{B}$ is the difference between the observed network, represented by the adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$, and the null model $\langle\mathbf{A}\rangle$.
In the spectral method, the modularity matrix is eigendecomposed into its constituent eigenvalues and eigenvectors, the intent being to isolate the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue and use the signs of the elements of this vector to infer an optimal partition.
Specifically, the network is split into two communities, each comprising the nodes corresponding to eigenvector components with the same sign.
The process is implemented recursively in each partition (deriving a new modularity matrix for every community), until no further increase in modularity is obtained.
We need to extend this algorithm to accommodate correlation-based networks.
In our case, as clear from eqs.\eqref{eq:Qunified} and \eqref{eq:l}, the modularity matrix is $\mathbf{C}^{(l)}$,
i.e. the filtered matrix defined using one of our three null models.
We fill therefore adapt the procedure outlined by Newman in the original paper, and implement the spectral optimization method by iteratively bisecting the network into two sub-communities (say $A$ and $B$).
Each such bisection can be denoted either by an appropriate partition vector $\vec{\sigma}$ or equivalently by a vector $\vec{s}$ having elements $s_i=-1$ if node $i$ belongs to (say) community $A$ and $s_i=+1$ if $i$ belongs to community $B$.
The correspondence between these vectors is given by
\begin{equation}
\delta(\sigma_i,\sigma_j)=\frac{s_i s_j +1}{2}.
\end{equation}
Given a bisection, we can therefore rewrite our unified correlation-based modularity $Q_l(\vec{\sigma})$ defined in eq.(\ref{eq:Qunified}) as
\begin {eqnarray}
Q_l(\vec{s}) &=& \frac{1}{C_{norm}}\sum_{i,j} {C^{(l)}_{ij}} \frac{s_i s_j + 1}{2}\label {QC}\\
& =& \frac{1}{2C_{norm}}\sum_{i,j} {C^{(l)}_{ij}} s_i s_j
+\frac{1}{2C_{norm}}\sum_{i,j} {C_{ij}^{(l)}}.\nonumber
\end {eqnarray}
In Newman's original formulation the last term sums to zero, because the network-based modularity matrix $\mathbf{B}$ has the property that all of its rows sum to zero.
However, this is not the case with our correlation-based modularity matrix $\textbf{C}^{(l)} $ defined in eq.\eqref{eq:l}.
So we retain the second term and, defining $C^{(l)}_{tot}\equiv\sum_{i,j}C^{(l)}_{ij}$, rewrite our modularity in matrix form as
\begin{equation}
Q_l (\vec{s})= \frac{\langle {s}| \textbf{C}^{(l)} | {s}\rangle }{2C_{norm}} +\frac{C^{(l)}_{tot}}{2C_{norm}}.
\end{equation}
The vector $\vec{s}$ maximizing $Q_l (\vec{s})$ is easily found as the vector matching the signs of the components of the eigenvector of $\textbf{C}^{(l)}$ corresponding to the largest eigenvalue.
Clearly, both $C_{norm}$ and $C^{(l)}_{tot}$ have no effect on the result, making the original procedure of the spectral algorithm consistent with our reformulation.
After the initial bisection, we need to calculate the potential modularity change $\Delta Q_l$ obtained by further subdividing the communities yielded in the previous step.
Let us consider the case where one community (say $A$) among the ones obtained thus far in the algorithm is further subdivided into two new communities (say $A_1$ and $A_2$).
If $\vec{s}$ is a vector (restricted to the vertices in $A$ only) denoting the bisection of $A$ into $A_1$ and $A_2$, then the modularity change associated with such bisection reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta Q_l^{(A_1|A_2)} &=& \frac{1}{C_{norm}}\Big[\sum_{i,j \in A_1}\!\! C^{(l)}_{ij} + \!\!\sum_{i,j \in A_2} \!\! C^{(l)}_{ij} -\!\! \sum_{i,j \in A}\!\! C^{(l)}_{ij} \Big]\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{C_{norm}}\Big [ \sum_{i,j \in A} C^{(l)}_{ij} \frac{s_i s_j +1}{2} - \sum_{i,j \in A} C^{(l)}_{ij}\Big]\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2C_{norm}}\Big [ \sum_{i,j \in A} C^{(l)}_{ij} s_i s_j -\sum_{i,j \in A} C^{(l)}_{ij}\Big] \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{\langle s| \textbf{C}_A^{(l)} | s\rangle }{2C_{norm}} +\frac{\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{AA}}{2C_{norm}},
\label{eq:deltaQnewman}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\textbf{C}_A^{(l)}$ represents the sub-matrix of $\textbf{C}^{(l)}$ restricted to the subset of nodes within community $A$, and the notation $\tilde{C}^{(l)}_{AA}$ is borrowed from eq.\eqref{eq:borrowed}.
As with the initial bisection, $\vec{s}$ is chosen to maximize $\Delta Q_l^{(A_1|A_2)}$ by selecting its elements to match the sign of the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue of the matrix $\textbf{C}_A^{(l)}$.
As for the original algorithm, our modified spectral method proceeds by iterating the above procedure until no further bisection can make the modularity increase.
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}
The two most popular candidate sources of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays (UHECRs): active galactic nuclei (AGN) and gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are challenged by the latest cosmic-ray measurements by the Pierre Auger Observatory.
In particular, AGN are not favored as nuclei-rich sources \cite{Horiuchi12, Lemoine:2009pw}, given that the latest Auger observations seem to indicated an increasing mass composition at the highest energies \cite{AugerIcrc11}. The GRB population is viable but barely meets the energetics and spectral criteria to fit the observations (e.g., Refs.~\cite{KO11,Murase08}).
Newborn pulsars on the other hand could satisfy these criteria, given their metal-rich surfaces, high number density, and huge energetics, especially for those spinning close to millisecond periods at birth \cite{Venkatesan97}.
Heavy ions could be seeded into the current sheets of the neutron star wind \cite{Hoshino92,Gallant94,Arons03} and get bulk acceleration by energy conversion of the wind Poynting flux into kinetic energy like a unipolar inductor. Particle acceleration could happen somewhere before or at the termination shock, far away from the light cylinder, to avoid radiative losses \cite{Arons03,Blasi00,Murase09,FKO12,FKO13}. The crossing of the surrounding supernova ejecta tends to prevent the escape of particles at the earliest times. As the ejecta expands and becomes thinner, the heaviest nuclei, accelerated to higher energies than lighter ones because of their charge, are able to escape at energies $E>10^{20}\,$eV. Nuclei interactions with the baryonic and radiative backgrounds of the ejecta produce secondary nucleons that soften the overall cosmic-ray spectrum. Interestingly, these interactions also lead to the production of EeV neutrinos (see Ref.~\cite{Murase09} for the magnetar scenario).
After propagation in the intergalactic medium, and integrating over a fraction of the whole extragalactic newborn pulsar population, it is then possible to explain the spectrum, composition, and anisotropy measurements of the Auger Observatory consistently. Moreover, Galactic pulsar counterparts can account for the flux of cosmic rays in the region below the ankle, and bridge the gap between a component due to acceleration in Galactic supernova remnants, and extragalactic sources \cite{FKO13}.
In this work, we show that within the parameter-space allowed by this newborn pulsar scenario to reproduce the observed cosmic-ray data, $\sim0.1-1$~EeV neutrino production occurs {\it efficiently} and the diffuse neutrino flux is detectable by IceCube, KM3Net, Askaryan Radio Array (ARA), and the Antarctic Ross Ice-Shelf ANtenna Neutrino Array (ARIANNA) within a decade even in the most pessimistic case.
Our estimates lie sensibly above the IceCube-5 years sensitivity in the $10^{18}\,$eV-energy range, and are below the current IceCube sensitivity. This is a crucial test, since nondetections can rule out the minimal newborn pulsar scenario for UHECRs within the next decade.
Testing the newborn pulsar scenario is intriguing, especially if the heavy composition of UHECRs is confirmed. Photohadronic neutrinos from UHECR sources such as GRBs and AGN are difficult to detect if UHECRs are dominantly nuclei \cite{Murase08}.
We first introduce the model of UHECR and associated neutrino production for a single pulsar. We then present our results integrated for populations of sources with parameters that fit the Auger measurements including both the spectrum and composition. We finally discuss the robustness of our diffuse neutrino flux estimate and weigh the power of this test to probe the newborn pulsar origin of UHECRs.
\section{Neutrinos from a single pulsar}
A newborn pulsar with initial spin period $P_{\rm i}=1\,{\rm ms} \,P_{\rm i, -3}$, surface magnetic field $B=10^{13}\,{\rm G}\,B_{13}$ and radius $R=10\,\rm km$, spins down due to electromagnetic losses over a typical timescale $\tau_{\rm EM}=1{\,\rm yr}\,B_{13}^{-2}\,P_{\rm i,-3}^{2}$. Assuming that particles of charge $Z$ can recuperate a fraction $\eta=0.1\,\eta_{-1}$ of the wind Poynting flux at time $t$, particles each gain energy $
E_{\rm CR} (t) = 7\times 10^{18} \,{\rm eV}\,\eta_{-1}\,Z\,B_{13}\,P_{\rm i, -3}^{-2}\,\left(1+{t}/{\tau_{\rm EM}}\right)^{-1}$ \cite{Blasi00,Arons03}.
{ In the standard pulsar model, the wind is dominated by pairs outside the equatorial current sheet, and its loading rate is much larger than the Goldreich-Julian rate \cite{Goldreich69}. But the return current may largely consist of ions, where the ion injection rate around the equatorial sector is comparable to the Goldreich-Julian rate \cite{Hoshino92,Gallant94,Arons03}. The deviation can be accounted for in the prefactor $f_{\rm s}<1$ (see Eq.~\ref{eq:diff_nu}).
In our minimal pulsar scenario, the cosmic ray spectrum injected during the pulsar spin-down is \citep{Blasi00, Arons03}: ${{\rm d}N_{\rm CR}}/{{\rm d}E}=9{c^2\,I}/({8Z\,e\,\mu})\,E^{-1}$, where $I=10^{45}\,I_{45}\,\rm g\,cm^2$ is the moment of inertia of the star. If the stochastic acceleration mechanism like the Fermi mechanism is additionally involved, this injection spectrum can be modified and softened to a power-law closer to $\propto E^{-2}$. The impact of such modifications are discussed at the end of this paper, and our conclusion does not change.
Particle acceleration in the wind would occur far away from the light cylinder to avoid losses due to the radiation from the cooling stellar envelope that would be heated by emission from the wind bubble and radioactive nuclei. It has been shown that nuclei can survive from photodisintegration losses if radiation fields are thermal \cite{FKO12}. Synchrotron emission from electrons accelerated at the termination shock can destroy nuclei~\cite{mdt14} but details are highly uncertain. We assume that non-thermal radiation fields allow nucleus-survival, which may be the case if the termination shock is still hydrodynamically weak and the wind is Poynting-dominated \cite{2005ApJ...628..315Z}.}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\epsfig{file=opacity.pdf,width=0.85\columnwidth,clip=}
\caption{\label{fig:opacity} {Effective optical depth $f_{pp}$ of hadron interactions in a $10\,M_\odot$ supernova ejecta at the time a pulsar with initial period $P$ and surface magnetic field $B$ accelerates $10^{19}\,\rm eV$ protons (regardless of energy losses). Pulsars that are capable of accelerating protons to above $10^{19}\,\rm eV$ lie under the black line ($\eta=0.1$ assumed). The blue shaded contours span from $f_{pp}= 10^{-2}$ to $10^{9}$ (among which $f_{pp} =1$ is indicated in white). $f_{\rm Fe-p}=1$ is also shown for comparison.
The overplotted red lines indicate the probability distribution function $f(P, B) = f(P) \, f(B)$ of the pulsars. We
assume that all pulsars have initial spin periods above the green line, which indicates the minimum spin period of a stable neutron star $P_{\rm min} \approx 0.6\,\rm ms $ \cite{Haensel99}.
Both $f_{pp}$ and $f(P, B)$ are in logarithmic scale.}
}
\end{figure}
Accelerated particles then travel through the expanding supernova ejecta surrounding the star. The ejecta is modeled as a shell spherically expanding at velocity $\beta=({2E_{\rm ej}}/{M_{\rm ej}\,c^2})^{1/2}$ and with column density $y_{\rm SN}(t) = \int\,\rho_{\rm SN}\,{\rm d}R_{\rm SN} \sim 2\,M_{\rm ej,1}^2E_{\rm ej,52}^{-1} t_{\rm yr}^{-2}~{\rm g\,cm}^{-2}$ at one year, with $M_{\rm ej}=10\,M_{\rm ej, 1}\,M_\odot$ is the ejecta mass and $E_{\rm ej}=10^{52}\,E_{\rm ej, 52}\,{\rm erg}=E_{\rm rot}+E_{\rm exp}$ is the ejecta energy that includes both the star's rotational and the supernova explosion energy \citep{FKO12}. Note that $\beta\sim 0.03$ for a hypernova with $E_{\rm ej}\sim10^{52}\,\rm erg$ and $\beta\approx 0.01$ for a ``typical'' Type II supernova with $E_{\rm ej}\sim 10^{51}\,\rm erg$.
{ The magnetic field in the ejecta is negligible at that time due to the adiabatic expansion. We may assume a uniform ambient density over the shell at any given $t$, although more detailed density evolution of the ejecta depends on supernova types, and $y_{\rm SN}(t)$ provides a good estimate for the evolution of the integrated column density
\cite{FKO12}.
At $t=1{\,\rm year}\,t_{\rm yr}$, the proton-proton ($pp$) interaction has an effective optical depth
$f_{pp}={R_{\rm ej}}\,{n_{p}\sigma_{pp}\kappa}\sim0.2\,M_{\rm ej, 1}\,\beta_{-1.5}^{-2}\,t_{\rm yr}^{-2}$, with ejecta size $R_{\rm ej}(t)=\beta c t$, interaction cross section $\sigma_{pp}\sim100\,\rm mb$, and inelasticity $\kappa\sim0.7$. Note that, since $\sigma_{Np}\sim A^{2/3} \sigma_{pp}$ and $\kappa\sim0.7/A$, the effective optical depth for nuclei ($f_{Np}$) is reduced by $\sim A^{1/3}$.
At early times when UHECR production is possible, the secondary nuclei, nucleons and pions should efficiently interact with target nucleons and produce higher order nuclei, neutrinos and pions \cite{Murase09}. Pions interact with protons with cross section $\sigma_{\pi p} \sim 5 \times 10^{-26}\,\rm cm^2$, producing additional neutrinos and pions that undergo further $\pi p$ interaction. This cascade continues until ${t_{\pi \rm p}}>{\gamma_\pi\,\tau_\pi}$, when the $\pi p$ interaction time $t_{\pi p}$ becomes longer than the primary or secondary pion's life time $\tau_\pi$ in the lab frame. This critical time is $t_{\pi}=2\times 10^6 \,{\rm s}\, \eta_{-1}^{1/4}\,M_{\rm ej,1}^{1/4}\,B_{13}^{-1/4}\,\beta_{-1.5}^{-3/4}$ \citep{Murase09}. Then charged pions stop interacting and decay into neutrinos via $\pi^\pm\rightarrow e^\pm+\nu_e(\bar{\nu}_e)+\bar{\nu}_\mu +\nu_\mu$.
At the time when $Z10^{19}\,\rm eV$ cosmic rays (which correspond to $\sim 5\times10^{17}\,\rm eV$ neutrinos around the peak energy) are accelerated, newborn pulsars are surrounded by ejecta with effective opacity (including energy losses) $f_{pp}\gtrsim1$ and $f_{Np}\gg1$. This leads to the production of secondary nucleons, for which the opacity is $f_{pp}>10$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:opacity}. This figure shows that neutrino production in the parameter space that can produce UHECRs is unavoidable.
Our results are only mildly sensitive to the ejecta mass as long as $M_{\rm ej}\gtrsim 3M_{\odot}$ \cite{FKO12}. Thus, for typical Type II supernovae, hadron interactions and the subsequent production of EeV neutrinos should be efficient in this minimal newborn pulsar model.}
In our work the interactions with the baryonic background of the supernova ejecta (assumed to consist of hydrogen, as more sophisticated composition have little effect on the escaped cosmic ray characteristics \cite{FKO12}) were calculated by Monte Carlo for injected nuclei and their cascade products as in Refs.~\cite{KAM09, FKO12, FKO13}. Tables for $\pi p$ interactions were generated using the hadronic model EPOS \cite{Werner06}. Note that neutrinos from secondary nuclei contribute significantly and dominate over leading nuclei in neutrino production.
\section{Diffuse neutrino intensity}
According to Ref.~\cite{Faucher06}, the distribution of pulsar birth spin periods, $f(P)$, is normal, centered at $300$ ms, with standard deviation of $150$ ms. Note that among this population, the sources capable of producing the highest energy cosmic rays are (rare) pulsars born with millisecond periods and average magnetic fields \cite{FKO12}. The initial magnetic field follows a log-normal distribution $f(B)$ with $\langle \log(B/\rm G)\rangle = 12.65$ and $\sigma (\log B) = 0.55$. The averaged neutrino and cosmic ray spectrum from the pulsar population is then \cite{FKO13}
$\langle{dN}/{dE}\rangle=\int\,{dN}/{dE}(P,B)\,f(P)\,dP\,f(B)\,dB$.
This population of extragalactic pulsars is expected to contribute to the diffuse neutrino background, which is given by
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{\nu}=\frac{f_{\rm s}}{4\pi}\,\int_0^{z_{\rm H}}\int_0^{t_{\nu}} \frac{{\rm d}N_\nu}{{\rm d}t'\,{\rm d}E_\nu\,4\pi D^2}\,{\rm d}t' \, \Re(z)\,4\pi D^2\,\frac{{\rm d}D}{{\rm d}z}\,{\rm d}z\ .
\label{eq:diff_nu}
\end{equation}
The inner integral counts the neutrinos emitted by each pulsar toward the earth during its neutrino-loud lifetime
$t_\nu=\min{(t_{pp}, \, t_{\pi})}$.
In simulations, this integral is calculated by summing up the spectra from pulsars with $19 \times 19$ sets of $(P_{\rm i}, \log B)$ over the pulsar distributions.
This averaged contribution from an individual star is then integrated over the entire source population in the universe up to the first stars, corresponding to redshift $z_{\rm D}\approx 11$. The local birth rate of pulsars is set to the rate of core-collapse supernova, of order $\Re(0)\approx 1.2\times10^{-4}\,\rm yr^{-1}\,Mpc^{-3}$ \citep{1991ARA&A..29..363V}, as a large fraction of such events produce neutron stars \cite{Woosley02}.
The source emissivity is assumed to either follow the star formation rate (SFR) \citep{2008ApJ...683L...5Y}, or be uniform over time.
{The ion injection rate is reduced by the pair loading, particle acceleration mechanisms, and geometry of the current sheet, all of which are taken into account by a prefactor $f_{\rm s} <1$}.
Cosmic rays lose energy during their propagation in the IGM by interactions against cosmic radiation backgrounds, pair production and cosmological expansion. We use here the propagation calculations by Monte-Carlo done in Ref.~\cite{FKO13}. Then $f_{\rm s}$ is obtained by fitting the simulation output to the observations. {Note that the escaping cosmic-ray flux is also proportional to $f_s$, so the resulting neutrino flux does {\it not} depend on $f_s$ since it is directly normalized by the cosmic-ray data.} The injected elements are divided into three groups (adding more elements does not refine the fit, and introduces unnecessary free parameters): Hydrogen, Carbon group (CNO), and Iron. The relative abundance of these groups is chosen to best fit the spectrum and the main estimators of the composition measured by Auger, namely the mean air-shower elongation rate $\langle X_{\rm max}\rangle$ and its root mean square ${\rm RMS}(X_{\rm max})$.\\
Figure~\ref{fig:cr} shows the spectrum and composition of cosmic rays from extragalactic newborn pulsars for our best fit parameters to the Auger data (see also Ref.~\cite{FKO13}), assuming a source emissivity following the SFR, an ejecta mass $M_{\rm ej}=10\,M_\odot$ and wind acceleration efficiency $\eta=0.3$. The injected composition is $50\% $ H, $30\% $ CNO, $20\% $ Fe (injected protons can be mostly interchanged to Helium without affecting the spectrum significantly \citep{FKO13}). The overall normalization factor $f_{\rm s}=0.1$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\epsfig{file=exgal_sfr_50_0_30_0.pdf,width=0.85\columnwidth,clip=}
\epsfig{file=xmax_50_0_30.pdf,width=0.85\columnwidth,clip=}
\caption{\label{fig:cr} Up: Spectrum of UHECRs from newborn pulsars, assuming source emissivity following SFR and injection composition: $50\%$ H, $30\%$ CNO and $20\%$ Fe. Overlaid are measurements by the Auger Observatory \cite{ThePierreAuger:2013eja} and Telescope Array \cite{TAicrc11} with energy rescaling suggested in \cite{Dawson:2013wsa}.
Bottom: values of estimations of UHECR composition, $\langle X_{\rm max} \rangle$ and RMS($X_{\rm max}$) of the Auger data~\cite{ThePierreAuger:2013eja} (black crosses) and simulation results with pulsar sources (blue shaded region where pulsars contribute to more than $80\%$ of the total flux, hashed region for less). Three hadronic interaction models, EPOS-LHC (solid), QGSJetII-04 (dotted) and Sibyll2.1 (dash) are used to estimate the range of $\langle X_{\rm max} \rangle$ and RMS($X_{\rm max}$) \cite{DeDomenico:2013wwa}. The red and dark blue lines correspond to $100\%$ P and $100\%$ Fe.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\epsfig{file=simu_multi.pdf,width=0.95\columnwidth,clip=}
\caption{\label{fig:neu} The diffuse neutrino flux ($\nu_\mu+\nu_e+\nu_\tau$ after neutrino mixing in space) from an extragalactic newborn pulsar population that would produce the measured UHECRs. The source emissivity follows the SFR (blue) or is uniform over time (black). Overlaid are all flavor neutrino flux sensitivities of the IceCube detector after 1 year (red thin dash) and 5 years (red thick dash) of operations \citep{Abbasi:2011zx}, and the expected 3 year ARA-37 sensitivities (orange dash dotted) \citep{Allison:2011wk}. }
\end{figure}
The associated diffuse neutrino fluxes are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:neu}. The case corresponding to the cosmic-ray counterpart shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cr}, with SFR source emissivity evolution is drawn in blue. The black line represents the flux for a uniform source emissivity. The flux is higher in the SFR case by a factor of $5.8$, which is the ratio between the total numbers of sources in these two cases.
The neutrino spectrum consists of three components. Below $\sim 10^{16}\,\rm eV$, the spectrum can be described as a single power law with index $1.7$. This energy range corresponds to pulsars that spin relatively slowly with spin period $P\gtrsim 20\,\rm ms$. Only few interactions happen as the ejecta is mostly diluted when cosmic rays are produced. The neutrino spectrum hence roughly follows the cosmic ray spectrum, which is $E^{-1}$ at injection and softened to $E^{-1.7}$ due to the $(B, P)$ distribution. Between $10^{16}$ and $10^{18.8}\,\rm eV$, cosmic rays accelerated by the fast spinning pulsars undergo severe interactions with the baryons in the ejecta, resulting in an accumulation of neutrinos from secondary nuclei and pions that soften the spectrum to $E^{-2}$. Above $10^{18.8}\,\rm eV$, the spectrum cuts off as $P$ reaches its theoretically allowed minimum $P_{\rm min}=0.4\,\rm ms$ \citep{Haensel99} and $f(B)$ is small in the tail of the distribution. Note that the neutrino spectrum has a peak at $\sim0.1-1$~EeV, implying nucleons with $\sim2-20$~EeV, and such UHECR nucleon production is possible in newborn magnetars \cite{Murase09}. To be more conservative, we assume here that $f(P)$ cuts sharply at $P_{\rm min}$ instead of piling up, as was done in Ref.~\cite{FKO13}; the resulting difference is however negligible.
The all flavor neutrino flux sensitivities of the IceCube detector after one year and five years of operation are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:neu} \citep{Abbasi:2011zx}, as well as the projected ARA-37 3-year sensitivity \citep{Allison:2011wk}. In the SFR case, which is more appropriate in the pulsar scenario, the flux level of neutrinos from newborn pulsars is marginally consistent with the current non-detection at high energies, and should be detected in another three years of IceCube operation. The uniform case predicts a less optimistic flux, that still lies above the ARA 3-year sensitivity, and at a level that would be detected by IceCube within a decade.
The cosmogenic neutrinos produced during the intergalactic propagation are not shown in Figure~\ref{fig:neu}. This flux would be of the order of the SFR case with mixed composition in Ref.~\cite{KAO10}, represented by the lower boundary of the gray shaded region of their Fig.~9. The flux is below $\sim 6\times 10^{-9}\,\rm GeV\,cm^{-2}\,s^{-1}\,sr^{-1}$, and is subdominant compared to the neutrino contribution from the source region discussed here.
\section{Discussion}
The diffuse neutrino flux in the uniform case can be almost viewed as an unavoidable neutrino flux in the newborn pulsar scenario for UHECRs.
As shown in Fig.~1, due to $f_{pp}>1$ at the time when $\sim Z{10}^{19}$~eV cosmic rays are accelerated, the pion production efficiency is the order of unity as long as $M_{\rm ej}\gtrsim3M_\odot$ (corresponding to $\beta\lesssim0.05$). Also, the neutrino flux is insensitive to the injection composition because neutrinos are efficiently produced at relatively early times. Ions are injected with a rate $\dot{N}=2\pi^2\,BR^3/P^2Zec$ and act effectively as $A$ nucleons in hadronic interactions (so that the energy of neutrinos from any species with mass number $A$ and charge $Z$ is proportional to $Z/A\sim0.5$). A minimum acceleration efficiency $\eta$ is a fitting subparameter, but our results on the neutrino flux does not change when $\eta\gtrsim0.1$ required for UHECR production.
{Our minimal pulsar scenario for UHECR predicts the diffuse neutrino flux of $\sim{10}^{-8}~{\rm GeV}~{\rm cm}^{-2}~{\rm s}^{-1}~{\rm sr}^{-1}$. A lower neutrino flux than the one predicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:neu} is possible only by adding one of the following assumptions: i) a jet puncture, expected only for high-power winds \cite{Murase09}, ii) ``shredding" of the envelope through Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities \citep{Arons03}, which could happen if $E_{\rm rot}>E_{\rm ej}$, iii) a thinner ejecta, for low-mass envelope or accretion-induced collapses. However, all the cases are nontypical and expected in rare types of supernovae. Also, particles that would escape without interactions would not produce secondary lighter nuclei at lower energies, and it is not clear whether the produced cosmic rays can fit the observed composition and the spectrum.
In 2012, the IceCube Collaboration announced the first observation of two PeV neutrino-induced events during the combined IC-79/IC-86 data period \citep{Aartsen:2013bka}. A recent follow-up analysis of the same data found 26 additional events at lower energies \citep{Aartsen:2013pza}. No event has been observed yet at higher energies.
Our model predicts a neutrino peak at $0.1-1\,\rm EeV$, and a flux about an order of magnitude lower than the observed flux around PeV energies (a softer injection spectrum would lead to fewer UHECR interactions and would not add much neutrino flux at this energy). In principle, having a neutrino peak at PeV energies is possible for $\eta\ll0.1$, but the UHECR data cannot be explained at the same time. Then, to account for the diffuse PeV neutrino flux, other possibilities should be invoked. At present, there are various theories that are compatible with the IceCube data at PeV energies (e.g., Refs.~\cite{Kalashev:2013vba,Murase:2013ffa,Murase:2013rfa,Anchordoqui:2013qsi}), including pre-IceCube predictions (see Refs.~\cite{Murase:2013ffa,Murase:2013rfa} and references therein).
One of the caveats in the newborn pulsar scenario for UHECR is uncertainty in particle acceleration mechanisms. Though the viability of this scenario depends on pair-loading in the equatorial wind and acceleration processes, since the cosmic-ray flux is normalized by the UHECR observations, the diffuse neutrino flux we predict in the EeV range does not depend on the underlying details. Note that Fermi mechanisms lead to softer cosmic-ray injections than the hard $E^{-1}$-spectrum, but the spectrum after escape from the ejecta is almost the same. The secondary products from interactions with the ejecta soften the spectrum to $E^{-2}$ above $10^{17}\,\rm eV$, and this effect is less pronounced in the case of a softer intrinsic spectrum, because less high energy primaries are injected. The combination of these antagonist effects argues also against a significant change in the neutrino flux between $0.1-1\,$EeV, for softer injections.
Another possible issue is photodisintegration due to interactions with ambient photons. As already noted above, thermal and nonthermal radiations are also expected to lead to photodisintegration \cite{Murase09,FKO12,KPO13}. Ref. \cite{Murase09} showed that the thermal radiation background over the supernova ejecta can play a role in the magnetar case. In addition, X-ray and gamma-ray nonthermal fields in the pulsar wind nebula could be strong enough to compete with the hadronic channel \cite{mdt14}, where our neutrino predictions can then be relatively conservative. Note however that if photohadronic neutrinos are dominant, nuclei would be mostly disintegrated due to the larger photodisintegration cross sections \cite{Murase:2010gj}, and the scenario would fail at satisfying our primary requirement of reproducing the Auger data.
Before we end this section, we comment on how we can test the newborn pulsar origin. As shown in this paper, measurements of the diffuse neutrino flux is very powerful in the sense that nondetection can strongly constrain the scenario. However, if diffuse neutrinos are detected, it becomes important to discriminate this possibility from the other scenarios. First, a single source detection is difficult but not impossible. At high energies, the atmospheric neutrino background is essentially negligible, so it is possible to identify a single source up to a few Mpc \cite{Murase09}. Furthermore, pulsars allowing UHECR acceleration have to be fast-spinning, so that the rotation energy can affect supernova dynamics. Thus, neutrino events should be associated with luminous or energetic supernovae powered by pulsars~\cite{2004ApJ...611..380T,Komissarov07,2010ApJ...717..245K,2010ApJ...719L.204W,KPO13}, so stacking such bright supernovae within dozens of Mpc would also be useful \cite{Murase09}. Second, in this scenario, not only neutrinos but also hadronic gamma rays should be produced. In the late phase, emission of cascaded GeV-TeV gamma rays is unavoidable, which may be detected by ground-based gamma-ray detectors. In addition, if target photon fields are thermal, even ultrahigh energy gamma rays may escape, which provides a useful probe of UHECR accelerators within dozens of Mpc \cite{mur09}. All the details of gamma rays signatures are beyond the scope of this paper, which are left for future work.
Third, UHECR measurements are useful for consistency checks, although source identification is very difficult when UHECR sources are transients and the composition is heavy. Newborn pulsars should be regarded as transient UHECR sources. This is because the emission duration of UHECRs from a single pulsar would be in a scale up to years, much less than the delay caused by the particles' deflection in the extragalactic magnetic field~\citep{FKO12,2012ApJ...748....9T}. This is even the case if UHECRs are largely heavy nuclei, since the Galactic magnetic field also causes significant time delays for nuclei. Moreover, as our pervious work suggested~\citep{FKO13}, the percentage of the pulsar population that are capable to accelerate particles to above 10 EeV is just about 0.3\%. Thus, the transient nature and the rareness of such sources can significantly decrease the anisotropy from light nuclei from a potential nearby source, especially if the extragalactic magnetic field is relatively strong. The anisotropy signal is significantly diminished for nuclei since the deflection angle at the same energy is proportional to the inverse of atomic number. Therefore, no particularly striking anisotropy features are expected with the current Auger statistics, even though future generation detectors could detect some anisotropy signal (see Refs.~\cite{2012APh....35..767T,Rouille14}).
Note that turbulent Galactic magnetic fields are strong enough to diminish strong anisotropy signals~\cite{2011APh....35..192G}, and they are further smeared out with extragalactic magnetic fields in local structured regions~\citep{1999PhRvD..59b3001B}.
\section{Summary}
We have shown that a newborn pulsar scenario that explains the UHECR data necessarily leads to efficient neutrino production. For the plausible source evolution, the diffuse neutrino flux lies sensibly above the IceCube-5-yr and ARA-3-yr sensitivities in the ${10}^{18}$~eV energy range, and is below the current IceCube sensitivity. The newborn pulsar scenario has a strong prediction for the diffuse neutrino flux in the sense that nondetections of neutrinos at these energies in the next decade will rule out the minimal pulsar scenario.
Successful detections of the diffuse neutrino flux would not necessarily mean the confirmation of the pulsar scenario. To establish the newborn pulsar scenario for UHECR, more dedicated multimessenger searches are needed but they could provide us with a unique opportunity of studying ion acceleration in newborn pulsars.
\acknowledgements
We thank T. Pierog for his help with the hadronic interaction code EPOS and the Auger group at the University of Chicago for very fruitful discussions. KK thanks KICP for its kind support and hospitality. This work was supported by the NSF grant PHY-1068696 at the University of Chicago, and the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics through grant NSF PHY-1125897 and an endowment from the Kavli Foundation. KK and AVO acknowledge support from PNHE. KF and AVO acknowledge financial support from NASA 11-APRA-0066. KM is supported by NASA through Hubble Fellowship, Grant No. 51310.01 awarded by the STScI, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under Contract No. NAS 5-26555.
|
\section{Introduction}
Generalized Pauli groups (also known as Weyl--Heisenberg groups) associated with f\/inite-di\-men\-sio\-nal Hilbert spaces play an important role in quantum information theory, in particular in quantum tomography, dense coding, teleportation, error correction/cryptography, and the black-hole-qubit correspondence. A~special class of these groups are the so-called $N$-qubit Pauli groups, $N$ being a positive integer, whose elements
are simply $N$-fold tensor products of the famous Pauli matrices and the two-by-two unit matrix. A~remarkable property of these particular groups is that their structure can be completely recast in
the language of symplectic polar spaces of rank~$N$ and order~2, $\mathcal{W}(2N -1,2)$ (see, for example, \cite{hos,pla, ps,slp,sp,spp,th} and references therein).
The elements of the group (discarding the identity) answer to the points of $\mathcal{W}(2N - 1, 2)$, a maximum set
of pairwise commuting elements has its representative in a maximal subspace (also called a~generator) ${\rm PG}(N-1,2)$, the projective space of dimension~$N-1$ over the Galois f\/ield of order~$2$, of $\mathcal{W}(2N - 1, 2)$ and, f\/inally, commuting translates into collinear (or, perpendicular). In the case of the {\it real} $N$-qubit Pauli group, the structure of the corresponding $\mathcal{W}(2N -1,2)$ can be ref\/ined in terms of the orthogonal polar space $\mathcal{Q}^{+}(2N - 1, 2)$, that is, a hyperbolic quadric of the ambient projective space ${\rm PG}(2N - 1, 2)$, which is the locus accommodating all symmetric elements of the group~\cite{hos}. Given this f\/inite-geometrical picture of (real) $N$-qubit Pauli groups, one can invoke properties of the Lagrangian Grassmannian ${\rm LGr}(N,2N)$ def\/ined over the Galois f\/ield of two
elements,
${\rm GF}(2)$, to establish a very interesting bijection between the generators of $\mathcal{W}(2N-1,2)$ and points lying on
a sub-conf\/iguration of $\mathcal{W}(2^N-1,2)$ def\/ined by a set of quadratic equations.
This furnishes an intriguing mapping of maximum sets of mutually commuting $N$-qubit observables into
observables of $2^{N-1}$-qubits.
For $N=3$, all essential technicalities of this relation have recently been worked out in detail in \cite{PMM}. In this paper, we shall
f\/irst give a short rigorous proof that this bijection holds for any $N$. Then, after a brief addressing of a~rather trivial $N=2$ case, we shall again discuss in detail the $N$=3 case using,
however, a more ``projective-slanted'' view to be compared with an ``af\/f\/ine'' approach of the latter reference, as well as the $N=4$ case
to see some novelties and get a feeling of the kind of problems one can envisage/encounter when addressing higher rank cases.
{Our main motivation for having a detailed look at the above-outlined `Lagrangian Grassmannian' relationship between dif\/ferent
multi-qubit Pauli groups stems from an important role of the maximum sets of mutually commuting $N$-qubit observables in the quantum
information theory. On the one hand, such sets are vital for simple demonstrations of} {\it quantum contextuality}. Every such set
can be regarded as a context and various `magic' collections of such contexts are intimately linked with sub-geometries of the
associated symplectic polar space $\mathcal{W}(2N -1,2)$. The simplest such conf\/iguration can already be found in the $N=2$ case,
being known as a Mermin magic square~\cite{mer}. It represents a set of nine observables placed at the vertices of a $3 \times 3$
grid and forming six maximum sets of pairwise commuting elements that lie along three horizontal and three vertical lines,
each observable thus pertaining to two such sets. The observables are selected in such a way that the product of their triples
in f\/ive of the six sets is~$+I$, whilst in the remaining set it is $-I$, $I$ being the identity matrix.
Geometrically, each Mermin square is isomorphic to the smallest slim generalized quadrangle, ${\rm GQ}(2,1)$, or
to a hyperbolic quadric~$\mathcal{Q}^{+}(3,2)$. A~number of other magic conf\/igurations, exhibited by higher-order
Pauli groups and featuring a varying degree of complexity, can be found in Waegell's preprint~\cite{wae}. On the other hand,
existence of these sets is intricately related to the existence of {\it mutually unbiased bases}
(MUBs) of the associated Hilbert space. In particular, $\mathcal{W}(2N -1,2)$ possesses spreads~\cite{thas}, that is sets
of generators of $\mathcal{W}(2N -1,2)$ partitioning its point-set, whose cardinality is equal to the maximum number
of MUBs, $d+1$, in the associated $d=2^N$-dimensional Hilbert space. Thus, for example, spreads of~$\mathcal{W}(3,2)$
feature f\/ive elements each, and the associated 4-dimensional Hilbert space is indeed found to be endowed with
sets of $4+1=5$ MUBs~\cite{ps}.
The paper is organized as follow. In Section~\ref{symp}, we recall the def\/inition of the symplectic polar space $\mathcal{W}(2N-1,2)$ and how this space
encodes the geometry of the $N$-Pauli group. In Section~\ref{bijection}, we prove our main result by establishing the
existence of a projection which maps bijectively the aggregate of maximum sets of mutually commuting $N$-qubit
observables into a~distinguished subset of $2^{N-1}$-qubit observables. Then, in Section~\ref{example}, we illustrate our construction for $N = 2, 3$, and~4 by explicitly computing the equations def\/ining the image of
the projection in ${\rm PG}(2^N-1,2)$. In Section~\ref{partition}, one shows how our f\/indings can be used to partition the set of generators of $\mathcal{W}(2N-1,2)$.
Finally, in Section~\ref{variety_minor} we point out a relation between our construction and similar ones done over the f\/ield of complex numbers.
{\bf Notation.}
In what follows, we will denote by $\mathbb{K}$ the Galois f\/ield ${\rm GF}(2)$ and, if $V$ is a~$\mathbb{K}$-vector space, we will use the symbol $\mathbb{P}(V)$ to represent the corresponding projective space over
$\mathbb{K}$; thus, $\mathbb{P}(\mathbb{K}^{N})$ will be an alternative expression for ${\rm PG}(N-1,2)$, the projective space of dimension $N-1$
over~${\rm GF}(2)$.
Given a nonzero vector $v\in V$, we will denote by $[v]\in \mathbb{P}(V)$ the corresponding point
in the associated projective space. On the other hand, for any $X\subset \mathbb{P}(V)$, we def\/ine the cone over~$X$,
$\widehat{X}\subset V$, to be the pre-image of $X$ in $V$, i.e.\ the set of all vectors $x\in V$ such that $[x]\in X$. A~tensorial basis of $(\mathbb{K}^2)^{\otimes n} \equiv \mathbb{K}^2\otimes\dots\otimes \mathbb{K}^2$ ($n$ factors)
will be denoted by $x_1^{i_1}\otimes x_2^{i_2}\otimes \dots \otimes x_n^{i_n}$, where $i_j\in \{0,1\}$; obviously, $\{x_i^0,x_i^1\}$ is a basis of $(\mathbb{K}^2)_i$.
Let $A=(a_{ij})$ be an $n\times n$ matrix with coef\/f\/icients in $\mathbb{K}$ and let $I=\{i_1,\dots,i_k\}$ and $J=\{j_1,\dots,j_k\}$ be subsets of $\{1,\dots,n\}$. The symbol $\Delta_{I,J}$ will stand for the corresponding $k\times k$ minor of $A$, i.e.\ $\Delta_{I,J}(A)=\det ((a_{i,j})_{i\in I, j\in J})$;
when $I=J$,
$\Delta_{I,I}(A)$ will be called a~principal minor of $A$ and simply referred to as $\Delta_I(A)$.
In Section~\ref{example}, computations will be handled using
Maple and Macaulay2
to get the equations of the ideal of the Lagrangian Grassmannian ${\rm LGr}(N,2N)$ for $N=3$
and $N=4$. The sources of the codes are available at \url{http://www.emis.de/journals/SIGMA/2014/041/codes.zip}
which contains two f\/iles: one is a Maple f\/ile to compute all equations def\/ining the ideal of
${\rm LGr}(4,8)$, the other is a Macaulay2 script to compute the ideal of the projection of ${\rm LGr}(4,8)$
by elimination theory based on the equations stemming from the previous code.
\section[The symplectic polar space $\mathcal{W}(2N-1,2)$ and the associated $N$-qubit Pauli group]{The symplectic polar space $\boldsymbol{\mathcal{W}(2N-1,2)}$\\ and the associated $\boldsymbol{N}$-qubit Pauli group}\label{symp}
A~(f\/inite-dimensional) classical polar space describes the geometry of a $d$-dimensional vector space
over the Galois f\/ield ${\rm GF}(q)$, $V(d, q)$, carrying a non-degenerate ref\/lexive
sesquilinear form~$\sigma$ (see, e.g.,~\cite{cam}). {The polar space is called symplectic,
and usually denoted as $\mathcal{W}(d - 1,q)$, if this form is bilinear
and alternating, i.e., if $\sigma(x, x) = 0$ for all $x \in V(d,
q)$; such a space exists only if $d=2N$, where $N$ is called its
rank. A~subspace of $V(d, q)$ is called totally isotropic if
$\sigma$ vanishes identically on it. $\mathcal{W}(2N-1,q)$ can then be
regarded as the space of totally isotropic subspaces of $V(d, q)$.
The maximal totally isotropic subspaces of $V(d, q)$, also called} {\it generators} {of $\mathcal{W}(2N-1,q)$, have all the same dimension $N-1$. In what follows we shall only be concerned with $\mathcal{W}(2N-1,2)$; this space features} $|{\rm PG}(2N-1,2)|=2^{2N}-1=4^N-1$ points and the number of its generators amounts to $(2+1)(2^2+1)\cdots(2^N+1)$.
The generalized real $N$-qubit Pauli group, denoted by ${\cal P}_N$, is generated by $N$-fold tensor products of the matrices
\begin{gather*}
I = \left(
\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{matrix}
\right),\qquad
X = \left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{matrix}
\right),~
Y = \left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & -1 \\
1 & 0
\end{matrix}
\right)
\qquad {\rm and}\qquad
Z = \left(
\begin{matrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{matrix}
\right).
\end{gather*}
Explicitly,
\begin{gather*}
{\cal P}_N = \{\pm A_1 \otimes A_2 \otimes\cdots\otimes A_N: \, A_i \in \{I, X, Y, Z \},\; i = 1, 2,\dots,N \}.
\end{gather*}
The associated factor group $\overline{{\cal P}}_N \equiv {\cal P}_N/{\cal Z}({\cal P}_N)$, where the center ${\cal Z}({\cal P}_N)$ consists of $\pm I_{(1)} \otimes I_{(2)} \otimes \cdots \otimes I_{(N)}$, features $4^N$ elements.
The elements of $\overline{{\cal P}}_N \backslash \{I_{(1)} \otimes I_{(2)} \otimes \cdots \otimes I_{(N)}\}$ can be bijectively identif\/ied with the same number of points of
$\mathcal{W}(2N-1, 2)$ in such a way that two commuting elements of the group will lie on the same totally isotropic line of this polar space.
If one selects a basis of $\mathcal{W}(2N-1,2)$ in which the symplectic form $\sigma(x,y)$ is given by
\begin{gather}\label{sympl}
\sigma(x,y) =
(x_1 y_{N+1} - x_{N+1} y_1) + (x_2 y_{N+2} - x_{N+2} y_2) + \dots + (x_N y_{2N} - x_{2N} y_N),
\end{gather}
then this bijection acquires the form:
\begin{gather}\label{corr1}
A_i \leftrightarrow (x_i, x_{i+N}), \qquad i \in \{1, 2, 3, 4\},
\end{gather}
with the understanding that
\begin{gather}\label{corr2}
I \leftrightarrow (0,0),\qquad X \leftrightarrow (0,1),\qquad Y \leftrightarrow (1,1),\qquad
Z \leftrightarrow (1,0);
\end{gather}
thus, for example, in $\mathcal{W}(7,2)$ the point having coordinates $(0,1,1,0,0,1,0,1)$ corresponds to the element $I \otimes Y \otimes Z \otimes X \equiv IYZX$.
The elements of the group $\overline{\mathcal{P}}_N$
whose square is $+I_{(1)}I_{(2)} \cdots I_{(N)}$ (i.e., symmetric elements) lie on a certain $\mathcal{Q}^{+}(2N - 1,2)$ of
the ambient space ${\rm PG}(2N-1, 2)$.
It follows from the def\/inition of the bijection that the equation of the $\mathcal{Q}^{+}(2N-1, 2)$ accommodating all symmetric elements must have the following standard form
\begin{gather}\label{hyperbolic}
\mathcal{Q}(x)=x_1x_{N+1} + x_2x_{N+2} + \dots + x_Nx_{2N} = 0.
\end{gather}
This can readily be inspected using the fact that the matrix $Y$ is the only skew-symmetric element in the set $\{I, X, Y, Z\}$ and, so, any symmetric element of the group must contain an even number of $Y$'s.
It should also be added that generators, of both $\mathcal{W}(2N - 1, 2)$ and $\mathcal{Q}^{+}(2N - 1, 2)$, correspond to {\it maximal} sets of mutually commuting elements of the group (see~\cite{hos} for a proof of this fact).
\section[Mapping ${\rm LGr}(N,2N)$ to ${\rm PG}(2^N-1,2)$]{Mapping $\boldsymbol{{\rm LGr}(N,2N)}$ to $\boldsymbol{{\rm PG}(2^N-1,2)}$}\label{bijection}
Recently, L\'evay, Planat and Saniga~\cite{PMM} found and analyzed in detail an explicit bijection between
the set of 135 maximum sets of mutually commuting elements of the three-qubit Pauli group
(that is, the set of generators of $\mathcal{W}(5,2)$) and the set of 135 symmetric operators of the four-qubit
Pauli group (that is, the set of points lying on a particular $\mathcal{Q}^{+}(7,2)$ of $\mathcal{W}(7,2)$).
Following the spirit of this work, we will generalize this physically important result and prove the existence of a similar bijection between {\it any} $N$-qubit and $2^{N-1}$-qubit Pauli groups. This will be done
by considering f\/irst the Grassmaniann variety ${\rm Gr}(N,2N)$,
then its associated Lagrangian Grassmannian\footnote{Since (the def\/initions of) the two objects carry a lot of properties that are insensitive on the choice of the base f\/ield, our presentation will be following the classical case of the complex numbers~\cite{GKZ,L}.} ${\rm LGr}(N,2N)$ and, f\/inally, using a crucial fact that we work in characteristic $2$.
To this end in view, let us f\/irst recall the def\/inition of the variety of $N$-planes in $\mathbb{K}^{2N}$, i.e.\ the Grassmannian variety ${\rm Gr}(N,2N)$.
An $N$-plane (respectively an $(N-1)$-projective-plane) $P$, spanned by $N$ non-zero vectors $u_1,u_2,\dots,u_N$ of $\mathbb{K}^{2N}$
(respectively by $N$ points $[u_1], [u_2],\dots,[u_N]$ of ${\rm PG}(2N-1,2)$) is a point of the Grassmannian variety ${\rm Gr}(N,2N)\subset \mathbb{P}(\wedge ^N \mathbb{K}^{2N})={\rm PG}(\binom{2N}{N}-1,2)$.
The embedding of the Grassmannian variety is given by the so-called Pl\"ucker map:
\[
P=\text{span}\langle u_1,u_2,\dots,u_N \rangle \mapsto [u_1\wedge u_2\wedge \cdots\wedge u_N] \in {\rm Gr}(N,2N)\subset \mathbb{P}\big(\wedge ^N \mathbb{K}^{2N}\big).
\]
In other words, the Grassmanian variety is the set of all skew symmetric tensors that can be factorized (i.e., are separable).
The algebraic equations def\/ining ${\rm Gr}(N,2N)$ are known as the Pl\"ucker equations. Let $(e_i)_{1\leq i\leq 2N}$ be a basis of the
vector space $\mathbb{K}^{2N}$ and let $P\in \mathbb{P}(\wedge ^N \mathbb{K}^{2N})$,~i.e.
\[
P=\sum_{1\leq i_1<i_2<\cdots<i_N\leq 2N} p_{i_1,i_2,\dots, i_N} e_{i_1}\wedge e_{i_2}\wedge \cdots \wedge e_{i_N}.
\]
If $P$ belongs to ${\rm Gr}(N,2N)$, then for any two sequences $1\leq i_1<\dots<i_{N-1}\leq 2N$ and $1\leq j_1<\cdots <j_{N+1}\leq 2N$, the coordinates of~$P$ satisfy the following
relations (see \cite[p.~94]{GKZ})
\begin{gather}\label{pluckerequation}
\sum_{a=1}^{N+1} (-1)^a p_{i_1,i_2,\dots,i_{N-1},j_a}p_{j_1,j_2,\dots,\hat{j_a},\dots,j_{N+1}}=0,
\end{gather}
where the symbol $\hat{j_a}$ means that the corresponding index is omitted.
Equivalently, the coordinates $[p_{1,2,\dots,N},\dots,p_{N,N+1\dots,2N}]$ of $P\in {\rm Gr}(N,2N)$ can be expressed as follow. Let $M$ be an $N\times 2N$
matrix whose rows are coordinates of $N$ vectors that are spanning the $N$-plane $P$. Then, we have
\begin{gather*
p_{i_1,\dots,i_N}=\Delta_{\{i_1,\dots,i_N\},\{1,\dots,N\}}(M).
\end{gather*}
We are only interested in those $(N-1)$-planes of ${\rm PG}(2N-1,2)$ which are totally isotropic with respect to our symplectic form $\sigma$ (i.e., in generators of $\mathcal{W}(2N-1,2)$).
The extension of~$\sigma$ to $\mathbb{P}(\wedge^N \mathbb{K}^{2N})$ def\/ines (see~\cite{CZ}) linear conditions on the coordinates
$[p_{1,\dots,N},p_{1,\dots,N-1,N+1},\dots$, $p_{N,\dots,2N}]$ of~$P$
to insure that $P$ is totally isotropic. These linear conditions def\/ine a projective space~$\mathbb{P}(L)$ whose intersection with ${\rm Gr}(N,2N)$
is a sub-variety of ${\rm Gr}(N,2N)$ called the Lagrangian variety,
\[
{\rm LGr}(N,2N)={\rm Gr}(N,2N)\cap \mathbb{P}(L).
\]
The Lagrangian variety is thus the variety of all the generators ${\rm PG}(N-1,2)$
of $\mathcal{W}(2N-1,2)$.
We will now show that over $\mathbb{K}$ the variety ${\rm LGr}(N,2N)$ can further be projected bijectively to a subset of points of ${\rm PG}(2^N-1,2)$,
where ${\rm PG}(2^N-1,2)$ is the projective space obtained by eliminating the variables involved in the linear conditions which
def\/ine $\mathbb{P}(L)$ (i.e., the linear conditions
given by the extension of $\sigma$ to $\mathbb{P}(\wedge ^N \mathbb{K}^{2N})$).
Let
\begin{gather*}
P=\bigg(\!e_1+\sum_j a_{1,j}e_{N+j}\!\bigg)\!\wedge \!\bigg(\!e_2+\sum_j a_{2,j}e_{N+j}\!\bigg)\!\wedge \cdots \wedge\! \bigg(\!e_N+\sum_j a_{N,j}e_{N+j}\!\bigg) \! \in {\rm Gr}(N,2N).
\end{gather*}
Expanding this expression, we obtain the local parametrization of ${\rm Gr}(N,2N)$:
\begin{gather*}
P=e_1\wedge\dots\wedge e_N+\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^N a_{ij} e_1\wedge\dots\wedge e_{i-1}\wedge e_{N+j}\wedge e_{i+1}\wedge e_{N}\\
\hphantom{P=}{} +
\sum_{i,j}\sum_{s,t} (a_{is}a_{jt}-a_{it}a_{js})e_1\wedge\dots \wedge e_{i-1}\wedge e_{N+s}\wedge e_{i+1}\wedge \cdots \\
\hphantom{P=}{} \cdots
\wedge e_{j-1}\wedge e_{N+t}\wedge e_{j+1}\wedge \dots\wedge e_N+\cdots.
\end{gather*}
This shows that locally the coordinates of $P$ can be written as
\begin{gather}\label{symmetric}
[1,a_{11},\dots,a_{NN},a_{11}a_{22}-a_{21}a_{12},\dots]=[1,\Delta_{1}(A),\dots,\Delta_{I,J}(A),\dots],
\end{gather}
where $A=(a_{i,j})$.
Requiring $P$ to be totally isotropic means that the vectors spanning $P$
must be totally isotropic. Denoting $u_i=e_i+\sum_j a_{i,j}e_{N+j}$,
we get $\sigma(u_s,u_t)=a_{st}-a_{ts}$, which is zero if and only if $A=(a_{ij})$ is a symmetric matrix. Thus $P$ will be totally isotropic if its
coordinates locally correspond to minors of a symmetric matrix $A$ over $\mathbb{K}$.
The linear conditions def\/ining $\mathbb{P}(L)$ correspond locally to the fact that
the minors $\Delta_{I,J}(A)$ and $\Delta_{J,I}(A)$ are equal for $I\neq J$. Moreover, these conditions
do not involve the coordinates corresponding to principal minors. Thus, we obtain a splitting $\wedge^N \mathbb{K}^{2N}=V+W$ such that
the coordinates def\/ining~$V$ are locally given by minors of type $\Delta_{I,J}$, whereas the coordinates def\/ining~$W$ are principal minors~$\Delta_I (A)$.
But for symmetric matrices over $\mathbb{K}={\rm GF}(2)$ all of\/f-diagonal entries are completely determined by the principal minors $\Delta_{\{i\}}(A)$ and $\Delta_{\{i,j\}}(A)$. This fact readily stems from the following equation
$a_{ii}a_{jj}-a_{ij}^2=\Delta_{\{i,j\}}(A)$, i.e., $a_{i,j}^2=\Delta_i(A)\Delta_j(A)-\Delta_{i,j}(A)$. Thus, all minors $\Delta_{I,J}(A)$, with $I\neq J$, are (over $\mathbb{K}$)
{\it uniquely} determined
by the principal minors $\Delta_{K}(A)$ of $A$. In other words, once the coordinates in $W$ of a~point of ${\rm LGr}(N,2N)$ are chosen, the coordinates
in~$V$ are automatically f\/ixed. If we consider the cone $\widehat{{\rm LGr}}(N,2N)\subset \wedge^N \mathbb{K}^{2N}=V+W$, this can be regarded as a~graph over mere $W$ and mapped
bijectively to a~subset of~$W$. The dimension of~$W$ is given by the number of principal minors: $\sum\limits_{i=0} ^N \binom{N}{i}=2^N$. Since all principal minors cannot vanish simultaneously, we obtain a~well-def\/ined projective map $\underline{\pi}:{\rm LGr}(N,2N)\to \mathbb{P}(W)={\rm PG}(2^N-1,2)$.
The map~$\underline{\pi}$ sends $P$ to $p\in \mathbb{P}(W)$, where $p$ is def\/ined by the coordinates of~$P$ not occurring in the equations def\/ining~$V$.
All in all, we obtain a~bijective mapping by projecting~${\rm LGr}(N,2N)$ to~${\rm PG}(2^N-1,2)$ after eliminating all the variables involved/occurring
in the linear conditions.
\section{An explicit construction of the bijection: a few examples}\label{example}
The above-given proof of the existence of the mapping
\[
\underline{\pi}: \ {\rm LGr}(N,2N)\to {\rm PG}\big(2^{N}-1,2\big)
\]
provides us with a recipe of how to obtain the equations
of the image \[
\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(N,2N)\subset {\rm PG}\big(2^N-1,2\big).
\] Indeed, following our reasoning one f\/irst needs to f\/ind the ideal $I({\rm Gr}(N,2N))$
(i.e., a set of equations) def\/ining
${\rm Gr}(N,2N)$, as well as the linear conditions $J=(l_1,\dots,l_m)$ induced by the associated symplectic form. These two sets of equations will then def\/ine the ideal of ${\rm LGr}(N,2N)$,
i.e., \[
I({\rm LGr}(N,2N))=I({\rm Gr}(N,2N))\cup J.
\]
Then we calculate the ideal of the projection $\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(N,2N))$ by eliminating in $I({\rm LGr}(N,2N))$ all the variables appearing in $J$.
The last step can be done by hand when cases are rather simple, or be handled with the formalism of the elimination theory \cite{CLO} when calculations become more tedious.
This formalisms provides algorithms to compute the ideal of the projection (more precisely, the ideal $I$ such that the variety $V(I)$ contains the projection). In practice, however, with increasing $N$ we quickly face insurmountable computational dif\/f\/iculties, as explicitly pointed out at the end of this section.
We shall now illustrate this approach on the f\/irst three cases in the sequence.
\subsection[The smallest non-trivial $({\rm Gr}(2,4) \mapsto {\rm LGr}(2,4)\simeq {\rm PG}(3,2))$ case]{The smallest non-trivial $\boldsymbol{({\rm Gr}(2,4) \mapsto {\rm LGr}(2,4)\simeq {\rm PG}(3,2))}$ case}
The set of lines in ${\rm PG}(3,2)$ (or $2$-planes in $\mathbb{K}^4$) is the f\/irst non-trivial Grassmannian variety.
From equations~(\ref{pluckerequation}) it follows that ${\rm Gr}(2,4)$ is def\/ined by a single equation,
\begin{gather*}
p_{12}p_{34}-p_{13}p_{24}+p_{14}p_{23}=0,
\end{gather*}
representing a quadric surface in ${\rm PG}(\binom{4}{2}-1,2)={\rm PG}(5,2)$.
Hence, ${\rm Gr}(2,4)$ is a variety of dimension $4$.
The canonical symplectic form (see equation~(\ref{sympl})) $\sigma(x,y)=x_1y_3-x_3y_1+x_2y_4-x_4y_2$ imposes that
$P$ (of projective coordinates $[p_{12}:p_{13}:p_{14}:p_{34}:p_{24}:p_{23}]$) is isotropic if and only if $p_{13}=p_{24}$. The linear
conditions stemming from $\sigma$ tell
us that
\[
{\rm LGr}(2,4)={\rm Gr}(2,4)\cap {\rm PG}(4,2),
\] where ${\rm PG}(4,2)=\{[x_1:x_2:x_3:x_4:x_5:x_6]\in {\rm PG}(5,2), x_2=x_5\}$. The variety ${\rm LGr}(2,4)$ is of dimension $3$, being mapped down to ${\rm PG}(3,2)$
when we take into account the projection $\underline{\pi}:{\rm LGr}(2,4)\to {\rm PG}(3,2)$ given by $\underline{\pi}([x_1:x_2:x_3:x_4:x_5:x_6])=[x_1:x_3:x_4:x_6]$.
It is a~one-to-one mapping (because both $p_{13}$ and $p_{24}$ are f\/ixed by the other minors), so we have
\[
\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(2,4))={\rm PG}(3,2).
\]
\subsection[The `L\'evay--Planat--Saniga' $({\rm Gr}(3,6) \mapsto {\rm LGr}(3,6) \mapsto \mathcal{Q}^{+}(7, 2))$ case revisited]{The `L\'evay--Planat--Saniga' $\boldsymbol{({\rm Gr}(3,6) \mapsto {\rm LGr}(3,6) \mapsto \mathcal{Q}^{+}(7, 2))}$ case\\ revisited}\label{examples3}
For $N=3$, equations~(\ref{pluckerequation}) reduce into the following form
\begin{gather*}
\sum_{a=1}^{4} (-1)^a p_{i_1 i_2 j_a} p_{j_1 \dots \widehat{j}_a \dots j_{4}} = 0.
\end{gather*}
For each choice of the pair of indices of $\{i_1, i_2\}$ we f\/ind eight equations with three terms each and one equation featuring all four terms. There will be, of course, an overlap and what we
get are only 30 independent three-term equations and f\/ive four-term ones. We start with $\{i_1, i_2\} = \{1,2\}$ and for each
subsequent choice of these two indices we list only those equations that have not appeared in the preceding steps. Each equation of the former set is, apart from the pair~$i_1$,~$i_2$, characterized by the string $\{j_1, j_2, j_3, j_4\}$ shown after the equation. The 30 equations read:
\begin{gather*}
\{i_1, i_2\} = \{1,2\}: \\
p_{123} p_{145} + p_{124} p_{135} + p_{125} p_{134} = 0,\qquad \{1,3,4,5\},\\
p_{123} p_{146} + p_{124} p_{136} + p_{126} p_{134} = 0,\qquad \{1,3,4,6\},\\
p_{123} p_{156} + p_{125} p_{136} + p_{126} p_{135} = 0,\qquad \{1,3,5,6\},\\
p_{124} p_{156} + p_{125} p_{146} + p_{126} p_{145} = 0,\qquad \{1,4,5,6\},\\
p_{123} p_{245} + p_{124} p_{235} + p_{125} p_{234} = 0,\qquad \{2,3,4,5\},\\
p_{123} p_{246} + p_{124} p_{236} + p_{126} p_{234} = 0,\qquad \{2,3,4,6\},\\
p_{123} p_{256} + p_{125} p_{236} + p_{126} p_{235} = 0,\qquad \{2,3,5,6\},\\
p_{124} p_{256} + p_{125} p_{246} + p_{126} p_{245} = 0,\qquad \{2,4,5,6\}, \\
\{i_1, i_2\} = \{1,3\}:\\
p_{134} p_{156} + p_{135} p_{146} + p_{136} p_{145} = 0,\qquad \{1,4,5,6\},\\
p_{123} p_{345} + p_{134} p_{235} + p_{135} p_{234} = 0,\qquad \{2,3,4,5\},\\
p_{123} p_{346} + p_{134} p_{236} + p_{136} p_{234} = 0,\qquad \{2,3,4,6\},\\
p_{123} p_{356} + p_{135} p_{236} + p_{136} p_{235} = 0,\qquad \{2,3,5,6\},\\
p_{134} p_{356} + p_{135} p_{346} + p_{136} p_{345} = 0,\qquad \{3,4,5,6\},
\\
\{i_1, i_2\} = \{1,4\}: \\
p_{124} p_{345} + p_{134} p_{245} + p_{145} p_{234} = 0,\qquad \{2,3,4,5\},\\
p_{124} p_{346} + p_{134} p_{246} + p_{146} p_{234} = 0,\qquad \{2,3,4,6\},\\
p_{124} p_{456} + p_{145} p_{246} + p_{146} p_{245} = 0,\qquad \{2,4,5,6\},\\
p_{134} p_{456} + p_{145} p_{346} + p_{146} p_{345} = 0,\qquad \{3,4,5,6\},\\
\{i_1, i_2\} = \{1,5\}:\\
p_{125} p_{345} + p_{135} p_{245} + p_{145} p_{235} = 0,\qquad \{2,3,4,5\},\\
p_{125} p_{356} + p_{135} p_{256} + p_{156} p_{235} = 0,\qquad \{2,3,5,6\},\\
p_{125} p_{456} + p_{145} p_{256} + p_{156} p_{245} = 0, \qquad \{2,4,5,6\},\\
p_{135} p_{456} + p_{145} p_{356} + p_{156} p_{345} = 0, \qquad \{3,4,5,6\},\\
\{i_1, i_2\} = \{1,6\}: \\
p_{126} p_{346} + p_{136} p_{246} + p_{146} p_{236} = 0,\qquad \{2,3,4,6\}, \\
p_{126} p_{356} + p_{136} p_{256} + p_{156} p_{236} = 0,\qquad \{2,3,5,6\}, \\
p_{126} p_{456} + p_{146} p_{256} + p_{156} p_{246} = 0,\qquad \{2,4,5,6\}, \\
p_{136} p_{456} + p_{146} p_{356} + p_{156} p_{346} = 0,\qquad \{3,4,5,6\}, \\
\{i_1, i_2\} = \{2,3\}:\\
p_{234} p_{256} + p_{235} p_{246} + p_{236} p_{245} = 0,\qquad \{2,4,5,6\},\\
p_{234} p_{356} + p_{235} p_{346} + p_{236} p_{345} = 0,\qquad \{2,4,5,6\},\\
\{i_1, i_2\} = \{2,4\}:\\
p_{234} p_{456} + p_{245} p_{346} + p_{246} p_{345} = 0,\qquad \{3,4,5,6\},\\
\{i_1, i_2\} = \{2,5\}: \\
p_{235} p_{456} + p_{245} p_{356} + p_{256} p_{345} = 0,\qquad \{3,4,5,6\}, \\
\{i_1, i_2\} = \{2,6\}:\\
p_{236} p_{456} + p_{246} p_{356} + p_{256} p_{346} = 0,\qquad \{3,4,5,6\}.
\end{gather*}
The f\/ive independent four-term equations (followed by the corresponding pair $\{i_1, i_2\}$) are
\begin{gather*}
p_{123} p_{456} + p_{124} p_{356} + p_{125} p_{346} + p_{126} p_{345} = 0,\qquad \{1,2\},\\
p_{123} p_{456} + p_{134} p_{256} + p_{135} p_{246} + p_{136} p_{245} = 0,\qquad \{1,3\},\\
p_{124} p_{356} + p_{134} p_{256} + p_{145} p_{236} + p_{146} p_{235} = 0,\qquad \{1,4\},\\
p_{125} p_{346} + p_{135} p_{246} + p_{145} p_{236} + p_{156} p_{234} = 0,\qquad \{1,5\},\\
p_{126} p_{345} + p_{136} p_{245} + p_{146} p_{235} + p_{156} p_{234} = 0,\qquad \{1,6\}.
\end{gather*}
We are only interested in the Lagrangian grassmannian ${\rm LGr}(3,6)$, that is in those planes of ${\rm PG}(5,2)$ that are totally isotropic with respect to a given symplectic polarity.
Choosing the latter to have again the `canonical' form (equation~(\ref{sympl})),
\begin{gather*}
(x_1 y_4 - x_4 y_1) + (x_2 y_5 - x_5 y_2) + (x_3 y_6 - x_6 y_3) = 0,
\end{gather*}
the coordinates of such planes have to meet the following constraints
\begin{gather}
p_{125} = p_{136}, \qquad p_{235} = p_{134},\qquad p_{124} = p_{236}, \nonumber\\
p_{245} = p_{346}, \qquad p_{256} = p_{146}, \qquad p_{145} = p_{356},\label{constr}
\end{gather}
which reduce the set of 30 three-term equations into
\begin{alignat*}{3}
& p_{123} p_{356} + p_{236} p_{135} + p_{136} p_{235} = 0, \qquad && p_{236} p_{456} + p_{356} p_{246} + p_{256} p_{346} = 0, &\\
& p_{123} p_{256} + p_{236} p_{136} + p_{126} p_{235} = 0, \qquad && p_{235} p_{456} + p_{356} p_{346} + p_{256} p_{345} = 0, &\\
& p_{236} p_{156} + p_{136} p_{256} + p_{126} p_{356} = 0, \qquad && p_{136} p_{456} + p_{356} p_{256} + p_{156} p_{346} = 0, &\\
& p_{123} p_{346} + p_{236} p_{235} + p_{136} p_{234} = 0, \qquad && p_{123} p_{156} + p_{136}^{2} + p_{126} p_{135} = 0, & \\
& p_{236} p_{256} + p_{136} p_{246} + p_{126} p_{346} = 0, \qquad && p_{123} p_{246} + p_{236}^{2} + p_{126} p_{234} = 0, &\\
& p_{235} p_{156} + p_{135} p_{256} + p_{136} p_{356} = 0, \qquad && p_{123} p_{345} + p_{235}^{2} + p_{135} p_{234} = 0, &\\
& p_{235} p_{356} + p_{135} p_{346} + p_{136} p_{345} = 0, \qquad && p_{135} p_{456} + p_{356}^{2} + p_{156} p_{345} = 0, &\\
& p_{236} p_{345} + p_{235} p_{346} + p_{356} p_{234} = 0, \qquad && p_{126} p_{456} + p_{256}^{2} + p_{156} p_{246} = 0, &\\
& p_{236} p_{346} + p_{235} p_{246} + p_{256} p_{234} = 0, \qquad && p_{234} p_{456} + p_{346}^{2} + p_{246} p_{345} = 0,&
\end{alignat*}
and the set of f\/ive four-term ones into
\begin{gather*}
p_{123} p_{456} + p_{236} p_{356} + p_{136} p_{346} + p_{126} p_{345} = 0, \\
p_{123} p_{456} + p_{235} p_{256} + p_{135} p_{246} + p_{136} p_{346} = 0, \\
p_{136} p_{346} + p_{135} p_{246} + p_{356} p_{236} + p_{156} p_{234} = 0, \\
p_{126} p_{345} + p_{136} p_{346} + p_{256} p_{235} + p_{156} p_{234} = 0.
\end{gather*}
These last four equations are, however, not independent, as each of them is equal to the sum of the remaining three. Moreover, summing the f\/irst of them with the third one, or the second with the fourth, yields
\begin{gather}\label{quadric36}
p_{123} p_{456} + p_{126} p_{345} + p_{135} p_{246} + p_{156} p_{234} = 0,
\end{gather}
which after relabeling the variables as $x_1=p_{123}$, $x_2=p_{126}$, $x_3=p_{135}$, $x_4=p_{156}$, $x_5=p_{456}$, $x_6=p_{345}$, $x_7=p_{246}$ and $x_8=p_{234}$ reads
\begin{gather*}
x_1x_5+x_2x_6+x_3x_7+x_4x_8=0
\end{gather*}
and is readily recognized to represent a hyperbolic quadric $\mathcal{Q}^{+}(7, 2)$ in a particular subspace ${\rm PG}(7,2)$ of the ambient projective space ${\rm PG}(19,2)$ of ${\rm Gr}(3,6)$.
More precisely, the quadric def\/ined by equation~(\ref{quadric36}) lives in the ideal $I_2({\rm LGr}(3,6))$ and it is the {\it only} quadric that does not depend on the coordinates
$p_{136}$, $p_{236}$, $p_{235}$, $p_{356}$, $p_{256}$, and $p_{346}$.
Thus, if we consider the splitting of the linear space $\mathbb{K}^{14}=\mathbb{K}^8 \oplus \mathbb{K}^6$, where $\mathbb{K}^8$ represents the vector space def\/ined by
the set of coordinates $\{p_{123}$, $p_{126}$, $p_{135}$, $p_{156}$, $p_{456}$, $p_{345}$, $p_{246}$, $p_{234}\}$ and $\mathbb{K}^6$ that def\/ined by
$\{p_{136}$, $p_{236}$, $p_{235}$, $p_{356}$, $p_{256}$, $p_{346}\}$, and employ the fact that each coordinate
from the latter set can be expressed as a linear combination of the coordinates from the former set, then we can
represent $\widehat{{\rm LGr}}(3,6)\subset \mathbb{K}^{14}$
as a graph over the quadric $\mathcal{Q}^{+}(7, 2)$ def\/ined by equation~(\ref{quadric36}) in $\mathbb{K}^8$, i.e.,
\[
\widehat{{\rm LGr}}(3,6)=\big\{({\bf x},g({\bf x}))\in \mathbb{K}^{14}, {\bf x}\in \widehat{\mathcal{Q}}^{+} (7,2)\subset \mathbb{K}^8\big\}.
\]
One thus automatically gets a bijection between ${\rm LGr}(3,6)$ and the $\mathcal{Q}^+(7,2)$ by
taking the projection to the base of the graph $\mathbb{K}^8\oplus \mathbb{K}^6\to \mathbb{K}^8$.
This procedure can be rephrased in algebraic terms in the framework of elimination theory~\cite{CLO}.
Given an ideal $I\subset \mathbb{K}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$, the $l$-th elimination ideal, with $1\leq l \leq n$, is the
ideal of $\mathbb{K}[x_{l+1},\dots,x_n]$ def\/ined by
\[
I_l=I\cap \mathbb{K}[x_{l+1},\dots,x_n].
\]
Let $\pi_l$ be the projection $\mathbb{K}^n\to \mathbb{K}^{n-l}$ def\/ined by $\pi_l(a_1,\dots,a_n)=(a_{l+1},\dots,a_n)$.
If $V(I)=\{(a_1,\dots,a_n)\in \mathbb{K}^n, f(a_1,\dots,a_n)=0, \forall\, f\in I\}$ is an af\/f\/ine variety
corresponding to the ideal~$I$, then $\pi(V(I))\subset V(I_l)$, i.e., the projection of~$V(I)$ is
contained in the algebraic variety def\/ined by the elimination ideal (which is, in fact, the smallest af\/f\/ine variety containing $\pi(V)$).
Using the notion of Groebner basis, one can compute the elimination ideal $I$ from the fact that
\[
G_l=G\cap \mathbb{K}[x_{l+1},\dots,x_n],
\]
where~$G$ is the Groebner basis of~$I$ and~$G_l$ that of~$I_l$. To perform this calculation, it
suf\/f\/ices to choose a monomial order adapted to eliminate the f\/irst~$l$ variables.
Going back to the (cone over the) Lagrangian Grassmanian, $\widehat{{\rm LGr}}(3,6)\subset \mathbb{K}^{14}$, we know that the ideal of this variety
is def\/ined by the above-given $21$ equations
of degree $2$. This ideal is obtained from the Pl\"ucker relations def\/ining ${\rm Gr}(3,6)$ by imposing the six constraints (\ref{constr}), i.e.
\[
I({\rm LGr}(3,6))=I({\rm Gr}(3,6)\cup J,
\]
where $J=(p_{125}+p_{136},p_{235}+p_{134},p_{124}+p_{236},p_{245}+p_{346},p_{256}+p_{146},p_{145}+p_{356})$.
The Pl\"ucker coordinates appearing in $J$ are exactly those we want to eliminate to project down to $\mathbb{K}^8$, because they depend linearly on the remaining ones.
Starting form the ideal $I(\widehat{{\rm LGr}}(3,6))$, we compute the desired elimination ideal using Macaulay2:
\begin{gather*}
\begin{split}
&I(\widehat{{\rm LGr}}(3,6))\cap \mathbb{K}[p_{123},p_{126},p_{135},p_{156},p_{456},p_{345},p_{246},p_{234}]\\
& \qquad {} =(p_{123}p_{456}+p_{126}p_{345}+p_{135}p_{246}+p_{156}p_{234}).
\end{split}
\end{gather*}
Thus, $\pi(\widehat{{\rm LGr}}(3,6))\subset \widehat{\mathcal{Q}}^+(7,2)$. Everything holds projectively, as we worked only
with homogeneous polynomials; then $\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(3,6))\subset \mathcal{Q}^+(7,2)$, where $\underline{\pi}: {\rm PG}(13,2)\backslash {\rm PG}(5,2) \to {\rm PG}(7,2)$.\footnote{It is worth mentioning here that the projection map is well def\/ined only outside ${\rm PG}(5,2)=\{p\in {\rm PG}(13,2), p=[a_1,\dots,a_6,0,\dots,0]\}$; however, $\underline{\pi}|_{{\rm LGr}(3,6)}$ is well def\/ined because the variables $p_{123},\dots,p_{234}$ do not vanish simultaneously on ${\rm LGr}(3,6)$.}
Moreover, since both $\sharp \underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(3,6))=135$ and $\sharp \mathcal{Q}^+(7,2)=135$ and because
$\underline{\pi}$ is a bijection (the values of $p_{125},\dots,p_{356}$ are completely determined by those of $p_{123},\dots,p_{234}$),
we f\/inally get
\[
\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(3,6))=\mathcal{Q}^+(7,2).
\]
\subsection[A more intricate $({\rm Gr}(4,8) \mapsto {\rm LGr}(4,8) \mapsto \mathcal{Q}^{+}(15, 2))$ case]{A more intricate $\boldsymbol{({\rm Gr}(4,8) \mapsto {\rm LGr}(4,8) \mapsto \mathcal{Q}^{+}(15, 2))}$ case}\label{examples4}
We shall follow the same strategy to show that the 2295 maximal subspaces of $\mathcal{W}(7,2)$ are mapped to a subset of points of a hyperbolic quadric
$\mathcal{Q}^{+}(15, 2)$.
${\rm Gr}(4,8)$ is a variety of the ${8 \choose 4} - 1 = 69$-dimensional projective space def\/ined by
\begin{gather*}
\sum_{a=1}^{5} (-1)^a p_{i_1 i_2 i_3 j_a} p_{j_1 \dots \widehat{j}_a \dots j_{5}} = 0.
\end{gather*}
The Lagrangian Grassmannian associated with the following symplectic polarity
\[(x_1 y_5 - x_5 y_1) + (x_2 y_6 - x_6 y_2) + (x_3 y_7 - x_7 y_3) + (x_4 y_8 - x_8 y_4) = 0,\]
has to meet 24 constraints of the type
\begin{gather*}
p_{1345} = p_{2346},\qquad p_{1245} = p_{2347},\qquad p_{1235}=p_{2348},\qquad
p_{1246}=p_{1347},\qquad p_{1236}=p_{1348},\\
p_{1237}=p_{1248}, \qquad
p_{1358} = p_{2368},\qquad p_{1258} = p_{2378},\qquad p_{1257}=p_{2478},\qquad
p_{1268}=p_{1378},\\
p_{1267}=p_{1478},\qquad p_{1367}=p_{1468}, \qquad
p_{1457} = p_{2467},\qquad p_{1456} = p_{3467},\qquad p_{1356}=p_{3468},\\
p_{2456}=p_{3457},\qquad p_{2356}=p_{3458},\qquad p_{2357}=p_{2458}, \qquad
p_{1578} = p_{2678},\qquad p_{1568} = p_{3678},\\ p_{1567}=p_{4678},\qquad
p_{2568}=p_{3578},\qquad p_{2567}=p_{4578},\qquad p_{3567}=p_{4568},
\end{gather*}
and three conditions of the type
\begin{gather*}
p_{1256} + p_{1357} + p_{1458} = 0, \qquad
p_{1256} + p_{2367} + p_{2468} = 0, \qquad
p_{1357} + p_{2367} + p_{3478} = 0.
\end{gather*}
We thus f\/ind 27 independent linear relations; hence, our ${\rm LGr}(4,8)$ lives in a subspace of the ${\rm PG}(69,2)$ that is isomorphic to ${\rm PG}(42,2)$.
To f\/ind the projection $\pi:\mathbb{K}^{70} \to \mathbb{K}^{16}$ we compute the elimination ideal
\[
I=(I({\rm Gr}(4,8))\cup J)\cap\mathbb{K}[x_1,\dots,x_{16}],
\]
where $J$ is a homogeneous ideal of degree one generated by the above-given 27 equations
and $x_i$'s, $i \in \{1,2,\dots,16\}$, stand for the following $16$ Pl\"ucker coordinates that do not appear in the expression def\/ining $J$:
\begin{alignat*}{5}
& x_1=p_{1234},\qquad && x_2=p_{1238},\qquad && x_3=p_{1247},\qquad && x_4=p_{1278},& \\
& x_5=p_{1346},\qquad && x_6=p_{1368},\qquad && x_7=p_{1467},\qquad && x_8=p_{1678}, & \\
& x_9=p_{5678},\qquad && x_{10}=p_{4567},\qquad && x_{11}=p_{3568},\qquad && x_{12}=p_{3456}, & \\
& x_{13}=p_{2578},\qquad && x_{14}=p_{2457},\qquad && x_{15}=p_{2358},\qquad && x_{16}=p_{2345}. &
\end{alignat*}
Using Macaulay2, we get the ideal
\begin{gather}\label{ideal}
I=(\mathcal{Q}_1,\mathcal{Q}_2,\mathcal{Q}_3,\mathcal{Q}_4,\mathcal{Q}_5,\mathcal{Q}_6,\mathcal{Q}_7,\mathcal{Q}_8,\mathcal{Q}_9,\mathcal{Q}_{10}),
\end{gather}
where $\mathcal{Q}_i$ are the following quadratic forms
\begin{alignat*}{3}
& \mathcal{Q}_1=x_{12}x_{13} + x_{11}x_{14} + x_{10}x_{15} + x_{9}x_{16}, \qquad &&
\mathcal{Q}_2=x_{1}x_{13} + x_{2}x_{14} + x_{3}x_{15}+ x_{4}x_{16},& \\
& \mathcal{Q}_3=x_{1}x_{11} + x_{2}x_{12} + x_{5}x_{15} + x_{6}x_{16},\qquad &&
\mathcal{Q}_4=x_{4}x_{5} + x_{3}x_{6} + x_{2}x_{7} + x_{1}x_{8},&\\
& \mathcal{Q}_5=x_{1}x_{10} + x_{3}x_{12} + x_{5}x_{14} + x_{7}x_{16},\qquad &&
\mathcal{Q}_6=x_{5}x_{9} +x_{6}x_{10} + x_{7}x_{11} + x_{8}x_{12},& \\
& \mathcal{Q}_7=x_{3}x_{9} + x_{4}x_{10} + x_{7}x_{13} + x_{8}x_{14},\qquad &&
\mathcal{Q}_8=x_{2}x_{9} + x_{4}x_{11} + x_{6}x_{13} + x_{8}x_{15},& \\
& \mathcal{Q}_9=x_{1}x_{9} + x_{4}x_{12} + x_{6}x_{14} +x_{7}x_{15},\qquad &&
\mathcal{Q}_{10}=x_{2}x_{10} + x_{3}x_{11} +x_{5}x_{13} + x_{8}x_{16}.&
\end{alignat*}
Moreover, the quadric
\[
\mathcal{Q}_0 \equiv \mathcal{Q}_9+\mathcal{Q}_{10} = 0
\]
is a hyperbolic quadric in ${\rm PG}(15,2)$ def\/ined by equation~(\ref{hyperbolic}).
The ideal $I$ def\/ines a subvariety~$V(I)$ of ${\rm PG}(15,2)$ that ${\rm LGr}(4,8)$ is mapped to. Moreover, $V(I)\subset \mathcal{Q}^+(15,2)$ because $\mathcal{Q}_0 \in I$. Again, by comparing
the number of points of $V(I)$ and ${\rm LGr}(4,8)$, we conclude that
\[
\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(4,8))=V(I) \subset \mathcal{Q}^+(15,2).
\]
{In both examples ($N=3$ and $N=4$) the set of equations obtained provides not only a set of equations which cuts out the variety}
$\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(N,2N))$,
but also the ideal $I$ of the variety. This is obvious for $N=3$, because the ideal is principal and generated by an irreducible polynomial.
For $N=4$ we can directly check with Macaulay2 that the ideal $I$ of equation~(\ref{ideal}) {is prime, being thus also the ideal of }$\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(4,8))$. We shall return to this point in Section~\ref{variety_minor}.
As~$N$ increases, the calculations are more and more time-consuming and put also big demand on memory resources. The case $N=5$ was already out of reach for our computers.
\section[Stratification of ${\rm PG}(3,2)$, ${\rm PG}(7,2)$ and ${\rm PG}(15,2)$]{Stratif\/ication of $\boldsymbol{{\rm PG}(3,2)}$, $\boldsymbol{{\rm PG}(7,2)}$ and $\boldsymbol{{\rm PG}(15,2)}$}\label{partition}
Let us consider the natural action of the group $G={\rm SL}(2,2)\times {\rm SL}(2,2)\times\cdots \times {\rm SL}(2,2)\rtimes S_N$ on ${\rm PG}(2^N-1,2)$.
This action partitions the set of points of the projective space in terms of $G$-orbits and allows us, thanks to the bijection described in Section~\ref{bijection}, to partition
${\rm LGr}(N,2N)$ in terms of $G$-equivalent classes. Knowing a representative of each orbit, we can use the equations obtained in the previous section
to check whether a particular orbit does or does not belong to $\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(N,2N))$.
The $G$-action preserves also dif\/ferent notions of rank. First, it preserves the tensor rank ($T$-rank), which can be def\/ined as follows:
if $p\in {\rm PG}(2^N-1,2)$ we will say
that~$p$ has $T$-rank $k$ if $p=\Big[\sum\limits_{i=1} ^k v_{1}^i\otimes v_2^i\otimes\cdots\otimes v_n^i\Big]$, where $v_j^i \in (\mathbb{K}^2)_i$
and $k$ is the minimal integer such that this property holds (see~\cite{aft, bs} for recent work on tensor rank over ${\rm GF}(2)$).
Another notion of rank, more interesting in our situation, is that of exclusive rank, $E$-rank, as proposed in~\cite{O3}.
{The $E$-rank is only def\/ined for points $p$ of} $\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(N,2N))$. Given $p\in \underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(N,2N))$
there exists a unique $P\in {\rm LGr}(N,2N)$ which is in local coordinates def\/ined by a symmetric matrix $A$ (Section~\ref{bijection} and equation~(\ref{symmetric})). Then we will say that
$p$ is of $E$-rank $k$ if, and only if, all $(k+1)\times (k+1)$ exclusive minors of $A$, i.e.\ minors $\Delta_{I,J}(A)$ with $I\cap J=\varnothing$, are zero.
In the following examples, we use the classif\/ication of $G$-orbits of points of ${\rm PG}(7,2)$ and ${\rm PG}(15,2)$ obtained by Bremner and Stavrou~\cite{bs}
to partition the sets of maximal sets of mutually commuting $N$-qubits operators (for $N=2,3$ and $4$) and provide information on sizes, representatives in ${\rm PG}(2^N-1,2)$, corresponding observables as well as ranks of these sets.
\subsection{Two distinguished classes of mutually commuting two-qubit operators}
It is well known (see, e.g., \cite{hos1}) that the projective space ${\rm PG}(3,2)$ is the union of two $G$-orbits,
$
{\rm PG}(3,2)=\mathcal{O}_1\cup \mathcal{O}_2$,
with $\sharp \mathcal{O}_1=9$ and $\sharp \mathcal{O}_2=6$. The orbit $\mathcal{O}_1$, comprising the points lying on a hyperbolic quadric $\mathcal{Q}^+(3,2)$,
corresponds to the $G$-orbit of any
separable vector in the tensorial basis (for example, the orbit of $x_1^1\otimes x_2^1$). On the other hand, $\mathcal{O}_2$, consisting of six of\/f-quadric points, is the orbit corresponding to non-separable tensors (for example, the orbit of $x_1^0\otimes x_2^0+x_1^1\otimes x_2^1$).
Our bijection associates the two orbits of ${\rm PG}(3,2)$ with two distinguished classes of maximal sets of mutually commuting two-qubit operators, as described in Table~\ref{Table1}.
\begin{table}[!h]\small
\centering
\caption{Classes of mutually commuting $2$-qubits operators; here, ${\rm PG}(1,2)_a=\langle XI,IX \rangle$ and ${\rm PG}(1,2)_b=\langle ZX,XZ \rangle$.}\label{Table1}
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Orbit & Size & Representative & Observable & {$T/E$-rank} & $\begin{array}{c} \text{Set of mutually commuting} \\
\text{two-qubit observables}\end{array}$\\
\hline
$\mathcal{O}_1$ & $9$ & $[0:0:1:0]$ & $XI$ & {$1/0$} &${\rm PG}(1,2)_a$\tsep{1pt}\\
$\mathcal{O}_2$ & $6$ & $[1:0:1:0]$ & $YI$ &{$2/1$} & ${\rm PG}(1,2)_b$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The projective line ${\rm PG}(1,2)_a$, spanned by $\langle XI,IX \rangle$, is obviously mapped to $[0:0:1:0]$ by our construction. Indeed, according to equations~(\ref{corr1}) and (\ref{corr2}), the observables $XI$ and $IX$ correspond to the points of $\mathcal{W}(3,2)$ having the coordinates $(0,0,1,0)$ and $(0,0,0,1)$ and these two points def\/ine the line represented by the matrix
\[
P_a=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}\]
whose Pl\"ucker coordinates are $[0:0:1:0]$, i.e., $p_{12}=p_{14}=p_{23}=0$ and $p_{34}=1$.
Similarly, the line def\/ined by
\[P_b=\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\]
satisf\/ies $p_{12}=p_{34}=1$ and $p_{14}=p_{23}=0$, i.e., it is mapped to $[1:0:1:0]$. This line is spanned by the points $(1,0,0,1)$ and $(0,1,1,0)$, being thus generated by $ZX$ and $XZ$.
The partition of ${\rm PG}(3,2)$ into two orbits $\mathcal{O}_1$ and $\mathcal{O}_2$ tells us that we can similarly partition ${\rm LGr}(2,4)$
into two classes of lines; a class of cardinality
$9$, which is the $G$-orbit of ${\rm PG}(1,2)_a$, and a class of cardinality $6$, which is the $G$-orbit of ${\rm PG}(1,2)_b$.
\subsection{Three distinguished classes of mutually commuting three-qubit operators}
The projective space ${\rm PG}(7,2)$ is the union of f\/ive $G$-orbits (see \cite{bs,hos1,LaS}),
$
{\rm PG}(7,2)=\mathcal{O}_1\cup\mathcal{O}_2\cup\mathcal{O}_3\cup\mathcal{O}_4\cup\mathcal{O}_5$,
with $\sharp\mathcal{O}_1=27$, $\sharp\mathcal{O}_2=54$, $\sharp\mathcal{O}_3=108$, $\sharp\mathcal{O}_4=54$ and $\sharp\mathcal{O}_5=12$.
It is also well known (see, e.g.,~\cite{hos1}) that
$
\mathcal{Q}^+(7,2)=\mathcal{O}_1\cup\mathcal{O}_2\cup\mathcal{O}_4$.
Hence, in light of our main result of Section~\ref{examples3}, the variety $\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(3,6))$ is partitioned into three dif\/ferent $G$-orbits whose properties are summarized in Table~\ref{Table2}; here, we used the explicit expression of $\underline{\pi}$ given in~\cite{PMM} and the representatives of the orbits $\mathcal{O}_i$ were taken from~\cite{bs} (transformed, of course, into our adopted system of coordi\-nates).
\begin{table}[!h]\small
\centering
\caption{Classes of mutually commuting $3$-qubits operators; here, ${\rm PG}(2,2)_a=\langle XII,IXI,IIX \rangle$, ${\rm PG}(2,2)_b=\langle ZZI,XXI,IIX \rangle$, and ${\rm PG}(2,2)_c=\langle XIX,IXX,ZZZ \rangle$.}\label{Table2}
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Orbit & Size & Representative & $\begin{array}{@{}c@{}} \text{Symmetric} \\ \text{4-qubit observable}\end{array}$ & {$T/E$-rank} & $\begin{array}{@{}c@{}} \text{Set of mut. commuting} \\
\text{3-qubit observables}\end{array}$\\
\hline
$\mathcal{O}_1$ & $27$ & $[0:0:0:0:1:0:0:0]$ & $XIII$ &{$1/0$} & ${\rm PG}(2,2)_a$\tsep{1pt}\\
$\mathcal{O}_2$ & $54$ & $[0:0:0:1:0:0:1:0]$ & $IIXZ$ &{$2/1$} & ${\rm PG}(2,2)_b$\\
$\mathcal{O}_4$ & $54$ & $[0:0:0:1:0:1:1:0]$ & $IXXZ$ &{$3/1$} & ${\rm PG}(2,2)_c$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To illustrate how we assign a projective plane of order two to a representative of $\mathcal{O}_i$, let us detail the calculation for the
orbit $\mathcal{O}_2$. A~representative of the second non-trivial orbit in the classif\/ication of \cite{bs} is,
in the tensorial basis, $x_1^0\otimes x_2^1\otimes x_3^1+x_1^1\otimes x_2^0\otimes x_3^1$, which in our notation corresponds to $x_4=x_7=1$. Using the labeling
of the Pl\"ucker coordinates given in Section~\ref{examples3} this means that $p_{156}= p_{246}=1$, the remaining coordinates being zero.
The $3 \times 6$ matrix satisfying these conditions is of the form
\[\left(\begin{array}{@{}ccc|ccc@{}}
1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right).\]
The 3 vectors represented by the rows of the matrix are the coordinates of the three points that span
the ${\rm PG}(2,2)_b$, which is obviously mapped to $[0:0:0:1:0:0:1:0]$.
A~similar partition of ${\rm LGr}(3,6)$ into three dif\/ferent classes is also obvious.
\subsection{Six distinguished classes of mutually commuting four-qubit operators}
The stratif\/ication of ${\rm PG}(15,2)$ in terms of $29$ $G$-orbits was also established in \cite{bs}.
In order to identify the orbits which partition
the variety $\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(4,8))$, we checked the representative of each orbit, taken from Table 5 of \cite{bs}, and found out that six of them annihilate the polynomials of the ideal $I$ (see equation~(\ref{ideal})).
The results of our calculations are portrayed in Table~\ref{Table3} (here the f\/irst non-trivial orbits is denoted $\mathcal{O}_2$ to be compatible with the numbering of~\cite{bs},
which also takes into account the trivial orbit).
\begin{table}[!h]\small\centering
\caption{Classes of mutually commuting $4$-qubits operators; here,
${\rm PG}(3,2)_a=\langle XIII,IXII,IIXI$, $IIIX \rangle$, ${\rm PG}(3,2)_b=\langle XIII,IXII,IIZZ,IIYY \rangle$, ${\rm PG}(3,2)_c=\langle XIII,IZZZ,IYYZ,IYZY \rangle$, ${\rm PG}(3,2)_d$ $=\langle ZYYY, YZYY,YYZY,YYYZ \rangle$, ${\rm PG}(3,2)_e=\langle XXII,ZZII,IIZZ,IIYY \rangle$ and
${\rm PG}(3,2)_f= \langle XIZZ$, $IXZZ,ZZXI,ZZIX \rangle$.}\label{Table3}
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{tabular}{|@{\,}c@{\,}|@{\,\,}c@{\,\,}|@{\,\,}c@{\,\,}|@{\,\,}c@{\,\,}|@{\,\,}c@{\,\,}|@{\,}c@{\,}|}
\hline
Orbit & Size & Representative & $\begin{array}{@{}c@{}} \text{Symmetric} \\ \text{8-qubit obs'le}\end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{@{}c@{}} \text{$T/E$-}\\ \text{rank}\end{array}$ & $\begin{array}{@{}c@{}} \text{Set of mut. comm.} \\ \text{4-qubit obs'les}\end{array}$\\
\hline
$\mathcal{O}_2$ & $81$ & $[0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1:0:0:0:0:0:0:0]$ & $XIIIIIII$&{$1/0$} & ${\rm PG}(3,2)_a$\tsep{1pt}\\
$\mathcal{O}_3$ & $324$ & $[0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1:1:0:0:0:0:0]$ & $IXXIIIII$&{$2/1$} & ${\rm PG}(3,2)_b$\\
$\mathcal{O}_6$ & $648$ & $[0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1:1:0:1:0:0:0]$ & $IXXIXIII$&{$3/1$} & ${\rm PG}(3,2)_c$\\
$\mathcal{O}_{14}$ & $162$ & $[0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1:0:1:1:0:1:0:0:0]$ & $IXXIXIIZ$&{$4/1$} & ${\rm PG}(3,2)_d$\\
$\mathcal{O}_{17}$ & $108$ & $[0:0:0:0:0:1:1:0:0:0:0:0:0:1:1:0]$ & $IIIIIYYI$&{$4/2$} & ${\rm PG}(3,2)_e$\\
$\mathcal{O}_{18}$& $972$ & $[0:0:0:0:0:1:1:0:1:0:0:0:0:1:1:0]$ & $XIIIIYYI$&{$4/2$} & ${\rm PG}(3,2)_f$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To identify the ${\rm PG}(3,2)$'s that correspond to the representatives of the orbits we proceed similarly as in the previous two cases, that is, we create the $4\times 8$ matrix whose minors satisfy
the conditions implied by the corresponding representative.
${\rm LGr}(4,8)$ is likewise partitioned into six non-equivalent classes.
\section{The Lagrangian Grassmannian and the variety\\ of principal minors}\label{variety_minor}
At this point is is worth mentioning several papers \cite{LS, O1,O2} that deal with similar problems over the f\/ield of complex numbers and which are deeply related to the construction over ${\rm GF}(2)$ considered in this paper.
Let $\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{C}$ and let $\mathcal{Z}_N\subset \mathbb{P}(\underbrace{\mathbb{C}^2\otimes\dots\otimes\mathbb{C}^2}_{N \text{ times}})$ be the image of the following
rational map \cite{O2}:
\begin{alignat*}{5}
&\phi: \ && \mathbb{P}\big(S^2 \mathbb{C}^n\oplus \mathbb{C}\big) && \dashrightarrow \ && \mathbb{P}\big(\big(\mathbb{C}^2\big)^{\otimes N}\big),&\\
&&& [A,t] && \mapsto && \big[t^{n-|I|} \Delta_I(A)X^I\big], &
\end{alignat*}
with $A$ being a symmetric complex matrix and $X^I=x_1 ^{i_1}\otimes\cdots \otimes x_N ^{i_N}$, $i_j= \begin{cases}
0 & \text{if}\ j\notin I,\\
1 & \text{ if} \ j\in I,
\end{cases}$ a~tensorial basis of $(\mathbb{C}^2)^{\otimes N}$.
$\mathcal{Z}_N$ is an algebraic variety, called the variety of principal minors of symmetric matrices, corresponding to the linear projection of the Lagrangian Grassmannian (over the complex numbers).
The linear projection means that from the set of minors of cardinality $\binom{2N}{N}$ we only keep the set of principal minors of cardinality $2^N$, i.e.\ it is the type of
the projection $\underline{\pi}$ def\/ined in Section~\ref{bijection} over ${\rm GF}(2)$. However, in the complex case this projection is no
longer a bijection, that is, the principal minors do not contain all the information on the
Lagrangian Grassmannian. In particular, over $\mathbb{C}$, as well as over any algebraically closed f\/ield of characteristic dif\/ferent from two,
the of\/f-diagonal entries of the symmetric matrices (Section~\ref{bijection}) are determined by the principal minors ($a_{ij}^2=\Delta_i(A)\Delta_j(A)-\Delta_{i,j}(A)$) only up to
the sign and, thus, the projection is generically two to one.
\looseness=-1
The motivation for studying $\mathcal{Z}_N$ in the complex case comes from the principal minors assignment problem \cite{HS,HSt,LS}. This
problem asks for necessary and suf\/f\/icient conditions
for a collection of $2^N$ numbers to arise as the principal minors of an $N\times N$ matrix.
In the case of a symmetric matrix, a collection of $2^N$ numbers corresponds to its principal minors if and only of the
corresponding point in~$\mathbb{P}((\mathbb{C}^2)^{\otimes N})$ belongs to the variety $\mathcal{Z}_N$.
This problem for symmetric matrices was solved by Oeding~\cite{O1,O2}, who successfully described a
set of degree-four polynomials which cut out the variety~$\mathcal{Z}_N$.
In particular, Oeding proved, using representation theory techniques, that a set of equations def\/ining $\mathcal{Z}_N$ are obtained by taking the
$G=SL_2(\mathbb{C})\times\dots\times SL_2(\mathbb{C})\ltimes S_N$ orbit of a certain peculiar quartic polynomial (the so-called $2\times 2\times 2$
Cayley hyperdeterminant). Oeding's result also provides a set-theoretical solution to a conjecture of Holtz and Strumfels~\cite{HSt} which says that the $G$-orbit of the Cayley hyperdeterminant generates the ideal of the variety~$\mathcal{Z}_N$.
It is, naturally, tempting to rephrase Oeding's result {and the conjecture of Holtz and Strumfels} into the ${\rm GF}(2)$-regime and check if one can recover the equations obtained in Sections~\ref{examples3} and~\ref{examples4}.
Over ${\rm GF}(2)$, the equations provided by Corollary~1.4 of~\cite{O2} lead to the ${\rm SL}(2,2)\times \cdots\times {\rm SL}(2,2)\ltimes S_N$ orbit of
\[
\mathcal{Q}=p_{{\bf 123}4\dots N}p_{{\bf\overline{1} \overline{2}\overline{3}}4\dots N}+p_{{\bf 12\overline{3}}4\dots N}p_{{\bf 3 \overline{1}\overline{2}}4\dots N}+p_{{\bf 13\overline{2}}4\dots N}p_{{\bf 2\overline{1}\overline{3}}4\dots N}+p_{{\bf 1\overline{2}\overline{3}}4\dots N}p_{{\bf 23\overline{1}}4\dots N},
\]
where $\overline{k}=N+k$. \looseness=-1
For $N=3$, $\mathcal{Q}=0$ is readily recognized to be identical to equation~(\ref{quadric36}) def\/ining $\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(3,6))$.
The quadratic polynomial $\mathcal{Q}$ of equation~(\ref{quadric36}) is nothing but the irreducible factor of
the Cayley hyperdeterminant which can be written as $\mathcal{Q}^2$ over ${\rm GF}(2)$ (see Remark~18 of~\cite{K}). Thus,
for $N=3$, both Oeding's result and
Holtz and Strumfels' conjecture are true over~${\rm GF}(2)$.
For $N=4$, the distinguished polynomial $\mathcal{Q}$ coincides with our $\mathcal{Q}_8$ appearing in the ideal def\/ined by equation~(\ref{ideal}).
It can be shown that the $G$-orbit of $\mathcal{Q}=\mathcal{Q}_8$ consists of the polynomials
$\mathcal{Q}_1, \mathcal{Q}_2,\dots,\mathcal{Q}_8$ and $\mathcal{Q}_0$. However, via the repeated action of the generators of
$G$ we did not manage to get the remaining four-term polynomials $\mathcal{Q}_9$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{10}$, merely their
sum $\mathcal{Q}_0=\mathcal{Q}_9+\mathcal{Q}_{10}$. { This means that in the $N=4$ case, the $G$-orbit of the Cayley hyperdeterminant over ${\rm GF}(2)$ does not generate the ideal
of the variety of principal minors, i.e.\ the Holtz--Strumfels conjecture is not valid. However, Oeding's result remains
true, for one can readily check that the set $\mathcal{Q}_1, \mathcal{Q}_2,\dots, \mathcal{Q}_9$ and $\mathcal{Q}_0$ indeed cuts out the variety} $\underline{\pi}({\rm LGr}(4,8))$.
This case thus features over ${\rm GF}(2)$ some subtle properties that have no counterpart over the f\/ield of complex numbers.
Nevertheless, we are convinced that the approach developed by Oeding is a very promising one, which can be appropriately adjusted/modif\/ied to be meaningful also over the smallest Galois f\/ield.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we gave, for any $N \geq 2$, a rigorous proof of the existence of a bijection between the set of generators of the symplectic polar space $\mathcal{W}(2N-1,2)$
and a distinguished subset of points of $\mathcal{W}(2^N-1,2)$. Physically speaking, we established a one-to-one mapping between the maximal sets of pairwise commuting operators
of the $N$-qubit Pauli group and a subset of the $2^{N-1}$ qubit observables. Proving this correspondence, we also found a method how to get the def\/ining equations of the image of
the mapping within ${\rm PG}(2^N-1,2)$ and explicitly illustrated this method for the cases $N=2$, $N=3$ and $N=4$.
The image of our mapping is over the complex numbers known as the variety of principal minors of symmetric matrices \cite{O1,O2}. We have also pointed out that
the calculations in the ${\rm GF}(2)$-regime deserve a special treatment and are, in general, not the direct translation of the results obtained over the f\/ield of the complex numbers.
Since ${\rm GF}(2)$-settings have already acquired a f\/irm footing in the context of Quantum Information Theory,
we aim at getting deeper insights into the variety of principal minors of ${\rm GF}(2)$-symmetric matrices employing, if possible, a more coordinate-free approach.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
This work began while two of the authors (M.S.~and~P.L.) were fellows of the ``Research in Pairs'' Program of the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach (Oberwolfach, Germany), in the period from 24 February to 16 March, 2013.
It was also partially supported by the PEPS ICQ 2013 project CoGIT of the CNRS (F.H. and M.S.), the VEGA Grant Agency, grant No.~2/0003/13 (M.S.) and by the MTA-BME Condensed Matter Physics Research Group, grant No.~04119 (P.L.).
\pdfbookmark[1]{References}{ref}
|
\section{Introduction and Array Status}
\label{introSec}
VERITAS is an array of four imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes near Tucson, Arizona and is one of the world's most sensitive detectors of very high energy (VHE: $>$100 GeV) gamma rays.
The array has been fully operational since 2007 and now has a catalog of more than 40 detected extragalactic and Galactic sources.
VERITAS science covers a wide range of topics.
In these proceedings we will highlight a few recent results from both extragalactic and Galactic areas of study as well as briefly
describe the status of the dark matter science program.
The VERITAS array can currently measure astrophysical gamma rays over the energy range of $\sim$85 GeV to 30 TeV with an energy resolution of $\sim$15-25$\%$, an angular
resolution of $<$0.1$^{\circ}$ at 1 TeV, and a pointing accuracy error $<$50$^{''}$.
VERITAS can detect a 1$\%$ Crab flux source in $\sim$25 hours and the Crab Nebula itself in $\sim$70 seconds (the Crab Nebula flux is taken as 2.1 $\times$ 10$^{-10}$ $\gamma$s cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$).
Two major upgrade efforts have been performed since 2007.
The first in 2009 developed an improved optical alignment tool\cite{mccann} and
relocated one of the telescopes to better symmetrize the array\cite{perkinsT1}.
The second in 2011-2012 replaced the L2 trigger system\cite{L2} and installed new PMTs in each of the four cameras\cite{PMTs}.
The new PMTs are high quantum efficiency models (with photon detection efficiencies reaching $35\%$) and were installed during the summer monsoon shutdown,
resulting in no observing downtime.
These PMTs collect significantly more light and extend our effective detection area, especially at lower energies.
Fig. \ref{upgradePlot} shows our sensitivity before and after this upgrade\cite{kiedaUpgrade}.
Since the latter part of the 2011-2012 observing season, VERITAS has aggressively extended observations to cover a larger
fraction of the monthly moon cycle.
During bright moonlight phases we now observe in two separate non-standard modes designed to limit the effect of background light introduced by the moon: reducing the PMT high-voltages,
and covering each of the four PMT cameras with UV-filters.
These operation modes increased our effective live time over the season by $\sim$20$\%$.
However, since these observations require dedicated simulations and analysis care, the main use of this time so far is to monitor known or potential sources
to catch interesting flaring events.
Fig. \ref{filterPlot} shows one of these filters that is designed to pass the peak of the Cherenkov spectrum ($\sim$250-400 nm) while
blocking the majority of the moon's reflected solar spectrum.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=45mm,width=50mm]{./Area_z20_i2_5_soft.png}
\caption{Simulated VERITAS effective detection area as a function of primary energy. Shown is the response with old and new PMTs for $20^{\circ}$ zenith gamma rays. }
\label{upgradePlot}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{./filterPic.png}
\caption{One of the filters that is placed over the camera to extend observation into bright moonlight conditions.}
\label{filterPlot}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section {Extragalactic Results}
\label{extraSec}
All VERITAS extragalactic source detections are blazars with two exceptions: M82, a starburst galaxy, and M87, a radio
galaxy\footnote{At the 2013 ICRC, VERITAS announced the detection of a second radio galaxy, NGC 1275.}.
The VERITAS extragalactic science program emphasizes the detection and characterization of as many blazars and AGN as possible since there are many scientific topics that benefit from a sizeable population to study.
VERITAS currently has exposures on roughly 100 different AGN and has a monitoring program to catch interesting events (flares) from a large
number of VHE detected or candidate AGN.
VERITAS blazar source detections range from the relatively close, Mrk 421 with a redshift of 0.030, to the most distant blazar yet detected, PKS 1424+240
with a newly measured lower limit redshift of 0.6035.
This newly-published limit\cite{pks} makes PKS 1424+240 one of the most intriguing VHE blazar detections thus far and challenges the existing models
of the extragalactic background light (EBL).
A combined spectral analysis of {\it Fermi}-LAT and VERITAS data shows a clear spectral break at $\sim$100 GeV\cite{pks}.
Whereas VHE photons are believed to be absorbed by $\gamma_{VHE} + \gamma_{EBL} \rightarrow e^{+} + e^{-}$ processes, GeV photons are expected
to be unaffected by these interactions.
A deabsorbed VHE spectrum of PKS 1424+240 using several existing EBL models does not adequately correct the majority of the VHE points to an extrapolated LAT spectrum.
While the remaining difference could arise from unaccounted-for effects at the VHE source, it could also indicate the possibility that the gamma-ray opacity of the
Universe has been overestimated.
This past observing season was witness to a historic flaring event from Mrk 421.
In March of 2013 a MWL campaign began to look at the nearby blazar with MAGIC, VERITAS, and the newly commissioned {\it NuSTAR} satellite.
Flaring activity was seen by all three, as well as with {\it Fermi}-LAT and {\it Swift}\cite{atel}.
Fig. \ref{mrk421Plot} shows VERITAS preliminary flux levels that reach up to $\sim$14 Crab units.
Note that many of the holes in VERITAS coverage are filled by MAGIC (not shown here).
This is a rich dataset containing up to ~11 hours of VHE/GeV/X-ray overlap data (X-rays from both {\it NuSTAR} and {\it Swift}) that has only begun to be explored.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{./Mrk421_April2013flare_lc_prelim.png}
\caption{Preliminary Mrk 421 integrated flux ($>$400 GeV, 30-minute bins) measured during the historic April 2013 flaring episode. Fluxes are reported in
Crab flux units and dates are reported in days relative to April 11, 2013.}
\label{mrk421Plot}
\end{figure}
In addition to the excitement from the two blazars described above, we can report two new VERITAS blazar detections, 1ES 1011+496 and
1ES 0647+250\cite{dumm}.
Both of these blazers were originally discovered in the VHE band by MAGIC but not detected by VERITAS prior to this season.
Both were also initially observed during partial moonlight observations, emphasizing the usefulness of extending observation into moonlight conditions.
1ES 1011+496 was detected in 10.4 hours at 8.5$\sigma$ significance with an observed flux of 6.3$\%$ Crab units $>$150 GeV.
1ES 0647+250 was detected in 10.9 hours at 6.2$\sigma$ significance with an observed flux of 7$\%$ Crab units $>$200 GeV.
\section {Galactic Results}
\label{galSec}
VERITAS is a northern hemisphere observatory and so primarily views the outer galaxy.
Galactic sources detected by VERITAS include SNRs, PWN, binary systems, unidentified sources, and the
first detected pulsar above 100 GeV.
One of the main focuses of the VERITAS Galactic science program is to understand the origin of TeV cosmic rays in the Galaxy.
Gamma rays are unique probes of energized regions since they are neutral and thus not deflected by the intervening magnetic fields.
SNRs have long been believed to be the main source up to energies around the knee.
However, the gamma-ray production mechanism isn't necessarily understood and can vary from source to source (from shock acceleration at the shell to pulsar emission to PWN emission).
CTA 1 is a composite shell-type SNR that is X-ray filled and has a radio shell of diameter 1.8$^{\circ}$.
$Fermi$-LAT performed a blind search for pulsations and discovered a $\gamma$-ray pulsar in the center region with a period of 315 $ms$
and an age comparable to that of the SNR\cite{fermiCTA1}.
This was the first direct evidence that this SNR could possibly be a PWN.
VERITAS observed CTA 1 for 41 hours and detected extended emission (with angular extent $\sim$0.25$^{\circ}$) from the object at 6.3$\sigma$ post-trials significance\cite{cta1} (see Fig. \ref{ctaPlot}).
The measured flux is $\sim$4$\%$ Crab flux units $>$1 TeV and the fitted centroid of the VERITAS significance is within 5 arcmin of the $Fermi$ pulsar.
The source name of this object is VER J0006+729.
A PWN explanation is strongly favored by the physical proximity of the VHE source to the $Fermi$ pulsar as well as the extended yet compact emission region.
CTA 1 fits well with the emerging picture of relatively young, high E-dot pulsars being good candidates for TeV PWN emission\cite{karg}.
There are four gamma-ray binary systems detected at VHE energies: LSI +61$^{\circ}$ 303, HESS J0632+057, PSR B1259-63, and LS5039.
These are complicated systems where the VHE emission may arise from either colliding winds or be powered by accretion.
VERITAS has detected two of the four, LSI +61$^{\circ}$ 303\cite{andyLSI} and HESS J0632+057\cite{hessJ}, the latter being unique of the four in that it isn't detected by the $Fermi$-LAT.
LSI +61$^{\circ}$ 303 is a high mass X-ray binary system that contains a compact object (neutron star or black hole) orbiting a large main sequence star with a 26.5 day elliptical orbit.
It exhibits X-ray emission throughout the orbit, radio emission that peaks at periastron and apastron, MeV/GeV emission throughout the orbit,
and VHE activity typically detected at apastron (seen by MAGIC\cite{magicLSI} and VERITAS).
The history of VHE emission of this system is intriguing.
Strong detections by MAGIC and VERITAS in 2005-2007 were followed by several years of marginal or non-detections.
In 2010 VERITAS detected the system but at a reduced flux level and near periastron as opposed to apastron.
VERITAS can now report a 11.9$\sigma$ detection in the apastron phase from 25 hours of data taken in 2011-2012, with the object exhibiting a $\sim$10$\%$ Crab units flux ($>$350 GeV)\cite{andyLSI}\cite{newLSI}.
While it is possible that VERITAS missed the emission from this object during the intermediate years, it is also possible that it undergoes multi-year
variations.
Fig \ref{lsiPlot} shows a combined $Fermi$-LAT and VERITAS energy spectrum from December 2011 to February 2012.
$Fermi$ data used in this analysis covered this larger period of VERITAS data collection and was not simply restricted to VERITAS live time.
While the VERITAS data is well fit with a power-law, the $Fermi$ data exhibit a clear spectral break around 4 GeV.
This cutoff behaviour is suggestive of the larger population of GeV pulsars discovered by $Fermi$ and may indicate different emission populations in GeV
and TeV.
However, note that the $Fermi$ data isn't strictly simultaneous, so it is possible there is short-term variability in GeV that we are simply not sensitive to.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=59mm]{./cta.png}
\caption{Excess counts in the vicinity of CTA 1. The color represents the number of excess counts and the white contours represent
the radio emission of the shell. The cross represents the position of the $\gamma$-ray pulsar position measured by $Fermi$-LAT and
the green contours are the 3$\sigma$, 4$\sigma$, 5$\sigma$, and 6$\sigma$ regions of the VERITAS detection. The circle in the lower
left shows the VERITAS PSF.}
\label{ctaPlot}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{./lsi.png}
\caption{Energy spectrum of LSI +61$^{\circ}$ 303 using contemporaneous $Fermi$-LAT and VERITAS data from 2011-2012.
Figure taken from \cite{andyLSI}.}
\label{lsiPlot}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section {Dark Matter Results and Outlook}
\label{dmSec}
The search for particle dark matter is a major effort within VERITAS.
Many of the leading candidates for dark matter, including WIMPs, axions, and Kaluza-Klein particles,
predict annihilation and/or decay channels with photon final states.
These photons can arise from either direct annihilation (for example, $\chi \chi$$\rightarrow$$\gamma \gamma$, in the case of the supersymmetric neutralino)
or from hadronic or leptonic decay chains (leptonic channels with final state radiation).
Direct annihilation would provide the cleanest evidence of DM but is suppressed relative to hadronic channels by higher order loops.
VERITAS and other IACTs are an important part of the search for DM since they are sensitive to photon energies that are relatively unconstrained by
direct nuclear recoil experiments and collider experiments.
Further, any hint of a DM particle seen on Earth would need to be confirmed as the actual astrophysical DM.
VERITAS has targeted several different DM over-densities, including galaxy clusters, dwarf spheroidal galaxies (DSphs), the Galactic Center (GC),
and candidate unidentified {\it Fermi}-LAT sources.
Each source class has advantages and disadvantages based on predicted $\gamma$-ray flux, distance from Earth, astrophysical background levels,
and DM density.
For brevity in these proceedings, we'll discuss results and projections from two of the most promising
observations, the GC and DSphs.
The GC is a challenging region to analyze because of the dominant astrophysical
backgrounds.
Additionally, the GC is only visible at large zenith angles (LZA: zenith$>$$50^{\circ}$) since VERITAS is a northern hemisphere observatory.
VERITAS uses an ON and OFF observation technique to better characterize the background, whereby
observations are split between directly targeting the GC and targeting a field in the vicinity of GC without a known VHE emitter.
VERITAS detects the astrophysical object at the GC (Sgr A*)\cite{GCpaper} and finds a spectrum that is in agreement with
prior measurements of this source from other experiments\cite{whippleGC}\cite{hessGC}.
The DM search strategy in this region is motivated by line-of-sight integrals of the DM density that suggest overdensities extending
off the Galactic Plane (GP).
Signal and background regions are selected within the field of view that avoid the known emitters and the GP while optimizing to
higher DM density areas (see \cite{andyDM} for further details).
Fig. \ref{galCenPlot} shows DM sensitivity projections with VERITAS data including the current 2012-2013 observing
season\cite{andyDM}.
Note that LZA observations of this region increase the array collection area at high energies.
This could benefit VERITAS since the LHC has seen no new physics in their 7-8 TeV Run and the relatively high mass Higgs they measure
may have the effect of increasing the SUSY production energy scale, leading to higher mass neutralinos.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{./dmGalCenProjection.png}
\caption{Projected VERITAS DM sensitivity limits of the GC using data through the end of the 2013 observing season.
Figure taken from \cite{andyDM}.}
\label{galCenPlot}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
DSphs are very promising observation targets because they are DM dominated objects that are nearby with
little astrophysical background.
VERITAS has observed several DSphs and previously published upper limits on DM flux from Draco, Ursa Minor, Willman 1, and Bo\"{o}tes 1\cite{dwarfs}
and more recently from a deeper exposure of Segue 1\cite{segue1}.
Current limits from these studies are two orders of magnitude away from constraining the canonical models of DM.
However, Segue I limits do constrain the available phase space of some boosted annihilation scenarios (e.g. Sommerfeld mechanism or leptophilic models).
In Fig. \ref{dwarfPlot} we show predicted sensitivity improvements based on additional data collected through the end of 2013
and the use of an improved analysis technique from \cite{stacking}.
Projections are also shown for the expected data collected through 2018.
This new technique combines the data from all DSph observations and weights each event based on the measured DM density function.
It has been shown to improve limits on DSphs measured by {\it Fermi}-LAT and will be the first stacking analysis of IACT
data.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=67mm]{./dmProjections.png}
\caption{Projected VERITAS DM sensitivity limits from a stacked DSph analysis using data collected through the end
of the 2013 observing season (top of each band) and data expected through the 2018 observing season (bottom of each band).
Black points represent instances of a typical MSSM model and the dashed line represents the predicted level of the DM cross section boosts
from Sommerfeld-type scenarios\cite{sommerfeld1}\cite{sommerfeld2}. Figure taken from \cite{andyDM}.}
\label{dwarfPlot}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
VERITAS is yielding a wide range of results covering extragalactic and Galactic science topics as well as the search for particle DM.
An improved DM analysis is underway, and DM is a high priority for the coming years.
VERITAS reports the detection of two new blazars, the first new detections with the upgraded camera.
Fortuitous timing of a MWL campaign led to the detection of a historic flare from Mrk421.
Preliminary VERITAS flux levels of this flare reached 14 Crab units and a good fraction of the data has X-ray, GeV, and TeV overlapping coverage.
VERITAS reports the detection of extended emission from the central region of CTA 1 and finds the emission likely to arise from a PWN.
Utilizing 2011-2012 MWL data we show a contemporaneous GeV-TeV spectrum of the high mass X-ray binary object LSI +61$^{\circ}$ 303.
Results show a spectral break at a few GeV and seem to indicate two populations of emitters.
However, further investigation will be needed to form a definitive understanding of this object's nature.
Finally, we report that the recent series of upgrades resulted in no loss of observing time and have successfully lowered the energy threshold of the VERITAS array.
Additionally, new bright moonlight observation modes are increasing the amount of observing data per season by $\sim$20$\%$.
As a final note we can say that for the first time an IACT experiment has opened up a fraction of its observing time to the larger community.
A VERITAS/Fermi pilot program was initiated for Cycle-6 of the Fermi Guest Investigator program
(2012-2013)\footnote{For more information see http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/proposals/}.
Roughly 4$\%$ of the accepted GI proposals were joint Fermi/VERITAS proposals.
VERITAS observations for these proposals will take place during the next observing season.
\vspace{-0.2in}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
\vspace{-0.1in}
This research is supported by grants from the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science,
the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution, by NSERC in Canada, by
Science Foundation Ireland (SFI 10/RFP/AST2748) and by STFC in the U.K. We acknowledge the excellent
work of the technical support staff at the Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory and at the collaborating
institutions in the construction and operation of the instrument.
\vspace{-0.1in}
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}
|
\section{Introduction}
Let $\mathcal H$ be a complex separable Hilbert space and $\mathcal
L(\mathcal H)$ denote the collection of bounded linear operators on
$\mathcal H$. The following important class of operators was introduced
in \cite{cd}.
\begin{defn}
For a connected open subset $\Omega$ of $\mathbb C$ and a
positive
integer $n$, let
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{B}_n(\Omega) = &\big \{& T\in\mathcal L(\mathcal H)\,|\,\,
\Omega\subset\sigma(T),\\
&& {\mathrm{ran}}\,(T-w)= \mathcal H\mbox{ for }w\in\Omega, \\
&&\bigvee_{w\in\Omega}\ker(T-w)= \mathcal H,\\
&&\dim~\ker(T-w)= n\mbox{ for } w\in\Omega\,\, \big \},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\sigma(T)$ denotes the spectrum of the operator $T$.
\end{defn}
We recall (cf. \cite{cd}) that an operator $T$ in the class $\mathcal{B}_n(\Omega)$
defines a Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle $E_T$ in a natural manner. It is
the sub-bundle of the trivial bundle $\Omega\times\mathcal H$ defined by
$$E_T= \{(w, x)\in\Omega\times\mathcal H: x\in \ker(T-w)\}$$
with the natural projection map $\pi:E_T\to \Omega$, $\pi(w, x)=
w$. It is shown in \cite[Proposition 1.12]{cd} that the mapping
$w\longrightarrow \ker(T-w)$ defines a rank $n$
Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle $E_T$ over $\Omega$ for $T\in
\mathcal{B}_n(\Omega)$. In \cite{cd}, it was also shown that the equivalence
class of the Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle $E_T$ and the
unitary equivalence class of the operator $T$ determine each
other.
\begin{thm} \label{eq}
The operators $T$ and $\wi T$ in $\mathcal{B}_n(\Omega)$ are unitarily equivalent
if and only if the corresponding Hermitian holomorphic vector bundles $E_T$ and
$E_{\wi T}$ are equivalent.
\end{thm}
In general, it is not easy to decide if two Hermitian holomorphic vector
bundles are equivalent except when the rank of the bundle is $1$. In this
case, the curvature
\begin{eqnarray*}\mathcal
K(w)= - \frac{~\partial^2\log\parallel{\gamma(w)}\parallel^2}{\partial{w}
\partial{\overline{w}}},
\end{eqnarray*}
of the line bundle $E$, defined with respect to a non-zero holomorphic section
$\g$ of $E$, is a complete invariant. The definition of the curvature is
independent of the choice of the section $\g$: If $\g_0$ is another holomorphic
section of $E$, then
$\g_0=\phi\g$ for some holomorphic function $\phi$ on some open subset
$\Omega_0$ of $\Omega$, consequently the harmonicity of log$|\phi|$ completes
the verification.
For a domain $\Omega$ in $\mathbb{C}$ and an operator $T$ in
$\mathcal{B}_n(\Omega)$, the Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle
$E_T$ is obtained as a pull-back of the tautological bundle
$S(n,\mathcal{H})$ defined over $\mathcal{G}r(n,\mathcal{H})$ by a
nondegenerate holomorphic map $z\mapsto
{\rm{ker}}(T-z),\;z\in\Omega$ as in Definition \ref{jet:inf
non:def}. To find the answer to the converse, namely, when a given
Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle is a pull-back of the
tautological bundle by a nondegenerate holomorphic map, Cowen and
Douglas studied the jet bundle in their foundational paper
\cite[pp. 235]{cd}. The computations in this paper for the
curvature of the jet bundle are somewhat difficult to comprehend.
They have given a set of invariants to determine if two rank $n$
Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle are equivalent. These
invariants are complicated and not easy to compute. It is natural
to expect that the equivalence of Hermitian holomorphic jet
bundles should be easier to characterize. In fact, in the case of
the Hermitian holomorphic jet bundle
$\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_f)$, where the line bundle
$\mathcal{L}_f$ is a pull-back of the tautological bundle on
$\mathcal{G}r(1,\mathcal{H})$, we have shown that the curvature of
the line bundle $\mathcal{L}_f$ completely determines the class of
$\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_f)$. In general, however, our results
are not as complete. Relating the complex geometric invariants
inherent in the short exact sequence
\begin{eqnarray}
0\to E_{I}\to E \to E_{II}\to 0.
\end{eqnarray}
is an important problem. In the paper \cite{bottchern}, it is
shown that the Chern classes of these bundles must satisfy
$$c(E)=c(E_I)\,c(E_{II}).$$ Donaldson \cite{donald} obtains similar
relations involving what are known as secondary invariants. We
obtain a refinement, in case $E_I= \mathcal{J}_k(E_f)$ and
$E=\mathcal{J}_{k+1}(E_f)$, namely,
$$\big({\rm{trace}}\otimes
{\rm{Id}}_{n\times n}\big)(\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_k(E_f)})-
\big({\rm{trace}}\otimes {\rm{Id}}_{n\times
n}\big)(\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(E_f)})=\mathcal{K}_{{\mathcal{J}_k(E_f)}/{\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(E_f)}}.$$
\section{Definitions and Notations}
Here we give the definition of a jet bundle closely following
\cite{cd}. An equivalent description, in a slightly different
language, may be found in \cite{mw}.
Let $E$ be a Hermitian holomorphic bundle of rank $n$
over a bounded domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}$. For each
$k=0,1,\ldots$ we associate to $E$ a $(k+1)n$ -dimensional
holomorphic bundle $\mathcal{J}_k(E)$, the holomorphic k-jet
bundle of $E$, defined as follows:
If $\sigma=\{\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_n\}$ is a holomorphic frame
for $E$, on an open subset $U$ contained in $\Omega$, then
$\mathcal{J}_k(E)$ has an associated frame
$$\mathcal{J}_k(\sigma)=\{\sigma_{10},\ldots,\sigma_{n0},\ldots,\sigma_{1k},\ldots,\sigma_{nk}\}$$
defined on $U$. If $\widetilde{\sigma}$ is another frame for $E$
defined on $\widetilde{U}$, then on $U\cap\widetilde{U}$, we have
$\widetilde{\sigma}_j=\sum a_{ij}\sigma_i$, where $A=(a_{ij})$ is
a holomorphic, $n\times n$, nonsingular matrix. Symbolically
$$\widetilde{\sigma}= \sigma A.$$ \smallskip Let
$\mathcal{J}_k(A)$ be the $(k+1)n\times (k+1)n$, non singular,
holomorphic matrix
$$\mathcal{J}_k(A)=\left
\begin{array}{ccccc}
A & A^{\prime} & A^{\prime\prime} & \cdots & \tbinom{k}{k} A^{(k)}\\
\vdots & A & 2A^{\prime} & \cdots & \tbinom{k}{k-1}A^{(k-1)} \\
\vdots & {} & A & \cdots & \tbinom {k}{k-2}A^{(k-2)} \\
\vdots & {} & {} & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & A \\
\end{array
\right).$$
\smallskip
Then, by definition, the frames
$\mathcal{J}_k(\sigma)$ and $\mathcal{J}_k(\widetilde{\sigma})$
are related on $U\cap \widetilde{U}$ by
$$\mathcal{J}_k(\widetilde{\sigma})=\mathcal{J}_k(\sigma)\mathcal{J}_k(A).$$
A straightforward computation yields that if $A$ and
$\widetilde{A}$ are holomorphic $n\times n$ matrices, then
$$\mathcal{J}_k(A\widetilde{A})=\mathcal{J}_k(A)\mathcal{J}_k(\widetilde{A})$$
so the bundle $\mathcal{J}_k(E)$ is well-defined.
The Hermitian metric $h$ on $E$ induces a Hermitian form
$\mathcal{J}_k(h)$ on $\mathcal{J}_k(E)$ such that if $h(\sigma)$
is the matrix of inner products
$\big(\!\big(\langle\sigma_j,\sigma_i\rangle\big)\!\big)_{i,j=1}^n$,
then
$$\mathcal{J}_k(h)(\mathcal{J}_k(\sigma))=\left
\begin{array}{ccc}
h(\sigma) & \cdots & \frac{\partial^k h(\sigma)}{\partial z^k} \\
\vdots & {} & \vdots \\
\frac{\partial^k h(\sigma)}{\partial \bar{z}^k} &
\cdots & \frac{\partial^{2k} h(\sigma)}{\partial z^k\partial \bar{z}^k} \\
\end{array
\right)$$ is the matrix of $\mathcal{J}_k(h)$ relative to the
frame $\mathcal{J}_k(\sigma)$. To see that $\mathcal{J}_k(h)$ is
well-defined, we need
$$\mathcal{J}_k(h)(\mathcal{J}_k(\widetilde{\sigma}))=\mathcal{J}_k(A)^*
\{\mathcal{J}_k(h)(\mathcal{J}_k(\sigma))\}\mathcal{J}_k(A)$$
which follows from the computation: For $0\leq l_1,l_2\leq k$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{wd1}\frac{\partial^{(l_1+l_2)}}{\partial z^{l_1}\partial
\bar{z}^{l_2}}h(\tilde\sigma)
=\sum_{i=1}^{l_1}\sum_{j=1}^{l_2}\binom{l_1}{i}\binom{l_2}{j}\frac{\partial^j}{\partial
\bar{z}^j}A^*\frac{\partial^{l_2+i-j}}{\partial
\bar{z}^{l_2-j}\partial
z^i}h(\sigma)\frac{\partial^{l_1-i}}{\partial
z^{l_1-i}}A.\end{eqnarray} Using equation (\ref{wd1}), we have
$$\mathcal{J}_k(h)(\mathcal{J}_k(\widetilde{\sigma}))=\mathcal{J}_k(A)^*
\{\mathcal{J}_k(h)(\mathcal{J}_k(\sigma))\}\mathcal{J}_k(A).$$
In general, the form $\mathcal{J}_k(h)(z)$ on the jet bundle $\mathcal{J}_k(E)$
need not be positive definite for $z\in \Omega$. Thus
$\mathcal{J}_k(E)$ has no natural Hermitian metric, just a
Hermitian form.
For $\mathcal{H}$ a complex Hilbert space and $n$ a positive
integer, let $\mathcal{G}r(n,\mathcal{H})$ denote the Grassmann
manifold, the set of all $n$-dimensional subspaces of
$\mathcal{H}$.
\begin{defn}For $\Omega$ an open connected subset of $\mathbb{C}$, we
say that a map $f:\Omega\rightarrow \mathcal{G}r(n,\mathcal{H})$
is holomorphic at $\lambda_0\in \Omega$ if there exists a
neighborhood $U$ of $\lambda_0$ and $n$ holomorphic $\mathcal{H}$-
valued functions $\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_n$ on $U$ such that
$f(\lambda)=\bigvee
\{\sigma_1(\lambda),\ldots,\sigma_n(\lambda)\}$ for $\lambda$ in
$U$. If this holds for each $\lambda_0\in\Omega$ then we say that
$f$ is holomorphic on $\Omega$.\end{defn} If $f:\Omega\rightarrow
\mathcal{G}r(n,\mathcal{H})$ is a holomorphic map, then a natural
$n$-dimensional Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle $E_{f}$ is
induced over $\Omega$, namely,
$$E_{f}=\{(x,\lambda)\in \mathcal{H}\times \Omega : x\in
f(\lambda)\}$$ \mbox{and}
$$\pi : E_{f}\rightarrow \Omega \;\;\mbox{where} \;\;\pi(x,\lambda)=\lambda.$$
\begin{defn} \label{jet:inf non:def}Let $f:\Omega\rightarrow
\mathcal{G}r(n,\mathcal{H})$ be a holomorphic map. We say that $f$
is $k$- nondegenerate if, for each $w_0\in\Omega$, there exists a
neighborhood $U$ of $w_0$ and $n$ holomorphic $\mathcal{H}$-
valued functions $\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_n$ on $U$ such that
$\sigma_1(w),\ldots,\sigma_n(w),\ldots,\sigma^{(k)}_1(w),\ldots
\sigma^{(k)}_n(w)$ are independent for each $w$ in the open set
$U$. If this holds for all $k=0,1,\ldots,$ then we say that $f$
is
nondegenerate.
\end{defn}
If $f$ is $k$ nondegenerate, then $f$ induces a holomorphic map
$$j_k(f):\Omega \rightarrow \mathcal{G}r((k+1)n,\mathcal{H})$$ such
that $j_k(f)(w)$ is the span of
$\sigma_1(w),\ldots,\sigma^{(k)}_n(w)$. If $\sigma$ is a frame for
$E_{f}$ on $U$, let
$j_k(\sigma)=\{\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_n,\ldots,\sigma^{(k)}_1\,\ldots,\sigma^{(k)}_n\}$
be the induced frame for $E_{j_k(f)}$. Then $\mathcal{J}_k(E_{f})$
and $E_{j_k(f)}$ are naturally equivalent Hermitian holomorphic
bundles by identifying $\sigma_{ir}$ with $\sigma_i^{(r)}$, since
$\langle\sigma_{ir},\sigma_{js}\rangle={\partial^{r+s}\langle\sigma_i,\sigma_j}\rangle/{\partial
z^r \partial \bar{z}^s}=
\langle\sigma_i^{(r)},\sigma_j^{(s)}\rangle$. In this case
$\mathcal{J}_k(h)$ is a Hermitian metric for
$\mathcal{J}_k(E_{f})$,that is, $\mathcal{J}_k(h)$ is positive
definite.
\begin{defn}
Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a Hilbert space and $\Omega$ be a bounded
domain in $\mathbb{C}^m$. Let ${\mathfrak{G}}_n(\Omega,\mathcal
H)$ be the set of all Hermitian holomorphic vector bundles of rank
$n$ over $\Omega$ which arise as a pull-backs of the tautological
bundle by nondegenerate holomorphic maps. That is, for any
nondegenerate holomorphic map
$f:\Omega\to\mathcal{G}r(n,\mathcal{H})$ the vector bundle
$E_f=\{(x,\lambda)\in \mathcal{H}\times \Omega : x\in
f(\lambda)\}$ is in ${\mathfrak{G}}_n(\Omega,\mathcal H)$.
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
If $E_f$ is in ${\mathfrak{G}}_n(\Omega,\mathcal H)$, then the
preceding calculation shows that $\mathcal{J}_k(E_f)$ is in
${\mathfrak{G}}_{n(k+1)}(\Omega,\mathcal H)$.
\end{rem}
\section{Line Bundles}
Let $\mathcal{L}_{f}$ be a Hermitian holomorphic line bundle
over a bounded domain
$\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}$. Assume that $\mathcal{L}_f\in
{\mathfrak{G}}_1(\Omega,\mathcal H)$. Let
$\mathcal{J}_{k}(\mathcal{L}_{f})$ be a jet bundle of rank $k+1$
obtained from $\mathcal{L}_{f}$. Let $\sigma$ be a frame for
$\mathcal{L}_{f}$ over an open subset $\Omega_0$ of $\Omega$. A
frame for $\mathcal{J}_{k}(\mathcal{L}_{f})$ over the open set
$\Omega_0$ is easily seen to be the set $\{\sigma,\frac{\partial
\sigma}{\partial z},\frac {\partial^2 \sigma}{\partial
z^2},\ldots,\frac{\partial^{k}\sigma}{\partial z^k}\}$. Let $h$ be
a metric for $\mathcal{L}_{f}$, which is of the form
$$h(z)=\langle \sigma(z),\sigma(z)\rangle.$$ The metric for
the jet bundle $\mathcal{J}_{k}(h)$ is then of the form
$$\mathcal{J}_{k}(h)(z)=
\begin{pmatrix}
h(z)& \cdots & \frac {\partial^{k}}{\partial z^k}h(z) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\frac{\partial^k}{\partial \overline{z}^{k}}h(z) & \cdots & \frac{\partial^{2k}}{\partial\overline{z}^{k}\partial z^{k}}h(z) \\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Let $\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_{k}(\mathcal{L}_{f})}$ be the
curvature of the jet bundle $\mathcal{J}_{k}(\mathcal{L}_{f})$. An
explicit formula for the curvature of a Hermitian holomorphic
vector bundle $E$ is given in \cite[proposition 2.2, pp.
79]{wells}. The curvature
$\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_{k}(\mathcal{L}_{f})}$ of the jet bundle
therefore takes the form
$$\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_{k}(\mathcal{L}_{f})}(z)=
\overline{\partial}\{(\mathcal{J}_{k}(h)(z))^{-1}\partial
\mathcal{J}_{k}(h)(z)\},$$ with respect to the metric
$\mathcal{J}_k(h)$ obtained from frame $\{\sigma,\frac{\partial
\sigma}{\partial z},\frac {\partial^2 \sigma}{\partial
z^2},\ldots,\frac{\partial^{k}\sigma}{\partial z^k}\}$. Set
$\mathds{J}^k(z)=(\mathcal{J}_{k}(h)(z))^{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial
z} \mathcal{J}_{k}(h)(z)$ and note that
\begin{eqnarray*}(\mathcal{J}_{k}(h)(z))^{-1}\partial
(\mathcal{J}_{k}(h)(z))
= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & (\mathds{J}^k(z))_{1,k+1} \\
1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & (\mathds{J}^k(z))_{2,k+1} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 1 & (\mathds{J}^k(z))_{k+1,k+1} \\
\end{smallmatrix} \right)dz,\end{eqnarray*}
where $(\mathds{J}^k(z))_{i,k+1}$ is the $(i,k+1)^{\rm th}$ entry
of the matrix $\mathds{J}^k(z)$. The matrix product in the first
equation is of the form $A^{-1}B$, where the first $k$ columns of
$B$ are the last $k$ column of $A$.
Therefore the curvature of the jet bundle
$\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_f)$
is seen to be of the form
$$\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_k (\mathcal{L}_{f})}(z)=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \cdots & 0 & b_1(z) \\
\vdots & \ddots &\vdots & \vdots \\
0 & \cdots & 0 & b_{k}(z) \\
0 & \cdots & 0 & \mathcal{K}_{\det(\mathcal{J}_k \mathcal{L})}(z) \\
\end{pmatrix}d\overline{z}\wedge dz,
$$
where $b_i(z)= \frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{z}}[(\mathds{J}^k(z))_{i,k+1}],\;\;1\leq i\leq
k$.
\begin{thm}\label{theo eql} As before, let $\mathcal{L}_{f}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\tilde{f}}$ be
two Hermitian holomorphic line bundles over a bounded domain
$\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}$. Let $\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{f})$
and $\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})$ be the corresponding
jet bundles of rank $k+1$. If $\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{f})$ is
locally equivalent to $\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})$,
then $\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{f})$ is locally equivalent to
$\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof} Since $\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{f})$ and
$\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})$ are locally equivalent,
for each $z_0\in \Omega$, there exists a neighborhood $\Omega_0$
and a holomorphic bundle map $\phi\colon
\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{f})_{|\Omega_0}\rightarrow
\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})_{|\Omega_0}$ such that
$\phi$ is an isomorphism. Let
$\mathcal{J}_k(\sigma)=\{\sigma,\frac{\partial \sigma}{\partial
z},\frac {\partial^2 \sigma}{\partial
z^2},\ldots,\frac{\partial^{k}\sigma}{\partial z^k}\}$ and
$\mathcal{J}_k(\tilde{\sigma})=\{\tilde \sigma,\frac{\partial
\tilde \sigma}{\partial z},\frac {\partial^2 \tilde
\sigma}{\partial z^2},\ldots,\frac{\partial^{k}\tilde
\sigma}{\partial z^k}\}$ be frames for
$\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{f})$ and
$\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})$ over the open subset
$\Omega_0$ of $\Omega$ respectively.
Now \begin{eqnarray}\label{matrix of phi 1}
\phi(\tfrac{\partial^{j}\sigma}{\partial z^j}(z))=
\sum^{k}_{i=0}{\phi_{ij}(z)\tfrac{\partial^{i}\tilde
\sigma}{\partial z^i}(z)}.
\end{eqnarray}
So the matrix representing $\phi$ with respect to the two frames
$\mathcal{J}_k(\sigma)$ and $\mathcal{J}_k(\tilde{\sigma})$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi(z)= \left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\phi_{0,0}(z) & \cdots & \phi_{0,k}(z) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\phi_{k,0}(z) & \cdots & \phi_{k,k}(z) \\
\end{smallmatrix}\right).
\end{eqnarray} Therefore we can write \begin{eqnarray}\label{matrix of phi
3}\big(\phi(\sigma(z)),\phi(\tfrac{\partial \sigma}{\partial
z}(z)),\ldots,\phi(\tfrac{\partial^{k}\sigma}{\partial
z^k}(z))\big)= \big(\tilde \sigma(z),\tfrac{\partial \tilde
\sigma}{\partial z}(z),\ldots,\tfrac{\partial^{k}\tilde
\sigma}{\partial z^k}(z)\big) \phi(z) .\end{eqnarray} But we know
that
\begin{eqnarray} \label{cur 1} \phi(z)
\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_{k}(\mathcal{L}_{f})}(z)=
\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_{k}(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})}(z) \phi(z).
\end{eqnarray} Now
\begin{eqnarray}\label{cur 2}
&&\big(\phi(z) \mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_{k}(\mathcal{L}_{f})}(z)\big)_{ij} \nonumber\\
&=& \begin{cases} 0 &\mbox{if}
\,\, 0\leq i,j\leq k-1,\\ \sum_{l=0}^{k-1}b_{l+1}(z).\phi_{i,l}(z)+
\mathcal{K}_{\det({\mathcal{J}_{k}(\mathcal{L}_{f})})}(z).\phi_{i,k}(z) d\overline{z}\wedge dz & \mbox{if}\,\, 0 \leq i\leq k, j=k . \end{cases}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{cur 3}
\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_{k}(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde
f})}(z) \phi(z) =\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
b_1(z).\phi_{k,0}(z) & \cdots & b_1(z).\phi_{k,k}(z) \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
b_{k-1}(z).\phi_{k,0}(z)
& \cdots & b_{k-1}(z).\phi_{k,k}(z) \\
\mathcal{K}_{\det(\mathcal{J}_k (\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f}))}(z).\phi_{k,0}(z)
& \cdots & \mathcal{K}_{\det(\mathcal{J}_k (\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f}))}(z).\phi_{k,k}(z) \\
\end{smallmatrix}\right) d\overline{z}\wedge dz \end{eqnarray}
Hence from equations \eqref{cur 1}, \eqref{cur 2} and \eqref{cur 3},
it follows that
$$\phi_{k,0}(z)=\phi_{k,1}(z)=\cdots=\phi_{k,k-1}(z)=0.$$
So the bundle map $\phi$ has the form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{matrix of phi 4} \phi (z)=
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
\phi_{0,0}(z) & \phi_{0,1}(z) & \cdots & \phi_{0,k}(z) \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\phi_{k-1,0}(z) & \phi_{k-1,1}(z) & \cdots & \phi_{k-1,k}(z) \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & \phi_{k,k}(z) \\
\end{smallmatrix}\right) \end{eqnarray} with respect to the frames
$\mathcal{J}_k(\sigma)$ and ${\mathcal{J}}_k(\tilde{\sigma})$.
Finally from equations \eqref{matrix of phi 3} and \eqref{matrix
of phi 4}, we see that
$$\phi_{|\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{f})_{|\Omega_0}}:\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{f})_{|\Omega
_0}\to \mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})_{|\Omega_0}.$$
Since $\phi$ is a bundle isomorphism, it follows that
$$\phi_{|\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{f})_{|\Omega_0}}:\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{f})_{|\Omega_0}\to
\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})_{|\Omega_0}$$ is also a
bundle isomorphism.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor} Let $\mathcal{L}_{f}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f}$ be
Hermitian holomorphic line bundles. Let
$\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{f})$ and
$\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})$ be the corresponding jet
bundles of rank $k+1$. The two jet bundles
$\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{f})$ and
$\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})$ are locally equivalent
as Hermitian holomorphic
vector bundles if and only if the two line bundles
$\mathcal{L}_{f}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f}$ are locally
equivalent as Hermitian holomorphic vector bundles.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof} Suppose $\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{f})$ and
$\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})$ are locally equivalent.
Then for each $z_0\in \Omega$ there exists a neighborhood
$\Omega_0$ and a holomorphic map $\phi\colon
\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{f})_{|\Omega_0}\rightarrow
\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})_{|\Omega_0}$ such that
$\phi$ is an isomorphism.
Using Theorem \ref{theo eql},
$\phi_{|\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{f})_{|\Omega_0}}:\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{f})_{|\Omega
_0}\to \mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})_{|\Omega_0}$ is
an isomorphism.
\smallskip
Since
$\phi_{|\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{f})_{|\Omega_0}}:\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{f})_{|\Omega
_0}\to \mathcal{J}_{k-1}(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})_{|\Omega_0}$ is
an isomorphism, by the same argument which is given in the proof
of the Theorem \ref{theo eql}, it follows that
$$\phi_{|\mathcal{J}_{k-2}(\mathcal{L}_{f})_{|\Omega_0}}:\mathcal{J}_{k-2}(\mathcal{L}_{f})_{|\Omega
_0}\to \mathcal{J}_{k-2}(\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})_{|\Omega_0}$$ is
an isomorphism. Repeating this argument, we see that $\phi$ is an
isomorphism from ${\mathcal{L}_{f}}_{|\Omega_0}$ to
${\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f}}_{|\Omega_0}$.
\end{proof}
Let $A$ be an $n\times n$ matrix and $A_{\hat i,\hat j}$ be the
$(n-1)\times (n-1)$ matrix which is obtained from $A$ by
removing the $i^{\rm th}$ row and $j^{\rm th}$ column of the matrix
$A$.
\begin{lem} \label{lin lemma 1}Let $A$ be an $n\times n$ matrix and $B$
be the
$(n-2)\times(n-2)$ matrix which is obtained from $
A$ by removing the last two rows and last two
columns of $A$.
Then
$$\det(A_{\hat n,\hat n}) \det(A_{\widehat {n-1},\widehat {n-1}})-
\det(A_{\hat n,\widehat {n-1}}) \det(A_{\widehat {n-1},\hat n})=
\det(B) \det(A).$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} {\sf Case(1):} suppose $B$ is invertible.
Let $$A=
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}
a_{1,1} & \cdots & a_{1,n} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{n,1} & \cdots & a_{n,n} \\
\end{smallmatrix}\right) $$ and
$$
x_1=(a_{1,n-1}, a_{2,n-1},\ldots,a_{n-2,n-1})^{\rm tr} ,
x_2=(a_{1,n},a_{2,n},\ldots,a_{n-2,n})^{\rm tr}
$$
$$y_{1}=(a_{n-1,1}, a_{n-1,2}, \ldots, a_{n-1,n-2}) , y_2=(
a_{n,1}, a_{n,2}, \ldots, a_{n,n-2}).$$
Thus the matrix $A$ can be written in the form
$$A=
\begin{pmatrix}
B & x_1 & x_2 \\
y_1 & a_{n-1,n-1} & a_{n-1,n} \\
y_2 & a_{n,n-1} & a_{n,n} \\
\end{pmatrix} .$$ In this notation, we have the following
equalities:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{det 1} \det(A_{\hat n,\hat n})&=& \det
\begin{pmatrix}
B & x_1 \\
y_1 & a_{n-1,n-1} \nonumber\\
\end{pmatrix}\\&&\nonumber\\
&=& \det(B)(a_{n-1,n-1}-y_1 B^{-1}x_1),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{det 2} \det(A_{\widehat{n-1},\widehat{n-1}})&=& \det
\begin{pmatrix}
B & x_2 \\
y_2 & a_{n,n} \nonumber\\
\end{pmatrix}\\&&\nonumber\\
&=& \det(B)(a_{n,n}-y_2 B^{-1}x_2), \end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{det 3} \det(A_{\hat n,\widehat {n-1}})&=& \det
\begin{pmatrix}
B & x_2 \\
y_1 & a_{n-1,n} \nonumber\\
\end{pmatrix}\\&&\nonumber\\
&=& \det(B)(a_{n-1,n}-y_1 B^{-1}x_2), \end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{det 4} \det(A_{\widehat{n-1},\hat n})&=& \det
\begin{pmatrix}
B & x_1 \\
y_2 & a_{n,n-1} \nonumber\\
\end{pmatrix}
\\&&\nonumber\\
&=& \det(B)(a_{n,n-1}-y_2 B^{-1}x_1), \end{eqnarray} and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{det 5} \lefteqn{\det(A)}\nonumber\\&=& \det(B)
\det\left\{
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{n-1,n-1} & a_{n-1,n} \\
a_{n,n-1} & a_{n,n} \\
\end{pmatrix}-
\begin{pmatrix}
y_1 \\
y_2 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\scriptstyle{B}^{-1}
\begin{pmatrix}
x_1 & x_2 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\right\}\nonumber \\&&\nonumber\\
&=&\det(B)\det
\begin{pmatrix}
a_{n-1,n-1}-y_1 B^{-1}x_1 & a_{n-1,n}-y_1 B^{-1} x_2 \\
a_{n,n-1}-y_2 B^{-1} x_1& a_{n,n}-y_2 B^{-1} x_2 \\
\end{pmatrix
\nonumber\\&&\nonumber\\
&=&\det(B)\left\{(a_{n-1,n-1}-y_1
\scriptstyle{{B}^{-1}}x_1)(a_{n,n}-y_2 \scriptstyle{{B}^{-1}}
x_2)-(a_{n-1,n}-y_1 \scriptstyle{{B}^{-1}} x_2) (a_{n,n-1}-y_2
\scriptstyle{{B}^{-1}} x_1) \right\}.\end{eqnarray} From equation
\eqref{det 1},\eqref{det 2},\eqref{det 3},\eqref{det 4} and
\eqref{det 5}, it follows that
$$\det(A)=\det(B) \left\{\frac{\det(A_{\hat n,\hat n})\det(A_{\widehat{n-1},\widehat{n-1}})}{(\det B)^2}-
\frac{\det(A_{\widehat{n-1},\hat n}) \det(A_{\hat n,\widehat
{n-1}})}{(\det B)^2}\right\},$$ that is,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{det 6}
\det(A_{\hat n,\hat n})\det(A_{\widehat {n-1},\widehat{n-1}})-
\det(A_{\widehat{n-1},\hat n}) \det(A_{\hat n,\widehat {n-1}})=
\det(B) \det(A).
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent{\sf Case(2):} Suppose $B$ is not invertible. Then there
exists a sequence of invertible matrices $B_m$ that approximate
$B$, that is,
$\|B_m-B\|\to
0$, as $m\to \infty$. Let
$$A_m=
\begin{pmatrix}
B_m & x_1 & x_2 \\
y_1 & a_{n-1,n-1} & a_{n-1,n} \\
y_2 & a_{n,n-1} & a_{n,n} \\
\end{pmatrix}$$
clearly $\|A_m-A\|\to 0$ as $m\to \infty$. From the proof of the
previous case, we have
$$\det\{(A_m)_{\hat n,\hat n}\}
\det\{(A_m)_{\widehat{n-1},\widehat{n-1}}\}-\det\{(A_m)_{\hat
n,\widehat{n-1}}\} \det\{(A_m)_{\widehat{n-1},\hat n}\}= \det(B_m)
\det(A_m) .$$
Since determinant is a continuous function, taking
$m \to \infty$, it follows that
$$\det(A_{\hat n,\hat n})\det(A_{\widehat {n-1},\widehat{n-1}})-
\det(A_{\widehat{n-1},\hat n}) \det(A_{\hat n,\widehat {n-1}})=
\det(B) \det(A).$$
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}The curvature of the determinant bundle
$\det\,\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{f})$ is given by the following
formula
$$\mathcal{K}_{\det\mathcal{J}_k (\mathcal{L}_{f})}(z)=
\frac{(\det\mathcal{J}_{k-1} h)(z) (\det\mathcal{J}_{k+1} h)(z)}
{(\det \mathcal{J}_k h)^2(z)}\;\;d\overline z\wedge dz.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The curvature of the determinant bundle
$\det(\mathcal{J}_k(\mathcal{L}_{f}))$ is
$$\mathcal{K}_{\det\mathcal{J}_k (\mathcal{L}_{f})}(z)=
\frac{(\det\mathcal{J}_k h)(z) (\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z\partial \overline z}\det\mathcal{J}_k h)(z)-
(\frac{\partial}{\partial \overline z} \det\mathcal{J}_k h)(z)
(\frac{\partial}{\partial z}
\det\mathcal{J}_k h)(z)}{(\det \mathcal{J}_k h)^2(z)}\;\; d\overline z\wedge
dz.$$
Here$$\mathcal{J}_k h=
\big(\!\big(\tfrac{\partial^{i+j}}{\partial\overline {z}^i
\partial z^j}h\big)\!\big)_{i,j=0}^{k}\;\;
\mbox{and}\;\; \mathcal{J}_{k+1} h=
\big(\!\big(\tfrac{\partial^{i+j}}{\partial\overline {z}^i
\partial z^j}h\big)\!\big)_{i,j=0}^{k+1}.
$$
Now, we have \begin{eqnarray} \label{matrix 1}
\frac{\partial}{\partial z}(\det\mathcal{J}_k h)
= \det((\mathcal{J}_{k+1}h)_{\widehat{k+2},\widehat{k+1}}),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} \label{matrix 2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \overline z}(\det\mathcal{J}_k h)
= \det((\mathcal{J}_{k+1}h)_{\widehat{k+1},\widehat{k+2}}),
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{matrix 3}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\overline {z}\partial
z}(\det\mathcal{J}_k h) =
\det((\mathcal{J}_{k+1}h)_{\widehat{k+1},\widehat{k+1}}),
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, note that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{matrix 4} \det\mathcal{J}_k h= \det
((\mathcal{J}_{k+1}h)_{\widehat{k+2},\widehat{k+2}}).
\end{eqnarray} By Lemma \ref{lin lemma 1}, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray} \label{matrix 5}
\det (\mathcal{J}_{k-1}h) \det (\mathcal{J}_{k+1}h) &=&
{\det}({\!(\mathcal{J}_{k+1}h)}_{\widehat{k+2},\widehat{k+2}})
\det (\!(\mathcal{J}_{k+1}h)_{\widehat{k+1},\widehat{k+1}})
\nonumber\\&&~~~~~~~ - \det
(\!(\mathcal{J}_{k+1}h)_{\widehat{k+2},\widehat{k+1}}) \det
(\!(\mathcal{J}_{k+1}h)_{\widehat{k+1},\widehat{k+2}}).
\end{eqnarray} From equations \eqref{matrix 1}, \eqref{matrix
2}, \eqref{matrix 3}, \eqref{matrix 4} and \eqref{matrix 5}, it
follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}\lefteqn{(\det\mathcal{J}_{k-1} h)(z)
(\det\mathcal{J}_{k+1}h)(z)}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\&=&
(\det\mathcal{J}_k h)(z) (\tfrac{\partial^2}{\partial z\partial
\bar z}\det\mathcal{J}_k h)(z)
(\tfrac{\partial}{\partial \bar z} \det\mathcal{J}_k h)(z)
(\tfrac{\partial}{\partial z}
\det\mathcal{J}_k h)(z).\end{eqnarray*}
Hence
$$\mathcal{K}_{\det\mathcal{J}_k (\mathcal{L}_{f})}(z)=
\frac{(\det\mathcal{J}_{k-1} h)(z) (\det\mathcal{J}_{k+1} h)(z)}
{(\det \mathcal{J}_k h)^2(z)}\;\;d\overline z\wedge dz.$$
\end{proof}
\begin{cor} Let $\mathcal{L}_{f}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f}$ be
Hermitian holomorphic line bundles over a domain
$\Omega \subset \mathbb{C}$. The following statements are
equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)]
$\det\mathcal{J}_k (\mathcal{L}_{f})$
is locally equivalent to $\det\mathcal{J}_k (\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})$ and
$\det\mathcal{J}_{k+1}( \mathcal{L}_{f})$ is locally equivalent to
$\det\mathcal{J}_{k+1} (\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f})$, for some $k\in
\mathbb{N}$ \item[(2)] $\mathcal{L}_{f}$ is locally equivalent to
$\mathcal{L}_{\tilde f}$. \end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\section{Rank $n$-Vector Bundles}
We first recall some well known facts from linear algebra.
\begin{lem}
Let $A, B, C$ and $D$ be matrices of size $n\times n, n\times m,
m\times n$ and $m\times m$ respectively.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]\label{l23}\cite[pp. 138]{rao} If $A, D$ and $D- C
A^{-1} B$ are invertible, then $
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D \\
\end{pmatrix}$ is invertible and $$
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D \\
\end{pmatrix}^{-1}=
\begin{pmatrix}
(A-BD^{-1}C)^{-1} & -A^{-1}B(D-CA^{-1}B)^{-1} \\
-D^{-1}C(A-BD^{-1}C)^{-1} & (D-CA^{-1}B)^{-1} \\
\end{pmatrix}.
$$
\end{enumerate}
\item[(ii)]\label{l24}\cite[pp. 246]{rao}
If $A$ is invertible then
$$\det
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D \\
\end{pmatrix}=
\det(A) \det(D-CA^{-1}B)$$
\item[(iii)] \label{l25}\cite[pp. 247]{rao} If $D$ is invertible then
$$\det
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D \\
\end{pmatrix}=
\det(D) \det(A-BD^{-1}C).$$
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{quo 1}\cite[pp. 240]{cd}
If $V$ is a proper, non-zero subspace of an inner product space
$W$ then it induces an inner product on the quotient $W/V$ by
\begin{eqnarray*}([w_1],[w_2])&=& ||v_1\wedge\ldots\wedge
v_n||^{-2}(v_1\wedge\ldots\wedge v_n\wedge
w_1,v_1\wedge\ldots\wedge v_n\wedge w_2)\end{eqnarray*} where
$[w_1], [w_2]$ denote the equivalence classes of $w_1$ and $w_2$
respectively in $W/V$ and $\{v_1,\ldots,v_n\}$ is a basis for $V$.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}\label{quo 2}
Let $W$ be an inner product space and let $V$ be a subspace of
$W$. Let $\{e_1,\ldots,e_r\}$ be a basis of $V$ and
$\{e_1,\ldots,e_r,e_{r+1},\ldots,e_n\}$ be a basis of $W$
extending the basis of $W$. Suppose $$\sigma_i=
e_1\wedge\ldots\wedge e_r\wedge e_i,\;\; r+1\leq i\leq n$$ and
$\begin{array}{cc}
A=\big(\!\big(\langle e_i,e_j\rangle\big)\!\big)_{1\leq i,j\leq r},&
B=\big(\!\big(\langle e_i,e_j\rangle\big)\!\big)_{r+1\leq i\leq n,1\leq j\leq r},\\
C=\big(\!\big(\langle e_i,e_j\rangle\big)\!\big)_{1\leq i\leq r,\, r+1\leq j\leq n}, &
D=\big(\!\big(\langle e_i,e_j\rangle\big)\!\big)_{r+1\leq i,j\leq n},\\
\end{array}$ \\ $$\textbf{A}_{\sigma}=\big(\!\big(\langle
\sigma_i,\sigma_j\rangle\big)\!\big)_{r+1\leq i,j\leq n}.$$ Then
$$\det\big(\!\big(\langle
e_i,e_j\rangle\big)\!\big)_{1\leq i,j\leq n}=\det
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D \\
\end{pmatrix}
= \frac{\det (\textbf{A}_{\sigma})}{(\det A)^{n-r-1}}.$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $x_i=(\langle e_1,e_i\rangle,\ldots,\langle
e_r,e_i\rangle)$ and $y_i= \bar{x}_i^{\rm tr},$ $r+1\leq i\leq n$.
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle \sigma_i,\sigma_j\rangle &=& \det
\begin{pmatrix}
A & y_i \\
x_j & \langle e_i,e_j\rangle \\
\end{pmatrix}\\
&=& \det (A)(\langle e_i,e_j\rangle- x_j A^{-1}y_i).
\end{eqnarray*}
Next, note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\det\big(\!\big(\langle e_i,e_j\rangle\big)\!\big)_{1\leq i,j\leq
n}&=&\det
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D \\
\end{pmatrix}
\\&=& \det(A) \det (D-C A^{-1}B)\\
&=&\det(A)\det\big(\!\big(\langle e_i,e_j\rangle- x_j
A^{-1}y_i\big)\!\big)_{r+1\leq i,j\leq n}\\
&=& \det(A)\det \big(\!\big({\langle
\sigma_i,\sigma_j\rangle}/{\det(A)}\big)\!\big)_{r+1\leq i,j\leq
n}\\
&=&\frac{\det (\textbf{A}_{\sigma})}{(\det A)^{n-r-1}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{prop} Let $E$ be a Hermitian holomorphic vector
bundle of rank $n$ over a bounded domain $\Omega$ in
$\mathbb{C}^m$ and let $F$ be a subbundle of $E$ of rank $r$. Then
$$h_{\det (E/F)}= \frac{h_{\det E}}{h_{\det F}}$$ where $h_{\det
E}$, $h_{\det (E/F)}$ and $h_{\det F}$ are the metrics of $\det
E$, $\det F$ and $\det E/F$ respectively.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $\{s_1,\ldots,s_r\}$ be a frame for $F$ over an open subset
$U$ of $\Omega$ and let $\{s_1,\ldots,s_r,s_{r+1},\\ \ldots,s_n\}$
be a frame of $E$ obtained by extending the frame of $F$. The
quotient $E/F$ admits a frame of the form
$\{[s_{r+1}],\ldots,[s_n]\}$, where $[s_i],r+1\leq i\leq n,$
denotes the equivalence class of $s_i$ in $E/F$. Let
$h_{E}=\big(\!\big(\langle
s_j,s_i\rangle\big)\!\big)_{i,j=1}^{n}$,
$h_{F}=\big(\!\big(\langle s_j,s_i\rangle\big)\!\big)_{i,j=1}^{r}$
and $h_{E/F}=\big(\!\big(\langle
[s_j],[s_i]\rangle\big)\!\big)_{i,j=r+1}^{n}$ be the metrics of
$E$, $F$ and $E/F$ respectively. Then by the definition of the
determinant bundle $h_{\det E}=\det h_E$, $h_{\det F}=\det h_F$
and $h_{\det E/F}=\det h_{E/F}$. By Lemma \ref{quo 1} and Lemma
\ref{quo 2}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
h_{\det E/F}&=&\det h_{E/F}\\
&=&\det\big(\!\big(\langle
[s_j],[s_i]\rangle\big)\!\big)_{i,j=r+1}^{n}\\
&=&\det \left(\!\!\!\left(\frac{\langle s_1\wedge\ldots\wedge
s_r\wedge s_{j},s_1\wedge\ldots\wedge s_r\wedge s_{i}\rangle}
{||s_1\wedge,\ldots\wedge
s_r||^2}\right)\!\!\!\right)_{i,j=r+1}^{n}\\
&=&\frac{\det \big(\!\big(\langle s_1\wedge\ldots\wedge s_r\wedge
s_{j},s_1\wedge\ldots\wedge s_r\wedge
s_{i}\rangle\big)\!\big)_{i,j=r+1}^{n}}{(\det h_F)^{n-r}}\\
&=&\frac{h_{\det E}}{h_{\det F}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Let $0\to F\to E \to E/F\to 0$ be an exact sequence of Hermitian
holomorphic vector bundles. Then
$$\mathcal{K}_{\det(E/F)}=\mathcal{K}_{\det(E)}-\mathcal{K}_{\det(F)}$$
which is equivalent to
$$\rm{trace}(\mathcal{K}_{E/F})=\rm{trace}(\mathcal{K}_{E})-\rm{trace}(\mathcal{K}_{F}).$$
\end{cor}\vspace{3mm}
Let $E_{f}$ be a Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle of rank $n$ over an open subset
$\Omega$ in $\mathbb{C}$ and let
$E_f\in{\mathfrak{G}}_n(\Omega,\mathcal H)$. Let
$\{\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_n\}$ be a frame for $E_f$ over an open
subset $\Omega_0$ of $\Omega$. Let $h$ be a metric for $E_f$ which
is defined as $$h(z)= \big(\!\big(\langle
\sigma_j(z),\sigma_i(z)\rangle\big)\!\big)_{i,j=1}^{n}
$$
We define $F_i^k$ for each $1\leq k < \infty$ and $1\leq
i\leq n$ by $$F_i^k=\sigma_1\wedge\ldots\wedge
\sigma_n\wedge\ldots\wedge\frac{\partial^{k-1}\sigma_n}{\partial
z^{k-1}}\wedge \frac{\partial^k\sigma_i}{\partial z^k}, $$ where
wedge products between $\sigma_i's$ and their derivatives are
taken in the Hilbert space $\wedge \mathcal{H}$. Let $h_k$ be the
matrix
$$
h_{k}(z)=\big (\!\big (\langle F_j^k(z),F_i^k(z)\rangle\big
)\!\big )_{i,j=1}^{n}
$$
\begin{prop}\label{l26}
Let $E_f$ be a Hermitian holomorphic vector bundle of rank $n$
over $\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}$. Then the curvature
$\mathcal{K}_{E_f}$ of $E_f$ is given by
$$\mathcal{K}_{E_f}(z)=(\det h(z))^{-1}h(z)^{-1}h_1(z)\;\; d\bar{z}\wedge dz.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Set $x_i=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial
\bar{z}}\langle \sigma_1,\sigma_i\rangle, \ldots
,\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{z}}\langle
\sigma_n,\sigma_i\rangle\right)$ and $y_i= \bar{x}_i^{\rm tr},$
$1\leq i\leq n.$ For $1\leq i,j\leq n$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\langle F_j^1(z),F_i^1(z)\rangle&=&\det
\begin{pmatrix}
h(z) & y_j\\
x_i& \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z \partial
\bar{z}}\langle \sigma_j(z),\sigma_i(z)\rangle \\
\end{pmatrix}\\
&=& \det(h(z))\left(\tfrac{\partial^2}{\partial z \partial
\bar{z}}\langle \sigma_j(z),\sigma_i(z)\rangle- x_i h(z)^{-1}
y_j\right).\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Now we can derive the formula for the curvature of the vector
bundle $E_f$:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathcal{K}_{E_f}(z)&=& h^{-1}(z)\left\{\bar{\partial}\partial
h(z)-\bar{\partial}h(z)h^{-1}(z)\partial
h(z)\right\}\\
&=& h^{-1}(z)\big(\!\big(\tfrac{\partial^2}{\partial z\partial
\bar{z}}\langle
\sigma_j(z),\sigma_i(z)\rangle- x_i h(z)^{-1} y_j\big)\!\big)_{i,j=1}^{n} d\bar{z}\wedge dz\\
&=& h^{-1}(z)\big(\!\big( (\det
h(z))^{-1}\langle F_j^1(z),F_i^1(z)\rangle\big)\!\big)_{i,j=1}^{n}d\bar{z}\wedge dz\\
&=&(\det h(z))^{-1}h^{-1}(z)h_1(z) \;\;d\bar{z}\wedge
dz\hspace{1cm}
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
Let $E_f$ be a vector bundle of rank $n$ over a bounded domain
$\Omega\subset\mathbb{C}$. Then the curvature of the bundle $E_f$
is of rank $r$ if and only if exactly $r$ elements are independent
from the set $\{F_1^1,\ldots,F_n^1\}$ of $n$ elements.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{l26} the rank of the curvature of the bundle $E$ is
same as the rank of $h_1$. But rank of $h_1$ is $r$ if and only if
$r$ elements are independent from the set $\{F_1^1,\ldots,F_n^1\}$
of $n$ elements.
\end{proof}
A result from \cite[page 238, Lemma 4.12]{cd}, which appeared to
be mysterious, now follows from the formula derived for the rank
of the curvature. Thus we have the following corollary:
\begin{cor}
Let $E_f$ be a vector bundle of rank $n$ over a bounded domain
$\Omega$ in $\mathbb{C}$. Then the rank of the curvature
$\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_k(E_f)}$ of the jet bundle
$\mathcal{J}_k(E_f)$, $1\leq k<\infty$, is at most $n$.
\end{cor}
\subsection{Curvature Formula in General}
Let $E_{f}\stackrel{\pi}\to\Omega$ be a Hermitian holomorphic
vector bundle of rank $n$. Let $\{s_1,\cdots,s_n\}$ be a local
frame of $E_{f}$ over an open subset $\Omega_0$ of $\Omega$. Let
$h$ be a metric for $E_f$ which is defined as $$h(z)=
\big(\!\big(\langle
s_i(z),s_j(z)\rangle\big)\!\big)_{i,j=1}^{n}.$$ For $1\leq p\leq
n$ and $1\leq j\leq m$ set
$$\tau_p^j= s_1\wedge\cdots \wedge s_n\wedge \frac{\partial
s_p}{\partial z_j}.$$
For $1\leq i,j\leq m$ set
$$h_{ij}(z)= \big(\!\big(\langle\tau_p^i(z),\tau^j_q(z)\rangle\big)\!\big)_{p,q=1}^{n}.$$
\begin{prop}
Let $E_f\stackrel{\pi}\to \Omega$ be a Hermitian holomorphic
vector bundle of rank $n$ over a domain $\Omega$ in
$\mathbb{C}^m$. Then curvature $\mathcal{K}_{E_f}$ of the vector
bundle $E_f$ is given by
$$\mathcal{K}_{E_{f}}(z)=(\det h(z))^{-1} h^{-1}(z)\sum_{i,j=1}^{m}h_{ij}(z)\,d\overline{z}_j\wedge d z_i.$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Set $x_p^j=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline {z}_j}\langle
s_1,s_p\rangle, \cdots ,\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline
{z}_j}\langle s_n,s_p\rangle\right)$ and
$y_p^i=\overline{x_p^i}^{\rm tr}\;\;\mbox{for}\;\; 1\leq p\leq
n.$\smallskip\vspace{2mm}
\noindent For $1\leq i,j\leq m$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tfrac{\partial^2h}{\partial \overline{z}_j\partial z_i}(z)-
\tfrac{\partial h}{\partial \overline{z}_j}(z)
h^{-1}(z)\tfrac{\partial h}{\partial
z_i}(z)&=&\big(\!\big(\tfrac{\partial^2}{\partial
\overline{z}_j\partial z_i}\langle
s_q(z),s_p(z)\rangle- x_p^j h(z)^{-1} y_q^i\big)\!\big)_{p,q=1}^{n}\\
&=&\big(\!\big( (\det
h(z))^{-1}\langle\tau_q^i(z),\tau_p^j(z)\rangle\big)\!\big)_{p,q=1}^{n}\\
&=&(\det h(z))^{-1} h_{ij}(z).
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence the curvature of the vector bundle $E_f$ takes the form:
\begin{eqnarray*}\mathcal{K}_{E_{f}}(z)&=&
h^{-1}(z)\sum_{i,j=1}^{m}\left(\tfrac{\partial^2h}{\partial
\bar{z}_j\partial z_i}(z)- \tfrac{\partial h}{\partial
\bar{z}_j}(z) h^{-1}(z)\tfrac{\partial h}{\partial
z_i}(z)\right)\,d\bar{z}_j\wedge d z_i\\
&=&(\det h(z))^{-1}
h^{-1}(z)\sum_{i,j=1}^{m}h_{ij}(z)\,d\overline{z}_j\wedge d
z_i.\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Curvature of the Jet Bundle}
Let $\mathcal{J}_{k}(E_{f})$ be a jet bundle of rank $n(k+1)$ over
$\Omega$, where $\Omega$ is a bounded domain in $\mathbb{C}$. If
$\sigma=\{\sigma_1,\cdots,\sigma_n\}$ is a frame for $E_f$ then a
frame for $\mathcal{J}_{k}(E_{f})$ is of the form
$$\mathcal{J}_k(\sigma)=\{\sigma_1,\cdots,\sigma_n,\tfrac{\partial}{\partial z}
\sigma_1,\cdots,\tfrac{\partial}{\partial
z}\sigma_n,\ldots,\tfrac{\partial^k}{\partial
z^k}\sigma_1,\ldots,\tfrac{\partial^k}{\partial z^k}\sigma_n\}.$$
\smallskip
By Lemma \ref{l26} the curvature
$\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_{k}(E_{f})}$ of the bundle
$\mathcal{J}_k(E_f)$ is given by
$$\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_{k}(E_{f})}(z)= \big(\det
\mathcal{J}_{k}(h)(z)\big)^{-1}(\mathcal{J}_{k}(h)(z))^{-1}
\begin{pmatrix}
0_{n k\times n k} & 0_{n k \times n} \\
0_{n\times n k} & h_{k+1}(z) \\
\end{pmatrix}d\bar z\wedge dz
$$
Let $A= \mathcal{J}_{k-1}(h),$
$$C=
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{\partial^{k}h}{\partial \bar{z}^{k}}, & \ldots, &
\frac{\partial^{2k-1}h}{\partial z ^{k-1}\partial \bar{z}^{k}} \\
\end{pmatrix}, $$
$B = \bar{C}^{\rm tr}, \,\, D= \frac{\partial^{2k}}{\partial
z^{k}\partial\bar{z}^{k}}h,$
\begin{eqnarray*}{x_i}=\big({ \tfrac{\partial^{k}}{\partial
\bar{z}^{k}}\langle \sigma_1,\sigma_i\rangle, \ldots ,
\tfrac{\partial^{k}}{\partial \bar{z}^{k}}\langle
\sigma_n,\sigma_i\rangle,\ldots,\tfrac{\partial^{2k-1}}{\partial z
^{k-1}\partial \bar{z}^{k}}\langle
\sigma_n,\sigma_i\rangle}\big),\;1 \leq i \leq n,\end{eqnarray*}}
and finally $y_i= \bar{x}^{\rm tr}_i$, $1 \leq i \leq
n.$\smallskip
\noindent Now
\begin{eqnarray*}
D-CA^{-1}B&=& \tfrac{\partial^{2k}}{\partial z^{k}\partial\bar{z}^{k}}h-C A^{-1}B\\
&=&\big(\!\big(\tfrac{\partial^{2k}}{\partial
z^{k}\partial\bar{z}^{k}}\langle
\sigma_j,\sigma_i\rangle- x_i A^{-1} y_j \big)\!\big)_{i,j=1}^{n}\\
&=&\big(\!\big( (\det
\mathcal{J}_{k-1}h)^{-1}\langle F_j^{k},F_i^{k}\rangle\big)\!\big)_{i,j=1}^{n}\\
&=& (\det \mathcal{J}_{k-1}h)^{-1} h_{k}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Consequently, \begin{eqnarray*} (\mathcal{J}_{k}h)^{-1}&=&
\begin{pmatrix}
A & B \\
C & D \\
\end{pmatrix}^{-1}\\&=&
\begin{pmatrix}
(A-BD^{-1}C)^{-1} & -A^{-1}B(D-CA^{-1}B)^{-1} \\
-D^{-1}C(A-BD^{-1}C)^{-1} & (D-CA^{-1}B)^{-1} \\
\end{pmatrix}\\
&=& \begin{pmatrix}
(A-BD^{-1}C)^{-1} & -A^{-1}B(D-CA^{-1}B)^{-1} \\
-D^{-1}C(A-BD^{-1}C)^{-1} & \det (\mathcal{J}_{k-1}h) h_{k}^{-1} \\
\end{pmatrix}.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
The curvature of the jet bundle $\mathcal{J}_{k}(E_{f})$ is
\begin{eqnarray*} \lefteqn{\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_{k}(E_{f})}(z)}\\&=&
\begin{pmatrix}
0_{n k\times n k} & -\big(\det \mathcal{J}_{k}(h)(z)\big)^{-1}A^{-1}(z)B(z)\big(D(z)-C(z)A^{-1}(z)B(z)\big)^{-1}h_{k+1}(z) \\
0_{n\times n k} &\big(\det \mathcal{J}_k(h)(z)\big)^{-1} \det (\mathcal{J}_{k-1}h(z))h_{k}^{-1}(z)h_{k+1}(z) \\
\end{pmatrix}
\end{eqnarray*}
Here
$$\det\mathcal{J}_k h(z)= (\det \mathcal{J}_{k-1}h(z))^{1-n} \det h_k(z)$$
and
\begin{eqnarray*}\lefteqn{(\det\mathcal{J}_{k}h(z))^{-1}\det\mathcal{J}_{k-1}
h(z)}\\= &(\det h(z))^{n(1-n)^{k-1}}& \!\!\!\!\!(\det
h_1(z))^{n(1-n)^{k-2}}\cdots (\det
h_{k-2}(z))^{n(1-n)}(\det h_{k-1}(z))^n (\det
h_{k}(z))^{-1}.\end{eqnarray*}
\subsection{The Trace Formula}
Let ${\rm{trace}}\otimes {\rm{Id}}_{n\times
n}:\mathcal{M}_{mn}(\mathbb{C})\cong
\mathcal{M}_m(\mathbb{C})\otimes \mathcal{M}_n(\mathbb{C})\to
\mathbb{C}\otimes\mathcal{M}_n(\mathbb{C})\cong\mathcal{M}_n(\mathbb{C})$
be the operator defined as follows $$\big({\rm{trace}}\otimes
{\rm{Id}}_{n\times n}\big)(\sum_{i,j=1}^{m}E_{m}(i,j)\otimes
A_{i,j})=\sum_{i=1}^{m}A_{i,i},$$ where $E_m(i,j)$ is the $m\times
m$ matrix which is defined as follows
\begin{eqnarray*}
{(E_m{(i,j)})}_{k,l} = \begin{cases} 0 &\mbox{if}
\,\, (k,l)\neq (i,j),\\ 1 & \mbox{if}\;(k,l)=(i,j). \end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
(An arbitrary
element $A$ in $\mathcal{M}_m(\mathbb{C})\otimes
\mathcal{M}_n(\mathbb{C})$ is of the form
$A=\sum_{i,j=1}^{m}E_{m}(i,j)\otimes A_{i,j}.$)
\begin{thm}
Let $0\to \mathcal{J}_{k-1}(E_f)\to\mathcal{J}_k(E_f)\to
{\mathcal{J}_k(E_f)}/{\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(E_f)}\to 0$ be an exact
sequence of jet bundles. Then we have $$\big({\rm{trace}}\otimes
{\rm{Id}}_{n\times n}\big)(\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_k(E_f)})-
\big({\rm{trace}}\otimes {\rm{Id}}_{n\times
n}\big)(\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(E_f)})=\mathcal{K}_{{\mathcal{J}_k(E_f)}/{\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(E_f)}}(z).$$
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lefteqn{\big({\rm{trace}}\otimes {\rm{Id}}_{n\times
n}\big)(\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_k(E_f)})-
\big({\rm{trace}}\otimes {\rm{Id}}_{n\times
n}\big)(\mathcal{K}_{\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(E_f)})}\\&&~~~~=\big(\det
\mathcal{J}_k(h)(z)\big)^{-1} \det
(\mathcal{J}_{k-1}h(z))h_{k}^{-1}(z)h_{k+1}(z)\\&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-\big(\det \mathcal{J}_{k-1}(h)(z)\big)^{-1} \det
(\mathcal{J}_{k-2}h(z))h_{k-1}^{-1}(z)h_{k}(z)\\
&&~~~~=\mathcal{K}_{{\mathcal{J}_k(E_f)}/{\mathcal{J}_{k-1}(E_f)}}(z).
\end{eqnarray*}
\smallskip
The last equality follows from \cite[page 244, Proposition
4.19]{cd}.
\end{proof}
\textsl{Acknowledgements:}{ Result of this paper contained in the
thesis titled ``Infinitely Divisible Metrics, Curvature
Inequalities and Curvature Formulae" submitted at Indian Institute
of Science, Bangalore. The author would like to thank Professor
Gadaghar Misra and Dr. Cherian Varghese for their valuable
suggestions and numerous stimulating discussions relating to topic
of this paper.
|
\section{Self-Similarity and order-$\hbar ^n$ Quantum Gravity Corrections}
\par\noindent
In this essay we look at the connection between physical objects, i.e. ``its", and information/entropy,
i.e ``bits",\footnote{There is an equivalence or connection between information, entropy and bits and we will
use these terms somewhat interchangeably throughout this essay. A nice overview of the close relationship
between information, entropy and bits can be found in reference \cite{susskind}.}
in the context of black hole physics. In particular, we focus on the relationship between
the initial information/entropy contained in the horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole and
the final entropy carried by the outgoing, {\it correlated} photons of Hawking radiation. The
correlation of the photons comes from taking into account conservation of energy and the back reaction of the
radiation on the structure of the Schwarzschild space-time in the tunneling picture \cite{wilczek, pad}
of Hawking radiation. Since, in the first approximation, Hawking radiation is thermal there are
no correlations between the outgoing Hawking radiated photons. This leads to the information loss
puzzle of black holes which can be put as follows: The original black hole has an entropy given
by $S_{BH} = \frac{4 \pi k_B G M^2}{c \hbar}$ which can be written as
$S_{BH}= \frac{ k_{B} A }{4 l_{Pl} ^2}$ where $A=4 \pi r_H ^2$ is the horizon area of the black hole
and $r_H = \frac{2 G M}{c^2}$ is the location of the horizon \cite{bekenstein}. One can think of this areal entropy
as being composed of Planck sized area ``bits", $A_{Pl} = l_{Pl} ^2$, where the Planck length is
defined as $l_{Pl} = \sqrt{\frac{\hbar G}{c^3}}$. If Hawking radiation were truly thermal, then
the entropy of the outgoing thermal radiation would be larger than this Bekenstein area entropy. Since
entropy increases, some information is lost. But this violates the prime directive of quantum mechanics
that quantum evolution should be unitary and, thus, information and entropy should be conserved.
To begin our examination of these issues of the thermodynamics of black holes and the loss versus
conservation of information, we lay out our basic framework. We will consider a massless scalar field
$\phi ({\bf x}, t)$ in the background of a Schwarzschild black hole whose metric is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{schwarz}
ds^2=- \left( 1 - \frac{2 M}{r} \right) dt^2+\frac{1}{\left( 1 - \frac{2 M}{r} \right)} dr^2 +r^2d\Omega^2 ~,
\end{eqnarray}
\par\noindent
in units with $G=c=1$. From here onward in the essay we will set
$G=c=1$ but will keep $\hbar$ explicitly. The horizon is located by setting
$1 - \frac{2 M}{r_H}=0$ or $r_H = 2 M$. Into this space-time, we place a massless scalar field
obeying the Klein-Gordon equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{KG equation}
-\frac{\hbar^2}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_\mu(g^{\mu\nu}\sqrt{-g}\partial_\nu)\phi=0 ~.
\end{eqnarray}
\par\noindent
By the radial symmetry of the Schwarzschild space-time as given by Eq. \eqref{schwarz},
the scalar field only depends on $r$ and $t$. Expanding $\phi (r,t)$ in a WKB form gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{scalar field WKB}
\phi(r,t)=\exp\left[\frac{i}{\hbar}I(r,t)\right]
\end{eqnarray}
\par\noindent
where $I(r,t)$ is the one-particle action which can be expanded in powers of $\hbar$ via
the general expression
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{expansion of the action}
I(r,t)=I_0(r,t)+\sum_{j=1} ^\infty \hbar^j I_j(r,t).
\end{eqnarray}
\par\noindent
Here, $I_0(r,t)$ is the classical action and $I_j(r,t)$ are order $\hbar ^j$quantum corrections.
We now make the assumption that quantum gravity is {\it self-similar} \footnote{Broadly speaking, self-similarity
means that a system ``looks the same" at different scales. A standard example is the Koch snowflake \cite{koch}
where any small segment of the curve has the same shape as a larger segment. Here, self-similarity is applied
in the sense that as one goes to smaller distance scales/higher energy scales by going to successive orders in $\hbar$
that the form of the quantum corrections remains the same.}
in the following sense: the higher order corrections to the action, $I_j(r,t)$, are proportional
to $I_0(r,t)$, i.e. $I_j(r,t) = \gamma_j I_0 (r, t)$ where $\gamma_j$ are constants.
With this assumption, Eq. \eqref{expansion of the action} becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{expansion-elias}
I(r,t)=\left(1+\sum_{j=1} ^\infty \gamma_j \hbar^j \right)I_0(r,t)~.
\end{eqnarray}
\par\noindent
From Eq. \eqref{expansion-elias}, one sees that $\gamma_j \hbar^j$ is dimensionless. In the units
we are using, i.e. $G=c=1$, $\hbar$ has units of the Planck length squared, i.e. $l _{Pl} ^2$, thus
$\gamma _j$ should have units of an inverse distance squared to the $j^{th}$ power. The natural distance
scale defined by Eq. \eqref{schwarz} is the horizon distance $r_H = 2 M$, thus
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{gammaj}
\gamma_j=\frac{\alpha_j}{r_H^{2j}}
\end{eqnarray}
\par\noindent
with $\alpha_j$ dimensionless constants which we will fix via the {\it requirement}
that information/entropy be well behaved in the $M \rightarrow 0$ limit. Thus, in this
way we will obtain an explicit, all orders in $\hbar$ correction to the entropy and
show how this gives a potential solution to the black hole information puzzle.\\
\section{Black hole entropy to all orders in $\hbar$}
\par\noindent
In \cite{jhep} the set-up of the previous section was used to obtain an expression for the
quantum corrected temperature of Hawking radiation \cite{hawking} to
all orders in $\hbar$. This was done by applying the tunneling method introduced in
\cite{wilczek, pad} to the WKB-like expression given by Eqs. \eqref{scalar field WKB},
\eqref{expansion-elias}, and \eqref{gammaj}. From \cite{jhep}, the quantum corrected
Hawking temperature is given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{corrected Hawking temperature}
T=\frac{\hbar}{8\pi M}\left(1+\sum_{j=1} ^\infty \frac{\alpha_j\hbar^j}{r_H^{2j}}\right)^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
\par\noindent
In this expression, $\frac{\hbar}{8\pi M}$ is
the semi--classical Hawking temperature and the other terms are higher order quantum corrections. At this
point, since the $\alpha _j$'s are completely undetermined, the expression in Eq. \eqref{corrected Hawking temperature}
does not have much physical content but is simply a parameterizing of the quantum corrections. However,
by requiring that the quantum corrected black hole entropy be well behaved in the limit
$M \rightarrow 0$, we will fix $\alpha _j$'s and show how this leads to conservation of information/entropy,
thus providing an answer to the black hole information loss puzzle.
Using Eq. \eqref{corrected Hawking temperature}, we can calculate the Bekenstein entropy to all orders
in $\hbar$. In particular, the Bekenstein entropy of black holes can be obtained by integrating the first law of thermodynamics,
$dM = T dS$ with the temperature $T$ given by Eq. \eqref{corrected Hawking temperature}, i.e. $S = \int \frac{dM}{T}$.
Integrating this over the mass, $M$, of the black hole (and recalling that $r_H = 2 M$) gives the modified entropy
as a function of $M$
\begin{equation}
\label{entropy-corrected}
S _{BH} (M) = \frac{4 \pi}{\hbar} M^2 + \pi \alpha _1 \ln \left( \frac{M^2}{\hbar} \right)
- \pi \sum _{j=1} ^\infty \frac{ \alpha_{j+1}}{4^j j} \left( \frac{\hbar}{M^2} \right) ^j.
\end{equation}
\par\noindent
To lowest order $S _0 (M) = \frac{4 \pi}{\hbar} M^2$ for which the limit
$M \rightarrow 0$ is well behaved, i.e. $S_0 (M \rightarrow 0) \rightarrow 0$, as expected
since as the mass vanishes so should the entropy.
On the other hand, for the first, logarithmic correction as well as the other higher
corrections, the quantum corrected entropy diverges. One way to fix these
logarithmic and power divergences in $S _{BH} (M)$ as $M \rightarrow 0$ is to postulate
that the Hawking radiation and resulting evaporation turn off when the black hole reaches some
small, ``remnant" mass $m_R$ \cite{remnant}. Here, we take a different path -- by assuming
that quantum corrected black hole entropy should not diverge in the $M \rightarrow 0$ limit
we will obtain a condition that fixes almost all the unknown $\alpha_j$'s. To accomplish this,
the third term in Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected} should sum up to a logarithm which can then be combined
with the second logarithmic term to give a non-divergent entropy, i.e. $S(M \rightarrow 0 ) \ne \pm \infty$.
This condition can be achieved by taking the $\alpha_j$'s as
\begin{equation}
\label{alpha}
\alpha _{j+1} = \alpha _1 (-4)^j ~~ \text{for} ~~ j=1,2,3... ~~.
\end{equation}
\par\noindent
This again shows self-similarity since all the $\alpha_j$'s are proportional to each other.
For this choice in Eq. \eqref{alpha}, the sum in Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected}, i.e. the third term,
becomes $+\alpha _1 \pi \ln (1 + \hbar/M^2)$. Combining this term with the second, logarithmic
quantum correction, the entropy takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{entropy-corrected2}
S _{BH} (M) = \frac{4 \pi}{\hbar} M^2 + \pi \alpha _1 \ln \left( 1 + \frac{M^2}{\hbar} \right)~.
\end{equation}
\par\noindent
As $M \rightarrow 0$, this ``all orders in $\hbar$" entropy tends to zero, i.e. $S _{BH} (M) \rightarrow 0$.
There is a subtle issue with identifying the sum in Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected}
with $\alpha _1 \pi \ln (1 + \hbar/ M^2)$ -- strictly this is only valid for $\sqrt{\hbar} < M$, i.e. when the
mass, $M$, is larger than the Planck mass. However, we can use analytic continuation to define the sum via
$\alpha _1 \pi \ln (1 + \hbar/M^2)$ even for $\sqrt{\hbar} > M$. This is analogous to the
trick in String Theory \cite{zwiebach} where the sum $\sum _{j=1} ^\infty j$ is defined as $\zeta (-1) = -\frac{1}{12}$
using analytic continuation of the zeta function, i.e. $\zeta (s) = \sum _{n=1} ^\infty n^{-s}$.
Other works \cite{beyond1} have investigated quantum corrections to the entropy beyond the classical level. These
expressions, in general, involve logarithmic and higher order divergences as $M \rightarrow 0$ as we also
find to be the case for our generic expression in Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected}. However, here,
as a result of our assumption of self-similarity of the $\hbar ^n$ corrections, we find an expression
for $S _{BH} (M)$ which has a well behaved $M \rightarrow 0$ limit.
This ``lucky" choice of $\alpha_j$'s in Eq. \eqref{alpha} which gave the all orders
in $\hbar$ expression for $S _{BH} (M)$ in Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected2} was motivated by
making the primary physical requirement that the entropy of the black hole be
well behaved and finite. Usually, the focus in black hole physics is to find some way to tame the
divergent Hawking temperature in the $M \rightarrow 0$ limit whereas here the primary physical
requirement has been on making sure that the entropy/information content of the black hole
is well behaved to all orders in $\hbar$.
The expression for $S _{BH} (M)$ still contains an arbitrary constant, namely $\alpha _1$, which is the first order
quantum correction. This first order correction has been calculated in some theories of quantum gravity.
For example, in Loop Quantum Gravity one finds that $\alpha _1 = - \frac{1}{2}$ \cite{meissner}. Once
$\alpha _1$ is known, our assumption of self-similarity and the requirement that information/entropy
be well behaved fixes the second and higher order quantum corrections.
One can ask how unique is the choice in Eq. \eqref{alpha}? Are there
other choices which would yield $S _{BH} (M=0) \rightarrow 0$? As far as we have been
able to determine, there are no other choices of $\alpha _j$'s that give $S (M=0) \rightarrow 0$,
{\it and} also conserves entropy/information as we will demonstrate in the next section.
However, we have not found a formal proof of the uniqueness of the choice of $\alpha _j$'s.
If one leaves $\alpha _1$ as a free parameter -- does not fix it to the Loop Quantum Gravity
value, i.e. $\alpha _1 = - \frac{1}{2}$ --, then there is an interesting dividing point in the behavior of
the entropy in Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected2} at $\alpha _1 = -4$. For $\alpha _1 \ge -4$, the entropy
in Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected2} goes to zero, i.e. $S_{BH} = 0$, only at $M = 0$. For $\alpha _1 < -4$, the entropy
in Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected2} goes to zero, i.e. $S_{BH} = 0$, at $M = 0$ and also at some other value $M=M^* >0$ where
$M^*$ satisfies the equation $\frac{4 \pi}{\hbar} (M^*)^2 + \pi \alpha _1 \ln \left( 1 + \frac{(M^*)^2}{\hbar} \right) = 0$. Thus,
depending on the first quantum correction $\alpha _1$ the black hole mass can vanish if $\alpha _1 \ge -4$,
or one can be left with a ``remnant" of mass $M^*$ if $\alpha _1 < -4$. It might appear that one could rule out this
last possibility since for $M^* >0$ the black hole would still have a non-zero temperature via Eq.
\eqref{corrected Hawking temperature} and, thus, the black hole should continue to lose mass via evaporation
leading to masses $M < M^*$ which would give $S<0$ for the case when $\alpha _1 < -4$. However,
if the Universe has a positive cosmological constant, i.e. space-time is de Sitter, then the Universe will be
in a thermal state at the Hawking-Gibbons temperature, i.e. $T_{GH} = \frac{\hbar \sqrt{\Lambda}}{2 \pi}$ \cite{gibbons}
where $\Lambda >0$ is the cosmological constant. Thus, if the quantum corrected black hole temperature from
Eq. \eqref{corrected Hawking temperature} becomes equal to $T_{GH}$ the evaporation process can stop at this
finite temperature and still consistently have $S=0$. This situation would give some interesting and non-trivial
connection between the Universal parameter $\Lambda$ and the final fate of every black hole (in the case
when $\alpha _1 < -4$).\\
\section{Conservation of energy, entropy/information and solution to the information loss puzzle}
\par\noindent
We now want to show that the initial (quantum corrected) entropy of the
black hole given in Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected2} can be exactly
accounted for by the entropy of the emitted radiation so that entropy/information, i.e. ``bits", is
conserved. The fact that this happens depends crucially on the specific, logarithmic form of the
quantum corrected entropy in Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected2}. This, retrospectively, puts
an additional constraint on the $\alpha _j$'s from Eq. \eqref{alpha} -- other choices of $\alpha_j$'s
would not in general lead to both a well behaved $S$ in the $M \rightarrow 0$ limit {\it and}
to entropy/information conservation. As we will see, this conservation of information/entropy is connected with the
conservation of energy.
To start our analysis, we note that in the picture of Hawking radiation as
a tunneling phenomenon the tunneling rate, i.e. $\Gamma$, and the change in entropy are related by \cite{wilczek}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{entropy change2}
\Gamma =e^{\Delta S _{BH}} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
\par\noindent
When the black hole of mass $M$ emits a quanta of energy $\omega$ energy conservation tells us that
the mass of the black hole is reduced to $M -\omega$. Connected with this, the entropy of the
black hole will change according to $\Delta S _{BH}=S _{BH} (M-\omega)-S _{BH} (M)$ \cite{parikh, vagenas}.
Using Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected2} for the quantum corrected entropy, one obtains for the change in entropy
\begin{equation}
\label{DeltaS}
\Delta S _{BH} =-\frac{8\pi}{\hbar}\omega \left( M-\frac{\omega}{2} \right)
+ \pi\alpha_1 \ln \left[ \frac{\hbar + (M-\omega)^2}{\hbar + M ^2} \right].
\end{equation}
\par\noindent
Combining Eqs. \eqref{entropy change2} and \eqref{DeltaS}, the corrected tunneling rate takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{tunneling}
\Gamma (M; \omega)= \left( \frac{\hbar + (M-\omega)^2}{\hbar + M ^2}\right)^{\pi\alpha_1}\exp{\left[-\frac{8\pi}{\hbar}\omega
\left(M-\frac{\omega}{2} \right) \right]} .
\end{eqnarray}
\par\noindent
The term $\exp{\left[-\frac{8\pi}{\hbar}\omega \left(M-\frac{\omega}{2} \right) \right]}$
represents the result of energy conservation and back reaction on the tunneling rate \cite{parikh, vagenas};
the term to the power $\pi \alpha_1$ represents the quantum corrections to all orders in $\hbar$.
This result of being able to write the tunneling rate as the product of these two effects, namely
back reaction and quantum corrections, depended crucially on the specific form of $S _{BH} (M)$ and $\Delta S _{BH}$ from
Eqs. \eqref{entropy-corrected2} and \eqref{DeltaS}, respectively, which in turn was crucially tied
to our specific choice of $\alpha_j$'s in Eq. \eqref{alpha}. Note that even in the classical limit, where
one ignores the quantum corrections by setting $\pi \alpha_1 =0$, there is a deviation from a thermal spectrum
due to the $\omega ^2$ term in the exponent in Eq. \eqref{tunneling}.
We now find the connection between the tunneling rate given by Eq. \eqref{tunneling} and the entropy of
the emitted radiation, i.e. $S_{rad}$. Assuming that the black hole mass is completely radiated away,
we have the relationship $M=\omega_1 + \omega_2 +...+ \omega _n = \sum _{j=1} ^n \omega _j$ between the mass of the black hole
and the sum of the energies, i.e. $\omega_j$, of the emitted field quanta. The probability for this radiation to occur is
given by the following product of $\Gamma$'s \cite{information} which is defined in Eq. \eqref{tunneling}
\begin{equation}
\label{probability}
P _{rad} = \Gamma (M; \omega_1) \times \Gamma (M-\omega_1 ; \omega _2) \times ... \times
\Gamma \left( M- \sum _{j=1} ^{n-1} \omega _j ; \omega _n \right)~.
\end{equation}
\par\noindent
The probability of emission of the individual field quanta of energy $\omega _j$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{probability2}
\Gamma (M; \omega_1) &=&
\left( \frac{\hbar + (M-\omega_1)^2}{\hbar+ M ^2}\right)^{\pi\alpha_1}\exp{\left[-\frac{8\pi}{\hbar}\omega_1
\left(M-\frac{\omega_1}{2} \right) \right]} ~, \nonumber \\
\Gamma (M-\omega_1; \omega_2) &=& \left( \frac{\hbar + (M-\omega_1 -\omega_2)^2 }{\hbar + (M-\omega_1) ^2}\right)^{\pi\alpha_1}
\exp{\left[-\frac{8\pi}{\hbar}\omega_2 \left(M -\omega_1 - \frac{\omega_2}{2} \right) \right]} ~, \nonumber \\
&\,& \nonumber \\
&&..... ~, \\
&\,& \nonumber \\
\Gamma \left( M- \sum _{j=1} ^ {n-1} \omega_j; \omega_n \right) &=&
\left( \frac{\hbar + (M- \sum _{j=1} ^ {n-1} \omega_j -\omega_n)^2}{\hbar + (M-\sum _{j=1} ^ {n-1} \omega_j ) ^2
}\right)^{\pi\alpha_1}
\exp{\left[-\frac{8\pi}{\hbar}\omega_n \left(M - \sum _{j=1} ^ {n-1} \omega_j - \frac{\omega_n}{2} \right) \right]} \nonumber \\
&=& \left( \frac{\hbar}{\hbar + (M-\sum _{j=1} ^ {n-1} \omega_j ) ^2 }\right)^{\pi\alpha_1} \exp( -4 \pi \omega _n ^2 / \hbar) ~.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\par\noindent
The $\Gamma$'s of the form $\Gamma (M-\omega_1 -\omega_2-...-\omega_{j-1} ; \omega_j)$ represent the probability for the
emission of a field quantum of energy $\omega _j$ with the condition that first the field quanta of energy
$\omega_1 + \omega_2+...+\omega_{j-1}$ have been emitted in sequential order.
Using Eq. \eqref{probability2} in Eq. \eqref{probability}, we find the total probability for the
sequential radiation process described above
\begin{equation}
\label{probability3}
P_{rad} = \left( \frac{\hbar}{\hbar+ M ^2}\right)^{\pi\alpha_1} \exp( - 4\pi M ^2 / \hbar) ~.
\end{equation}
\par\noindent
The black hole mass could also have been radiated away by a different sequence of field quanta energies, e.g.
$\omega_2 +\omega_1+...+\omega_{n-1} + \omega_n$.
Assuming each of these different processes has the same probability, one can count the number of
microstates, i.e. $\Omega$, for the above process as $\Omega = 1/P_{rad}$. Then, using the
Boltzmann definition of entropy as the natural logarithm of the number of microstates, one gets for the
entropy of the emitted radiation
\begin{equation}
\label{rad-entropy}
S_{rad} = \ln (\Omega ) = \ln \left( \frac{1}{P_{rad}} \right) =
\frac{4 \pi}{\hbar} M^2 + \pi \alpha _1 \ln \left( 1 + \frac{M^2}{\hbar} \right) ~.
\end{equation}
\par\noindent
This entropy of the emitted radiation is identical to the original entropy of the
black hole (see Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected2}), thus entropy/information/``bits" are conserved
between the initial (black hole plus no radiation) and final (no black hole plus radiated field quanta) states.
This implies the same number of microstates between the initial and final states and, thus, unitary evolution.
This then provides a possible resolution of the information paradox when the specific conditions are imposed.
The above arguments work even in the case where one ignores the quantum corrections \cite{information},
i.e. if one lets $\alpha _1 =0$. While interesting, we are not sure how significant this is since almost
certainly quantum corrections will become important as the black mass and entropy go to zero.
In this essay, we have examined the interrelationship of ``bits" (information/entropy) and ``its" (physical
objects/systems) in the context of black hole information. By requiring that the higher order quantum corrections
given in Eq. \eqref{expansion of the action} be self-similar in the sense $I_j (r,t) \propto I_0$, and that the
associated entropy/information of the black hole as given in Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected} be well behaved in the
limit when the black hole mass goes to zero, we were able to relate all the higher order quantum corrections
as parameterized by the $\alpha_j$'s in terms of the first quantum correction $\alpha _1$. This proportionality
of all $\alpha _j$'s is another level of self-similarity. The final
expression for this quantum corrected entropy, namely Eq. \eqref{entropy-corrected2}, when combined with energy conservation
and the tunneling picture of black hole radiation allow us to show how the original ``bits" of black hole
information encoded in the horizon were transformed into the ``its" of the outgoing correlated Hawking photons,
thus providing a potential all orders in $\hbar$ solution to the black hole information loss puzzle.
Finally, as a last comment, it should be stressed that the assumption that the higher order corrections are self-similar
in the sense given in Eq. (5) (where we take $I_j \propto I_0$) and in Eq. (9) (where we take
$\alpha _{j+1} \propto \alpha _1$) is not at all what one would expect of the quantum corrections in the canonical
approach to quantum gravity where the quantum corrections would in general generate any possible terms consistent
with diffeomorphism-invariance. However, this is the problematic aspect of the canonical approach to quantum gravity
and, thus, it is worth looking into radical suggestions such as the one proposed here, i.e. that the higher order quantum corrections
are greatly simplified by the assumption of self-similarity. This simplification might be seen as an extreme form
of the holographic principle of quantum gravity as expounded in [1]. In this monograph, it is pointed out that the
entropy of a black hole scales with the area of the horizon while for a normal quantum field theory the entropy
will scale as the volume. The conclusion of this observation is that ``there are vastly fewer degrees of freedom
in quantum gravity than in any QFT" (see chapter 11 of [1]). This assumption of self-similarity
of the quantum corrections is in the vein of the holographic principle, since making the assumption of
self-similarity means there are vastly fewer types/forms that the quantum corrections can take as
compared to canonical quantum gravity.\\
{\par\noindent {\bf Acknowledgments:}}
There are two works -- one on self-similarity
\cite{piero} and one on the peculiar relationship between long distance/IR scales and
short distance/UV scales in quantum gravity \cite{euro} -- which helped inspire parts of this work.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
The blue compact dwarf (BCD) galaxy Mrk 996 ($M_{B}$ = $-$16.9) is a
very unusual galaxy. It stands out from its counterparts because of
its extremely large nuclear electron density, of the order of 10$^6$
cm$^{-3}$ instead of the usual several 100 cm$^{-3}$ for H~{\sc ii}
regions. Much work has been done to study the unusual physical
properties of Mrk 996. {\sl Hubble Space Telescope} ({\sl HST}) $V$
and $I$ images by \citet{T96} show that the bulk of the star formation
occurs in a compact, roughly circular, high surface brightness nuclear
region of radius ~340 pc, with evident dust patches to the north of
it. The nucleus (n) is located within an elliptical (E) low surface
brightness (LSB) component, so that Mrk 996 belongs to the relatively
rare class of nE BCDs \citep{LT85}. It may also be classified as a
Type I H~{\sc ii} galaxy according to \cite{tel97}. \citet{T96} found
the extended envelope to show a distinct asymmetry. The envelope is more
extended to the northeast side than to the southwest side, perhaps the
sign of a past merger. This asymmetry is also seen in the spatial
distribution of the globular clusters around Mrk 996, seen
mainly to the south of the galaxy. The extended LSB component
possesses an exponential disc structure with a small scale length of
0.42 kpc. While Mrk 996 does not show an obvious spiral structure in
the disc, there is a spiral-like pattern in the nuclear star-forming
region, which is no larger than 160 pc in radius. This galaxy has a
heliocentric radial velocity of 1622 km s$^{-1}$ \citep{T99}, which
gives it a distance of 21.7 Mpc, adopting a Hubble constant of 75 km
s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and including a very small correction for the
Virgocentric flow. Table~\ref{galinfo} summarizes the basic
information on Mrk 996. At the adopted distance, 1\arcsec\ corresponds
to a linear size of 105 pc.
The UV and optical spectra of the nuclear star-forming region of Mrk
996 \citep{T96} show remarkable features, suggesting very unusual
physical conditions. The He {\sc i} line intensities are 2-4 times
larger than those in normal BCDs. In the UV range, the N {\sc iii}]
$\lambda$ 1750 and C {\sc iii}] $\lambda$ 1909 are particularly
intense. Moreover, the line width depends on the degree of
ionization of the ion. Thus, low-ionization forbidden emission
lines such as [O {\sc ii}] $\lambda$3726,3729, [S {\sc ii}]
$\lambda$6717, 6731, and [N {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6548, 6584 have
narrow widths, similar to those in other H~{\sc ii} regions, while
high-ionization emission lines such as the helium lines, the [O
{\sc iii}] $\lambda$4959, 5007, and [Ne {\sc iii}] $\lambda$3868
nebular lines consist of narrow and broad components, and all
auroral lines such as [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363, [N {\sc ii}]
$\lambda$5755, and [S {\sc iii}] $\lambda$6312 are broad with line
widths of $\geq$ 500 km s$^{-1}$. These correlations of line
widths with the degree of excitation suggest different ionization
zones with very distinct kinematic properties. \citet{T96} found
that the usual one-zone, low-density, ionization-bounded H~{\sc
ii} region model cannot be applied to the nuclear star-forming
region of Mrk 996 without leading to unrealistic helium and
heavy-element abundances. Instead, they showed that a two-zone,
density-bounded H~{\sc ii} region model that includes an inner
compact region with a central density of ~10$^6$ cm$^{-3}$ (about
4 orders of magnitude greater than the densities of normal H~{\sc
ii} regions) together with an outer region with a lower density
of $\sim$ 450 cm$^{-3}$ (comparable to those of other H~{\sc ii}
regions), is needed to account for the observed line
intensities. The large density gradient is probably caused by a
mass outflow driven by the large population of Wolf-Rayet stars
present in the galaxy. The gas outflow motions may account for the
line widths of the high-ionization lines originating in the dense
inner region being much broader than the low-ionization lines
originating in the less dense outer region. The high intensities
of [N {\sc iii}] $\lambda$1750, [C {\sc iii}] $\lambda$1909, and
He {\sc i} can be understood by collisional excitation of these
lines in the high-density region. In the context of this model,
the oxygen abundance of Mrk 996 is 12+ log O/H =8.0. If we adopt
12+ log O/H = 8.70 for the Sun \citep{A09}, then Mrk 996 has a
heavy element mass fraction of 0.2 solar. The 2-zone CLOUDY models
with element abundance ratios typical of low-metallicity BCDs
reproduce well the observed line intensities, except for
nitrogen. With an enhancement factor of $\sim$5 or greater, the
nitrogen line intensities can be reproduced. \citet{T96} attribute
this nitrogen enhancement to local pollution from Wolf-Rayet
stars.
\citet{T08} have used the {\it Spitzer} satellite to study Mrk 996 in
the mid-infrared (MIR). They also found that a CLOUDY model that
accounts for both the optical and MIR lines requires that they
originate in two distinct H~{\sc ii} regions: a very dense H~{\sc ii}
region where most of the optical lines arise, with densities declining
from ~10$^6$ cm$^{-3}$ at the center to a few hundred cm$^{-3}$ at the
outer radius of $\sim$ 580 pc, and a H~{\sc ii} region with a density
of $\sim$ 300 cm$^{-3}$ that is hidden in the optical, but seen in the
MIR. The infrared lines arise mainly in the optically obscured H~{\sc
ii} region, while they are strongly suppressed by collisional
deexcitation in the optically visible one. The presence of the [O {\sc
iv}] 25.89 $\mu$m emission line implies the presence of ionizing
radiation as hard as 54.9 eV. This hard ionizing radiation is most
likely due to fast radiative shocks propagating in a dense
interstellar medium.
Because of the presence in it of distinct ionization zones with
different electron densities and kinematic properties, a very dense
nuclear high-ionization zone with broad emission lines and a less
dense low-ionization zone with narrow emission lines in the
circumnuclear region, Mrk 996 is a prime target for observation with
the Gemini Multi-object Spectrograph. This allows us to carry out a
two-dimensional (2D) study of the kinematics and ionization structure of
Mrk 996 with exquisite spatial and spectral resolution. In the same
spirit, \citet{J09} have also recently carried a 2D study of Mrk 996
with the VLT VIMOS integral field unit, although with less spatial and
spectral resolution. Those authors found that most of the
emission lines of Mrk 996 show two components: a narrow central
Gaussian with a full width at half-maximum FWHM$\sim$110 km s$^{-1}$
superposed on a broad component with FWHM$\sim$400 km s$^{-1}$. The
[OIII] $\lambda$4363 and [NII] $\lambda$5755 lines show only a broad
component and are detected only in the inner region. The broad line
region shows N/H and N/O enhanced by a factor of $\sim$20, while the
abundances of the other elements are normal. An oxygen abundance of
12+log(O/H)=8.37, greater than 0.5 that of the Sun, and a very large
Wolf-Rayet ($\sim$ 3000) and O star ($\sim$ 150 000) population were
derived. A follow-up Chandra study to explore the presence of an
intermediate-mass black hole in the heart of Mrk 996 which may
account for the presence of the [O {\sc iv}] 25.89 $\mu$m line was
undertaken by \citet{G11}. No Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) were found.
We discuss the observations and the data reduction in
Sect.~\ref{data}. The integrated spectrum is considered in
Sect.~\ref{sec:integrated}. We discuss here the systems of emission
lines with different kinematics, the collisional excitation of
hydrogen and helium lines, and the Wolf-Rayet stellar population. The
2D kinematics data are presented in Sect.~\ref{sec:kin} in the form of
velocity and velocity dispersion maps. In Sect.~\ref{sec:den} we
present a technique to delimit the spatial extent of the high electron
density region. In Sect.~\ref{PCA results} we apply a recently
developed method for exploiting data cubes and extracting uncorrelated
physical information, called Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
tomography. The 2D description of the physical conditions is presented
in Sect.~\ref{results} through extinction, electron temperature and
density, excitation, and Wolf-Rayet feature maps. We summarize our
conclusions in Sect.~\ref{conclusions}.
\begin{table}
\caption{Basic data on Mrk 996}
\label{galinfo}
\begin{tabular}{l c}
\hline\hline
Parameter & Value \\
\hline
$\alpha$(J2000)& 01$^{\rm h}$27$^{\rm m}$35\fs5\\
$\delta$(J2000)&$-$06\degr19\arcmin36\arcsec \\
Heliocentric velocity [\thinspace\hbox{$\hbox{km}\thinspace\hbox{s}^{-1}$}]&1622\\
$z$&0.0054\\
Distance [Mpc]&21.7\\
$C$(H$\beta$)&0.53\tablefootmark{a}\\
$E(B-V)$$_{Gal}$ &0.044\\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\
\tablefoottext{a}{logarithmic reddening parameter from the
0.86\arcsec\ aperture {\sl HST} spectrum of \citet{T96}.}
\end{table}
\section{Observations and data reduction}\label{data}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=0.]{fig1a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=0.]{fig1b.eps}
\caption{ The GMOS 3\farcs5$\times$5\arcsec\ field of view
superimposed on the inner 20\arcsec\ of the {\sl HST}/F569W image of
Mrk 996 from \cite{T96} The scale and orientation are given. {\bf
Left:} Linear contrast. {\bf Right:} Logarithmic contrast to
emphasize the compact nucleus. The central circle corresponds to
the nuclear aperture of 1\farcs6 in diameter used in this work.}
\label{hst}
\end{figure*}
The observations were obtained with the Gemini Multi-Object
Spectrograph (GMOS) \citep{Hook04} and the Integral Field Unit
(IFU) \citep[][hereafter GMOS/IFU]{Allington02} at the Gemini South
Telescope in Chile. They were made during the nights of October
20, 2008, using the grating B1200$+\_$G5321 (B1200) covering the
wavelength region from 3667\AA\ to 5142\AA\ with a spectral
resolution of 0.24\AA, and of November 6, 2008, using the grating
R831$+\_$G5322 (R831) with a spectral resolution of 0.34\AA,
covering the wavelength region from 5095\AA\ to 7223\AA, with an
overlap of $\sim$50\AA\ between the red and blue spectral ranges,
in the one-slit mode. The GMOS/IFU in this mode composes a
pattern of 750 hexagonal elements, each with a projected diameter
of 0\farcs2, covering a total 3\farcs5 $\times$5\arcsec\ field of
view, where 250 of these elements are dedicated to sky
observation. The detector is made up of three 2048$\times$4608 CCDs
with 13.5 $\mu$m pixels, with a scale of 0\farcs073
pixel$^{-1}$. The CCDs create a mosaic of 6144$\times$4608 pixels
with a small gap of 37 columns between the chips. Figure~\ref{hst}
shows the inner 20\arcsec\ of the {\sl HST} Wide Field Camera F569W
filter image of Mrk 996 from \cite{T96} with the location of our
GMOS field of view superimposed on it, with a linear contrast
(left) and with a logarithmic stretch (right) to emphasize the
compact nuclear region.
Table~\ref{obslog} shows the observing log which gives the
instrumental setup, the mean airmass and exposure times, the
dispersion, the final instrumental resolution
($\sigma_{inst}$=$FWHM_{inst}$/2.355), and the seeing ($FWHM$) of
each observation. The data were reduced using the Gemini package
version 1.8 inside IRAF\footnote[1]{IRAF is distributed by NOAO,
which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research
in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National
Science Foundation.}. All science exposures, comparison lamps,
spectroscopic twilight, and GCAL flats were overscan/bias
subtracted and trimmed. The spectroscopic GCAL flats were processed
by removing the calibration unit with GMOS spectral response and
the uneven illumination of the calibration unit. Twilight flats
were used to correct for the illumination pattern in the GCAL lamp
flat using the task {\it gfresponse} in the GMOS package. The
twilight spectra were divided by the response map obtained from the
lamp flats and the resulting spectra were averaged in the
dispersion direction, giving the ratio of sky to lamp response for
each fiber. The final response maps were then obtained by
multiplying the GCAL lamp flat by the derived ratio. The resulting
extracted spectra were then wavelength calibrated, corrected by the
relative fiber throughputs, and extracted. The residual values in
the wavelength solution for 40 and 60 points, using a Chebyshev
polynomial of the fourth or fifth order, typically yielded
\textit{rms} values of $\sim$0.08\AA\ and $\sim$0.07\AA\ for the
red and blue gratings, respectively. The final spectra cover
wavelength intervals of $\sim$3667--5142\AA\ and
$\sim$5095--7223\AA\ for data taken with the B1200 and R813
gratings, respectively.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Observational setup}
\label{obslog}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline\hline
Observation & Grating & Central Wavelength& Airmass & Exposure Time&
Dispersion& $\sigma_{inst}$& Seeing \\
date& & [\AA]& & [seconds]& [\AA/pixel]& [\thinspace\hbox{$\hbox{km}\thinspace\hbox{s}^{-1}$}]&
[\arcsec]\\
(1)& (2)& (3)& (4)& (5)& (6)& (7)& (8) \\
\hline
2008 Oct 20 &B1200 & 4420 & 1.64 & 3$\times$1200 & 0.23 & 21.1 & 0.5\\
2008 Nov 6 &R831 & 6160 & 1.22 & 3$\times$900 & 0.34 & 22.8 & 0.8\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
The flux calibration was performed using the sensitivity function
derived from observations of the star Feige 110 and LTT1020 for both
gratings. The 2D data images were transformed into a 3D data cube
($x,y,\lambda$), re-sampled as square pixels with 0\farcs1 spatial
resolution and corrected for differential atmospheric refraction (DAR)
using the \textit{gfcube} routine\footnote[2]{The DAR is estimated
using the atmospheric model from SLALIB.}. The three cubes with different
exposures were combined to produce a single data cube for each
grating. The flux maps on selected emission lines, radial velocity, and
velocity dispersion maps, as well as 1D spectra of various apertures,
were created by an extensive use of QFitsview, developed by Thomas
Ott\footnote[3]{ http://www.mpe.mpg.de/$\sim$ott/QFitsView/}.
Both reduced and calibrated data cubes have been made publicly available
\footnote[4]{
available in electronic form
at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5)
or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/A+A/}.
\section{Integrated spectrum}\label{sec:integrated}
\subsection{Selecting our extraction apertures}
We have simulated apertures for the extraction of the integrated
spectrum in order to compare our results with those of the similar IFU
VIMOS work of \citet{J09}, as well as those of the HST work of
\citet{T96} on the nuclear spectral properties of this peculiar
galaxy. \citet{J09} used a $1.7 \times 2.3$\arcsec$^2$ aperture for
the core region and a $5.3 \times 6.3$\arcsec$^2$ aperture for the
outer part outside the core, and \citet{T96} obtained a nuclear
spectrum with a 0\farcs86 circular aperture with HST. The results of
this simulated aperture analysis indicates that the VIMOS data of
\citet{J09} show similar line ratios for both the narrow and broad
components for most lines, but the absolute fluxes are a factor of 4-5
higher than our data for the nuclear aperture. A direct comparison
with the outer region was not possible because our field of view ($3.5
\times 5.0$ \arcsec$^2$) is slightly smaller than that of VIMOS. On
the other hand, our HST simulated aperture fluxes and flux ratios give
a good match to those of the HST spectrum of \citet{T96}. Because of
the flux discrepancy with the VIMOS data, we have re-reduced the whole
data set using the more recent software that was developed by one of
us (ERC, responsible for GMOS). We have thus double-checked our
measurements by a new and independent data reduction, and confirmed
our calibration.
Having established the accuracy of our data reduction, by both
internal and external checks, we decided to present the results for
the integrated spectrum using a circular aperture of 1\farcs6 in
diameter, representative of the nuclear region of Mrk 996. This
aperture size is consistent with the full width at zero intensity
(FWZI) of the point spread function (PSF) of our calibration star,
using the same instrument and setup on the same night. The second
aperture used in this work contains the outer region, consisting of
the spaxels within our field of view, but not considering the inner
1\farcs3 radius (5 pixels from the nucleus aperture). Although both
apertures used in the present work (the nuclear and the outer
regions) are similar to those used by \citet{J09}, ours encompass
smaller areas than theirs.
\subsection{Systems of emission lines with different kinematics}\label{sec:sys}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Integrated GMOS spectrum of the nucleus of Mrk 996 within a 1\farcs6
circular aperture for the whole observed spectral range.
\label{specfull}}
\end{figure*}
In Fig.~\ref{specfull}, we show the integrated nuclear spectrum of Mrk
996 over the entire spectral range covered by the two gratings,
within a 1\farcs6 circular aperture centered on the nucleus. While this
aperture is very similar to the core region aperture
of \cite{J09}, as mentioned above, it is not identical.
This spectrum has a higher spectral resolution (a factor of $\sim$10 in
the blue and of $\sim$4 in the red) and a considerably higher
signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) than the spectrum of \citet{J09}. It also
covers a larger wavelength range. The spectrum has not been
smoothed. The continuum levels of the blue and red parts of the
integrated spectrum in the overlapping region at $\sim$ 5100\AA\ match
well although the two data cubes were taken on different nights. This,
again, confirms our data reduction and
calibration. We note that in the bluest part, for $\lambda$ $<$
4000\AA, the continuum is not monotonically increasing to the blue,
implying a poorer calibration due to the known low sensitivity of GMOS
in that wavelength region. However, the remaining continuum is
monotonically increasing from the red to the blue, in agreement with
the spectrum of \citet{T96}. By comparison, the continuum in the red
part of the \citet{J09} spectrum is nearly flat, probably indicating
the contribution of the more spatially extended red old stellar
population, due to the use of a considerably larger aperture
(5\farcs3 by 6\farcs3).
The high spectral resolution of the GMOS/IFU observations allows us to
resolve the [O {\sc ii}] $\lambda$3726, 3729 doublet lines. The
hydrogen Balmer lines all show a narrow and a broad component. The
total flux in the broad component of H$\alpha$ is comparable to the
total flux in its narrow component. The He {\sc i} lines
($\lambda$4471, $\lambda$5876, $\lambda$6678, $\lambda$7065) are
clearly broadened. The broad component is dominant in the [O {\sc
iii}] $\lambda$4363, [N {\sc ii}] $\lambda$5755, and [S {\sc iii}]
$\lambda$6312 auroral lines,
while the low-ionization species [S {\sc ii}]$\lambda\lambda$
6717,6731, [O {\sc ii}]$\lambda\lambda$ 3726,3729, [N {\sc ii}]
$\lambda\lambda$ 6548,6584, and [O {\sc i}]$\lambda\lambda$ 6300,6363
lines are all narrow, with no broad component. These general trends
agree with those discussed by \cite{T96} and \cite{J09}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig3.eps}
\caption{Example of the deblend fitting procedure with the H$\alpha$
line. Upper panel: The integrated profile of the H$\alpha$ line as
in Figure~\ref{specfull} (black solid line). The red-dotted line shows the
resulting fit to the broad component. The blue-dashed line shows the
resulting fit to the narrow component. The integrated fluxes in the
broad and narrow components in Table~\ref{tabint} are derived in
this manner. Lower panel: residuals to the fit.}
\label{halphafit}
\end{figure}
Thanks to the high spectral resolution of our data, the narrow and
broad components of emission lines are well separated. Therefore,
using the IRAF \textit{splot} routine we first fit the narrow
component by a single Gaussian and subtract it from the line
profile. Then we fit the broad component again by a single Gaussian.
Additionally, very broad low-intensity H$\alpha$ emission is present
with a FWZI of $\sim$100\AA, suggesting
rapid outflow with a velocity of several thousand km s$^{-1}$. This
low-intensity H$\alpha$ emission was not discussed by \citet{J09},
probably because of the lower S/N of their spectrum. In principle, a
multi-Gaussian fitting to emission line profiles should have been
used, including more than two components for each line. However, this
approach is subjective when more Gaussians are used
for profile-fitting, the fit is better, without necessarily
reflecting the real physical situation.
Additionally, this procedure significantly complicates studies of the
kinematic structure. Therefore, we have decided to fit line profiles
in the simplest way, each of their narrow and broad components being
fitted by a single Gaussian. Fig.~\ref{halphafit} shows an example of
our deblend fits for deriving our fluxes in our line-fitting
procedure. The lower panel shows the residuals of the fit. It can be
seen that the broad component is flat on top, rather than being a
perfect Gaussian. For the purpose here the measured fluxes are little
affected by this deviation. We show in Table \ref{tabint} the results
of the line-fitting for the integrated nucleus spectrum within the
1\farcs6 circular aperture . In this table, $\lambda_0$ is the
rest-frame wavelength and $N_e$(crit) is the critical density of the
forbidden line. The flux is in units of
100$\times$$F_{nar}$/$F_{nar}$(H$\beta$) for the narrow component and
of 100$\times$$F_{br}$/$F_{br}$(H$\beta$) for the broad component;
$v(rad)$ is the radial velocity in km s$^{-1}$, and $FWHM$ is the line
full width at half maximum in km s$^{-1}$. Errors in radial velocities
are negligible and are not quoted. All measurements were performed by
hand with the task {\it splot} within IRAF, and also by running
non-interactively the profile fitting task {\it fitprofs}, providing
initial guesses for positions and widths of the lines. The results of
these non-interactive fits are, in most cases, identical to our
measurements with {\it splot}. The advantage is that {\it fitprofs}
computes error estimates for the fitted parameters by using a Monte
Carlo technique that automatically takes into account the properties
of our data. The details of this technique is given in the {\it
fitprofs} help pages. We have chosen a large
number of iterations for better error estimates. These are the errors
quoted in Table~\ref{tabint}. The errors introduced by flat-fielding
the data is $<$ 1\%. A larger error of 3-4\% is introduced when
the correction by the relative fiber throughputs is performed
(response map). This will result in a 4-5\% total error, to be
added in quadrature to the listed errors in Table~\ref{tabint}.
\input{tab3.tex}
Since the critical densities for collisional deexcitation differ
according to the line (Table \ref{tabint}), different forbidden lines
trace distinct zones of the H~{\sc ii} region in Mrk
996. Additionally, ionization structure plays a role. Emission lines
of higher ionization species, [O {\sc iii}] for example, originate in
the inner part of the H~{\sc ii} region, while the emission of lower
ionization species, [O {\sc i}] for example, is produced in the outer part.
As for permitted lines of hydrogen and helium, they trace both the
inner and outer parts of the H~{\sc ii} region. Again, broad-line
emission emerges in the inner part while narrow-line emission traces
its outer part. Narrow-lines are also seen in the
direction of the galaxy center because all lines of sight to the
central part have to go through the outer part of the galaxy. The
very high electron number density in the center of Mrk 996 is implied
by the extremely high broad [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363/$\lambda$5007
flux ratio of $\sim$ 25\% (Table \ref{tabint}), while typical values
in high-excitation H~{\sc ii} regions are only 1 -- 3\%. Such a high
[O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363/$\lambda$5007 flux ratio for the broad
component in Mrk 996 occurs because the [O {\sc iii}]
$\lambda$5007 emission line is suppressed by collisional deexcitation,
while the [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363 emission line is not.
Based on their radial velocities and $FWHM$s (Table \ref{tabint}), we
can identify four kinematically distinct systems of lines, in order of
increasing distance from the center and decreasing line widths. Since
the density in the inner part of the central H~{\sc ii} region in Mrk
996 is very high, it probably cannot be resolved because of its small
linear extent. Given a constant H$\beta$ luminosity, the
radius of the emitting region scales as $\sim$
$N_e$$^{-2/3}$. Therefore, a region with an electron number density of
$\sim$ 10$^{6}$ cm$^{-3}$ will have a radius $\sim$ 500 times lower
than a region with an electron number density of $\sim$ 10$^{2}$
cm$^{-3}$ and a similar H$\beta$ luminosity. However, spectral
information presents an advantage in that it allows the physical
conditions to be traced even in unresolved regions. This is analogous to the
studies of broad and narrow line regions in the spectra of distant AGN
and QSOs.
The densest part of the H~{\sc ii} region appears to be located around
the central ionizing stellar cluster. The first system of lines is
related to the Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars in this cluster. This system is
composed of the broad permitted N {\sc iii} 4640 and He {\sc ii} 4686
lines (the blue bump) and of the C {\sc iv} 5801 permitted line (the
red bump). These WR lines have $FWHM$ $\sim$ 1300 - 2000 km s$^{-1}$
and they are blue-shifted by $\sim$ 100 - 200 km s$^{-1}$ with respect
to the narrow component of the H$\beta$ emission line. These are
produced in the dense stellar winds of WR stars.
The second system of lines probes the innermost zone of the dense
H~{\sc ii} region. It consists of a single forbidden [O {\sc iii}]
$\lambda$4363 emission line with a critical density of 2.6 $\times$
10$^7$ cm$^{-3}$, the highest among all forbidden lines shown in Table
\ref{tabint}. It has a $FWHM$ of $\sim$ 470 km s$^{-1}$ and is
blue-shifted by 60 km s$^{-1}$ relative to the narrow H$\beta$
emission line. The line profile of $\lambda$4363 is not smooth and
seems to be complex. This possibly indicates multiplicity, although
we cannot convincingly investigate this issue further
without deciding arbitrarily on the number of line components present.
In any case, a very weak peak is seen on the top of the line profile
which coincides with the systemic velocity as given by the narrow
component of H$\beta$, and may be real. This may be the narrow
component seen in the regions outside the nucleus and is discussed
below. Its existence will be confirmed independently by other
techniques in Sect.~\ref{sec:ON}.
The third system of lines consists of broad components of permitted
hydrogen and helium emission lines, of forbidden emission lines of
doubly ionized ions and of the auroral [N {\sc ii}] $\lambda$5755
emission line (but excluding the [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363 and [Cl
{\sc iii}] $\lambda$5717, 5737 emission lines). These lines are
blue-shifted by 20 -- 30 km s$^{-1}$ relative to the narrow
H$\beta$ emission line and have $FWHM$s of 450 -- 500 km s$^{-1}$,
similar to the $FWHM$ of the [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363 emission
line. This lower blueshift indicates that the third line system
originates in regions farther away from the center than does the
second line system.
Finally, the fourth system consists only of lines with narrow components
($FWHM$ $\sim$ 100 km s$^{-1}$). These are all narrow lines
and narrow components of emission lines with composite profiles.
Their radial velocities are, within the errors, the same as that
of the narrow H$\beta$ emission line.
A global picture consistent with the observed
properties of the above four line systems would be the following. The
first system of lines arises in the dense circumstellar envelopes of
Wolf-Rayet stars. All other line systems originate in the H~{\sc ii}
region around the ionizing stellar cluster. The second and third
systems of lines are formed as a result of the outflow of ionized
interstellar medium from the central part of the galaxy, and are due to
stellar winds from the WR stars. Finally, the fourth system of lines
arises in the outer less dense part of the H~{\sc ii} region that is
not perturbed by the ionized gas outflow. We have been able to
spatially identify this fourth system in the lines of sight away from
the nucleus and extract the outer region spectrum from which a more
precise determination of the HII region abundances could be derived.
These results are presented below.
\subsection{Collisional excitation of hydrogen and helium lines}\label{sec:col}
In general, the electron number density of H~{\sc ii} regions in
star-forming galaxies is low, $\sim$ 100 cm$^{-2}$. At these
densities, the deviations of hydrogen and He {\sc i} line intensities
from their recombination values are expected to be small. Then,
deviations of the hydrogen emission line intensity ratios from their
theoretical values are attributed to extinction. However, in the case
of the dense H~{\sc ii} region in Mrk 996 the effect of collisional
excitation of hydrogen and helium lines is expected to be large,
especially in the densest part of the H~{\sc ii} region where the
broad emission lines originate, as described above. Among the
hydrogen lines, this effect is highest for the H$\alpha$ emission
line. If collisional excitation is high, then the Balmer decrement
cannot be used for the determination of the extinction coefficient
without correction for that effect.
Table \ref{tabint} shows that the H$\alpha$/H$\beta$
flux ratios for both narrow and broad components are significantly
larger than the theoretical value of $\sim$ 2.9. However, the
H$\gamma$/H$\beta$, H$\delta$/H$\beta$ and H9/H$\beta$ flux ratios for
both narrow and broad components are close to the theoretical values.
For the narrow component, such a small
deviation can be attributed to line flux uncertainties caused by
imperfect flux calibration and differential atmospheric refraction.
For the broad component, the deviation of $\sim$50\% of the
H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio from its theoretical value is too high to be
explained in this way. We suggest that collisional excitation of
hydrogen plays an important role in the central part of Mrk 996,
enhancing the H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio \citep[e.g., ][]{SI01,P07}.
Using CLOUDY photo-ionized H~{\sc ii} region models for the range of
the ionization parameter appropriate for Mrk 996 (log$U$ = --3 - --2),
a broad H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ flux ratio of $\sim$ 4.6 corresponds to an
electron number density $N_e$ $\sim$ (1 -- 5)$\times$10$^6$ cm$^{-3}$.
This range of $N_e$ is consistent with that derived by
\citet{T96,T08}, but is somewhat lower than $N_e$ $\ga$ 10$^7$
cm$^{-3}$ obtained by \citet{J09} from the analysis of the [O {\sc
iii}] $\lambda$4363/$\lambda$1663 and $\lambda$5007/$\lambda$4363
flux ratios, although it is consistent with their lower limit of
3$\times$10$^6$ cm$^{-3}$. Adopting an electron number density $\ga$
10$^7$ cm$^{-3}$ would lead to a broad H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ flux ratio
greater than $\sim$ 5 -- 6. We note that our value of the broad
H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ flux ratio is not corrected for extinction. If
extinction is non-zero, then the true H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ flux ratio
would decrease, giving a smaller $N_e$. The low extinction-corrected
broad H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ flux ratio ($\sim$2.9) of \citet{J09} (their
Table 2) is inconsistent with their best estimate of high density.
Additionally, the [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363/$\lambda$1663 flux ratio
is highly sensitive to the adopted extinction coefficient and the
reddening curve. Thus, we conclude that the high central density of
$\ga$ 10$^7$ cm$^{-3}$ derived by \citet{J09} from the broad
[OIII] $\lambda$5007/$\lambda$4363 flux ratio is most likely
overestimated. However, the electron density derived by \citet{J09}
from the [FeIII] $\lambda$4881/$\lambda$4658 and
$\lambda$5270/$\lambda$4658 ratios, in the range
(0.5--3)$\times$10$^6$ cm$^{-3}$, is in good agreement with ours.
In addition to the hydrogen lines, the He {\sc i} emission lines are also
subject to important collisional excitation from the meta-stable 2$^3$S
level. Moreover, the He {\sc i} $\lambda$3889 line is optically
thick, as seen below. This results in a decrease in the intensity of
this line and a fluorescent enhancement of other He {\sc i} emission
lines in the optical spectrum. If both effects are absent, then the
expected intensities of the He {\sc i} $\lambda$3889, $\lambda$4471,
$\lambda$5876, $\lambda$6678, and $\lambda$7065 emission lines
relative to the H$\beta$ line are, respectively, $\sim$0.10, 0.04, 0.11,
0.03, and 0.01 \citep[e.g., ][]{P05}. Since the He {\sc i} $\lambda$3889
emission line is blended with the H8 $\lambda$3889 emission line with
a similar intensity of $\sim$ 0.1 relative to the H$\beta$ line, the total
recombination intensity of the blend He {\sc i} + H8 $\lambda$3889 is
$\sim$ 0.2 relative to the H$\beta$ emission line.
It can be seen from Table \ref{tabint} that the narrow
He {\sc i} emission lines
are subject to both collisional and fluorescent
enhancements. The importance of fluorescent enhancement is implied
by the weakness of the He {\sc i} + H8 $\lambda$3889 line. Subtracting the
intensity of the H8 hydrogen line, we obtain an intensity of $\sim$ 0.04
for the He {\sc i} $\lambda$3889 emission line. This suggests that
the He {\sc i} $\lambda$3889 emission line is optically thick in the
region emitting in narrow lines. On the other hand, the intensity of the
He {\sc i} $\lambda$7065 line is higher by a factor of $\sim$ 4. This line
is very sensitive to both collisional and fluorescent enhancements, contrary
to the other He {\sc i} $\lambda$4471, $\lambda$5876 and $\lambda$6678
emission lines.
The collisional and fluorescent enhancements of the He {\sc i}
emission lines are more pronounced in the region with broad lines. The
intensity of the He {\sc i} + H8 $\lambda$3889 blend is $\sim$ 0.13,
suggesting that He {\sc i} $\lambda$3889 emission is nearly absent
because of the high optical depth. On the other hand, the He {\sc i}
$\lambda$7065 emission line is enhanced by a factor of $\sim$ 30,
while other He {\sc i} lines are enhanced by a factor of $\sim$
3. These enhancements are much higher than those in H~{\sc ii} regions
of other blue compact dwarf galaxies \citep[see, e.g., ][]{I07} and means that
Mrk 996 is not suitable for He abundance determination.
\citet{J09} have derived the He abundance of Mrk 996, using only one
emission line, He {\sc i} $\lambda$5876, and He {\sc i} emissivities
from \citet{P05}. They find an He abundance of 0.08 -- 0.10 in
Mrk 996, typical of dwarf emission-line galaxies, with no radial
variation. Several other He {\sc i} emission lines were also present
in the optical spectrum of \citet{J09}. However, no attempt was made
to compare He abundances derived from different lines. In addition,
\citet{P05} emissivities do not take into account fluorescent
excitation of He {\sc i} emission lines \citep{R68}, making the He
abundance determination somewhat uncertain.
\subsection{The Wolf-Rayet population}\label{sec:wr}
Two types of WR stars are present in Mrk 996. The N {\sc iii}
$\lambda$4640 and He {\sc ii} $\lambda$4686 emission lines,
responsible for the blue bump, are due to WNL stars,
while the C {\sc iv} $\lambda$5801 emission line, responsible for the
red bump, indicates the presence of WCE stars
\citep{G00}. We derive the number of WR stars from the fluxes of
broad lines in the spectrum with the 1\farcs6 aperture. The maps
in Fig.~\ref{fig:wr} (to be discussed later) also show that all of
the Wolf-Rayet emission comes from this circular region. We
have also checked the fluxes of these lines in larger apertures and
find that they do not change, also suggesting that all WR stars are located
in the central compact region. No WR feature is detected
in the integrated spectrum outside the nucleus, as presented below
in Sect.~\ref{sec:ON}.
The observed flux of WNL stars (N {\sc iii} + He {\sc ii} emission) is
$F$(WNL) = 1.68$\times$10$^{-14}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, and that of
WCE stars (C {\sc iv} emission) is $F$(WCE) = 5.90$\times$10$^{-15}$
erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ (Table \ref{tabint}). These fluxes have not
been corrected for extinction because the collisional excitation of
the hydrogen lines makes the determination of the extinction
coefficient uncertain (see previous section). At a distance of 21.7
Mpc, these fluxes correspond to luminosities $L$(WNL) =
9.46$\times$10$^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and $L$(WCE) =
2.95$\times$10$^{38}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Adopting the luminosity of a
single WNL star to be 2.0$\times$10$^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$, and that of a
single WCE star to be 3.0$\times$10$^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$ \citep{SV98},
the numbers of WR stars are $N$(WNL)= 473 and $N$(WCE)= 98, their
ratio $N$(WCE)/$N$(WNL) being 0.20. These values are typical of WR
galaxies \citep{G00}.
The total observed flux of the H$\beta$ emission line (including both
broad and narrow components, Table \ref{tabint}) is equal to
$F$(H$\beta$) = 1.98$\times$10$^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. This
corresponds to a luminosity $L$(H$\beta$) = 1.12$\times$10$^{40}$ erg
s$^{-1}$ and a number of ionizing photons $Q$(H) =
2.34$\times$10$^{52}$ s$^{-1}$. The number of O stars can then be
derived from the equation
\begin{equation}
N({\rm O})=\frac{Q({\rm H})-N_{\rm WR}Q^{\rm WR}}{\eta_0 Q^{\rm O7V}},
\end{equation}
where $\eta_0$ is the ratio of the number of O7V stars to the number
of all OV star. It is equal to 0.5 for a starburst age of 4 Myr
\citep[derived from the equivalent width of H$\beta$ and using the
dependence of $\eta_0$ on EW(H$\beta$) in ][]{SV98}. The number of
ionizing photons emitted by a single WR or O7V star is $Q^{\rm WR}$ =
$Q^{\rm O7V}$ = 1$\times$10$^{49}$ s$^{-1}$ \citep{SV98}. Then, the
number of O stars in Mrk 996 is $N$(O) = 2345, giving
$N$(WR)/$N$(O+WR) = 0.19. This number of WR stars relative to that of
O stars is among the highest found for WR galaxies \citep{G00}.
Our estimates of the number of WNL and WNC stars are very similar to
those given by \citet{T96}: $N$(WNL)= 601 and $N$(WCE)= 74. On the
other hand, our estimates of WNL, WCE, and O stars do not agree with
those derived by \citet{J09}. Their very high values ($\sim$ 3000 WR
stars and $\sim$150 000 O stars) are partly a consequence of
estimates made using the flux integrated over the entire galaxy,
rather than just the core region, and partly due to their erroneously
high H$\beta$ flux (their Table 2), a factor of $\sim$ 5 higher than
ours, when duly compared with our simulated VIMOS aperture. Such a
high H$\beta$ flux is inconsistent with our many observations of Mrk
996. Furthermore, their observed H$\alpha$ flux (narrow+broad) of
3.65$\times$10$^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ is $\sim$ 7 times higher
than the total H$\alpha$ flux of (5.4$\pm$0.7)$\times$10$^{-13}$ erg
cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ obtained by \citet{gil03} from H$\alpha$ integrated
photometry over the whole extent of the line emission. On the other
hand, our value of 9.03$\pm 0.13 \times$10$^{-13}$ erg
cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ for the H$\alpha$ flux in a 1\farcs6 aperture is
more consistent with the \citet{gil03} value.
\section{Mapping the kinematics of broad and narrow lines}\label{sec:kin}
\subsection{Velocity maps}\label{velmaps}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig4a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig4b.eps}
\caption{ Radial velocity maps. {\bf (Left)} Map of the narrow
component of the H$\alpha$ line. This map is representative of all
other narrow-line maps (e.g., narrow [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007, [O
{\sc i}] $\lambda$6300, [S {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6717). {\bf (Right)}
Map of the He {\sc i} $\lambda$7065 line. This map is representative
of other broad-line maps (e.g., [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363, broad
H$\alpha$). Contours are the monochromatic intensity of the
corresponding emission-line from decreasing intensity intervals of
$2\times 10^{-17}$ \thinspace\hbox{erg}\sqcm\sec$^{-1}$ in peak intensity for H$\alpha$ and
$10^{-18}$ \thinspace\hbox{erg}\sqcm\sec$^{-1}$ for HeI. Only pixels above 3 $\sigma$ of the
noise are shown for HeI. In both panels, north is up and east is to
the left. \label{fig:nar_vel}}
\end{figure*}
As discussed above, there are two main regions in Mrk 996 with
distinct kinematic properties \citep[see also][]{T96,J09}:
the central high-ionization broad-line emission zone and the outer
low-ionization narrow-line emission zone. We now present maps of both
regions in the strongest emission lines and use them to discuss the
kinematics of the broad and narrow components. All maps presented
here made extensive use of the QFitsView astronomical
package\footnote[5]{QFitsView is a one, two, and three dimensional FITS
file viewer written by Thomas Ott and is used for reducing astronomical
data.}. In particular, the function {\it velmap} goes through a
datacube and fit a Gaussian to a line. The arguments CENTER and
FWHM, provided by the user, are used as initial estimates for the
{\it gauss-fit}. The task then returns the results of the best fit,
primarily the fit line center and fit line FWHM, producing the
corresponding radial velocity and velocity dispersion maps.
Figure~\ref{fig:nar_vel} (left panel) shows the radial velocity maps
for the narrow component of the H$\alpha$ line. Velocity maps of other
narrow lines such as [O {\sc i}] $\lambda$6300, [S {\sc ii}]
$\lambda$6717, and narrow [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007 are similar to
the H$\alpha$ narrow-component map, and are not shown. All maps are
consistent with a systemic velocity of $\sim$ 1640 km s$^{-1}$, in
agreement with the velocities of the narrow lines in the integrated
spectrum (Table \ref{tabint}). Examination of the H$\alpha$ narrow
component velocity map reveals a blueshift in the SW direction and a
redshift in the NE direction, indicative of an overall rotation
pattern. The kinematic pattern changes in the inner 2
\arcsec\ where the symmetry axis becomes oriented in the EW
direction. Such a twisted velocity map suggests an isotropic gas
outflow from the center, superimposed on a rotation pattern of the
underlying disc. We also note the presence of a high-velocity
feature, perhaps produced by an outflow blob, in the SE direction,
at the position $x$= 0\farcs2 and $y$= 1\farcs8. This high-velocity
component is seen only in the direction diametrically opposite to the
region of high extinction in the NW discussed below. We will discuss
this high-velocity feature further below.
Figure~\ref{fig:nar_vel} (right panel) shows the radial velocity map
for the broad He {\sc i} $\lambda$7065 line emission in the central
region. In contrast to the narrow H$\alpha$ line emission map, it
shows no overall rotation pattern. The velocity of the nuclear
broad-line emission is blueshifted with respect to that of the narrow
component, in agreement with the broad-line velocities in the
integrated spectrum (Table \ref{tabint}). There is some indication of
slightly higher radial velocities in regions around the nuclear
region. This ring-like velocity structure may indicate isotropic
motions around the central region. There is, however, one striking
exception: the radial velocity map of the [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363
line does not give a systemic velocity in agreement with the one in
the nuclear region for other broad lines. The broad [O {\sc iii}]
$\lambda$4363 line emission is concentrated in the central 2\arcsec,
and it is clearly blueshifted by $\Delta V \sim 60$ km s$^{-1}$ with
respect to the systemic velocity. This is seen not only in the
velocity map, but also in the integrated spectrum, as discussed in
Sect.~\ref{sec:sys}. We will discuss the kinematics of [O {\sc
iii}] $\lambda$4363 in greater detail below.
\subsection{Velocity dispersion maps}\label{dispmaps}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig5a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig5b.eps}
\caption{Velocity dispersion maps. {\bf (Left)} Map of the narrow
component of the H$\alpha$ line, representative of all other
narrow-line maps (narrow [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007, [O {\sc i}]
$\lambda$6300, [S {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6717). {\bf (Right)} Map of
the He {\sc i} $\lambda$7065 line, representative of all other
broad-line maps ([O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363, broad H$\alpha$). The
contours and orientation are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:nar_vel}.
\label{fig:nar_disp}}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig:nar_disp} (left panel) shows the velocity dispersion
maps, the left panel for the narrow component of H$\alpha$, and the
right panel for the broad He {\sc i} $\lambda$7065. Again, the narrow
H$\alpha$ map is representative of all dispersion maps for the narrow
lines, such as narrow [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda,\lambda$4959, 5007, [O
{\sc i}] $\lambda$6300 and [S {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6717. These maps
show a high central value of $\sigma$ ($FWHM$/2.355) of $\sim$ 45 km
s$^{-1}$, in agreement with the value given by the integrated spectrum
(Table \ref{tabint}). The velocity dispersion then decreases outwards
with radius. In the left panel, there is a clear increase in the velocity
dispersion towards the outflow blob seen in the radial velocity map,
in the SE direction. There are also two low-dispersion regions to the
NE and NW, which appear to be related to the high-extinction region
seen in the {\sl HST} color map of \cite{T96}. An additional
low-dispersion region is seen in the SW direction. The NE and SW
low-dispersion regions are aligned with the overall rotation pattern axis
seen in Figure~\ref{fig:nar_vel}, while the outflow blob shows
kinematic features about an axis perpendicular to that axis. A
patchy velocity dispersion map may indicate the presence of regions
with different densities due to the presence of bubbles or shells as
seen, for instance, in the study of the internal kinematics of the
prototypical HII galaxy II Zw 40 \citep{bor09}.
Figure~\ref{fig:nar_disp} (right panel) shows the velocity dispersion
map for the He {\sc i} $\lambda$7065 line. As before, this map is
similar to those of other broad lines originating from the dense
nuclear region. The He {\sc i} velocity dispersion peaks at the
center, with $\sigma \sim 190$ km s$^{-1}$ (see also Table
\ref{tabint} for the integrated spectrum), and decreases outwards to
values typical of the narrow-line region ($\sigma$ of 50-100 km
s$^{-1}$). The width of the He {\sc i} line is similar to that of the
broad component of the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$ lines, and of the [O
{\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363 and [N {\sc ii}] $\lambda$5755 auroral
lines which we discuss next.
\subsection{The peculiar kinematics of the [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363
and [N {\sc ii}] $\lambda$5755 lines}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig6a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig6b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig6c.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig6d.eps}
\caption{ The peculiar kinematics of the [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363
line (upper panels) and of [N {\sc ii}]$\lambda$5755 (lower
panels). Contours are the monochromatic intensity of the
corresponding emission-line from decreasing intensity intervals of
$10^{-18}$ \thinspace\hbox{erg}\sqcm\sec$^{-1}$ in peak intensity. Pixels within the contours
are 3 $\sigma$ above noise. North is up and east is
left.}. \label{fig:oiiinii}
\end{figure*}
Figure~\ref{fig:oiiinii} shows the velocity fields of [O {\sc iii}]
$\lambda$4363 and [N {\sc ii}] $\lambda$5755. Both lines are totally
dominated by the broad emission: the narrow lines, if present, are
undetected in the spatially resolved maps. The velocity dispersion of
[O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363 is very similar to that of He {\sc i}
$\lambda$7065 (Figure~\ref{fig:nar_disp}), with some structures in the
SE-NW direction and an integrated $\sigma \sim 200$ km s$^{-1}$. A
peak is also seen in the SW direction, but in a region of lower S/N
per pixel, so we will not consider it real. The [N {\sc ii}]
$\lambda$5755 line is also broad, though with a somewhat smaller integrated
value. The radial velocity maps of these lines have one
intriguing peculiarity: both lines are blueshifted with respect to the
systemic velocity of the galaxy, by some 60 km s$^{-1}$ in the case of
[O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363, and by $\sim$20 km s$^{-1}$ in the case
of [N {\sc ii}] $\lambda$5755. In addition, [N {\sc ii}]
$\lambda$5755 also shows some structures in the SE-NW in the radial
velocity map, suggestive of bipolar outflow motions from the nucleus.
The kinematics of the narrow-line region outside the nucleus are,
however, not correlated with those of the inner regions, suggesting
that the strong motions associated with the broad lines observed are
decoupled from motions in the narrow-line region. This interpretation
is consistent with the assumption that the outflow motions originate
from WR stars in the nuclear region, as is also implied from the flux and
velocity maps of the WR blue and red bumps observed in the original
data cube. This is also in agreement with the interpretation drawn in
Sect.~\ref{sec:sys} for the different systems of emission lines seen in
the integrated spectrum.
\section{Matching the spatially resolved kinematics with the
two-density model}\label{sec:den}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig7a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig7b.eps}
\caption{Maps of low {\bf (left)} and high {\bf (right)} electron density emission.
The orientation is the same as in Fig. \ref{fig:nar_vel}.
\label{fig:steiner}}
\end{figure*}
The [S {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6717/$\lambda$6731 ratio has been widely
used in aperture spectroscopy to derive the electron density in H~{\sc
ii} regions. The disadvantage is that it only gives an average
value of the physical conditions in the region, masking any electron
density variation or gradient or any nonuniformity and inhomogeneity
in the ionization structure.
That the density structure in Mrk 996 is not uniform has been
discussed by \cite{T96}, \cite{T08}, and \cite{J09}. \citet{T96,T08} had
to invoke a CLOUDY model with two zones of different electron
densities to account for the integrated optical, near-, and
mid-infrared spectra of Mrk 996.
Here, we use a method for mapping low- and high-density clouds in
astrophysical nebulae recently devised by \cite{smro09}. This method
aims to distinguish regions of low electron densities from those of
high electron densities by using individual forbidden line emission
images, as opposed to their ratio which may often have low S/N in the
outer regions and give untrustworthy results. We will apply this
method to the [S {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6717 and [S {\sc ii}]
$\lambda$6731 emission line images of Mrk 996 to test the hypothesis
of a two-density model for the galaxy. These two images are
transformed into new images of low- ($I_{ij}(ld)$) and high-
($I_{ij}(hd)$) density emission by applying the \cite{smro09} formula
\[\left |\begin{array}{c}
I_{ij}(ld)\\
I_{ij}(hd)
\end{array}\right | =
\begin{array}{c}
\underline{~~~~~1~~~~~} \\
R_{ld} - R_{hd}
\end{array} \times
\left | \begin{array}{cc}
1 & -R_{hd} \\
-1 & R_{ld}
\end{array}\right | \times
\left |\begin{array}{c}
I_{ij}(\lambda_{ld})\\
I_{ij}(\lambda_{hd})
\end{array}\right | ,\]
\noindent
where $I_{ij}(\lambda_{ld})$ is the [S {\sc ii}]$\lambda$6717 image,
$I_{ij}(\lambda_{hd})$ is the [S {\sc ii}]$\lambda$6731 image,
$R_{ld}$ is the low-density limit ratio of
[S {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6717/$\lambda$6731, and
$R_{hd}$ is its high-density limit ratio. From Table 1 in \cite{smro09},
we find $R_{ld} = 1.44$ and $R_{hd} = 0.44$,
corresponding to number densities of 81 cm $^{-3}$ and 5900 cm $^{-3}$,
respectively. The latter value should be considered an upper limit
to the number density of the gas to which the [S {\sc ii}] diagnostics
can be applied
since the critical densities for collisional deexcitation for [S {\sc ii}]
$\lambda$6717 and $\lambda$6731 are 1400 and 3600 cm$^{-3}$, respectively
(Table \ref{tabint}).
We can apply this method to our integral field observations to assess
density variations along the line of sight to the central region of
Mrk 996. Figure~\ref{fig:steiner} (left panel) shows the low-density
image ($I_{ij}(ld)$) and the right panel shows the high-density image
$I_{ij}(hd)$. If the [S {\sc ii}] emission came only from low-density
clouds, all emission would be seen in the left panel only, and none
would be seen in the right one. We see clearly that, in Mrk 996, we do
have emission along the line of sight from a low-density cloud (left
panel) which covers the whole field and emits more in the EW
direction. The high-density image
(right panel) shows emission concentrated only in the nuclear region.
This technique shows clearly that
a single low-density regime is ruled out and that an additional
regime of high density must be present.
These clouds in the nuclear region are probably associated with the
broad-line emission shown by some ionic species
(e.g., Fig.~\ref{fig:nar_vel}b) and with the WR stars discussed below
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:wr}).
By performing surface photometry on the high-density image
$I_{ij}(hd)$, we derive the diameter of the high-density region to be
$\sim$ 1\farcs6 or $\sim$ 160 pc, about the size of the inner spiral
structure discussed by \cite{T96} and \cite{J09}. This size coincides
with our chosen aperture for the integrated nuclear spectrum shown in
Fig.~\ref{specfull}.
\section{PCA tomography}\label{PCA results}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig8a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{fig8b.eps}
\caption{Tomogram (left) and eingeinvector (E$_1$) in red cube
(5700-7200\AA).\label{eig1} {\bf (bottom right)} the spectrum from
the original data cube; {\bf (upper right)} the extracted spectrum
from the reconstructed data cube, using the PCA tomography results
(eigenvector 1 and tomogram 1) \citep[see][]{smro09b}.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig9a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig9b.eps}
\caption{Tomogram (left) and eingeinvector (E$_2$) in red cube
5700-7200\AA~ (right). The eigenvector shown in the lower-right panel
is a zoom in a shorter wavelength range for a better
visualization of the features of interest.\label{eig2}}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig10a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig10b.eps}
\caption{Tomogram (left) and eingeinvector (E$_3$) in blue cube
4300-5100\AA~ (right). The eigenvector shown in the lower-right panel
is a zoom in a shorter wavelength range for a better
visualization of the features of interest.\label{eig3}}
\end{figure*}
To fully exploit the wealth and complexity of the information that
integral field spectroscopic (IFS) data provide, we need analysis techniques
that are more
sophisticated than those commonly used in
one-dimensional long-slit spectroscopy. However, this new methodology
is still scarce, and most IFS studies simply reduce the data cube to
one-dimensional spectra and two-dimensional maps, so that the usual
well-known spectroscopy and imaging techniques can be applied to
analyze the data. Here, we use a technique that has been introduced
recently to extract spatial and spectral information from data cubes
in a statistical manner, so that it can be used to derive physical
information. This technique is called principal component analysis
tomography. It combines the statistical PCA analysis, widely
used in astronomy, with tomography which is also used in astronomy and
other sciences to represent certain types of information derived from
imaging techniques. A short presentation of the technique
can be found in \cite{smro10}.
What PCA tomography basically does is to extract hidden information by
transforming a large set of correlated data, in our case the
wavelength pixels, into a new set of uncorrelated variables, ordered
by their eigenvalues. Each new component, or eigenvector, carries the
combined information of the original data, ordered by their
significance as measured by their relative variance. The new
coordinates can then be represented by their eigenvector and their
respective projection called a tomogram. The combined analysis of the
eigenvectors and tomograms allows for interpretations of physical
phenomena that may not be directly seen in an usual spectrum or image.
\cite{hair98} devised a so-called scree test, which was used by
\cite{smro09b}, and it allows the assessment of the most interesting
eigenvectors and tomograms, those that contain most of the relevant
information from the data. This test applied to our PCA results shows
that the first five eigenvectors and tomograms are sufficient to
reconstruct the data cube with the most significant information on
the uncorrelated physical properties of the original data.
\begin{table}
\caption{PCA Eigenvalues (blue and red cubes)}\label{eigenvalues2}
\begin{tabular}{lcc} \hline \hline
Eigenvector & Eigenvalues & Eigenvalues\\
E$_k$ & Variance (\%)& Variance (\%)\\
&5700-7200\AA & 4300-5100\AA \\
\hlin
E$_1$& 98.15 & 97.51\\
E$_2$& 1.027 & 1.552 \\
E$_3$& 0.5372 & 0.2891\\
E$_4$& 0.06388 & 0.172\\
E$_5$& 0.04478 & 0.06334\\
E$_6$& 0.0148 & 0.05601\\
E$_7$& 0.01219 & 0.0308\\
E$_8$& 0.01171 & 0.01628\\
E$_9$& 0.008297 & 0.01367\\
E$_{10}$& 0.005329 & 0.01098\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table~\ref{eigenvalues2} presents the PCA results from the analysis of the
GMOS/IFU data cubes for the red and blue gratings.
Column 1 shows the eigenvalue numbers and Cols. 2 and 3
show the resulting variances
for the first 10 principal components in the cases of
the red and blue gratings, respectively. From these, one can
see that the first four principal components carry 99.5\% of all uncorrelated
information contained in the data.
The first eigenvector in the red cube, which accounts for 98.15\% of
the data cube variance, is shown in Figure~\ref{eig1}. We note that
the reconstructed data cube, using only the first principal component
(Eigenvector 1 and Tomogram 1), is able to reproduce the original
integrated spectrum. The upper-right panel in Fig.~\ref{eig1}
shows the representative integrated spectrum obtained by using a
reconstructed data cube with only the first eigenvector. This spectrum is
identical to the one extracted from the original data
cube. The added contribution of eigenvectors
2-5 accounts for only $\le$ 2\% of the variance in the data cube.
With the simultaneous analysis of tomogram 1 and the corresponding
eigenvector 1, we can reproduce most of the information that can be
obtained from a direct broadband image and from an integrated
spectrum of the corresponding field of view. This shows the great
redundancy of this type of data, allowing for
discriminating non-redundant information. The power of this technique
lies in the fact that by removing the effects of the strongest
correlations, one can look for the less significant ones.
Eigenvector 2 still contributes significantly ($>$1\%) and its
tomogram reveals distinct bipolar motions originating from the
nucleus (Fig.~\ref{eig2}). In this case, the y-axis
does not represent flux, and the eigenvector is not a spectrum.
The point to note is that the eigenvectors are not spectra but
vectors of correlations. Here, the anti-correlations (up and down
spikes) are seen in the narrow lines only. This means that this
particular phenomenon is affecting only the narrow lines. In
addition, the feature shows an anti-behavior of the
blue side vs. the red side of the lines which leads us to interpret that
we are seeing motions in the narrow lines only (e.g., [S {\sc
ii}] 6717,6730). The respective tomogram in Figure~\ref{eig2}
(left) shows higher order kinematics of the narrow line.
This feature cannot be seen in a classical way as if it were in a
direct spectrum, but rather as a residual hidden phenomenon carrying
only 1\% of the variance.
One may interpret this anti-correlation as representing the
second-order rotation of a low-density cloud system in the circumnuclear
region. Therefore, the broad lines observed in Mrk 996 are
probably not due to a turbulent mixing layer, as postulated by
\cite{J09}. The present interpretation is more consistent with the
hypothesis that the broad lines originate from stellar wind outflows
from WR stars in the nuclear region, as implied from the flux and
velocity maps of the WR blue and red bumps observed in the original
data cube, convoluted with some rotation of the low-density gas within
this unresolved inner region. Our analysis is based on two
independent data sets, the blue and the red cubes. The features
observed in the eigenvectors and tomograms of both data sets are all
very similar, which lends credibility to our interpretations.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig11a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig11b.eps}
\caption{{\bf (Left)} Logarithmic extinction coefficient map derived
from the Balmer decrement using integrated line profiles (broad +
narrow components). Pixels with high noise at the border were masked
out.
{\bf (Right)} H$\beta$ equivalent width map (per pixel in \AA). The
orientation is the same as in
Fig. \ref{fig:nar_vel}.} \label{fig:chb}
\end{figure*}
Eigenvector 3 contributes about 0.5\% of the variance of the blue
cube. It also reveals a strong feature from its tomogram
(Figure~\ref{eig3}, left) which seems to indicate a distinct intensity
contribution from the narrow lines originating in the region
surrounding the nucleus, which is different than that of the broad
lines. It is noteworthy that the highest intensity features
correspond to the positive correlation shown in the broad lines.
These features are mapped as white and black pixels in the tomogram and
coincide with the broad-line and high-density emission region as
extensively discussed above. The lower intensity negative correlation
corresponds to the narrow-line and low-density emission region as
mapped with gray pixels in the tomogram, but the most important
feature can be seen in the zoomed eigenvector (Figure~\ref{eig3},
bottom right) where a {\it narrow} contribution to the [O {\sc
iii}]$\lambda$ 4363 line is unequivocally detected. This narrow
component is not directly seen in the integrated spectrum, but it
shows up in this third eigenvector as a dip feature. It is a
fundamental finding for our purpose and validates our effort to
extract a spatially resolved integrated spectrum which excludes the
nuclear region. This will allow for the direct and precise
determination of chemical abundances in Mrk 996 (see below) without
having to resort to modeling as \cite{T96} did. We note that this
direct and precise mapping of the narrow component of the [O {\sc
iii}]$\lambda$ 4363 line could not be achieved with the data of
\cite{J09} because the narrow component was not detected in their
observations with a lower signal-to-noise ratio.
Eigenvector 4 (not shown) contributes only $\sim$0.1\% of the
variance, but it contains a visible feature in the NW direction.
This feature is not related to the emission lines but to the
continuum. It may represent, in a statistical way, the effect of dust
obscuration. Extinction in that direction has been noted above from
analysis of the original cube, through mapping of the Balmer
decrement.
It can also be seen from the {\sl HST} broadband images \citep{T96}.
Eigenvector 5 (not shown) contributes less than 0.1\% of the variance,
and it carries virtually no additional information on uncorrelated
physical properties. The higher order eigenvectors and tomograms
become more difficult to interpret and/or reach noise features or
fingerprints that may not be real, but are instead associated with detector
defects and other artificial features. We note that the PCA
tomography technique can be used to eliminate higher order noise of
the original data by the suppression of detector defects
(fingerprints), noise, and by the reconstruction of the data cube
accounting only for the first meaningful eigenvectors. A lengthier
discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of the present
paper. Admittedly, the interpretation of the PCA tomography is not
straightforward, but it becomes robust when combined with all other
information available. The use of PCA tomography for
analyses similar to the one presented here can be found in more
recent works, such as \citet{stein13}, \citet{san13}, \citet{riffel11},
\citet{ricci11a}, and \citet{schnorr11}.
\section{Mapping the physical conditions}\label{results}
\subsection{Extinction and H$\beta$ equivalent width maps} \label{extinction}
The extinction map in Figure~\ref{fig:chb} (left panel) was derived by
the ratio of the broad+narrow components of the H$\alpha$ and H$\beta$
emission lines. It shows that the nuclear region of Mrk 996 has a
higher extinction ($C$(H$\beta$) $\sim$ 0.7). It is surrounded by a
region of lower extinction, with $C$(H$\beta$) decreasing to zero.
Some higher extinction extension towards the NW and E directions are
seen in this map.
The central part of the high $C$(H$\beta$) region
coincides with the broad-line high-density region. As emphasized in
Sect.~\ref{sec:col}, the H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ ratio in this region cannot be
used for extinction measurements, as
collisional excitation of hydrogen in the nuclear region may make the
Balmer decrement and the derived extinction value there artificially
high (Fig. \ref{fig:chb}, left). The regions outside the nucleus show
$C$(H$\beta$) $\sim$ 0.4, in good agreement with the extinction derived
from the integrated
spectrum outside the nucleus (see below Table~\ref{tab:outer}).
Figure~\ref{fig:chb} (right panel) shows the map of H$\beta$
equivalent widths [EW(H$\beta$)] per pixel. It appears that the highest
values are not centered on the nucleus but rather in the NW
direction, or in a circular ring just outside the nuclear region.
Since the broad component in H$\beta$ is primarily seen in the
central part of the galaxy, the integrated EW(H$\beta$) per pixel
drops steeply outwards.
\subsection{Maps of line ratios sensitive to electron temperature and density}\label{densmaps}
Figure~\ref{fig:ne_te} shows the spatial distribution of
the [S {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6717/[S {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6731 ratio.
Low values (corresponding to the high-density regime, $N_e \ge 10^3$
cm$^{-3}$) of this ratio are seen in the central region, with a
gradient towards higher values (corresponding to the low-density
regime, $N_e \le 10^2$ cm$^{-3}$) outside the nucleus, in good
agreement with Figure~\ref{fig:steiner}.
The ratio of the [O {\sc iii}] emission from an upper level (the
auroral line, $\lambda$4363) relative to that from lower levels
(the nebular lines, $\lambda\lambda4959,5007$) is known to be
highly temperature sensitive. For the low-density region, the
electron temperatures with the low-density approximation, typical of
the warm ionized gas in H~{\sc ii} regions, range from 10000-20000
K. However, as mentioned above, the very high flux ratios we find in
the central regions is due to the very high density and thus the
low-density approximation for temperature determination is no longer
applicable. Mapping this ratio over the whole extent of our FOV is
more difficult in our case, since in the nuclear region the
narrow line is unresolved and in the outer region the broad line is
not present. The integrated (broad+narrow) line ratio would yield
an unphysical result since, as mentioned in \S~\ref{sec:sys}, the
different line systems originate from regions with completely
different physical conditions. We have only used this ratio in the
integrated spectrum of the region surrounding the nucleus (outer
spectrum) in order to derive the chemical abundances directly, as
described below.
\subsection{Diagnostic diagrams}
Figure~\ref{fig:bpt} shows maps of some narrow emission-line ratios of
interest such as log([O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007/H$\beta$) (left
panel), log([N {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$) (middle panel), and
log([S {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$) (right panel). These
ratios are often used in a diagnostic diagram, known as the
\citet{bpt81} (BPT) diagram, to identify the source of excitation in
narrow emission-line galaxies. We have used the mapping of these
ratios
to assess the source of ionization in individual patches of the
interstellar medium (ISM) in Mrk 996 \citep[see
also][]{lag09,lag12}. Examination of the spatial distribution of
these diagnostic ratios shows that regions of intense emission of
high-ionization species ([O {\sc iii}]) are coincident with those of
weak emission of low-ionization species ([N {\sc ii}], [S {\sc ii}]),
implying a single source of ionization, namely the UV radiation from massive
stars. The conclusion is the same if we plot the BPT diagram pixel by
pixel (not shown here) instead of using maps of individual ratios.
Similar results and conclusions were obtained by \cite{J09}. All
points fall in the locus predicted by models of photo-ionization by
massive stars \citep[e.g.,][]{ostfer06}. However, it has been shown by
\citet{S06} and \citet{Gr06} that an AGN hosted by a low-metallicity
galaxy would not be easily distinguished in such a diagram, even if
the active nucleus contributed significantly to the emission lines. In
fact, the presence of the [O {\sc iv}] $\lambda$25.89 $\mu$m in the
MIR spectrum of Mrk 996 \citep{T08} implies the presence of harder
ionizing radiation than the stellar one. \citet{T08}
analyzed several possible sources of this radiation, including the
presence of an AGN, and concluded that the most probable source is
photo-ionization by fast shocks plowing through a dense ISM. In a
Chandra X-ray study of Mrk 996, \cite{G11} did not find evidence for
an AGN and also attributed the [O {\sc iv}] $\lambda$25.89 $\mu$m
emission to shocks associated with supernova explosions and stellar
winds.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig12.eps}
\caption{Map of
the [S {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6717/[S {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6731 ratio.
The orientation is the same as in Fig. \ref{fig:nar_vel}.
\label{fig:ne_te}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Wolf-Rayet star emission}\label{wolfrayet}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5.4cm]{fig13a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.4cm]{fig13b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=5.4cm]{fig13c.eps}
\caption{Excitation maps: BPT diagram of narrow emission line
ratios. {\bf (Left)} log([O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$5007/H$\beta$).
{\bf (Middle)} log([N {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6584/H$\alpha$. {\bf
(Right)} log([S {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6717,6731/H$\alpha$. The
orientation is the same as in
Fig. \ref{fig:nar_vel}.} \label{fig:bpt}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig14a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig14b.eps}
\caption{Maps of Wolf-Rayet spectral features. {\bf (Left)}
Blue bump (without the
[Fe {\sc iii}] emission).
{\bf (Right)} Red bump. The fluxes in the
bumps are given in units of
10$^{-16}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$.
The orientation is the same as in Fig. \ref{fig:nar_vel}.
\label{fig:wr}}
\end{figure*}
\citet{T96} and \cite{J09} found a large population of
Wolf-Rayet stars in the central part of Mrk
996. Figure~\ref{fig:wr} shows maps of the spectral features
associated with this Wolf-Rayet stellar population.
These maps were created by summing the fluxes within the wavelength
range of interest, and subtracting the adjacent continuum. We
have excluded from it the narrow [Fe {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4658 line.
The left panel shows the map of the blue bump which includes the [N
{\sc iii}] $\lambda$4640 and He {\sc ii} $\lambda$4686 emission
features. The right panel shows the map of the red bump due to the
weaker C {\sc iv} $\lambda$5808 emission. The blue bump emission
appears to be more extended spatially than the red bump emission,
though this is just a consequence of the lower S/N in the red bump
feature. The maps show that the blue and red bumps are coincident
spatially and that their spatial distributions are identical to those
of the broad He {\sc i} and H$\alpha$ emissions. This implies that
the WR stars are located and concentrated solely in the nuclear region
of Mrk 996.
The total observed (uncorrected for extinction) flux of the blue bump
is $3.87 \times 10^{-14}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, while that of the
red bump is $1.14 \times 10^{-14}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. These
fluxes derived directly from the maps are a factor of $\sim$ 2 larger
than those derived from the integrated spectrum as described in
\S~\ref{sec:wr}. The origin of this discrepancy is probably due to
our not performing here a proper deblending of the nebular lines
(i.e., [Fe {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4658, [Fe {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4702, and
He {\sc i} 4713). Thus, a more detailed quantitative comparison with
the integrated spectrum is not warranted. With the maps, we wish only
to show the region where the WR emission originates.
\subsection{Physical conditions and oxygen and nitrogen
abundances of the outer narrow-line region}\label{sec:ON}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig15a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig15b.eps}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{fig15c.eps}
\caption{Spatially narrow-line region spectrum (lower red spectrum)
displayed with the integrated spectrum of the nuclear region
(upper black spectrum).\label{fig:outer}}
\end{figure*}
The integrated nucleus spectrum of Figure~\ref{specfull} clearly shows
the presence of blended broad and narrow lines. Table~\ref{tabint}
presents the emission line fluxes of both broad and narrow components
derived from this integrated nucleus spectrum (obtained through a
$\sim$1\farcs6 aperture) after line deblending.
As discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec:den}, we have been able to separate
spatially the nuclear broad-line region from the surrounding
narrow-line region by using the electron density diagnostic map
(Figure~\ref{fig:steiner}). The broad-line region, where the He {\sc
i}, [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363, and [N {\sc ii}] $\lambda$5755
lines, and the Wolf-Rayet blue and red bumps originate,
coincides with the high-density region, with a diameter of $\sim$
1\farcs6, in the electron density diagnostic maps. The diameter
of $\sim$160pc of the nuclear broad-line and high electron
density region is consistent with the size derived by \cite{T96} by
CLOUDY photo-ionization modeling of the nuclear emission of Mrk 996.
Having spatially resolved the broad-line and high-density region of
Mrk 996 by the use of the various diagnostic maps, we can now go one
step further: we can exclude the nuclear region and extract an
integrated spectrum of the light that comes exclusively from the
narrow-line region surrounding the nucleus. Figure~\ref{fig:outer}
shows the outer narrow-line region spectrum in red lines (lower
spectrum). For comparison, the integrated spectrum of the nuclear
region is shown by a black line (upper spectrum). We emphasize that
the narrow lines are {\bf not} derived from a decomposition of the
blended lines, but they are measured from the actual integrated
spectrum in the region outside the nucleus. The three panels in
Fig.~\ref{fig:outer} show several lines of interest, and are labeled
[O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363, H$\alpha$, and He {\sc i} $\lambda$6678.
It can be seen that the narrow component of [O {\sc iii}]$\lambda$4363
in the outer region is very weak, but clearly detected at a 7 $\sigma$
level. This weak line is swamped by the broad component in the
nuclear region and not detectable at lower S/N observations. One can
also see that the narrow line of [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363 in the
outer region, as opposed to the broad line of [O {\sc iii}]
$\lambda$4363 in the integrated nucleus region, is not blueshifted.
It falls in the same systemic recession velocity derived from the narrow
components of the lines in the integrated nucleus region. The
existence of this narrow component originating from the low-density
region has also been demonstrated by a completely independent
technique, that of PCA tomography, as discussed in Sect.~\ref{PCA
results}. The [N {\sc ii}] and [S {\sc ii}] lines
show a narrow component everywhere, independent of the density. We
note the high value of the [S {\sc ii}] $\lambda$6717 / $\lambda$6731
ratio in the narrow-line region, indicative of a low electron density.
\input{tab5.tex}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=3.0in]{fig16.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the measured line fluxes in the integrated
spectrum of the outer region outside the nucleus
(Table~\ref{tab:outer}) with the fluxes measured in the narrow
components of the integrated spectrum of the nucleus of Mrk 996
(Table~\ref{tabint}). \label{fig:out_nuc}}
\end{figure}
We can now use the measured line fluxes, shown in
Table~\ref{tab:outer} from the spatially separated narrow-line region
spectrum (red-line lower spectra in
Figure~\ref{fig:outer}) to derive the physical conditions and element
abundances in the low-density outer region. As expected, the line
fluxes measured outside the nucleus are in good agreement with the
measured fluxes of the narrow components of the integrated spectrum
in the nuclear region, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:out_nuc},
corroborating our statement that this zone of low density is on the
line of sight of the inner broad-line dense nucleus. By scaling the
intensity of the [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363 in the outer region with
the narrow H$\beta$ flux ratio of the outer region to the nuclear
region, we estimate that the narrow component of the [O {\sc iii}]
$\lambda$4363 in the nuclear region must be $\sim$ 4 fainter than the
integrated line, which explains the difficulty in detecting this line
directly in the integrated nuclear spectrum.
\subsubsection{Oxygen abundances}
We make use of the {\it nebular} package available in the {\it stsdas}
external package under IRAF to derive abundances. The tasks in this
package are based on a five-level atom model developed by
\cite{derobertis87}. The detection of [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363
allows a direct determination of the electron temperature
$T_e$(O$^{++}$)=$1.29\times10^4$K, while the ratio of the [S {\sc ii}]
lines permits us to determine a low electron density in this narrow-line
region of $N_e \sim$71 cm$^{-3}$.
We obtain 12+log(O/H)=7.94$\pm0.30$ using $C$(H$\beta$)=0.31, that is,
Z$_\odot$/6 by adopting the solar calibration of \cite{A09}. The
same result 12+log(O/H)=7.88$\pm0.36$ is obtained using the T$_e$
direct method with the prescriptions of \cite{pag92},
\cite{IZ94}, and \cite{TH95}.
This oxygen abundance is in agreement with the value of \cite{T96} who
derived 12+log(O/H)=8.0 with a CLOUDY two-zone model of Mrk 996.
It is, however, considerably less (by a factor of at least 3) than the
lower limit of 12+log(O/H) $\sim$ 8.37 obtained by \cite{J09} for
the broad-line region, based on an assumed electron temperature of
10,000 K. Our value of the oxygen abundance is more reliable since
the [O {\sc iii}] $\lambda$4363 line intensity, and hence the
electron temperature, was determined directly in the low-density
region outside the nucleus.
\subsubsection{Nitrogen abundances}
The derived nitrogen abundance for the low-density region is
log(N/O)=$-$1.53$\pm$0.15, in good agreement with the value of $-$1.43
obtained by \cite{J09}. It is typical of values derived for BCDs \citep{I06}.
However, the nuclear region is nitrogen enhanced by a factor of $\sim$
20, with log(N/O)=$-$0.15$\pm 0.1$. In this case, we assumed a
two-density model in {\em nebular}, with $N_e$(low)=450 cm$^{-3}$,
$N_e$(high)=$10^6$ cm$^{-3}$, $T_e$(low)=$10^4$K and
$T_e$(high)=$4\times10^4$K. $T_e$(high) is derived from the
extinction corrected ratio of [OIII] broad-line fluxes assuming
$N_e$(high).
Our high N/O in the broad-line region
is in agreement with that obtained by \cite{T96} from CLOUDY modeling
(model 2), and with the value of $-$0.13 obtained by \cite{J09}. This
nitrogen enhancement is probably due to local pollution from WR stars.
Similar cases for a nitrogen enhancement have been observed, for
example, in the central region of the nearby dwarf starburst galaxy NGC
5253 by \citet{wes13}, and for the very metal-deficient (12+ log
(O/H)=7.64) luminous (MB= -18.1m) blue compact galaxy (BCG) HS
0837+4717 by \citet{pul04}. \citet{brin08}, in turn, have noted an
elevated N/O for galaxies with Wolf-Rayet features in their optical
spectrum from SDSS survey. \citet{lo10} have also detected a high N/O
ratio in objects showing strong WR features (HCG 31 AC, UM 420, IRAS
0828+2816, III Zw 107, ESO 566-8, and NGC 5253). They claim that the
ejecta of the WR stars may be the origin of the N enrichment in
these galaxies. However, as pointed out by \citet{I06}, this
high N/O cannot be caused by WR nitrogen-enriched ejecta with a number
density $N_e$ similar to that of the ambient gas, but only by
considerably denser ejecta since the emissivity of the [N {\sc ii}]
lines is proportional to $N_e^2$.
\section{Summary and conclusions}\label{conclusions}
The galaxy Mrk 996 is an extraordinary blue compact dwarf galaxy with a dense
unresolved nucleus ($<160$ pc) and a central density of $\sim$10$^6$
cm$^{-3}$. The dense nucleus is surrounded by a lower density star-forming
region, with a density of
$\sim$10$^2$ cm$^{-3}$. We present here integral field spectroscopy obtained
with GEMINI-SOUTH/GMOS/IFU which allows us to study in 2D the physical
conditions, ionization structures, and
kinematic properties of these two regions, as well as their relationship.
We have made an extensive comparison with the results of the previous
similar IFU work by \citet{J09} on Mrk 996. Our results fully agree
with theirs on the spatial variation of the physical properties and
detected internal structures of Mrk 996. However, our quantitative
results differ somewhat in the number of massive stars present in the
star forming nucleus, and in the determination of the chemical
abundances. The first disagreement may be partly due to absolute
calibration differences. Their fluxes are a factor of $\sim$ 5
brighter than our simulated VIMOS aperture. We believe our reduction
and calibration procedures to be correct as they have been
double-checked independently by us using different standard stars.
The red cube and blue data cubes were derived from observations of
different nights and the calibrations agreed, without the need for
averaging the data. Other external checks have also shown
consistency. More importantly, we have made a more precise
determination of oxygen abundance in the low-density gas by directly
detecting the narrow line of [OIII]$\lambda$4363 outside the nucleus.
This detection was confirmed, independently, by the use of a new
innovative method of data cube analysis.
We have thus obtained the following results:
1) The integrated spectrum shows four kinematically distinct systems
of emission lines, with line-widths decreasing outwards from the
center. The first system shows both broad and narrow lines,
originating from the nuclear region. The broad component is probably
associated with the circumnuclear envelopes around WR stars, while the
narrow component is probably related to the circumnuclear envelopes
around O stars. The second system comes from the innermost and
densest part of the star-forming region. It consists of the peculiar
emission of the [O {\sc iii}]$\lambda$4363 line which is broad
($\sigma \sim 200$ \thinspace\hbox{$\hbox{km}\thinspace\hbox{s}^{-1}$}) and blueshifted by 60 \thinspace\hbox{$\hbox{km}\thinspace\hbox{s}^{-1}$}\ relative to
the narrow H$\beta$ line. The third system consists of the permitted
hydrogen and helium lines, and of the auroral [N {\sc ii}] line.
These also show large widths, similar to those in the second system,
but are less blueshifted ($\sim 20$ \thinspace\hbox{$\hbox{km}\thinspace\hbox{s}^{-1}$}). They are likely to
originate in regions farther away from the center than the second line
system. The fourth system consists only of narrow lines of hydrogen,
helium, doubly ionized ions, and of forbidden lines of neutral and
singly ionized species. These all have the same radial velocities as
the H$\beta$ emission line.
2) Most of the observed physical conditions and kinematics of the nucleus
of Mrk 996 appear to be related to the presence of a Wolf-Rayet
stellar population, as
inferred by the presence of the blue and red
bump spectral features. We estimate, from the integrated spectrum as
well as from the spatially resolved maps of these features, that
the nuclear region of Mrk 996 contains
$\sim$ 473 WNL and $\sim$ 98 WCE stars, with
$N$(WR)/$N$/(O+WR)=0.19, at the high end for WR galaxies.
3) The monochromatic emission maps and the line ratio, velocity, and
dispersion maps of the nuclear region suggest an isotropic ionized gas
outflow from the center ($<$160 pc), superposed on an underlying
rotation pattern. This outflow is probably associated with the ejecta
from the WR stellar population. The narrow ($\sigma \sim 45$\thinspace\hbox{$\hbox{km}\thinspace\hbox{s}^{-1}$})
and broad ($\sigma \sim 200$\thinspace\hbox{$\hbox{km}\thinspace\hbox{s}^{-1}$}) lines from the nucleus are
supersonic. The [O {\sc iii}]$\lambda$ 4363 and [N {\sc ii}]$\lambda$
5755 lines show peculiar kinematics, suggestive of outflow motions
from the nucleus, or multiplicity due to a patchy ISM.
4) We have also performed a PCA tomography analysis that
corroborates, in a completely independent manner, the kinematic
picture outlined above for Mrk 996: an outflow from the inner region,
associated with winds from WR stars, superposed on an underlying
rotation pattern, affecting the motions of low-density clouds. This
recently developed statistical method for handling data cubes has also
resulted in the independent detection of the narrow component of the
[O {\sc iii}]$\lambda$ 4363 line, not seen previously in integrated
spectra. This detection allows a reliable and direct measurement of
the chemical abundances in the region outside the nucleus.
5) We obtain an oxygen abundance 12+log(O/H)=7.90$\pm0.30$ ($\sim$ 0.2
$Z_\odot$) for the low-density narrow-line region around the
nucleus, in agreement with the abundance derived by \cite{T96}, but
considerably less than the lower limit of 12+logO/H=8.37 derived
by \cite{J09} for the broad-line region, based on an assumed
electron temperature. The N/O ratio in the low-density region is
typical of BCDs. However, as discussed by previous investigators,
there is a nitrogen enhancement by a factor of $\sim$ 20 in the
nuclear region, probably due to nitrogen-enriched WR ejecta, but also
to enhanced nitrogen line emission in a high-density environment.
The presence of a large number of WR stars in the nucleus of this
dwarf starburst galaxy greatly affecting its local kinematics is
somewhat unexpected because of its sub-solar oxygen abundances. If we
take the results of stellar population models at face value \citep[see,
e.g.,][]{cer94}, this implies that we are witnessing a very
short phase of the evolution of the starburst in Mrk 996.
6) Finally, we have used a method recently proposed by \cite{smro09}
to map low- and high-density regions in Mrk 996. By performing
surface photometry on the resulting high-density image, we have
obtained an upper limit of $\sim$ 1\farcs6 ($\sim$ 160 pc) for the
diameter of the nuclear region. This region is where the broad lines
originate. The emission line ratios in the BPT diagnostic diagram
appear to indicate ionization from UV radiation of massive stars
alone. The presence of harder ionizing radiation, as implied by the
presence of the [O {\sc iv}] $\lambda$25.9 $\mu$m emission-line in its
MIR spectrum \citep{T08}, is most likely due to fast radiative shocks
propagating in a dense interstellar medium. This is in agreement
with the Chandra X-ray study of Mrk 996 by \cite{G11} who rule out
an AGN, but also favor shocks as the ionization source for the [O
{\sc iv}] $\lambda$25.9 $\mu$m emission. We intend to
investigate this issue further with new integral field observations in the
near-IR with adaptive optics. This will allow us to set
more stringent upper limits to the size of the broad-line emitting
region, and also to study additional physical properties of the nebular
emission in this wavelength range including possible H$_2$ emission
that probe the warm molecular gas in the shells around the
photo-dissociation regions.
The advent of Integral Field Units has allowed spatially
resolved spectroscopy, with
the simultaneous acquisition of a complete set of spectra covering
a spatially resolved field of view. Despite this great instrumental
advance, the superior and abundant data that are obtained
with IFUs are still mostly analyzed with the traditional techniques
of 1D slit spectroscopy. Although
these traditional methods are useful for a first look at the data,
they do not fully exploit the wealth of information
given by integral field spectroscopy. In some cases, they may
not even be the proper tools to use, particularly when assumptions on
boundaries of regions need to be made, or other structure-dependent
physical equilibria need to be assumed. We have attempted to apply
a few new techniques to the data in this paper, and they have
yielded useful results. More new methodologies for analysis are required,
and we will apply them as they are devised.
\acknowledgements
E.T. acknowledges the US Gemini Fellowship by AURA that supported his
visit to the Astronomy Department of the University of Virginia where
most of this work was carried out. T.X.T is grateful for the hospitality of the
Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris. We thank Roberto Cid Fernandes,
Linda J. Smith, Mark Whittle, and Fran\c cois Cuisinier (in memorium)
for reading the manuscript and providing fruitful comments. We are
also indebted to Joao Steiner and Tiago Ricci for their comprehensive
help with the application and interpretation of our PCA tomography
results. We are specially thankful to the referee for his/her careful
analysis of this manuscript and criticisms and suggestions that
greatly improved the presentation of our results.
|
\section{Introduction}
The notion of finite type mappings have been extensively studied by several geometers after it was introduced by B. Y. Chen in late 1970's. Many results in this topic have been published so far, \cite{ChenRapor}. Even now, there are several open problems on this subject which are currently being dealt with.
Let $\mathbb E^m_s$ denote the semi-Euclidean space with dimension $m$ and index $s$ whose metric tensor is given by
$$\tilde g=\langle\ ,\ \rangle=-\sum\limits_{i=1}^sx_i^2+\sum\limits_{j=s+1}^mx_j^2$$
and $M$ be an oriented $n$-dimensional semi-Euclidean submanifold of $\mathbb E^m_s$. Consider a smooth mapping $\phi$ defined on $M$ into another semi-Euclidean space $\mathbb E^N_S$. $\phi$ is said to be $k$-type if it can be expressed as a sum of
\begin{equation}\label{FiniteTypeGaussDef}
\phi=\phi_0+\phi_1+\phi_2+\hdots+\phi_k,
\end{equation}
where $\phi_0$ is a constant vector and $\phi_i$ is a non-constant eigenvector of $\Delta$ corresponding to eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ for $i=1,2,\hdots,k$ with $\lambda_1<\lambda_2<\hdots< \lambda_k$ and $\Delta$ is the Laplace operator of $M$ with respect to the induced metric of $M$, \cite{Chen-Morvan-Nore}. Note that if the position vector of $M$ is $k$-type, then $M$ is said to be of $k$-type, \cite{ChenKitap,ChenMakale1986}.
In particular, if the mapping $\phi$ is the Gauss map of $M$, then $M$ is said to have $k$-type Gauss map, \cite{Chen-Piccinni}. From these definitions, one can immediately see that an oriented submanifold $M$ of the semi-Euclidean space $\mathbb E^m_s$ has 1-type Gauss map if and only if its Gauss map $\nu$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{Glbl1TypeDefinition}
\Delta \nu = \lambda (\nu+C)
\end{equation}
for a constant $\lambda$ and a constant vector $C$. On the other hand, if $\nu$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{PW1TypeDefinition}
\Delta \nu =f(\nu +C)
\end{equation}
for a smooth non-constant function $f$ and a constant vector $C$, then $M$ is said to have proper pointwise 1-type Gauss map.
A surface $M$ in a 4-dimensional Lorentzian manifold is said to be quasi-minimal if its mean curvature vector is light-like on every point of $M$. In this work, we study the quasi-minimal surfaces of the de Sitter space-time $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$ in terms of the type of their Gauss map. In the Section 2, after we describe the general notion that we use, we give a brief summary of the basic facts and definitions. In the section 3, we obtain the complete classification of quasi-minimal surfaces of de Sitter space-time with 1-type Gauss map. We also give a characterization of these type of surfaces with proper pointwise 1-type Gauss map.
\section{Prelimineries}
In this section, we give the basic definitions and facts, \cite{ONeillKitap}. We also mention about the notations which we will use in this paper, which are along the lines used in \cite{NCTGenRelGrav}.
We put
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathbb S^{m-1}_s(r^2,c_0)&=&\{x\in\mathbb E^m_s: \langle x-c_0, x-c_0 \rangle=r^{-2}\},\notag
\\
\mathbb H^{m-1}_{s-1}(-r^2,c_0)&=&\{x\in\mathbb E^m_s: \langle x-c_0, x-c_0\rangle=-r^{-2}\},\notag
\end{eqnarray}
where $\langle\ ,\ \rangle$ is the indefinite inner product of $\mathbb E^m_s$. In general relativity, $\mathbb E^4_1$, $\mathbb S^{4}_1 (r^2)=\mathbb S^{4}_1 (r^2,0)$ and $\mathbb H^{4}_1 (r^2)=\mathbb H^{4}_1 (r^2,0)$
are known as the Minkowski, de Sitter and anti-de Sitter space-times, respectively, \cite{ChenVeken2009Houston}.
Now, consider a space-like surface $M$ of de Sitter space-time $\mathbb S^{4}_1 (1)$. We put $\nabla$ and $\widetilde\nabla$ for the Levi Civita connections of $M$ and $\mathbb S^{4}_1 (1)$ respectively. Then, the Gauss and Weingarten formulas of $M$ become
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{MEtomGauss} \widetilde\nabla_X Y&=& \nabla_X Y + h(X,Y),\\
\label{MEtomWeingarten} \widetilde\nabla_X \xi&=& -A_\xi X+D_X \xi
\end{eqnarray}
for any tangent vector field $X,\ Y$ and normal vector field $\xi$, where $h$ and $D$ are the second fundemental form and the normal connection of $M$ in $\mathbb S^{4}_1 (1)$, respectively and $A$ is the shape operator of $M$. We denote the curvature tensor associated with the connections $\nabla$ and $D$ by $R$ and $R^D$, respectively.
The Codazzi equation is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{MinkCodazzi} D_X h(Y,Z)-h(\nabla_X Y,Z)-h(Y,\nabla_X Z)=D_Y h(X,Z)-h(\nabla_Y X,Z)-h(X,\nabla_Y Z).
\end{equation}
The mean curvature vector $H$ of $M$ in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$ is defined by $H=\frac 12 \mathrm{tr}h$. If $H$ is light-like on $M$, then $M$ is said to be a quasi-minimal surface in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$.
\subsection{Gauss map}\label{SubSectMinkGaussMap}
Let $\Lambda^{n}(\mathbb E^m_s)$ and $\tilde G(n, m)$ denote the space of $n$-vectors on $\mathbb E^m_s$ and the Grassmannian manifold consisting of all oriented $n$-planes through the origin of $\mathbb E^m_s$, respectively. Note that $\tilde G(n, m)$ is canonically imbedded in $\Lambda^{n}(\mathbb E^m_s)$ which is an $N$ dimensional vector field, where $N= {m\choose {n}}$. A non-degenerate inner product on $\Lambda^{n}(\mathbb E^m_s)$ is defined by
$$\langle X_1\wedge X_2\wedge\cdots\wedge X_{n}, Y_1\wedge Y_2\wedge\cdots\wedge Y_{n}\rangle= \det(\langle X_i,Y_j\rangle),$$
where $X_i,\;Y_i\in\mathbb E^m_{s},\; i=1,2,\hdots,n$ and $\langle X_i,Y_j\rangle$ denotes the semi-Euclidean inner product of the vectors $X_i$ and $Y_j$. We will denote the inner product space $\Big(\Lambda^{n}(\mathbb E^m_s),\langle,\rangle\Big)$ by $\Lambda^{m,n}_S$, where $S$ is its index. There exists a one-to-one, onto and linear isometry from $\Lambda^{m,n}_S$ into $\mathbb E^N_S$, because their dimension and index are equal(see \cite[p. 52]{ONeillKitap}). Hence, we have $\tilde G(n, m)\subset\Lambda^{m,n}_S\cong\mathbb E^N_S$.
Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional, oriented space-like submanifold of the semi-Euclidean space $\mathbb E^m_s$. Consider a local orthonormal base field $\{e_1, e_2,\hdots,e_{n}\}$ of the tangent bundle of $M$. Then, the Laplace operator of $M$ with respect to the induced metric is
\begin{equation}\label{SemiEuclSpacSubmflDelta}
\Delta=\sum\limits^n_{i=1}(-e_ie_i+\nabla_{e_i}e_i).
\end{equation}
The smooth mapping
\begin{equation}\label{MinkGaussTasvTanim}
\begin{array}{rcl}\nu:M&\rightarrow&\tilde G(n, m)\subset R^{N-1}_S (1)\subset \mathbb E^N_S\cong\Lambda^{m,n}_S\\
p&\mapsto&\nu(p)=(e_{1}\wedge e_{2}\wedge\hdots\wedge e_n)(p)\end{array}
\end{equation}
is called the (tangent) Gauss map of $M$ which assigns a point $p$ in $M$ to the representation of the oriented
$n$-plane through the origin of $\mathbb E^m_s$ and parallel to the tangent space of $M$ at $p$.
$M$ is said to have 1-type Gauss map if \eqref{Glbl1TypeDefinition} is satisfied for a constant $\lambda$ and a constant vector $C\in \mathbb E^6_3$. Moreover, $M$ is said to have pointwise 1-type Gauss map if \eqref{PW1TypeDefinition} is satisfied for a smooth function $f$ and a constant vector $C\in \mathbb E^6_3$, \cite{Chen-Piccinni,KKKM}. A pointwise 1-type Gauss map is called proper if \eqref{PW1TypeDefinition} is satisfied for a non-constant function $f$.
\section{Surfaces with pointwise 1-type Gauss map}
Let $M$ be a space-like surface in $\mathbb E^m_s$ and $\nu$ its Gauss map. Consider an orthonormal frame field $\{e_1,e_2;e_3,e_4,\hdots,e_m\}$. From \cite[Lemma 3.2]{KKKM}, one can obtain that $\nu$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{Pre121Mink4GaussLaplMargTrapped}
\Delta\nu=\|\hat h\|^2\nu+\sum\limits_{3\leq\alpha\leq\beta\leq m}\varepsilon_\alpha\varepsilon_\beta\langle R^{\hat D}(e_1,e_2)e_\alpha,e_\beta\rangle e_\alpha\wedge e_\beta-2\hat D_{e_1}\hat H\wedge e_2-2e_1\wedge \hat D_{e_2}\hat H,
\end{equation}
where $\hat D$, $\hat h$ and $\hat H$ denote normal connection, second fundemental form and mean curvature vector of $M$ in $\mathbb E^m_s$, respectively, $R^{\hat D}$ is the curvature tensor associated with $\hat D$ and $\|\hat h\|^2$ is the squared norm of $\hat h$.
\subsection{Space-like surfaces in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$}
Now, consider a surface $M$ in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)\subset\mathbb E^5_1$ and let $x$ be its position vector in $\mathbb E^5_1$.
We want to note that the following equalities is satisfied for any vector fields $\xi,\ \eta$ normal to $M$ and tangent to $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$
\begin{align}\nonumber
\begin{split}
&h(e_i,e_j)=\hat h(e_i,e_j)+\delta_{ij} x,\\
& R^{\hat D}(e_1,e_2;\xi,x)=0, \quad R^{\hat D}(e_1,e_2;\xi,\eta)=R^{D}(e_1,e_2;\xi,\eta),\\
&\hat D_{e_i}\hat H=D_{e_i}H,
\end{split}
\end {align}
where $\hat D$, $\hat h$ and $\hat H$ denote normal connection, second fundemental form and mean curvature vector of $M$ in $\mathbb E^5_1$, respectively, and $R^{\hat D}$ is the curvature tensor associated with $\hat D$.
By taking into account these equations, we obtain from \eqref{Pre121Mink4GaussLaplMargTrapped} that
\begin{align}\label{Mink4GaussLaplMargTrppd}
\begin{split}
\Delta\nu=&\left(4-2K+\langle H,H\rangle\right)\nu -2R^D(e_1,e_2;e_3,e_4)e_3\wedge e_4\\&-2D_{e_1}H\wedge e_2-2e_1\wedge D_{e_2}H.
\end{split}
\end{align}
Now, we assume that $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map, i.e., \eqref{PW1TypeDefinition} is satisfied for a smooth function $f$ and a constant vector $C\in \mathbb E^6_3$. From \eqref{PW1TypeDefinition} and \eqref{Mink4GaussLaplMargTrppd} we obtain
\begin{align}\nonumber
\begin{split}
f(\nu+C)=&\left(4-2K+\langle H,H\rangle\right)\nu -2R^D(e_1,e_2;e_3,e_4)e_3\wedge e_4\\&-2D_{e_1}H\wedge e_2-2e_1\wedge D_{e_2}H.
\end{split}
\end{align}
from which we get
\begin{equation}\label{CxeAlr}
\langle C,x\wedge e_A\rangle=0,\quad A=1,2,3,4.
\end{equation}
from which we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{CxeAlrei}
e_i(\langle C,x\wedge e_A\rangle)=0,\quad i=1,2.
\end{equation}
As $C$ is a constant vector, \eqref{CxeAlrei} implies
\begin{equation}\label{CxeAlreiaaa}
\langle C,e_i(x\wedge e_A)\rangle=0.
\end{equation}
By using \eqref{MEtomGauss} and \eqref{MEtomWeingarten}, we obtain
\begin{align}\label{CxeAlreiaaaaa}
e_i(x\wedge e_A) =e_i\wedge e_A+x\wedge \zeta,
\end{align}
where $\zeta$ is a vector field tangent to $S^4_1(1).$ From \eqref{CxeAlr}-\eqref{CxeAlreiaaaaa} we get
\begin{equation}\label{NihaiSonuc}
\langle C,e_i\wedge e_A\rangle=0,\quad A=1,2,3,4,\ i=1,2.
\end{equation}
Thus, we obtain that $C$ is of the form of $C=C_{34}e_3\wedge e_4$. By a further calculation, we have $C_{34}=0$ which yields $C=0$. Thus, we have
\begin{Prop}\label{PropPW1TYPE}
Let $M$ be a surface in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$. If $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map, then \eqref{PW1TypeDefinition} is satisfied for $f=4-2K+\langle H,H\rangle$ and $C=0.$
\end{Prop}
Now we want to give the following corollaries of this proposition
\begin{Corol}
Let $M$ be a space-like surface in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$ with non-zero mean curvature vector $H$. Then, $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map if and only if $H$ is parallel.
\end{Corol}
\begin{proof}
Now, we assume that $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map and $H\neq0$. Then, Proposition \ref{PropPW1TYPE} implies that \eqref{PW1TypeDefinition} is satisfied for $C=0$ and $f=4-2K+\langle H,H\rangle$. From \eqref{PW1TypeDefinition} and \eqref{Mink4GaussLaplMargTrppd} we have
\begin{equation}\label{MaxNonmaxAraDenk01}
\left(4-2K+\langle H,H\rangle\right)\nu -2R^D(e_1,e_2;e_3,e_4)e_3\wedge e_4-2D_{e_1}H\wedge e_2-2e_1\wedge D_{e_2}H=f\nu
\end{equation}
which imply $D_{e_i}H=0$, i.e., $H$ is parallel.
Conversely, if $H$ is parallel, then the normal bundle of $M$ is flat. Thus \eqref{Mink4GaussLaplMargTrppd} implies $\Delta\nu=\left(4-2K+\langle H,H\rangle\right)\nu$. Hence, $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map.
\end{proof}
\begin{Corol}
Let $M$ be a space-like surface in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$ with zero mean curvature vector. Then, $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map if and only if $M$ has flat normal bundle.
\end{Corol}
\begin{proof}
Now, we assume $H=0$. Then, because of Proposition \ref{PropPW1TYPE} and \eqref{Mink4GaussLaplMargTrppd}, $M$ has pointwise 1-type Gauss map if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{MaxNonmaxAraDenk02}
\left(4-2K+\langle H,H\rangle\right)\nu -2R^D(e_1,e_2;e_3,e_4)e_3\wedge e_4=f\nu
\end{equation}
is satisfied for a smooth function $f$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Gauss map of quasi-minimal surfaces in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$}
The author obtained the following results in \cite{NCTGenRelGrav}.
\begin{Prop}\label{Glbl1TypePROP}\cite{NCTGenRelGrav}
Let $M$ be a marginally trapped surface in the de Sitter space-time. If $M$ has 1-type Gauss map, then $\Delta\nu=4\nu$ or $\Delta\nu=2\nu$.
\end{Prop}
\begin{Corol}\cite{NCTGenRelGrav}
There is no marginally trapped surface in the de Sitter space-time with harmonic Gauss map.
\end{Corol}
In this subsection, we will give the complete classification of quasi-minimal surfaces in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$ with 1-type Gauss map.
In \cite{ChenVeken2009Houston}, the classification of quasi-minimal surfaces in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$ with parallel mean curvature vector is given. It is obtained that a quasi-minimal surface $M$ has parallel mean curvature vector in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$ if and only if it is congruent to an open part of the following eight type of surfaces:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] A surface given by
\begin{equation}\label{S411ParallelHcase1}
x(u,v)=(1,\sin u,\cos u\cos v,\cos u\sin v,1);
\end{equation}
\item[(ii)] A surface given by
\begin{equation}\label{S411ParallelHcase2}
\displaystyle x(u,v)=\frac 12(2u^2-1,2u^2-2,2u,\sin 2v,\cos 2v);
\end{equation}
\item[(iii)] A surface given by
\begin{equation}\label{S411ParallelHcase3}
x(u,v)=\left(\frac b{cd},\frac {\cos cu}{c},\frac {\sin cu}{c},\frac {\cos dv}{d},\frac {\sin dv}{d}\right),
\end{equation}
where $c=\sqrt{2-b}$ and $d=\sqrt{2+b}$ with $|b|<2$;
\item[(iv)] A surface given by
\begin{equation}\label{S411ParallelHcase4}
x(u,v)=\left(\frac {\cosh cu}{c},\frac {\sinh cu}{c},\frac {\cos dv}{d},\frac {\sin dv}{d},\frac b{cd}\right),
\end{equation}
where $c=\sqrt{b-2}$ and $d=\sqrt{b+2}$ with $|b|>2$;
\item[(v)] A surface of curvature one with constant light-like mean curvature vector, lying in $K_a=\{(t,x_2,x_3,x_4,t+a)| t,x_2,x_3,x_4\in\mathbb R\}$;
\item[(vi)] A surface of curvature one lying in $\mathcal {LC}_1=\{(y,1)|\langle y,y \rangle=0,y\in\mathbb E^4_1\}$;
\item[(vii)] A surface lying in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)\cap \mathbb S^4(c_0,r^2),$ where $c_0\neq0$ and $r>0$;
\item[(viii)] A surface lying in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)\cap \mathbb H^4(c_0,-r^2),$ where $c_0\neq0$ and $r>0$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{Remark}\label{REmmark01}
By a simple calculation, one can see that the surfaces given by \eqref{S411ParallelHcase1}-\eqref{S411ParallelHcase4} have constant Gaussian curvature. Therefore, by taking into account Proposition \ref{PropPW1TYPE}, it is easy to obtain that all of the surfaces given in case (i)-(vi) has 1-type Gauss map.
\end{Remark}
In the next lemmas, we will show that the surfaces given in case (vii) and (viii) have non-constant Gaussian curvature.
\begin{Lemma}\label{ALEmmma01}
A quasi-minimal surface in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$ lying in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)\cap \mathbb S^4(c_0,r^2)$ has non-constant Gaussian curvature and parallel mean curvature vector in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$, where $c_0\neq0$ and $r>0$.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be a quasi-minimal surface in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$ lying in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)\cap \mathbb S^4(c_0,r^2)$.
Then, we have $\langle x,x\rangle=1$ and $\langle x-c_0,x-c_0\rangle=r^{-2}$. These equations imply
\begin{subequations}\label{ALEmmma01Denk01}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ALEmmma01Denk01a}\langle x,X\rangle&=&0\\
\label{ALEmmma01Denk01b}\langle x-c_0,X\rangle&=&0\\
\label{ALEmmma01Denk01c}\langle c_0,X\rangle&=&0
\end{eqnarray}
\end{subequations}
for all vector fields $X$ tangent to $M$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{ALEmmma01Denk02}\langle x,c_0\rangle=c
\end{equation}
for a constant $c$.
Now, we define a vector field $\xi$ on $M$ as $\xi=\langle c_0,x\rangle x-c_0$. Note that $\xi$ is normal to $M$, tangent to $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$ because of \eqref{ALEmmma01Denk01b} and \eqref{ALEmmma01Denk01c}. Moreover, \eqref{ALEmmma01Denk01a} and \eqref{ALEmmma01Denk02} imply $\langle\xi,\xi\rangle=a$ for a constant $a$. From \eqref{ALEmmma01Denk02} we have
$\widetilde\nabla_{X}\xi=\langle c_0,x\rangle X$. Thus, $\xi$ is parallel and the shape operator along $\xi$ is proportional to identity operator by a constant.
Now, we will show that the Gaussian curvature $K$ of $M$ is non-constant. We assume that $K$ is constant and consider the orthonormal base field $\{e_3,e_4\}$ of the normal bundle of $M$ such that $e_4$ is proportional to $\xi$. As $H$ is parallel, light-like and $K$ is constant, we may choose a base field $\{e_1,e_2\}$ of the tangent bundle of $M$ such that $A_3=\mathrm{diag}(b-c,b+c)$ and $A_4=bI$ for some constants $b$ and $c$. From the Codazzi equation \eqref{MinkCodazzi}, we have
$$\omega_{12}(e_i)(h(e_1,e_1)-h(e_2,e_2))=0,\quad i=1,2$$
which implies $K=0$ which yields a contradiction. Hence, the proof is completed.
\end{proof}
Similarly, we have
\begin{Lemma}\label{ALEmmma02}
A quasi-minimal surface lying in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)\cap \mathbb H^4(c_0,-r^2)$ has non-constant Gaussian curvature and parallel mean curvature vector, where $c_0\neq0$ and $r>0$.
\end{Lemma}
By combaining Proposition \ref{PropPW1TYPE}, Remark \ref{REmmark01}, Lemma \ref{ALEmmma01} and Lemma \ref{ALEmmma02} we obtain the following results.
\begin{theorem}
Let $M$ be a quasi-minimal surface lying in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$. Then $M$ has 1-type Gauss map if and only if it is congruent to a surface congruent to either one of the surfaces given by \eqref{S411ParallelHcase1}-\eqref{S411ParallelHcase4} or the following two type of surfaces:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] A surface of curvature one with constant light-like mean curvature vector, lying in $K_a=\{(t,x_2,x_3,x_4,t+a)| t,x_2,x_3,x_4\in\mathbb R\}$;
\item[(ii)] A surface of curvature one lying in $\mathcal {LC}_1=\{(y,1)|\langle y,y \rangle=0,y\in\mathbb E^4_1\}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{theorem}
Let $M$ be a quasi-minimal surface lying in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)$. Then $M$ has proper pointwise 1-type Gauss map if and only if it is congruent to a surface congruent to one of the the following two type of surfaces:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] A surface lying in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)\cap \mathbb S^4(c_0,r^2),$ where $c_0\neq0$ and $r>0$;
\item[(ii)] A surface lying in $\mathbb S^4_1(1)\cap \mathbb H^4(c_0,-r^2),$ where $c_0\neq0$ and $r>0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author is supported by the Scientific Research Agency of Istanbul Technical University.
|
\section{Introduction}
Models of warped extra dimensions\cite{Randall:1999ee} (WED) have become one of the major ideas in addressing the naturalness problems of the Standard Model (SM), and have been the subject of many phenomenological studies over the past years. As it is the case with any new physics appearing at the low scale, there exists a potential flavor problem.
However, it was soon realized that localizing matter in the bulk of the extra dimension\cite{Grossman:1999ra,Gherghetta:2000qt,Huber:2000ie} not only opens the possibility to a natural explanation of the SM fermion mass hierarchy, but also offers a very effective suppression of flavor violating effects.
This brief review is meant as a summary of the status of flavor violation in WED and the leading bounds coming from both quark and lepton transitions. In this work we will not consider at all models with all fields residing on the IR brane. Such models are in principle much more severely constrained, as quantum gravity effects induce (incalculable) IR brane localized flavor violation at the TeV scale.
The paper is structured as follows. In Sec.~\ref{warpedflavor} we briefly recapitulate the flavor structure generated by WED with matter in the bulk, and review the main constraints coming from electroweak precision tests (EWPT).
In section \ref{operators} we identify the potentially dangerous flavor violating operators as they are generated at the scale of the Kaluza Klein (KK) masses. Sec.~\ref{boundsquarks} focuses on $\Delta F=2$ and $\Delta F=1$ transitions in the quark sector, and in Sec.~\ref{boundsleptons} we consider lepton flavor violation (LFV).
\section{Warped Theories of Flavor}
\label{warpedflavor}
Warped theories of flavor are based on the localization of fermion fields at different points in the extra dimension.\cite
{Grossman:1999ra,Gherghetta:2000qt,Huber:2000ie} The model is defined by metric \cite{Randall:1999ee}
\begin{equation}
ds^2=\frac{1}{(kz)^2}(dx_\mu^2+dz^2)
\end{equation}
with ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) branes located at $z_0=k^{-1}$ and $z_1=\tilde k^{-1}$ respectively. The quantity $\epsilon\equiv \tilde k/k$ is known as the warp factor and should be fixed to $\epsilon\sim 10^{-16}$ in order to account for the full Planck-TeV hierarchy. The masses of the lightest gauge-KK resonances (including possible custodial partners) are given by $m_{\rm KK}\approx 2.4\, \tilde k$. The fermion equation of motion determines their normalized zero mode profiles $f_f(z)$
\begin{equation}
\Psi_f(x,z)=f_f(z)\, \psi_f(x)+{\rm KK\ excitations}
\end{equation}
in terms of their bulk mass\footnote{We take fields with left handed zero modes ($f=q_L,\ell_L$) to have bulk mass $m_{f}=- c_f\, k$ and those with right handed zero modes ($f=u_R,d_R,e_R$) to have bulk mass $m_{f}=+ c_f\, k$. In this convention, all fields with $c_f>\frac{1}{2}$ are UV localized
} $m_{f}=\mp c_f\, k$ as
\begin{equation}
f_f(z)=\sqrt{(1-2c_f)k}\frac{(kz)^{2-c_f}}{\sqrt{(kz_1)^{1-2c_f}-1}}
\end{equation}
The profiles of the Higgs field zero mode is given by
\begin{equation}
f_\phi(z)=\sqrt{2(a-1)k}\frac{(kz)^a}{\sqrt{(kz_1)^{2(a-1)}-1}}\,\qquad a>2
\end{equation}
where the inequality ensures that the Higgs field is sufficiently IR localized and thus the hierarchy problem is solved by the warping. The parameter $a$ determines the localization of the Higgs field, in particular $a=2$ corresponds to gauge-Higgs unification and $a=\infty$ to a brane Higgs. \footnote{In case of an 5d bulk Higgs field, $a$ can be related to its bulk mass as $a=2+\sqrt{4+m_\phi^2/k^2}$.} Yukawa couplings are then computed using wave function overlap integrals. In practice, the only relevant regime is when $a>c_{q_L}+c_{q_R}$, in which case the Yukawas can be approximated as
\begin{equation}
Y^q_{ij}\sim
\hat Y^q_{ij} \epsilon_{q_L^i}\epsilon_{q_R^j} \,,\qquad \epsilon_f=\sqrt{\frac{1-2c_f}{1-\epsilon^{1-2c_f}}}
\end{equation}
where $\hat Y$ denote the 5d Yukawa couplings in units of the curvature $k$.
Fermion Yukawa hierarchies can then arise purely from $\mathcal O(1)$ numbers by localizing all but the third generation quark doublet and the right handed (RH) top near the UV brane, $c_f>\frac{1}{2}$. Typical values obtained from the fit in Ref.~\refcite{Cabrer:2011qb} that reproduce the known quark masses and mixings are given in Tab.~\ref{ta1}.
\begin{table}[h]
\tbl{ Medians and $1\sigma$ confidence intervals of the $c$ parameters corresponding to the different species of quarks and chiralities, with $a=2$.}
{\begin{tabular}{@{}lll@{}} \toprule
$c_{q^1_L} =0.66 \pm 0.02$ & $c_{q^2_L} = 0.59 \pm 0.02 $ & $c_{q^3_L} = -0.11^{+0.45}_{-0.53}
\\
$c_{u_R} = 0.71 \pm 0.02$ & $c_{c_R} = 0.57 \pm 0.02$ & $c_{t_R} = 0.42^{+0.05}_{-0.17}
\\
$c_{d_R} = 0.66 \pm 0.03$ & $c_{s_R} = 0.65 \pm 0.03 $ & $c_{b_R} = 0.64 \pm 0.02$
\\
\botrule
\end{tabular}\label{ta1} }
\end{table}
We would like to point out two fine tuning issues with the choice of the $c$ parameters, which are not always very much appreciated in the literature.
\begin{itemize}
\item All the UV localized fields (with $c_f>\frac{1}{2})$ need to have values $c_f$ rather close to the critical value $\frac{1}{2}$. The reason for this is that the suppression factors behave as $\epsilon_{f}\sim\epsilon^{c_f-\frac{1}{2}}$, i.e.~they scale as powers of the Planck-TeV hierarchy $\epsilon=\tilde k/k$, which is rather large compared to the typical flavor hierarchies.
\item
The $c_{d_R^i}$ are quite degenerate. This lack of right handed hierarchy results typically in large right handed down quark rotations, making flavor observables involving these fields particularly sensitive to the KK mass scale.\footnote{The RS-GIM mechanism explained below implies that flavor violating couplings scale as $\Delta c\, \epsilon^{|\Delta c|}$, and hence they are maximal for $\Delta c=\left|\log \epsilon\right|^{-1}\approx 0.027$.}
\end{itemize}
The reason for the second point is that the hierarchy in the $\epsilon_{q_L^i}$ is completely determined by the CKM matrix as\footnote{A useful relation to remember is that all rotations roughly scale as $V^q_{ij}= \frac{\epsilon_{q^j}}{\epsilon_{q^i}}$, for $i<j$ .}
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_{q_L^1}:\epsilon_{q_L^2}:\epsilon_{q_L^3}\sim 1:5:125.
\end{equation}
Using this in the hierarchy for the eigenvalues of the up and down quark Yukawa couplings,
$y_d:y_s:y_b\sim 1:20:800
\ and $y_u:y_c:y_t\sim 1:560:75000$,
one finds
\begin{align}
\epsilon_{d_R^1}:\epsilon_{d_R^2}:\epsilon_{d_R^3}&\sim 1:4:6.
&\epsilon_{u_R^1}:\epsilon_{u_R^2}:\epsilon_{u_R^3}&\sim 1:110:600\,,
\label{RHhierarchy}
\end{align}
which shows that the down quark hierarchy is almost completely saturated by the left handed suppression factors, $\epsilon_{q_L^i}$. In contrast, the up quark sector typically requires also a large RH hierarchy.
The most common flavor changing effects result from the coupling to KK gauge bosons (in particular, gluons). The wave functions of these modes rapidly approach a constant in the UV.
A flavor protection mechanism then arises naturally as follows.\cite{Huber:2003tu,Agashe:2004cp} The wave function overlap integral determines the interaction strength between the fermion current and the vector resonance schematically as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal L= g_{5d}\left( \frac{c_{(n)}}{\left|\log{\epsilon}\right|}+c'_{(n)}\epsilon_f^2\right) J_f^\mu A^{(n)}_\mu
\end{equation}
where $c_{(n)}$ and $c_{(n)}'$ are $\mathcal O(1)$ numbers.
Hence, for near UV localized fermions the flavor-nonuniversal second term is suppressed.
When rotating the fermions to the mass eigenbasis, only this second term contributes to flavor changing couplings, while the first term remains flavor diagonal due to the unitarity of the rotations.
This way of suppressing flavor violation is sometimes referred to as the RS-GIM mechanism.
As we will see, although the RS-GIM mechanism greatly lowers the naive KK mass needed to suppress FCNCs, it is still around ~10--20 TeV (depending on the amount of fine-tuning accepted). Some authors therefore suggested additional flavor protection mechanisms, including symmetries,\cite{Cacciapaglia:2007fw,Cheung:2007bu,Santiago:2008vq,Csaki:2008eh,Bauer:2011ah,vonGersdorff:2012tt} or modified geometries,\cite{Atkins:2010cc,Archer:2011bk,Cabrer:2011qb,Archer:2012qa} which we will briefly comment on in the Sec.~\ref{boundsquarks} and \ref{boundsleptons}.
As is clear from this discussion, flavor violating couplings scale with the suppression factors $\epsilon_f$. Keeping the 4d Yukawas fixed, this means that one can achieve additional flavor protection by increasing the 5d Yukawa couplings $\hat Y_{ij}$.
Typical scans allow $\hat Y_{ij}<3$, but larger values have been considered and allow for a significant reduction in the bounds. Let us thus briefly comment on naive dimensional analysis estimates for Yukawa couplings. Imposing one loop corrections to not exceed tree level couplings, one would demand
\begin{equation}
\hat Y^2 \hat \Lambda^{-2 d_Y}<\ell_d\,,
\end{equation}
where $\hat \Lambda$ is the cutoff in units of the warped-down curvature $\tilde k$. For instance, in order to be able to go up to 2 (3) KK gluon modes, one would impose $\hat\Lambda=5.5\ (8.6)$.
The dimension $d_Y$ of the 5d Yukawa coupling depends on the nature of the Higgs (bulk or brane) and the location of the Yukawa coupling (for brane Higgs field $d_Y=-1$, while for a bulk Higgs field $d_Y=-\frac{1}{2}$ for a bulk coupling and $d_Y=-\frac{3}{2}$ for a brane coupling). According to the location of the operator we need to apply a loop factor $\ell_5=24 \pi^3$ for bulk operators and $\ell_4=16 \pi^2$ for brane operators.\cite{vonGersdorff:2008df}
For a cutoff corresponding to 2 (3) KK modes, one then obtains $\hat Y<2.3\, (1.5)$ for a brane localized Higgs, while for a bulk Higgs one has $\hat Y_{\rm bulk}<11.6\, (9.3)$ and $\hat Y_{\rm brane}<1.0\, (0.5)$ for bulk and brane Yukawas respectively.
However, $\hat Y_{\rm bulk}$ also renormalizes $\hat Y_{\rm brane}$, which leads to a stronger bound on $\hat Y_{\rm bulk}$.
Imposing the bulk corrections to the brane coupling not to exceed the bound on $\hat Y_{\rm brane}$ leads to $\hat Y_{\rm bulk}^3<1.0\, (0.5)\,\ell_4$ or $\hat Y_{\rm bulk}<5.4\, (2.7)$.
\footnote{One might object that this 5d reasoning is not fully self-consistent when one only considers very few KK modes, as 5d locality is not probed unless a sufficiently large number of KK modes is included. However we stick to this naive approach here to get a rough estimate of our perturbativity limits.}
Related to these perturbativity bounds, it has also been pointed out that loop corrections to some flavor observables can become important as the latter are not suppressed but rather enhanced for larger Yukawa couplings.\cite{Csaki:2008zd}
Before starting the flavor analysis let us also mention recent re-evaluations of the electroweak precision observables. The bounds from $S$ and $T$ have become considerably stronger, here we quote the values found in Ref.~\refcite{fichet} from
the latest fit to EW data.\cite{Baak:2012kk} For the non-custodial case one finds from the S and T parameters
%
\begin{equation}
m_{\mathbf{\rm KK}}|_{a=\infty}> 14.6~\textrm{TeV}\,,\quad m_{\mathbf{\rm KK}}|_{a=2}>8.0~\textrm{TeV}\,.
\label{noncust}
\end{equation}
for brane and bulk Higgs respectively,
while in the custodial case,
\begin{equation}
m_{\mathbf{\rm KK}}|_{a=\infty}>7.6~\textrm{TeV}\,,\quad m_{\mathbf{\rm KK}}|_{a=2}>6.6~\textrm{TeV}\,.
\end{equation}
In case of a bulk Higgs with $a=2$, one could argue that there is therefore no longer a strong motivation to introduce custodial symmetry, as the improvement in the bounds is only marginal. A further constraint arises from the $Zbb$ coupling; in the non-custodial case this requires roughly $c_{b_L}>0.4\ (0.45)$ for $\hat Y^b=1.0\ (3.0)$, in order to push the corresponding bound below $\sim 6$ TeV.\cite{Cabrer:2011qb} In the custodial case, there exists the possibility to relax the bound by imposing a discrete left-right parity $P_{LR}$.\cite{Agashe:2006at}
Moreover, from recent fits\cite{Dumont:2013wma} one also finds that the coupling $a_V$ of the Higgs to $W$ and $Z$ also severely constrains the KK scale. For instance, in the custodial case\cite{fichet}
\begin{equation}
m_{\mathbf{\rm KK}}|_{a=\infty}>5.8~\textrm{TeV} \,\quad m_{\mathbf{\rm KK}}|_{a=2}>3.4~\textrm{TeV}
\end{equation}
Finally, we point out that bounds from EWPT can be relaxed by reducing the coupling of the Higgs to the electroweak KK modes, for instance by adding brane localized kinetic terms\cite{Carena:2002dz} or by modifying the geometry in the IR.\cite{Falkowski:2008fz,Cabrer:2010si,Cabrer:2011fb}
Notice that the $S$ parameter scales linearly with this coupling, while the $T$ parameter and $a_V$ scale quadratically.
In the remainder of the paper we will review bounds from several flavor observables, both for the custodial and non-custodial RS model.
As a general caveat we stress that, contrary to bounds from electroweak precision data, which are insensitive to many of the free parameters of the models, flavor observables depend strongly on the $\mathcal O(1)$ 5d Yukawa couplings. Hence, typically, a scan over these parameters is appropriate, resulting in rather broad distributions of the allowed KK scales.\cite{Bauer:2009cf,Cabrer:2011qb} Where available, we quote percentiles of these distributions.
To get an order of magnitude estimate of the bounds, sometimes the expressions for the observables are estimated by an average 5d Yuakwa coupling $Y_*$. The advantage are simple expressions for the bounds, but they do not allow to reveal other important quantitative features of the distributions such as variances and correlations between different observables.
\section{Operator analysis of flavor violation in RS}
\label{operators}
In this section we classify flavor violating operators in the unbroken electroweak basis. Short-distance contributions to flavor observables are conveniently accounted for in an effective field theory (EFT) approach with higher dimensional operators. As KK resonances are expected to be clearly separated from the electroweak (EW) scale, it is also convenient to compute these operators in the unbroken EW basis, assuming that the Higgs is a SM-like doublet.
All relevant operators have dimension six and are hence suppressed by two inverse powers of the KK scale. We will not consider any operators of dimension larger than 6.
\subsection{Four fermion operators}
\label{4f}
Four fermion operators can be generated via the exchange of all spin-1 resonances such as KK gluons and electroweak KK modes. Moreover, in custodially protected models there is also the exchange of resonances related to the extended EW gauge group. They can contribute to both $\Delta F=2$ and $\Delta F=1$ processes. In models with a bulk Higgs boson they are also generated from KK Higgs exchange.
We will refer to these flavor violating operators as {\em proper four fermion vertices} (as opposed to those that are generated
from $W$ and $Z$ exchange after EW breaking).
\subsection{Operators involving the Higgs}
\label{withhiggs}
There are three types of operators that can be generated at the tree level. The first class is given by
\begin{equation}
i(\bar f_L^i\sigma^a\gamma^\mu f_L^j)(\phi^\dagger \sigma^a\overleftrightarrow D_\mu\phi)
\,, \qquad
i(\bar f_{L,R}^i\gamma^\mu f_{L,R}^j)(\phi^\dagger \overleftrightarrow D_\mu\phi)
\end{equation}
These operators are generated from KK exchange of electroweak gauge bosons as well as various fermionic KK resonances. After EW symmetry breaking they give rise to flavor changing couplings of the $Z$ and $W$ bosons. Notice that the $W$ boson coupling, as a result of the integration of the KK fermions, is no longer given by a unitary matrix.
We will refer to these corrections as {\em EW vertex corrections}.
They are typically not important for $\Delta F=2$ processes, as their contributions to the latter have an additional $m_{\rm KK}^2$ suppression with respect to the proper four-quark interactions described in Sec.~\ref{4f}.
On the other hand, for $\Delta F=1$ processes, the electroweak vertex corrections induce four fermion vertices (below the EW scale) which are enhanced by a factor of $\log\epsilon^{-1}\approx 37$ compared to the proper four fermion operators. The reason is that
the flavor preserving femionic coupling to KK modes in the former is volume suppressed compared to the Higgs coupling with the KK modes in the latter.
We also observe that the KK fermion contributions to the EW vertex corrections scale in a different way with the 5d Yukawa couplings compared to the KK-gauge contributions. Keeping the fermion masses fixed, the latter behave as $\sim Y_*^{-1}$, while the former scale linearly $\sim Y_*$.
We will comment on some implications of this fact in Sec.~\ref{boundsleptons}.
General expressions for the coefficients for the above operators from KK fermions have been given in Refs.~\refcite{Cabrer:2011qb,Carmona:2011rd}, see also Ref.~\refcite{Buras:2009ka}.
\footnote{Some authors\cite{Casagrande:2008hr,Bauer:2009cf} prefer not to integrate out KK fermions but instead deal with the infinite dimensional rotation matrices that result from diagonalizing the mass matrix after EW breaking, i.e.~solving the equations of motion in the broken phase. Both procedures must agree up to corrections $\sim\mathcal O(v^4/m_{\rm KK}^4)$. }
A second class is given by the operator
\begin{equation}
i(\bar u_R^i\gamma^\mu d_R^j)(\tilde\phi^\dagger D_\mu\phi)
\label{anomalousW}
\end{equation}
which gives rise to anomalous couplings of the RH quarks to the $W$ boson. These operators are generated by exchange of KK fermions as well as resonances of the extended EW gauge group in custodial models. They are suppressed for the light quarks due to their UV localization, but can still be important for flavor observables.
The third class is given by
\begin{equation}
|\phi|^2\tilde\phi\, \bar q_L^i u_R^j\,,\qquad |\phi|^2 \phi\, \bar q_L^i d_R^j\,,\qquad
|\phi|^2 \phi\, \bar \ell_L^i e_R^j\,,
\end{equation}
and are generated by KK fermion exchange. They lead to flavor violating couplings to the Higgs boson.
\subsection{Dipole operators}
Electroweak dipole operators
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ccc}
\tilde \phi\, \bar q^i_L \sigma^{\mu\nu}u^j_R B_{\mu\nu}\,,
&\phi\, \bar q^i_L \sigma^{\mu\nu}d^j_R B_{\mu\nu}\,,
&\phi\, \bar \ell^i_L \sigma^{\mu\nu}e^j_R B_{\mu\nu}\,,\\
\vspace{-.25cm}
\\
\tilde\phi\, \sigma^a\bar q^i_L \sigma^{\mu\nu}u^j_R W^a_{\mu\nu}\,,\
&\ \phi\, \sigma^a\bar q^i_L \sigma^{\mu\nu}d^j_R W^a_{\mu\nu}\,,\
&\ \phi\, \sigma^a\bar \ell^i_L \sigma^{\mu\nu}e^j_R W^a_{\mu\nu}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and QCD dipole operators
\begin{equation}
\tilde\phi\, \bar q^i_L t^a\,\sigma^{\mu\nu}u^j_R G^a_{\mu\nu}\,,\qquad
\phi\, \bar q^i_L t^a\,\sigma^{\mu\nu}d^j_R G^a_{\mu\nu}\,,
\end{equation}
are only generated in loop diagrams and were computed e.g.~in Refs.~\refcite{Blanke:2012tv,Csaki:2010aj}.
\section{Bounds from the quark sector}
\label{boundsquarks}
\subsection{Bounds from CP violating $\Delta F=2$ observables}
\label{quarks}
By far the most stringent bounds arise from mixing in the neutral Kaon sector, in particular from $\epsilon_K$.~\cite{Huber:2003tu,Agashe:2004cp,Moreau:2006np,Csaki:2008zd,Santiago:2008vq,Csaki:2008eh,Blanke:2008zb,Agashe:2008uz,Bauer:2009cf,Cabrer:2011qb}
In RS models, there are contributions from KK gluons to the Wilson coefficients $C^{sd}_i$ of the weak Hamiltonian. The largest impact on $
\epsilon_K$ then comes from $C_4^{sd}$, see for instance Ref.~\refcite{Bona:2007vi}.
In the non-custodial model, distributions for the allowed values of KK gluon masses were computed in Refs~\refcite{Cabrer:2011qb,Bauer:2009cf}. The 10, 20 and 50 percentiles are given by\cite{Cabrer:2011qb}
\begin{align}
m_{\rm KK}^{10\%}&=6.5{\rm\ TeV}&m_{\rm KK}^{20\%}&=9.7{\rm\ TeV}&
m_{\rm KK}^{50\%}&=19{\rm\ TeV}
\end{align}
The bounds apply to a maximally delocalized bulk Higgs field ($a=2$) and the scan used flat priors for the 5d Yukawa couplings with $|\hat Y_{ij}|<4$.
A KK gluon of 3 TeV is compatible with the bounds from $\epsilon_K$ in roughly 2.5\% of the points of the scan, indicating that a fine-tuning of a few percent is needed in such models.
Since the EW sector KK resonances do not contribute to $C^{sd}_4$ and only give subleading contributions to $C^{sd}_1$, $\tilde C^{sd}_1$ and $C^{sd}_5$, the above bounds apply equally well to custodial models and hence can be considered fairly model independent.
One should note however that in non-custodial models one needs to suppress too large deviations in the $Zbb$ coupling. Moreover, the latter constraints prefer actually small $\hat Y^d$, as there are contributions coming from the KK modes of the RH bottom quark.
Comparing the above limits with other references, one obtains roughly the same picture. For instance, Ref.~\refcite{Bauer:2009cf} analyses the case of a brane Higgs with $\hat Y<3$ and obtains the 10, 20 and 30 percentiles as \footnote{For better comparison we have translated here the definition $m_{\rm KK}\equiv \tilde k $ of Ref.~\refcite{Bauer:2009cf} into ours $m_{\rm KK}\equiv2.4 \tilde k$.}
\begin{align}
m_{\rm KK}^{10\%}&=8.6{\rm\ TeV}&m_{\rm KK}^{20\%}&=12.5{\rm\ TeV}&
m_{\rm KK}^{30\%}&=20{\rm\ TeV}
\end{align}
We will see that other constraints in the quark sector are subleading, and even without fine tuning roughly consistent with KK gluons in the LHC range.
Given that the $\epsilon_K$ bounds are so severe, several approaches have been suggested in order to alleviate this fine tuning. We summarize them here briefly.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em Alignment.\cite{Santiago:2008vq}} Since the $c_{d_R^i}$ of the down sector are so degenerate it has been suggested to make them exactly equal by imposing a $SU(3)_d$ symmetry, which can considerably lower the bounds.
\item {\em IR modifications of the metric.\cite{Archer:2011bk,Cabrer:2011qb} }
IR modifications of the metric can alleviate the bounds by reducing flavour violating couplings between SM fields and KK states.
\item {\em Pseudo-axial gluons.\cite{Bauer:2011ah}} Adding an axial $SU(3)$ symmetry can help to exactly cancel the leading contributions to the Wilson coefficients from KK gluons.
\item {\em Modified matching of the strong coupling.} UV brane localized, negative gluon kinetic terms allow to reduce the $SU(3)$ bulk gauge coupling and hence mildly lower the bounds.~\cite{Agashe:2008uz}
\end{itemize}
Further constraints arise in the up quark sector, in particular from CP violation in $D\bar D$ mixing.\cite{Gedalia:2009kh,Bauer:2009cf}
A rough estimate yields bounds on the KK gluon mass ranging from $m_{\rm K}=2.5 - 10$ TeV,\cite{Gedalia:2009kh} depending on the localization of the top quark; however, a quantitative estimate of the required fine-tuning as in the case of the $K\bar K$ mixing is not available. It is safe to say though that with current data these are the second most constraining quark flavor observables in the anarchic RS model.
Let us stress that the RH up quark hierarchy Eq.~(\ref{RHhierarchy}) does not permit a simple alignment solution as in the case of the down sector.
Finally, CP violation in B mesons is subleading.\cite{Bauer:2009cf}
Let us close this section by remarking that the phenomenology in custodially symmetric models is somewhat different for $B$ and $D$ mesons, as electroweak corrections can become comparable with KK gluon contributions.\cite{Blanke:2008zb,Bauer:2009cf}
\subsection{Bounds from CP conserving $\Delta F=2$ observables}
Analogous constraints from CP conserving quantities are much weaker. Bounds from the the $\Delta m_K$ $\Delta m_D$, $\Delta m_{B_d}$ and $\Delta m_{B_s}$ observables have been computed in e.g.~Ref.~\refcite{Csaki:2008zd} for the case of a brane Higgs field, where it was found that they do not lead to any significant tuning for a 3 TeV KK gluon.
In contrast to the $K$ system, custodial KK modes can compete with KK gluons for the $B_{s,d}$ system.\cite{Blanke:2008zb}
See Refs.~\refcite{Casagrande:2008hr,Blanke:2008zb} for a more detailed discussion.
\subsection{Bounds from $\Delta F=1$ observables.}
In this section we give a brief summary of bounds resulting from $\Delta_F=1$ transitions. The bounds are in general much weaker, however, experimental sensitivity is expected to improve for many of these measurements in the forthcoming years, see
Ref.~\refcite{Agashe:2013kxa} for a recent survey of future sensitivity.
\begin{itemize}
\item
{\em Rare $K$ decays.}
Rare decays in the Kaon sector have for instance been considered in Refs.~\refcite{Blanke:2008yr} for the custodially symmetric model with brane localized Higgs field and in Ref.~\refcite{Straub:2013zca} in a two site model approximation. Fixing $m_{\rm KK}=2.45$ TeV and $\hat Y\leq 3$ and only considering points which satisfy the $\epsilon_K$ constraints it was found that the branching fraction $\mathcal B(K^0_L\to\pi_0\nu\bar\nu)$ can be enhanced by up to a factor of 5 compared to the SM, with the dominant contribution coming from the EW vertex corrections.\cite{Blanke:2008yr} Experimental sensitivity is however currently a factor of $10^3$ above the SM prediction. The experimental situation is a bit better for the $K_L^0\to \pi^0\ell^+\ell^-$ mode but still an order of magnitude away from the SM value, with little enhancement in the RS case.
The decay $K^+\to\pi^+\nu\bar\nu$ can be enhanced by up to a factor of 2,\cite{Blanke:2008yr} which however is consistent with the current experimental error of $\mathcal O(100\%)$
\item
{\em Rare $B$ decays.}
Rare decays for $B_s$ and $B_d$ mesons are typically small in models with $P_{LR}$ parity often imposed in custodial models in order to relax the bounds on $Z\to b\bar b$ decays. The same meachnism that suppresses the LH $Zb_L b_L$ coupling also efficiently suppresses the $Zd_L^i d_L^j$ couplings. In models without $P_{LR}$ symmetry some of the branching fractions, in particular $\mathcal B(B_s\to \mu^+\mu^-)$ can be enhanced,\cite{Blanke:2008yr} though no significant amount of fine tuning is needed for KK scales that ensure consistency with EWPT.\cite{Agashe:2013kxa}
\item
{\em Flavor violation in right handed $W$ couplings.} A model independent analysis constrains the coefficient $C^{tb}_{RR}$ of the operator Eqn.~(\ref{anomalousW}) as
\begin{equation}
-0.0014<v^2 C^{tb}_{RR}<0.005
\end{equation}
from the $b\to s\gamma$ branching ratio at 95\% C.L.\cite{Grzadkowski:2008mf} The RS prediction from integrating out KK modes of the left handed quarks is however suppressed as $C_{RR}\sim\epsilon_{b_R}\epsilon_{t_R} m_{\rm KK}^{-2}\sim 10^{-3}m_{\rm KK}^{-2}$ and hence the bounds are rather weak.\cite{Casagrande:2008hr} Exotic light fermion partners in custodial models are expected to only couple to either down or up sector and hence do not contribute to Eqn.~(\ref{anomalousW}).
\item
{\em Rare top decays.} $t\to c Z$ have been analyzed in Ref.~\refcite{Casagrande:2008hr} in the non-custodial model with brane localized Higgs. Their scan produces branching ratios ranging from $\mathcal B(t\to c Z)\approx 10^{-7} - 10^{-4}$ at $\tilde k=1.5$ TeV. CMS give a 95\% C.L. upper bound\cite{CMSTOP} $\mathcal B(t\to q Z)<7\times 10^{-4}$. Hence no significant fine tuning is necessary to ensure the experimental bounds, even for low KK scales.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Bounds from dipole operators}
Bounds from loop induced dipole operators have for instance been considered in Refs.~\refcite{Agashe:2004cp,Moreau:2006np,Agashe:2008uz,Blanke:2012tv}. The very well measured $b\to s\gamma$ branching ratio\cite{Amhis:2012bh}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal B(B\to X_s\gamma)=(355\pm 24\pm 9)\times 10^{-6}
\label{bsg}
\end{equation}
allows to put bounds on the KK scale. These operators are generated in penguin diagrams with various KK modes in the loop. A rough estimate yields\cite{Agashe:2008uz}
\begin{equation}
m_{\rm KK}>0.63\,Y_* {\rm\ TeV}
\end{equation}
where $m_{\rm KK}$ here refers to the Kaluza Klein fermions and $Y_*$ stands for the typical average Yukawa coupling, i.e.
$Y_*=\langle \hat Y^d_{ij}\rangle$.
Recently a more detailed analysis has been presented,~\cite{Blanke:2012tv} where also the effect of QCD dipole operators (that mix under RG flow with the electroweak ones) are included. For a IR scale $\tilde k=1$ TeV (corresponding to 2.5 TeV KK gauge bosons) as well as $\hat Y<3$, no substantial portion of the RS parameter space lies outside the experimentally allowed region, Eqn.~(\ref{bsg}), both for the custodial and non-custodial models. For the custodial model, only $\sim$15\% of the parameter space were found to be excluded. One would expect this portion to further reduce significantly for KK scales consistent with EWPT.
\section{Bounds from the lepton sector}
\label{boundsleptons}
The lepton sector has been considered e.g.~in Refs.~\refcite{Huber:2003tu,Moreau:2006np,Agashe:2006iy,Csaki:2010aj,Iyer:2012db}.
The most stringent bounds in the lepton sector arise from the $\mu\to e\gamma$ decay mode.
Taking into account the most recent MEG bound \cite{Adam:2013mnn}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal B(\mu\to e\gamma) < 5.7\times 10^{-13}\ (90 \%\ {\rm C.L.})
\end{equation}
we have rescaled results\cite{Agashe:2006iy,Csaki:2010aj} based on older data accordingly.
Ref.~\refcite{Agashe:2006iy} analyzes the the non-custodial model with bulk Higgs ($a=2$)
and quotes the rough estimate
\begin{equation}
m_{\rm KK}>17.1\ (33.8)\, {\rm TeV}
\end{equation}
for the two values $Y_*=1$ ($Y_*=2$) respectively.
The case of brane-localized Higgs field has been analyzed in Ref.~\refcite{Csaki:2010aj}, both for the custodial and non-custodial models. It is found that
\begin{equation}
m_{\rm KK}>|\alpha Y_*^2+\beta|^\frac{1}{2} 52\, {\rm TeV}
\end{equation}
where $ \alpha=-0.065$ ($-0.15$) in the noncustodial (custodial) model and $\beta\lesssim 0.03$.
Furthermore, there are bounds from the decay $\mu\to 3e$ and from $\mu\to e$ conversion in nuclei. At energies below the EW scale, they can be accounted for by four-lepton or two-lepton two-quark operators respectively.
Being $\Delta F=1$ transitions, they are dominated by electroweak vertex corrections, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{withhiggs}, in other words they are due to flavor changing $Z$ couplings coming from the operators
\begin{equation}
\mathcal O_{L}=i(\bar \mu_L\sigma^3\gamma^\mu e_L)(\phi^\dagger \sigma^3\overleftrightarrow D_\mu\phi)
\,, \qquad
\mathcal O'_{\chi}=i(\mu_{\chi}\gamma^\mu e_{\chi})(\phi^\dagger \overleftrightarrow D_\mu\phi)
\end{equation}
In the model with IR brane localized Higgs field, the bounds from KK exchange of the EW gauge sector can be roughly estimated as\cite{Csaki:2010aj}
\begin{equation}
m_{\rm KK}>6.0\,Y_*^{-\frac{1}{2}}\,{\rm TeV}\,,\qquad m_{\rm KK}>3.4\,Y_*^{-\frac{1}{2}}\,{\rm TeV}
\label{trilepton}
\end{equation}
for the non-custodial and custodial models respectively.
The bounds from LFV observables are summarized in Table \ref{LFV}. Let us reiterate that the distribution of bounds are rather broad and the quoted numbers should be taken as indicative only. As a matter of fact, examining by eye the scans of Ref.~\refcite{Agashe:2006iy}, the typical bounds seem to be stronger than the naive estimates. Bounds on $\tau$ decays are much weaker and only give subleading bounds.\cite{Agashe:2006iy}
\begin{table}[h]
\tbl{ Summary of estimates for bounds from LFV. The $\mu\to e\gamma$ constraints have been updated according to the latest constraints from
MEG. The two values apply to $Y_*=1\ (Y_*=2)$. We have set the parameter $\beta$ to zero.
\label{LFV}
}
{\begin{tabular}{@{}cccc@{}} \toprule
Process & Min., Bulk Higgs\cite{Agashe:2006iy} & Min., Brane Higgs\cite{Csaki:2010aj} & Cust., Brane Higgs\cite{Csaki:2010aj} \\
\colrule
$\mu\to e$ &6.7 (4.7) TeV & 6 (4.2) TeV & 3.4 (2.4) TeV\\
$\mu\to e\gamma$ & 17.1 (33.8) TeV& 13.4 (26.8) TeV & 20.3 (40.6) TeV
\\
\botrule
\end{tabular}\label{ta1} }
\end{table}
Several authors have proposed models based on discrete\cite{Csaki:2008qq,delAguila:2010vg,Kadosh:2010rm,Hagedorn:2011un}
or continuous\cite{Perez:2008ee,vonGersdorff:2012tt} symmetries that can significantly reduce the bounds from $\mu\to e\gamma$ (see also Refs.~\refcite{Atkins:2010cc,Agashe:2009tu} for some alternative proposals).
It should also be noted that the constraints from the $\mu\to e \gamma$ rate is somewhat more model-dependent than the quark constraints, as it depends to some extend on the nature of neutrino masses.
Let us close this section with an observation related to the tree level mediated processes. The conventional wisdom is that the trilepton decay and $\mu \to e$ conversion rates scale inversely with the 5d Yukawa couplings once the physical 4d Yukawa couplings are held fixed.\cite{Agashe:2006iy,Csaki:2010aj}
\footnote{This is in contrast to the loop induced $\mu\to e\gamma$ rate, which grows with the 5d Yukawa coupling. It has been noted that therefore there exists a tension between the tree level and loop level observables.\cite{Agashe:2006iy,Csaki:2010aj}}
However, we also expect the exchange of the KK fermions to be important for larger values of the Yukawa couplings, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{withhiggs}, a contribution that grows linearly with the 5d Yukawa couplings. We are not aware of any analysis that takes into account this contribution.
Using the expressions of Ref.~\refcite{Cabrer:2011qb},
and working in the non-custodial model for definiteness,
we find the KK-fermion contribution to exceed the KK-gauge contribution for $Y_*\approx 3$ ($Y_*\approx 6$) for $a=\infty$ ($a=2$) respectively, for both the left and right handed $Z\mu e$ couplings, which, although mostly subleading, could give some effect and should be included in numerical scans. Moreover, custodial models typically contain light vector-like partners of the $\tau$ \cite{delAguila:2010es} whose exchange also contributes to the $Z\mu e$ couplings and which should give much stronger effects that could easily overwhelm the KK gauge contributions, even for moderate Yukawa couplings.
\section{Conclusions}
Suppression of flavor violation in WED is very efficient for most observables in both quark and lepton sectors.
Fixing the KK masses to $\sim 5-6$ TeV, as required by EWPT in the most favourable cases, most of the anarchic parameter space of WED (i.e., the $\mathcal O(1)$ 5d Yukawa couplings and bulk mass parameters $c_f$ that fix the fermion masses and mixings) is compatible with almost all flavor violating observables, with the exception of $\epsilon_K$ in the quark sector, as well as $\mu\to e \gamma$ in the lepton sector. The constraint from the former can be satisfied at the cost of a fine tuning of a few percent, while those of the latter are more severe. This clearly points towards a non-minimal realization of the lepton flavor sector, possibly requiring the existence of either discrete or continuous symmetries.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
Type II supernovae (SNe) are classified on the basis of the presence of hydrogen in their spectra. SNe II-P \citep*{Barbon1979} are by far the most frequent, representing about 70 per cent of all SNe type II \citep{li}. They are characterized by nearly constant luminosities during the first period of their evolution (``plateau''). This phase lasts until their thick, initially ionized hydrogen envelopes recombine.
SNe II-P are thought to emerge from stars with a zero age main sequence mass in the range of $8-21$ M$_{\sun}$ \citep{walmswell_eldridge}. In some cases the progenitor star was directly identified in pre-explosion images as a red supergiant (RSG) star \citep{smartt_rev}.
The observational properties of these SNe, such as the peak luminosity, the plateau duration or the expansion velocity display a wide range of values.
A number of subluminous type II-P events have also been discovered and studied, including SNe 1997D \citep{turatto_ba, benetti_1997D}, 2003Z \citep*{utrobin03Z}, 2005cs \citep{pastorello05csII, takats2006}, 1999br \citep{hamuy_thesis, pastorello99br}, and 2009md \citep{fraser09md}. These SNe have fainter absolute magnitudes, lower expansion velocities, and lower nickel-masses than the majority of SNe II-P. The nature of their progenitors is still debated.
In the case of SN~1997D, by modelling the observables, \citet{turatto_ba} favored a scenario where the low $^{56}$Ni-mass observed is a result of a fallback of material onto the remnant of the explosion of a massive ($25-40$~M$_{\sun}$) star.
The hydrodynamical models of \citet{zampieri_sne_conf} inferred the ejecta masses of SNe~1997D and 1999br to be $14$ and $10\,{\rm M_{\sun}}$, respectively, while examining archival pre-explosion images \citet{maund_progs} estimated the mass limit for the progenitor of SN~1999br as $< 15$~M$_{\sun}$. In the case of SN~2003Z, the ejecta mass resulted by the modelling of \citet{utrobin03Z} was $14 \pm 1.2\,{\rm M_{\sun}}$, while \citet{zampieri_sne_conf} estimated it to be $\sim 22\,{\rm M_{\sun}}$.
On the other hand, the progenitors of SNe~2005cs and 2009md were identified in archival images, and were found to have masses of $\sim 8-9$~M$_{\sun}$ \citep{fraser09md}.
In the last couple of years studies of objects that fit in between normal and subluminous SNe II-P have been published. In particular, SN~2008in had spectra very similar to those of the subluminous SNe II-P, but it had somewhat higher luminosity \citep{roy08in}. The expansion velocities and the amount of the ejected nickel-mass were also between the typical values of normal and subluminous events. Applying the analytical relations of \citet{litvinova}, \citet{roy08in} estimated the mass of the progenitor as $< 20$~M$_{\sun}$, while employing hydrodynamical modelling, \citet{utrobin_08in} obtained the value of $15.5 \pm 2.2\,\rm{M_{\sun}}$.
\citet{gandhi_09js} found that SN~2009js shared the characteristics of both SN~2008in and the subluminous SN~2005cs: the luminosity and the duration of its plateau were more similar to those of SN~2008in, but other properties, i.e. the ejected $^{56}$Ni-mass and the explosion energy were closer to those of SN~2005cs. The mass of the progenitor was estimated in \citet{gandhi_09js} using the relations of \citet{litvinova} as $11 \pm 5$~M$_{\sun}$.
In this paper we present another ``intermediate-luminosity'' object, SN~2009N. It was discovered by Itagaki on images taken on Jan. 24.86 and 25.62 UT in NGC 4487 \citep{felfed}. They also reported that no source was visible on images taken on 2009 Jan. 3 (limiting magnitude 18). \citet{09N_classif} obtained a spectrum of this SN on Jan. 25, and classified it as a type II SN, adding that the spectrum was a good match to that of SN~2005cs at two days after maximum.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{photometry} we present the photometric data taken with ground-based telescopes through optical and near-infrared filters, and with {\it Swift/UVOT} in the ultraviolet. In Sec. \ref{spectroscopy} we show the optical and near infrared spectroscopic observations and study the spectral evolution.
Based on the observed and measured data, the distance to SN 2009N is calculated in Sec. \ref{distance} via both the expanding photosphere method \citep[EPM,][]{epm_ref} and the standardized candle method \citep[SCM,][]{hamuy_scm}. With the EPM we also estimate the explosion epoch as $t_0 = 2454848.1$~JD (Jan. 16.6 UT), which is adopted throughout the paper. In Sec. \ref{phys} the main physical parameters of the SN are inferred by hydrodynamical models.
In Sec. \ref{summary} we summarise our results.
\section{Photometry}\label{photometry}
Optical photometric data were collected with multiple telescopes using $BVRI$ and $g'r'i'z'$ filters, between days +11 and +413 after explosion (Tables \ref{lc_table}, \ref{lc_table_griz}).
The basic data reductions (bias-subtraction, overscan-correction, flat-fielding) were carried out using standard {\sc iraf}\footnote{{\sc iraf} is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under the cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.} routines. The brightness of the SN was measured using the point-spread function fitting technique.
The calibration of the photometry was performed using standard fields \citep{landolt,landolt2007,sloan_std_fields} observed on photometric nights. Using these images, magnitudes for a local sequence of stars (Fig. \ref{std_kep}, Tables \ref{std} and \ref{std_sloan}) on the SN field were determined and used to calibrate the SN measurements.
The data taken with the Liverpool Telescope were reduced using the same process, but with the {\sc quba} pipeline, an {\sc iraf} based Python package \citep[see][for details]{quba}.
Near-infrared (NIR) $YJH$ photometry was obtained with the Swope (RetroCam) and the du-Pont
(WIRC) telescopes at Las Campanas Observatory
as part of the Carnegie Supernova Project \citep[CSP,][]{hamuy_CSP}, between days $+$10 and $+$427 after explosion. Full details of the survey characteristics, data
reductions, and photometric processing techniques can be found in \citet{hamuy_CSP}, \citet{contreras_CSP}, and \citet{stritzinger_CSP}. Summarising, NIR images were processed through a sequence
of: dark subtraction, flat-field correction, sky-subtraction, non-linearity
correction, then alignment and combination of dithered frames. Photometric
calibration was achieved through observations of standard star fields \citep{persson_nirstandards} and determining the magnitudes of stars on the SN field (Fig~\ref{std_kep}, Table~\ref{std_nir}). The SN magnitudes are reported in Table \ref{nirlc_table}.
The light curve (Fig. \ref{lc}) shows a regular type II-P SN, with a plateau of nearly constant luminosity in $Vv'Rr'$, lasting until about $+110$~days after explosion. The $B$ and $g'$ band light curves show constant decline from early phases, with higher decline rate during the first $\sim 20$ days. In $Ii'YJH$ bands the brightness increases slightly but continuously until about day +70,
when it starts to decrease. At the end of the plateau the brightness drops about $2$ magnitudes in $\sim3$ weeks.
The tail phase of SNe II-P is powered by the energy input from the radioactive decay of $^{56}$Co to $^{56}$Fe, so the expected decline rate is 0.98 mag/100~d for complete $\gamma$-ray trapping \citep{patat_1994}. Between days 113-414 we measure the decline rate as $0.85 \pm 0.02$~mag/100~d in the $V$, $1.02 \pm 0.01$~mag/100~d in the $R$, $1.03 \pm 0.02$~mag/100~d in the $I$ band, and $1.02 \pm 0.05$~mag/100~d for the bolometric light curve (Sec.~\ref{sec_bollum}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{2009N_field.eps}
\caption{The field of SN 2009N in NGC 4478 obtained with one of the PROMPT telescopes in $R$ band. The local comparison stars used to calibrate the optical and NIR photometry are marked with numbers and letters, respectively.}
\label{std_kep}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{2009N_lc_1.eps}
\caption{UV, optical, NIR light curves of SN 2009N. The explosion epoch is $t_0=2454848.1$~JD.}
\label{lc}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{{\it Swift} photometry}\label{sec_swift}
SN 2009N was also observed with {\it Swift/UVOT} \citep{roming_swift} at 5 epochs with all 6 filters. We used the {\sc heassoft}\footnote{\url{http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/heasoft/}} software to co-add the images and perform aperture photometry. The count rate of the source was measured using a 3$"$ aperture, while the coincidence loss correction was calculated using a 5$"$ aperture. Since there are no template observations to measure the count rate originated from the galaxy, we used an aperture close to the source to measure the background level. An aperture correction was applied from the 3$"$ to the 5$"$ aperture, based on the average PSF available in {\it Swift} CALDB. The zeropoints from \citet{swift_calib} were used to convert the resulted count rate to the UVOT photometric system. The resulted magnitudes are in Table \ref{swift_lc} and shown in Fig. \ref{lc}.
The UV light curve decreases quickly at early times, which is typical of type II-P SNe \citep{brown_swift, dessart2008}, while the $vv$ and $bb$ light curves show similar behaviour than in the Bessel $B$ and $V$ filters.
\subsection{Reddening and Colour Curves}\label{reddening}
The Galactic reddening in the direction of SN 2009N is low, $E(B-V)_{\mathrm{MW}}=0.019 \pm 0.001$~mag \citep{reddening_recalib}. The host galaxy component of the extinction can be estimated from the equivalent width of the Na\,{\sc i} D doublet.
We have a medium-resolution spectrum, taken on day $+159$ after explosion (see Sec.\ref{spectroscopy}), where the Na\,{\sc i} D$_1$ and D$_2$ lines are resolved. We measured the equivalent widths of these lines as $EW(D1)=0.39 \pm 0.04$~\AA~and $EW(D2)=0.34 \pm 0.03$~\AA. Via the relations determined by \citet{poznanski2012} we calculated the host galaxy extinction as $E(B-V)_{\mathrm host}=0.113 \pm 0.019$~mag. Together with the Galactic component, we adopt the extinction $E(B-V)_{\mathrm tot}=0.13 \pm 0.02$~mag for SN 2009N. We must consider, however, that there is a large scatter for SNe in the EW(NaI) versus E(B-V) plane \citep[e.g.][]{turatto2003, poznanski2011}, therefore the estimation of the extinction is quite uncertain.
In Fig. \ref{colour} we show the $(B-V)_0$, $(V-R)_0$, $(V-I)_0$, $(V-J)_0$ and $(V-H)_0$ colour curves of SN 2009N corrected for the reddening derived above, along with data of other type II-P SNe. The extinction and explosion epoch of the compared SNe -- which were chosen to represent a sample with large variety of physical properties -- are summarised in Table \ref{otherSN}. The optical colour evolution of SN 2009N is similar to those of other II-P SNe. The $(B-V)_0$ colour is blue at the beginning and becomes redder quickly, due to the appearance of strong metallic lines in $B$ band. The evolution of the $(V-R)_0$ colour is slower. The $(V-I)_0$ colour of the 6 SNe shows somewhat higher scatter during the plateau phase than in the other two colours. SNe 2005cs and 2008in, along with SN 2009N seem to be redder than the other SNe. This is more pronounced in the near-infrared colours, where SN 2009N is the reddest one in the sample. Since the determination of $E(B-V)$ is uncertain, we cannot rule out that we underestimated its value. However, even with significantly higher extinction the infrared colours of SN~2009N remain one of the reddest ones in the sample.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{84mm}
\caption{Explosion epoch, reddening and distance of the SNe used for comparison throughout the paper.}
\label{otherSN}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccccc@{}}
\hline
\hline
SN & $t_0$ (JD) & $E(B-V)$ & $D$ (Mpc) & Ref. \\
\hline
1999em & 2451477.0 & 0.10 & 11.7 & 1,2 \\
1999gi & 2451518.3 & 0.21 & 11.1 & 3 \\
2004et & 2453270.5 & 0.41 & 4.8 & 4,5 \\
2005cs & 2453549.0 & 0.05 & 8.4 & 6,7 \\
2008in & 2454825.6 & 0.098 & 13.2 & 8 \\
2009js & 2455115.9 & 0.36 & 21.7 & 9 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[a]{References: (1) \citet{hamuy_epm}, (2) \citet{leonard_99em}, (3) \citet{leonard_99gi}, (4) \citet{takats2012}, (5) \citet{maguire_04et}, (6) \citet{pastorello05csII}, (7) \citet{vinko11dh}, (8) \citet{roy08in} (9) \citet{gandhi_09js}}
\end{tablenotes}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{red.eps}
\caption{Evolution of $(B-V)_0$, $(V-R)_0$, $(V-I)_0$, $(V-J)_0$, and $(V-H)_0$ colours of SN 2009N, together with those of other SNe II-P: SNe 1999em, 1999gi, 2004et, 2005cs, 2008in, and 2009js. The adopted reddening and the sources of photometry of these SNe are in Table \ref{otherSN}.}
\label{colour}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bolometric luminosity}\label{sec_bollum}
We calculated the quasi-bolometric luminosity of SN 2009N at those epochs when simultaneous $VRI$ observations were available. If $B$ band data were not taken at these epochs, they were calculated by interpolating the magnitudes from neighboring nights using low-order polynomials. We determined the optical counterpart of the bolometric flux by correcting the observed $BVRI$ magnitudes for reddening, converting them to flux densities at the effective wavelength of the filters \citep{bessell1983} and integrating them using Simpson's rule. The bolometric fluxes were then converted into luminosities using the distance $D=21.6 \pm 1.1$ Mpc (Sec. \ref{sec_avedist}).
During the first $60$ days of evolution {\it Swift} UV photometry was available (Sec. \ref{sec_swift}). We integrated the UV fluxes at each epoch, then extrapolated the resulting flux curve to the epochs of the optical photometry. Since the UV light curve decreases quickly, we assume, that the UV counterpart of the bolometric flux is marginal ($\sim$ 5\%) at later phases of the plateau (after day $+80$) and negligible during the nebular phase.
We have NIR photometric observations between days $+10$ and $+98$ after explosion (Sec. \ref{photometry}). We calculated the NIR contribution to the bolometric flux by integrating the fluxes from the red edge of the $I$ band to $H$ band. The flux redwards of $H$ band was approximated with the Rayleigh-Jeans tail.
The resulting infrared luminosities were then interpolated to the epochs of the optical observations.
We calculated the bolometric luminosity curve until day $+98$ by adding the optical, UV and infrared luminosities.
At phases later than $+$98 days we lack both UV and NIR data (except at one epoch at day $+427$). To overcome this problem, we considered the bolometric corrections (BC) of \citet{maguire_04et} and \citet{bersten_hamuy}. Using the data of SNe 1987A, 1999em, 2004et, and 2005cs, \citet{maguire_04et} determined BCs from both $V$ and $R$ bands, as a function of phase. We calculated the bolometric luminosity of SN~2009N from both $R$ and $V$ band photometry, which were then averaged. Comparing these to our previously calculated bolometric luminosity curve, we found that they agree excellently.
\citet{bersten_hamuy} calculated the bolometric correction as a function of colour during the plateau phase, using the bolometric light curves of 3 SNe (1987A, 1999em, and 2003hn) as well as the models of \citet*{E96} and \citet{D05}. Applying their BCs to the data of SN~2009N, we found that the inferred values somewhat (by $5-10$ per cent) overestimated our bolometric luminosities during the first $98$ days of evolution.
Since the BCs of \citet{maguire_04et} led to luminosities that agreed well with our bolometric luminosities during the first $+98$ days, we used these BCs to calculate the luminosity of SN~2009N at phases later than $+98$ days, when UV and NIR data were not available. We also checked these BCs at the nebular phase by interpolating the $YJH$ magnitudes to the epochs of the $VRI$ measurements at days $+372$, $400$, and $413$, and integrating the fluxes. The resulting bolometric luminosities agreed well (within $0.1$~dex) with the ones calculated with the BCs of \citet{maguire_04et}.
Fig.~\ref{lumosszehas} shows the bolometric luminosity curve of SN~2009N. The observed peak luminosity was $\log L_{\rm bol}=41.82$~erg~s$^{-1}$. Also in Fig.~\ref{lumosszehas} we compare the luminosity curve of SN 2009N with those of other SNe II-P. For better comparison we use the $BVRI$ bolometric luminosities for all SNe.
SN 2009N was significantly fainter than the normal SNe II-P 1999em and 2004et during the plateau phase, and about $1.5-1.8$ times brighter than the subluminous SN~2005cs. Its luminosity was comparable, only slightly higher than those of the intermediate luminosity SNe~2008in and 2009js.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{lumosszehas_bvri.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the evolution of the $BVRI$ quasi-bolometric luminosity of SN 2009N (filled circles) with those of other SNe II-P. The {\it uvoir} bolometric luminosity curve of SN~2009N is also shown (empty diamonds).}
\label{lumosszehas}
\end{figure}
\section{Spectroscopy}\label{spectroscopy}
\subsection{Optical spectra}
Optical spectroscopic observations of SN 2009N covering the phases between days $+$23 and $+$414 after explosion were carried out with multiple telescopes. Table \ref{logofsp} contains the summary of the observations.
The images were reduced and calibrated using standard {\sc iraf} tasks. After bias and flat corrections, the spectra were extracted. The wavelength calibration was carried out using comparison lamp spectra. Standard star spectra taken on the same night were used for the SN flux calibration, which was checked against the photometry at the nearest epoch, and -- when necessary -- the spectra were corrected using a scaling factor.
Optical spectra were also obtained through the CSP, with the Wide Field Reimaging CCD Camera (WFCCD) and Boller \& Chivens Spectrograph (BC)
mounted on the du-Pont, the Low Dispersion Survey Spectrograph (LDSS3) mounted on the Magellan Clay, and the Inamori Magellan Areal Camera and Spectrograph (IMACS) mounted
on the Magellan Baade telescopes at Las Campanas Observatory (Table \ref{logofsp}). Again, overall
survey techniques can be found in \citet{hamuy_CSP}. Spectra were processed
through standard techniques of reduction, extraction, and calibrations,
a detailed
description of which can be found in \citet{folatelli_CSP}, as applied to
the SN~Ia spectroscopic sample.
We also obtained a medium-resolution spectrum of SN~2009N with the MagE spectrograph \citep{Marshall08} on the Magellan Clay 6.5~m telescope. For the MagE spectrum, the sky was subtracted from the images using the method described by \citet{Kelson03}. We employed our own IDL routines for flux calibration and telluric line removal using the well-exposed continua of spectrophotometric standard stars \citep{Wade88, Foley03, Foley09:08ha}.
All plateau and transition phase optical spectra are shown in Fig. \ref{sp_seq}.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\caption{Summary of the optical spectroscopic observations.}
\label{logofsp}
\begin{tabular}{@{}cccccc@{}}
\hline
\hline
Date & JD & Phase$^a$ & Instrument set-up & Wavelength range & Resolution$^b$ \\
& 2400000+ & days & & \AA & \AA \\
\hline
08/02/2009 & 54870.8 & 22.7 & Magellan Clay + LDSS-3 + VPH-All & 3700-10000 & 7 \\
09/02/2009 & 54871.8 & 23.7 & Magellan Clay + LDSS-3 + VPH-All & 3700-10000 & 7 \\
11/02/2009 & 54873.8 & 25.7 & Magellan Baade + IMACS + Gri-200-15.0 & 3900-10000 & 5 \\
18/02/2009 & 54881.6 & 33.5 & 2.2m Calar Alto + CAFOS+blue-200 & 3400-8900 & 12 \\
19/02/2009 & 54882.6 & 34.5 & 2.2m Calar Alto + CAFOS+blue-200 & 3400-8900 & 12 \\
24/02/2009 & 54886.8 & 38.7 & du Pont + WFCCD + Blue grism & 3800-9100 & 8 \\
25/02/2009 & 54887.9 & 39.8 & du Pont + WFCCD + Blue grism & 3800-9100 & 8 \\
26/02/2009 & 54888.8 & 40.7 & du Pont + WFCCD + Blue grism & 3800-9100 & 8 \\
15/03/2009 & 54905.8 & 57.7 & Magellan Baade + IMACS + Gri-200-15.0 & 3900-10000 & 5 \\
19/03/2009 & 54910.5 & 62.4 & NOT + ALFOSC+grism-4 & 3200-9100 & 19 \\
19/03/2009 & 54910.5 & 62.4 & 2.2m Calar Alto + CAFOS+green-200 & 3790-10000 & 12 \\
29/03/2009 & 54919.8 & 71.7 & du Pont + WFCCD + Blue grism & 3800-9100 & 8 \\
03/04/2009 & 54924.7 & 76.6 & du Pont + WFCCD + Blue grism & 3800-9100 & 8 \\
11/04/2009 & 54933.5 & 85.4 & 2.2m Calar Alto + CAFOS+green-200 & 3790-10000 & 12 \\
12/04/2009 & 54933.6 & 85.5 & NOT + ALFOSC+grism-4 & 3200-9100 & 19 \\
12/04/2009 & 54934.5 & 86.4 & 2.2m Calar Alto + CAFOS+green-200 & 3790-10000 & 12 \\
16/04/2009 & 54937.5 & 89.4 & NOT + ALFOSC+grism-4 & 3200-9100 & 16 \\
18/04/2009 & 54939.7 & 91.6 & du Pont + BC + 300l/mm grating & 3500-9600 & 8 \\
23/04/2009 & 54944.8 & 96.7 & du Pont + BC + 300l/mm grating & 3500-9600 & 8 \\
01/05/2009 & 54952.7 & 104.5 & Magellan Clay + LDSS-3 + VPH-All & 3700-10000 & 7 \\
03/05/2009 & 54955.4 & 107.3 & 2.2m Calar Alto + CAFOS+green-200 & 3790-10000 & 11 \\
09/05/2009 & 54961.4 & 113.3 & NOT + ALFOSC+grism-4 & 3200-9100 & 15 \\
23/05/2009 & 54974.6 & 126.5 & du Pont + BC + 300l/mm grating & 3500-9600 & 8 \\
24/06/2009 & 55006.5 & 158.4 & Magellan Clay + MagE & 3210-10350 & 1-2 \\
25/01/2010 & 55221.8 & 373.7 & NTT + EFOSC2+gr\#16 & 6000-10100 & 14 \\
06/03/2010 & 55261.8 & 413.7 & VLT + FORS2+300V & 3500-9600 & 10 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[a]{$^a$ relative to the estimated date of explosion, $t_0=2454848.1$~JD}
\item[b]{$^b$ as measured from the full-width at half maximum (FWHM) of the night-sky lines}
\end{tablenotes}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{09N_sp_seq.eps}
\caption{Spectral evolution of SN 2009N during the plateau and transition phase. Phases are relative to the estimated explosion date, $t_0= 2454848.1$~JD. The approximate positions of some of the strongest features are marked to guide the eye. The position of telluric features are marked with $\oplus$ symbol.}
\label{sp_seq}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sn09N_0316-19_optnir_model_noi.eps}
\caption{{\sc synow} model of the reddening and redshift ($z=0.0035$) corrected, combined optical and near-infrared spectra, taken on days $+$62 and $+$59 with the 2.2~m Calar Alto Telescope and with NTT, respectively.}
\label{synow}
\end{figure*}
The classification spectrum was taken $\sim$8 days after explosion by \citet{09N_classif}. It has low signal-to-noise ratio, but the Balmer series of H\,{\sc i} are clearly visible\footnote{\url{http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/supernova/spectra/sn2009N.gif}}. Using the SNID \citep{SNID}, the spectrum was found to be similar to that of SN~2005cs two days after its maximum.
Our earliest spectra of SN 2009N were taken 23, 24, and 26 days after the explosion. At that time the metallic lines already appeared in the spectrum. Next to the strong, wide Balmer series of H\,{\sc i}, features of Fe\,{\sc ii} and Ca\,{\sc ii} were present.
By day $+$34 features of Na\,{\sc i}, O\,{\sc i}, Si\,{\sc ii}, Ti\,{\sc ii}, Sc\,{\sc ii} also appeared, and remained visible throughout the plateau phase. The Na\,{\sc i} D feature was very weak at that point, but became stronger at later phases.
We created models with {\sc synow} \citep{fisher,hatano} for the plateau phase spectra for line identification. The method described by \citet{takats2012} was applied to find the set of parameters of the model that fits best the observed spectrum and to measure the photospheric velocity. An example model with line identification is shown in Fig. \ref{synow}.
We also measured the expansion velocities of selected lines by fitting a Gaussian to their absorption components and determining the blueshift of the minima.
The line velocities of H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, Fe\,{\sc ii}~$\lambda$5169, and Sc\,{\sc ii}~$\lambda$6245 are shown in Fig. \ref{line_vel} together with the photospheric velocities determined via {\sc synow} modelling. The photospheric velocities of SN~2009N are between those of normal and subluminous SNe (Fig. \ref{vel_osszehas}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{line_velocities.eps}
\caption{Expansion velocities measured from the absorption minima of selected lines, together with the photosperic velocities determined via {\sc synow} modelling.}
\label{line_vel}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{vel_osszehas2.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the velocities of SN~2009N determined via {\sc synow} modelling with those of other SNe II-P \citep{takats2012}. In order to determine the distance via EPM, the velocities of SN~2009N were extrapolated to the epochs of the photometry using the relation of \citet{takats2012} (solid line; see Sec. \ref{epm}).}
\label{vel_osszehas}
\end{figure}
An interesting detail is the appearance and strengthening of the Ba\,{\sc ii} $\lambda\lambda$5854 and 6497 lines. In Fig. \ref{line_evol} we enlarged the wavelength ranges around Na\,{\sc i} D and H$\alpha$ to show the evolution of these Ba\,{\sc ii} features. The Ba\,{\sc ii} lines are not visible in the first two spectra, and our {\sc synow} models do not show any need of their presence either. On day $+$40, both Ba\,{\sc ii} $\lambda\lambda$5854 and 6497 lines are very weak, but detectable, together with Ba\,{\sc ii} $\lambda$6142 (Fig.~\ref{sp_seq}). By day $+$62 the Ba\,{\sc ii} $\lambda$6497 line is clearly visible next to H$\alpha$, while Ba\,{\sc ii} $\lambda$5854 is weak, but noticeable next to Na\,{\sc i}.
Both features become stronger and stronger throughout the plateau phase. Ba\,{\sc ii} $\lambda$5854 forms a blend with Na\,{\sc i}, but its contribution to the line shape can be confirmed with {\sc synow}. These strong Ba\,{\sc ii} features seem to be typical of subluminous II-P SNe: they were detected in the spectra of e.g. SNe 2005cs \citep{pastorello05csII}, 2008in \citep{roy08in}, and 2009md \citep{fraser09md}.
By modelling the spectra of SN 1997D, \citet{turatto_ba} showed that the appearance of the strong Ba\,{\sc ii} lines is not due to the overabundance of Ba, an s-process element, but it is likely a temperature effect.
For several elements and supernova atmosphere compositions \citet{hatano} examined how the local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) optical depth of one of the strongest lines of each element changes with the temperature. Their Fig. 2 shows that Ba\,{\sc ii} lines appear bellow $\sim 6000$~K, and the optical depth of the Ba\,{\sc ii} reference line increases very quickly as the temperature decreases.
This agrees well with the evolution of Ba\,{\sc ii} features observed in SN 2009N. The temperature decreases to $6000$~K around day $+$29 (Table \ref{epm_data}, see also Sec. \ref{epm}), and Ba\,{\sc ii} cannot be detected in the spectra taken on days $+$34 and $+$35. By the epoch of the next spectra (day $+$39, $+$40, $+$41), the temperature drops to $\sim 5700$~K, and the Ba\,{\sc ii} lines start to appear, and later, with the temperature decreasing further, the features become more and more pronounced.
The fact that Ba\,{\sc ii} $\lambda 6497$ seems to appear on the day $+$79 spectrum of SN 1999em (see Fig. \ref{sp_osszehas}), when its temperature dropped under $6000$~K \citep[see Table 7 of][]{leonard_99em}, is also in agreement with the behavior of Ba\,{\sc ii} in SN 2009N.
In addition to their lower temperatures, subluminous SNe have lower expansion velocities, narrower spectral features, which makes Ba\,{\sc ii} lines visible at earlier phases and easier to identify.
In Fig. \ref{sp_osszehas} we compare the spectrum of SN 2009N taken on day $+$86 to the spectra of SNe 2008in, 1999gi, 2005cs, and 1999em at similar phases. The spectrum of SN 2008in -- which has luminosities similar to SN 2009N (Fig. \ref{lumosszehas}) -- well matches that of SN~2009N; they also show similarities to that of the subluminous SN 2005cs. The spectra of the normal type II-P SNe 1999gi and 1999em are different: the features are wider and implying higher ejecta velocities.
The nebular phase spectra of SN 2009N taken on days $+$158, $+$374, and $+$414, are shown in Fig. \ref{sp_seq_nebu}. The most dominant features are H$\alpha$ and the Ca\,{\sc ii} IR triplet. On day $+$158 next to H$\alpha$ and Na\,{\sc i} D, the lines of Ba\,{\sc ii} are still strong and have P Cygni line profiles. The spectra taken on days $+$374 and $+$414 show only minor differences. They are similar to nebular phase spectra of other type II-P SNe, such as SN~1999em, but with narrower features. Next to the strong H$\alpha$ emission line and the Ca\,{\sc ii} IR triplet, features of O\,{\sc i} and several forbidden lines can be identified, such as the [O\,{\sc i}] 6300, 6364 \AA~doublet, [Fe\,{\sc ii}] 7155, 7273, 7439 \AA, [Ca\,{\sc ii}] 7291,7323 \AA~doublet, [C\,{\sc i}] 8727\AA.
[Fe\,{\sc ii}] 7273 \AA~appears to be somewhat stronger than in the spectra of subluminous SNe \citep[e.g.][]{benetti_1997D, pastorello05csII}.
Our two latest spectra were included in the sample of \citet{maguire_nebusp}, who studied the nebular spectra of type II-P SNe. Measuring the velocities from the width of the emission lines and comparing them to those of other SNe, they found that the nebular phase velocities of SN 2009N are quite low ($400 - 700$ km~s$^{-1}$), and similar to those of the subluminous SN~2005cs and SN~2008bk.
\citet{maguire_nebusp} also noted that the [OI] 6300 \AA~line profile is somewhat blueshifted at both epochs, which can be a sign of dust formation in the ejecta (see their Fig. 3).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{line_evol_mod.eps}
\caption{Evolution of the Na\,{\sc i} D and Ba\,{\sc ii} $\lambda$5854 (left) and H$\alpha$ and Ba\,{\sc ii} $\lambda$6497 (right) lines. The black vertical lines show the position of the rest wavelength of these lines. The blue dotted lines in the right panel, marked ``A'' and ``B'' mark the positions of the shallow absorption features that may be high-velocity components of H$\alpha$ (see also Sec.~\ref{sec_nir}).}
\label{line_evol}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{sp_osszehas.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the spectra of SNe 2009N and 2008in \citep{roy08in} with the subluminous SN 2005cs \citep{pastorello05csII} and the normal type II-P SNe 1999em \citep{leonard_99em} and 1999gi \citep{leonard_99gi}. Some of the strongest features are labeled to help the eye.}
\label{sp_osszehas}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{09N_sp_seq_nebu.eps}
\caption{Nebular phase spectra of SN 2009N obtained on days $+$159, $+$374, and $+$414. For comparison we plotted the spectrum of SN 1999em taken on +316d. \citep{leonard_99em}.}
\label{sp_seq_nebu}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Near infrared spectra}\label{sec_nir}
Near-infrared spectra were taken at five epochs during the plateau phase with three different instruments, NTT/SOFI, VLT/ISAAC, and SOAR/OSIRIS covering the phases between days $+$17 and $+$63 after explosion. The summary of the observations can be found in Table \ref{logofnirsp}. The reduction of the spectra was carried out using {\sc iraf} packages. At each epoch several pairs of spectra were taken at different positions along the slit. The pairs of images were subtracted from each other to remove the sky background. These subtracted images were then added together. The SN spectrum was extracted from the co-added image. The wavelength calibration was carried out using arc lamp spectra taken at the same night as the SN spectrum. We removed the strong telluric features using the spectrum of a G-type telluric standard star observed close in time and at similar airmass as the SN.
The spectrum of the telluric standard was also used for the flux calibration of the SN spectra that were later checked against the NIR photometry from the nearest epoch and corrected when necessary.
The sequence of the NIR spectra of SN 2009N is presented in Fig.~\ref{nir_seq1}. In the first spectrum, obtained on day $+$17 after the explosion, the Paschen series of H\,{\sc i} as well as the He\,{\sc i} feature at 2.058 $\mathrm{\mu m}$ are visible. By day $+$24, the strong C\,{\sc i} $\lambda$10691 line is recognizable next to P$\gamma$. At later phases lines of Fe\,{\sc ii}, Sr\,{\sc ii} and Ca\,{\sc ii} can be identified (Fig. \ref{nir_seq}).
Next to C\,{\sc i} $\lambda$10691, at about $1.055\,{\rm\mu m}$, an absorption feature emerged by day $+47$, which is not present in the spectra of normal type II-P SNe. The reason for this could be that such objects have higher velocities and broader spectral lines, therefore since this wavelength range is dominated by the C\,{\sc i} line, the two features -- C\,{\sc i} and the the one at $\sim1.055\,{\rm\mu m}$ -- may be blended. The sample of subluminous SNe that have NIR spectra during the second half of the plateau phase is quite small, and none of them have this feature present. In Fig. \ref{comp_09md} we compare the NIR spectrum of SN~2009N taken at $+$59 days to that of SN~2009md \citep{fraser09md} at a similar phase. SN~2009md was a subluminous SN, with narrow, low-velocity spectral lines, and its NIR spectrum is similar to that of SN~2009N, but the line at $1.055\,{\rm\mu m}$ is not present.
Looking at our previously unpublished NIR spectra of SN 2008in (Appendix \ref{app_a}), however, we found, that they showed the same feature. In Fig. \ref{nir_seq} the NIR spectra of the two SNe are plotted together, showing the evolution of this feature over time.
In order to try to identify the possible transition that produced this feature, we combined the optical spectrum taken on day $+62$ with the NIR spectrum on day $+59$, and used {\sc synow} modelling. We have found the following two possibilities.
First, we managed to model this feature at $\sim1.055\,{\rm\mu m}$ with a high-velocity (HV) component of He\,{\sc i}~$\lambda$10830, having the velocity of $\sim$8000 km~s$^{-1}$.
By modelling the interaction between the ejecta and the circumstellar material (CSM) originated from average RSG wind, \citet*{chugai_intera} have shown that due to excitation of the unshocked ejecta HV features of He\,{\sc i}~$\lambda$10830 and H$\alpha$ can emerge \citep[see also][]{inserra2012, inserra_sne}. We examined the optical spectra of SN 2009N (Sec. \ref{spectroscopy}) to see if a HV component of H$\alpha$ was also present. As Fig. \ref{line_evol} shows, a shallow absorption feature is visible at $\sim$8000 km~s$^{-1}$ (marked as ``A''). It appears around day $+$39 and is present during the entire plateau phase.
A smaller dip is also visible next to H$\alpha$ between days $+$62 and $+$77 (marked ``B'' in Fig.~\ref{line_evol}). If it is a HV component of H$\alpha$, its velocity is significantly lower and decreases more quickly. We also examined the region of H$\beta$, and found several weak absorption features, some of them at similar, but somewhat lower velocities as those near H$\alpha$. However, since there are many metallic lines in this region, we cannot claim for certain that any of them is a HV component of H$\beta$. There is no visible HV component of He\,{\sc i} $\lambda$5876 either.
The optical spectra of SN 2008in also show similar lines near H$\alpha$ as in the case of SN~2009N. In Fig.~8 of \cite{roy08in} an absorption feature (marked ``C'') is visible. The authors assumed it to be originated from Fe\,{\sc ii} multiplets, but they also noted that the presence of HV H$\alpha$ component could not be ruled out.
We measured the velocities of the assumed HV features next to H$\alpha$ and He\,{\sc i} $\lambda$10830 in the case of both SNe 2009N and 2008in. The values are shown in Fig. \ref{HV_abra}. The velocities of HV H$\alpha$ (marked "A" in Fig. \ref{line_evol}) and HV He\,{\sc i}~$\lambda$10830 are consistent and decrease very slowly, which supports the CSM interaction scenario. However, it seems somewhat strange that these velocities agree so well for SNe 2009N and 2008in, which suggests very similar pre-supernova evolution. For both SNe there is also a weaker feature present next to H$\alpha$ with lower velocities that decrease more quickly.
Alternatively the feature at $1.055\,{\rm\mu m}$ can also be modelled with Si\,{\sc i}. However, due to the fact that Si\,{\sc i} has several lines in the range between $1.07-1.09\,{\rm \mu m}$ that are not present in the observed spectra, our {\sc synow} models were unable to fit the depth of the absorption feature (Fig. \ref{models}). As in the case of the Ba\,{\sc ii} features, the presence of Si\,{\sc i} during the second half of the plateau phase is probably a temperature effect.
We plotted the observed spectrum together with the best-fitting models in both cases, i.e. including Si\,{\sc i} or HV He\,{\sc i} in Fig. \ref{models}, showing that the model with HV He\,{\sc i} fits the observed spectrum better.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{\textwidth}
\caption{Summary of the near infrared spectroscopic observations.}
\label{logofnirsp}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccccccc@{}}
\hline
\hline
Date & JD & Phase$^a$ & Instrument & Wavelength range & Resolution \\
& 2400000+ & days & & ${\rm\mu m}$ & \\
\hline
03/02/2009 & 54865.5 & 17.4 & VLT+ ISAAC (SWS1-LR) & 0.98-2.5 & 500\\
09/02/2009 & 54872.5 & 24.4 & NTT + SOFI (GB,GR) & 0.95-1.64, 1.53-2.52 & 1000 \\
04/03/2009 & 54895.5 & 47.4 & VLT+ISAAC (SWS1-LR) & 0.98-2.5 & 500 \\
16/03/2009 & 54907.5 & 59.4 & NTT+SOFI (GB,GR) & 0.95-1.64, 1.53-2.52 & 1000 \\
20/03/2009 & 54911.4 & 63.3 & SOAR+OSIRIS (Low-Res) & 1.0-2.58 & 1200 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item[a]{$^a$ relative to $t_0=2454848.1$~JD.}
\end{tablenotes}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{nir_seq.eps}
\caption{Near infrared spectra of SN 2009N. The phases are relative to the estimated date of explosion, $t_0 = 2454848.1$~JD.}
\label{nir_seq1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{nir_J.eps}
\caption{The emergence and evolution of the feature at about 1.055$\mu{\rm m}$ (marked with ``?'') in the NIR spectra of SNe~2009N (red) and 2008in (black).}
\label{nir_seq}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{nir_09md_osszehas.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the NIR spectrum of SN~2009N at $+$59 days after explosion with that of SN~2009md around the same phase \citep{fraser09md}.}
\label{comp_09md}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{HV_abra.eps}
\caption{The velocities of the (assumed) high-velocity features in the spectra of SNe~2009N (red) and 2008in (black): the HV H$\alpha$ feature ``A'' (triangles, see Fig. \ref{line_evol}), the HV He\,{\sc i} (squares) and the HV H$\alpha$ feature ``B'' (asterisks). The photospheric velocities of SN~2009N, determined via {\sc synow} modelling are also shown for comparison (filled circles).}
\label{HV_abra}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=84mm]{sn09N_0316-19_optnir_model_theinsert.eps}
\caption{The wavelength range around the feature at $\sim1.055{\rm \mu m}$ on day $+59$, together with the best-fitting {\sc synow} models including either Si\,{\sc i} (red) or HV He\,{\sc i} (blue).}
\label{models}
\end{figure}
\section{Distance}\label{distance}
The estimation of the physical properties of SNe depends on the knowledge of their distance. In the case of SNe II-P different distance measurement techniques have been developed. One of them is the expanding photosphere method \citep[EPM,][]{epm_ref}, a variant of the Baade-Wesselink method, which requires photospheric and spectroscopic monitoring throughout the first half of the plateau phase, but does not need external calibration. Another one is the standardized candle method \citep[SCM,][]{hamuy_scm}, which is based on the correlation between the SN brightness and the expansion velocity in the middle of the plateau phase. It needs less input data, but requires calibration via SNe with well-known distances.
In this section we determine the distance of SN 2009N applying both mentioned methods, and then we compare and discuss the results.
\subsection{Expanding Photosphere Method}\label{epm}
Using the assumption that at early phases the SN has optically thick, homologously expanding ejecta, which radiates as a diluted blackbody, the expanding photosphere method (EPM) derives its distance by relating the apparent angular size of the photosphere to its physical radius \citep[see for details e.g.][]{hamuy_thesis, leonard_99em, D05}. By measuring the photospheric velocity and determining the angular radius $\theta$ from photometric observations on multiple epochs, the parameters $t_0$ and $D$ can be derived by fitting the linear equation of $t=D \cdot (\theta/v_{\rm phot}) + t_0$.
We used {\sc synow} as described in \citet{takats2012} to model the observed spectra (see also Sec.~\ref{spectroscopy}) and to determine the photospheric velocities. Since we have good photometric coverage, but not so many spectra taken during the first $50$ days of evolution, we extrapolated the velocities to the epochs of the photometric measurements using the formula given in Eq. 3 of \citet{takats2012}. Both $t_0$ and the photospheric velocity on day $+50$ ($v_{50{\mathrm d}}$, which also depends on $t_0$) were fitting parameters, and the values of $t_0=2454849.4 \pm 5.7$~JD and $v_{50{\mathrm d}, {\rm phot}}= 2588 \pm 675$ km~s$^{-1}$ were obtained. The values of the extrapolated velocities are in Table \ref{epm_data} (see also Fig.~\ref{vel_osszehas}).
We used two slightly different approaches to calculate the angular radius ($\theta$).
First, the method of \citet{hamuy_epm} was applied by minimizing the quantity of:
\begin{equation}
\chi^2=\sum_{\lambda}{{[m_{\lambda}+5 \log (\theta \zeta(T)) -b_{\lambda}(T)] \over \sigma_m^2}},
\end{equation}
where $m_\lambda$ is the dereddened apparent magnitude in the filter with the central wavelength $\lambda$, $\sigma_m$ is the photometric error of $m_\lambda$, $b_\lambda(T)$ is the syntetic magnitudes of the blackbody flux at temperature $T$, $\zeta(T)$ is the flux dilution factor. In this way both $\theta$ and $T$ are determined simultaneously. The $BVI$ filter combination was taken into account. We refer to this version as ``multicolour''.
We also applied EPM in a ``bolometric'' way \citep{vinko_02ap}. In this case the angular radius was calculated as
\begin{equation}
\theta= \sqrt{{F_{bol} \over \zeta^2(T) \sigma T^4}}
\end{equation}
We used the bolometric fluxes determined in Sec. \ref{sec_bollum} ($F_{bol}$), while the temperatures were obtained by fitting blackbody curves to the fluxes measured in the $BVRIJH$ bands.
To calculate the distance, we adopted the $\zeta(T)$ dilution factors of \citet{D05}.
Table \ref{epm_data} contains the derived $\theta$, $T$ and $\zeta$ values for both methods along with the extrapolated $v_{\rm phot}$ velocities.
Using the ``multicolour'' method the inferred distance is $D_{\rm m}=22.96 \pm 2.85$~Mpc, while for the epoch of explosion we obtained $t_{0,{\rm m}}=2454847.0 \pm 2.2$~JD. With the ``bolometric'' version the results are $D_{\rm b}=23.64 \pm 2.65$~Mpc and $t_{0,{\rm b}}=2454848.9 \pm 1.5$~JD. We adopted the weighted mean of the results of the two versions of EPM, $D_{EPM}=23.31 \pm 1.94$~Mpc ($\mu =31.83 \pm 0.18$~mag) and $t_0=2454848.1 \pm 1.2$~JD as the EPM distance to SN 2009N and the epoch of its explosion (which date we use throughout the paper), respectively.
The distances determined via EPM depend heavily on the $\zeta(T)$ dilution factors that are calculated from atmosphere models. Currently there are two sets of models that can be used for this purpose, published by \citet{E96} and \citet{D05}. The $\zeta(T)$ curves derived from these two model sets, however, differ significantly, those of \citet{E96} being systematically lower, therefore leading to lower distances \citep[as was discussed in][]{D05}. In the case of SN 2009N the difference in the distance is $\sim14$ per cent.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{170mm}
\caption{Quantities derived in EPM: angular size ($\theta$), temperature (T) and dilution factors ($\zeta$) from the models of \citet{D05} along with the extrapolated velocities.}
\label{epm_data}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccccccccccc@{}}
\hline
\hline
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{``bolometric''} & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{``multicolour''} & extrapolated velocities \\
JD & $\theta$ & T & $\zeta$ & & $\theta$ & T & $\zeta$ & $v_{\rm phot}$ \\
(2400000+) & ($10^8$ ${\mathrm{km}\over \mathrm{Mpc}}$) & (K) & & & ($10^8$ ${\mathrm{km}\over \mathrm{Mpc}}$) & (K) & & (km~s$^{-1}$) \\
\hline
54858.9 & 3.20 & 9006 & 0.540 & & 3.47 & 8998 & 0.588 & 6843 \\
54859.7 & 2.48 & 10042 & 0.431 & & 3.15 & 9935 & 0.548 & 6659 \\
54859.8 & 2.93 & 9252 & 0.511 & & 3.38 & 9050 & 0.589 & 6638 \\
54860.9 & 2.50 & 9996 & 0.451 & & 3.44 & 9152 & 0.622 & 6403 \\
54862.8 & 2.84 & 8988 & 0.546 & & 3.51 & 8737 & 0.676 & 6017 \\
54862.8 & 2.78 & 9137 & 0.535 & & 3.71 & 8192 & 0.714 & 6021 \\
54863.8 & 2.96 & 8691 & 0.585 & & 3.63 & 8505 & 0.719 & 5843 \\
54864.8 & 3.17 & 8212 & 0.646 & & 3.96 & 7768 & 0.807 & 5675 \\
54866.8 & 3.50 & 7521 & 0.754 & & 3.99 & 7569 & 0.861 & 5370 \\
54868.8 & 3.68 & 7017 & 0.836 & & 4.11 & 7188 & 0.935 & 5095 \\
54874.7 & 5.03 & 4401 & 1.318 & & 4.37 & 6581 & 1.147 & 4413 \\
54877.7 & 4.33 & 5830 & 1.216 & & 4.61 & 6016 & 1.296 & 4122 \\
54881.6 & 4.59 & 5544 & 1.402 & & 5.46 & 5207 & 1.667 & 3790 \\
54881.7 & 4.48 & 5655 & 1.371 & & 4.73 & 5979 & 1.448 & 3780 \\
54881.8 & 4.48 & 5694 & 1.373 & & 4.84 & 5960 & 1.486 & 3775 \\
54883.7 & 4.56 & 5538 & 1.455 & & 4.91 & 5701 & 1.570 & 3624 \\
54885.7 & 4.59 & 5508 & 1.528 & & 4.93 & 5791 & 1.641 & 3478 \\
54888.8 & 4.65 & 5497 & 1.644 & & 4.91 & 5928 & 1.739 & 3272 \\
54889.7 & 4.74 & 5292 & 1.707 & & 5.09 & 5554 & 1.837 & 3211 \\
54890.7 & 4.71 & 5351 & 1.732 & & 5.09 & 5382 & 1.873 & 3147 \\
54896.7 & 4.90 & 4992 & 2.019 & & 5.37 & 5198 & 2.212 & 2810 \\
54903.7 & 4.88 & 5019 & 2.281 & & 5.37 & 5195 & 2.512 & 2477 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table*}
\subsection{Standardized Candle Method}\label{sec_scm}
The standardized candle method (SCM) was originally proposed by \citet{hamuy_scm} and has been refined several times \citep{hamuy_scm2,nugent, poznanski_scm, olivares_scm}. In this section we use multiple versions.
First we apply the version of \citet{poznanski_scm}. Using the measured brightness, expansion velocity and well-known distance of a sample of 34 SNe, they calibrated the equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{poz_eq}
\mathcal{M_I} - \alpha \cdot \log \left( {v_{Fe}(50\mathrm{d}) \over 5000} \right) +R_I((V-I) - (V-I)_0) - m_I =\\
= -5 \cdot \log(H_0D)\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathcal{M_I}=-1.615 \pm 0.08$, $\alpha=4.4 \pm 0.6$, $R_I=0.8 \pm 0.3$ and $(V-I)_0=0.53$~mag. We measured the $I$-band magnitude of SN~2009N on day +50 as $m_I=15.440 \pm 0.015$~mag, the colour as $(V-I)=0.850 \pm 0.025$~mag, and $v_{\rm Fe}({\rm 50d})=2448 \pm 300$ km~s$^{-1}$. We adopt the latest value of the Hubble constant, that was determined by the Planck collaboration: $H_0=67.3 \pm 1.2$~km~s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$ \citep{planck_cosmology}. The obtained distance is $D_{{\rm SCM},1}=21.01 \pm 2.86$~Mpc
\citet{maguire_scm} extended the technique by using NIR photometry and showed that in $JHK$ bands the scatter in the Hubble diagram is lower than in the optical.
They used the same formula as \citet{poznanski_scm} (Eq.~\ref{poz_eq}). Their calibration in $J$ band -- which had the lowest scatter among the three bands -- led to the values of $\mathcal{M_J}=-2.532 \pm 0.250$~mag and $\alpha=6.33 \pm 1.20$. \citet{maguire_scm} opted to calculate with the value of $R_V=1.5$, obtained by \citet{poznanski_scm}, instead of using it as a fitting paramater. In the case of SN~2009N, $+50$ days after the explosion we measured $m_J=15.198 \pm 0.020$, $(V-J)=1.14 \pm 0.04$~mag and again used the velocity $v_{\rm Fe}({\rm 50d})=2448 \pm 300$ km~s$^{-1}$. The calculated distance is $D_{{\rm SCM},2}=20.82 \pm 4.35$~Mpc.
Both of the above methods rely on data taken on day $+50$ after explosion. However, in many cases the date of the explosion cannot be determined accurately. And even though the brightness does not change significantly around day +50, the velocity does; a few days uncertainty in the epoch of explosion can change the measured $v({\rm 50d})$ by $\pm~200-250$ km~s$^{-1}$. In the case of SN 2009N, $200$ km~s$^{-1}$ difference alone would change the distance by $\sim8$ per cent. A solution to this problem was proposed in \citet{olivares_scm}, who used an epoch calculated relative to the middle of the transition from the plateau to the tail.
\citet{olivares_scm} examined the data of 37 nearby II-P SNe, and applied the same expression as \citet{hamuy_scm}:
\begin{equation}
m+\alpha \log(v_{Fe}/5000)-\beta(V-I)=5\log H_0D + zp,
\end{equation}
but using the magnitudes and velocities measured 30 days before the middle of the transition phase ($t_{PT}$). The values of $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $zp$ can be found in Table 6 of \citet{olivares_scm} for the filters $BVI$. In the case of SN~2009N we determined the middle of the transition by fitting the model function of \citet*{elmhamdi} to the light curve as $t_{PT}=109 \pm 2$ days after explosion. On day $t_{PT}-30$ we measured the values of $m_B=18.100 \pm 0.090$, $m_V=16.470 \pm 0.016$, $m_I=15.452 \pm 0.007$ magnitudes and $v_{\rm Fe}=1822 \pm 150\,\rm{km~s}^{-1}$. We determined the distance for all three bands, and calculated their weighted mean. This way we obtained a distance of $D_{{\rm SCM},3}=21.11 \pm 1.65$ Mpc.
The distances determined with the three versions of SCM agree quite well. We conclude their weighted mean, $D_{\rm SCM}=21.02 \pm 1.36$ Mpc ($\mu=31.61 \pm 0.14$~mag) as the SCM distance to SN 2009N. Note that SCM has multiple uncertainties. It requires external calibration using SNe with well-known distances and depends on the value of $H_0$. Adopting, for example, $H_0=73$ km~s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$ \citep{freedman_hubble} instead of $H_0=67.3$ km~s$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$ would lower the SCM distance of SN~2009N by $\sim 8$ per cent.
\subsection{Average Distance}\label{sec_avedist}
The distances derived via EPM and SCM differ significantly, $D_{\rm EPM}$ being higher by $\sim10$ per cent than $D_{\rm SCM}$. \citet{olivares_scm} compared the SCM and EPM distances of SNe that were both in their sample and in the sample of \citet{jones2009}. They found that the EPM distances \citep[using the atmosphere models of ][]{D05} are systematically higher that those calculated via SCM.
The distance of NGC 4487, the host galaxy of SN~2009N, was determined by \citet{tully_dist} as $D_{\rm TF}=19.9 \pm 4.0$~Mpc ($\mu =31.49 \pm 0.4$~mag) from the Tully-Fisher relation. This value is in agreement with our findings.
On the other hand, the distance of the host galaxy derived from the redshift is significantly lower. After correcting for the Virgo infall a value of
$15.3 \pm 0.9\,\rm{Mpc}$ can be obtained\footnote{HyperLeda, \url{http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr/}} (with $H_0=67.3\,{\rm km~s^{-1}Mpc^{-1}}$, as in the previous section). In the case of such nearby galaxies, peculiar motions can play an important role, and can explain the difference.
By calculating the weighted average of the SCM, EPM and Tully-Fisher distances, and excluding the Hubble flow distance (Table \ref{ave-dist}), we determined our best estimate of the distance to NGC 4487 as $D=21.6 \pm 1.1$ Mpc ($\mu=31.67 \pm 0.11$).
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{minipage}{84mm}
\caption{Comparison of the distances obtained with different methods in this paper and in \citet{tully_dist}. Their weighted mean is also included.}
\label{ave-dist}
\begin{tabular}{@{}lccc@{}}
\hline
\hline
Method & Distance & Distance modulus & Ref. \\
& (Mpc) & (mag) \\
\hline
Tully-Fisher & 19.9 (4.0) & 31.49 (0.44) & \citet{tully_dist} \\
EPM & 23.3 (1.9) & 31.84 (0.18) & this paper \\
SCM & 21.0 (1.4) & 31.61 (0.14) & this paper\\
\\
average & 21.6 (1.1) & 31.67 (0.11) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{minipage}
\end{table}
\section{Physical parameters}\label{phys}
Based on our observations and the distance determined in the previous section, we infer some of the pysical parameters of the progenitor star and the explosion of SN 2009N.
The $^{56}$Ni mass produced during the explosion was estimated from the tail luminosity. Using eq.2. in \citet{hamuy2003}, we estimated the nickel mass to be $M_{\rm Ni}=0.020 \pm 0.004$~M$_{\sun}$.
With the same well-tested approach adopted for other observed CC-SNe \citep[e.g.~SNe 2007od, 2009bw, and 2009E; see][]{Inserra2011, inserra2012, pastorello_09E}, we evaluated
the main physical properties of the progenitor of SN 2009N at the explosion (i.e. the ejected
mass, the progenitor radius, and the explosion energy) through the hydrodynamical modelling of
the main observables (i.e. bolometric light curve, evolution of line velocities, and continuum
temperature at the photosphere).
According to this approach, a simultaneous $\chi^{2}$ fit of the above mentioned observables
against model calculations was performed. Two codes were employed for the computation of the
models: 1) the first one is a semi-analytic code where the energy balance equation is solved
for a homologously expanding envelope of constant density \citep{zampieri2003, zampieri_sne_conf};
2) the second is a new general-relativistic, radiation-hydrodynamics Lagrangian code presented
in \citet*{pumo2010} and \citet{pumo2011}, which is able to simulate the
evolution of the physical properties of the CC SN ejecta and the behavior of the main observables
from the breakout of the shock wave at the stellar surface up to the nebular stage. The distinctive
features of this new code are: a) an accurate treatment of radiative transfer coupled to hydrodynamics,
b) a fully implicit Lagrangian approach to the solution of the coupled non-linear finite difference
system of general-relativistic, radiation-hydrodynamics equations, and c) a description of the evolution
of ejected material which takes into account both the gravitational effects of the compact remnant
and the heating effects linked to the decays of the radioactive isotopes synthesized during the SN
explosion.
The semi-analytic code is used to carry out a preparatory study aimed at constraining the
parameter space describing the SN progenitor at the explosion. The results of such study
are exploited to guide the more realistic, but time consuming model calculations performed with
the general-relativistic, radiation-hydrodynamics code.
We note that modelling with both codes is appropriate, since the emission of SN 2009N is dominated
by the expanding ejecta. However, in performing the
$\chi^{2}$ fit, we do not include the observational data taken at early phase (first $\sim$ $10-20$ days
after explosion)
This is approximately the time needed for the early bolometric light curve to relax to the plateau \citep[see e.g.][]{tomasella_12A}. We do not attempt to model this phase because during it all the observables are significantly affected by emission from the outermost shell of the ejecta, which is not in homologous expansion \citep[cf.][]{pumo2011}. The structure, evolution and emission properties of this shell are not well reproduced in our simulations because at present we adopt an ``ad hoc'' initial density profile, not consistently derived from a post-explosion calculation. Future plans involve implementing more ``realistic'' density profiles in the simulations.
The shock breakout epoch, the bolometric luminosity, the photospheric velocity and the photospheric temperature were necessary to perform the comparison
with model calculations (see Fig.~17). The agreement between our modelling and the observations is reasonably good apart from the early evolution of the photometric velocity. As mentioned before, the reason for this difference is due to the ``ad hoc'' initial density profile used in our simulations, which does not reproduce correctly the radial profile in the outermost shells of the ejecta formed after shock breakout. For this reason, we omit the early phase data from the fit. However, it should be noted that such omission does not affect the results significantly, the modelling provides a reliable estimate of the main physical properties of the SN progenitor.
Assuming a $^{56}$Ni mass of $0.020 \pm 0.004\,{\rm M_{\sun}}$, the
the best fit model calculated with the general-relativistic,
radiation-hydrodynamics code returned values of total (kinetic plus thermal) energy of $\sim 0.48$ foe, initial radius of $\sim 2.0 \times 10^{13}$ cm ($\sim 287$~R$_{\sun}$),
and envelope mass of $\sim 11.5\,{\rm M_{\sun}}$.
Adding the mass of a compact remnant ($\sim 1.5-2\,{\rm M_{\sun}}$) to that of the ejected material, the estimated mass of the progenitor of SN 2009N at the explosion is $\sim 13-13.5\,{\rm M_{\sun}}$, which is consistent with the mass range of the red supergiant precursors of SNe II-P \citep[e.g.][]{smartt2009}. Examining the pre-explosion images of SN~2009N, the upper limit for the progenitor mass was determined as $M_{ZAMS}<16$ M$_{\sun}$ \citep[see][and the references therein]{maguire_nebusp}. The initial radius, however, is quite small for a RSG star, it is more consistent with that of a yellow supergiant.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[angle=270,width=84mm]{modelling_22102013_MLPLZ_final.ps}
\label{fighydro}
\caption{ Comparison of the evolution of the main observables of SN~2009N with the best-fit model computed with the general-relativistic, radiation-hydrodynamics code (total energy $\sim 0.48$~foe, initial radius $2.0 \times 10^{13}$~cm, envelope mass $\sim 11.5\,{\rm M_{\sun}}$). Top, middle, and bottom panels show the bolometric light curve, the photospheric velocity, and the photospheric temperature as a function of time. For the sake of completeness, the best-fit model computed with the semianalytic code (total energy $\sim 0.5$~foe, initial radius $\sim 1.1 \times 10^{13}$~cm, envelope mass $\sim 10\,{\rm M_{\sun}}$) is also reported.
The photospheric velocities were estimated from the minima of the Sc\,{\sc ii} line profiles which are considered as good tracers of the photosphere velocity in Type II SNe. The values of the photospheric temperature taken at early phase (first 8 measurements corresponding to the first ∼ 15 days after the breakout of the
shock wave at the stellar surface) are not included in the fit (see text for details). As for the photospheric temperature, we use the black-body temperature derived from the black-body fits to the spectral continuum and to the $BVRIJH$ fluxes.}
\end{figure}
The estimated physical parameters of SN~2009N are in between those of the subluminous and normal SNe II-P.
The ejected $^{56}$Ni mass ($0.020\,{\rm M_{\sun}}$) is higher than that of the subluminous SNe 2005cs \citep[0.003-0.004~M$_{\sun}$,][]{pastorello05csII} and 2003Z \citep[0.0063~M$_{\sun}$,][]{utrobin03Z}, but lower than that of the normal II-P SN 1999em \citep[0.036~M$_{\sun}$,][]{utrobin99em}. Similarly, the explosion energy ($\sim 0.48$~foe) is in between the typical values of the subluminous (e.g. $0.2-0.4$~foe and $0.245$~foe for SNe 2005cs and 2003Z, respectively) and the normal SNe II-P \citep[e.g. $1.3$~foe for SN~1999em,][]{zampieri_sne_conf}. The initial radii and progenitor masses of SNe~2009N and 2003Z are alike, although the explosion energy of SN~2003Z was about half of that of SN~2009N \citep{utrobin03Z}.
The observational properties of SN 2009N are very similar to those of SN 2008in. The estimated $^{56}$Ni masses are also in good agreement. \citet{roy08in} used the semi-analytical formulae of \citet{litvinova} to estimate the physical parameters of the explosion and the progenitor of SN 2008in. They found that the progenitor was a compact star with $R_{ini} \approx 127\,{\rm R_{\sun}}$ and $M_{ej} \approx 17\,{\rm M_{\sun}}$. This radius is lower and the ejected mass is higher than those of SN~2009N. The explosion energies of the two SNe are similar. Using hydrodynamical modelling, \citet{utrobin_08in} also determined the parameters of SN~2008in. They obtained the ejecta mass of $13.6 \pm 1.9\,{\rm M_{\sun}} $ and the explosion energy of $0.51 \pm 0.34$ foe, which are close to the parameters inferred for SN~2009N. On the other hand, they estimated the radius of the progenitor of SN~2008in to be significantly larger than that of \citet{roy08in}, viz. $R_{\rm ini} = 570 \pm 100\,{\rm R_{\sun}}$.
\section{Summary}\label{summary}
In this paper we present ultraviolet, optical, and near-infrared photometry of SN 2009N together with optical and near-infrared spectra. The spectral and photometric evolution is similar to that of the intermediate luminosity SN II-P, 2008in \citep{roy08in}. The optical spectra show narrow features with low velocities, typical of subluminous SNe II-P. We examined the evolution of the strong Ba\,{\sc ii} $\lambda\lambda$5854 and 6497 lines, which are mainly detected in the spectra of subluminous SNe II-P. The bolometric luminosity during the plateau phase is in between those of the subluminous and normal SNe II-P.
The NIR spectra of SN 2009N contain the usual features typical of SNe II-P, except for the appearance of a feature at $\sim 1.055\,{\rm\mu m}$ on day $+48$ after explosion. We also show that this feature is present in -- previously unpublished -- NIR spectra of SN~2008in. Creating {\sc synow} models of the spectra we found that this line is probably due to high-velocity He\,{\sc i} $\lambda 10830$, although we cannot rule out the identification as Si\,{\sc i} either. The presence of HV He\,{\sc i}, together with HV component of H$\alpha$, can be a sign of weak interaction of the ejecta with circumstellar material \citep{chugai_intera}.
We estimated the distance to SN~2009N using multiple versions of both the expanding photosphere method and the standardized candle method. As a result we determined the distance as $D=21.6 \pm 1.1$~Mpc ($\mu=31.67 \pm 0.11$).
The produced nickel mass is estimated to be $0.020 \pm 0.004$ M$_{\sun}$. Physical properties of the progenitor at the explosion were determined through hydrodynamical modelling. The total explosion energy ($\sim 0.48~{\rm foe}$) is in between the values typical of subluminous and normal SNe II-P. The presupernova mass ($\sim 13-13.5\,{\rm M_{\sun}}$) is consistent with that of RSG stars, while small estimated radius at the time of the explosion ($R_{\rm ini}\approx 287\,{\rm R_{\sun}}$) can point to a YSG star more than to a RSG.
The directly identified progenitors of normal SNe II-P, however, are all RSG stars \citep{smartt2009}, the only object for which the possibility of a YSG progenitor arose was SN~2008cn, a high-luminosity SNe II-P \citep{eliasrosa_2008cn}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
K.T. acknowledges support by the Gemini-Conicyt project 32110024.
K.T., G.P., J.A., F.B., R.C., M.H. and F.F. acknowledge support from Millennium Center for Supernova Science (P10-064-F), with input from Fondo de Innovaci\' on para la Competitividad, del Ministerio de Economia, Fomento y Turismo de Chile.
This project has been supported by the Hungarian OTKA grant NN~107637 and by the European Union together with the European Social Fund through the T\' AMOP 4.2.2/B-10/1-2010-0012 grant.
We acknowledge the TriGrid VL project and the INAF-Astronomical Observatory of Padua for the use
of computer facilities. M.L.P., A.P. and S.B. acknowledge support from the PRIN-INAF 2011 Transient
Universe: from ESO Large to PESSTO (P.I. S. Benetti).
N.E.R. acknowledges financial support by the MICINN grant
AYA2011-24704/ESP, by the ESF EUROCORES Program EuroGENESIS (MINESCO grant
EUI2009-04170), and from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n. 267251.
F.B., J. A. and F.F. acknowledges support from CONICYT through FONDECYT grants 3120227, 3110142 and 3110042, respectively. F.F. acknowledges partial support from Comite Mixto ESO-GOBIERNO DE CHILE.
R.C. acknowledges support by CONICYT through “Programa Nacional de Becas
de Postgrado”
grant D-2108082, and by the Yale-Chile fellowship in astrophysics.
G.L. is supported by the Swedish Research Council through grant No. 623-2011-7117
M.S. gratefully acknowledge generous support provided by the Danish Agency for Science and Technology and Innovation
realized through a Sapere Aude Level 2 grant.
This work is partially based on observations made with ESO Telescopes at the
La Silla and Paranal Observatories under programme IDs 084.D-0261 and 082.A-0526, and
on observations of the European supernova
collaboration involved in the ESO-NTT large programme 184.D-1140 led by
Stefano Benetti.
This research is based in part on observations made with the Liverpool
Telescope operated on the island of La Palma by Liverpool John Moores
University in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los
Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias with financial
support from the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council; the
Nordic Optical Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma jointly
by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, in the Spanish
Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de
Astrofisica de Canarias; the SMARTS Consortium 1.3~m
telescope and the Prompt Telescopes located at Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO),
Chile; the 1.5~m telescope located at Palomar Observatory, USA; the 2.2 m
telescope
of the Calar Alto Observatory (Sierra de Los Filabres, Spain); the Southern Astrophysical Research (SOAR) telescope, which is a joint project of the Minist\'{e}rio da Ci\^{e}ncia, Tecnologia, e Inova\c{c}\~{a}o (MCTI) da Rep\'{u}blica Federativa do Brasil, the U.S. National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), and Michigan State University (MSU); the 2.5 m du Pont Telescope and the 6.5 m Magellan Telescopes located at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile.
We are grateful to the staffs at these observatories for their excellent
assistance with the observations.
This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database, the HyperLeda database, NASA's Astrophysics Data System. The availability of these services is gratefully acknowledged.
We thank Rupak Roy for sending us the optical spectra of SN~2008in and Morgan Fraser for the NIR spectra of SN~2009md. We also thank the referee, V.~P. Utrobin for the thorough review of the paper.
\bibliographystyle{mn2e}
|
\section{Introduction}
Meinardus \cite{M} proved a theorem about the asymptotics of weighted
partitions with weights satisfying certain conditions.
His result was extended to the combinatorial objects
called assemblies and selections in \cite{GSE} and to
Dirichlet generating functions for weights, with multiple singularities in
\cite{GS}. In this paper, we extend Meinardus' theorem further to a general
framework, which encompasses a variety of models in physics and combinatorics, including previous results.
Let $f$ be a
generating function of a nonnegative sequence $\{c_n,\ n\ge 0,\ c_0=1\}$:
\begin{equation}
f(z)=\sum_{n\ge 0}c_n z^n,\label{sac}
\end{equation}
with radius of convergence 1. As an example,
consider the number of weighted partitions $c_n$ of size $n$,
determined by the generating function identity
\begin{equation}\label{intro}
\sum_{n=0}^\infty c_nz^n=\prod_{k=1}^\infty (1-z^k)^{-b_k}, \quad \vert z\vert<1,
\end{equation}
for some sequence of real numbers $b_k\ge 0,\ k\ge 1$.
When $b_k=1$ for all $k\ge 1$, then $c_n$ is the number of integer partitions.
Meinardus \cite{M} proved a theorem giving the asymptotics of $c_n$
under certain assumptions on the sequence $\{b_k\}$.
The generating function in \refm[intro] may
be expressed as $\prod_{k=1}^\infty \big(S(z^k)\big)^{b_k}$, where
$S(z)=(1-z)^{-1}$.
This observation allows the following generalization.
Let $f$ in \refm[sac] be of the form:\begin{equation}\label{frame}
f(z)=\prod_{k=1}^\infty \big(S(a_k z^k)\big)^{b_k},
\end{equation}
with given sequences $0< a_k\le 1$, $ b_k\ge 0,\ k\ge 1$, and a given function $S(z).$
This is a particular case of the class of general multiplicative models, introduced and studied by Vershik (\cite{V1}). In the setting \refm[frame], in the case of weighted partitions, a combinatorial meaning can be attributed
to the parameters $a_k, b_k$. Namely, if $b_k=1,$ then $a_k$ can be viewed as a properly scaled number of colours for each component of size $k,$ such that
given $l$ components of size $k$, the total number of colourings is
$a_k^l$. On the other hand, if $a_k=1$, then given $l$ components of size $k$,
the total number of colourings equals the number of distributions of $b_k$ indistinguishable balls among $l$ cells, so that in this model $b_k$ has a meaning of a scaled number of types prescribed to a component of size $k$.
Yakubovich(\cite{YA}) derived the limit shapes for models \refm[frame] in the case $a_k=1,\ k\ge 1$, under some analytical conditions on $S$ and $b_k$.
Note that
past versions \cite{GSE}- \cite{GS} of Meinardus' theorem deal with the asymptotics of $c_n,\ n\to \infty,$ when $a_k=1,\ k\ge 1,$ for three cases of the function $S,$ corresponding to the three classic models of statistical mechanics, which are equivalent to the three aforementioned models in combinatorics. Our objective in this paper is to derive the asymptotics $c_n,\ n\to \infty,$ in the general framework \refm[frame].
The assumptions above \refm[sac] and \refm[frame] on the sequence $c_n$ imply that $S(0)=1,$
that $S(z)$ can be expanded in a power series with radius of convergence $\ge 1$ and non-negative coefficients $d_j$:
\begin{equation}\label{sz}
S(z)=\sum_{j=0}^\infty d_jz^j,
\end{equation}
with $d_0=1$,
and that
$\log S(z)$ can be expanded as
\begin{equation}\label{logSexp}
\log S(z)=\sum_{j=1}^\infty \xi_j z^j
\end{equation}
with radius of convergence $1$.
From \refm[frame] and \refm[logSexp] one can express the coefficients $\Lambda_k$ of the power series for the function $\log f(z)$, with radius of convergence 1:
\begin{equation}\label{logflam}
\log f(z) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \Lambda_k z^k,\quad\Lambda_k=\sum_{j\mid k}b_j a_j^{k/j} \xi_{k/j}.
\end{equation}
We define the Dirichlet generating function for the sequence $\Lambda_k:$
\begin{equation}\label{Dirdef}
D(s)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \Lambda_k k^{-s},
\end{equation}
which by virtue of \refm[logflam] admits the following presentation
\begin{equation} \label{dpres}
D(s)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^\infty b_k \xi_j a_k^j
(jk)^{-s},
\end{equation}
as long as $\Re s$ is large enough so that the double Dirichlet series in \refm[dpres]
converges absolutely.
If
$a_k=a,\ 0<a\le 1 $ for all $k\geq 1$,
then
$D(s)$ can be factored as
\begin{equation}\label{factor}
D(s)=D_b(s)D_{\xi,a}(s),
\end{equation}
where
$$
D_{\xi,a}(s)=\sum_{j=1}^\infty a^j\xi_j j^{-s}
$$
and
\begin{equation}\label{Dbdef}
D_b(s)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty b_k k^{-s}.
\end{equation}
The greater generality of \refm[frame] than in previous versions of Meinardus'
theorem will allow novel applications. The proof of
Theorem~\ref{general}, stated below, is a substantial modification
of the method used in
\cite{GSE,GS2,GS}.
We suppose that $\Lambda_k$ and $D(s)$ satisfy conditions $(I)- (III)$,
which are modifications of the three original Meinardus' conditions in \cite{M}.\\
{\bf Condition $(I)$.}
The Dirichlet generating function $D(s), \ s=\sigma+it$ is analytic in the half-plane $\sigma>\rho_r>0$ and
it has $r\geq 1$ simple poles at positions $0<\rho_1<\rho_2<\ldots<\rho_r,$ with positive residues
$A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_r$ respectively.
It may also happen that $D(s)$ has a simple pole at $0$ with residue $A_0$.
(If $D(s)$ is analytic at 0, we take
$A_0=0$). Moreover,
there is a constant $0<C_0\le 1,$ such
that the function $D(s)$, $s=\sigma+it$, has a meromorphic continuation
to the half-plane
$$
{\cal H}=\{s:\sigma\geq-C_0\}
$$
on which it is analytic except for
the above $r$ simple poles.
{\bf Condition $(II)$.}
There is a constant $C_1>0$ such that
$$
D(s)=O\left(|t|^{C_1}\right),\quad t\to\infty
$$
uniformly for $s=\sigma+it\in{\cal H}$.
{\bf Condition $(III).$}
The following property of the parameters $a_k$, $b_k$ holds:
\begin{equation}\label{assum1}
b_ka_k^{l_0} \geq C_2 k^{\rho_r-1},\ k\ge 1,\ C_2>0,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{l0def}
l_0:=\min\{j>0:d_j>0\}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, if $l_0>1$ then
for $\delta_n$ as defined below in \refm[delasy],
for some fixed $\epsilon>0$ and for large enough $n$,
\begin{align}
2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}
{\Lambda_k{e^{-k\delta_n}\sin^2(\pi k\alpha)}} \ge & \left(1+{\rho_r\over 2}+\epsilon\right)
|\log \delta_n|, \label{III}\\
& (2 l_0)^{-1}\leq
|\alpha|\leq 1/2, \ \ l_0>1, \nonumber
\end{align}
where $\Lambda_k$ is as defined in \refm[logflam].
In order to state our main result, we need some more notations,
which were also used in \cite{GS}.
Define the finite set
$$
\tilde{\Upsilon}_r=
\left\{\sum_{k=0}^{r-1} \tilde{d}_k(\rho_r-\rho_k):\ \tilde{d}_k\in{\Bbb Z}_+,\ \sum_{k=0}^{r-1}\tilde{d}_k\geq 2\right\}\cap \big(0,\rho_r+1\big],
$$
where we have set $\rho_0=0$ and let ${\Bbb Z}_+$ denote the set of nonnegative integers. Let $0<\alpha_1<\alpha_2<\ldots<\alpha_{|\tilde{\Upsilon}_r|}\le \rho_r+1$ be all ordered numbers forming the
set $\tilde{\Upsilon}_r$. Clearly, $\alpha_1=2(\rho_r-\rho_{r-1}),$ if the set $\tilde{\Upsilon}_r$ is not empty.
We also
define the finite set
\begin{equation}\label{sd2} \Upsilon_r=\tilde{\Upsilon}_r\cup\{\rho_r-\rho_k:\ k=0,1,\ldots,r-1\},
\end{equation}
observing that some of the differences $\rho_r-\rho_k,\ k=0,\dots,r-1$ may fall into the set $\tilde{\Upsilon}_r$. We let $0<\lambda_1<\lambda_2<\ldots<\lambda_{|\Upsilon_r|}$
be all ordered numbers forming the
set $\Upsilon_r$.
\begin{theorem}\label{general}
Suppose conditions $(I) - (III)$ are satisfied.
Suppose that $c_n$ has ordinary generating function of the form
\refm[frame], where $0< a_k\le 1$ and $b_k\ge 0, \ k\ge 1$,
that \refm[assum1] is satisfied
for a constant $C_2>0$,
and that
\begin{equation}\label{assum2}
\frac{d^2}{d\delta^2}\log S\left(e^{-\delta}\right)>0,
\quad\delta>0.
\end{equation}
We then have, as $n\to\infty$,
\begin{equation}\label{cnasymp}
c_n\sim Hn^{-\frac{2+\rho_r-2A_0}{2(\rho_r+1)}}\exp \Big(\sum_{l=0}^{r}P_l\, n^{\frac{\rho_l}{\rho_r+1}}+
\sum_{l=0}^r\hat{ h}_l\sum_{s:\lambda_s\le \rho_l}K_{s,l}\, n^{\frac{\rho_l-\lambda_s}{\rho_r+1}} \Big),
\end{equation}
where $H$, $P_l$, $\hat{h}_l$ and $K_{s,l}$ are constants.
In particular, if $r=1$, then
$K_{s,l}=0$ for all $s$ and $l$,
$$P_1=\left(1+{1\over \rho_1}\right)
\big(A_1\Gamma(\rho_1+1)\big)^{1/(\rho_1+1)}
$$
and
$$
H=e^{\Theta-\gamma A_0}
\left(2\pi(1+\rho_1)\right)^{-1/2}(A_1\Gamma(\rho_1+1))^{\frac{1-2A_0}{2(\rho_1+1)}},
$$
where
\begin{equation}
\Theta:=\lim_{s\to 0}(D(s)-A_0s^{-1})
\label{THETA}\end{equation}
and $\gamma$ is Euler's constant.
\end{theorem}
Theorem~1 generalizes the results in \cite{GSE,GS} and implies
the results therein, including expansive weighted partitions,
for which
$S(x)=(1-x)^{-1}$, $a_k=1,\ k\ge 1$ and $b_k=k^{r-1},\ k\ge 1$ for some $r>0$.
{\bf Example} This example shows that
\refm[assum1] is not implied by the other hypotheses of
Theorem~\ref{general}.
Let $a_k=1$ for all $k$, let $b_k=k^{\rho_1-1}$ where $\rho_1>0$,
and let $\xi_k=k^{\rho_2-1}$, where $0<\rho_1<\rho_2$.
Then, $D_{\xi,1}(s)=\zeta(s+1-\rho_2)$, $D_b(s)=\zeta(s+1-\rho_1)$,
where $\zeta$ is the Riemann zeta funtion, and $D(s)=D_b(s)D_{\xi,1}(s)$
has poles at $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$. Moreover,
$S(z)=\exp\left(\sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{\rho_1-1}z^k\right)$ has radius of convergence
$1$ and it is easy to check that \refm[assum2] is satisfied.
Theorem~\ref{general} is proven in Section~2.
In the remaining two
sections, we focus on two novel applications implied by Theorem~\ref{general}. In Sections~3 and 4 we apply our results
to the asymptotic
enumeration of Gentile statistics and expansive selections with $a_k=k^{-q}.$
The latter generalizes previous results
for polynomials over a finite field.
\section{Proof of Theorem ~\ref{general}}
As in \cite{GSE}-\cite{GS}, the proof of Theorem~\ref{general} is based on the Khintchine type representation(\cite{Kh})
\begin{equation}
c_n=e^{n\delta} f_n(e^{-\delta}){\Bbb P}\left(U_n=n\right),\quad n\ge
1,
\label{rep}\end{equation}
where $\delta>0$ is a free parameter,
\begin{equation}
f_n=\prod_{k=1}^n S(a_k z^k)^{b_k}
\label{fndef}\end{equation}
is the truncation of \refm[frame], and the
$U_n,\ n\ge 1$ are integer-valued
random variables with characteristic functions
defined by
\begin{equation}\label{phidef}
\phi_n(\alpha)={\Bbb E}\left(e^{2\pi i\alpha U_n}\right)=
\prod_{k=1}^n
\left(\frac{S\left(a_k e^{2\pi i k\alpha-k\delta}\right)}{S\left(a_ke^{-k\delta}\right)}\right)^{b_k},\quad n\ge 1,\quad \alpha\in {\Bbb R}.
\end{equation}
Khintchine established \refm[rep] for the three basic models of statistical mechanics. For general multiplicative measures \refm[rep] was stated in
equation (4) of \cite{GSE}.
The first step in the proof is to find the asymptotics of ${\bf {\cal F}}(\delta):=\log f(e^{-\delta})$, as $\delta\to 0$.
\begin{lemma} \label{estimates}
\noindent (i) As $\delta\to 0^+$,
\begin{equation} \label{prod1}
{\bf {\cal F}}(\delta)=\exp\left(\sum_{l=0}^r h_l\delta^{-\rho_l}
-A_0\log\delta+M(\delta;C_0)\right),\end{equation}
where
$\rho_0=0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
h_l&=&A_l\Gamma(\rho_l), \quad l=1,\ldots,r,\\
h_0&=&\Theta-\gamma A_0\\
M(\delta;C_0)&=&\frac{1}{2\pi
i}\int_{-C_0-i\infty}^{-C_0+i\infty} \delta^{-s}\Gamma(s)D(s)ds=O(\delta^{C_0}),\ \delta\to 0,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\Theta$ is as in \refm[THETA].
(ii) The asymptotic expressions for the derivatives
$$\Big(\log{\bf {\cal F}}(\delta)\Big)^{(k)}$$
are given by the formal differentiation of the logarithm of
\refm[prod1], with \\ $(M(\delta;C_0))^{(k)}_\delta=O(\delta^{C_0-k}),\ k=1,2,3,\ \delta\to 0.$
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\bf Proof\ \ }
We use the fact that
$e^{-u}$, $u>0$, is the Mellin transform of the Gamma function:
\begin{equation} e^{-u}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{v-i\infty}^{v+i\infty}
u^{-s}\Gamma(s)\,ds,\quad u>0,\ \Re(s)=v>0. \label{Mellin} \end{equation}
Applying \refm[Mellin] with $v=\rho_r+\epsilon,\ \epsilon>0$ we have\begin{eqnarray}
\log
~{\bf {\cal F}}(\delta)
&=&
\sum_{k=1}^\infty b_k\log S\left(a_k e^{-\delta k}\right)\nonumber\\
&=&
\sum_{k=1}^\infty b_k\sum_{j=1}^\infty \xi_j a_k^j e^{-\delta jk}\nonumber\\
&=&
\sum_{k=1}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^\infty b_k \xi_j a_k^j
\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\epsilon+\rho_r-i\infty}^{\epsilon+\rho_r+i\infty}
(\delta jk)^{-s}\Gamma(s)\,ds\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\epsilon+\rho_r-i\infty}^{\epsilon+\rho_r+\infty}
\delta^{-s}
\Gamma(s)
\sum_{k=1}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^\infty b_k \xi_j a_k^j
(jk)^{-s}\,ds\nonumber\\
&=&
\int_{\epsilon+\rho_r-i\infty}^{\epsilon+\rho_r+i\infty} \delta^{-s}\Gamma(s)D(s)ds, \label{intrep3}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used \refm[logflam] and \refm[Dirdef] at \refm[intrep3].
Next, we apply the residue theorem for the integral \refm[intrep3], in the complex domain $ -C_0\le \Re( s)\le \rho_r+\epsilon, $ with $0\le
C_0<1, \epsilon>0.$
By virtue of condition $(I)$,
the integrand in \refm[intrep3] has $r$
simple poles at $\rho_l>0, \ l=1,\ldots,r$.
The corresponding residues at $s=\rho_l$ are equal to:
$A_l\delta^{-\rho_l}\Gamma(\rho_l),$ $l=1,\ldots,r$.
By the Laurent expansions at $s=0$ of the
Gamma function $\Gamma(s)=\frac{1}{s}-\gamma+\ldots,$
and the function $D(s)=\frac{A_0}{s}+\Theta+\cdots$,
the integrand $ \delta^{-s}D(s)\Gamma(s)$ may also have
a pole at $s=0$, which is a simple one with residue $\Theta,$ if $A_0=0,\Theta\neq 0,$
and is of a second order with residue $\Theta-\gamma A_0 - A_0\log\delta$, if $A_0\neq 0,\Theta\neq 0$.
In the case $A_0=\Theta=0$, the integrand $\delta^{-s}D(s)\Gamma(s)$ is analytic at $s=0$.
Applying condition $(II)$ shows that the integral of the integrand $\delta^{-s}\Gamma(s)D(s)$, over the horizontal contour $-C_0\le\Re(s)\le \epsilon+\rho_r$, $\Im(s)=t$, tends to zero, as $t\to \infty,$ for
any fixed $\delta>0.$ This gives the claimed formulae \refm[prod1], where the remainder term $M(\delta;C_0)$ is the
integral taken over the vertical contour $-C_0+it,\ -\infty<t<\infty$.
This proves $(i)$.
In order to prove $(ii)$,
one differentiates
the logarithm of \refm[prod1] with respect to $\delta$ and estimates
the remaining integral in the same way as above.
\hfill\mbox{\rule{0.5em}{0.5em}}
We will need the following bound on $b_k$.
\begin{proposition}
Let the double series
$D(s)$ defined by \refm[dpres]
converge absolutely in the half-plane ${\cal R}(s)>\rho,$ for some $\rho>\rho_r.$
Then
the following bound holds \begin{equation} b_ka_k^{j_0}=o(k^{\rho}),\quad k\to \infty,\label{bound2}\end{equation}
where $j_0=\min\{j\ge 1:\xi_j\neq 0\}$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent{\bf Proof\ \ }
The assumed absolute convergence of the double series in \refm[dpres]
implies the absolute convergence of the iterated series
$$\sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{\xi_j }{j^\rho}\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{b_ka_k^j}{k^\rho}.$$
Consequently,$$\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{b_ka_k^j}{k^\rho}<\infty,\quad \text{for all}\quad j\ge 1: \xi_j\neq 0.$$
Hence,$$\frac{b_ka_k^j}{k^\rho}\to 0,\quad k\to \infty,\quad \text{for all}\quad j\ge 1: \xi_j\neq 0.$$
The latter implies \refm[bound2] \mbox{\rule{0.5em}{0.5em}}
In the probabilistic approach initiated by
Khintchine,
the free parameter $\delta=\delta_n$ is chosen to be the solution
of the equation
\begin{equation}
{\Bbb E} U_n=n,\ n\ge 1. \label{choice}
\end{equation}
The equation for $\delta_n$ can be written as
\begin{equation} \Big(-\log(f_n(e^{-\delta}))\Big)^\prime_{\delta=\delta_n}=n,\quad n\ge 1.\label{der} \end{equation}
For each $n\ge 1$, the function
$\Big(-\log(f_n(e^{-\delta}))\Big)^\prime_\delta$
is decreasing for all $\delta>0$ because
of \refm[assum2].
Moreover, setting $\delta=Cn^{-\frac{1}{\rho_r+1}}, C>0$ we
have
\begin{eqnarray}
\Big(-\log(f_n(e^{-\delta}))\Big)^\prime_\delta
&=&(-\log{\bf {\cal F}}(\delta))^\prime_\delta- \sum_{k=n+1}^\infty
\Big(- b_k\log S(a_ke^{-k\delta})\Big)_{\delta}^\prime\nonumber\\
&=&(-\log{\bf {\cal F}}(\delta))^\prime_\delta- O\Big(
\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty b_k \xi_{j_0}a_k^{j_0}e^{-\delta kj_0}kj_0\Big)\nonumber\\
&\sim&C^{\frac{1}{\rho_r+1}}\rho_rh_r n,
\label{deltas}
\end{eqnarray}
where the step before the last is because for the chosen $\delta$ we have $n\delta=Cn^{\frac{\rho_r}{\rho_r+1}}\to \infty,\ n\to \infty,$ because of Lemma~\ref{estimates} $(ii)$ and because of the fact that for $k\ge n+1,$$$-\Big(\log S(a_ke^{-k\delta})\Big)_{\delta}^\prime\sim \xi_{j_0}a_k^{j_0}e^{-\delta kj_0}kj_0,\quad n\to \infty,$$ where $j_0$ as in \refm[bound2], while the last step follows from Lemma~\ref{estimates} $(ii)$ and \refm[bound2].
The right hand side of \refm[deltas] is $>n,$ if $C>(\rho_rh_r)^{-(\rho_r+1)}$ and $\le n$ otherwise.
This and \refm[assum2] say that for a sufficiently large $n,$ \refm[der] has a unique solution $\delta_n,$ which satisfies \begin{equation} \delta_n\sim (\rho_rh_r)^{-(\rho_r+1)}n^{-\frac{1}{\rho_r+1}},\quad n\to\infty. \label{delasy} \end{equation}
We proceed to find an asymptotic expansion for $\delta_n$ by using a refinement of the scheme of
Proposition~1 of \cite{GS}.
We call any $\tilde{\delta}_n,$ such that \begin{equation} \big(-\log f_n(e^{-\delta})\big)_{\delta=\tilde{\delta}_n}^\prime -n\to 0,\quad n\to \infty \label{asympt}\end{equation}
an asymptotic solution of \refm[der].
We will show that it is sufficient for
\refm[asympt] that $\tilde{\delta}_n$ obeys the condition
\begin{equation} (- \log {\bf {\cal F}}(\delta))_{\delta=\tilde{\delta}_n}^\prime -n\to 0, \ n\to \infty. \label{aut} \end{equation}
By Lemma~\ref{estimates}, we have
$$ \big(- \log {\bf {\cal F}}(\delta)\big)^\prime_\delta\sim h_r\rho_r \delta^{-\rho_r-1},\ \delta\to 0,$$
so that \refm[aut] implies
\begin{equation}\tilde{\delta}_n\sim (h_r\rho_r)^{\frac{1}{\rho_r+1}}n^{-\frac{1}{\rho_r+1}}, \ n\to \infty.\label{caf}\end{equation}
Next we have for all $n\ge 1$
\begin{equation}
\log f_n(e^{-\tilde{\delta}_n})=\log {\bf {\cal F}}(\tilde{\delta}_n)-\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty
b_k\log S(a_k e^{-k\tilde{\delta}_n}).\label{ser}\end{equation}
Aplying the same argument as in \refm[deltas],
we derive the bound
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty
\Big(- b_k\log S(a_ke^{-k\delta})\Big)_{\delta=\tilde{\delta}_n}^\prime=
o(1),\quad n\to \infty.
\label{arg}
\end{equation}
Now, \refm[ser] and \refm[arg] show that \refm[aut] implies
\refm[asympt].
We will now demonstrate
that the error of approximating the exact solution $\delta_n$ by the asymptotic solution $\tilde{\delta}_n$ is of order $o(n^{-1}).$
By the definitions of $\delta_n,$ $\tilde{\delta}_n$
we have
\begin{equation} \Big(-\log f_n(e^{-\delta})\Big)^\prime_{\delta=\delta_n}- \Big(-\log f_n(e^{-\delta})\Big)^\prime_{\delta=\tilde{\delta}_n}=\epsilon_n,\quad \epsilon_n\to 0,\quad n\to \infty.\label{epsli}\end{equation}
Next, applying the Mean Value Theorem, we obtain
\begin{equation} \left| \Big(-\log f_n\big(e^{-\delta_n}\big)\Big)^\prime-\Big(-\log f_n\big(e^{-\tilde{\delta}_n}\big)\Big)^\prime\right|=
\left|(\delta_n-\tilde{\delta}_n) \Big(\log f_n(e^{-u_n})\Big)^{\prime\prime}\right|,\label{ghj}\end{equation}
where
$$u_n\in[\min(\delta_n,\tilde{\delta}_n),\max(\delta_n,\tilde{\delta}_n)].$$ By \refm[epsli], the left hand side of \refm[ghj] tends to $0$, as $n\to \infty,$ while, by virtue of \refm[delasy],\refm[caf],
\begin{equation}\Big(\log f_n(e^{-u_n})\Big)^{\prime\prime}\sim \rho_r(\rho_r+1)h_r(\delta_n)^{-\rho_r-2}= O(n^{\frac{\rho_r+2}{\rho_r+1}}),\label{second}\end{equation}
Combining \refm[ghj] with \refm[second], gives the desired estimate
\begin{equation} \left|\delta_n-\tilde{\delta}_n\right|=o(n^{-1}). \label{nmi}\end{equation}
An obvious modification of the argument in \refm[deltas] allows also to conclude that $$\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty
b_k\log S(a_k e^{-k\delta_n})\to 0, \quad n\to \infty.$$
As a result,
$$
f_n(e^{-\delta_n})\sim {\bf {\cal F}}(\delta_n),\quad n\to \infty.
$$
The latter relation will be used for derivation of the asymptotics of the second factor in \refm[rep].
Define the notations
$$\hat{h}_l=\rho_lh_l, \quad l=1,\ldots r,$$
and
$$\hat{h}_0=-A_0.$$
By $(ii)$ of Lemma~\ref{estimates} we have
\begin{equation}\label{exactly}
\Big(-\log{\bf {\cal F}}(\delta)\Big)^{\prime}= \sum_{l=0}^r \hat{h}_l\delta^{-\rho_l-1}+ \Big(M(\delta;C_0)\Big)^\prime.
\end{equation}
This is exactly the starting point of the analysis of $\tilde{\delta}_n$
in Proposition~1 of \cite{GS}.
We may therefore apply Proposition~1 of \cite{GS} and \refm[nmi] and conclude
that
\begin{equation}
\delta_n=\big(\hat{ h}_r\big)^{\frac{1}{\rho_r+1}}n^{-\frac{1}{\rho_r+1}}+ \sum_{s=1}^{\vert\Upsilon_r\vert}\hat{ K}_s n^{-\frac{1+\lambda_s}{\rho_r+1}}+o(n^{-1}), \label{sd6}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{K}_s$ do not depend on $n$, and the powers $\lambda_s$ are as defined in \refm[sd2].
We now analyze the three factors in the representation \refm[rep] when
$\delta=\delta_n$.
$(i)$ It follows from \refm[sd6] that the first factor of \refm[rep]
equals
\begin{equation}
e^{n\delta_n}=\exp\left\{\big(\hat{h}_r\big)^{\frac{1}{\rho_r+1}}n^{\frac{\rho_r}{\rho_r+1}}+ \sum_{s:\lambda_s\le \rho_r} \tilde{K}_s n^{\frac{\rho_r-\lambda_s}{\rho_r+1}}+ \epsilon_n\right\}, \label{ndel}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_s\in \Upsilon_r$ and $ \epsilon_n\to 0$.
$(ii)$ By an argument similar to the one for the proof of \refm[arg] we conclude that \begin{equation}
\left(\log f_n(e^{-\delta})\right)^{(k)}_{\delta=\delta_n}=
\left(\log {\bf {\cal F}}(\delta)\right)^{(k)}_{\delta=\delta_n} +
\epsilon_k(n), \label{bog}\end{equation}
for $k=1,2,3$, where $\epsilon_k(n)=o(1)$.
For $l=0,1,\ldots, r$
$$
\big(\delta_n\big)^{-\rho_l}= \big(\hat{h}_r\big)^{\frac{-\rho_l}{\rho_r+1}}n^{\frac{\rho_l}{\rho_r+1}} + \sum_{s:\lambda_s\le \rho_l} K_{s,l} n^{\frac{\rho_l-\lambda_s}{\rho_r+1}}+\epsilon_{n}(l),
$$
where
$\epsilon_{n}(l)=o\left(1\right), l=1,2,\ldots r$,
and where the coefficients $K_{s,l}$ are obtained from the binomial expansion for $\big(\delta_n\big)^{-\rho_l}$, based on \refm[sd6] and the definition \refm[sd2] of the set $\Upsilon_r$.
Consequently, substituting $\delta=\delta_n$ into \refm[prod1] gives
$$
\log f_n(e^{-\delta_n})= \sum_{l=0}^{r}\hat{h}_l\big(\hat{h}_r\big)^{\frac{-\rho_l}{\rho_r+1}}n^{\frac{\rho_l}{\rho_r+1}}+
\sum_{l=0}^r \hat{h}_l\sum_{s:\lambda_s\le \rho_l} K_{s,l} n^{\frac{\rho_l-\lambda_s}{\rho_r+1}}+$$
\begin{equation} \Big(\frac{A_0}{\rho_r+1}\log n- \frac{A_0}{\rho_r+1}\log\hat{h}_r\Big)+\epsilon_n.
\label{logfn}
\end{equation}
$(iii)$
The following estimate is central to our arguments.
\begin{proposition}\label{useful}
Recall that $\phi_n(\alpha)$ is defined by \refm[phidef] and that $l_0$, $j_0$ are defined by
\refm[l0def],\refm[bound2] respectively. Then
we have for all $\alpha\in {\cal R}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\log|\phi_n(\alpha)|&=&\log|\phi_n(\alpha;\delta_n)|=
-2\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\Lambda_k e^{-k\delta_n}\sin^2(\pi k\alpha)+
\epsilon_n\label{phieq}\\
&\leq&
-\frac{2d_{l_0}}{S^2(e^{-1/8l_0})}\sum_{k=(8l_0\delta_n)^{-1}}^n b_ka_k^{l_0}
e^{-\delta_n l_0 k}\sin^2(\pi \alpha l_0 k),
\label{phiupper}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_n\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent{\bf Proof\ \ }
We write $\log|\phi_n(\alpha)|,\ \alpha\in {\cal R}$, as
\begin{eqnarray}
\log|\phi_n(\alpha)|&=&
\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{k=1}^n b_k
\left\{
\log S(a_k e^{2\pi ik\alpha-k\delta_n})+\log S(a_k e^{-2\pi ik\alpha-k\delta_n})
-2\log S(a_k e^{-k\delta_n})\right\}\nonumber\\
&=&
\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty b_k
\left\{
\log S(a_k e^{2\pi ik\alpha-k\delta_n})+\log S(a_k e^{-2\pi ik\alpha-k\delta_n})
-2\log S(a_k e^{-k\delta_n})\right\}\nonumber\\
&&+O\left(\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty b_k\xi_{j_0}a_k^{j_0}e^{-k\delta_nj_0}\right)
\label{first}\\
&=&
\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty b_k
\left\{
\log S(a_k e^{2\pi ik\alpha-k\delta_n})+\log S(a_k e^{-2\pi ik\alpha-k\delta_n})
-2\log S(a_k e^{-k\delta_n})\right\}\nonumber\\
&&+o\left(\sum_{k=n+1}^\infty k^\rho e^{-k\delta_nj_0}\right)\label{reas1}\\
&=&
\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{k=1}^\infty b_k
\sum_{j=1}^\infty\xi_j a_k^j e^{-jk\delta_n}
\left(e^{2\pi ijk\alpha}+e^{-2\pi ijk\alpha}-2\right)
+ \epsilon_n
\label{reas2}\\
&=&
-2\sum_{k=1}^\infty
\sum_{j=1}^\infty b_k\xi_j a_k^j e^{-jk\delta_n}
\sin^2(\pi jk\alpha)+ \epsilon_n \nonumber\\
&=&
-2\sum_{k=1}^\infty\Lambda_k e^{-k\delta_n}\sin^2(\pi k\alpha)+ \epsilon_n\label{reas},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon_n\to 0,\ n\to \infty,$ \refm[first] and \refm[reas1] use
\refm[bound2],
\refm[reas2] uses \refm[delasy] and \refm[reas] follows from \refm[logflam].
As for the inequality \refm[phiupper],
defining $\tau$ to be $\tau=\delta_n-2\pi i \alpha,\ \alpha\in{\Bbb R}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\log|\phi_n(\alpha)|&=&
\Re\left(\log f_n(e^{-\tau})-
\log
f_n(e^{-\delta_n})\right)\nonumber\\&=&
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^n b_k \log\frac{\vert S(a_ke^{-k\tau})\vert^2}{S^2(a_ke^{-k\delta_n})}\nonumber\\ &=&
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^n b_k \log\bigg(1-\frac{S^2(a_ke^{-k\delta_n})-\vert S(a_ke^{-k\tau})\vert^2}{S^2(a_ke^{-k\delta_n})}\bigg)\nonumber\\ &\le&
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^n b_k \frac{S^2(a_ke^{-k\delta_n})-\vert S(a_ke^{-k\tau})\vert^2}{S^2(a_ke^{-k\delta_n})},\label{vnbeg}
\end{eqnarray}
where the last inequality is because $S^2(a_ke^{-k\delta_n})-\vert S(a_ke^{-k\tau})\vert^2\ge 0,$ for all $\alpha\in {\cal R}$
and because $\log(1-x)\ge -x,\ 0<x<1.$
Recalling \refm[sz] and \refm[l0def], we obtain for all $\alpha\in{\cal R},$\begin{eqnarray*}
S^2(a_ke^{-k\delta_n})-\vert S(a_ke^{-k\tau})\vert^2&=&
4\sum_{0\leq l,m<\infty}
d_ld_ma_k^{l+m} e^{-(l+m)k\delta_n} \sin^2\left((l-m)\pi\alpha k\right)\\
&\geq&
4d_{l_0}a_k^{l_0}e^{-\delta_n l_0k}\sin^2(\pi \alpha l_0k),\ k=1,2,\ldots,
\end{eqnarray*}
which allows to continue \refm[vnbeg], arriving at the desired bound:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\log|\phi_n(\alpha)|&\le&-2d_{l_0}\sum_{k=1}^n b_k a_k^{l_0}\frac{e^{-\delta_nl_0 k}\sin^2(\pi\alpha l_0k)}{S^2(a_ke^{-k\delta_n})}\\
&\le&
-2d_{l_0}\sum_{k=(8l_0\delta_n)^{-1}}^n b_ka_k^{l_0} \frac{e^{-\delta_n l_0k}\sin^2(\pi \alpha l_0k)}{S^2(a_ke^{-k\delta_n})}\\
&\le&
-\frac{2d_{l_0}}{S^2(e^{-1/8l_0})}\sum_{k=(8l_0\delta_n)^{-1}}^n b_ka_k^{l_0}
e^{-\delta_n l_0 k}\sin^2(\pi \alpha l_0 k),
\end{eqnarray*}
where the last step is because $d_l\ge 0, \ l=1,2,\ldots,$ because $0<a_k\le 1$ and because $1\le S(z)<\infty$ is monotonically increasing in $ \ 0\le z<1.$
\hfill\mbox{\rule{0.5em}{0.5em}}\\
The asymptotics of the third factor of \refm[rep]
are given by a local limit theorem, using
condition $(III)$.
\begin{theorem}({\bf Local Limit Theorem}).
Let the random variable $U_n$ be defined as in \refm[fndef],\refm[phidef]. Then
\begin{align}
{\Bbb P}\left(U_n=n\right) & \
\sim\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi {\rm Var(U_n)
}}}
\sim\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
K_2}}\left(\delta_n\right)^{1+\rho_r/2}\nonumber\\
& \sim\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi
K_2}}\big(\hat{h}_r\big)^{\frac{2+\rho_r}{2(\rho_r+1)}}n^{-\frac{2+\rho_r}{2(\rho_r+1)}},\quad
n\rightarrow\infty,\nonumber
\end{align}
for a constant $K_2=h_r\rho_r(\rho_r+1)$.
\end{theorem}
{\bf Proof}\
We take $\delta=\delta_n$
in \refm[phidef] and
define
\begin{equation} \alpha_0=(\delta_n)^{\frac{\rho_r+2}{2}}\log n.\label{alpha0}\end{equation}
We write
$$
{\Bbb P}(U_n=n)=\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}\phi_n(\alpha)
e^{-2\pi in\alpha}d\alpha=I_1+I_2,$$
where
$$
I_1=\int_{-\alpha_0}^{\alpha_0}\phi_n(\alpha)e^{-2\pi
in\alpha}d\alpha
$$
and
$$
I_2=\int_{-1/2}^{-\alpha_0}\phi_n(\alpha)e^{-2\pi
in\alpha}d\alpha +\int_{\alpha_0}^{1/2}\phi_n(\alpha)e^{-2\pi
in\alpha}d\alpha.
$$
The proof has two parts corresponding to evaluation of the integrals $I_1$ and $I_2$, as $n\to \infty.$
{\bf Part 1:} Integral $I_1.$\ \
Defining $B_n$ and $T_n$ by \begin{equation}
B_n^2=
\Big(\log f_n\big(e^{-\delta}\big)\Big)^{\prime\prime}_{\delta=\delta_n} \ {\rm and}
\quad T_n=-\Big(\log f_n\big(e^{-\delta}\big)\Big)^{\prime\prime\prime}_{\delta=\delta_n}\label{BT2}
\end{equation}
for $n$ fixed we have the expansion
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber\phi_n(\alpha)e^{-2\pi in\alpha}
&=&
\exp{\left(2\pi i\alpha({\Bbb E} U_n-n)-2\pi^2\alpha^2B_n^2+O(\alpha^3)T_n\right)}\nonumber\\
&=&\exp{\left(-2\pi^2\alpha^2B_n^2+O(\alpha^3) T_n\right)},\quad
\alpha\rightarrow0, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the second equation is due to \refm[choice]. By virtue of \refm[prod1] and \refm[bog] we derive from \refm[BT2] that the main terms in the asymptotics for $B_n^2$ and $T_n$ depend on the rightmost pole $\rho_r$ only:
\begin{equation} B_n^2\sim K_2(\delta_n)^{-\rho_r-2}, \label{basym}\end{equation}
$$T_n\sim K_3(\delta_n)^{-\rho_r-3},\quad n\to \infty$$
where $K_2=h_r\rho_r(\rho_r+1)$ and
$K_3=h_r\rho_r(\rho_r+1)(\rho_r+2)$ are obtained from \refm[BT2] and Lemma 1.
Therefore, $$B^2_n\alpha_0^2\to \infty, \ T_n\alpha_0^3\to 0, \ n\to \infty.$$
Consequently, in the same way as in the proof of local theorem in \cite{GSE},
\begin{equation}\label{I1sim}
I_1\sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi B_n^2}}, \ n\to \infty,
\end{equation}
and it is left to show that \begin{equation} I_2=o(I_1), \ n\to \infty.\label{relat}\end{equation}
{\bf Part 2:} Integral $I_2.$\ \
We rewrite the upper bound in \refm[phiupper] in Proposition~\ref{useful} as
\begin{eqnarray*}
\log|\phi_n(\alpha)|\le
-CV_n(\alpha),\quad \alpha\in {\Bbb R},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C>0$ is a constant and
$$
V_n(\alpha):= \sum_{k=(8l_0\delta_n)^{-1}}^n b_ka_k^{l_0}
e^{-\delta_n l_0 k}\sin^2(\pi \alpha l_0 k).
$$
We split the interval of integration $[\alpha_0,1/2]$ into subintervals:
$$
[\alpha_0,(2\pi )^{-1}\delta_n]\cup
[(2\pi )^{-1}\delta_n,1/2]{\rm \ \ if \ }l_0=1
$$ and
$$
[\alpha_0,(2\pi l_0)^{-1}\delta_n]\cup
[(2\pi l_0)^{-1}\delta_n, (2l_0)^{-1}]\cup
[(2l_0)^{-1},1/2] {\rm \ \ if \ }l_0>1.
$$
Our goal is to bound, as $n\to \infty,$ the function $V_n(\alpha)$ from below in each of the subintervals. Firstly, we show that on the first two subintervals for $l_0\ge 1,$ the desired bound is implied by the
assumption \refm[assum1] in condition $(III)$.
In the first subinterval
$[\alpha_0,(2l_0)^{-1}\delta_n],\ l_0\ge 1$
we will use the inequality \begin{equation}
\sin^2(\pi x) \geq 4\parallel x\parallel^2,\ x\in{\Bbb R}, \label{th}
\end{equation}
where $\parallel x\parallel$
denotes the distance from $x$ to the nearest integer, i.e.
$$
\Vert x\Vert=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\{x\}&{\rm if \ }\{x\}\leq 1/2;\\
1-\{x\}&{\rm if \ }\{x\}>1/2.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
(see \cite{frgr} for the proof of \refm[th]).
By \refm[assum1] and \refm[th], we then have
\begin{equation} V_n(\alpha) \ge 4 e^{-1/2}\sum_{k=(4l_0\delta_n)^{-1}}^{(2l_0\delta_n)^{-1}}C_2 k^{\rho_r-1}\parallel \alpha l_0 k\parallel^2,\ \alpha\in{\Bbb R},\ l_0\ge 1.
\label{ael}
\end{equation}
In the first subinterval,
$$
\parallel \alpha l_0k\parallel=\alpha l_0k, \ 1\le k\le (2l_0\delta_n)^{-1},\ l_0\ge 1,
$$
so that
\refm[ael] produces
\begin{eqnarray*}
V_n(\alpha)&\ge&
4 C_2 e^{-1/2}l_0^2\alpha_0^2\sum_{k=(4l_0\delta_n)^{-1}}^{(2l_0\delta_n)^{-1}}
k^{\rho_r+1}\\
&\sim&
4C_2e^{-1/2}(\rho_r+2)^{-1}l_0^2 \alpha_0^2((2l_0\delta_n)^{-\rho_r-2}-(4l_0\delta_n)^{-\rho_r-2}) ,\quad n\to \infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
By \refm[alpha0],\refm[phiupper] this gives the desired bound in the first subinterval:
\begin{equation} \log|\phi_n(\alpha)|\le - C\log^2 n,\quad C>0,\quad n\to \infty.\label{bou1}\end{equation}
For the second subinterval we will apply the argument in the proof of Lemma~1 in \cite{GSE}.
Given $\alpha\in{\Bbb R}$,
define $P$ by
\begin{equation} P=P(\alpha,\delta_n)=\left[\frac{1+\vert \alpha
\vert \delta_n^{-1}}{2\vert \alpha\vert}\right]\ge 1,\label{P}\end{equation} where
$[x]$ denotes the integer part of $x$ and the inequality holds for $n$ large.
enough. This supplies the bound
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=(8\delta_n)^{-1}}^P\sin^2(\pi k\alpha)\ge
\frac{\delta_n^{-1}}{8}, \label{sinbo}
\end{equation}
provided
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta_n}{2\pi}\leq\alpha\leq 1/2.
\label{alboun}\end{equation}
Observing, that by definition \refm[P], $n>P\geq (2\delta_n)^{-1}>(8\delta_n)^{-1}$
for $n$ large enough we rewrite \refm[sinbo] as
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=(8\delta_n)^{-1}}^P\sin^2(\pi kl_0\alpha)\ge
\frac{\delta_n^{-1}}{8}, \ l_0\ge 1,\label{sinbo1}
\end{equation}
for
\begin{equation}
(2\pi l_0)^{-1}\delta_n\leq\alpha\leq (2l_0)^{-1},\quad l_0\ge 1.
\label{alboun1}\end{equation}
Then we have for $\alpha\in{\Bbb R}$ and $l_0\ge 1$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{k=(8l_0\delta_n)^{-1}}^n b_ka_k^{l_0}
e^{-\delta_nl_0 k}\sin^2(\pi \alpha l_0 k)
&\geq&
\sum_{k=(8l_0\delta_n)^{-1}}^P C_2 k^{\rho_r-1} e^{-\delta_nl_0 k}\sin^2(\pi \alpha l_0 k)\\&\geq&
C_2 e^{-Pl_0\delta_n}\sum_{k=(8\delta_n)^{-1}}^P k^{\rho_r-1}\sin^2(\pi \alpha l_0k)\\
&:=&Q(\alpha).
\end{eqnarray*}
In order to get the needed lower bound on $Q(\alpha)$, we take into account that for all $\alpha$ obeying \refm[alboun1], $\frac{1}{2}<P\delta_n<\frac{1}{2}(1+2\pi l_0):=d.$
Applying \refm[sinbo1], we distinguish between the following two
cases: $(i)\ 0<\rho_r<1$ and $(ii)\ \rho_r\ge 1$.
For $\alpha$ in \refm[alboun1], we have in case $(i),$ $$Q(\alpha)\ge C_2
e^{-Pl_0\delta_n}P^{\rho_r-1}(8\delta_n)^{-1}\ge \frac{C_2}{8}
e^{-dl_0}(P\delta_n)^{\rho_r-1}\delta_n^{-\rho_r}\ge \frac{C_2}{8} d^{\rho_r-1}
e^{-dl_0}\delta_n^{-\rho_r}:= C_3\delta_n^{-\rho_r},$$ and in case $(ii),$
$$Q(\alpha)\ge
C_2
e^{-Pl_0\delta_n}(8\delta_n)^{-\rho_r+1}(8\delta_n)^{-1}\geq
C_2e^{-dl_0}8^{-\rho_r}\delta_n^{-\rho_r}:=C_4\delta_n^{-\rho_r}.$$
Finally, combining this with \refm[phiupper] gives the desired upper bound on $\log|\phi_n(\alpha)|$ for all $\alpha$ in \refm[alboun1] and $n$ sufficiently large:
\begin{equation} \log|\phi_n(\alpha)|\le - C\delta_n^{-\rho_r},\ C>0.\label{logbou}\end{equation}
\hfill\mbox{\rule{0.5em}{0.5em}}
{\bf Remark:}
If $l_0>1$, then $\sin^2(\pi \alpha l_0 k)=0, \ k\ge 1$ when $\alpha=l_0^{-1}\le 1/2,$
so that in the third subinterval $[(2l_0)^{-1},1/2]$ the above bounds are not applicable.
In the third subinterval $[(2l_0)^{-1}, 1/2], \ l_0>1$ we apply \refm[III] in condition~$(III)$. By \refm[phieq] and \refm[III] we have for $n$ large enough,
\begin{equation} |\phi_n(\alpha)|\le \delta_n^{-(1+\frac{\rho_r}{2}+\epsilon)},\ \epsilon>0.\label{boue}\end{equation}
Comparing the bounds \refm[bou1],\refm[logbou],\refm[boue] with the aymptotics \refm[I1sim], \refm[basym]
proves \refm[relat].
\hfill \mbox{\rule{0.5em}{0.5em}}
Finally, to completely account for the influence of all $r+1$ poles $\rho_0,\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_r$, we present the sum of the expressions \refm[ndel],
\refm[logfn] obtained in (i),(ii) for the first two factors in the representation \refm[rep]
in the following form:
\begin{eqnarray*}
n\delta_n+ \log f_n(e^{-\delta_n})&=&
\sum_{l=0}^{r}P_ln^{\frac{\rho_l}{\rho_r+1}}+
\sum_{l=0}^r h_l\sum_{s:\lambda_s\le \rho_l} K_{s,l} n^{\frac{\rho_l-\lambda_s}{\rho_r+1}}\\
&&+ \Big(\frac{A_0}{\rho_r+1}\log n - \frac{A_0}{\rho_r+1}\log\hat{h}_r\Big )+\epsilon_n,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $P_l$ denotes the resulting coefficient of $n^{\frac{\rho_l}{\rho_r+1}}.$
If $r=1$, then \refm[der], \refm[exactly] produce
$$
n=\hat{h}_1\delta_n^{-\rho_r-1}+\hat{h}_0\delta_n^{-1}+O(\delta_n^{C_0-1})
+\varepsilon(n),
$$
with $\varepsilon(n)\to 0$, $n\to\infty$, which is analagous to
equation (54) of \cite{GSE}. The previous equation can be inverted
as in \cite{GSE}, giving
\begin{equation}\label{lambdaasymp}
\delta_n=\hat{h}_1^{\frac{1}{\rho_1+1}}n^{-\frac{1}{\rho_1+1}}
+\frac{\hat{h}_0}{\rho_1+1}n^{-1}+O(n^{-1-\beta}),
\end{equation}
where
$$
\beta=
\begin{cases}
\frac{C_0}{\rho_1+1} , & \text{if}\ \ \rho_1\ge C_0 \\
\frac{\rho_1}{\rho_1+1} , & \text{otherwise};
\end{cases}
$$
Substituting \refm[lambdaasymp] into the previous asymptotic estimates of
the three factors in \refm[rep], obtained in (i)-(iii),
results in
the values $P_1$ and $H$ as stated in theorem. \mbox{\rule{0.5em}{0.5em}}
\noindent\section{Gentile statistics}
Gentile statistics are a model arising in physics
\cite{Gentile,SMB,TMB}, which
counts
partitions of an integer $n$ with no part occuring more
than $\eta-1$ times, where $\eta\geq 2$ is a parameter .
When $\eta=2$, Fermi-Dirac statistics are obtained and when $\eta=\infty$,
Bose-Einstein statistics, with uniform weights $b_k=1, \ k\ge 1$ result.
As far as we know,
no rigorous derivation of the asymptotics of Gentile statistics has
previously been given, although Theorem~\ref{gentile}
below was anticipated in approximation (23) of \cite{SMB}.
In this work we derive the aforementioned theorem as a special case of our Theorem~\ref{general}.
The Gentile statistics are the Taylor coefficients of the generating function
$$
f(z)=\prod_{k=1}^\infty\frac{1-z^{\eta k}}{1-z^k},\quad \vert z\vert<1,\quad \eta\ge 2 \ \,\text{ is an integer}
.
$$
We remark that there is another natural interpretation of the Gentile
statistics, which is the number of integer partitions with no part
size divisible by $\eta$, but
where part sizes can now appear an unlimited number
of times.
Gentile statistics fit into the framework \refm[frame]
of Theorem~\ref{general} with
$$
S(z)=\frac{1-z^{\eta}}{1-z},\quad \vert z\vert<1,\quad \eta\ge 2
\ \,\text{ is an integer}
$$
and $a_k=b_k=1, \quad k\ge 1$.
\begin{theorem}\label{gentile}
Gentile statistics have asymptotics
$$
c_n\sim\sqrt{\frac{\kappa}{4\pi\eta}}n^{-3/4}e^{2\kappa\sqrt{n}},
$$
where
$$
\kappa=\sqrt{\zeta(2)(1-\eta^{-1})},\quad \eta\ge 2\ \,
\text{\rm is an integer}.
$$
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\bf Proof\ \ }
We will show that all the conditions of Theorem~\ref{general} are satisfied
for Gentile statistics.
In order to show that
\refm[assum2] holds for $\eta>1$, we calculate
$$
\frac{d^2}{d\delta^2}\log S(e^{-\delta})=
\frac{e^{\delta}}{(e^{\delta}-1)^2}
-\frac{\eta^2e^{\eta\delta}}{(e^{\eta\delta}-1)^2}.
$$
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d}{d\eta}\frac{\eta^2e^{\eta\delta}}{(e^{\eta\delta}-1)^2}
&=&
\frac{\eta e^{\eta\delta}\left[e^{\eta\delta}(2-\delta\eta)
-(2+\delta\eta)\right]}{(e^{\eta\delta}-1)^3}\\
&=&
\frac{\eta e^{\eta\delta}g(\eta\delta)}{(e^{\eta\delta}-1)^3},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $g(x)=e^x(2-x)-(2+x)$. Taking the derivative of $g$ produces
$g^\prime(x)=e^x(1-x)-1<0$ for $x>0$, which, together with $g(0)=0$,
implies that $g(x)<0$ for $x>0$. Combining this with the fact that $
\frac{d^2}{d\delta^2}\log S(e^{-\delta})=0,$ if $\eta=1,$ we conclude
that \refm[assum2] holds, for all $\eta>1.$
It remains to be shown that conditions $(I) - (III)$ are satisfied
for the model considered.
We have
$$
\log f(z) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^\infty
\left(\frac{z^{jk}}{j}-\frac{z^{jk\eta}}{j}\right),\quad \vert z\vert<1,
$$
and so, by \refm[logflam], \refm[Dirdef] and \refm[dpres],
\begin{eqnarray*}
D(s)&=&\sum_{k=1}^\infty\sum_{j=1}^\infty
\left(\frac{(jk)^{-s}}{j}-\frac{(jk\eta)^{-s}}{j}\right)\\
&=&
\zeta(s)\zeta(s+1)(1-\eta^{-s}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Conditions $(I)$ and $(II)$ are satisfied
because of the analytic continuation of the Riemann
zeta function and the well known bound
\begin{equation}\label{wellknown}
\zeta(x+iy)=O(|y|^C),\quad y\to \infty,
\end{equation}
for a constant $C>0,$ uniformly in $x$.
It is easy to check that $l_0=1$
and
$b_ka_k=1=k^{\rho_1-1}$, where $\rho_1=1$, and so \refm[assum1] is satisfied.
Hence condition $(III)$ is satisfied.
Moreover,
$$
r=1,\ \rho_0=0, \rho_1=1,\ A_0=\lim_{s\to 0} sD(s)= 0,\ A_1=\zeta(2)(1-\eta^{-1}),\\
$$
$$
\Theta=\lim_{s\to 0}D(s)= \zeta(0)\log\eta.
$$
By the argument preceding Proposition 1 this says that the integrand $\delta_n^{-s}\Gamma(s)D(s)$ has a simple pole at $s=0$
with residue $\Theta=\zeta(0)\log \eta$ and a simple pole at $s=1$ with residue $\zeta(2)(1-\eta^{-1})\delta_n^{-1}.$
As a result, in the case considered $\delta_n=\hat{h}_1^{1/2}n^{-1/2}-2^{-1}\hat{h}_0 n^{-1} + O(n^{-\frac{C_0}{2}-1})$
and we arrive at the claimed asymptotic formula for $c_n$. \mbox{\rule{0.5em}{0.5em}}
\section{Asymptotic enumeration for distinct part sizes}
Weighted partitions fit our framework \refm[frame] with $S(z)=(1-z)^{-1}$,
$a_k=1,\ k\ge 1$ and weights $b_k$. When $b_k=1,\ k\ge 1$, Theorem~\ref{general} gives
the asymptotics of the number of partitions of $n$ obtained by Hardy and Ramanujan.
If
$S(z)=1+z$, $a_k=1,$ $b_k=k^{r-1},\ r>0,\ k\ge 1$,
then $c_n$ enumerates
weighted partitions having no repeated parts, called
expansive selections.
The asymptotics of expansive selections
were also studied in \cite{GS2}.
In this section, we find the asymptotics of $c_n$ induced by the generating function
$$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n z^n= \prod_{k=1}^\infty(1+ k^{-q} z^k), \vert z\vert<1, \quad q>0.$$
The model fits the setting \refm[frame] with $S(z)=1+z,\ b_k=1,\ a_k=k^{-q},\ k\ge 1$ and it can be considered as a colored selection with parameter $k^{-q}$ proportional to the number $m_k$ of colors of a component of size $k,$ e.g. $m_k= y^k k^{-q},$ for some $y>1.$
A particular case of the model, when $q=1$ was
studied in Section~ 4.1.6 of \cite{GK} where it was proven, with the help of a Tauberian theorem, that in this case
\begin{equation} \lim_{n\to\infty}c_n=e^{-\gamma} \label{q1}\end{equation}
and it was established the rate of convergence of $c_n,\ n\to\infty.$
Also, in \cite{GK} it was shown that $c_n$ is equal to the probability that a random polynomial of order $n$ is a product of irreducible factors of different degrees.
In \cite{O}, Section 11, it was demonstrated that $c_n$ can be treated as the probability that a random permutation on $n$ has distinct cycle lengths, and another proof of \refm[q1] was suggested.
Finally, note that in \cite{O}, (11.35), it is was shown that for $q=2$,
the generating function $f(z)$ can not be analytically continued beyond the unit circle.
\begin{theorem}
Let
$$
\sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n z^n= \prod_{k=1}^\infty(1+ k^{-q} z^k),\ \vert z\vert<1.
$$
If $0<q<1$, then $c_n$ has asymptotics given by \refm[cnasymp] with
$r=\max\{j\ge 1: 1-qj>0\}$ and $\rho_l=1-ql,\ l=1,\ldots r.$
If $q>1$, then, for a constant $W(q)>0$ depending only on $q$,
$$
c_n\sim W(q) n^{-q},\quad n\to \infty.
$$
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\bf Proof\ \ }\\
\noindent{\bf The case $0<q<1$}.\\
We will apply Theorem~\ref{general}.
Assumption \refm[assum2]
is easy to verify.
We have
$$
\log f(z)=\sum_{k\ge 1} \log\left(1+\frac{z^k}{k^q}\right)=\sum_{k\ge 1} \sum_{j\ge 1}(-1)^{j-1} \frac{z^{kj}}{jk^{qj}},\quad \vert z\vert<1
$$
and so, by \refm[logflam] and \refm[dpres],
$$
D(s)=D(s;q)=\sum_{k\ge 1} \sum_{j\ge 1}(-1)^{j-1} \frac{{(kj)}^{-s}}{jk^{qj}}\\
=
\sum_{k\ge 1} \sum_{j\ge 1}
\frac{(-1)^{j-1}}{j^{s+1}k^{s+qj}}.
$$
We claim that the function $D(s;q)$ allows
analytic continuation to the set
${\Bbb C}$ excepting for poles in $H_q:=\{s= 1- qj,\ j=1,2,\ldots,\ q<1 \}$.
Changing the order of summation, we write
\begin{equation}
D(s;q)=\sum_{j\ge 1} \sum_{k\ge 1}\frac{(-1)^{j-1}}{j^{s+1}k^{s+qj}}=\sum_{j\ge 1} \frac{(-1)^{j-1}}{j^{s+1}}\zeta(s+qj),\quad \Re(s)> 0, s\notin H_q. \label{yurd}
\end{equation}
Note that
$$\zeta(s+qj)=1+\sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac{1}{n^{s+qj}}:= 1 + \Phi(s;q),$$
where the function $\Phi(s;q)$ is analytic for $s\in {\Bbb C}\setminus H_q ,$ and moreover $$\Phi(s;q)= O(2^{-qj}) \quad j\to \infty,\quad q>0,$$ uniformly in $s$ from any compact subset of ${\Bbb C}\setminus H_q.$
This implies that the series
$$\sum_{j\ge 1} \frac{(-1)^{j-1}}{j^{s+1}}\Phi(s;q)$$
converges absolutely and uniformly on any compact subset of ${\Bbb C}\setminus H_q. $
By the Weirstrass convergence theorem, this implies
that the series above is analytic
in the above indicated domain. Since the function
$$\sum_{j\ge 1} \frac{(-1)^{j-1}}{j^{s+1}}= -(2^{-s}-1)\zeta(s+1)$$
is analytic in ${\Bbb C}$, our claim is proven.
This allows to conclude that condition $I$ of Theorem 1 holds with
$r=\max\{j\ge 1: 1-qj>0\}$ simple poles $\rho_l=1-ql,\ l=1,\ldots r$ and with $0<C_0<1$ defined by
$$C_0=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(r+1) q-1-\epsilon, \quad 0<\epsilon<(r+1)q-1, & \hbox{if } (r+1)q\le 2 \\
\text{any number in}\ (0,1), & \hbox{if } (r+1)q> 2.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
Condition $(II)$ follows from
\refm[wellknown] and \refm[yurd].
Finally, $l_0=1$ in the case considered because $S(z)=1+z$ and
$b_ka_k=k^{-q}=k^{\rho_r-1}$ and so \refm[assum1] is satisfied.
Hence condition $(III)$ is satisfied, by Lemma 1 in \cite{GSE}.
{\bf The case $q>1$.}\\
Theorem 1 is not applicable in this case, because all poles $1-qj,\ j\ge 1,\quad q>1$ of the function $D(s;q)$ in \refm[yurd], are negative.
From
$$f(z)=\prod_{k=1}^\infty (1+ z^kk^{-q})=\sum_{n=1}^\infty c_n z^n,\quad \vert z\vert\le 1, \quad q>1$$
we have \begin{equation} f(1)=\prod_{k=1}^\infty (1+ k^{-q}):=W(q)<\infty,\quad q>1,\label{jsa}\end{equation}
since the convergence of the infinite product in \refm[jsa] is equivalent to the convergence of the series
$$\sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{-q}<\infty, \quad q>1.$$
By \refm[jsa], $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty c_n:=W(q).$$
Denoting
$$
W_n(q)=\prod_{k=1}^n (1+ k^{-q})=\sum_{k=1}^n c_n, \quad q>1,
$$
implies the desired asymptotics for $c_n$:
$$
c_n=W_n(q)-W_{n-1}(q)=W_{n-1}(q)n^{-q}\sim W(q)n^{-q},\quad q>1,\quad n\to \infty.
$$
\hfill\mbox{\rule{0.5em}{0.5em}}
{\bf Remark:} Comparing the asymptotics of $c_n$ in the cases $0<q<1$,\ $q=1$ and $q>1$ it is clearly seen that $q=1$ is a point of phase transition.
In the remainder of this section we derive representations of the function
$W(q)$ in the case of rational $q>1$.
The infinite product
\begin{equation} F(z):= \prod_{k=1}^\infty \left(1+\frac{z}{k^q}\right),\quad z\in {\Bbb C},\quad q>1, \label{weir}\end{equation}
is a Weierstrass representation of an entire function $F$ with zeroes
at $\{-k^q, \ k=1,2,\ldots\}$. This follows from Theorem 5.12 in \cite{conw}, since $\sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{-q}<\infty,\ q>1.$ Note that $W(q)=f(1)=F(1),\ q>1.$
We now show that in the case when $q>1$ is a rational number, a modification of the argument in \cite{watwhit}, p.238 allows us to
decompose the value $F(1)$ in \refm[weir] into a finite product of values of a canonic entire function of finite rank. (For the definition of a rank of entire function see Chapter $XI$ in \cite{conw}).
Let $q=\frac{m_1}{m_2}, $
where $m_1> m_2\ge 1$ are co-prime integers.
We write $$1+k^{-\frac{m_1}{m_2}}=\prod_{l=1}^{m_1}\frac{k^{\frac{1}{m_2}}-\alpha_l(m_1)}{k^{\frac{1}{m_2}}}=\prod_{l=1}^{m_1} \left(1-\frac{\alpha_l(m_1)}{k^{\frac{1}{m_2}}}\right),$$
where $$\alpha_l(m_1)=
\exp\left(\frac{\pi(2l-1)}{m_1}i\right),\quad l=1,\ldots,m_1$$
are all $m_1$-th roots of $-1$, such that $0<\arg( \alpha_l(m_1))<2\pi, \ l=1,\dots ,m_1.$
Consequently, \begin{equation} W(q)=\prod_{k=1}^\infty \prod_{l=1}^{m_1} \left(1-\frac{\alpha_l(m_1)}{k^{\frac{1}{m_2}}}\right),\ \quad q=\frac{m_1}{m_2}.\label{pjs}\end{equation}
Next, introduce the function \begin{equation} \tilde{f}(z):=\prod_{k=1}^\infty\left(1+ \frac{z}{k^{\frac{1}{m_2}}}\right)\exp\left(\sum_{p=1}^{m_2}\frac{(-z)^p}{k^{\frac{p}{m_2}}p}\right),\quad z\in {\Bbb C}, \label{ggam}\end{equation}
which is a canonical form of an entire function of finite rank $m_2$ with zeroes $\{-k^{\frac{1}{m_2}},\ k=1,2,\ldots\}.$
Observing that $\sum_{l=1}^{m_1}\left(\alpha_l(m_1)\right)^p=0, \ p=1,\ldots,m_2,$ by the definition of $\alpha_l(m_1),\ l=1,\dots, m_1$, we derive from \refm[pjs]:
\begin{equation} W(q)=\prod_{l=1}^{m_1} \tilde{f}(-\alpha_l(m_1)),\label{vad}\end{equation}
for rational $q>1.$
For $m_2>1,$ we will consider now the function
\begin{equation} \tilde{\Gamma}(z):= e^{Q(z)}\frac{1}{z\tilde{f}{(z)}},\label{chb}\end{equation}
where $Q(z)$ is a polynomial in $z$ that will be defined below.
The preceding discussion yields that $\tilde{\Gamma} $ is a meromorhic function in ${\bf {\cal C}}$ with simple poles at
$(-k^{\frac{1}{m_2}}),\ k=0,1,\ldots,$.
Now our purpose will be to obtain for the function $\tilde{\Gamma} $ an analog of Gauss formula for gamma function. We recall the definition of
generalized Euler constants:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\gamma_\alpha&=&\lim_{n\to \infty} \big(\sum_{k=1}^n k^{-\alpha}- \int_1^n x^{-\alpha}dx \big)\\
&=&
\lim_{n\to \infty}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k}-\log n, & \hbox{if }\ \alpha=1; \\
\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{1}{k^{\alpha}}-\frac{n^{1-\alpha}-1}{1-\alpha} , & \hbox{if }\ 0<\alpha<1.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray*}
(Note that $\gamma_1=\gamma$ is the standard Euler constant).
This allows to write the function $\frac{1}{z\tilde f(z)}$ in the following form:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{1}{z\tilde f(z)}&=&
\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{1}{z}\prod_{k=1}^n\left(\frac{k^{\frac{1}{m_2}}}{z+k^{\frac{1}{m_2}}} \right)\exp\left(-\sum_{p=1}^{m_2}\frac{(-z)^p}{k^{\frac{p}{m_2}}p}\right)\\
&=&
\exp{\Big(-\sum_{p=1}^{m_2}(-1)^p\frac{z^p}{p}\gamma_{(p/m_2)}}\Big)\\
&&\times
\lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{(n!)^{\frac{1}{m_2}}}{\prod_{k=0}^n\left(z+k^{\frac{1}{m_2}}\right)}
n^{\frac{-(-z)^{m_2}}{m_2}}
\exp\left(-m_2\sum_{p=1}^{m_2-1}
\frac{(-1)^pz^p\left(n^{\frac{m_2-p}{m_2}}-1\right)}
{p(m_2-p)}
\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Setting now in \refm[chb] $Q(z)= \sum_{p=1}^{m_2}(-1)^p\frac{z^p}{p}\gamma_{(p/m_2)},$
we arrive at the desired representation of the function
\begin{equation} \tilde{\Gamma}(z)= \lim_{n\to \infty}\frac{(n!)^{\frac{1}{m_2}}}{\prod_{k=0}^n\left(z+k^{\frac{1}{m_2}}\right)}
n^{\frac{-(-z)^{m_2}}{m_2}}\exp\left(-m_2\sum_{p=1}^{m_2-1}\frac{(-1)^pz^p\left(n^{\frac{m_2-p}{m_2}}-1\right)}{p(m_2-p)}
\right). \label{dcuk}\end{equation}
Under $m_2=1$, \refm[dcuk] becomes the Gauss formula for the Gamma function.
In the case $q>1$ is an integer,
\refm[vad] conforms to the explicit expression for $W(q)$ in \cite{watwhit}, p.238-239.
In fact,
after substituting in \refm[ggam] $m_2=1$ and $p=1$ we have
$$\tilde{f}(z)= \prod_{k=1}^\infty\left(1+ \frac{z}{k}\right)e^{-\frac{z}{k}},
\quad z\in {\Bbb C} $$
and by the Weierstrass factorization theorem for the Gamma function,
$$\tilde{f}(z)=\frac{e^{-\gamma z}}{\Gamma(1+z)},\quad z\in {\Bbb C}\backslash \{-1,-2,... \}.$$
where $\gamma$ is Euler's constant.
Thus, when $q>1$ is an integer,
$$
W(q)=\prod_{l=1}^q \Big(\Gamma(1-\alpha_l(q))\Big)^{-1}.
$$
Taking into account that the numbers $\alpha_l(q),\ l=1,\ldots,q$ are pairwise conjugate and that $\Gamma(\bar{z})=\overline{\Gamma(z)},\ z\in {\bf {\cal C}},$ the last expression can be written as follows:
$$
W(q)=\prod_{l=1}^{[q/2]} \Big(\vert\Gamma(1-\alpha_l(q))\vert^2\Big)^{-1},
\quad q>1.
$$
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec: 1. Introduction}
All Banach spaces considered in this paper are nontrivial and over the real field. First let us fix some notation. Let $X$ be a Banach space. The closed unit ball of $X$ is denoted by $B_X$ and its unit sphere by $S_X$. The dual space of $X$ is denoted by $X^\ast$. By a \emph{slice} of $B_X$ we mean a set of the form
\[
S(x^*,\alpha)=\{x\in B_X\colon x^*(x)>1-\alpha\},
\]
where $x^*\in S_{X^*}$ and $\alpha>0$.
According to the terminology in \cite{ALN}, a Banach space $X$ has the
\begin{itemize}\label{def: d2p-s}
\item \emph{local diameter $2$ property} if every slice of $B_X$ has diameter $2$;
\item \emph{diameter $2$ property} if every nonempty relatively weakly open subset
of $B_X$ has diameter $2$;
\item \emph{strong diameter $2$ property} if every convex combination of slices of $B_X$ has diameter $2$, i.e.
the diameter of $\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i S_i$ is $2$, whenever $n\in\mathbb N$, $\lambda_1,\dotsc,\lambda_n\geq 0$ with $\sum_{i=1}^n\lambda_i=1$, and $S_1,\dotsc,S_n$ are slices of $B_X$.
\end{itemize}
The question whether the three diameter $2$ properties are really different, remained open in \cite{ALN}. However, by now it is known that they are distinguishable. On the one hand, the diameter $2$ property clearly implies the local diameter $2$ property, and the strong diameter $2$ property implies the diameter $2$ property. This follows directly from Bourgain's lemma \cite[Lemma II.1 p.~26]{GGMS}, which asserts that every nonempty relatively weakly open subset of $B_X$ contains some convex combination of slices.
An important consequence of the investigation in \cite{ABL} by Acosta, Becerra~Guerrero and L\'opez~P\'erez is that the strong diameter $2$ property is absent on $p$-sums of Banach spaces for $1<p<\infty$. (The latter result was independently obtained in the Master's Thesis of the second named author, defended at the University of Tartu in June 2012 (see also \cite{HL}).) Since the diameter $2$ property is stable by taking $\ell_p$-sums for all $1\leq p\leq\infty$ \cite{ALN}, this affirms that the strong diameter $2$ property is essentially different from the (local) diameter $2$ property.
On the other side, in a recent preprint \cite{GPZ}, Becerra~Guerrero, L\'opez P\'erez, and Rueda~Zoido constructed a Banach space enjoying the local diameter $2$ property but lacking the $2$ property; moreover, the unit ball of this space contains nonempty relatively weakly open subsets with arbitrarily small diameters.
If $X$ is a dual space, then slices of $B_X$ whose defining functional comes from (the canonical image of) the predual of $X$ are called \emph{weak$^\ast$ slices} of $B_X$. A natural question to ask is whether diameter $2$ properties of a dual space remain the same properties if, instead of all slices or relatively weakly open subsets, one considers only weak$^\ast$ slices or relatively weak$^\ast$ open subsets.
\begin{example}\label{example}
Every convex combination of weak$^\ast$ slices of $B_{C[0,1]^\ast}$ has diameter $2$
(this follows by observing that every weak$^\ast$ slice of $B_{C[0,1]^\ast}$ contains infinitely many different functionals arising via integrating against a measure supported at a singleton);
however, $B_{C[0,1]^\ast}$ has slices with arbitrarily small diameter
(to see this, observe that $C[0,1]^\ast\cong\ell_1([0,1])\oplus_1 C[0,1]^\ast$, and $\ell_1([0,1])$ has the Radon--Nikod\'ym property).
\end{example}
\begin{comment}
\begin{example}
The space $C[0,1]^*$ has the property that every convex combination of weak$^\ast$ slices has diameter $2$, but it has slices of arbitrarily small diameter.
Indeed, using Proposition \ref{prop: reformulations of oct} (iii), one can see very easily that the space $C[0,1]$ is octahedral. By Theorem \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* Sd2P} we have that every convex combination of weak$^\ast$ slices in $C[0,1]^*$ has diameter $2$. On the other hand, as $C[0,1]^*=\ell_1([0,1])\oplus_1 C[0,1]^*$ and $\ell_1([0,1])$ has the RNP, we get that $C[0,1]^*$ has the RNP.
\end{example}
\end{comment}
Example~\ref{example} suggests that it makes sense to consider also the weak$^\ast$ versions of the diameter 2 properties.
\begin{definition}\label{def: weak* d2p-s}
Let $X$ be a Banach space. We say that $X^\ast$ has the
\begin{itemize}
\item \emph{weak$^\ast$ local diameter $2$ property} if every weak$^\ast$ slice of $B_{X^\ast}$ has diameter $2$;
\item \emph{weak$^\ast$ diameter $2$ property} if every nonempty relatively weak$^\ast$ open subset
of $B_{X^\ast}$ has diameter $2$;
\item \emph{weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property} if every convex combination of weak$^\ast$ slices of $B_{X^\ast}$ has diameter $2$.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
The following relationship between the diameter $2$ properties is straightforward to verify.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: X d2p = X** weak* d2p}
A Banach space $X$ has the local diameter $2$ property (respectively, the diameter $2$ property, the strong diameter $2$ property) if and only if $X^{\ast\ast}$ has the weak$^\ast$ local diameter $2$ property (respectively, weak$^\ast$ diameter $2$ property, weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property).
\end{proposition}
\begin{comment}
\begin{corollary}
If $\Xastast$ has the local diameter $2$ property (resp. the diameter $2$ property, the strong diameter $2$ property), then $X$ has the local diameter $2$ property (resp. the diameter $2$ property, the strong diameter $2$ property).
\end{corollary}
\end{comment}
In the present paper, we study the weak$^\ast$ diameter $2$ properties more deeply. The starting point of our investigations is the following result by Deville (cf. \cite[Proposition~3]{D}).
\begin{proposition}\label{Deville}
If the norm on $X$ is octahedral, then $X^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property.
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
Deville's assertion is, in fact, that $\sum_{i=1}^n 1/{n}\, S^\ast_i$ has diameter $2$ whenever $n\in\mathbb N$ and $S^\ast_1,\dotsc,S^\ast_n$ are weak$^\ast$ slices of $B_{X^\ast}$. It is straightforward to verify that the latter is equivalent to the weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property of $X^\ast$.
Likewise, a Banach space $X$ has the strong diameter $2$ property if (and only if) $\sum_{i=1}^n 1/{n}\, S_i$ has diameter $2$ whenever $n\in\mathbb N$ and $S_1,\dotsc,S_n$ are slices of $B_X$.
\end{remark}
The reverse implication of Proposition~\ref{Deville} stays unproven in \cite{D} (see \cite[Remark (c) after Proposition~3]{D}). However, Godefroy (cf. \cite[p.~12]{G}) marks without an explanation that the norm on a Banach space $X$ is octahedral if and only if $X^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property. In what follows, we present a simple direct proof of this fact (see
Theorem 3.5). An alternative proof can be found in a very recent preprint \cite{BGLPRZoca}.
Let us summarize the results of the paper.
In Section~\ref{sec: 2. Octahedrality}, we introduce two more octahedrality-type properties of the norm, which correspond to the (weak$^\ast$) local diameter $2$ property and to the (weak$^\ast$) diameter $2$ property, respectively. We also provide equivalent reformulations for different types of octahedrality, which are often more convenient to use.
Relationship between weak$^\ast$ diameter $2$ properties and the corresponding octahedrality properties is established in Section~\ref{sec: 3. Criteria for weak* d2p-s} (Theorems~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* ld2P}, \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* d2P}, and \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* Sd2P}). As a consequence of Proposition~\ref{prop: X d2p = X** weak* d2p}, our characterizations of the weak* diameter $2$ properties lead to dual characterizations of the corresponding diameter $2$ properties (Theorems~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the ld2P}, \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the d2P}, \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the sd2P}). We also show that diameter $2$ properties may be considered as sort of extension properties.
In Section~\ref{sec: 4. Stability of octahedrality}, we study stability properties of different types of octahedrality.
This section is motivated by the idea to provide octahedrality-based approach to known stability results on diameter $2$ properties. We are convinced that in many cases this method is more convenient and preferable.
\begin{comment}
Godefroy marks in \cite[page 12]{G} that the norm on $C[0,1]$ is octahedral, but the norm on $(C[0,1])^{\ast\ast}$ is not. This says that $(C[0,1])^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property, but fails the strong diameter $2$ property.
\end{comment}
\section{Octahedrality}\label{sec: 2. Octahedrality}
\begin{definition}[see \cite{G} and \cite{DGZ}, cf. \cite{D}]\label{def: octahedral}
Let $X$ be a Banach space. The norm on $X$ is \emph{octahedral}
if, for every finite-dimensional subspace $E$ of $X$ and every $\eps>\nobreak0$,
there is~a $y\in S_X$ such that
\[
\|x+y\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(\|x\|+\|y\|\bigr)\quad\text{for all $x\in E$.}
\]
Whenever it makes no confusion, throughout the paper, spaces whose norm is octahedral,
will also be called octahedral for simplicity.
\end{definition}
Octahedral norms were introduced by Godefroy and Maurey \cite{GM} (see also \cite{G})
in order to characterize Banach spaces containing an isomorphic copy of $\ell_1$.
The connection of octahedral norms to the subject appears probably first in Deville's paper \cite[Proposition~3]{D} (see Proposition~\ref{Deville}). In Theorems~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* Sd2P} and \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the sd2P} below, we expose the duality between octahedrality and the strong diameter $2$ property.
In order to characterize spaces whose dual has the weak$^\ast$ local diameter $2$ property or the weak$^\ast$ diameter $2$ property,
we introduce two more octahedrality-type properties of the norm.
\begin{definition}\label{def: locally octahedral, weakly octahedral}
Let $X$ be a Banach space. We say that (the norm on) $X$ is
\begin{itemize}
\item
\emph{locally octahedral} if, for every $x\in X$ and every $\eps>0$, there is a $y\in S_X$ such that
\[
\|sx+y\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|s|\|x\|+\|y\|\bigr)\quad\text{for all $s\in\R$;}
\]
\item
\emph{weakly octahedral} if, for every finite-dimensional subspace $E$ of~$X$, every $\xs\in B_{\Xs}$, and every $\eps>\nobreak0$,
there is~a $y\in S_X$ such that
\[
\|x+y\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xs(x)|+\|y\|\bigr)\quad\text{for all $x\in E$.}
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{rem: loc-oct is inf-dimensional}
Clearly, every weakly octahedral Banach space is locally octahedral, and every octahedral Banach space is weakly octahedral.
Note that a locally octahedral Banach space $X$ is infinite-dimensional. Indeed, for a finite-dimensional $X\not=\{0\}$, there exists a weak$^\ast$ slice $S(x,\alpha)$ of $B_{X^\ast}$, whose diameter is less than $\alpha$. If $X$ is locally octahedral, then $\|x\pm y\|\geq 2-\alpha$ for some $y\in S_X$, and therefore $x_1^\ast(x+y)\geq 2-\alpha$ and $x_2^\ast(x-y)\geq 2-\alpha$ for some $x_1^\ast,x_2^\ast\in S_{X^\ast}$. It follows that
\[
x_1^\ast(x),\,x_2^\ast(x),\,x_1^\ast(y),\,-x_2^\ast(y)>1-\alpha,
\]
thus $x_1^\ast,x_2^\ast\in S(x,\alpha)$, and
\[\alpha>\|x_1^\ast-x_2^\ast\|\geq x_1^\ast(y)-x_2^\ast(y)\geq 2-2\alpha.\]
Since $\alpha$ may be taken arbitrarily small, this leads to a contradiction.
\end{remark}
In the following Propositions~\ref{prop: reformulations of loc oct}--\ref{prop: reformulations of oct}, we point out some equivalent but sometimes more convenient formulations of octahedrality.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: reformulations of loc oct}
Let $X$ be a Banach space.
The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(i)}]
$X$ is locally octahedral;
\item[(ii)] whenever $x\in S_X$ and $\eps>0$, there is a $y\in S_X$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: norga oktaeedrilisuse tingimus t>0 abil}
\|x\pm ty\|\geq (1-\eps)\bigl(\|x\|+t\bigr)\quad\text{for all $t>0$};
\end{equation}
\item[{\rm(iii)}]
whenever $x\in S_X$ and $\eps>0$, there is a $y\in S_X$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\|x\pm y\|\geq 2-\eps.
\end{equation*
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i)$\Leftrightarrow$(ii)$\Rightarrow$(iii) is obvious.
\medskip
(iii)$\Rightarrow$(ii).
Assume that (iii) holds. Let $x\in S_X$ and let $\eps>0$. By (iii), pick any $y\in S_X$ with $\|x\pm y\|\geq 2-\eps$. We show that $y$ satisfies (\ref{eq: norga oktaeedrilisuse tingimus t>0 abil}). Suppose that $t>0$. Then
\begin{align*}
\|x\pm ty\|&\geq\max\{1,t\}\|x\pm y\|-\bigr(\max\{1,t\}-\min\{1,t\}\bigl)\\
&\geq \max\{1,t\}(1-\eps)+\min\{1,t\}\\
&=1+t-\max\{1,t\}\eps\\
&\geq(1+t)(1-\eps).
\end{align*}
Thus $y$ satisfies (\ref{eq: norga oktaeedrilisuse tingimus t>0 abil}).
\begin{comment}
*********************\marginpar{\tiny Rainis: Kumb?}
V\~oi teha alates ``Then..." \"umber nii:
Since
\[
\max\{1,t\}\|x\pm y\|\leq\|x\pm ty\|+|1-t|,
\]
we obtain
\begin{align*}
\|x\pm ty\|&\geq\max\{1,t\}(2-\eps)-\bigl(\max\{1,t\}-\min\{1,t\}\bigr)\\
&=\max\{1,t\}(1-\eps)+\min\{1,t\}\\
&\geq(1+t)(1-\eps).
\end{align*}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
***********************************
Let $x\in S_X$ and let $\eps>0$. We show that condition (\ref{eq: norga oktaeedrilisuse tingimus t>0 abil}) is satisfied for any $y\in S_X$ with $\|x\pm y\|\geq 2-\eps$. This clearly finishes the proof. Suppose that $y\in S_X$, $\|x\pm y\|\geq 2-\eps$, and $t>0$. Then
\begin{align*}
\|x\pm ty\|&\geq\max\{1,t\}\|x\pm y\|-\bigr(\max\{1,t\}-\min\{1,t\}\bigl)\\
&\geq \max\{1,t\}(1-\eps)+\min\{1,t\}\\
&\geq \bigr(\max\{1,t\}+\min\{1,t\}\bigl)(1-\eps)\\
&=(1+t)(1-\eps).
\end{align*}
Thus $y$ satisfies (\ref{eq: norga oktaeedrilisuse tingimus t>0 abil}).
**********************************
Assume that (iii) holds. Let $x\in S_X$, let $\eps>0$, and let $y\in S_X$ satisfy (\ref{eq: norga oktaeedrilisuse tingimus t=1 abil}).
For all $\lambda\in[0,1]$, one has, letting $\mu=\max\{\lambda,1-\lambda\}$,
\begin{align*}
\bigl\|\lambda x\pm (1-\lambda)y\bigr\|&\geq \mu\|x\pm y\|-\bigl(\mu-(1-\mu)\bigr)\\&\geq \mu(2-\eps)-2\mu+1\\&\geq 1-\eps.
\end{align*}
For $\lambda=\dfrac{1}{1+t}$, where $t>0$, this yields (\ref{eq: norga oktaeedrilisuse tingimus t>0 abil}).
\tiny{
\marginpar{\tiny Johann: Kas j\"atta siia pikk t\~oestus ja Prop 2.4 v\"alja kommenteerida?}
Indeed, put $A:=\max\{\lambda,1-\lambda\}\|x\pm y\|-|1-2\lambda|$.
If $\lambda\leq\frac12$, then
\[
A=(1-\lambda)\|x\pm y\|-(1-2\lambda)\geq(1-\lambda)(2-\eps)-(1-2\lambda)=2-2\lambda-\eps+\eps\lambda-1+2\lambda=1-\eps+\eps\lambda.
\]
If $\lambda\geq\frac12$, then
\[
A=\lambda\|x\pm y\|-(2\lambda-1)>\lambda(2-\eps)-(2\lambda-1)=1-\lambda\eps>1-\eps.
\]
This yields
\[\|x\pm t y\|\geq (1-\eps)(1+t)\quad\text{for all $t>0$.}\]
Observe that, for $t=\frac{1-\lambda}\lambda$, one has $1+t=\frac1\lambda$.
}
**********************************
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: reformulations of weakly oct}
Let $X$ be a Banach space.
The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(i)}]
$X$ is weakly octahedral;
\item[{\rm(ii)}]
whenever $E$ is a finite-dimensional subspace of $X$, $\xs\in B_{\Xs}$, and $\eps>\nobreak0$,
there is~a $y\in S_X$ such that
\[
\|x+ty\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xs(x)|+t\bigr)\quad\text{for all $x\in S_E$ and $t>0$;}
\]
\item[{\rm(ii')}]
whenever $n\in\N$, $x_1,\dotsc,x_n\in S_X$, $\xs\in B_{\Xs}$, and $\eps>\nobreak0$, there is~a $y\in S_X$ such that
\[
\|x_i+ty\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xs(x_i)|+t\bigr)\quad\text{for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$ and $t>0$;}
\]
\item[{\rm(iii)}]
whenever $n\in\N$, $x_1,\dotsc,x_n\in S_X$, $\xs\in B_{\Xs}$, and $\eps>\nobreak0$, there is~a $y\in S_X$ such that
\[
\|x_i+ty\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xs(x_i)|+t\bigr)\quad\text{for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$ and $t\geq\eps$.}
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i)$\Leftrightarrow$(ii)$\Rightarrow$(ii')$\Rightarrow$(iii) is obvious.
\begin{comment}
\medskip
(ii')$\Rightarrow$(ii).
Assume that (ii') holds.
Let $E$ be a finite-dimensional subspace of $X$, let $\xs\in B_{\Xs}$, and let $0<\eps<1$.
Pick $\delta>0$ satisfying $\eps\geq(2-\eps)\delta$, and $\gamma>0$ satisfying $\gamma(2-\delta)\leq\delta^2$.
Let $A\subset S_E$ be a finite $\gamma$-net for $S_E$.
By (ii'), there is a $y\in S_E$ satisfying
\[
\|z+ty\|\geq(1-\delta)\bigl(|\xs(z)|+t\bigr)\quad\text{for all $z\in A$ and all $t>0$.}
\]
Let $x\in S_E$ and $t>0$ be arbitrary.
First suppose that $t\leq\delta$.
In this case, observing that $-\delta\geq-\eps+\delta-\eps\delta$, i.e. $1-\delta\geq(1-\eps)(1+\delta)$,
and thus also $1-\delta\geq(1-\eps)(1+t)$,
\[
\|x+ty\|\geq1-\delta\geq(1-\eps)(1+t)\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xs(x)|+t\bigr).
\]
Now consider the case $t\geq\delta$. Letting $z\in A$ be such that $\|x-z\|<\gamma$, one has
\begin{align*}
\|x+ty\|
&\geq\|z+ty\|-\gamma\geq(1-\delta)\bigl(|\xs(z)|+t\bigr)-\gamma\\
&\geq(1-\delta)\bigl(|\xs(x)|+t\bigr)-\gamma(1-\delta)-\gamma.
\end{align*}
Since $t\geq\delta$, one has
\[
\gamma(1-\delta)+\gamma=\gamma(2-\delta)\leq\delta^2\leq\delta\bigl(|\xs(x)|+t\bigr),
\]
and it follows that
\[
\|x+ty\|\geq(1-2\delta)\bigl(|\xs(x)|+t\bigr)\geq(1-2\eps)\bigl(|\xs(x)|+t\bigr).
\]
\end{comment}
\medskip
(iii)$\Rightarrow$(ii).
Assume that (iii) holds.
Let $E$ be a nontrivial finite-dimensional subspace of $X$, let $\xs\in B_{\Xs}$, and let $0<\eps<1$.
Pick $\delta>0$ satisfying $\eps\geq(2-\eps)\delta$, and $\gamma>0$ satisfying $\gamma(2-\delta)\leq\delta^2$.
Let $A\subset S_E$ be a finite $\gamma$-net for $S_E$.
By (iii), there is a $y\in S_X$ satisfying
\[
\|z+ty\|\geq(1-\delta)\bigl(|\xs(z)|+t\bigr)\quad\text{for all $z\in A$ and all $t\geq\delta$.}
\]
Let $x\in S_E$ and $t>0$ be arbitrary.
First suppose that $t\leq\delta$.
In this case, observing that $-\delta\geq-\eps+\delta-\eps\delta$, i.e. $1-\delta\geq(1-\eps)(1+\delta)$,
and thus also $1-\delta\geq(1-\eps)(1+t)$,
\[
\|x+ty\|\geq1-\delta\geq(1-\eps)(1+t)\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xs(x)|+t\bigr).
\]
Now consider the case $t\geq\delta$. Letting $z\in A$ be such that $\|x-z\|<\gamma$, one has
\begin{align*}
\|x+ty\|
&\geq\|z+ty\|-\gamma\geq(1-\delta)\bigl(|\xs(z)|+t\bigr)-\gamma\\
&\geq(1-\delta)\bigl(|\xs(x)|+t\bigr)-\gamma(1-\delta)-\gamma.
\end{align*}
Since $t\geq\delta$, one has
\[
\gamma(1-\delta)+\gamma=\gamma(2-\delta)\leq\delta^2\leq\delta\bigl(|\xs(x)|+t\bigr),
\]
and it follows that
\[
\|x+ty\|\geq(1-2\delta)\bigl(|\xs(x)|+t\bigr)\geq(1-2\eps)\bigl(|\xs(x)|+t\bigr).
\]
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: reformulations of weakly oct for X*}
Let $X$ be a Banach space.
The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(i)}]
$X^\ast$ is weakly octahedral;
\item[{\rm(ii)}]
whenever $E$ is a finite-dimensional subspace of~$\Xs$, $x\in B_{X}$, and $\eps>\nobreak0$,
there is~a $\ys\in S_{\Xs}$ such that
\[
\|\xs+\ys\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xs(x)|+\|\ys\|\bigr)\quad\text{for all $\xs\in E$;}
\]
\item[{\rm(iii)}]
whenever $n\in\N$, $\xs_1,\dotsc,\xs_n\in S_{\Xs}$, $x\in B_{X}$, and $\eps>\nobreak0$, there is~a $\ys\in S_{\Xs}$ such that
\[
\|\xs_i+t\ys\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xs_i(x)|+t\bigr)\quad\text{for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$ and $t\geq\eps$.}
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i)$\Rightarrow$(ii)$\Rightarrow$(iii) is obvious.
\medskip
(iii)$\Rightarrow$(ii) is similar to (iii)$\Rightarrow$(ii) in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop: reformulations of weakly oct}.
\medskip
(ii)$\Rightarrow$(i). This is a standard use of the principle of local reflexivity. Alternatively, one may use an appropriate $\eps$-net for $S_E$ and Goldstine's theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: reformulations of oct}
Let $X$ be a Banach space.
The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(i)}]
$X$ is octahedral;
\item[{\rm(ii)}]
whenever $E$ is a finite-dimensional subspace of $X$ and $\eps>\nobreak0$,
there is~a $y\in S_X$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: oktaeedrilisuse tingimus t>0 abil}
\|x+ty\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(\|x\|+t\bigr)\quad\text{for all $x\in S_E$ and $t>0$;}
\end{equation}
\item[{\rm(ii')}]
whenever $n\in\N$, $x_1,\dotsc,x_n\in S_X$, and $\eps>\nobreak0$, there is~a $y\in S_X$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\|x_i+ty\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(\|x_i\|+t\bigr)\quad\text{for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$ and $t>0$;}
\end{equation*}
\item[{\rm(iii)}]
whenever $n\in\N$, $x_1,\dotsc,x_n\in S_X$, and $\eps>\nobreak0$, there is~a $y\in S_X$ such that
\[
\|x_i+y\|\geq2-\eps\quad\text{for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$.}
\]
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(i)$\Leftrightarrow$(ii)$\Rightarrow$(ii')$\Rightarrow$(iii) is obvious.
\medskip
(iii)$\Rightarrow$(ii') is similar to (iii)$\Rightarrow$(ii) in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop: reformulations of loc oct}.
\medskip
(ii')$\Rightarrow$(ii). Assume that (ii') holds. Let $E$ be a nontrivial finite-dimensional subspace of $X$ and let $\eps>0$.
We shall show that there is a $y\in S_X$ satisfying (\ref{eq: oktaeedrilisuse tingimus t>0 abil}).
Let $A\subset S_X$ be a finite $\eps/2$-net for $S_E$. By (ii'), there is a $y\in S_X$ satisfying
\[
\|z+ty\|\geq(1-\frac{\eps}{2})(\|z\|+t)\quad\text{for all $z\in A$ and $t>0$}.
\]
Let $x\in S_X$ and $t>0$ be arbitrary. Letting $z\in A$ be such that $\|x-z\|<\eps/2$, one has
\begin{align*}
\|x+ty\|&\geq\|z+ty\|-\|x-z\|\\
&\geq(1-\dfrac{\eps}{2})(1+t)-\dfrac{\eps}{2}\\
&\geq(1-\eps)(1+t).
\end{align*}
\begin{comment}
**************************
Assume that (ii') holds. Let $E$ be a nontrivial finite-dimensional subspace of $X$ and let $\eps>0$.
Let $A\subset S_X$ be a finite $\eps/2$-net for $S_E$.
The desired $y$ in (ii) can be any $y\in S_E$ satisfying (\ref{eq: oktaeedrilisuse tingimus t>0 abil}) with $\eps$ replaced by $\frac\eps2$
where $\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}$ is an $\frac\eps2$-net for~$S_E$.
\marginpar{\tiny Märt: Teha nii, et ei peaks pliiatsit võtma.}
{\tiny
\marginpar{\tiny Rainis: Vaja v\"alja kommenteerida!}
It is enough to show that there is a $y\in S_X$ such that
\[\|x+ty\|\geq(1-\eps)(1+t)\quad\text{for all $x\in S_E$ and $t>0$.}\]
Find an $\eps/2$-net $\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}$ for $S_E$. Now we apply (ii') for $x_1,\dots,x_n$ and $\eps/2$ to get a $y\in S_X$ such that
\[\|x_i+ty\|\geq(1-\eps/2)(\|x_i\|+t)\quad\text{for all $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ and $t>0$.}\]
If $x\in S_E$, then choose $x_i$ such that $\|x-x_i\|<\eps/2$, and we have
\begin{align*}
\|x+ty\|&\geq\|x_i+ty\|-\|x-x_i\|\\
&\geq(1-\eps/2)(1+t)-\eps/2\\
&\geq (1-\eps)(1+t)\quad \text{for all $t>0$.}
\end{align*}
}
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
\section{Criteria for weak$^\ast$ diameter 2 properties}\label{sec: 3. Criteria for weak* d2p-s}
In this section, the duality between diameter $2$ properties and octahedrality is established. We also show that one may think of diameter $2$ properties as sort of extension properties.
\begin{comment}
In this section, we summarize some main results of our investigation of (weak$^\ast$) diameter $2$ properties.\marginpar{\tiny Rainis: Need ei ole ainult meie tulemused!}
\end{comment}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* ld2P}
Let $X$ be a Banach space.
The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(i)}]
$\Xs$ has the weak$^{\ast}$ local diameter $2$ property;
\item[{\rm(ii)}]
$X$ is locally octahedral;
\item[{\rm(iii)}]
for every $x\in S_X$, every $\alpha\in[-1,1]$, every $\eps>\nobreak0$, and every $\eps_0\in(0,\eps)$,
there is a $y\in S_X$ such that, whenever $|\gamma|\leq1+\eps_0$, there is a $\ys\in\Xs$ satisfying
\[
\ys(x)=\alpha,\quad \ys(y)=\gamma,\quad\text{and}\quad \|\ys\|\leq1+\eps;
\]
\item[{\rm(iii')}]
for every $x\in S_X$, every $\alpha\in[-1,1]$, and every $\eps>\nobreak0$,
there are $y\in S_X$ and $\xs_1,\xs_2\in\Xs$ satisfying
\begin{equation*
\xs_1(x)=\xs_2(x)=\alpha,\quad \xs_1(y)-\xs_2(y)>2-\eps,
\end{equation*}
and $\|\xs_1\|,\|\xs_2\|\leq 1+\eps$;
\item[{\rm(iii'')}]
for every $x\in S_X$ and every $\eps>\nobreak0$,
there are $y\in S_X$ and $\xs_1,\xs_2\in\Xs$ satisfying
\begin{equation*
\xs_1(x)=\xs_2(x)=1,\quad \xs_1(y)-\xs_2(y)>2-\eps,
\end{equation*}
and $\|\xs_1\|,\|\xs_2\|\leq 1+\eps$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof
(i)$\Rightarrow$(ii).
Assume that (i) holds. Let $x\in S_X$ and let $\eps>0$.
By~(i), there are $x_1^\ast,x_2^\ast\in B_{X^\ast}$ and $y\in S_X$ such that
\[x_1^\ast(x),x_2^\ast(x)>1-\eps\quad \text{and}\quad x_1^\ast(y)-x_2^\ast(y)>2-\eps.\]
By (the equivalence (i)$\Leftrightarrow$(iii) of) Proposition \ref{prop: reformulations of loc oct}, it suffices to show that
\[\|x\pm y\|\geq 2-2\eps.\]
Since $x_1^\ast(x),x_2^\ast(x)> 1-\eps$ and $x_1^\ast(y),-x_2^\ast(y)>1-\eps$, it follows that
\[
\|x+y\|\geq\xs_1(x+y)>2-2\eps
\]
and
\[
\|x-y\|\geq\xs_2(x-y)>2-2\eps.
\]
\medskip
(ii)$\Rightarrow$(iii).
Assume that (ii) holds.
Let $x\in S_X$, let $\alpha\in[-1,1]$, and let $0<\eps_0<\eps$.
Choose $y\in S_X$ to satisfy
\[
\|sx+y\|\geq\frac{1+\eps_0}{1+\eps}\bigl(|s|+\|y\|\bigr)\quad\text{for all $s\in\R$.}
\]
Now let $|\gamma|\leq1+\eps_0$.
Defining $g\in\bigl(\spann\{x,y\}\bigr)^\ast$ by
\[
g(x)=\alpha,\quad g(y)=\gamma,
\]
one has, for all $s\in\R$,
\[
\bigl|g(sx+y)\bigr|\leq|s||\alpha|+|\gamma|\leq(1+\eps_0)\bigl(|s|+\|y\|\bigr)\leq(1+\eps)\|sx+y\|,
\]
hence $\|g\|\leq 1+\eps$. The desired $\ys$ can be defined to be any norm-preserving extension to $X$ of $g$.
\medskip
(iii)$\Rightarrow$(iii')$\Rightarrow$(iii'') is obvious.
\medskip
(iii'')$\Rightarrow$(i).
Let $x\in S_X$ and $\eps>0$ be arbitrary, and let $y\in S_X$ and $\xs_1,\xs_2\in\Xs$ be as in (iii'').
It suffices to observe that $\frac{\xs_1}{1+\eps},\frac{\xs_2}{1+\eps}\in B_{\Xs}$,
\[
\biggl\|\frac{\xs_1}{1+\eps}-\frac{\xs_2}{1+\eps}\biggr\|>\frac{\bigl|\xs_1(y)-\xs_2(y)\bigr|}{1+\eps}>\frac{2-\eps}{1+\eps},
\]
and, for all $i\in\{1,2\}$,
\[
\frac{\xs_i}{1+\eps}(x)=\frac1{1+\eps}.
\]
\end{proof}
The following theorem is an obvious consequence of Proposition~\ref{prop: X d2p = X** weak* d2p} and Theorem~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* ld2P}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm: omnibus thm for the ld2P}
Let $X$ be a Banach space.
The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(i)}]
$X$ has the local diameter $2$ property;
\item[{\rm(ii)}]
$X^\ast$ is locally octahedral.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}
Comparing side by side these conditions with the corresponding conditions in Theorem~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* ld2P} for $X^\ast$, we note the equivalence of (i) and (ii) by Proposition~\ref{prop: X d2p = X** weak* d2p}. Conditions (iii), (iii'), and (iii'') and the corresponding conditions in Theorem~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* ld2P} for $X^\ast$ are also equivalent. This is obvious in one direction, and in the opposite direction, it is routine to verify, e.g., by the local principle of reflexivity.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* d2P}
Let $X$ be a Banach space.
The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(i)}]
$\Xs$ has the weak$^{\ast}$ diameter $2$ property;
\item[{\rm(ii)}]
$X$ is weakly octahedral;
\item[{\rm(iii)}]
for every finite-dimensional subspace $E$ of $X$, every $\xs\in B_{\Xs}$, every $\eps>\nobreak0$, and every $\eps_0\in(0,\eps)$,
there is a $y\in S_X$ such that, whenever $|\gamma|\leq1+\eps_0$, there is a $\ys\in\Xs$ satisfying
\[
\ys|_E=\xs|_E,\quad \ys(y)=\gamma,\quad\text{and}\quad \|\ys\|\leq1+\eps.
\]
\item[{\rm(iii')}]
for every finite-dimensional subspace $E$ of $X$, every $\xs\in B_{\Xs}$, and every $\eps>\nobreak0$,
there are $y\in S_X$ and $\xs_1,\xs_2\in\Xs$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}\label{eq: jatkude tingimus weak* d2P kirjelduses}
\xs_1|_E=\xs_2|_E=\xs|_E,\quad \xs_1(y)-\xs_2(y)>2-\eps,
\end{equation*}
and $\|\xs_1\|,\|\xs_2\|\leq 1+\eps$;
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
(i)$\Rightarrow$(ii).
Assume that (i) holds. Let $x_1,\dotsc,x_n\in S_X$ ($n\in\N$), let $\xs\in B_{\Xs}$, and let $0<\eps<1$.
Pick $\delta\in(0,\eps^2)$ satisfying $\delta<\eps\,|\xs(x_i)|$ for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$ with $|\xs(x_i)|\not=0$.
By (i), there are $\us,\vs\in B_{\Xs}$ and $y\in S_X$ such that
\[
\bigl|\us(x_i)-\xs(x_i)\bigr|<\delta
\quad
\text{and}\quad
\bigl|\vs(x_i)-\xs(x_i)\bigr|<\delta
\quad\text{for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$,}
\]
and
\[
\vs(y)-\us(y)>2-\eps.
\]
Since $\vs(y)\leq1$ and $\us(y)\geq-1$, it follows that $\vs(y)>1-\eps$ and $\us(y)<-1+\eps$.
Let $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$ and $t\geq\eps$ be arbitrary.
If $\xs(x_i)\not=0$, then, choosing $\zs\in\{\us,\vs\}$ so that $\xs(x_i)$ and $\zs(y)$
(and thus also $\zs(x_i)$ and $\zs(y)$) have the same sign, one has
\begin{align*}
\|x_i+ty\|
&\geq\bigl|\zs(x_i)+t\zs(y)\bigr|
=|\zs(x_i)|+t|\zs(y)|\\
&\geq|\xs(x_i)|-|\xs(x_i)-\zs(x_i)|+t|\zs(y)|\\
&\geq|\xs(x_i)|-\eps|\xs(x_i)|+(1-\eps)t\\
&=(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xs(x_i)|+t\bigr).
\end{align*}
If $\xs(x_i)=0$, then
\begin{align*}
\|x_i+ty\|
&\geq\bigl|\us(x_i)+t\us(y)\bigr|\geq t|\us(y)|-|\us(x_i)|\\
&\geq(1-\eps)t-\eps^2
\geq(1-\eps)t-t\eps=(1-2\eps)\bigl(|\xs(x_i)|+t\bigr),
\end{align*}
and it follows that $X$ is weakly octahedral.
\medskip
(ii)$\Rightarrow$(iii).
Assume that (ii) holds.
Let $E$ be a finite-dimensional subspace of $X$, let $\xs\in B_{\Xs}$, and let $0<\eps_0<\eps$.
Choose $y\in S_X$ to satisfy
\[
|\xs(x)|+|t|\leq\frac{1+\eps}{1+\eps_0}\|x+ty\|\quad\text{for all $x\in E$ and all $t\in\R$.}
\]
Letting $\gamma\in[-1-\eps_0,1+\eps_0]$, and defining $g\in\bigl(\spann(E\cup\{y\})\bigr)^\ast$ by $g|_E=\xs|_E$ and $g(y)=\gamma$,
it suffices to show that $\|g\|\leq1+\eps$ (because, in this case, one may define the desired $\ys\in\Xs$ to be any norm-preserving extension of $g$).
To this end, it remains to observe that, whenever $x\in E$ and $t\in\R$,
\begin{align*}
|g(x+ty)|
&\leq|\xs(x)|+|t|\,|\gamma|\leq(1+\eps_0)(|\xs(x)|+|t|)\\
&\leq(1+\eps)\|x+ty\|.
\end{align*}
\medskip
(iii)$\Rightarrow$(iii') is obvious.
\medskip
(iii')$\Rightarrow$(i).
Let $\xs\in B_{\Xs}$, let $x_1,\dotsc,x_n\in S_X$ ($n\in\N$), and let $\eps>0$.
Put $E:=\spann\{x_1,\dotsc,x_n\}$, and let $y\in S_X$ and $\xs_1,\xs_2\in\Xs$ be as in (iii').
It suffices to observe that $\frac{\xs_1}{1+\eps},\frac{\xs_2}{1+\eps}\in B_{\Xs}$,
\[
\biggl\|\frac{\xs_1}{1+\eps}-\frac{\xs_2}{1+\eps}\biggr\|\geq\frac{|\xs_1(y)-\xs_2(y)|}{1+\eps}>\frac{2-\eps}{1+\eps},
\]
and, for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$ and $j\in\{1,2\}$,
\[
\biggl|\xs(x_i)-\frac{\xs_j}{1+\eps}(x_i)\biggr|=\biggl|\xs(x_i)-\frac{\xs(x_i)}{1+\eps}\biggr|=\frac\eps{1+\eps}|\xs(x_i)|<\eps.
\]
\end{proof}
The following theorem is an obvious consequence of Proposition~\ref{prop: X d2p = X** weak* d2p} and Theorem~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* d2P}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm: omnibus thm for the d2P}
Let $X$ be a Banach space.
The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(i)}]
$X$ has the diameter $2$ property;
\item[{\rm(ii)}]
$X^\ast$ is weakly octahedral.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}
Conditions (i) and (ii) are equivalent, this is immediate from Proposition~\ref{prop: X d2p = X** weak* d2p} and Theorem~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* d2P}.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* Sd2P}
Let $X$ be a Banach space.
The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(i)}]
$\Xs$ has the weak$^{\ast}$ strong diameter $2$ property;
\item[{\rm(ii)}]
$X$ is octahedral;
\item[{\rm(iii)}]
whenever $E$ is a finite-dimensional subspace of $X$, $n\in\N$, $\xs_1,\dotsc,\xs_n\in B_{\Xs}$, $\eps>\nobreak0$, and $\eps_0\in(0,\eps)$,
there is a $y\in S_X$ such that, whenever $|\gamma_i|\leq1+\eps_0$, $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$, there are $\ys_i\in\Xs$ satisfying
\[
\ys_i|_E=\xs_i|_E,\quad \ys_i(y)=\gamma_j,\quad\text{and}\quad \|\ys_i\|\leq1+\eps\quad\text{for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$;}
\]
\item[{\rm(iii')}]
whenever $E$ is a finite-dimensional subspace of $X$, $n\in\N$, $\xs_1,\dotsc,\xs_n\in B_{\Xs}$, and $\eps>\nobreak0$,
there are $y\in S_X$ and $\xs_{1i},\xs_{2i}\in\nobreak\Xs$, $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$, satisfying
\begin{equation*}\label{eq: jatkude tingimus weak* Sd2P kirjelduses}
\xs_{1i}|_E=\xs_{2i}|_E=\xs_i|_E,\quad \xs_{1i}(y)-\xs_{2i}(y)>2-\eps,
\end{equation*}
and $\|\xs_{1i}\|,\|\xs_{2i}\|\leq 1+\eps$ for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The equivalence (i)$\Leftrightarrow$(ii) was pointed out in \cite[p.~12]{G}. Since no details of the proof were given in \cite{G}, we include the proof for completeness.
(i)$\Rightarrow$(ii). Assume that (i) holds. Let $x_1,\dotsc,x_n\in S_X$ ($n\in\mathbb N$) and let $\eps>0$. By (i), for every $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$, there are $x_{1i}^\ast,x_{2i}^\ast\in B_{\Xs}$ and $y\in S_X$ such that
\[
\xs_{1i}(x_i),\xs_{2i}(x_i)>1-\eps\quad\text{and}\quad\frac1n\sum_{i=1}^n\big(x_{1i}^\ast(y)-x_{2i}^\ast(y)\big)>2-\frac{\eps}{n}.
\]
For every $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$, since $x_{1i}^\ast(y)>1-\eps$, one has
\[
\|x_i+y\|\geq x_{1i}^\ast(x_i+y)>2-2\eps,
\]
and $X$ is octahedral by (the equivalence (i)$\Leftrightarrow$(iii) of) Proposition~\ref{prop: reformulations of oct}.
\medskip
(ii)$\Rightarrow$(iii). Assume that (ii) holds.
Let $E\subset X$ be a finite-dimensional subspace, let $n\in\N$, let $\xs_1,\dots,\xs_n\in B_\Xs$, and let $0<\eps_0<\eps$.
Choose $y\in S_X$ to satisfy
\[
\|x+ty\|\geq\frac{1+\eps_0}{1+\eps}\bigl(\|x\|+t\bigr)\quad\text{for all $x\in S_E$ and $t>0$.}
\]
Now let $|\gamma_i|\leq1+\eps_0$, $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$.
For every $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$, defining $g_i\in\Bigl(\spann \bigl(E\cup\{y\}\bigl)\Bigr)^\ast$ by
\[
g_i|_E=\xs_i|_E,\quad g_i(y)=\gamma_i,
\]
one has, for all $x\in S_E$ and $t>0$,
\[
\bigl|g_i(x+ty)\bigr|\leq|\xs_i(x)|+t|\gamma_i|\leq(1+\eps_0)\bigl(|\xs_i(x)|+t\bigr)\leq(1+\eps)\|x+ty\|,
\]
hence $\|g_i\|\leq 1+\eps$. The desired $\ys_1,\dotsc,\ys_n$ can be defined to be any norm-preserving extension to $X$
of $g_1,\dotsc,g_n$, respectively.
\medskip
(iii)$\Rightarrow$(iii') is obvious.
\medskip
(iii')$\Rightarrow$(i).
Let $n\in\N$, let $x_1,\dots, x_n\in S_X$, let $\lambda_1,\dotsc,\lambda_n\geq 0$, $\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_i=1$,
and let $\eps>0$.
For every $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$, choose $\xs_i\in B_{\Xs}$, so that $\xs_i(x_i)>1-\eps$,
and let $y\in S_X$ and $\xs_{11},\xs_{21},\dotsc,\xs_{1n},\xs_{2n}\in\nobreak\Xs$ as in (iii'), where $E=\spann\{x_1,\dotsc,x_n\}$.
It suffices to observe that, for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$ and $j\in\{1,2\}$,
one has $\frac{\xs_{ji}}{1+\eps}\in B_{\Xs}$,
\[
\frac{\xs_{ji}}{1+\eps}(x_i)=\frac{\xs_i(x_i)}{1+\eps}>\frac{1-\eps}{1+\eps},
\]
and
\[
\biggl\|\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_i\frac{\xs_{1i}}{1+\eps}-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\lambda_i\frac{\xs_{2i}}{1+\eps}\biggr\|
>\frac{\Bigl|\sum_{j=1}^{n}\lambda_j\bigl(\xs_{1i}(y)-\xs_{2i}(y)\Bigr)\Bigr|}{1+\eps}>\frac{2-\eps}{1+\eps}.
\]
\end{proof}
The following theorem is an obvious consequence of Proposition~\ref{prop: X d2p = X** weak* d2p} and Theorem~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* Sd2P}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm: omnibus thm for the sd2P}
Let $X$ be a Banach space.
The following assertions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(i)}]
$X$ has the strong diameter $2$ property;
\item[{\rm(ii)}]
$\Xs$ is octahedral.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}
Conditions (i) and (ii) are equivalent, this is immediate from Proposition~\ref{prop: X d2p = X** weak* d2p} and Theorem~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* Sd2P}.
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proposition}[see, e.g., {\cite[Theorem III.2.5]{DGZ}}] For any Banach space $X$ the following are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(i)}] $X$ contains a subspace isomorphic to $\ell_1$;
\item[{\rm(ii)}] there exists an equivalent octahedral norm on $X$.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\marginpar{\tiny Johann: Kas j\"{a}tame selle lause ja vastava j\"{a}reduse alles?}
\end{comment}
In \cite[Theorem III.2.5]{DGZ}, it was shown that a Banach space has an equivalent octahedral norm if and only if it contains an isomorphic copy of $\ell_1$.
\begin{corollary}
If a Banach space $X$ has the strong diameter $2$ property, then $X^\ast$ contains a subspace isomorphic to $\ell_1$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Stability results}\label{sec: 4. Stability of octahedrality}
\begin{comment}
\marginpar{\tiny Rainis: Kas sellest jutust on midagi lisada?\\
In fact, the $1$-sum of nontrivial Banach spaces $X$ and $Y$ has the strong diameter $2$ property if and only $X$ and $Y$ have the strong diameter $2$ property. (*** KAS SEE KEHTIB K\~OIGI DIAM. OMADUSTE KOHTA??? SD2P kohta on tarvilikkus [ABL] tulemus, piisavus on s\~onastatud sel kujul [ALN, THM. 2.7 (iii)], aga t\~oestatud juba [BGLP, Lemma 2.1 (ii)], kuid seal ei l\"ainud s\~onastatud tulemus ja t\~oestus kokku. *** )
It is also known that (see \cite[Lemma 2.1]{P}, see also \cite[theorem 2.7 (ii)]{ALN}) the $\infty$-sum has the diameter $2$ property, whenever one of its components has it;
(see \cite[Proposition 4.6]{ALN}) the $\infty$-sum has the strong diameter $2$ property, whenever one of its components has it;
(*** L2P KOHTA KEHTIB SAMA Kas sellele on viidet? V\~oib-olla l\"aheb l\"abi kohendatud tugeva d2p t\~oestus??? Igatahes on Johanni magistrit\"o\"os lk. 42 selle kehtimist kinnitatud. ***)
*** Oktaeedrilisus tuleks defineerida nii, et triviaalse Banachi ruumi norm ei ole oktaeedriline. Nt.
Iga $x\in B_X$ ja iga $\eps>0$ korral leidub $y\in S_X$ nii, et
}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}In this section, we study the transition of octahedrality properties.
The section is partly motivated by the idea to provide octahedrality-based approach to known stability results on diameter 2 properties. We are convinced that in many cases this method is more convenient and preferable.
\end{comment}
We begin by recalling that the (local) diameter $2$ property is stable by taking $\ell_p$-sums not only if $p=1$ and $p=\infty$, but surprisingly for all $1\leq p\leq\infty$ (see \cite{ALN}, \cite{P}, and \cite{GP}).
(Some further development was carried out in \cite{ABL} where, instead of $p$-sums, product spaces with absolute norm were considered.)
If $1<p<\infty$, then $p$-sums of Banach spaces lack the strong diameter $2$ property (see \cite{ABL}; see also \cite{HL}).
However, if $p=1$ or $p=\infty$, then the $p$-sum may have the strong diameter $2$ property (see e.g. \cite[Theorem 2.7, (iii), and Proposition 4.6]{ALN} and \cite[Proposition 3.1]{ABL}).
The following proposition is our main stability result for locally octahedral spaces.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: p-sum LOH}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(a)}]
If $X$ is locally octahedral, then $X\oplus_1 Y$ is locally octahedral.
\item[{\rm(b)}]
If $X$ and $Y$ are locally octahedral, and $1<p\leq\infty$, then $X\oplus_p Y$ is locally octahedral.
\item[{\rm(c)}]
If $X\oplus_p Y$ is locally octahedral, where $1<p\leq\infty$, then $X$ is locally octahedral.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
Note that Proposition \ref{prop: p-sum LOH}, (c), fails if we take $p=1$. Indeed, by part (a) of Proposition \ref{prop: p-sum LOH}, $\ell_1\oplus_1 \R$ is locally octahedral, but $\R$ fails to be locally octahedral.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
(a).
Assume that $X$ is locally octahedral. Fix $(x,y)\in S_{X\oplus_1 Y}$ and $\eps>0$. By our assumption, there exists a $u\in S_X$ such that
\[
\|x\pm u\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(\|x\|+1\bigr).
\]
Hence,
\[
\bigl\|(x,y)\pm(u,0)\bigr\|_1\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(\|x\|+1\bigr)+\|y\|\geq 2-2\eps.
\]
Thus $X\oplus_1 Y$ is locally octahedral.
\medskip
(b).
Assume that $X$ and $Y$ are locally octahedral, and let $1<p\leq\infty$.
Let $(x,y)\in S_{X\oplus_p Y}$ and let $0<\eps<1$.
It suffices to find a $(u,v)\in S_{X\oplus_p Y}$ such that
\[
\|(x,y)\pm (u,v)\|_p\geq 2-2\eps.
\]
We may (and do) assume that $x\not=0$ and $y\not=0$.
By our assumption, there exist $\tilde u\in S_X$ and $\tilde v\in S_Y$ such that
\[
\|x+t\tilde u\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(\|x\|+|t|\bigr)\qquad\text{for all $t\in\mathbb R$}
\]
and
\[
\|y+t\tilde v\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(\|y\|+|t|\bigr)\qquad\text{for all $t\in\mathbb R$}.
\]
If $1<p<\infty$, it follows that
\[
\Big\|x\pm\|x\|\tilde{u}\Big\|^p+\Big\|y\pm\|y\|\tilde{v}\Big\|^p\geq(1-\eps)^p\, 2^p.
\]
This completes the proof for $1<p<\infty$, because one may take $u=\|x\|\tilde u$ and $v=\|y\|\tilde v$.
If $p=\infty$, one may take $u=\tilde u$ and $v=\tilde v$ because
\begin{align*}
\bigl\|(x,y)\pm (\tilde u,\tilde v)\bigr\|_\infty&=\max\bigl\{\|x\pm \tilde u\|,\|y\pm \tilde v\|\bigr\}\\
&\geq (1-\eps)\bigl(\max\{\|x\|,\|y\|\}+1\bigr)\\
&=2-2\eps.
\end{align*}
(c).
Assume that $X\oplus_p Y$ is locally octahedral, where $1<p\leq\infty$.
Let $x\in S_X$ and let $0<\eps<1$. Since $\bigl\|(x,0)\bigl\|_p=1$, whenever $\delta>0$,
there exists a $(u,v)\in S_{X\oplus_p Y}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: ||(x+-u,v)||_p>=2-delta}
\bigl\|(x\pm u,v)\bigr\|_p\geq2-\delta.
\end{equation}
It suffices to show that (\ref{eq: ||(x+-u,v)||_p>=2-delta}) with $\delta$ small enough implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: ||x+-u||>=2-eps}
\|x\pm u\|\geq 2-\eps,
\end{equation}
because, in this case, $\|u\|\geq 1-\eps$, thus
\[
\biggl\|x\pm \frac{u}{\|u\|}\biggr\|\geq\|x\pm u\|-\bigl(1-\|u\|\bigr)\geq 2-2\eps,
\]
and it follows that $X$ is locally octahedral.
If $p=\infty$, (\ref{eq: ||(x+-u,v)||_p>=2-delta}) means that $\max\bigl\{\|x\pm u\|,\|v\|\bigr\}\geq 2-\delta$.
Since $\|v\|\leq 1$, taking $\delta=\eps$ implies~(\ref{eq: ||x+-u||>=2-eps}).
If $1<p<\infty$, (\ref{eq: ||(x+-u,v)||_p>=2-delta}) means that $\|x\pm u\|^p+\|v\|^p\geq (2-\delta)^p$.
Since $\|u\|^p+\|v\|^p=1$, this implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq: ||x+-u||>=something}
\|x\pm u\|^p\geq(2-\delta)^p-\bigl(1-\|u\|^p\bigr),
\end{equation}
thus it suffices to show that $\|u\|$ is as close to $1$ as we want whenever $\delta$ is small enough.
The latter is true because, by (\ref{eq: ||x+-u||>=something}),
\[
\left(1+ \|u\|\right)^p-\|u\|^p\geq(2-\delta)^p-1,
\]
and the function $f\colon\,[0,1]\to\mathbb R$, $f(t)=(1+t)^p-t^p$, is strictly increasing with $\lim_{t\rightarrow 1}f(t)=2^p-1$.
\begin{comment}
******
Assume that $1<p<\infty$ and $X\oplus_p Y$ is locally octahedral.
Let $x\in S_X$ and let $0<\eps<1$. Since $\bigl\|(x,0)\bigl\|_p=1$, there exists a $(u,v)\in S_{X\oplus_p Y}$ such that
\[
\|x\pm u\|^p+\|v\|^p\geq 2^p-\eps.
\]
It suffices to show that $\|u\|$ is arbitrarily close to $1$, then the statement follows similarly to (\ref{eq: normeeritud u}). Since $\|u\|^p+\|v\|^p=1$, we have
\[
(1+ \|u\|)^p-\|u\|^p\geq 2^p-1-\eps.
\]
Observe that the function $f\colon \mathbb R\to\mathbb R$, $f(t)=(1+t)^p-t^p$ is strictly increasing on $[0,1]$ and $\lim_{t\rightarrow 1}f(t)=2^p-1$. Thus we can assume that $\|u\|$ is arbitrarily close to $1$.
Assume now that $X\oplus_\infty Y$ is locally octahedral.
Let $x\in S_X$ and let $0<\eps<1$. Since $\bigl\|(x,0)\bigl\|_\infty=1$, there exists a $(u,v)\in S_{X\oplus_\infty Y}$ such that
\[
\max\bigl\{\|x\pm u\|,\|v\|\bigr\}\geq 2-\eps.
\]
Since $\|v\|\leq 1$, one has
\[
\|x\pm u\|\geq 2-\eps.
\]
It follows that $\|u\|\geq 1-\eps$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eq: normeeritud u}
\biggl\|x\pm \frac{u}{\|u\|}\biggr\|\geq\|x\pm u\|-\bigl(1-\|u\|\bigr)\geq 2-2\eps.
\end{equation}
Thus $X$ is locally octahedral.
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{prop: p-sum LOH} combined, respectively, with Theorems~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the ld2P} and \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* ld2P} immediately gives the corresponding stability results for the local diameter $2$ property and for the weak$^\ast$ local diameter $2$ property. These results for the local diameter $2$ property are known, but our method provides an alternative approach.
\begin{corollary}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(a)}]
If $X$ has the local diameter~$2$ property, then $X\oplus_\infty Y$ has the local diameter $2$ property \emph{(cf. \cite[Theorem~3.2]{ALN}, see also \cite[Proposition~2.4]{ABL})}.
\item[{\rm(b)}]
If $X$ and $Y$ have the local diameter $2$ property, and $1\leq p<\infty$, then $X\oplus_p Y$ has the local diameter~$2$ property \emph{(see \cite[Theorem~3.2]{ALN}, see also \cite[Proposition~2.4]{ABL})}.
\item[{\rm(c)}]
If $X\oplus_p Y$ has the local diameter $2$ property, where $1\leq p<\infty$, then $X$ has the local diameter $2$ property \emph{(see \cite[Proposition~2.5]{ABL})}.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(a)}]
If $X^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ local diameter $2$ property, then $(X\oplus_1 Y)^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ local diameter $2$ property.
\item[{\rm(b)}]
If $X^\ast$ and $Y^\ast$ have the weak$^\ast$ local diameter $2$ property, and $1< p\leq\infty$,
then $(X\oplus_p Y)^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ local diameter $2$ property.
\item[{\rm(c)}]
If $(X\oplus_p Y)^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ local diameter $2$ property, where $1< p\leq\infty$, then $\Xs$ has the weak$^\ast$ local diameter $2$ property.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{comment}
\marginpar{\tiny Rainis: Proovisin siin ka absoluutsete summadega. Nii on isegi lihtsam kui $p$-summadega. Kui meie artiklisse ei l\"ahe, siis v\~oib Johann seda nt. oma artiklis pakkuda.}
\begin{proposition}
If $X$ and $Y$ are weakly octahedral Banach spaces, then their absolute sum $X\oplus_N Y$ is weakly octahedral.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $N$ be an absolute norm on $\mathbb R\times\mathbb R$, and denote by $N^\ast$ its absolute dual norm. Let $X$ and $Y$ be weakly octahedral Banach spaces. Let $(x,y)\in S_{X\oplus_N Y}$, $(x^\ast,y^\ast)\in S_{X^\ast\oplus_{N^\ast} Y^\ast}$, and let $\eps>0$. We will find a $(u,v)\in S_{X\oplus_N Y}$ such that
\[\|(x,y)+t(u,v)\|\geq(1-\eps)(|x^\ast(x)+y^\ast(y)|+|t|)\quad\text{for all $t\in\mathbb R$.}\]
Since $X$ and $Y$ are weakly octahedral, we have
\[\|x+t\tilde u\|\geq(1-\eps)\Big(\frac{|x^\ast(x)|}{\|x^\ast\|}+|t|\Big)\quad\text{for all $t\in\mathbb R$}\]
and
\[\|y+t\tilde v\|\geq(1-\eps)\Big(\frac{|y^\ast(y)|}{\|y^\ast\|}+|t|\Big)\quad\text{for all $t\in\mathbb R$.}\]
for some $\tilde u\in S_X$ and $\tilde v\in S_Y$.
Choose a $(\alpha,\beta)\in S_{\mathbb R\oplus_N\mathbb R}$ such that \[\alpha\|x^\ast\|+\beta\|x^\ast\|=N^\ast(\|x^\ast\|,\|y^\ast\|)=1.\]
Take $u=\alpha\tilde u$ and $v=\beta\tilde v$. Then
\begin{align*}
\|(x,y)+t(u,v)\|&\geq \|x^\ast\|\,\|x+tu\|+\|y^\ast\|\,\|y+tu\|\\
&\geq (1-\eps)\Big[\|x^\ast\|\Big(\frac{|x^\ast(x)|}{\|x^\ast\|}+\alpha|t|\Big)
\\&\quad+\|y^\ast\|\Big(\frac{|y^\ast(y)|}{\|y^\ast\|}+\beta|t|\Big)\Big]\\
&=(1-\eps)(|x^\ast(x)|+|y^\ast(y)|+|t|)\quad\text{for all $t\in \mathbb R$.}
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
The following proposition is our main stability result for weakly octahedral spaces.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: p-sum WOH}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(a)}]
If $X$ is weakly octahedral, then $X\oplus_1 Y$ is weakly octahedral.
\item[{\rm(b)}]
If $X$ and $Y$ are weakly octahedral, and $1<p\leq\infty$, then $X\oplus_p Y$ is weakly octahedral.
\item[{\rm(c)}]
If $X\oplus_p Y$ is weakly octahedral, where $1<p\leq\infty$, then $X$ is weakly octahedral.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{comment
\marginpar{\tiny Johann: V\"{a}ide (c) kehtib ka. Vt. ABG, Stability results, Prop 2.5}
\begin{remark}
We do not know whether the analogue of Proposition~\ref{prop: p-sum LOH},~(c), holds for weak octahedrality.
\end{remark}
\end{comment}
\begin{proof}
(a).
Assume that $X$ is weakly octahedral.
Let $E$ and $F$ be finite-dimensional subspaces of $X$ and $Y$, respectively,
let $(x^\ast,y^\ast)\in B_{X^\ast\oplus_\infty Y^\ast}$, and let $\eps>0$.
It suffices to show that there exists a $(u,v)\in S_{X\oplus_1 Y}$ such that, for all $x\in E$, all $y\in F$, and all $t\in\mathbb R$,
one has
\[
\bigl\|(x,y)+t(u,v)\bigr\|_1
\geq (1-\eps)\bigl(|x^\ast(x)+y^\ast(y)|+|t|\bigr).
\]
By our assumption, there exists a $u\in S_X$ such that
\[
\|x+tu\|\geq (1-\eps)\bigl(|x^\ast(x)|+|t|\bigr)
\quad\text{for all $x\in E$ and all $t\in\mathbb R$,}
\]
One has, for all $x\in E$, all $y\in F$, and all $t\in\mathbb R$,
\begin{align*}
\bigl\|(x,y)+t(u,0)\bigr\|
&=\|x+tu\|+\|y\|\\
&\geq (1-\eps)\bigl(|x^\ast(x)|+|t|\bigr)+\|y\|\\
&\geq (1-\eps)\bigl(|x^\ast(x)+\ys(y)|+|t|\bigr).
\end{align*}
Thus $X\oplus_1 Y$ is weakly octahedral.
\medskip
(b).
Assume that $X$ and $Y$ are weakly octahedral, and let $1<p\leq \infty$.
Let $E$ and $F$ be finite-dimensional subspaces of $X$ and $Y$, respectively,
let $(x^\ast,y^\ast)\in S_{X^\ast\oplus_q Y^\ast}$, where $q$ is the conjugate exponent of $p$
(i.e., $1/p+1/q=1$ if $1<p<\infty$, and $q=1$ if $p=\infty$), and let $0<\eps<1$.
It suffices to find a $(u,v)\in S_{X\oplus_p Y}$ such that for all $x\in E$, all $y\in F$, and all $t\in\mathbb R$, one has
\[
\bigl\|(x,y)+t\,(u,v)\bigr\|_p\geq (1-\eps)\bigl(|x^\ast(x)+y^\ast(y)|+|t|\bigr).
\]
We may (and do) assume that $x^\ast\not=0$ and $y^\ast\not=0$.
By our assumption, there exist $\tilde u\in S_X$ and $\tilde v\in S_Y$ such that
\[
\|x+t\tilde u\|\geq (1-\eps)\biggl(\frac{|x^\ast(x)|}{\|x^\ast\|}+|t|\biggr)
\quad\text{for all $x\in E$ and all $t\in\mathbb R$,}
\]
and
\[
\|y+t\tilde v\|\geq (1-\eps)\biggl(\frac{|y^\ast(y)|}{\|y^\ast\|}+|t|\biggr)
\quad\text{for all $y\in F$ and all $t\in\mathbb R$.}
\]
If $1<p<\infty$, take $u=\|x^\ast\|^{q-1}\tilde u$ and $v=\|y^\ast\|^{q-1}\tilde v$,
and observe that, for all $x\in E$, all $y\in F$, and all $t\in\mathbb R$,
\begin{align*}
\frac1{(1-\eps)^p}\big(\|x&+tu\|^p+\|y+tv\|^p\big)\\
&\geq\biggl(\frac{|x^\ast(x)|}{\|x^\ast\|}+\|x^\ast\|^{q-1}|t|\biggr)^p+\biggl(\frac{|y^\ast(y)|}{\|y^\ast\|}+\|y^\ast\|^{q-1}|t|\biggr)^p\\
&=\|x^\ast\|^q\biggl(\frac{|x^\ast(x)|}{\|x^\ast\|^q}+|t|\biggr)^p+\|y^\ast\|^q\biggl(\frac{|y^\ast(y)|}{\|y^\ast\|^q}+|t|\biggr)^p\\
&\geq\biggl(\|x^\ast\|^q\frac{|x^\ast(x)|}{\|x^\ast\|^q}+\|y^\ast\|^q\frac{|y^\ast(y)|}{\|y^\ast\|^q}+|t|\biggr)^p\\
&=\big(|x^\ast(x)|+|y^\ast(y)|+|t|\big)^p.
\end{align*}
The last inequality holds because the function $[0,\infty)\to\mathbb R$, $s\mapsto(s+|t|)^p$ is convex for any fixed $t\in\mathbb R$.
If $p=\infty$, take $u=\tilde u$ and $v=\tilde v$, and observe that, for all $x\in E$, all $y\in F$, and all $t\in\mathbb R$,
\begin{align*}
\frac1{(1-\eps)}\max\bigl\{\|x&+tu\|,\|y+tv\|\bigr\}\\
&\geq\frac1{(1-\eps)}\Bigl(\|x^\ast\|\,\|x+tu\|+\|y^\ast\|\,\|y+tv\|\Bigr)\\
&\geq\|x^\ast\|\biggl(\frac{|x^\ast(x)|}{\|x^\ast\|}+|t|\biggr)+\|y^\ast\|\biggl(\frac{|y^\ast(y)|}{\|y^\ast\|}+|t|\biggr)\\
&=|x^\ast(x)|+|y^\ast(y)|+|t|.
\end{align*}
(c).
Assume that $X\oplus_p Y$ is weakly octahedral, where $1<p\leq\infty$.
Let $E$ be a finite-dimensional subspace of $X$, let $\xs\in S_{\Xs}$, and let $0<\eps<1$.
Choose $\delta>0$ to satisfy $(1+\delta)^q-(1-\delta)^q<\eps^q$, where $q$ is the conjugate exponent of $p$.
By enlarging $E$ if necessary, we may assume that $\|\xs|_E\|\geq1-\delta$
(notice that $X$ must be infinite-dimensional by Proposition \ref{prop: p-sum LOH}, (c), and Remark~\ref{rem: loc-oct is inf-dimensional}).
By (the equivalence (ii)$\Leftrightarrow$(iii) of) Theorem \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* d2P},
there are $z\in X$, $y\in Y$, with $\|(y,z)\|_p=1$, and $\zs_i\in\Xs$, $\ys_i\in\Ys$, with $\|(\zs_i,\ys_i)\|_q\leq1+\delta$, $i=1,2$,
satisfying
\[
\zs_i|_E=\xs|_E
\quad\text{and}\quad
\zs_i(z)+\ys_i(y)=(-1)^i,
\qquad
i=1,2.
\]
Since
\[
\|\ys_i\|^q\leq(1+\delta)^q-\|\zs_i\|^q\leq(1+\delta)^q-(1-\delta)^q<\eps^q,\quad i=1,2,
\]
one has $|\ys_i(y)|<\eps$, $i=1,2$, and thus $\zs_2(z)>1-\eps$ and $\zs_1(z)<-1+\eps$.
Now let $x\in E$ be arbitrary. Choosing $i\in\{1,2\}$ so that $\xs(x)$ and $\zs_i(z)$ have the same sign,
one has
\begin{align*}
\left\|x+\frac{z}{\|z\|}\right\|
&\geq\frac1{1+\eps}\left|\zs_i(x)+\frac{\zs_i(z)}{\|z\|}\right|
=\frac1{1+\eps}\left(|\xs(x)|+\frac{|\zs_i(z)|}{\|z\|}\right)\\
&\geq\frac1{1+\eps}\bigl(|\xs(x)|+1-\eps\bigr)
\geq\frac{1-\eps}{1+\eps}\bigl(|\xs(x)|+1\bigr),
\end{align*}
and it follows that $X$ is weakly octahedral.
\begin{comment}
Assume that $1<p<\infty$ and $X\oplus_p Y$ is weakly octahedral.
(Notice that $X$ must be infinite-dimensional by Proposition \ref{prop: p-sum LOH}, (c),
and Remark \ref{rem: loc-oct is inf-dimensional})
Let $E$ be a finite-dimensional subspace of $X$, let $\xs\in S_{\Xs}$, and let $\eps>0$.
By (the equivalence (ii)$\Leftrightarrow$(iv) of) Theorem \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* d2P}.
there are $z\in X$, $y\in Y$, $\|z\|^p+\|y\|^p=1$, and $\zs_i\in\Xs$, $\ys_i\in\Ys$, $\|\zs_i\|^q+\|\ys_i\|^q\leq(1+\eps)^q$, $i=1,2$,
satisfying
\[
\zs_i|_E=\xs|_E
\quad\text{and}\quad
\zs_i(z)+\ys_i(y)=(-1)^i,
\qquad
i=1,2.
\]
Denote by $\tilde{\eps}:=\sqrt[q]{(1+\eps)^q-1}$. Observe that $\tilde{\eps}$ is arbitrarily small, whenever $\eps$ is arbitrarily small. Clearly $\ys_i(y)\leq\tilde{\eps}$, thus $|\zs_i(z)|\geq1-\tilde{\eps}$, $i=1,2$.
Now let $x\in E$ be arbitrary. Choosing $i\in\{1,2\}$ so that $\xs(x)$ and $\zs_i(z)$ have the same sign,
one has
\begin{align*}
\left\|x+\frac{z}{\|z\|}\right\|
&\geq\frac1{1+\tilde{\eps}}\left|\zs_i(x)+\frac{\zs_i(z)}{\|z\|}\right|
=\frac1{1+\tilde{\eps}}\left(|\xs(x)|+\frac{|\zs_i(z)|}{\|z\|}\right)\\
&\geq\frac1{1+\tilde{\eps}}\bigl(|\xs(x)|+1-\tilde{\eps}\bigr)
\geq\frac{1-\tilde{\eps}}{1+\tilde{\eps}}\bigl(|\xs(x)|+1\bigr)
\end{align*}
and it follows that $X$ is weakly octahedral.
Assume now that $X\oplus_\infty Y$ is weakly octahedral.
(Notice that $X$ must be infinite-dimensional by Proposition \ref{prop: p-sum LOH}, (c),
and Remark \ref{rem: loc-oct is inf-dimensional})
\marginpar{\tiny M\"{a}rt: Asjaolu, et $\dim X=\infty$, on meil vaja selleks,
et saaksime piirduda n\~{o}rga oktaeedrilisuse definitsiooni tingimuse kontrollis juhuga $\xs\in S_{\Xs}$, kas pole?}
Let $E$ be a finite-dimensional subspace of $X$, let $\xs\in S_{\Xs}$, and let $\eps>0$.
By (the equivalence (ii)$\Leftrightarrow$(iv) of) Theorem \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* d2P}.
there are $z\in X$, $y\in Y$, $\max\bigl\{\|z\|,\|y\|\bigr\}=1$, and $\zs_i\in\Xs$, $\ys_i\in\Ys$, $\|\zs_i\|+\|\ys_i\|\leq1+\eps$, $i=1,2$,
satisfying
\[
\zs_i|_E=\xs|_E
\quad\text{and}\quad
\zs_i(z)+\ys_i(y)=(-1)^i,
\qquad
i=1,2.
\]
Clearly $\ys_i(y)\leq\eps$, thus $|\zs_i(z)|\geq1-\eps$, $i=1,2$.
Now let $x\in E$ be arbitrary. Choosing $i\in\{1,2\}$ so that $\xs(x)$ and $\zs_i(z)$ have the same sign,
one has
\begin{align*}
\left\|x+\frac{z}{\|z\|}\right\|
&\geq\frac1{1+\eps}\left|\zs_i(x)+\frac{\zs_i(z)}{\|z\|}\right|
=\frac1{1+\eps}\left(|\xs(x)|+\frac{|\zs_i(z)|}{\|z\|}\right)\\
&\geq\frac1{1+\eps}\bigl(|\xs(x)|+1-\eps\bigr)
\geq\frac{1-\eps}{1+\eps}\bigl(|\xs(x)|+1\bigr)
\end{align*}
and it follows that $X$ is weakly octahedral.
\marginpar{\tiny Johann: Kas siin peaks yritama toestused kokku votta? }
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{prop: p-sum WOH} combined, respectively, with Theorems~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the d2P} and \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* d2P} immediately gives the corresponding stability results for the diameter $2$ property and for the weak$^\ast$ diameter $2$ property.
These results for the diameter $2$ property are known, but our method provides an alternative approach.
\begin{corollary}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(a)}]
If $X$ has the diameter $2$ property, then $X\oplus_\infty Y$ has the diameter~$2$ property \emph{(see \cite[Lemma~2.1]{P}, see also \cite[Theorem~2.7,~(ii), and Theorem~3.2]{ALN}, see also \cite[Theorem~2.4]{ABL})}.
\item[{\rm(b)}]
If $X$ and $Y$ have the diameter $2$ property, and $1\leq p<\infty$, then $X\oplus_p Y$ has the diameter $2$ property \emph{(see \cite[Theorem~3.2]{ALN}, see also \cite[Theorem~2.4]{ABL})}.
\item[{\rm(c)}]
If $X\oplus_p Y$ has the diameter $2$ property, and $1\leq p<\infty$, then $X$ has the diameter $2$ property \emph{(see \cite[Proposition~2.5]{ABL})}.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(a)}]
If $X^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ diameter $2$ property, then $(X\oplus_1 Y)^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ diameter $2$ property.
\item[{\rm(b)}] If $X^\ast$ and $Y^\ast$ have the weak$^\ast$ diameter $2$ property, and $1< p\leq\infty$,
then $(X\oplus_p Y)^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ diameter $2$ property.
\item[{\rm(c)}]
If $(X\oplus_p Y)^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ diameter $2$ property, and $1< p\leq\infty$, then $\Xs$ has the weak$^\ast$ diameter $2$ property.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
The following proposition is our main stability result for octahedral spaces.
It turns out that octahedral spaces are stable under $\ell_p$-sums only if $p=1$ or $p=\infty$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop: p-sum OH}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces. \begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(a)}] If $X$ is octahedral, then $X\oplus_1 Y$ is octahedral.
\item[{\rm(b)}] If $1<p<\infty$, then $X\oplus_p Y$ is not octahedral.
\item[{\rm(c)}] If $X$ and $Y$ are octahedral, then $X\oplus_\infty Y$ is octahedral.
\item[{\rm(d)}] If $X\oplus_\infty Y$ is octahedral, then $X$ is octahedral.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
(a).
Assume that $X$ is octahedral. Let $(x_1,y_1),\dotsc,(x_n,y_n)\in S_{X\oplus_1 Y}$ and let $\eps>0$. By our assumption, there exists a $u\in S_X$ such that
\[
\|x_i+u\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(\|x_i\|+1\bigr)\quad\text{for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$.}
\]
Hence, for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$,
\[
\|(x_i,y_i)+(u,0)\|_1\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(\|x_i\|+1\bigr)+\|y_i\|\geq 2-2\eps.
\]
(b).
Let $x\in S_X$, $y\in S_Y$, and let $1<p<\infty$. We shall show that, for sufficiently small $\eps>0$, there is no $(u,v)\in S_{X\oplus_p Y}$ such that
\[
\bigl\|(x,0)+(u,v)\bigr\|_p\geq 2-\eps
\qquad\text{and}\qquad
\bigl\|(0,y)+(u,v)\bigr\|_p\geq 2-\eps.
\]
If such an element $(u,v)$ existed, then
\[
\bigl\|(x+u,y+v)\bigl\|_p^p=\|x+u\|^p+\|y+v\|^p\geq 2(2-\eps)^p-1.
\]
On the other hand,
\[\bigl\|(x+u,y+v)\bigl\|_p^p\le\bigl(\|(x,y)\|_p+\|(u,v)\|_p\bigr)^p=(2^{1/p}+1)^p.\]
For small $\eps$, we would have a contradiction because
\[
2^{p+1}-1>(2^{1/p}+1)^p.
\]
The last inequality is easily obtained from the Minkowski's inequality by considering $(\sqrt[p]{2},0), (1,1)\in\mathbb R^2$.
(c).
Assume that $X$ and $Y$ are octahedral. Let $(x_1,y_1),\dotsc,(x_n,y_n)\in S_{X\oplus_\infty Y}$ and let $\eps>0$.
By our assumption, there are $u\in S_X$ and $v\in S_X$ such that
\[
\|x_i+u\|\geq (1-\eps)\bigl(\|x_i\|+1\bigr)\quad \text{for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$,}
\]
and
\[
\|y_i+v\|\geq (1-\eps)\bigl(\|y_i\|+1\bigr)\quad \text{for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$.}
\]
Consequently, for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$,
\begin{align*}
\bigl\|(x_i,y_i)+(u,v)\bigr\|_\infty
&=\max\bigl\{\|x_i+u\|,\|y_i+v\|\bigr\}\\
&\geq (1-\eps)\bigl(\max\{\|x_i\|,\|y_i\|\}+1\bigl)\\
&=(1-\eps)\bigl(\|(x_i,y_i)\|_\infty+1\bigr).
\end{align*}
(d).
Assume that $X\oplus_\infty Y$ is octahedral.
Let $x_1,\dotsc,x_n\in S_X$ and let $0<\eps<1$. By our assumption, there exists a $(u,v)\in S_{X\oplus_\infty Y}$ such that
\[
\max\bigl\{\|x_i+u\|,\|v\|\bigr\}\geq 2-\eps\quad\text{for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$.}
\]
Since $\|v\|\leq 1$, we have
\[
\|x_i+u\|\geq 2-\eps\quad\text{for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$.}
\]
It follows that $\|u\|\geq 1-\eps$. Therefore, for all $i\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$,
\[
\biggl\|x_i+\frac{u}{\|u\|}\biggr\|\geq \|x_i+u\|-\bigl(1-\|u\|\bigr)\geq 2-2\eps.
\]
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{prop: p-sum WOH} combined, respectively, with Theorems~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the sd2P} and \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the weak* Sd2P} immediately gives the corresponding stability results for the strong diameter $2$ property and for the weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property.
These results for the strong diameter $2$ property are known, but our method provides an alternative approach.
\begin{corollary}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(a)}]
If $X$ has the strong diameter $2$ property, then $X\oplus_\infty Y$ has the strong diameter $2$ property \emph{(see \cite[Proposition~4.6]{ALN})}.
\item[{\rm(b)}]
If $1<p<\infty$, then $X\oplus_p Y$ does not have the strong diameter $2$ property \emph{(cf. \cite[Theorem 3.2]{ABL}, \cite[Theorem~1]{HL})}.
\item[{\rm(c)}]
If $X$ and $Y$ have the strong diameter $2$ property, then $X\oplus_1 Y$ has the strong diameter $2$ property \emph{(see \cite[Theorem~2.7~(iii)]{ALN}, see also \cite[Lemma~2.1]{GP} and \cite[Proposition~3.1]{ABL})}.
\item[{\rm(d)}]
If $X\oplus_1 Y$ has the strong diameter $2$ property, then $X$ has the strong diameter $2$ property \emph{(see \cite[Proposition~3.1]{ABL})}.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be Banach spaces.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(a)}] If $X^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property, then $(X\oplus_1 Y)^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property.
\item[{\rm(b)}] If $1<p<\infty$, then $(X\oplus_p Y)^\ast$ does not have the weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property.
\item[{\rm(c)}] If $X^\ast$ and $Y^\ast$ have the weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property, then $(X\oplus_\infty Y)^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property.
\item[{\rm(d)}]
If $(X\oplus_\infty Y)^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property, then $X^\ast$ has the weak$^\ast$ strong diameter $2$ property.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}
We denote the \emph{annihilator} of a subspace $Y$ of a Banach space $X$ by
\[
Y^{\perp}=\{\xast\in \Xast \colon \xast(y)=0\quad \text{for all } y\in Y\}.
\]
A closed subspace $Y$ of a Banach space $X$ is called an \emph{$M$-ideal} in~$X$ (see, e.g. \cite{HWW}) if there exists a norm-$1$ projection $P$ on $\Xast$ with $\ker P=Y^{\perp}$ and
\[
\n{\xast}=\n{P\xast}+\n{\xast-P\xast}\qquad \text{for all $\xast\in \Xast$.}
\]
If, in addition, the range $\ran P$ of $P$ is \emph{$1$-norming,}
i.e.
\[
\|x\|=\sup\bigl\{|\xs(x)|\colon\,\xs\in\ran P,\,\|\xs\|\leq1\bigr\}\quad\text{for all $x\in X$,}
\]
then $Y$ is called a \emph{strict $M$-ideal.}
Relations between $M$-ideal structure and diameter $2$ properties were first considered in \cite{P} where it was proven that if a proper subspace $Y$ of a Banach space $X$ is a strict $M$-ideal in $X$, then both $Y$ and $X$ have the diameter $2$ property (see \cite[Theorem~2.4]{P}). In \cite[Theorem~4.10]{ALN}, it is shown that, under the same assumptions, one can conclude that both $Y$ and $X$ have even the strong diameter $2$ property. (An immediate corollary of this is that if a nonreflexive Banach space $X$ is an $M$-ideal in its bidual $\Xss$, then both $X$ and $X^{\ast\ast}$ have the strong diameter $2$ property.) In Theorem \ref{prop: strict M-ideal}, we shall present a simple proof of this result.
In \cite{HL}, it is shown that if an $M$-ideal $Y$ in $X$ has some diameter~$2$ property, then $X$ has the same diameter $2$ property
without the assumption that the range of the $M$-ideal projection is $1$-norming.
The duality between diameter $2$ properties and octahedrality implies a very quick proof of this result.
\begin{proposition}[see {\cite[Propositions~3, 4, and 5]{HL}}]\label{prop: stability thm for M-ideals}
Let $X$ be a Banach space and let $Y$ be an $M$-ideal in~$X$.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm(a)}]
If $Y$ has the local diameter $2$ property, then also $X$ has the local diameter $2$ property.
\item[{\rm(b)}]
If $Y$ has the diameter $2$ property, then also $X$ has the diameter $2$ property.
\item[{\rm(c)}]
If $Y$ has the strong diameter $2$ property, then also $X$ has the strong diameter $2$ property.
\end{itemize}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $Y$ is an $M$-ideal in $X$, one has $\Xs=\ran P\oplus_1 \ker P$, where $P\colon\,\Xs\to\Xs$ is the $M$-ideal projection.
Since $\ran P$ is isometrically isomorphic to $\Ys$, the assertions (a), (b), and (c) follow, respectively,
from Theorem \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the ld2P} combined with Proposition \ref{prop: p-sum LOH}, (a),
from Theorem \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the d2P} combined with Proposition \ref{prop: p-sum WOH}, (a), and
from Theorem \ref{thm: omnibus thm for the sd2P} combined with Proposition \ref{prop: p-sum OH}, (a).
\begin{comment}
*********************************
If $Y$ has one of the diameter $2$ properties, then $\Ys$ is octahedral on the corresponding level. By Proposition \ref{prop: p-sum LOH}, \ref{prop: p-sum WOH} or \ref{prop: p-sum OH} $\Xs$ is octahedral on the corresponding level, and we are done.
\end{comment}
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}
Letting $P\colon\,\Xs\to\Xs$ be the $M$-ideal projection, throughout the proof, if convenient, we identify $\ran P$ and $\Ys$ ``in the usual way''.
Let $m,n\in\N$, and suppose that $\ran P$ has the following property:
\begin{itemize}
\item[($\bullet$)]
whenever $F$ is an $m$-dimensional subspace of $\ran P$, $\xss_1,\dotsc,\xss_n\in B_{\Xss}$, and $\eps>0$, there is a $\vs\in S_{\ran P}$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\|\ys+\vs\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xss_j(\ys)|+\|\vs\|\bigr)\quad\text{for all $\ys\in F$ and all $j\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$.}
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
Let $E$ be an $m$-dimensional subspace of $\Xs$, let $\xss_1,\dotsc,\xss_n\in B_{\Es}$, and let $\eps>0$.
It suffices to find a $\us\in S_{\Xs}$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\|\xs+\us\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xss_j(\xs)|+\|\us\|\bigr)\quad\text{for all $\xs\in\Es$ and all $j\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$.}
\end{equation*}
Letting $\vs\in S_{\Ys}$ be as in ($\bullet$) with $F:=\bigl\{P\xs\colon\,\xs\in E\bigr\}$,
one has, for all $\xs\in\Xs$ and all $j\in\{1,\dots,n\}$,
\begin{align*}
\|\xs+\vs\|
&=\|P\xs+\vs\|+\|(I-P)\xs\|\\
&\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xss_j(P\xs)|+\|\vs\|\bigr)+\|(I-P)\xs\|\\
&\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xss_j(P\xs)|+\bigl|\xss_j\bigl((I-P)\xs\bigr)\bigr|+\|\vs\|\bigr)\\
&\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\xss_j(\xs)|+\|\vs\|\bigr).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{proposition}[cf. {\cite[Theorem~4.10]{ALN}}]\label{prop: strict M-ideal}
Let $X$ be a Banach space and let a proper subspace $Y$ be a strict $M$-ideal in $X$.
Then both $Y$ and $X$ have the strong diameter $2$ property.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Letting $P\colon\,\Xs\to\Xs$ be the $M$-ideal projection, throughout the proof, for convenience, we identify $\ran P$ and $\Ys$ ``in the usual way''.
By Proposition \ref{prop: stability thm for M-ideals}, it suffices to show that $Y$ has the strong dia\-meter $2$ property.
To this end, letting $\ys_1,\dotsc,\ys_n\in S_{\Ys}$ ($n\in\N$) and $\eps>0$ be arbitrary,
by Theorem~\ref{thm: omnibus thm for the sd2P} and Proposition~\ref{prop: reformulations of oct}, it suffices to find a $\ys\in S_{\Ys}$ such that
\[
(1+\eps)\|\ys_j+\ys\|\geq2-7\eps
\quad\text{for all $j\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$.}
\]
Choose an $x\in S_X$ so that $d(x,Y)>1-\eps$, and $y_1,\dotsc,y_n\in S_{Y}$ so that $\ys_j(y_j)>1-\eps$.
By \cite[Proposition~2.3]{DW}, there is a $z\in B_{Y}$ such that
\[
|\ys_j(x-z)|<\eps
\quad\text{and}\quad
\|\pm y_j+x-z \|<1+\eps
\quad\text{for all $j\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$.}
\]
Let $\ys\in S_{\Ys}$ be such that
\[
\ys(x-z)>\|x-z\|-\eps\geq d(x,Y)-\eps>1-2\eps.
\]
Whenever $j\in\{1,\dotsc,n\}$, one has $\ys(y_j)>-3\eps$ because
\begin{align*}
1+\eps
&>\ys(-y_j+x-z)>-\ys(y_j)+1-2\eps,
\end{align*}
thus
\begin{align*}
(1+\eps)\|\ys_j+\ys\|
&\geq(\ys_j+\ys)(y_j+x-z)\\
&=\ys_j(y_j)+\ys_j(x-z)+\ys(y_j)+\ys(x-z)\\
&>1-\eps-\eps-3\eps+1-2\eps\\
&=2-7\eps.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
Deville (see \cite[Proposition 5]{D}) showed that if a Banach space $X$ is $2$-average rough, then we can find a separable closed subspace $Y$ in $X$ which is also $2$-average rough. We will end this section by showing that slightly stronger versions hold for each level of octahedrality.
\begin{proposition}\label{octsep}
If a Banach space $X$ is octahedral, then for every separable subspace $Y$ of $X$,
there is a separable octahedral subspace $Z$ of $X$ such that $Y \subset Z\subset X$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $X$ is octahedral.
Let $Y$ be a separable subspace of $X$, let $\{u_n\colon\,n\in\N\}$ be a dense subset in $Y$,
and let $\eps_n>0$, $n\in\N$, $\eps_n\to0$.
Put $Y_1:=\spn\{u_1\}$ and proceed as follows:
given $n\in\N$ and a finite subspace $Y_n$ of $X$, choose a $y_n\in S_X$ so that
\[
\|x+ty_n\|\geq(1-\eps_n)\bigl(1+t\bigr)\quad\text{for all $x\in S_{Y_n}$ and all $t>0$,}
\]
and put $Y_{n+1}:=\spn\bigl(Y_n\cup\{y_n\}\cup\{u_{n+1}\}\bigr)$.
Let $Z:=\overline{\spn}\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty Y_n$ where the $Y_n$, $n\in\N$, are obtained as above.
To see that $Z$ is weakly octahedral, let $z_1,\dotsc,z_m\in S_Z$ ($m\in\N$) and let $\eps>0$.
It suffices to find a $y\in S_Z$ such that
\[
\|z_j+y\|\geq2-\eps\quad\text{for all $j\in\{1,\dotsc,m\}$.}
\]
To this end, pick $n\in\N$ so that $2\eps_n<\frac{\eps}2$ and, for every $j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$,
there is an $x_j\in S_{Y_n}$ satisfying $\|z_j-x_j\|<\frac{\eps}{2}$.
For every $j\in\{1,\dotsc,m\}$, one has
\begin{align*}
\|z_j&+y_n\|
\geq\|x_j+y_n\|-\frac{\eps}2
\geq2-2\eps_n-\frac{\eps}2>2-\eps.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
If a Banach space $X$ is weakly octahedral, then for every separable subspace $Y$ of $X$,
there is a separable weakly octahedral subspace $Z$ of $X$ such that $Y \subset Z\subset X$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $X$ is weakly octahedral.
Let $Y$ be a separable subspace of $X$, let $\{u_n\colon\,n\in\N\}$ be a dense subset in $Y$, and let $\eps_n>0$, $n\in\N$, $\eps_n\to0$.
Put $Y_1:=\spn\{u_1\}$ and proceed as follows:
given $n\in\N$ and a finite subspace $Y_n$ of $X$, letting $B_n$ be a finite $\eps_n$-net in $B_{Y_n^\ast}$,
for every $g\in B_n$, choose a $y_g\in S_X$ so that
\[
\|x+ty_g\|\geq(1-\eps_n)\bigl(|g(x)|+t\bigr)\quad\text{for all $x\in S_{Y_n}$ and all $t>0$,}
\]
and put $Y_{n+1}:=\spn\bigl(Y_n\cup\{y_g\colon\,g\in B_n\}\cup\{u_{n+1}\}\bigr)$.
Let $Z:=\overline{\spn}\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty Y_n$ where the $Y_n$, $n\in\N$, are obtained as above.
To see that $Z$ is weakly octahedral, let $z_1,\dotsc,z_m\in S_Z$ ($m\in\N$),
let $\zs\in B_{\Zs}$, and let $\eps\in(0,1)$.
It suffices to show that there is a $y\in S_Z$ such that
\[
\|z_j+ty\|\geq(1-\eps)\bigl(|\zs(z_j)|+t\bigr)\quad\text{for all $j\in\{1,\dotsc,m\}$ and all $t\geq\eps$,}
\]
To this end, pick $n\in\N$ so that $\eps_n<\frac{\eps^2}4$ and, for every $j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$,
there is an $x_j\in S_{Y_n}$ satisfying $\|z_j-x_j\|<\frac{\eps^2}{4}$.
Letting $g\in B_n$ be such that $\|\zs|_{Y_n}-g\|<\eps_n<\frac{\eps^2}4$, one has, for every $j\in\{1,\dotsc,m\}$ and $t\geq\eps$,
\begin{align*}
\|z_j&+ty_g\|
\geq\|x_j+ty_g\|-\frac{\eps^2}4
\geq(1-\eps_n)\bigl(|g(x_j)|+t\bigr)-\frac{\eps^2}4\\
&\geq(1-\eps_n)\bigl(|\zs(z_j)|-|\zs(z_j-x_j)|-|\zs(x_j)-g(x_j)|+t\bigr)-\frac{\eps^2}4\\
&\geq(1-\eps_n)\bigl(|\zs(z_j)|+t\bigr)-\frac{3\eps^2}4\\
&\geq\Bigl(1-\frac\eps4\Bigr)\bigl(|\zs(z_j)|+t\bigr)-\frac{3\eps}4\bigl(|\zs(z_j)|+t\bigr)\\
&=(1-\eps)\bigl(|\zs(z_j)|+t\bigr).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}\label{lococtsep}
If a Banach space $X$ is locally octahedral, then for every separable subspace $Y$ of $X$,
there is a separable locally octahedral subspace $Z$ of $X$ such that $Y \subset Z\subset X$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $X$ is locally octahedral.
Let $Y$ be a separable subspace of $X$, let $\{u_n\colon\,n\in\N\}$ be a dense subset in $Y$,
and let $\eps_n>0$, $n\in\N$, $\eps_n\to0$.
Put $Y_1:=\spn\{u_1\}$ and proceed as follows:
given $n\in\N$ and a finite subspace $Y_n$ of $X$, letting $A_n$ be a finite $\eps_n$-net in $S_{Y_n}$,
for every $x\in A_n$, choose a $y_x\in S_X$ so that
\[
\|x\pm y_x\|\geq2-\eps_n,
\]
and put $Y_{n+1}:=\spn\bigl(Y_n\cup\{y_x\colon\,x\in A_n\}\cup\{u_{n+1}\}\bigr)$.
Let $Z:=\overline{\spn}\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty Y_n$ where the $Y_n$, $n\in\N$, are obtained as above.
To see that $Z$ is locally octahedral, let $z\in S_Z$ and let $\eps>0$.
It suffices to find a $y\in S_Z$ such that
\[
\|z\pm y\|\geq2-\eps.
\]
To this end, pick $n\in\N$ so that $\eps_n<\frac{\eps}3$ and $\|z-u\|<\frac{\eps}{3}$ for some $u\in S_{Y_n}$.
Letting $x\in A_n$ satisfy $\|x-u\|<\eps_n<\frac{\eps}3$, one has
\begin{align*}
\|z&\pm y_x\|
\geq\|u\pm y_x\|-\frac{\eps}3
\geq\|x\pm y_x\|-\frac{2\eps}3
\geq2-\eps_n-\frac{\eps}3>2-\eps.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\footnotesize
|
\section{Introduction}
$\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric field theories with an $R$-symmetry can be defined on a compact manifold $\mathcal{M}_4$ while preserving at least one supercharge, if and only if $\mathcal{M}_4$ is Hermitian \cite{Dumitrescu:2012ha,Klare:2012gn}. It was shown recently \cite{Closset:2013vra} that the partition function $Z_{\mathcal{M}_4}$ of such theories is independent of the Hermitian metric on $\mathcal{M}_4$ and that it depends holomorphically on the complex structure parameters of the underlying complex manifold.
We initiate the study of supersymmetric partition functions on $T^2 \times S^2$ by computing the partition function $Z_{T^2 \times S^2}^\Phi$ of an $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral multiplet $\Phi$ coupled to an external vector multiplet. (The inclusion of dynamical gauge fields will be discussed elsewhere.) Our result provides a new concrete example to illustrate the general properties of supersymmetric partition functions obtained in \cite{Closset:2013vra}. In particular, the partition function $Z_{T^2 \times S^2}^\Phi$ is locally holomorphic in the complex structure moduli of $T^2 \times S^2$.
We will work with a two-dimensional moduli space of complex structures on $T^2 \times S^2$. Consider $\mathbb{C} \times S^2$ with coordinates~\footnote{The coordinate $z$ covers the sphere except for the south pole, where we change coordinates to $z'= {1/z}$.} $w, z$, with the identifications
\be\label{cs S2T2}
(w, z) \sim (w+2\pi, e^{2\pi i\alpha} z) \sim (w+2\pi \tau , e^{2\pi i \beta} z)~.
\end{equation}
Here $\tau= \tau_1 + i \tau_2$ with $\tau_2>0$ is the standard modular parameter of $T^2$, while $\alpha$, $\beta$ are two real parameters which rotate the $S^2$ as it goes around the periods of the torus. The quotient space is diffeomorphic to $T^2\times S^2$. The two complex parameters
\be\label{cs params T2S2}
\tau= \tau_1 + i \tau_2~, \qquad\quad \sigma = \tau\alpha -\beta~,
\end{equation}
are the complex structure moduli. There exist additional families of complex structures on $T^2 \times S^2$ \cite{Suwa:1969}. The family that we consider here is complete, in the sense that for generic values of the moduli \eqref{cs params T2S2} the allowed deformations still lie in the same family.
On $T^2 \times S^2$ with the above complex structure, it is possible to preserve (at most) two supercharges of opposite $R$-charge for any value of \eqref{cs params T2S2}.~\footnote{For theories with a Ferrara-Zumino (FZ) supercurrent multiplet, this point was mentioned in \cite{Samtleben:2012gy}.} An important feature of the corresponding supergravity backgrounds \cite{Dumitrescu:2012ha, Closset:2013vra, Festuccia:2011ws} is that the $R$-symmetry background gauge field has one unit of magnetic flux through the $S^2$. A consequence of this $R$-symmetry monopole is that the supercharges commute with the isometries of the sphere. Another consequence is that we are only allowed to consider fields of integer $R$-charges.~\footnote{Yet another consequence is that the dimensional reduction of the $T^2 \times S^2$ background to $S^1 \times S^2$ does not correspond to the 3d $\mathcal{N}=2$ ``superconformal index'' background of \cite{Imamura:2011su}, which can preserve four supercharges, but rather to a different $S^1\times S^2$ background with one unit of magnetic flux. See \cite{Closset:2013vra, Hristov:2013spa} for related discussions of $S^1 \times S^2$ backgrounds.}
Consider an $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral multiplet $\Phi$ of $R$-charge $r$ and ${Q_f}$-charge ${ q_f}$, where ${Q_f}$ is an Abelian flavor symmetry $U(1)_f$.
We couple $\Phi$ to a background $U(1)_f$ real vector multiplet in the most general way that preserves the two supercharges \cite{Dumitrescu:2012ha, Closset:2013vra}. The $U(1)_f$ background gauge field has flux $g\in \mathbb{Z}$ through the $S^2$ and flat connections $a_x$, $a_y$ along the one-cycles of the torus. Let us define the shifted $R$-charge ${\bf r}= r+ { q_f} \, g$
and the fugacities
\begin{align} \label{def fugacitis}
q &= e^{2\pi i \tau}\, , & x &= e^{2\pi i(\tau \alpha - \beta)}\,, & t &= e^{2\pi i (\tau a_x - a_y)}~.
\end{align}
The shifted $R$-charge ${\bf r}$ must also be integer. For ${\bf r}>1$, we find
\begin{align} \label{result}
Z^{\Phi}_{{\bf r}>1}(q,x,t) &= \left( \frac{q^{1\over 12}}{\sqrt{t^{ q_f}}} \right)^{{\bf r} -1 }\prod_{m= -{{\bf r}\over 2}+1}^{{{\bf r}\over 2}-1} \prod_{k \geq 0} \left(1- q^{k+1} x^{ -m } t^{-q_f} \right) \left(1- q^k x^{ m } t^{q_f} \right)~.
\end{align}%
Similarly, for ${\bf r} \leq 1$~:
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{result ii}
&Z^\Phi_{{\bf r}=1}(q,x,t)=1~, \cr
&Z^{\Phi}_{{\bf r}<1}(q,x,t) = \left( \frac{\sqrt{t^{ q_f}}}{q^{1\over12}} \right)^{|{\bf r}| + 1 }\prod_{m= -{|{\bf r}|\over 2}}^{{|{\bf r}|\over 2}} \prod_{k \geq 0} \frac{1}{\left(1- q^{k+1} x^{ -m } t^{-q_f} \right)\left(1- q^k x^{ m } t^{q_f} \right)}~.
\eea
We will present two independent derivations of (\ref{result}), (\ref{result ii}). The first method is to compute the partition function by canonical quantization. We define a supersymmetric index for states on $S^1\times S^2$,
\be\label{def S2T2 index}
\mathcal{I}_{T^2 \times S^2}= \mathrm{Tr}\left( (-1)^F e^{-2\pi H}\right)~.
\end{equation}
Here $F$ is the fermion number and $H$ is the Hamiltonian with respect to the ``time'' direction along the remaining $S^1$. The Hamiltonian in \eqref{def S2T2 index} is computed at a generic point on the moduli space of complex structures. On states that contribute to the index, it takes the form
\begin{align} \label{H short mult}
H = -i \left(\tau P + \sigma J_3 + (\tau a_x - a_y) {Q_f}\right)~,
\end{align}
with $P$ the momentum along the spatial $S^1$ and $J_3$ the Cartan of the $SO(3)$ isometry of the $S^2$. Such states are thus weighted by $q^P x^{J_3} t^{{Q_f}}$ in \eqref{def S2T2 index}.
One could also take the more traditional point of view of computing the index with the ``round'' metric, corresponding to the special point $\tau=i, \sigma=0$ in the complex structure moduli space, while $q, x, t$ would be introduced as fugacities for operators commuting with the supercharges. The advantage of our approach is that the geometrical meaning of the fugacities $q, x, t$ is clear from the onset.
The index (\ref{def S2T2 index}) coincides with the supersymmetric partition function on $T^2\times S^2$ up to local terms.
To compute it, we dimensionally reduce the theory on the sphere. This leads to an infinite tower of decoupled $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ supersymmetric theories on the torus. Only states in short $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ multiplets contribute to (\ref{def S2T2 index}), and the effective Hamiltonian \eqref{H short mult} acting on those states encodes the dependence on the complex structure moduli $\tau, \sigma$ of $T^2 \times S^2$. The index (\ref{def S2T2 index}) reduces to a Witten index on $T^2$, also known as an $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ elliptic genus \cite{Witten:1982df,Witten:1986bf}. Our results for the index overlap with some recent work on elliptic genera \cite{Benini:2013nda,Benini:2013xpa}.
Our second derivation of (\ref{result}), (\ref{result ii}) is a path integral computation.
We take advantage of the two Killing spinors present on our geometric background to rewrite the $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral multiplet in terms of more convenient variables.
We then present a general method, based on supersymmetric localization (see for instance \cite{Pestun:2007rz, Kapustin:2009kz,Hama:2011ea}), to compute the chiral multiplet one-loop determinant on {\it any} four-manifold $\mathcal{M}_4$ preserving two supercharges. In particular, in the case $\mathcal{M}_4= T^2 \times S^2$ we confirm the result (\ref{result}), (\ref{result ii}).
We also study the partition function of a chiral multiplet on $S^3\times S^1$ using that same localization method. This provides a new derivation of a well-known result. $Z^\Phi_{S^3\times S^1}$ is given by an elliptic gamma function \cite{Romelsberger:2007ec, Dolan:2008qi}, whose natural domain of definition is the complex structure moduli space of $S^3\times S^1$ \cite{Closset:2013vra}.~\footnote{The computation of $Z^\Phi_{S^3\times S^1}$ was also reconsidered recently in \cite{Gerchkovitz:2013zra} from the canonical quantization point of view.}
This paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{sec: susy with two supercharges}, we review some necessary background about supersymmetry on curved spaces, while we study the $T^2 \times S^2$ background more thoroughly in section \ref{complex_st}. We derive the result \eqref{result}, \eqref{result ii} in section \ref{sec: compute index} by computing the supersymmetric index \eqref{def S2T2 index} for an $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral multiplet, and we briefly describe some of its interesting properties. In section \ref{sec: chiral mult Z}, we propose a general method to compute the chiral multiplet partition function on any background with two supercharges, and we apply this method to the cases of $T^2\times S^2$ and $S^3\times S^1$. Some useful additional material is presented in Appendices \ref{App: monopole harmonics}, \ref{App: Pairing} and \ref{App: S3S1}.
\section{Curved Space Supersymmetry and the $\mathcal{N}=1$ Chiral Multiplet}\label{sec: susy with two supercharges}
In this section, we review curved space rigid supersymmetry for $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric theories with an $R$-symmetry, focussing on the case of two supercharges of opposite chiralities. We discuss in detail the $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral multiplet coupled to an external gauge multiplet.
\subsection{Background Supergravity Multiplet}
Curved space supersymmetry on compact manifolds is best understood as a rigid limit of off-shell supergravity \cite{Festuccia:2011ws}. Four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric theories with an exact $R$-symmetry possess a supercurrent multiplet, called the $\mathcal{R}$-multipet, whose bottom component is the conserved $R$-symmetry current \cite{Sohnius:1981tp,Komargodski:2010rb, Dumitrescu:2011iu}. The $\mathcal{R}$-multiplet couples to the new minimal supergravity multiplet of \cite{Sohnius:1981tp}, which contains the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$, a gravitino, and two auxiliary fields $A_\mu$ and $V_\mu$. The field $A_\mu$ is an $R$-symmetry gauge field while $V_\mu$ is a vector which satisfies $\nabla_\mu V^\mu=0$. Rigid supersymmetry on a compact four-manifold $\mathcal{M}_4$ corresponds to a choice of supersymmetric background values for $g_{\mu\nu}, A_\mu, V_\mu$ \cite{Festuccia:2011ws}, such that the (generalized) Killing spinor equations
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{KSE}
&(\nabla_\mu - i A_\mu )\zeta = - i V_\mu \zeta - i V^\nu \sigma_{\mu\nu} \zeta~,\cr
& (\nabla_\mu + i A_\mu ) \t \zeta = i V_\mu \t \zeta + i V^\nu \t \sigma_{\mu\nu} \t \zeta~,
\eea
admit at least one non-trivial solution, which we can take to be $\zeta$. The Killing spinors $\zeta_\alpha$ and $\t\zeta^{\dot\alpha}$ are spinors of $R$-charge $+ 1$ and $-1$, respectively, of opposite chiralities. Any non-trivial solution is nowhere vanishing.
In \cite{Dumitrescu:2012ha, Klare:2012gn}, it was shown that the existence of a single Killing spinor $\zeta$ is equivalent to the existence of a complex structure on $\mathcal{M}_4$ compatible with the metric. Given $\zeta$, the metric-compatible complex structure is given explicitly by~\footnote{We are following the conventions of \cite{Closset:2013vra}, which differ from the ones of \cite{Dumitrescu:2012ha} by some signs. However, our $R$-symmetry gauge field $A_\mu$ is defined as in \cite{Dumitrescu:2012ha}, with $A_\mu^{(R)}= A_\mu -{3\over 2} V_\mu$ the gauge field used in \cite{Closset:2013vra}.}
\be\label{csfromzeta}
{J^\mu}_\nu = -{2 i \over |\zeta|^2} \zeta^\dagger {\sigma^\mu}_\nu \zeta ~.
\end{equation}
Conversely, given a complex manifold with a choice of a Hermitian metric, one can solve for the auxiliary fields $A_\mu$, $V_\mu$ and for $\zeta$ explicitly \cite{Dumitrescu:2012ha}.
In this paper we will focus on backgrounds preserving at least {\it two supercharges of opposite chiralities}, $\delta_\zeta$ and $\delta_{\t\zeta}$.
Given two Killing spinors $\zeta$ and $\t\zeta$, there exists a complex Killing vector \cite{Dumitrescu:2012ha}
\be\label{Kvec}
K= \zeta \sigma^\mu \t\zeta \, \d_\mu\, .
\end{equation}
This vector is anti-holomorphic with respect to (\ref{csfromzeta}).
Moreover, we will assume that $K$ commutes with its complex conjugate, $[K, K^\dagger]=0$.~\footnote{This is what we mean by ``two supercharges'' throughout this paper. The case $[K, K^\dagger]\neq 0$ was analysed in \cite{Dumitrescu:2012ha}.} Such backgrounds are torus fibrations over a Riemann surface $\Sigma$. We can pick complex coordinates $w, z$ adapted to the complex structure (\ref{csfromzeta}) such that $K= \d_{\b w}$. The Hermitian metric is locally given by
\be\label{2Q backgd i}
ds^2 = \Omega^2(z, \b z) \Big((dw + h (z,\b z) d z)(d\b w + \b h (z,\b z) d \b z) + c^2(z,\b z) dz d\b z \Big)\, .
\end{equation}
Note that, in general, the real and imaginary parts of $K$ do not have closed orbits, but they are instead part of a larger $U(1)^3$ isometry. $\mathcal{M}_4$ is therefore a $T^2$ fibration (by choosing a $T^2$ out of the $U(1)^3$ isometry orbits), but not necessarily a holomorphic one. (The fibration is holomorphic only when the orbits of $K$ are bona fide tori.)~\footnote{See section 5.1 of \cite{Closset:2012ru} for a similar discussion in three dimensions.}
The background supergravity fields $A_\mu, V_\mu$ read
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{2Q backgd ii}
& V_\mu = {1\over 2} \nabla_\nu {J^\nu}_\mu + \kappa K_\mu \, , \cr
&A_\mu = - {1\over 4} {J_\mu}^\nu\d_\nu \log \sqrt{g} +{1\over 4} ({\delta_\mu}^\nu+ i {J_\mu}^\nu) \nabla_\sigma {J^\sigma}_\nu +{3\over 2} \kappa K_\mu -{i\over 2} \d_\mu \log s ~,
\eea
The expression for $A_\mu$ is only valid in complex coordinates ---in particular, $\sqrt{g}= {1\over 4}\Omega^4 \, c^2$ is the determinant of the Hermitian metric (\ref{2Q backgd i}). The function $\kappa$ is such that $K^\mu \d_\mu\kappa=0$, but otherwise arbitrary. In the holomorphic frame
\be\label{standard frame}
e^1=\Omega(z,\b z)(dw + h(z,\b z) d z) \, ,\qquad e^2 = \Omega(z,\b z) c(z,\b z) dz\, ,
\end{equation}
the Killing spinors read
\be\label{Killingspinors}
\zeta_\alpha = \sqrt{\frac{s}{2}} \left( \begin{matrix}1 \cr 0 \end{matrix}\right)\, , \quad\qquad
\t \zeta^{\dot\alpha} = {\Omega \over \sqrt{2s}} \left( \begin{matrix} -1 \cr 0 \end{matrix}\right)\,
\end{equation}
From the Killing spinor $\zeta_\alpha$, we can also construct a holomorphic two-form
\be\label{P holo}
P =\zeta \sigma_{\mu\nu}\zeta \, dx^\mu \wedge dx^\nu =s\, g^{1\over 4} \, dw \wedge dz~.
\end{equation}
Note that $s$ is a nowhere-vanishing global section of $\mathcal{K} \otimes L^2$, with $\mathcal{K}$ the canonical line bundle and $L$ the $R$-symmetry line bundle. Therefore, the line bundle $\mathcal{K} \otimes L^2$ is trivial and we can identify $L \cong \mathcal{K}^{-{1\over 2}}$ up to a trivial line bundle \cite{Dumitrescu:2012ha}.
\subsection{Background Vector Multiplet}\label{subsec: backgd amu}
In addition to the supergravity background (\ref{2Q backgd i}), (\ref{2Q backgd ii}), it is natural to consider background gauge fields coupling to conserved currents (whenever the field theory has any global symmetry).
For simplicity, consider a background vector multiplet for an Abelian symmetry $U(1)_f$. It has bosonic components $v_\mu$ and $D$, with $v_\mu$ the $U(1)_f$ gauge field. Let us define its field strength
\be\label{def fmn for v}
f_{\mu\nu}= \d_\mu v_\nu - \d_\nu v_\mu \, .
\end{equation}
In order to preserve the same Killing spinors (\ref{Killingspinors}) as the supergravity background (\ref{2Q backgd i}), (\ref{2Q backgd ii}), the background fields $v_\mu$, $D$ have to satisfy \cite{Closset:2013vra}
\be\label{background V}
f_{\b w\b z}= f_{w\b w}=f_{z\b w} =0\, , \qquad D=-{2 i \over \Omega^2 c^2} (f_{z\b z} - h f_{w \b z})~,
\end{equation}
using our adapted coordinates $w, z$ and the metric (\ref{2Q backgd i}). For $v_\mu$ real, $f_{z\b z}$ is the only component of the field strength that can be turned on while preserving two supercharges.
\subsection{Supersymmetry Transformations and Supersymmetric Lagrangian}\label{subsec: chiral mult}
Let $\delta_\zeta$ and $\delta_{\t\zeta}$ be the two supersymmetries associated to the Killing spinors $\zeta$ and $\t\zeta$. They satisfy the supersymmetry algebra \cite{Dumitrescu:2012ha}
\be\label{susy alg}
\delta_\zeta^2=0\, , \qquad \delta_{\t\zeta}^2=0\, , \qquad \{\delta_{\zeta},\delta_{\t\zeta}\}= 2 i \hat\mathcal{L}_K\, .
\end{equation}
Here $K$ is the Killing vector (\ref{Kvec}).
The twisted Lie derivative $\hat\mathcal{L}_K$ along $K$ acts as
\be\label{defLprime}
\hat\mathcal{L}_K = \mathcal{L}_K -i K^\mu ( r A_\mu + { q_f} v_\mu)
\end{equation}
on any field of $R$-charge $r$ and ${Q_f}$-charge ${ q_f}$, with $\mathcal{L}_K$ the ordinary Lie derivative.~\footnote{Note that the background gauge field $v_\mu$ appears in the supersymmetry algebra (\ref{susy alg}). Technically, this is because we work with the Wess-Zumino gauge. }
We consider a chiral multiplet $\Phi=(\phi, \psi, F)$ of $R$-charge $r$ and ${Q_f}$-charge ${ q_f}$, in the supersymmetric background (\ref{2Q backgd i}), (\ref{2Q backgd ii}), (\ref{background V}). Let us define the covariant derivative
\be \label{covder}
D_\mu = \nabla_\mu - i r A_\mu - i { q_f} v_\mu~,
\end{equation}
acting on fields of charges $r$ and ${ q_f}$.
The curved space supersymmetry transformations read \cite{Festuccia:2011ws}
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{susychiralfdgauged}
&\delta \phi = \sqrt2 \zeta \psi~,\cr
&\delta \psi_\alpha = \sqrt 2 \zeta_\alpha F + \sqrt 2 i (\sigma^\mu \t \zeta)_\alpha \, D_\mu \phi~, \cr
&\delta F =\sqrt 2 i D_{\mu}(\t \zeta \t \sigma^\mu \psi).
\eea
Similarly, for an anti-chiral multiplet $\t\Phi=(\t\phi, \t\psi,\t F)$ of $R$-charge $-r$ and ${Q_f}$-charge $-{ q_f}$, we have
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{susyantichiralfdgauged}
&\delta \t\phi = \sqrt2 \t\zeta \t\psi~,\cr
&\delta \t\psi^{\dot\alpha} = \sqrt 2 \t\zeta^{\dot\alpha} \t F + \sqrt 2 i (\t \sigma^\mu \zeta)^{\dot\alpha} \, D_\mu \t\phi~, \cr
&\delta \t F =\sqrt 2 i D_{\mu}( \zeta \sigma^\mu \t \psi).
\eea
One can check that these supersymmetry transformations realize the supersymmetry algebra (\ref{susy alg}) if and only if $\zeta$, $\t\zeta$ are solutions of (\ref{KSE}).
One can construct the curved-space generalization of the canonical kinetic term for a chiral multiplet coupled to a background gauge field.
It is given by the following supersymmetric Lagrangian~:
\begin{align}\label{Lag Phi}
\mathscr{L}_{\Phi\t\Phi} &= \; D_\mu \t \phi D^\mu \phi + i \t \psi \t\sigma^\mu D_\mu \psi - F\t F
+V^{\mu}\big(iD_{\mu} \tilde{\phi}\, \phi -i \tilde{\phi} D_{\mu} \phi +{1\over 2} \tilde{\psi}\tilde{\sigma}_{\mu} \psi\big) \nonumber \\
& \quad -{r\over 4} (R-6V^{\mu}V_{\mu})\, \t \phi \phi + { q_f} D \t\phi \phi \, .
\end{align}
Here $R$ is the Ricci scalar on $\mathcal{M}_4$,~\footnote{We follow the Riemannian geometry conventions of \cite{Dumitrescu:2012ha}. In particular, $R < 0$ for a round sphere.} and the various background fields take their supersymmetric values.
\subsection{A Comment on Global Anomalies}
The theory of a single chiral multiplet that we are considering has cubic and mixed $U(1)$-gravitional anomalies for its $U(1)_f$ and $U(1)_R$ symmetries~:
\be
\Tr( R^3)= (r-1)^3~, \quad \Tr (Q_f^3)= q_f^3~, \quad
\Tr (R)= r-1~, \quad \Tr ({Q_f})= { q_f}~,
\end{equation}
and similarly for $\Tr (R^2 Q_f)$ and $\Tr (Q_f^2 R)$. This could result in a violation of current conservation in a non-trivial background. Let us define the topological densities
\be
\mathcal{P}^{(f)}= \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} f_{\mu\nu} f_{\rho\sigma}~, \qquad
\mathcal{P}^{(R)}= \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} F^{(R)}_{\mu\nu} F^{(R)}_{\rho\sigma}~, \qquad
\mathcal{P}^{(g)}= \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} R_{\mu\nu\kappa\lambda}{R_{\rho\sigma}}^{\kappa\lambda}~.
\end{equation}
Here $f_{\mu\nu}$ is the $U(1)_f$ field strength, $F_{\mu\nu}^{(R)}$ is the field strength of $A_\mu^{(R)}= A_\mu -{3\over 2}V_\mu$, which couples to the $R$-symmetry current, and $R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$ is the Riemann tensor.
In the presence of two supercharges, we have
\be
\mathcal{P}^{(f)}= 0~, \qquad \quad \mathcal{P}^{(R)} = {3\over 8} \mathcal{P}^{(g)}~.
\end{equation}
The first equality follows directly from \eqref{background V} and the second relation was derived in \cite{Cassani:2013dba} (it is also easily checked from \eqref{2Q backgd i} and \eqref{2Q backgd ii}). Since $\mathcal{P}^{(f)}=0$, the $\Tr(Q_f^3)$ and $\Tr(Q_f^2 R)$ cubic anomalies do not lead to any violation of current conservation. On the other hand, $\mathcal{P}^{(g)}$ will be non-zero in general. However, one can always write $\mathcal{P}^{(g)}= \nabla_\mu X^\mu$ for $X^\mu$ a non-covariant quantity, so that the properly shifted currents are conserved. In general, we can thus preserve $U(1)_f$ and $U(1)_R$ at the expense of general covariance \cite{AlvarezGaume:1983ig}. (It was also noted in \cite{Cassani:2013dba} that the integral of $\mathcal{P}^{(g)}$ vanishes on backgrounds with two supercharges, so that all the integrated anomalies vanish.)
In any case, for all the backgrounds considered in this paper, one can actually show that $\mathcal{P}^{(g)}=0$, and therefore the $U(1)_f$ and $U(1)_R$ currents are properly conserved.~\footnote{One can see that $\mathcal{P}^{(g)}=0$ if $h=\b h =0$, with $h$ the metric function appearing in \eqref{2Q backgd i}. One can also check that $\mathcal{P}^{(g)}=0$ for the $S^3 \times S^1$ background that we will consider in section \ref{subsec: S3 S1 Z}.} Therefore, we will not need to worry about these global anomalies in the following.
\section{Complex Structures and Supersymmetry on $T^2 \times S^2$} \label{complex_st}
Any complex four-manifold with $T^2 \times S^2$ topology is a ruled surface of genus one \cite{Suwa:1969}. Such surfaces have been classified \cite{ Suwa:1969,Atiyah:1955}.~\footnote{A ruled surfaces of genus one is a $\mathbb{C} P^1$ fiber bundle over a non-singular elliptic curve $\Sigma_1$. The classification of such surfaces follows from the classification of one-dimensional affine fiber bundles over $\Sigma_1$, with the ruled surfaces obtained by projectivisation \cite{Atiyah:1955}. It was shown in \cite{Suwa:1969} that there are three classes of complex structures on $T^2 \times S^2$, denoted by $\mathcal{S}$, $S_{2n}$ with $n$ any positive integer, and $A_0$. In this paper we consider the class $\mathcal{S}$, which corresponds to ruled surfaces obtained from degree zero holomorphic line bundles over $\Sigma_1$.
}
In this paper, we consider a two-parameter family of complex manifolds obtained as quotients of $\mathbb{C}\times S^2$. Let $w, z$ be the complex coordinates on $\mathbb{C}$ and $S^2$, respectively. We consider the identifications
\be\label{complexstructTtwo}
(w, z) \sim (w+2\pi, e^{2\pi i\alpha} z)~, \qquad (w, z) \sim (w+ 2\pi \tau , e^{2\pi i \beta} z)~.
\end{equation}
The quotient space is diffeomorphic to $T^2 \times S^2$.
Here $\tau=\tau_1 + i \tau_2$ is the modular parameter of the torus, and $\alpha$, $\beta$ are real parameters subject to the identifications $\alpha\sim \alpha + 1$, $\beta\sim \beta +1$. We also introduce the complex parameter $\sigma = \tau \alpha - \beta$.
Two choices of complex structure moduli $\tau, \sigma$ and $\tau', \sigma'$ are equivalent if they give rise to the same identifications (\ref{complexstructTtwo}). These equivalences are generated by~:
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{Gcsi}
& S \; : \; \; (\tau, \sigma) \mapsto \left(-{1\over \tau},\, {\sigma \over \tau} \right)\, , \qquad\quad
& T \; : \; \; (\tau, \sigma) \mapsto (\tau+1, \, \sigma)\, , \cr
& U \; : \; \; (\tau, \sigma) \mapsto (\tau, \, \sigma +\tau )\, , \qquad\quad
& V \; : \; \; (\tau, \sigma) \mapsto (\tau, \, \sigma + 1)\, ,
\eea
These transformations generate a subgroup of $PSL(3,\mathbb{Z})$, whose corresponding $SL(3,\mathbb{Z})$ matrices are
\be\label{subgroupSLthree}
S= \mat{0 &1& 0\cr-1 &0&0\cr 0& 0 & 1 }~, \qquad
T= \mat{1 &1& 0\cr0 &1&0\cr 0& 0 & 1 }~, \qquad U= \mat{1 &0& 0\cr0 &1&0\cr 1& 0 & 1 }~, \qquad
V= \mat{ 1&0& 0\cr0 &1&0\cr 0& 1 & 1 }~.
\end{equation}
It is convenient to introduce real coordinates $x$, $y$, $\theta$, $\varphi$ on $T^2 \times S^2$, where $x$, $y$ are torus coordinates of period $2\pi$, and $\theta \in [0, \pi]$, $\varphi\in [0, 2\pi)$ are the standard angles on the sphere.
The complex structure on the quotient (\ref{complexstructTtwo}) can be realized by the complex coordinates
\be\label{cc on S2T2}
w = x + \tau y \, , \qquad z= \tan{\theta\over 2} e^{i (\varphi + \alpha x + \beta y)}~,
\end{equation}
where the identifications (\ref{complexstructTtwo}) correspond to $(x,y)\sim (x+ 2\pi, y)$ and $(x,y)\sim (x, y+2\pi)$ on the real torus.
The generators (\ref{Gcsi}) of non-trivial identifications on the complex structure moduli space correspond to large diffeomorphisms of the underlying real manifold, which are given by the matrices (\ref{subgroupSLthree}) acting on the coordinates $(x, y, \varphi)$ in the obvious way.
\subsection{Supergravity Background with Round Metric}\label{subsec: S2T2 back round}
One can preserve two supercharges on $T^2\times S^2$ for any choice of complex structure (\ref{complexstructTtwo}).
We consider the metric
\be\label{metricprod}
ds^2 = d w d\b w + {4 \over (1 + z \b z)^2} dz d \b z\, ,
\end{equation}
which is compatible with the identification (\ref{complexstructTtwo}). Note that for generic values of the complex structure moduli, this metric has three real Killing vectors, corresponding to $\d_w$, $\d_{\b w}$ and $z\d_z -{\b z} \d_z$. (The additional Killing vectors $K_\pm$ in \eqref{3 KV} are not globally defined unless $\sigma=0$.)
In particular, we have the anti-holomorphic Killing vector $K= \d_{\b w}$ and we can apply the general formulas (\ref{2Q backgd i}), (\ref{2Q backgd ii}) for the supergravity background fields.
In terms of the real coordinates (\ref{cc on S2T2}), the metric (\ref{metricprod}) reads
\be
ds^2 = (dx + \tau_1 d y)^2 + \tau_2^2 dy^2 + d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta (d\varphi + \alpha dx + \beta dy)^2~,
\end{equation}
while the anti-holomorphic Killing vector $K$ is given by
\be\label{K real coord}
K= \d_{\b w} = {1\over 2 i \tau_2 }\left( \tau\, \d_x -\d_y -\sigma \, \d_\varphi \right)~.
\end{equation}
Formula (\ref{2Q backgd ii}) simplifies greatly because the metric (\ref{metricprod}) is K\"ahler. We have~\footnote{In complex coordinates, $K_{\mu}dx^{\mu} = \frac{1}{2} d w$ and $A^{(R)} = -\frac{i}{2} \frac{\bar z dz - z d \bar z}{(1+z\bar z)} - \frac{i}{2} d \log s $.}
\begin{align}\label{background S2T2}
V_\mu dx^\mu &= \kappa K_\mu dx^\mu\, , \nonumber \\
A_\mu^{(R)} dx^\mu &= {1\over 2} (1-\cos\theta) (d\varphi +\alpha dx +\beta dy) -{i\over 2} \d_\mu \log s\, dx^\mu~,
\end{align}
with $A_\mu^{(R)}= A_\mu -{3\over 2}V_\mu$.
The salient feature of this background is that it involves a non-trivial $R$-symmetry line bundle $L$, with first Chern class
\be\label{flux dA}
c_1= {1\over 2\pi}\int_{S^2} d A^{(R)} = 1~.
\end{equation}
Any field $\Phi$ of nonzero $R$-charge $r$ must be a well-defined section of the line bundle $L^r$, with transition functions
\be
\Phi^{(N)} = e^{i r ( \varphi + \alpha x + \beta y)} \Phi^{(S)}
\end{equation}
between the northern $(N)$ and sourthern $(S)$ patches.~\footnote{By default, all quantities are written on the northern patch, $\Phi= \Phi^{(N)}$, with complex coordinates $w,z$. The southern patch has coordinate $w, z'$, with $z'={1\over z}$ on the overlap.}
It follows that the $R$-charge must be {\it integer}, $r\in \mathbb{Z}$.
In the canonical frame (\ref{standard frame}), $e^1 = dw$, $e^2={2\over 1+ |z|^2} dz$,
the Killing spinors are given by (\ref{Killingspinors}). In order for the holomorphic two-form (\ref{P holo}) to be well-defined, $s$ must satisfy
\be\label{s transfo T2}
s \sim e^{-2 \pi i \alpha} s~, \qquad s \sim e^{-2 \pi i \beta} s
\end{equation}
under the identifications (\ref{complexstructTtwo}).
We should offset (\ref{s transfo T2}) by some $R$-symmetry transformations, so that $s$ is invariant as we go around the one-cycles of the torus. Therefore, any field $\Phi$ of $R$-charge $r$ has twisted periodicities
\be\label{twisted bd i}
\Phi \sim e^{i \pi r \alpha } \Phi~, \qquad \Phi \sim e^{i \pi r \beta} \Phi~.
\end{equation}
under (\ref{complexstructTtwo}).
Finally, note that $s$ is a non-trivial section of the canonical line bundle $\mathcal{K}$ but a trivial section of the total bundle $\mathcal{K}\otimes L^2$, which is therefore trivial \cite{Dumitrescu:2012ha}. We will take $s=1$ in the following.
Note that the $R$-symmetry flux through the $S^2$ is necessary to preserve supersymmetry on $T^2 \times S^2$. This is in contrast to lower dimensional cases where supersymmetric backgrounds without flux exist on $S^1 \times S^2$ \cite{Imamura:2011su} and $S^2$ \cite{Benini:2012ui,Doroud:2012xw}. Such backrgounds preserve four supercharges and do not admit an uplift to four dimensions \cite{Festuccia:2011ws}.
\subsection{Supersymmetric Background Gauge Field}\label{subsec: backgd V}
Let us also consider a supersymmetric background gauge multiplet for an Abelian symmetry $U(1)_f$, which satisfy (\ref{background V}). We consider a real gauge field for simplicity. The most general such background gauge field preserving the isometries of \eqref{metricprod} is given by
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation} \label{background a}
v_\mu dx^\mu &= v_w dw + v_{\b w} d w -i g \frac{\bar z dz - z d \bar z}{2(1+z\bar z)} \cr
&= a_x dx + a_y dy +{g\over 2} (1-\cos\theta)(d\varphi +\alpha dx+\beta dy)~,
\eea
up to gauge transformations, while the auxiliary field $D$ is given in (\ref{background V}).
Note that
\be\label{def v vb}
v_w= -{\b \tau a_x- a_y\over 2 i \tau_2}~, \qquad v_{\b w}= {\tau a_x- a_y\over 2 i \tau_2}~.
\end{equation}
The real parameters $a_x$, $a_y$ are flat connections, which must be identified by $a_x\sim a_x +1$, $a_y \sim a_y +1$ due to large gauge transformations. It is also convenient to define
\be\label{def nu}
\nu = \tau a_x - a_y~,
\end{equation}
a line bundle modulus \cite{Closset:2013vra} analogous to the complex structure modulus $\sigma$. The parameter $g$ is an integer, giving us the quantized flux of (\ref{background a}) through the sphere. The discussion of the corresponding $U(1)_f$ line bundle is analogous to the discussion of the $U(1)_R$ bundle above. In particular, a field $\Phi$ of ${Q_f}$-charge ${ q_f}$ has transition function $\Phi^{(N)} = e^{i g { q_f} ( \varphi + \alpha x + \beta y)} \Phi^{(S)}$ between the northern and southern patches.
It will be useful to define the shifted $R$-charge
\be\label{shifted R def}
{\bf r}= r + { q_f} g~.
\end{equation}
In the presence of the background gauge field \eqref{background a}, the twisted boundary conditions \eqref{twisted bd i} for charged fields generalize to~\footnote{It is clear from the transition functions that there must be some twisted periodicities depending on ${ q_f} g$. This choice of boundary conditions is symmetric between the northern and southern patches.}
\be\label{twisted bd ii}
\Phi \sim e^{i \pi {\bf r} \alpha } \Phi~, \qquad \Phi \sim e^{i \pi {\bf r} \beta} \Phi~,
\end{equation}
under the identifications (\ref{complexstructTtwo}).
\subsection{More General Supersymmetric Background}
We can consider supersymmetric backgrounds on $T^2\times S^2$ with more general metrics than (\ref{metricprod}). Indeed, any Hermitian metric of the local form (\ref{2Q backgd i}) is as good as any other. We can still retain the map (\ref{cc on S2T2}) between real and complex coordinates, and thus the explicit form (\ref{K real coord}) for the Killing vector $K$. Let us note that the real and imaginary parts of the Killing vector $K$ do not close in general, and consequently we have three Killing vectors $\d_x$, $\d_y$ and $\d_\varphi$. Thus we can consider a general background (\ref{2Q backgd i}), (\ref{2Q backgd ii}) with the functions $\Omega(z, {\b z})$, $h(z, {\b z})$ and $c(z, {\b z})$ depending on $|z|^2$ only. One can similarly consider more general background gauge fields than \eqref{background a} with the same flux $g$ through the $S^2$.
For $\sigma=0$, we need only have two Killing vectors $\d_x$ and $\d_y$. In this special case, the $T^2\times S^2$ index that we will compute below does not keep track of the $J_3$ quantum number from the sphere.
\section{The $T^2\times S^2$ Index and Canonical Quantization}\label{sec: compute index}
In this section, we compute the $T^2 \times S^2$ partition function of a chiral multiplet as a supersymmetric index (\ref{def S2T2 index}). The first step is to dimensionally reduce the theory over $S^2$. Due to the presence of magnetic flux on the sphere, charged fields must be expanded in so-called monopole spherical harmonics \cite{Wu:1976ge}, which are reviewed in Appendix \ref{App: monopole harmonics}. The second step is to quantize the resulting theory on the torus. The only contribution to the index will come from a finite number of short multiplets of the $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ supersymmetry on the torus, arising from zero modes of the Dirac operator on the $S^2$ with magnetic flux.
\subsection{Sphere Reduction and $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ Multiplets on $T^2$}
Consider the supersymmetric background with round metric (\ref{metricprod}) discussed in the previous section. We consider a free chiral multiplet of $R$-charge $r$ and ${Q_f}$-charge ${ q_f}$ in that background.
The bosonic part of the supersymmetric Lagrangian (\ref{Lag Phi}) can be written
\be\label{Lag Phi ii bos}
\mathscr{L}_{{\rm bos}}= 2 (D_w + i \gamma) \t\phi D_{\b w} \phi + 2 D_{\b w} \t\phi (D_w- i \gamma)\phi +\t\phi \left(\Delta^{{\bf r}}_{S^2} +{{\bf r}\over 2} \right)\phi - \t F F~,
\end{equation}
where we introduced the notation $\gamma= {3\over 4}\kappa\left(r - {2\over 3}\right)$, with $\kappa$ the ambiguity in the background fields (\ref{background S2T2}), and ${\bf r}$ is the shifted $R$-charge \eqref{shifted R def}. Here and in the remainder of this section, the covariant derivatives along $w, {\b w}$ only contain the $U(1)_f$ flat connection~:
\be
D_w = \d_w - i { q_f} v_w~, \quad D_{\b w} = \d_{\b w} - i { q_f} v_{\b w}~.
\end{equation}
The operator $\Delta^{{\bf r}}_{S^2}$ in (\ref{Lag Phi ii bos}) is the scalar Laplacian on the sphere with a monopole, which is given by (\ref{S2 Lap scalar}) Appendix \ref{App: monopole harmonics}. Note that $R$-charge $r$ only enters through $\gamma$ and the shifted R-charge ${\bf r}$. Indeed, the scalar field $\phi$ couples to both $U(1)_R$ and $U(1)_f$ through the covariant derivative (\ref{covder}), so that it effectively couples with electric charge ${\bf r}$ to a monopole of unit flux.~\footnote{We also have couplings of $\phi$ to $R$ and $D$ in the second line of (\ref{Lag Phi}), which are crucial for supersymmetry and lead to the shift of the scalar Laplacian by ${{\bf r}\over 2}$ in \eqref{Lag Phi ii bos}.} Let us also remark that the Laplacian (\ref{S2 Lap scalar}) must be here interpreted in terms of the complex coordinate $z$ in (\ref{cc on S2T2}), effectively shifting the angle $\varphi$ to $\varphi +\alpha x + \beta y$ in the definition of the monopole harmonics. (The monopole harmonics are then a complete basis of sections of the monopole line bundle on $T^2 \times S^2$ introduced in section \ref{subsec: S2T2 back round}.) We expand the field $\phi$ in scalar monopole harmonics,
\be\label{expansion phi}
\phi(w,\bar{w},z,\bar{z})= \sum_{j,m} a_{jm}(w,\bar{w}) Y_{{{\bf r}} \, j m}(z,\bar{z})~,
\end{equation}
where the sum is over $j= \frac{|{\bf r}|}{2}, \frac{|{\bf r}|}{2}+1,\ldots$, $m=-j,\ldots,j$. Similarly, we expand the auxiliary field $F$ in monopole harmonics of electric charge ${\bf r}-2$~:
\be
F(w,\bar{w},z,\bar{z}) = \sum_{j,m} f_{jm}(w,\bar{w}) Y_{{{\bf r}-2}\, j m}(z,\bar{z})~,
\end{equation}
with $j= \frac{|{\bf r}-2|}{2}, \frac{|{\bf r}-2|}{2}+1,\ldots$, $m=-j,\ldots,j$. We similarly expand the bosonic fields of the antichiral multiplet according to $\t\phi = \sum \t a_{jm} Y_{{\bf r}\, jm}^\dagger$ and $\t F = \sum \t f_{jm} Y_{{\bf r}-2\, jm}^\dagger$.
Note that there is a mismatch in the $SO(3)$ representations that appear in the expansion of $\phi$ and $F$ for ${\bf r} \neq 1$. When ${\bf r}>1$, all values of $j\geq \frac{{\bf r}}{2}$ exist for both fields but one additional representation with $j=\frac{{\bf r}}{2}-1$ is found for $F$. When ${\bf r}<1$, it is $\phi$ which has one unmatched representation, with $j=-\frac{{\bf r}}{2}$.
The fermionic part of the supersymmetric Lagrangian (\ref{Lag Phi}) is
\be\label{Lag Phi ii fer}
\mathscr{L}_{{\rm fer}} = -2 i \tilde{\psi}^{\dot{\beta}} \begin{pmatrix} D_{\b w} & 0 \\ 0 & -(D_w - i \gamma) \end{pmatrix}\psi_{\alpha} - \tilde{\psi}^{\dot{\beta}} {(-i {\bf\not}{\nabla}^{{\bf r}}_{S^2})_{\dot{\beta}}}^{\alpha} \psi_{\alpha}~.
\end{equation}
with $\gamma$ defined above, while the explicit form of the Dirac operator in a monopole background, $-i {\bf\not}{\nabla}^{{\bf r}}_{S^2}$, is given in (\ref{Dirac op on S2}).
The eigenvalues $\lambda_{{\bf r} j}$ of $-i {\bf\not}{\nabla}^{{\bf r}}_{S^2}$ are given in (\ref{eigenvalues Dirac}). The important thing for us is that there are fermionic zero-modes,
\be
\lambda_{{\bf r} j}=0 \qquad \Leftrightarrow \qquad j = \frac{|{\bf r}-1|}{2}-\frac{1}{2}~.
\end{equation}
We expand the fermions in spinors spherical harmonics of electric charge ${\bf r}-1$.
For ${\bf r} >1$, it is convenient to write
\be \label{psi-exp}
\psi_{\alpha} = \sum_{jm}\begin{pmatrix} b_{jm} Y_{{\bf r}-2\, jm} \\ -c_{jm} Y_{{\bf r}\,jm} \end{pmatrix} + \sum_m \begin{pmatrix} b_{j_0 m} Y_{{\bf r}-2\,jm} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}~,
\end{equation}
The second sum comes from the zero modes, with $j_0=\frac{{\bf r}}{2}-1$.
For ${\bf r}<1$, we similarly write
\be\label{psi-exp ii}
\psi_{\alpha} = \sum_{jm}\begin{pmatrix} b_{jm} Y_{{\bf r}-2\, jm} \\ -c_{jm} Y_{{\bf r}\, jm} \end{pmatrix} + \sum_m \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ -c_{j_0 m} Y_{{\bf r}\, jm} \end{pmatrix}~,
\end{equation}
with $j_0 = {|{\bf r}|\over 2}$. For the fermion $\t\psi$ of opposite chirality, we take
\be
\tilde{\psi}^{\dot{\alpha}} = -\sum_{jm}\begin{pmatrix} \tilde{b}_{jm} Y^\dagger_{{\bf r}-2\, jm} \\ \tilde{c}_{jm} Y^\dagger_{{\bf r}\, jm} \end{pmatrix} -\sum_m \begin{pmatrix} \tilde{b}_{j_0 m} Y^\dagger_{{\bf r}-2\, j_0m} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
in the case ${\bf r} >1$, and similarly for ${\bf r}<1$.
Plugging these mode expansions into the Lagrangian (\ref{Lag Phi ii bos}), (\ref{Lag Phi ii fer}), we obtain a decoupled theory for each angular momentum $j, m$. For simplicity of notation, we will drop the subscripts $j,m$ on the modes $a,b,c,f$ in the following. The modes organize themselves into representations of an $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ supersymmetry algebra on the torus. Let us consider each case separately~:
\subsubsection{Long Multiplets}
Consider first the case when $j, m$ do not correspond to a zero mode, $\lambda \neq 0$. One obtains long multiplets $(a,b,c,f)$ and $(\t a, \t b,\t c,\t f)$, whose supersymmetry variations follow from (\ref{susychiralfdgauged}) and (\ref{susyantichiralfdgauged})~:
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{S-var-csf}
\delta a &= c~, & \qquad \t \delta a &= 0~, &\qquad \delta \t a &=0~, &\qquad \t\delta \t a &= \t c~, \\
\delta b &= f~, &\qquad \t \delta b &= i \lambda a~, &\qquad \delta \t b &= -i \lambda \t a~, &\qquad \t \delta \t b &= \t f~, \\
\delta c &=0~, &\qquad \t \delta c &= 2iD_{\bar{w}} a~, &\qquad \delta \t c &= 2 iD_{\b w} \t a~, &\qquad \t \delta \t c &=0~, \\
\delta f &=0~, &\qquad \t \delta f &= 2i D_{\bar{w}} b - i \lambda c ~, &\qquad \delta \t f &= 2i D_{\b w} \t b + i \lambda \t c~, &\qquad \t \delta \t f &=0~.
\eea
Here we use the notation $\delta = \delta_{\zeta}$ and $\t \delta = \delta_{\t \zeta}$.
The transformations (\ref{S-var-csf}) realize a two-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ algebra,
\be
\delta^2=0~, \qquad \t\delta^2=0~, \qquad \{ \delta , \t \delta\} = 2 i D_{\bar{w}}~.
\end{equation}
The Lagrangian for the $(a,b,c,f)$ multiplet is given by~\footnote{Note the dependence on the ambiguity parameter $\gamma$, which is now an arbitrary constant (for simplicity we assumed a constant $\kappa$, thus preserving all the isometries of the background). In the following we tacitly assume that $\gamma$ is real, although the generalization to complex $\gamma$ is straightforward.}
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{L abcf}
\mathscr{L}_{(a,b,c,f)} &= 4 D_{\bar{w}} \tilde{a} D_w a + \lambda^2 \tilde{a} a + 2 i\gamma (\tilde{a} D_{\bar{w}} a - a D_{\bar{w}} \tilde{a}) - \tilde{f}f \\
& \quad + 2i \tilde{b} D_{\bar{w}} b + 2i \tilde{c} D_{w} c + 2\gamma \tilde{c}c - i \lambda (\tilde{b}c + \tilde{c}b)~.
\eea
One easily checks that (\ref{L abcf}) is supersymmetric under (\ref{S-var-csf}).
\subsubsection{Short Multiplets}
The zero modes on the $S^2$ give rise to short multiplets of $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ supersymmetry on the torus. There are three cases, depending on the shifted R-charge (\ref{shifted R def})~:
\paragraph{Case ${\bf r}=1$.} For ${\bf r}=1$, there are no zero modes.
\paragraph{Case ${\bf r} > 1$.} The fermionic zero modes for ${\bf r}>1$ were given in (\ref{psi-exp}), with $j_0=\frac{{\bf r}}{2}-1$ and $m=-j_0,\ldots,j_0$. They constitute a spin $j_0$ representation of $SO(3)$. The corresponding two-dimensional fermions $b_{j_0 m}$ are paired with the corresponding modes $f_{j_0 m}$ of $F$. The short multiplet $(b,f)$ realizes a fermi multiplet \cite{Witten:1993yc} of the $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ supersymmetry,
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{bf-zmode-var}
\delta b &= f~, &\qquad \t \delta b &= 0~, \\
\delta f &=0~, &\qquad \t \delta f &= 2i D_{\bar{w}} b~.
\eea
These variations are simply a truncation of (\ref{S-var-csf}) for $\lambda=0$. The supersymmetric Lagrangian reads
\be \label{bf-Lag}
\mathscr{L}_{(b,f)} = - \tilde{f}f + 2 i \tilde{b} D_{\bar{w}} b~.
\end{equation}
\paragraph{Case ${\bf r} < 1$.} For ${\bf r} <1$, the fermionic zero modes were given in (\ref{psi-exp ii}), with $j_0=\frac{|{\bf r}|}{2}$ and $m=-j_0,\ldots,j_0$. The corresponding two-dimensional fermions $c_{j_0 m}$ are paired with the $|{\bf r}|+1$ bosonic zero modes $a_{j_0 m}$ of the scalar $\phi$.
The short multiplet $(a,c)$ is a chiral multiplet \cite{Witten:1993yc} of $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ supersymmetry,
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{ac-zmode-var}
\delta a &= c~, & \qquad \t \delta a &= 0~, \\
\delta c &=0~, &\qquad \t \delta c &= 2iD_{\bar{w}} a~. \\
\eea
Its supersymmetric Lagrangian is
\be \label{ac-Lag}
\mathscr{L}_{(a,c)} = 2D_{\bar{w}} \tilde{a} D_w a + 2D_w \tilde{a} D_{\bar{w}} a + 2i \gamma(\tilde{a} D_{\bar{w}} a - a D_{\bar{w}} \tilde{a}) +2 i \tilde{c} D_{w} c + 2\gamma \tilde{c}c~.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Twisted Boundary Conditions on the Torus}
We started with a theory on $T^2 \times S^2$ and reduced it to a theory on a torus with modular parameter $\tau$. At first sight, all dependence on the second complex structure parameter $\sigma= \tau\alpha -\beta$ has disappeared from the effective theories \eqref{L abcf},\eqref{bf-Lag},\eqref{ac-Lag}. However, this dependence remains through twisted boundary conditions for the fields on the torus. Consider the expansion \eqref{expansion phi} of the scalar $\phi$. The monopole harmonics $Y_{{\bf r}\, jm}$ satisfy $Y_{{\bf r}\, jm} \sim e^{2\pi i (m + {{\bf r}\over 2}) \alpha} Y_{{\bf r}\, jm}$ for $x\sim x+ 2\pi$, and $Y_{{\bf r}\, jm} \sim e^{2\pi i (m + {{\bf r}\over 2}) \beta} Y_{{\bf r}\, jm}$ for $y\sim y+ 2\pi$. Since $\phi$ satisfies the boundary conditions \eqref{twisted bd ii}, each mode $a$ of angular momentum $j,m$ must satisfy
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{boundary condtions modes}
a(w+ 2\pi, {\b w} + 2\pi) &= e^{-2\pi i m \alpha} a(w,{\b w})~, \cr
a(w+ 2\pi \tau, {\b w} + 2\pi \b\tau) &= e^{-2\pi i m \beta} a(w,{\b w})~.
\eea
The modes $b, c, f$ also satisfy these boundary conditions.~\footnote{Equivalently, we could choose periodic boundary conditions on $T^2$ and introduce a flat connection which couples to all the modes through their angular momentum $J_3=m$.}
The momentum operators along the one-cycles of the torus on modes $a,b,c,f$ of angular momentum $m$ are
\be
P_x = -i \d_x + m \alpha~, \qquad
P_y = -i \d_y+ m\beta~.
\end{equation}
In the following, we will consider $y$ to be the ``time'' coordinate for canonical quantization while $x$ will be the space coordinate. Then $P_x$ corresponds to the momentum denoted by $P$ in (\ref{H short mult}), while $-i P_y$ corresponds to the Hamiltonian.
\subsection{Canonical Quantization and Supersymmetric Index}
Let us now compute the index (\ref{def S2T2 index}). To do so, we could further reduce the two-dimensional theories of the previous subsection on a circle, to obtain a quantum mechanics for states on $S^1\times S^2$. However, it will be more illuminating to directly quantize the theory on the torus.
The only states that contribute to the index sit in short multiplets (\ref{bf-zmode-var}) or (\ref{ac-zmode-var}). We will focus on those in the following. For ${\bf r}=1$ there are no short multiplets, all states are paired by supersymmetry, and the index is simply
\be
\mathcal{I}_{{\bf r}=1}(q,x,t) = 1~.
\end{equation}
Let us next consider the non-trivial cases ${\bf r} \neq 1$. We choose the direction $y$ on the torus to be the time direction for canonical quantization. The boundary condition along the remaining spatial direction $x$ is given by the first line in \eqref{boundary condtions modes}.
\subsubsection{Case ${\bf r} >1$~: The Fermi Multiplet}
The theory (\ref{bf-Lag}) is particularly simple. The auxiliary field $f$ has no on-shell degrees of freedom and the equation of motion of $b$ is $D_{\b w} b=0$. It follows from \eqref{bf-zmode-var} that the supercharges annihilate all the states in this sector. Let us also note that the index for ${\bf r}>1$ is trivially independent of the constant $\gamma$, since it does not appear in (\ref{bf-Lag}).
The fermionic wave functions are given by
\be
b = e^{i { q_f} v_{\bar{w}} (\bar{w}-w)} e^{-i \alpha m w}\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-ikw}}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} b_k~, \qquad
\tilde{b} = e^{-i { q_f} v_{\bar{w}} (\bar{w}-w)} e^{i \alpha m w} \sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{e^{ikw}}{ \sqrt{2 \pi}} \tilde{b}_k~.
\end{equation}
The canonical commutation relations imply
\be
\{ b_k, \tilde{b}_l \} = \delta_{kl}~,
\end{equation}
and the Hamiltonian is
\be \label{bf hamiltonian}
H_{(b,f)} = - i \sum_k \left(\tau k+ m \sigma + { q_f} \nu \right)\tilde{b}_k b_k~.
\end{equation}
Recall that $\sigma= \tau \alpha - \beta$ and $\nu = \tau a_x - a_y$. We assume that the geometric moduli $\tau, \sigma$ and $\nu$ are given generic values, such that the Hamiltonian has no zero modes. The operators $b_k$ are either annihilation or creations operators, depending on $k$. Demanding that the real part of $H_{(b,f)}$ be positive, we find that $b_k$ is an annihilation operator for $k+ m\alpha + { q_f} a_x > 0$, while it is a creation operator for $k+ m\alpha + { q_f} a_x <0 $. Upon reordering $b_k$ and $\tilde b_k$ so that all modes have positive excitation energy, we obtain a Casimir energy~:
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{E0 ac mult}
E_0 &= i \sum_{k > m \alpha + q_f a_x} (k \tau - m \sigma - q_f \nu ) \cr
&= -i\tau \left(\frac{1}{12} + \frac{l_m(l_m+1)}{2} \right)+ i (m\sigma + q_f \nu) \left(\frac{1}{2} + l_m \right)~.
\eea
In the second line we used zeta function regularization,~\footnote{Here we used the Riemann zeta function after splitting the sum in \eqref{E0 ac mult}. Using the Hurwitz zeta function instead, we would find an additional term $-{i\over 2 \tau}(m\sigma + { q_f} \nu)^2$. We are assuming that this quadratic term is scheme dependent.} and $l_m$ is defined as the integer such that $l_m < m\alpha + q_f a_x < l_m+1$.
We now compute the index
\be\label{trace bf sector}
\mathcal{I} = \mathrm{Tr}\left((-1)^F e^{-2\pi H_{(b,f)}}\right)~.
\end{equation}
Here the trace includes a sum over the ${\bf r}-1$ copies of the $(b,f)$ multiplets (with $m= -{{\bf r}\over 2}+1, \ldots, {{\bf r}\over 2}-1$).
Let us define the fugacities
\begin{align} \label{def fug}
q &= e^{2\pi i \tau}\, , & x &= e^{2\pi i\sigma}\, , & t &= e^{2\pi i \nu}~.
\end{align}
Using the explicit form of the Hamiltonian in \eqref{bf hamiltonian}, the single particle index is given by
\be\label{Isp}
\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{sp}} = -\sum_{m= -{{\bf r}\over 2}+1}^{ {{\bf r}\over 2}-1} \left( \sum_{k > m\alpha+{ q_f} \alpha_x} q^k x^{-m} t^{-{ q_f}} + \sum_{k > - m\alpha- { q_f} a_x} q^k x^{m} t^{ q_f} \right)~,
\end{equation}
The first sum over $k$ comes from the single particle states $b_k | 0\rangle$ with $k+ m \alpha + { q_f} a_x < 0$. They have quantum numbers $P=-k$, $J_3=-m$, ${Q_f} =-{ q_f}$. It is convenient to change $k \rightarrow -k$ such that these states are weighted by $q^k x^{-m} t^{-q_f}$. Similarly, the second sum over $k$ in \eqref{Isp} corresponds to states $\t b_k | 0\rangle$ with $k+ m \alpha + { q_f} a_x>0$.
The full index is obtained by plethystic exponentiation \cite{Kinney:2005ej,Aharony:2003sx, Benvenuti:2006qr, Feng:2007ur}~:
\begin{align}\nonumber
\prod_{m= -{{\bf r}\over 2}+1}^{{{\bf r}\over 2}-1} \left[ \frac{q^{1/12}}{\sqrt{x^m t^{ q_f}}} \frac{q^{l_m(l_m+1)/2}}{(x^m t^{ q_f})^{l_m}} \prod_{k > m \alpha+ { q_f} a_x} \left(1- q^k x^{ -m } t^{-{ q_f}} \right) \prod_{k > - m \alpha- { q_f} a_x} \left(1- q^k x^{ m } t^{ q_f} \right) \right]~,
\end{align}
where we also included the contribution from the Casimir energy \eqref{E0 ac mult}.
Up to a constant phase which we discard, the term inside the square brackets can be written as
\begin{align} \label{}
\frac{q^{1/12}}{\sqrt{x^m t^{ q_f}}}\prod_{k \geq 0} \left(1- q^{k+1} x^{ -m } t^{-q_f} \right) \left(1- q^k x^{ m } t^{q_f} \right) &= -i \frac{\theta_1(m\sigma + q_f \nu,\tau)}{\eta(\tau)}~.
\end{align}
Here we introduced the theta function \cite{Chandrasekharan}
\begin{align} \label{def theta1}
\theta_1(\rho,\tau) &= 2 q^{\frac{1}{8}} \sin \pi\rho \prod_{k=1}^{\infty}(1-q^k)(1-q^ky)(1-q^k y^{-1})~,
\end{align}
with $y = e^{2\pi i \rho}$, and the eta function $\eta(\tau)=q^{1/24} \prod_{k \geq 1}(1-q^k)$. The index for a four-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral multiplet of shifted $R$-charge ${\bf r} >1$ is then given by
\begin{align} \label{index rs g 1}
\mathcal{I}_{{\bf r}>1} &= \left( \frac{q^{1/12}}{\sqrt{ t^{ q_f}}} \right)^{{\bf r} -1 }\prod_{m= -{{\bf r}\over 2}+1}^{{{\bf r}\over 2}-1} \prod_{k \geq 0} \left(1- q^{k+1} x^{ -m } t^{-q_f} \right) \left(1- q^k x^{ m } t^{q_f} \right) \nonumber \\
&= \prod_{m= -{{\bf r}\over 2}+1}^{{{\bf r}\over 2}-1} \frac{\theta_1(m\sigma + q_f \nu,\tau)}{i \, \eta(\tau)} \, .
\end{align}
This is the result \eqref{result} advertised in the introduction. It also agrees with the result of \cite{Benini:2013nda,Benini:2013xpa} for $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ fermi multiplets.
\subsubsection{Case ${\bf r}<1$~: The Chiral Multiplet}
Consider the $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ chiral mutiplet with Lagrangian \eqref{ac-Lag}. Unlike for the fermi multiplet, not every state in this sector contributes to the index. The equations of motion are
\be
D_{\bar{w}} (D_{w} - i\gamma ) a = 0~,\qquad (D_{w} - i\gamma ) c = 0~,
\end{equation}
and their most general solution takes the form
\be
a(w,\bar{w}) = e^{i { q_f} v_{\b w} {\b w}} a_{\mathrm{H}}(w) + e^{i({ q_f} v_w +\gamma) w}a_{\mathrm{AH}}(\bar{w})~,\qquad c(w,{\b w}) = e^{i({ q_f} v_w+ \gamma) w}c_{\mathrm{AH}}(\bar{w})~.
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{ac-zmode-var} that the anti-holomorphic modes $a_{\mathrm{AH}}, c_{\mathrm{AH}}$ are paired together and therefore do not contribute to the index. We thus focus on the holomorphic modes of $a$. We have the mode expansion
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}
( D_{w} - i\gamma)a &= i e^{i { q_f} v_{\bar{w}} (\bar{w}-w)} e^{-i \alpha m w} \sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{ e^{-ikw}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}a_k~,\cr
(D_{w} + i \gamma)\tilde{a} &= i e^{-i { q_f} v_{\bar{w}} (\bar{w}-w)}e^{i \alpha m w} \sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{e^{ikw}}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \tilde{a}_k~.
\eea
The canonical commutation relations are equivalent to
\begin{align} \label{}
[a_k,\tilde{a}_l] &= \frac{1}{2}(k+ m\alpha+ { q_f} a_x + \gamma)\delta_{k l}~.
\end{align}
Depending on the value of $k$, the operators $a_k$ are either creation or annihilation operators, like for the $(b,f)$ multiplet discussed above. For $k$ such that $k + m\alpha+{ q_f} a_x + \gamma > 0$, $\tilde a_k$ is the creation operators. When $k + m\alpha+{ q_f} a_x + \gamma < 0$, we change notation $k \rightarrow -k$ and $a_{-k}$ is the creation operator. As before, we are assuming that the geometric parameters are generic.
The Hamiltonian acting on the ``holomorphic'' states (created by $\t a_k$ or $a_{k}$) reads
\be\label{holo H ac}
H_{a_{\mathrm H }} = -i \sum_k(k\tau + m \sigma + { q_f} \nu)\frac{2\tilde{a}_k a_k}{(k+ m\alpha + { q_f} a_x + \gamma)}~.
\end{equation}
The complete Hamiltonian, including the contribution from the anti-holomorphic modes, is rather more complicated and will be omitted here.
The operators $a_k, \tilde a_k$ in \eqref{holo H ac} are not normal ordered. As in the ${\bf r} >1$ case, this leads to a zero point energy which we compute by zeta function regularization.
One can obtain the index for the four-dimensional chiral multiplet with ${\bf r} <1$ by summing over the $|{\bf r}|+1$ copies of the $(a,c)$ multiplet and using the same arguments as in the last subsection. One finds
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{result index rs less than 1}
\mathcal{I}_{{\bf r}<1} &= \left( \frac{\sqrt{t^{ q_f}}}{q^{1/12}} \right)^{|{\bf r}| + 1 }\prod_{m= -{|{\bf r}|\over 2}}^{{|{\bf r}|\over 2}} \prod_{k \geq 0} \frac{1}{\left(1- q^{k+1} x^{ -m } t^{-q_f} \right)} \frac{1}{\left(1- q^k x^{ m } t^{q_f} \right)} \cr
&= \prod_{m= -{|{\bf r}|\over 2}}^{{|{\bf r}|\over 2}} i \frac{ \eta(\tau)}{\theta_1(m\sigma + q_f \nu,\tau)}~.
\eea
This gives \eqref{result ii}, and it agrees with the result of \cite{Benini:2013nda,Benini:2013xpa} for $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ chiral multiplets.
Note that the arbitrary parameter $\gamma$ does not contribute to the final answer.
\subsection{Modular Properties of $\mathcal{I}^\Phi_{T^2\times S^2}$}\label{sec: mod prop}
Let us briefly comment on the modular properties of the $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral multiplet index $\mathcal{I}^\Phi_{T^2\times S^2}$ obtained above. This partition function depends on three continuous parameters~: $\tau$, $\sigma$ and $\nu$. The first two parameters are the complex structures moduli of $T^2 \times S^2$ while the third is a holomorphic line bundle modulus for the $U(1)_f$ global symmetry. Those are the only continuous parameters on which the partition function is allowed to depend \cite{Closset:2013vra}.
As explained in section 3, two different values of the parameters $\tau$ and $\sigma$ correspond to the same complex structure if they are related by the following transformations~:
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{Gcsi ii}
& S \; : \; \; (\tau, \sigma) \mapsto \left(-{1\over \tau},\, {\sigma \over \tau} \right)\, , \qquad\quad
& T \; : \; \; (\tau, \sigma) \mapsto (\tau+1, \, \sigma)\, , \cr
& U \; : \; \; (\tau, \sigma) \mapsto (\tau, \, \sigma +\tau )\, , \qquad\quad
& V \; : \; \; (\tau, \sigma) \mapsto (\tau, \, \sigma + 1)\, ,
\eea
These operations generate a slight generalization of the modular group of the torus.
While one may naively expect the partition function to be modular invariant, this is actually not the case.
Since these transformations correspond to large diffeomorphisms, the failure of modular invariance is interpreted as a gravitational anomaly. It would be interesting to understand this point better.
The modular group also acts on $\nu$ in the standard way, $S : \nu \mapsto \nu/ \tau$ and $T : \nu \mapsto \nu$.
Additionally, since the flat connections $a_x$ and $a_y$ are identified as $a_x\sim a_x + 1$, $a_y\sim a_y+1$ by large gauge transformations, we have the additional transformations $U' : \nu \mapsto \nu + \tau$ and $V' : \nu \mapsto \nu + 1$ which are independent of $U$ and $V$. These large gauge transformations $U', V'$ are also anomalous.
Using the representation of the index in terms of the theta function \eqref{def theta1}, one can find its behaviour under the modular transformations described above. We have the following transformations~:
\begin{align} \label{mod trans}
\frac{\theta_1(\rho, \tau+1)}{\eta(\tau+1)} &= e^{\pi i/6} \, \frac{\theta_1(\rho, \tau)}{\eta(\tau)}~, &
\frac{\theta_1(\rho+\tau, \tau)}{\eta(\tau)} &= -e^{-i\pi \tau}e^{-2\pi i \rho} \, \frac{\theta_1(\rho, \tau)}{\eta(\tau)}, \nonumber \\
\frac{\theta_1(\rho+1, \tau)}{\eta(\tau)} &= -\frac{\theta_1(\rho, \tau)}{\eta(\tau)}~, &
\frac{\theta_1\left(\frac{\rho}{\tau} , -\frac{1}{\tau} \right)}{\eta \left(-\frac{1}{\tau}\right)} &= -ie^{\frac{\pi i\rho^2}{\tau}} \, \frac{\theta_1(\rho, \tau)}{\eta(\tau)}~.
\end{align}
In this work, we will not adress the question of whether it is possible to restore some of the modular properties by tuning some local terms. A better understanding of the scheme dependence of our answer would require a systematic understanding of the allowed supersymmetric counterterms, similar to \cite{Closset:2012vg,Closset:2012vp} in three dimensions. One can however see by inspection that it is not possible to achieve a fully modular invariant partition function.
\section{The Chiral Multiplet Partition Function on $\mathcal{M}_4$}\label{sec: chiral mult Z}
In this section, we propose a simple method to compute the $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral multiplet partition function on any four-dimensional background with two supercharges. We evaluate the path integral explicitly using supersymmetric localization; see for instance \cite{Pestun:2007rz, Kapustin:2009kz, Jafferis:2010un, Hama:2010av, Hama:2011ea, Imamura:2011wg, Alday:2013lba} for similar arguments.
After introducing some formalism in subsections \ref{subsec: frame}, \ref{subsec: chiral rev} and \ref{subsec: inner product}, we will explain our path integral result in subsection \ref{subsec: eigenvalues}. In the remaining subsections we will apply our method to the case of $T^2\times S^2$ and $S^3\times S^1$.
\subsection{Building a Frame from the Killing Spinors}\label{subsec: frame}
Consider a background with two supercharges. From the Killing spinors $\zeta$ and $\t\zeta$, we can build the vectors~\footnote{Note that $K, \b K$ and $Y, \b Y$ are not complex conjugates of each other. We hope that this choice of notation will not lead to any confusion.}
\be\label{defKXY}
K^\mu = \t\zeta \t\sigma^\mu \zeta~, \quad\quad
\b K^\mu ={1\over 4}{ \t\zeta^\dagger \t\sigma^\mu \zeta^\dagger\over |\zeta|^2 |\t \zeta|^2}~, \quad\quad
Y^\mu = {\t\zeta^\dagger \t \sigma^\mu \zeta \over 2 |\t \zeta|^2}~,
\quad \quad
\b Y^\mu =- {\t\zeta\, \t \sigma^\mu \zeta^\dagger \over 2 |\zeta|^2 } ~.
\end{equation}
Note that $Y$ and $\b Y$ have $R$-charge $\pm 2$, respectively.
The vectors $K$ and $Y$ are anti-holomorphic with respect to the complex structure ${J^\mu}_\nu$ defined in \eqref{csfromzeta}, while $\b K$ and $\b Y$ are holomorphic. Moreover, $Y$ and $\b Y$ are valued in their respective $R$-symmetry line bundles $L^{\pm 2}$. The vectors \eqref{defKXY} are normalized such that
$K_\mu \b K^\mu = Y_\mu \b Y^\mu ={1\over 2}$, and all other contractions of two of the vectors \eqref{defKXY} vanish. These vectors provide a ($R$-charged) frame which will be very convenient below.
The vector $K$ is Killing, as already mentioned in section \ref{sec: susy with two supercharges}, while the three other vectors satisfy
\be
\nabla_\mu \b K^\mu = 0~, \qquad D_\mu Y^\mu=0~, \qquad D_\mu \b Y^\mu=0~.
\end{equation}
The covariant derivative $D_\mu$ was defined in \eqref{covder}. These relations follow from the Killing spinor equations \eqref{KSE}.
It will be convenient to define the following operators acting on charged {\it scalars},
\be\label{def LKXY}
\hat\mathcal{L}_K = K^\mu D_\mu~, \qquad \quad
\hat\mathcal{L}_{\b K} = \b K^\mu D_\mu~, \qquad \quad
\hat\mathcal{L}_Y = Y^\mu D_\mu~, \qquad \quad
\hat\mathcal{L}_{\b Y} = {\b Y}^\mu D_\mu~.
\end{equation}
Note that $\hat\mathcal{L}_Y$ and $\hat\mathcal{L}_{\b Y}$ shift the $R$-charge by $\pm 2$, respectively. The following lemma will be useful~:
\be\label{lemma CLK}
[\hat\CL_K, \hat\CL_{\b K}]=0~, \qquad \quad [\hat\CL_K ,\hat\CL_Y]= 0~,\qquad\quad [\hat\CL_K, \hat\CL_{\b Y}]= 0~.
\end{equation}
This lemma is most easily proven in the adapted coordinates $w,z$, in terms of which we have
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{XYZ with wz}
& K = \d_{\b w}~, &\qquad \quad & Y ={ s\over c\, \Omega^2}\, ( \d_{\b z} - \b h \, \d_{\b w} )~, \cr
& \b K = {1\over \Omega^2} \d_w~,& \qquad \quad & \b Y= {1\over c\, s}\, ( \d_{ z} - h \, \d_{w} )~.
\eea
Here the functions $\Omega(z,\b z)$, $h(z,\b z)$, $c(z,\b z)$ and $s(z,\b z)$ are the ones appearing in (\ref{2Q backgd i}),(\ref{2Q backgd ii}).
Therefore, we see that \eqref{lemma CLK} is equivalent to
\be
[D_{\b w}, D_{\b z}]= [D_w, D_{\b w}]=[D_z , D_{\b w}]=0~,
\end{equation}
with the covariant derivative acting on scalar fields. For a field of $R$-charge $r$ and ${Q_f}$ charge ${ q_f}$, we have $[D_\mu, D_\nu]= -i r F_{\mu\nu}- i { q_f} f_{\mu\nu}$, where $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the field strength of the $R$-symmetry gauge field $A_\mu$ and $f_{\mu\nu}$ is defined in \eqref{def fmn for v}. We already stated that $f_{\mu\nu}$ satisfies \eqref{background V}. We can similarly show that the Killing spinor equations imply
\be\label{constrain field strength FA}
F_{\b w\b z}= F_{w\b w}=F_{z\b w} =0~,
\end{equation}
in the presence of two Killing spinors $\zeta$, $\t\zeta$. (The first equation $F_{{\b w}{\b z}}=0$ follows from the existence of a single Killing spinor $\zeta$.) This proves \eqref{lemma CLK}. One can also compute
\be\label{YYt com}
[\hat\CL_Y, \hat\CL_{\b Y}]= i (V^\mu -\kappa K^\mu) D_\mu +{r\over 8} (R-6 V^\mu V_\mu) - {{ q_f} \over 2} D~.
\end{equation}
Here $R$ is the Ricci scalar and $D$ the auxiliary background field given by \eqref{background V}.
\subsection{The Chiral Multiplet Revisited}\label{subsec: chiral rev}
Consider a chiral multiplet coupled to an external gauge field, as discussed in section \ref{subsec: chiral mult}.
For a chiral multiplet $\Phi=(\phi, \psi, F)$ of $R$-charge $r$ and ${Q_f}$-charge ${ q_f}$, we can use the Killing spinor $\zeta$ to define
\be\label{defBC}
B= {1\over \sqrt2}{\zeta^\dagger \psi \over |\zeta|^2}~, \qquad C=\sqrt{2} \zeta\psi~, \qquad \Leftrightarrow \qquad
\psi_\alpha = \sqrt2 \zeta_\alpha B-{1\over \sqrt2} {\zeta^\dagger_\alpha\over {|\zeta|^2} }C \, .
\end{equation}
The fields $B$, $C$ are anticommuting scalars of $R$-charge $r-2$, $r$, respectively. In terms of the variables $(\phi, B, C, F)$, the transformation rules (\ref{susychiralfdgauged}) read
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{susychiralBC}
\delta \phi &= C~, &\qquad \t \delta \phi &= 0~, \cr
\delta B &= F~, &\qquad \t \delta B &= -2 i \,\hat\CL_{\b Y} \phi~, \cr
\delta C &= 0~, &\qquad \t \delta C &= 2 i \, \hat\CL_K \phi~, \cr
\delta F &= 0~, &\qquad \t \delta F &=2 i \left( \hat\CL_K B + \hat\CL_{\b Y} C \right)~.
\eea
For an anti-chiral multiplet $\t\Phi=(\t\phi,\t \psi,\t F)$ of charges $-r$ and $-{ q_f}$, we use $\t\zeta$ to define
\be\label{defBCt}
\t B= {1\over \sqrt2} {\t \zeta^\dagger \t\psi \over |\t \zeta|^2}~, \qquad \t C= \sqrt2 \t \zeta\t \psi~, \qquad \Leftrightarrow \qquad
\t \psi_{\dot\alpha} = \sqrt2 \t\zeta_{\dot\alpha} \t B - {1\over\sqrt2} {{\t\zeta^\dagger_{\dot\alpha}}\over {|\t\zeta|^2}} \t C \, .
\end{equation}
The supersymmetry transformations (\ref{susyantichiralfdgauged}) become
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{susyachiralBC}
\delta \t \phi &= 0~, &\qquad \t \delta \t \phi &= \t C~, \cr
\delta \t B &= 2 i \,\hat\CL_Y \t \phi~, &\qquad \t \delta \t B &= \t F~, \cr
\delta \t C &= 2 i \, \hat\CL_K \t \phi~, &\qquad \t \delta \t C &= 0~, \cr
\delta \t F &= 2 i \left( \hat\CL_K \t B - \hat\CL_Y \t C \right)~, &\qquad \t \delta \t F &=0~.
\eea
Using (\ref{lemma CLK}), one can see that the transformations (\ref{susychiralBC}), (\ref{susyachiralBC}) realize the supersymmetry algebra $\{ \delta, \t \delta\} = 2i \hat\CL_K$. It should be emphasized that in the new variables the supercharges are scalars and $R$ neutral.
It is illuminating to write the chiral multiplet Lagrangian \eqref{Lag Phi} in terms of the new variables. With the help of \eqref{YYt com}, one finds
\begin{align} \label{twLag}
\mathscr{L}_{\Phi \t \Phi} &= 4\hat\CL_{\b K} \t \phi \hat\CL_K \phi + 4 \hat\CL_Y \t \phi \hat\CL_{\b Y} \phi + i \kappa (\hat\CL_K \t \phi \phi - \t \phi \hat\CL_K \phi) - \t F F \cr
& \quad +2 i \t B \hat\CL_K B + 2 i \t C \hat\CL_{\b K} C +2i \t B \hat\CL_{\b Y} C - 2i \t C \hat\CL_Y B - \kappa \t C C.
\end{align}
The results \eqref{susychiralBC}, \eqref{susyachiralBC}, \eqref{twLag} should be compared to \eqref{S-var-csf}, \eqref{L abcf}. We will see in the following that we can take the analogy to the $T^2 \times S^2$ computation further. For any background $\mathcal{M}_4$ with two supercharges, only modes in shortened multiplets will contribute to the $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral multiplet partition function $Z^\Phi_{\mathcal{M}_4}$ ---those short multiplets are of the form $(B, F)$ or $(\phi, C)$, similarly to the fermi and chiral $\mathcal{N}=(0,2)$ multiplets of section \ref{sec: compute index}.
\subsection{Reality Condition and Inner Product}\label{subsec: inner product}
We would like to evaluate the path integral of a chiral multiplet with Lagrangian \eqref{twLag} explicitly.
In order to define the Euclidian path integral, we need to choose a contour of integration. We will assign the following reality conditions to the fields $\phi, B, C, F$ in a chiral multiplet of $R$-charge $r$~:
\be\label{real cond}
\t\phi = {\Omega^r \over |s|^r} \phi^\dagger~,\qquad\quad
\t C = {\Omega^r \over |s|^r} C^\dagger~,\qquad\quad
\t B = {\Omega^{r-2} \over |s|^{r-2}} B^\dagger~,\qquad\quad
\t F= -{\Omega^{r-2} \over |s|^{r-2}} F^\dagger~,
\end{equation}
with $\Omega$ and $s$ the quantities defined in section \ref{sec: susy with two supercharges}. This prescription is consistent with the complexified $R$-symmetry transformations and dimensional analysis (recall that $s$ has $R$-charge $2$).
It will also be useful to consider appropriate inner products on field space.
For the fields $\phi$ and $C$ of $R$-charge $r$, let us define the inner product
\be\label{in prod 1}
\langle \phi_1, \phi_2 \rangle_r = \int \, d^4x \sqrt{g} \,{\Omega^{r}\over |s|^r} {\phi^\dagger_1\, \phi_2 \over \Omega^2}~.
\end{equation}
Similarly, for the fields $B$ and $F$ of $R$-charge $r-2$, we define
\be\label{in prod 2}
\langle B_1, B_2 \rangle_{r-2} = \int \, d^4x \sqrt{g} \,{\Omega^{r-2} \over |s|^{r-2}}B^\dagger_1\, B_2~.
\end{equation}
We will denote by $\mathcal{H}_r$ and $\mathcal{H}_{r-2}$ the corresponding Hilbert spaces. Note that the operator $i \hat\CL_{\b Y}$ acting on $\phi$ or $C$ and the operator $i \Omega^2 \hat\CL_Y$ acting on $B$ or $F$ are maps between different Hilbert spaces,
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{adj op LY LYt}
i \hat\CL_{\b Y}~: \mathcal{H}_r \rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{r-2}~, \qquad\qquad i\Omega^2 \hat\CL_Y~: \mathcal{H}_{r-2} \rightarrow \mathcal{H}_{r}~,
\eea
while $i\mathcal{L}_K$ and $i \Omega^2 \hat\CL_{\b K}$ act inside $\mathcal{H}_r$ or $\mathcal{H}_{r-2}$ (depending on the $R$-charge).
Moreover, the two operators \eqref{adj op LY LYt} are mutually adjoint (see Appendix \ref{App: Pairing})~:
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{adjoint property}
&\langle \phi, i \Omega^2 \hat\CL_Y B \rangle_{r}= \langle i \hat\CL_{\b Y} \phi, B \rangle_{r-2}~, \cr
& \langle B, i \hat\CL_{\b Y} \phi \rangle_{r-2}= \langle i\Omega^2 \hat\CL_Y B, \phi \rangle_{r}~.
\eea
\subsection{Localization and Unpaired Eigenvalues}\label{subsec: eigenvalues}
Let us consider the following $\delta$-exact deformation of the $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral multiplet theory \eqref{twLag}~:
\be\label{Sloctop}
\mathscr{L}_{\rm loc}= \delta\left( -2 i \t B \hat\CL_{\b Y} \phi - 2 i \t C \hat\CL_{\b K} \phi - \t F B \right)~.
\end{equation}
This term is equal to \eqref{twLag} itself with $\kappa =0$. (Note that the full \eqref{twLag} is also $\delta$-exact.) It can be written
\be\label{Sloctopiii}
\mathscr{L}_{\rm loc}= 4\, \t\phi \big( - \hat\CL_{\b K} \hat\CL_K - \hat\CL_Y \hat\CL_{\b Y}\big) \phi +2 i\, \t\Psi \mat{ \hat\CL_K & \hat\CL_{\b Y} \cr -\hat\CL_Y & \hat\CL_{\b K} } \Psi \ - \t F F~,
\end{equation}
where we introduced $\Psi = (B,C)^{T}$ and $\t\Psi = (\t B, \t C)$. Let us define the kinetic operators
\be\label{kinops new}
\Delta_{\rm bos} = \Omega^2\big(- \hat\CL_{\b K} \hat\CL_K - \hat\CL_Y \hat\CL_{\b Y}\big)~, \qquad \quad \Delta_{\rm fer} = i \, \mat{ \hat\CL_K & \hat\CL_{\b Y} \cr -\Omega^2\hat\CL_Y & \Omega^2 \hat\CL_{\b K} }~.
\end{equation}
Note the appearance of factors of $\Omega^2$ in this definition, necessary to make these operators dimensionless. Using \eqref{real cond} and \eqref{kinops new}, we can write the localizing action in term of the inner products \eqref{in prod 1} and \eqref{in prod 2} as
\be\label{S loc inner prod}
S_{\rm loc} = \int d^4 x \sqrt{g}\, \mathscr{L}_{\rm loc}
= 4\langle \phi, \Delta_{\rm bos} \phi \rangle_r + 2 \langle \Psi, \Delta_{\rm fer} \Psi \rangle_{r, r-2} + \langle F, F \rangle_{r-2}~,
\end{equation}
where we defined
\be
\langle \Psi_1 , \Psi_2 \rangle_{r, r-2}= \langle B_1, B_2 \rangle_{r-2}+ \langle C_1, C_2 \rangle_{r}~.
\end{equation}
By a standard supersymmetric localization argument, we can deform the original theory by \eqref{S loc inner prod} with an arbitrarily large coefficient without affecting the path integral, which therefore reduces to a ratio of functional determinants,
\be\label{def Zloc}
Z_{\mathcal{M}_4}^\Phi = {\det{\Delta_{\rm fer}} \over\det{\Delta_{\rm bos}}}~.
\end{equation}
In deriving \eqref{def Zloc}, we are assuming that $\phi=0$ is the only relevant saddle point. (This is true for generic values of the complex structure and line bundle moduli.)
This result can be simplified further. Let us first note that
\be\label{rel dets}
i \, \mat{ \hat\CL_K & \hat\CL_{\b Y} \cr -\Omega^2\hat\CL_Y & \Omega^2 \hat\CL_{\b K} }\mat{1 & - i \hat\CL_{\b Y} \cr 0 & i \hat\CL_K } = \mat{i\hat\CL_K & 0 \cr -i \Omega^2\hat\CL_Y & \Delta_{\rm bos}}~,
\end{equation}
where we used $[\hat\CL_K,\hat\CL_{\b Y}]=0$. Taking the determinant on both sides of \eqref{rel dets}, we find
\begin{align} \label{SUSYdet}
\frac{\det \Delta_{\rm fer} } { \det \Delta_{\rm bos} } &= \frac{\det (i\hat\CL_K^{(r-2)})}{\det (i\hat\CL_K^{(r)})}~.
\end{align}
Here we denoted by $i\hat\CL_K^{(r-2)}$ and $i\hat\CL_K^{(r)}$ the operator $i\hat\CL_K$ acting on $\mathcal{H}_{r-2}$ and $\mathcal{H}_{r}$, respectively.
Consider next the adjoint operators \eqref{adj op LY LYt}. A standard argument shows that
\begin{align} \label{}
{\rm Ker} (i\Omega^2 \hat\CL_Y) &= {\rm Ker }(\hat\CL_{\b Y} \Omega^2\hat\CL_Y)~, & {\rm Ker} (i\hat\CL_{\b Y}) &={ \rm Ker} (\Omega^2 \hat\CL_Y \hat\CL_{\b Y})~,
\end{align}
and that the non-zero eigenvalues of $ \hat\CL_{\b Y} \Omega^2\hat\CL_Y$ and $\Omega^2 \hat\CL_Y \hat\CL_{\b Y}$ are in one-to-one correspondence.
In other words, $i \Omega^2\hat\CL_Y$ provides an isomorphism between the space of eigenfunctions of $\hat\CL_{\b Y} \Omega^2 \hat\CL_Y$ in $\mathcal{H}_{r-2}$ with non-vanishing eigenvalues and the space of eigenfunctions of $\Omega^2 \hat\CL_Y \hat\CL_{\b Y}$ in $\mathcal{H}_{r}$ with non-vanishing eigenvalues.
Additionally, by \eqref{lemma CLK} this isomorphism commutes with $i\hat\CL_K$.
It follows that all the eigenvalues of $i\hat\CL_K$ which lie outside of ${\rm Ker} (i\Omega^2 \hat\CL_Y)$ or ${\rm Ker} (i\hat\CL_{\b Y})$ cancel from \eqref{SUSYdet}. Therefore, we find that
\be\label{Z loc result}
Z_{\mathcal{M}_4}^\Phi=\frac{{\det}_{\rm Ker \hat\CL_Y} (i\hat\CL_K^{(r-2)})}{ {\det}_{\rm Ker \hat\CL_{\b Y}} (i\hat\CL_K^{(r)})}~.
\end{equation}
Similar arguments appeared, for instance, in \cite{Pestun:2007rz, Hama:2011ea, Alday:2013lba}.
Practically speaking, the partition function reduces to
\be\label{Zloc eigen}
Z_{\mathcal{M}_4}^\Phi = {\prod \lambda_B \over \prod \lambda_\phi}~,
\end{equation}
with the eigenvalues $\lambda_B$, $\lambda_\phi$ determined by the following BPS-like linear equations~:
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{eigenvaluesBPhi}
&i \hat\CL_K B = \lambda_B\, B\, , \qquad \quad & \hat\CL_Y B =0~, \cr
&i \hat\CL_K \phi = \lambda_\phi\, \phi\, , \qquad \quad &\hat\CL_{\b Y} \phi =0~.
\eea
It is also useful to rewrite these equations in terms of the complex coordinates $w, z$ using \eqref{XYZ with wz}~:
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{eigenvalueszw}
& i D_{\b w} B = \lambda_B\, B\, , \qquad \quad & (D_{\b z} - \b h \, D_{\b w})B=0 \, ,\cr
& i D_{\b w} \phi = \lambda_\phi\, \phi\, , \qquad \quad\quad & (D_{z} -h D_{ w})\phi =0 \, .
\eea
Let us note that the equation $\hat\CL_Y B =0$ in \eqref{eigenvaluesBPhi} is a condition for the shortening of the $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral multiplet. For a solution of this equation, it is consistent to set $C=0$ (and also $\phi=0$) because $B$ disappears from its equation of motion. We are then left with a short multiplet $(B,F)$ akin to the $(b,f)$ multiplet we found for $T^2 \times S^2$ in section \ref{sec: compute index}.
Similar remarks apply to $(\phi,C)$ and the $(a,c)$ multiplet of our $T^2 \times S^2$ index computation.
The equations \eqref{eigenvalueszw} are also consistent with known constraints on the parameter dependence of $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric partition functions \cite{Closset:2013vra}. We will see in the examples that the eigenvalues $\lambda_B, \lambda_\phi$ depend holomorphically on complex structure moduli and line bundle moduli (up to an arbitrary overall rescaling). Moreover, for any background with two supercharges the equations \eqref{eigenvalueszw} are independent of the ambiguity $\kappa$ in \eqref{2Q backgd ii}.
It is indeed expected that the partition function of a chiral multiplet be independent of $\kappa$, because this free theory possesses an FZ multiplet \cite{Closset:2013vra}.
In the rest of this section, we will compute \eqref{Zloc eigen} in two interesting examples. For $\mathcal{M}_4= T^2 \times S^2$, we will reproduce the canonical quantization result of section \ref{sec: compute index}. For $\mathcal{M}_4=S^3\times S^1$, we will reproduce the previously known result \cite{Romelsberger:2007ec, Dolan:2008qi} in a new and elegant manner.
\subsection{The Case of $T^2\times S^2$}
Let us compute the one-loop determinant \eqref{Zloc eigen} for the $T^2 \times S^2$ background of section \ref{complex_st}. Consider the $B$ modes first. They are solutions of the first line in \eqref{eigenvalueszw}, which becomes
\be\label{eigen eq num T2S2}
i \left(\d_{\b w} -i { q_f} v_{\b w}\right) B= \lambda_B \, B~, \quad\qquad \left(\d_{\b z} +{{\bf r} -2\over 2}{z\over 1+|z|^2} \right) B=0~.
\end{equation}
Here ${\bf r}$ is the shifted $R$-charge and $v_{\b w}$ the $U(1)_f$ flat connection, as defined in section \ref{subsec: backgd V}.
The second equation in \eqref{eigen eq num T2S2} implies $B = f_1(z) (1+|z|^2)^{-{{\bf r}-2\over 2}} f_2(w,{\b w})$, with $f_1(z)$ holomorphic. It is convenient to consider eigenmodes of the angular momentum operator $J_3 = z\partial_z - \bar z \partial_{\bar z} - \frac{{\bf r}-2}{2}$ on the sphere (see Appendix \ref{App: monopole harmonics}). $J_3 B = m B$ implies $f_1\propto z^{m+ {{\bf r}-2\over 2}}$.
We also consider definite momentum $n_x, n_y\in \mathbb{Z}$ on the torus. Taking into account the boundary conditions \eqref{twisted bd ii}, we find
\be\label{sol B T2S2}
B= e^{\frac{1}{2\tau_2}(n_x \tau -n_y - m\sigma) {\b w} - \frac{1}{2\tau_2}(n_x \bar \tau -n_y - m\bar \sigma) w}\frac{z^{m + \frac{{\bf r}-2}{2}}}{(1+z\bar z)^{\frac{{\bf r}-2}{2}}}~.
\end{equation}
Moreover, $B$ is normalizable if and only if $\frac{2-{\bf r}}{2} \leq m \leq \frac{{\bf r}-2}{2}$. In particular, solutions exist only if ${\bf r} \geq 2$.
We easily see that \eqref{sol B T2S2} solves \eqref{eigen eq num T2S2} with eigenvalue
\be\label{eigenvalues B T2S2}
\lambda_B = \frac{i}{2 \tau_2}(n_x \tau -n_y - m\sigma - { q_f} \nu)~.
\end{equation}
Note that the $B$ modes correspond to the first kind of spinor zero modes in \eqref{fer-0-modes}.
A similar analysis for the modes $\phi$ solving \eqref{eigenvalueszw} leads to
\be
\phi = e^{\frac{1}{2\tau_2}(n_x \tau -n_y - m\sigma) {\b w} - \frac{1}{2\tau_2}(n_x \bar \tau -n_y - m\bar \sigma) w} {(1+z\bar z)^{{{\bf r}\over 2}}\over {\b z}^{m+{{\bf r} \over 2}}}~,
\end{equation}
with $\frac{{\bf r}}{2} \leq m \leq -\frac{{\bf r}}{2}$. In particular such solutions exist only for ${\bf r} \leq 0$. The eigenvalues $\lambda_\phi$ are given by
\be\label{eigenvalues phi T2S2}
\lambda_\phi = \frac{i}{2 \tau_2}(n_x \tau -n_y - m\sigma - { q_f} \nu)~.
\end{equation}
These modes correspond to the second set of spinor zero modes in \eqref{fer-0-modes}.
Therefore, we have three distinct cases, depending on the shifted $R$-charge ${\bf r} \in \mathbb{Z}$. If ${\bf r}=1$, all the bosonic and fermionic modes are paired together by supersymmetry and therefore the partition function is
\be\label{Z one}
Z^\Phi_{T^2 \times S^2; \, {\bf r}=1} = 1\, .
\end{equation}
If ${\bf r}>1$, only the $B$ modes contribute to the partition function, with eigenvalues \eqref{eigenvalues B T2S2}~:
\be\label{Z r g one}
Z^\Phi_{T^2 \times S^2; \, {\bf r} > 1} = \prod_{m = -{{\bf r}\over 2}+1 }^{{{\bf r}\over 2}-1} \prod_{n_x, n_y = -\infty}^\infty \big( \tau n_x - n_y - m\sigma - { q_f} \nu \big)~.
\end{equation}
Here we rescaled away the overall factor of ${i\over 2 \tau_2}$ in \eqref{eigenvalues B T2S2}.~\footnote{Such an overall rescaling is arbitrary and does not affect the final answer in terms of $\zeta$-function regularized products.}
If ${\bf r}<1$, the $\phi$ mode eigenvalues \eqref{eigenvalues phi T2S2} are the ones which contribute~:
\be\label{Z r l one}
Z^\Phi_{T^2 \times S^2; \, {\bf r} < 1} = \prod_{m = -{|{\bf r}|\over 2} }^{|{\bf r}|\over 2} \prod_{n_x, n_y = -\infty}^\infty {1 \over \tau n_x - n_y - m\sigma - { q_f} \nu }~.
\end{equation}
The infinite products (\ref{Z r g one}), (\ref{Z r l one}) need to be properly regularized, which can be done using zeta function regularizaton ---see in particular Example 13 of \cite{QuineZeta}. This leads to \eqref{result}, \eqref{result ii}.
\subsection{The Case of $S^3\times S^1$~: The Elliptic Gamma Function}\label{subsec: S3 S1 Z}
The supersymmetric partition function of $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories on $S^3\times S^1$, $Z_{S^3\times S^1}$, has been well-studied in the literature. It computes a supersymmetric index for the theory quantized on $S^3$ \cite{Kinney:2005ej,Romelsberger:2005eg}, which has been computed exactly for rather general $\mathcal{N}=1$ gauge theories \cite{Romelsberger:2007ec, Dolan:2008qi}. In particular, the chiral multiplet partition function is given by a certain elliptic gamma function \cite{Dolan:2008qi}. In the following, we will rederive that last result using the method of section \ref{subsec: eigenvalues}.
Let us consider a complex manifold $\mathcal{M}_4^{p,q}$ diffeomorphic to $S^3 \times S^1$ called a primary Hopf surface of the first type. It is obtained as a quotient of $\mathbb{C}^2-(0,0)$~:
\be\label{Hopf surface}
(z_1, z_2)\sim (p\, z_1, q\, z_2)~, \qquad 0< |p|\leq |q|<1~.
\end{equation}
Here $z_1, z_2$ are the coordinates on $\mathbb{C}^2-(0,0)$, and $p, q$ are complex structure parameters. It was realized recently that the partition function $Z_{S^3\times S^1}$ is a locally holomorphic function on the complex structure moduli space of $\mathcal{M}_4^{p,q}$ \cite{Closset:2013vra}. We refer to \cite{Closset:2013vra} for more details and references.~\footnote{Note that our coordinates $z_1, z_2$ are denoted by $w,z$ in \cite{Closset:2013vra}. In the present paper we reserve the notation $w,z$ for the special coordinates adapted to two supercharges, such that $K= \d_{\b w}$ is the Killing vector built from the two Killing spinors.}
It will be convenient to introduce two complex parameters $\sigma=\sigma_1+ i\sigma_2$ and $\tau=\tau_1+ i \tau_2$ (with $\sigma_{1,2}, \tau_{1,2}$ real) such that
\be\label{p q to sigma tau}
p=e^{2\pi i \sigma}~, \qquad q= e^{2\pi i \tau}~, \qquad 0<\tau_2\leq \sigma_2~, \tau_1 \sim \tau_1+1~, \sigma_1 \sim \sigma_1 +1~.
\end{equation}
For generic values of $p,q$, $\mathcal{M}_4^{p,q}$ admits two supercharges \cite{Closset:2013vra}. In the rest of this subsection, we will consider the subcase $\sigma_2=\tau_2$ for simplicity. We consider the following Hermitian metric on $\mathcal{M}_4^{p,q}$ (with $|p|=|q|$)~:
\be\label{metric z1z2}
ds^2 = {1\over |z_1|^{2} + |z_2|^{2}}\left( dz_1 d{\b z}_1 + dz_2 d{\b z}_2 \right)~.
\end{equation}
To take advantage of the general discussion of section \ref{sec: susy with two supercharges}, we introduce new coordinates
\be\label{coord wz i}
w= - i \log z_1~, \qquad z= {z_2\over z_1}~.
\end{equation}
These coordinates cover $S^3 \times S^1$ except for the locus $z_1=0$, which can be covered with coordinates $w'= w- i \log z$, $z'= {1\over z}$. The $w, z$ coordinates \eqref{coord wz i} are subject to the following identifications~:
\be\label{periodicities S3S1 wz}
\big(w,z\big)\sim \big(w+ 2\pi {\sigma} ,\, e^{2\pi i (\tau_1 -\sigma_1)} z\big)~,\qquad
\big(w,z\big)\sim \big(w+ 2\pi ,\, z\big)~,
\end{equation}
It is convenient to consider real coordinates $x, \theta, \varphi, \chi$ on $S^3\times S^1$, with $x\in [0, 2\pi )$ the coordinate on the $S^1$ and $\theta\in [0,\pi]$, $\varphi, \chi \in [0, 2\pi)$ the coordinates on the $S^3$. In terms of these angular coordinates,
\be
w= \sigma x +\varphi - i\log{\left(\cos{\theta\over 2}\right)}~, \qquad z= e^{i(\tau_1 -\sigma_1) x}\tan{\theta\over 2} e^{i(\chi-\varphi)}~.
\end{equation}
The periodicities \eqref{periodicities S3S1 wz} correspond to $x\sim x+ 2\pi$ and $\varphi \sim \varphi + 2\pi$, respectively.
In terms of the $w, z$ coordinates, the metric \eqref{metric z1z2} takes the form
\be\label{metric S3S1 wz}
ds^2=\left(dw - {i{\b z}\over 1+|z|^2} d z\right)\left(d\b w + {iz\over 1+|z|^2} d \b z\right) + {1 \over (1+|z|^2)^2} dz d\b z~.
\end{equation}
The resulting supersymmetric background is studied in more detail in Appendix \ref{App: S3S1}. In addition to the supergravity background fields, we also consider a background gauge field for a $U(1)_f$ internal symmetry,
\be\label{bckgd gauge field S3S1}
a_\mu dx^\mu = {1\over 2 i \sigma_2}(a_r + i a_i)\left(dw - {i{\b z}\over 1+|z|^2} d z\right) - {1\over 2 i \sigma_2}(a_r - i a_i)\left(d\b w + {iz\over 1+|z|^2} d \b z\right)~,
\end{equation}
which preserves the same supercharges as \eqref{metric S3S1 wz}. Let us also define the fugacity
\be\label{def u S3S1}
u= e^{-2 \pi i(a_r-i a_i)}~.
\end{equation}
The complex parameter $a_r- i a_i$ is a holomorphic line bundle modulus \cite{Closset:2013vra}.
For generic values of $\tau_1, \sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2= \tau_2$, the background \eqref{metric S3S1 wz} has a $U(1)^3$ isometry, corresponding to rotations along the real angles $x, \varphi, \chi$ mentioned above. Supersymmetry dictates twisted periodicities for $R$-charged fields going around these angles.
The corresponding momentum operators acting on fields of $R$-charge $r$ are given by
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{P ops on S3S1}
P_x &= (\tau_1-\sigma_1) (z\d_z -{\b z} \d_{\b z} ) -i(\sigma \d_w +\b\sigma \d_{\b w}) -{r\over 2}(\tau_1-\sigma_1) ~,\cr
P_\varphi &=- (z\d_z -{\b z} \d_{\b z} ) - i ( \d_w + \d_{\b w}) +r ~,\cr
P_\chi &= (z\d_z -{\b z} \d_{\b z} )~.
\eea
These operators have integer eigenvalues. Note that
\be\label{K from Ps}
K =\d_{\b w}= {1\over 2 \sigma_2} \left(-P_x +\sigma P_\varphi + \tau P_\chi -{r\over 2} (\sigma+ \tau) \right)~.
\end{equation}
Let us compute the partition function for a chiral multiplet of $R$-charge $r$ and ${Q_f}$-charge ${ q_f}$, according to \eqref{Zloc eigen}, \eqref{eigenvalueszw}.
Using the results of Appendix \ref{App: S3S1}, the eigenvalue equations for the unpaired modes of type $B$ read
\be\label{eq for B S3S1}
i (\d_{\b w} - i { q_f} v_{\b w} ) B =\lambda_B\, B~, \qquad \left( \d_{\b z} + {r-2\over 2} {z\over 1+|z|^2} - {iz\over 1+|z|^2}\d_{\b w} \right) B=0~,
\end{equation}
where $v_{\b w} = - {1\over 2 i \sigma_2}(a_r - i a_i)$. We also require $B$ to be an eigenmode of the operators \eqref{P ops on S3S1}, with
\be
P_x B = n_0 B~, \qquad P_\varphi B= n_1 B~, \qquad P_\chi B = n_2 B~, \qquad n_0, n_1, n_2 \in \mathbb{Z}~.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the first equation in \eqref{eq for B S3S1} together with \eqref{K from Ps} imply
\be\label{lamB S3S1}
\lambda_B = {i\over 2 \sigma_2} \big(-n_0 + n_1\sigma + n_2 \tau -{r-2\over 2}(\sigma+ \tau) + { q_f} (a_r - ia_i) \big)~.
\end{equation}
The $B$ modes are given explicitly by
\be
B = z^{n_2 } (1+|z|^2)^{\lambda_B - { q_f} v_{\b w} - {r-2\over 2}}\, e^{-i (\lambda_B - { q_f} v_{\b w}) {\b w}} e^{-i (\b\lambda_B - { q_f} v_w) w}~.
\end{equation}
A similar expression holds in the $w',z'$ patch, with $|B| \sim |z'|^{n_1}$ near $z' =0$.
Normalizabiltiy of the modes restricts the allowed values of $n_1, n_2$ to $n_1, n_2 \geq 0$.
Similarly, the $\phi$ modes solving \eqref{eigenvalueszw} are given by
\be
\phi= {1\over {\b z}^{n_2}} (1+ |z|^2)^{-(\b\lambda_\phi - { q_f} v_w -{r\over 2})}\,
e^{-i (\lambda_\phi - { q_f} v_{\b w}) {\b w}} e^{-i (\b\lambda_\phi - { q_f} v_w) w}~.
\end{equation}
with eigenvalues
\be\label{lamphi S3S1}
\lambda_\phi = {i\over 2 \sigma_2} \big(-n_0 + n_1\sigma + n_2 \tau -{r\over 2}(\sigma+ \tau) + { q_f} (a_r - ia_i) \big)~.
\end{equation}
The integers $n_0, n_1, n_2$ are again the eigenvalues of \eqref{P ops on S3S1}.
Nomalizability imposes $n_1, n_2 \leq 0$.
Plugging the eigenvalues \eqref{lamB S3S1},\eqref{lamphi S3S1} into \eqref{Zloc eigen} and renaming some of the integers, we find the partition function
\be\label{Z S3S1 inf prod}
Z^\Phi_{S^3\times S^1} =
\prod_{n_0 = -\infty}^\infty \prod_{n_1, n_2 = 0}^\infty { n_0+ \sigma n_1 +\tau n_2 - {r-2\over 2} (\sigma+\tau) + { q_f} (a_r- i a_i) \over n_0+ \sigma n_1 +\tau n_2 + {r\over 2} (\sigma+\tau) - { q_f} (a_r-i a_i)}~.
\end{equation}
Note that this formula is a natural generalization of the three-dimensional localization result for the squashed $S^3$ \cite{Hama:2011ea,Imamura:2011wg}.
The result \eqref{Z S3S1 inf prod} can be regularized using Barnes' multiple zeta function \cite{Ruijs,FriedmanRuijSB}.~\footnote{One can rewrite \eqref{Z S3S1 inf prod} in terms of triple gamma functions and use Corollary 6.2 of \cite{FriedmanRuijSB}.} In term of the parameters $p,q, u$ defined in \eqref{p q to sigma tau} and \eqref{def u S3S1}, we obtain
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}\label{result S3S1}
Z^\Phi_{S^3\times S^1}(p, q, u)&=e^{i \pi \mathcal{A}} \prod_{j,k =0}^\infty {1 - u^{-{ q_f}} p^{j+1-{r\over 2}} q^{k+1-{r\over 2}}\over 1 - u^{ q_f} p^{j+{r\over 2}} q^{k+{r\over 2}} }\cr
&= e^{i \pi \mathcal{A}} \, \Gamma_e (u^{ q_f} (pq)^{r\over 2}; p, q)~.
\eea
The function $\Gamma_e(t; p, q)$ is the elliptic gamma function.~\footnote{
It can be defined by
\be\nonumber
\Gamma_e(t; p, q) = \prod_{j,k =0}^\infty {1 - t^{-1} p^{j+1} q^{k+1}\over 1 - t p^j q^k }~.
\end{equation}}
We thus reproduced the known result for the $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral multiplet $S^3\times S^1$ partition function, without relying on the supersymmetric index point of view of \cite{Romelsberger:2007ec, Dolan:2008qi, Gerchkovitz:2013zra}.~\footnote{See \cite{Nawata:2011un} for a related computation of the $\mathcal{N}=4$ index using localization.} The answer is locally holomorphic in the geometric moduli $\tau, \sigma$ and $a_r - i a_i$, as expected \cite{Closset:2013vra}. In addition to the expected gamma function, there is an interesting prefactor $e^{i \pi \mathcal{A}}$ in \eqref{result S3S1}, with $\mathcal{A}$ given by
\be
\mathcal{A}({\bf w}) = {1\over \sigma \tau} \left({\bf w}^3 - {\tau^2 + \sigma^2 -2\over 12}{\bf w} \right)~,
\qquad \quad {\bf w} = (r-1){\tau +\sigma\over 2} - { q_f} (a_r - i a_i)~.
\end{equation}
Note that $\mathcal{A}$ is a cubic polynomial in $r-1$ and ${ q_f}$, which are the $R$- and ${Q_f}$-charges of the fermion in the $\mathcal{N}=1$ chiral multiplet. It would be interesting to understand whether this $\mathcal{A}$ is physical or whether it can be removed by a local counterterm.
\subsection{Computation with Arbitrary Hermitian Metrics}
In the two examples above, we chose rather simple Hermitian metrics for ease of presentation. However, it is easy to generalize the computation of section \ref{subsec: eigenvalues} to arbitrary backgrounds with two supercharges. Consider for instance the case of $T^2 \times S^2$ with an arbitrary Hermitian metric compatible with a given complex structure (with parameters $\tau,\sigma$). Using the $w, z$ coordinates, we can solve the eigenvalue equations \eqref{eigenvaluesBPhi} with the ansatz
\begin{equation} \begin{aligned}} \newcommand{\eea}{\end{aligned} \end{equation}
B &= e^{i(n_x +{{\bf r}-2\over 2}\alpha ) x} e^{i (n_y +{{\bf r}-2\over 2} \beta)y }e^{i (m+{{\bf r}-2\over 2} ) \varphi} B_0(\theta)~,\cr
\phi &=e^{i(n_x +{{\bf r}\over 2}\alpha ) x} e^{i (n_y +{{\bf r}\over 2} \beta)y }e^{i (m+{{\bf r}\over 2} ) \varphi} \phi_0(\theta)~,
\eea
in the northern patch. Here $x, y, \varphi, \theta$ are the real coordinates introduced in \eqref{cc on S2T2}. This ansatz is dictated by the periodicities \eqref{twisted bd ii} (and by the general properties of the spin operator $J_3$ on $S^2$ with magnetic flux), which are independent of the details of the metric (although they do depend on the choice of complex coordinates). Using the expression \eqref{K real coord} for $\d_{\b w}$, we directly find the eigenvalues $\lambda_B$ \eqref{eigenvalues B T2S2} and $\lambda_\phi$ \eqref{eigenvalues phi T2S2}. Possible restrictions on the values of the integers in $\lambda_{B,\phi}$ can be obtained from a careful analysis of the profiles $B_0(\theta), \phi_0(\theta)$ near $\theta=0, \pi$, asking that the modes be normalizable. (Understanding the limit $\theta\sim 0, \pi$ is much simpler than solving for the full profiles, which cannot be done in general.)
A similar analysis can be done for $S^3 \times S^1$. One thus confirms explicitly, in our simple examples, that the partition function on $\mathcal{M}_4$ is independent of the Hermitian metric \cite{Closset:2013vra}.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
\label{s:acks}
It is a pleasure to thank Ofer Aharony, Francesco Benini, Lorenzo Di Pietro, Thomas Dumitrescu, Guido Festuccia, Itamar Yaakov and especially Zohar Komargodski for stimulating discussions and for comments on the manuscript. We also thank Joel Fine for pointing out reference \cite{Atiyah:1955}.
I.S. would like to extend his gratitude to Efrat, Guy, Nizan, Ran and Amir for countless discussions from which he has benefited.
C.C. would like to thank the PMIF group at ULB for its warm hospitality during the completion of this work.
The work of I.S. is supported by the ERC STG grant number 335182, by the Israel Science Foundation under grant number 884/11. I.S. would also like to thank the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) for support under grant number 2010/629. In addition, the research of I.S. is supported by the I-CORE Program of the Planning and Budgeting Committee and by the Israel Science Foundation under grant number 1937/12. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{secintro}
Let $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ be the finite field with $q$ elements where $q$
is a prime or a prime power. A polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ is
called a permutation polynomial if it can induce a bijective map
from $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ to itself. For a given permutation polynomial
$f(x)$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$, the polynomial $f^{-1}(x)$ that can
induce the inverse map of the map induced by $f(x)$ is called the
compositional inverse of $f(x)$. That is to say, $f^{-1}(x)$
satisfies the relation
\[f(f^{-1}(x))\equiv f^{-1}(f(x))\equiv x\mod
(x^q-x).\] Generally speaking, it is far form a simple matter to
explicitly represent compositional inverses of known classes of
permutation polynomials over finite fields. Up to present, there are
only a few classes of permutation polynomials whose compositional
inverses can be determined. We refer to \cite{lidlDic,coulter,wu2},
for example, for some results on this topic.
Linearized polynomials are of special interest in studying
permutation polynomials over finite fields. A linearized polynomial
over the finite field $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ is a polynomial of the form
\[L(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_ix^{q^i}.\]
A well-known criterion of Dickson says that $L(x)$ is a permutation
polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ if and only if $\det D_L\neq0$
\cite{lidl}, where
\[D_L=\begin{pmatrix}
a_0&a_1&\dots&a_{n-1}\\
a_{n-1}^q&a_0^q&\dots&a_{n-2}^q\\
\vdots&\vdots&&\vdots\\
a_1^{q^{n-1}}&a_2^{q^{n-1}}&\dots&a_0^{q^{n-1}}
\end{pmatrix}\]
is called the associate Dickson matrix of $L(x)$ \cite{wu}. As a
supplement of this result, in \cite{wu} the author and Liu found a
relation between the compositional inverse of a linearized
permutation polynomial and the inverse of its associate Dickson
matrix, obtaining the following result.
\begin{thm}[See \cite{wu}]\label{invLPP}
Let $L(x)\in\mathbb{F}_{q^n}[x]$ be a linearized permutation
polynomial. Then $D_{L^{-1}}=D_L^{-1}$. More precisely, if
$L(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_ix^{q^i}$ and $\tilde{a}_i$ is the
$(i,0)$-th cofactor of $D_L$, $0\leq i\leq n-1$, then
\[L^{-1}(x)=\frac{1}{\det L}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\tilde{a}_ix^{q^i},\]
where $\det
L=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_{n-i}^{q^i}\tilde{a}_i\in\mathbb{F}_{q}$
(subscripts reduced modulo $n$).
\end{thm}
Though Dickson's criterion is simple, it is not convenient enough to
use to characterize linearized permutation polynomials sometimes.
This is because singularity of certain matrices over finite fields
cannot be easily characterized, especially when some entries of them
contain parameters. Also, Theorem \ref{invLPP} only presents a
general method to determine compositional inverses of linearized
permutation polynomials and in some cases it cannot be conveniently
utilized. The main difficulty lies in computing determinants of
certain matrices over finite fields. Therefore, compositional
inverses of linearized permutation polynomials is not easy to obtain
in general. For example, in \cite{wu3} the author explicitly
determined the compositional inverses of a class of linearized
permutation polynomials of simple forms over $\mathbb{F}_{2^n}$ for
an odd $n$, but the computations were rather complicated.
The simplest examples of linearized polynomials over
$\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ are linearized monomials, which are always
permutation ones unless it is zero. Moreover, the compositional
inverse of a nonzero linearized monomial can be trivially
determined. Non-trivial examples of linearized polynomials that
should be considered firstly are linearized binomials of the form
\[L_{r,s}(x)=ax^{q^r}+bx^{q^s},~a,~b\in\mathbb{F}_{q^n},~1\leq s<r\leq n-1.\]
However, when studying permutation behavior of such linearized
polynomials, it is easy to see that the problem can be reduced to
studying linearized binomials of the form
\begin{equation}\label{LBP}
L_r(x)=x^{q^r}+ax,~a\in\mathbb{F}_{q^n},~1\leq r\leq n-1.
\end{equation}
It is well known that the condition under which $L_r(x)$ in
\eqref{LBP} is a linearized permutation polynomial over
$\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ is
\begin{equation}\label{condition}
(-1)^{n/d}a^{{(q^n-1)}/{(q^{d}-1)}}\neq 1
\end{equation} where $d=(n,r)$.
Actually, $L_r(x)$ can permute $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ if and only if $0$
is the only solution of $L_r(x)=0$ in $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$, or
equivalently, $x^{q^r-1}=-a$ has no solution in $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$.
This is further equivalent to
\[-a\not\in(\mathbb{F}_{q^n}^*)^{q^r-1}=
\mathcal {C}_{\frac{q^n-1}{(q^{n}-1,q^r-1)}}=\mathcal
{C}_{\frac{q^n-1}{q^{d}-1}},\] i.e.
\[(-a)^{\frac{q^n-1}{q^{d}-1}}=(-1)^{\frac{n}{d}}a^{\frac{q^n-1}{q^{d}-1}}\neq 1,\]
where $\mathcal{C}_l$ denotes the subgroup of $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}^*$
of order $l$ for any $l$ with $l\mid (q^n-1)$. However, noticing
that the associate Dickson matrix of $L_r(x)$ is
\[D_{L_r}=\begin{pmatrix}
a&&&&&1&&&\\
&a^q&&&&&1\\
&&\ddots&&&&&\ddots\\
&&&a^{q^{n-1-r}}&&&&&1\\
1&&&&a^{q^{n-r}}\\
&1&&&&a^{q^{n-r+1}}\\
&&1&&&&a^{q^{n-r+2}}\\
&&&\ddots&&&&\ddots\\
&&&&1&&&&a^{q^{n-1}}
\end{pmatrix},\]
whose shape is flexible since $r$ is not fixed, we find it
difficult to compute $\det D_{L_r}$ to derive condition
\eqref{condition} for $L_r(x)$ to be a permutation polynomial by
Dickson's criterion. Furthermore, it is more difficult to compute
cofactors of elements in the first column of $D_{L_r}$ to obtain
$L_r^{-1}(x)$ by Theorem \ref{invLPP} when condition
\eqref{condition} holds.
In the sequel we will always assume condition \eqref{condition}
holds and devote to getting explicit representation of the
compositional inverse of $L_r(x)$ for any $1\leq r\leq n-1$. Our
main obversion is that the problem can be reduced to getting
compositional inverse of $L_1(x)$, which can be easily solved from a
direct utilization of Theorem \ref{invLPP}. The idea of the
reduction process may be applied in other similar problems, which
will be generally discussed in the end.
\section{Compositional inverses of linearized permutation
binomials}\label{secinvLBP}
Denote by ``$\nor_{n:l}$" the norm map from $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ to
$\mathbb{F}_{q^l}$ for some $l\mid n$, i.e.
$\nor_{n:l}(x)=x^{(q^n-1)/(q^l-1)}$ for any $x\in\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$,
and when $l=1$, denote by ``$\nor$" the absolute norm map for
simplicity. Then condition \eqref{condition} can be rewritten as
$(-1)^{n/d}\nor_{n:d}(a)\neq1$. The following theorem gives explicit
representation of $L_r^{-1}(x)$.
\begin{thm}\label{invLBP}
\[L_r^{-1}(x)=\frac{\nor_{n:d}(a)}{\nor_{n:d}(a)+(-1)^{\frac{n}{d}-1}}\sum_{i=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}(-1)^i
a^{-\frac{q^{(i+1)r}-1}{q^r-1}}x^{q^{ir}}.\]
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
It is obvious that $\nor_{n:d}(a)^{q^r}=\nor_{n:d}(a)$ as $d\mid r$.
Besides, since $(n/d,r/d)=1$, we have
\[1+q^d+\ldots+q^{(\frac{n}{d}-1)d}\equiv 1+q^r+\ldots+q^{(\frac{n}{d}-1)r}\mod (q^n-1),\]
and thus
\[a^{-\frac{q^{\frac{n}{d}r}-1}{q^r-1}}=\nor_{n:d}\left(\frac{1}{a}\right).\]
For any $x\in\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&L_r(L_r^{-1}(x))\\ &=&
\frac{\nor_{n:d}(a)}{\nor_{n:d}(a)+(-1)^{\frac{n}{d}-1}}\left[
\sum_{i=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}(-1)^i
a^{-\frac{q^{(i+1)r}-1}{q^r-1}q^r}x^{q^{(i+1)r}}+\sum_{i=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}(-1)^i
a^{-\frac{q^{(i+1)r}-1}{q^r-1}+1}x^{q^{ir}}\right]\\
&=&\frac{\nor_{n:d}(a)}{\nor_{n:d}(a)+(-1)^{\frac{n}{d}-1}}\left[
\sum_{i=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}(-1)^i
a^{-\frac{q^{(i+2)r}-q^r}{q^r-1}}x^{q^{(i+1)r}}+\sum_{i=0}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}(-1)^i
a^{-\frac{q^{(i+1)r}-q^r}{q^r-1}}x^{q^{ir}}\right] \\
&=& \frac{\nor_{n:d}(a)}{\nor_{n:d}(a)+(-1)^{\frac{n}{d}-1}}\left[(-1)^{\frac{n}{d}-1}\nor_{n:d}\left(\frac{1}{a}\right)^{q^r}
x^{\frac{n}{d}r}+\sum_{i=1}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}(-1)^{i-1}
a^{-\frac{q^{(i+1)r}-q^r}{q^r-1}}x^{q^{ir}}\right.\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad~~~~\left.+(-1)^0x+\sum_{i=1}^{\frac{n}{d}-1}(-1)^i
a^{-\frac{q^{(i+1)r}-q^r}{q^r-1}}x^{q^{ir}}\right] \\
&=&\frac{\nor_{n:d}(a)}{\nor_{n:d}(a)+(-1)^{\frac{n}{d}-1}}\left[\frac{(-1)^{\frac{n}{d}-1}}{\nor_{n:d}(a)}+1\right]x \\
&=&x.
\end{eqnarray*}
\qedd
\end{pf}
For some special cases of $r$, we can directly get the following
corollaries.
\begin{cor}\label{corr=1}
$L_1(x)$ is a linearized permutation polynomial over
$\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ if and only if $(-1)^n\nor(a)\neq 1$, and under
this condition, we have
\[L_1^{-1}(x)=\frac{\nor(a)}{\nor(a)+(-1)^{n-1}}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}(-1)^i
a^{-\frac{q^{i+1}-1}{q-1}}x^{q^{i}}.\]
\end{cor}
\begin{cor}\label{corcoprime}
Assume $(r,n)=1$. Then $L_{r}(x)$ is a linearized permutation
polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ if and only if $(-1)^n\nor(a)\neq
1$, and under this condition, we have
\[L_r^{-1}(x)=\frac{\nor(a)}{\nor(a)+(-1)^{n-1}}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}(-1)^i
a^{-\frac{q^{(i+1)r}-1}{q^r-1}}x^{q^{ir}}.\]
\end{cor}
\begin{cor}
Assume $n$ is even. Then $L_{n/2}(x)$ is a linearized permutation
polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ if and only if $a^{q^{n/2}+1}\neq
1$, and under this condition, we have
\[L_{\frac{n}{2}}^{-1}(x)=\frac{1}{a^{q^{\frac{n}{2}}+1}-1}
\left(a^{q^{\frac{n}{2}}}x-{x}^{q^{\frac{n}{2}}}\right).\]
\end{cor}
\section{The method to obtain Theorem
\ref{invLBP}}\label{sectechnuque}
In this section, we explain the detail of our method to derive
$L_r^{-1}(x)$. As mentioned in Section \ref{secintro}, we cannot use
Theorem \ref{invLPP} directly since the shape of $D_{L_r} $ is
flexible. Now, by some trikes, we reduce the problem to one that
can be easily handled.
Firstly, we let $q_1=q^d$ and then $L_r(x)=x^{q_1^{r/d}}+ax$, which
can be viewed as a linearized polynomial over
$\mathbb{F}_{q_1^{n/d}}=\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$. Since $(r/d,n/d)=1$, this
implies that we need only to consider the initial problem in the
case $(r,n)=1$;
Secondly, when $(r,n)=1$, we let $q_2=q^r$. Consider the composite
field of $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ and $\mathbb{F}_{q_2}$, which is just
$\mathbb{F}_{q^{nr}}=\mathbb{F}_{q_2^{n}}$, and view
$L_r(x)=x^{q_2}+ax$ as a linearized polynomial over
$\mathbb{F}_{q_2^n}$. Since $(r,n)=1$, we have
\[ 1+q_2+\ldots+q_2^{n-1}\equiv1+q+\ldots+q^{n-1}\mod (q^n-1),
\]
hence when $(-1)^na^{{(q^n-1)}/{(q-1)}}\neq1$, we know that
\[(-a)^{\frac{q_2^n-1}{q_2-1}}=(-a)^{1+q^r+\ldots+q^{(n-1)r}}=(-1)^na^{1+q+\ldots+q^{n-1}}=
(-1)^na^{\frac{q^n-1}{q-1}}\neq 1,\] i.e.
\[a\not\in\mathcal{C}_{\frac{q_2^n-1}{q_2-1}}=\left(\mathbb{F}_{q_2^{n}}^*\right)^{q_2-1}.\]
This implies that $L_r(x)$ can induce a permutation of
$\mathbb{F}_{q_2^{n}}$. Furthermore, since
$L_r(\mathbb{F}_{q^n})\subseteq\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ and $L_r(x)$ can
induce a permutation of $\mathbb{F}_{q^{n}}$, which is a subset of
$\mathbb{F}_{q_2^{n}}$, the compositional inverse of $L_r(x)$ viewed
as a linearized permutation polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_{q_2^{n}}$
must be the the compositional inverse of $L_r(x)$ viewed as a
linearized permutation polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_{q^{n}}$, after
reduction modulo $(x^{q^n}-x)$. To this end, we need only to
consider the initial problem in the case $r=1$.
To summarize, if we can determine $L_1^{-1}(x)$, i.e. if we can
obtain the result of Corollary \ref{corr=1} at first, then we can
determine $L_r^{-1}(x)$ for $(r,n)=1$ via replacing $q$ by
$q_2=q^r$ in the representation of $L_1^{-1}(x)$, obtaining the
result of Corollary \ref{corcoprime} (note that the relation
$\nor_{nr:r}(a)=\nor(a)$ should be used). Afterwards, for a general
$1\leq r\leq n-1$ with $(r,n)=d$, we can replace $q$, $r$ and $n$ by
$q_1=q^d$, $r/d$ and $n/d$, respectively, in the representation
of $L_r^{-1}(x)$ in Corollary \ref{corcoprime}, to obtain the
representation of $L_r^{-1}(x)$ in Theorem \ref{invLBP}.
The only rest problem is to derive $L_1^{-1}(x)$. This can be done
via directly using Theorem \ref{invLPP} since in this case $D_{L_1}$
has a fixed shape, namely,
\[D_{L_1}=\begin{pmatrix}
a&1\\
&a^q&1\\
&&\ddots&\ddots\\
&&&a^{q^{n-2}}&1\\
1&&&&a^{q^{n-1}}
\end{pmatrix}.\]
Note that the $(0,0)$-th cofactor of it is
\[\tilde{a}_0=(-1)^{1+1}\det\begin{pmatrix}
a^q&1\\
&\ddots&\ddots\\
&&a^{q^{n-2}}&1\\
&&&a^{q^{n-1}}
\end{pmatrix}=\frac{\nor(a)}{a},\]
the $(i,0)$-th cofactor of it is
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde{a}_i &=&(-1)^{i+1+1}\det \begin{pmatrix}
1\\
a^q&1\\
&\ddots&\ddots\\
&&a^{q^{i-1}}&1\\
&&&&a^{q^{i+1}}&1\\
&&&&&\ddots&\ddots\\
&&&&&&a^{q^{n-2}}&1\\
&&&&&&&a^{q^{n-1}}
\end{pmatrix} \\
&=& (-1)^i\frac{\nor(a)}{a^{1+q+\ldots+q^i}} \\
&=&(-1)^i\nor(a)a^{-\frac{q^{i+1}-1}{q-1}}
\end{eqnarray*}
for any $1\leq i\leq n-2$, and the $(n-1,0)$-th cofactor of it is
\[\tilde{a}_{n-1}=(-1)^{n+1}\det\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
a^q&1\\
&\ddots&\ddots\\
&&a^{q^{n-2}}&1
\end{pmatrix}=(-1)^{n-1}.\]
Finally we have
\[\det L_1=a\tilde{a}_0+\tilde{a}_{n-1}=\nor(a)+(-1)^{n-1}.\]
Then Corollary \ref{corr=1} follows.
\section{A general discussion}\label{secgeneraldiss}
In fact, the technique we introduc in Section \ref{sectechnuque} to
reduce the problem to one that is simple enough to deal with is
enlightening. Other problems related to linearized polynomials over
$\mathbb{F}_{q^{n}}$, especially those whose terms are all of the
form $x^{q^{it}}$, can be similarly handled. Note that the main
observation we make in the second step of the problem reduction
process is that, $L_r(x)$ can induce a permutation of
$\mathbb{F}_{q^{rn}}$ if it can induce a permutation of
$\mathbb{F}_{q^{n}}$. This fact can be affirmatively generalized.
\begin{thm}\label{generalfact}
Let $t$ and $n$ be positive integers with $(t,n)=1$, and
$\bar{q}=q^t$ for a prime power $q$. Assume the linearized
polynomial $L(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_ix^{q^i}\in\mathbb{F}_{q^n}[x]$
can induce a permutation of $\mathbb{F}_{q^{n}}$. Then the
linearized polynomial
$\bar{L}(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_{ti}x^{\bar{q}^i}$ (subscripts reduced
modulo $n$) can induce a permutation of $\mathbb{F}_{\bar{q}^n}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rmk}
From $(t,n)=1$ we know that the composite field of
$\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ and $\mathbb{F}_{\bar{q}}$ is
$\mathbb{F}_{q^{nt}}=\mathbb{F}_{\bar{q}^{n}}$. Besides, it is
obvious that $\bar{L}(\mathbb{F}_{q^n})\subseteq\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$,
and\[\bar{L}(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_{ti}x^{q^{ti}}\equiv L(x)\mod
(x^{q^n}-x),\]thus $\bar{L}(x)$ can permute $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ as
well. Therefore, Theorem \ref{generalfact} actually presents a
method to extend a linearized permutation polynomial over a ``small"
field to be a linearized permutation polynomial over a ``big"
field. See the graph of field extensions below.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\path (0,0) node(a){$\mathbb{F}_{q}$} (0,2.5)
node(b){$\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$} (2.5,1.2) node(c){$\mathbb{F}_{q^t}$}
(2.5,3.7) node(d){$\mathbb{F}_{q^{nt}}$}; \draw
(a)--(b)--(d)--(c)--(a); \path (-.5,1.2)
node[draw=none,fill=none](e){$L(x)$} (3,2.4)
node[draw=none,fill=none](f){$\bar{L}(x)$}; \draw (e) (f);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\end{rmk}
To prove Theorem \ref{generalfact}, the following lemmas are needed.
\begin{lem}[See \cite{mene}]\label{lembasis}
Let $t$ and $n$ be positive integers with $(t,n)=1$, and
$\{\beta_i\}_{i=0}^{n-1}$ be a basis of $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ over
$\mathbb{F}_{q}$. Then $\{\beta_i\}_{i=0}^{n-1}$ is a basis of
$\mathbb{F}_{q^{nt}}$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q^t}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{lem}[See \cite{wu}]\label{lemlpprep}
Let $L(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_ix^{q^i}$ be a linearized permutation
polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$. Then there exist two bases
$\{\alpha_i\}_{i=0}^{n-1}$ and $\{\beta_i\}_{i=0}^{n-1}$ of
$\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ over $\mathbb{F}_{q}$ such that
\[(a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_{n-1})=(\alpha_0,\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1})\left(\beta_i^{q^j}\right)_{0\leq i,j\leq n-1}.\]
\end{lem}
\noindent\textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{generalfact}.} Since $L(x)$
is a linearized permutation polynomial over $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$,
there exist two bases $\{\alpha_i\}_{i=0}^{n-1}$ and
$\{\beta_i\}_{i=0}^{n-1}$ of $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ over
$\mathbb{F}_{q}$ such that
\[(a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_{n-1})=(\alpha_0,\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1})\left(\beta_i^{q^j}\right)_{0\leq i,j\leq n-1}\]
according to Lemma \ref{lemlpprep}. As $(t,n)=1$, we have
\[(a_0,a_t,\ldots,a_{(n-1)t})=(\alpha_0,\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1})\left(\beta_i^{q^j}\right)_{0\leq i,j\leq n-1}P,\]
where $P$ is a permutation matrix with entries 1 in the $(it,i)$-th
place for $0\leq i\leq n-1$ and 0 in other places. Note that
\[\left(\beta_i^{q^j}\right)_{0\leq i,j\leq n-1}P=\left(\beta_i^{\bar{q}^j}\right)_{0\leq i,j\leq n-1}.\]
From Lemma \ref{lembasis} we know $\{\alpha_i\}_{i=0}^{n-1}$ and
$\{\beta_i\}_{i=0}^{n-1}$ are two bases of $\mathbb{F}_{\bar{q}^n}$
over $\mathbb{F}_{\bar{q}}$, thus we finally get that $\bar{L}(x)$
is a linearized permutation polynomial over
$\mathbb{F}_{\bar{q}^n}$ applying Lemma \ref{lemlpprep} again.\qedd
\section{Concluding remarks}
In this paper, the explicit representation of a linearized
permutation binomial of the form $L_r(x)=x^{q^r}+ax$ over the finite
fields $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ is derived. Our main tool is Theorem
\ref{invLPP}, but it can only be used after we find by some trikes
that talking about the initial problem for $L_1(x)$ is enough. We
should point out that, though it cannot be conveniently utilized
sometimes, Theorem \ref{invLPP} is quite useful in studying
linearized permutation polynomials of special types and their
compositional inverses. In fact, we have also used it to compute
compositional inverses of certain linearized permutation trinomials
over finite fields, the results of which will be proposed in a
further paper.
|
\section{Introduction}
Semiclassical analysis provides a rigorous way to establish a connection between quantum physics and classical mechanics \cite{Rob87,Zw12}. Mathematically, a non-relativistic quantum mechanical system is described by the spectrum of an $h$-pseudodifferential operator ($h$-PDO) $\hat H$ on $\mathbb R^n$ while the classical system is described by the Hamilton-flow of the associated symbol $H(x,\xi)$ on the symplectic vector space $T^*\mathbb R^n$. From a mathematical point of view the question of connecting quantum physics to classical mechanics thus consists in proving asymptotic formulae for the spectrum of $\hat H$ in terms of $H$ in the limit $ h \to 0$.
The two main theorems which have been established in this field are the Weyl law and the Gutzwiller trace formula. While the Weyl law gives an estimate for the number of eigenvalues below a certain energy in terms of the phase space volume of the corresponding classical energy shell, the Gutzwiller trace formula gives an asymptotic formula for the correlation of the eigenvalues in terms of periodic orbits of the classical flow.
The first version of Weyl's law was already proven in 1912 for special second order partial differential equations by Hermann Weyl \cite{We12}, who wanted to give a rigorous foundation for the Rayleigh-Jeans law for black body radiation. This work has been generalized in various different works, among which we want to mention the work of Hörmander \cite{Hor68}, who extended these results to elliptic pseudodifferential operators on compact manifolds, using the approach of Fourier integral operators (FIOs), and the work of Helffer and Robert \cite{HR83b} in the context of elliptic $ h$-PDOs on $\mathbb R^n$.
The connection between spectral correlations and periodic orbits was first established in physics by the pioneering work of Gutzwiller \cite{G71} and Balian and Bloch \cite{BB69} around 1970. Shortly later, between 1973 and 1975, similar results were rigorously proven for elliptic operators on compact manifolds by Colin de Verdière \cite{CdV73I,CdV73II,CdV07}, Chazarain \cite{Cha74}, and Duistermaat and Guillemin \cite{DG75}. For $ h$-PDOs, rigorous proofs have finally been given in the 90s by Paul and Uribe \cite{PU91,PU95} using a trick of Colin de Verdière \cite{CdV79} which allows to link the semiclassical problem to homogeneous PDOs, and by Meinrenken using a direct FIO approach \cite{Mei92}.
Symmetries of physical systems are known to simplify their study significantly. If for example the Hamiltonian $\hat H$ commutes with a compact Lie group $G$ acting linearly on $\mathbb R^n$, then $\hat H$ leaves the Peter-Weyl decomposition $L^2(\mathbb R^n)=\bigoplus_{\chi\in \hat G} L^2_\chi$ of this group action invariant. Accordingly, one can restrict the Hamilton operator to one of the subspaces $L^2_\chi$ belonging to an irreducible representation $\chi$ of $G$. One can then study the spectral asymptotics of the symmetry-reduced Hamilton operator $\hat H_\chi:=\hat H_{|L^2_\chi}$. This amounts to the question of counting the eigenvalues of this reduced Hamilton operator (equivariant Weyl law) and the question of correlations in the spectrum of $\hat H_\chi$ (equivariant Gutzwiller trace formula).
For elliptic operators on compact manifolds, the leading term of the equivariant Weyl law has been obtained for general group actions by Donnelly \cite{Don78} and Brüning-Heintze \cite{BH79} using heat kernel methods, which however do not allow to obtain remainder estimates. First remainder estimates were only obtained for actions with only one orbit type by Donnelly \cite{Don78}, Brüning-Heintze \cite{BH79}, Brüning \cite{Bru83} and Guillemin-Uribe \cite{GU90} in the homogeneous setting, and by Helffer-Robert \cite{HR84,HR86} and El-Houakmi-Helffer \cite{EH91} for $ h$-PDOs. When trying to obtain remainder estimates for general group actions, it turns out that singularities in the critical set of the appearing phase function cause serious problems. Recently it has been possible to obtain remainder estimates for the equivariant Weyl law for elliptic operators on compact manifolds which are invariant under general compact group actions \cite{Ram14} by partially resolving the singularities of the critical set (
see also \cite{CR09} for preliminary results).
In the derivation of equivariant Gutzwiller formulae, singularities in the critical set are a major obstruction in deriving the desired spectral asymptotics, too. There are two sources for these singularities: The group action and the Hamilton dynamics. Because of this, in all articles on equivariant Gutzwiller trace formulae (Guillemin-Uribe \cite{GU90} for elliptic PDOs on compact manifolds and Cassanas \cite{Cas06fg,Cas06} for $ h$-PDOs) the spectral asymptotics only hold under two conditions: The clean-flow or non-degenerate orbit condition, which are conditions on properties of the Hamilton flow (see e.g. \cite[Definition 4.4]{Cas06}), and the condition of reduction, which is a condition on the group action (see e.g. \cite[Definition 2.1]{Cas06}).
In the present work, equivariant spectral asymptotics of $ h$-PDOs for general compact group actions are derived. Concerning the number of eigenvalues, we prove a weak equivariant Weyl law by reducing the problem to oscillatory integrals with singular critical sets which already appeared in \cite{Ram14}. Regarding the spectral correlations, we drop the condition on the group action on which the clean flow and non-degenerate orbit conditions are usually based. Instead we generalize the non-degenerate orbit condition for arbitrary group actions. Based on this new generalized condition on the Hamilton flow, we can derive a complete asymptotic expansion for the equivariant Gutzwiller trace formula without additional reduction assumptions. Furthermore we present a simple explicit example of a 3-dimensional Harmonic oscillator which illustrates that these new conditions are much less restrictive.
\textbf{Acknowledgements:} I like to thank Pablo Ramacher for introducing me to this topic and for the support and feedback on this work. I also acknowledge helpful discussions with Yves Colin de Verdière during my stay at Grenoble which was afforded by the ANR via the project 2009-12 METHCHAOS. This work has been made possible by a grant of the German National Academic Foundation.
\section{Definitions and Notations}
\subsection{Classical Hamilton mechanics and quantization}
We will consider Hamilton systems on the phase space $\mathbb R^{2n}$. Points in phase space will commonly be denoted by $z\in \mathbb R^{2n}$, respectively by $(x,\xi)\in \mathbb R^{2n},~x,\xi\in \mathbb R^n$, if we want to distinguish between the space variable $x$ and momentum variable $\xi$. Even if the tangent space $T_z\mathbb R^{2n}$ is canonically isomorphic to $\mathbb R^{2n}$ we will emphasize the difference by denoting tangent vectors by Greek letters $\alpha, \beta\in T_z\mathbb R^{2n}$. The $2n\times2n$ matrix $J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0&\mathds 1\\-\mathds 1&0\end{array}\right)$ defines a symplectic form by $\omega(\alpha,\beta) := \langle\alpha,J\beta\rangle$ where $\langle,\rangle$ is the standard scalar product on $\mathbb R^{2n}$.
A Hamiltonian on the symplectic manifold $(\mathbb R^{2n},\omega)$ is a smooth function $H:\mathbb R^{2n}\to \mathbb R$. Via the symplectic structure we can associate a Hamilton vector field $X_H$ to the Hamiltonian $H$ by the condition $dH(\bullet)=\omega(X_H,\bullet)$. For the trivial symplectic manifold ($\mathbb R^{2n},\omega$) the Hamilton vector field is simply given by $J\nabla H(z)$, where $\nabla$ denotes the gradient in $\mathbb R^{2n}$. This vector field generates the Hamilton flow $\Phi_t: \mathbb R^{2n}\to \mathbb R^{2n}$ by setting
\begin{equation}\label{eq:HamiltonEquations}
\tfrac{d}{dt}\Phi_t(z)=J\nabla H(\Phi_t(z)).
\end{equation}
In order to simplify notation we will sometimes write $(x_t,\xi_t)=z_t=\Phi_{t}(z)$.
For a given energy $E\in \mathbb R$, the energy shell is denoted by $\Sigma_E:=H^{-1}(E)$. As $\omega$ is antisymmetric, we have $0=\langle \nabla H(z_t),J\nabla H(z_t)\rangle =\tfrac{d}{dt} H(z_t)$. Thus, the energy is preserved along the flow, and the Hamilton flow leaves $\Sigma_E$ invariant. Furthermore, $\nabla H(z)\perp J\nabla H(z)$, and if $H$ is non-degenerate in $z$, i.e.~if $\nabla H(z)\neq 0$, then $\Sigma_E$ is locally smooth and $T_z\Sigma_E=(\nabla H(z))^\perp$.
Using a general formula for the Lie-derivative of a differential form we calculate
\[
\frac{d}{dt}_{|t=0} (\Phi_t^*\omega)=\mathcal L_{X_H} \omega = d(X_H\lrcorner \omega) + X_H\lrcorner d\omega = ddH = 0
\]
where we used the closeness of $\omega$ and the definition of $X_H$. Consequently the symplectic form is preserved under the Hamilton flow and the flow consists thus of symplectomorphisms.
In order to discuss the quantization of the classical Hamiltonian, we first introduce the notion of order functions and symbol classes (see e.g. \cite[Chapter 4]{Zw12} for a more detailed introduction).
\begin{Def}[Order function]
A measurable function $m:\mathbb R^{2n}\to\mathbb R^+$ is called \emph{order function} if there exist constants $C>0$ and $N\in \mathbb R$ such that
\[
m(z)\leq C\langle z-z'\rangle^N m(z')
\]
where $\langle z\rangle:=\sqrt{1+|z|^2}$.
\end{Def}
A standard example for such an order function is e.g. $m(x,\xi)=\langle x\rangle^a\langle \xi\rangle^b$ with $a,b\in \mathbb R$.
\begin{Def}[Symbol class]
Let $m$ be an order function. Then the corresponding \emph{symbol class} is defined by
\[
S(m):=\{a\in C^\infty(\mathbb R^{2n}),~\forall\,\gamma\in \mathbb{N}^{2n} \,\exists\,C_\gamma \tu{ with }|\partial^\gamma a|\leq C_\gamma m\}.
\]
\end{Def}
\begin{Def}[Quantization]
For a symbol $H\in S(m)$ and $t\in[0,1]$, the \emph{quantization} of $H$ is defined on the Schwartz space $\mathcal S(\mathbb R^{n})$ of rapidly decreasing functions as the operator
\[
\Big(\tu{Op}_{ h,t}(H) \Psi\Big)(x):= (2\pi h)^{-n}\int\limits_{\mathbb R^{2n}} H\left(tx+(1-t)y,\xi\right)\Psi(y)e^{\frac{i}{ h}(x-y)\xi} dyd\xi.
\]
Two particular important special cases are the standard quantization for $t=1$
\[
\Big(\tu{Op}_{ h}(H) \Psi\Big)(x):= (2\pi h)^{-n}\int\limits_{\mathbb R^{2n}} H\left(x,\xi\right)\Psi(y)e^{\frac{i}{ h}(x-y)\xi} dyd\xi
\]
and the Weyl quantization for $t=\tfrac{1}{2}$
\[
\Big(\tu{Op}_{ h}^w(H) \Psi\Big)(x):= (2\pi h)^{-n}\int\limits_{\mathbb R^{2n}} H\left(\frac{x+y}{2},\xi\right)\Psi(y)e^{\frac{i}{ h}(x-y)\xi} dyd\xi.
\]
\end{Def}
The Weyl quantization has the particular advantage that real symbols give rise to $L^2$-symmetric operators. We will therefore mainly use the Weyl quantization, and in order to shorten the notation, we will denote the Weyl quantization of a symbol by $\hat H:=\tu{Op}_ h^w(H)$. In general, such a quantized pseudodifferential operator will, however, not have purely discrete spectrum. In order to obtain a Hamilton operator with satisfactory spectral properties we suppose
\begin{hyp}\label{hyp:regularityH}
$H:\mathbb R^{2n}\to \mathbb R$ is a smooth function bounded from below such that $\langle H\rangle$ is an order function and $H\in S(\langle H\rangle)$.
\end{hyp}
From these regularity conditions it follows with \cite[Théorème 2.6]{HR83} that $\hat H$ extends to a unique self-adjoint operator on the space of square integrable functions $L^2(\mathbb R^n)$. However, such an operator will not have discrete spectrum in an interval $[E_1,E_2]$ in general, and therefore we assume
\begin {hyp}\label{hyp:closed}
There are constants $E_1<E_2$ and $\varepsilon >0$ such that $H^{-1}([E_1-\varepsilon, E_2+\varepsilon])\subset \mathbb R^{2n}$ is compact.
\end {hyp}
The physical interpretation of this condition is that the system is closed, and from \cite[Proposition 5.1]{HR83} we obtain that there is an $ h_0>0$ such that for $ h\in ]0, h_0]$ the spectrum of $\hat H$ in the interval $[E_1,E_2]$ is purely discrete.
\subsection{Group actions and symmetry reduction}\label{sec:group_action}
We first recall some general facts about compact group actions. Let $G$ be a compact Lie group acting on a smooth manifold $M$. For $g\in G$ and $m\in M$ we will simply denote the group action by $gm$. Given a point $m \in M$, we define its stabilizer subgroup as $G_m:=\{g\in G,~gm=m\}\subset G$. The orbit of $m$ under the group action will be denoted by $Gm:=\{gm, g\in G\}\subset M$, and it is always a smooth manifold diffeomorphic to the homogeneous space $G/G_z$. Furthermore, all the stabilizer subgroups $G_{m'}$ for arbitrary points on the orbit $m'\in Gm$ are conjugate to each other. In general, for points on different orbits this is not the case, which leads to
\begin{Def}[Orbit types]
Let $m, m'\in M$ be two points. Their orbits $G/G_m$ and $G/G_{m'}$ are said to be \emph{of the same type} if the stabilizer subgroups $G_m$ and $G_{m'}$ are conjugate in $G$. If two orbits $G/H_1$ and $G/H_2$ ($H_1$ and $H_2$ being closed subgroups of $G$) are given, then one can define a \emph{partial order} on the orbit types by defining
\begin{equation}\label{eq:OrbitOrder}
\textup{type}(G/H_1)\leq \textup{type}(G/H_2) \Leftrightarrow H_2 \textup{ is conjugate to a subgroup of } H_1.
\end{equation}
\end{Def}
One of the most important results in the theory of compact group actions is the existence of a principal orbit type.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:principalOrbit}
Let $G$ be a compact group acting smoothly on a manifold $M$. Then there exists a principal orbit type $G/H$ such that the union of all points of this orbit type $M(H):=\{m\in M,~G_m \tu{ is conjugate to } H\}$ is open and dense in $M$. Furthermore, this orbit type is maximal with respect to the order relation (\ref{eq:OrbitOrder}).
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
See e.g. \cite[Theorem IV.3.1]{Bre72}.
\end{proof}
Symmetry groups of a Hamilton system are always required to preserve the symplectic structure. For a Hamilton system on $\mathbb R^{2n}$ a linear group $G$ preserving the symplectic structure $\omega$ (i.e.~fulfilling $\omega(g\alpha,g\beta)=\omega(\alpha,\beta)$ for all $\alpha,\beta\in \mathbb R^{2n}$ and $g\in G$) has thus to be a subgroup of the symplectic group $Sp(n)$.
An important class of symplectic group actions arise from subgroups $G\subset Gl(n,\mathbb R)$. For an element $g\in G$ acting linearly on $\mathbb R^n$, this action can be lifted to a symplectic action on $\mathbb R^{2n}$ by defining $g(x,\xi):=(gx,(g^t)^{-1}\xi)$. In the sequel, we will only consider compact subgroups $G\subset O(n)$, so that the symplectic action simplifies to $g(x,\xi)=(gx,g\xi)$.
Studying orthogonal subgroups is in fact not more restrictive than studying compact subgroups $G\subset GL(n,\mathbb R)$, because by a standard averaging argument each such group $G$ is conjugate to an orthogonal subgroup $S_0 G S_0^{-1}\subset O(n)$ for a suitable $S_0\in Gl(n,\mathbb R)$ (see e.g. \cite[Lemma 4.6]{Cas06fg} for more details). Through the smooth path $e^{At}z\subset \mathbb R^{2n}$, each element $A$ of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak g$ of $G$ defines a vector in $T_z\mathbb R^{2n}$. Identifying the tangent space with $\mathbb R^{2n}$, and
considering $\mathfrak g$ as a matrix Lie algebra of $n\times n$ matrices, this vector is exactly given by the matrix action $(Ax,A\xi)$. We will generally denote it by $Az$ and write the vector space spanned by this Lie algebra action as $\mathfrak g z:=\{Az,~A\in \mathfrak g\}$. It is straightforward to check that $\mathfrak g z=T_z(Gz)$.
A Hamiltonian is said to be $G$-invariant if $H(gz)=H(z)$ for all $g\in G, z\in \mathbb R^{2n}$. In this case the flow commutes with the $G$-action. Indeed, under certain assumptions such Hamilton systems can be reduced, i.e.~one can construct a lower dimensional Hamilton system by using constants of motion and dividing out the group action. An important object for this symplectic reduction is the so called momentum map, which encodes the constants of motion. In our setting it is given by
\[
\mu:\Abb{\mathbb R^{2n}}{\mathfrak g^*}{z}{\mu(z)} \tu{ where }\mu(z)(A):=\langle z,JAz\rangle.
\]
The zero level of the momentum map is given by
\[
\Omega_0:=\mu^{-1}(0):=\{z\in \mathbb R^{2n}, \langle z, JAz\rangle =0~~\forall A\in \mathfrak g\} .
\]
The regularity of $\Omega_0$ strongly depends on the properties of the $G$-action. If $U\subset \mathbb R^{2n}$ is an open $G$-invariant subset intersecting $\Omega_0$ such that all orbits in $\Omega_0\cap U$ are of the same type, then it is known (see e.g.~\cite[Proposition 2]{CR09}) that $\Omega_0\cap U$ is a smooth manifold with tangent space
\[
T_z(\Omega_0\cap U) = (J\mathfrak g z)^\perp.
\]
Furthermore, one has the following important
\begin{thm}[Symplectic reduction]\label{thm:SymplRed}
If $U$ is a set with the properties as above, then $G\backslash(\Omega_0\cap U)$ carries a unique structure of a smooth symplectic manifold and the projection
\[
Pr:\Abb{\Omega_0\cap U}{G\backslash(\Omega_0\cap U)}{z}{[z]}
\]
which associates to each point $z$ the corresponding equivalence class $[z]$ in the quotient is a smooth submersion. If $H:U\to\mathbb R$ is a $G$-invariant Hamiltonian, then it reduces to a smooth Hamiltonian $\tilde H:G\backslash(\Omega_0\cap U)\to \mathbb R$, and the Hamilton flow $\tilde \Phi_t$ of $\tilde H$ on $G\backslash(\Omega_0\cap U)$ is compatible with the flow $\Phi_t$ of $H$ on $U$, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Phi_red_commutes}
\tilde \Phi_t\circ Pr=Pr \circ\Phi_t
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
see \cite[Theorem 8.1.1, p. 302]{OR04}
\end{proof}
An important example for such an $G$-invariant open subset is the open and dense set of all principal orbits $M(H)$ described by Proposition \ref{prop:principalOrbit}. We will call the intersection of $\Omega_0$ with this set the \emph{regular part} of $\Omega_0$ and write $\tu{Reg }\Omega_0:=\Omega_0\cap M(H)$.
If the condition of equal $G$-orbits on $\Omega_0\cap U$ is not fulfilled, a reduction to a singular stratified space is possible \cite[Theorem 8.1.1, p. 302]{OR04}. The reduction is however much more complicated and uses results on the stratification of $G$-spaces in orbit types.
On the quantum mechanical side, the symmetry reduction appears via the Peter-Weyl theorem. The orthogonal action of $G$ on $\mathbb R^n$ induces a unitary representation on $L^2(\mathbb R^n)$, which is the space on which we study the quantized Hamilton operator, by
\[
(M(g)\Psi)(x):=\Psi(g^{-1}x)~~\forall ~\Psi\in L^2(\mathbb R^n).
\]
By the Peter-Weyl theorem, this unitary representation leads to the following decomposition of our Hilbert space $L^2(\mathbb R^n)$: Let $\chi\in \hat G$ be an equivalence class of unitary irreducible $G$-representations given by an irreducible character of the compact group $G$ and $d_\chi=\chi(Id)$ the dimension of the irreducible representation. Then
\[
P_\chi:=d\chi\int_G\overline{\chi(g)} M(g)dg ~\tu{ ($dg$ is the normalized Haar measure)}
\]
is a projector, and we denote its image by $L^2_\chi(\mathbb R^n)$. The space $L^2(\mathbb R^n)$ then decomposes into a direct sum
\[
L^2(\mathbb R^n)=\bigoplus\limits_{\chi\in \hat G}L^2_\chi(\mathbb R^n).
\]
As a direct consequence of the $G$-invariance of the Hamiltonian $H$, we get that the quantized Hamilton operator $\hat H$ commutes with the $G$-action $M(g)$ so that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:HamiltonKommutiert}
\hat H = M(g)\hat H M(g^{-1}).
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{eq:HamiltonKommutiert}) implies that the Hamilton operator leaves $L^2_\chi(\mathbb R^n)$ invariant. We can therefore consider the restriction of $\hat H$ to $L^2_\chi(\mathbb R^n)$ and denote it by $\hat H_\chi$. This restricted operator is the symmetry-reduced Hamilton operator. Note that that in contrast to the symmetry reduction of the classical system, for the quantum reduction there are no additional complications if $G$ acts with different orbit types.
\section{Weak equivariant Weyl asymptotics}\label{sec:weak}
In this section we will prove a theorem for the asymptotic number of eigenvalues of the reduced Hamilton operator $\hat H_\chi$ for an arbitrary compact orthogonal group action. Suppose that $\hat H_\chi$ has purely discrete spectrum on $]E_1,E_2[$ and let $f\in C^\infty_0(]E_1,E_2[)$. Note that as $\hat H=\textup{Op}^w_ h(H)$ is a family of operators parametrized by $ h>0$, its spectrum will equally depend on the semiclassical parameter $ h$. We will give the leading term in the limit $ h\to0$, plus a remainder estimate, for the expression $\sum f(\lambda_i)$, where the sum is over all eigenvalues of $\hat H_\chi$ in $]E_1,E_2[$ repeated according to their multiplicity. By taking a smooth function approximating the characteristic function of an interval $[a,b]\subset]E_1,E_2[$, this expression immediately gives us approximate information on the asymptotic number of eigenvalues in the interval $[a,b]$. As we are restricted to smooth functions $f$, and cannot take $f$ exactly to be a
characteristic
function, we
call these asymptotics ``weak Weyl asymptotics''. The strong version of the equivariant Weyl's law i.e.~asymptotics for $f$ being a characteristic function, have been obtained by El Houakmi-Helffer \cite{EH91} via FIOs in the case of one orbit type.
We will prove the ``weak Weyl asymptotics'' for an arbitrary orbit structure by reducing the problem via functional calculus to oscillatory integrals with singular critical sets, and use results of \cite{Ram14} for these integrals. A generalization of the strong version of Weyl's law to arbitrary orbit structures seems not possible by reducing the problem to the integrals studied in \cite{Ram14}, but would require to resolve a much more complicated phase function.
We can now state and prove our first main result
\begin{thm}\label{thm:weakAsym}
Let $G$ be a compact subgroup of $O(n)$ and $H:\mathbb R^{2n}\to \mathbb R$ a smooth $G$-invariant Hamiltonian which is bounded from below, and satisfies the regularity conditions of Hypothesis \ref{hyp:regularityH}. Let $E_1<E_2$ and $\epsilon>0$ be such that $H^{-1}([E_1-\epsilon,E_2+\epsilon])$ is compact, and let $f:\mathbb R\to\mathbb R$ be smooth and compactly supported in $]E_1,E_2[$. For a given character $\chi\in \hat G$ and small $ h$, $f(\hat H_\chi)$ is of trace class, and its trace is asymptotically given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:weakAsym}
\tu{Tr}(f(\hat H_\chi)) = (2\pi h)^{-n+\kappa} d_\chi\mathcal L_0 +\mathcal O( h^{-n+\kappa+1}\log( h^{-1})^\Lambda)
\end{equation}
where $\kappa$ is the dimension of a principal orbit in $\mathbb R^n$, $\Lambda$ the maximal number of elements of a totally ordered subset of the set of orbit types, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Leading_Term_weak_asym}
\mathcal L_0 = [\pi_{\chi|H_{\mathrm{prin}}}:1]\int\limits_{\tu{Reg } \Omega_0} \frac{f(H(z))}{\tu{Vol}(Gz)}d(\tu{Reg }\Omega_0)(z).
\end{equation}
Here $\tu{Vol}(Gz)$ denotes the induced volume of the principal $G$-orbit through $z$ as a submanifold of $\mathbb R^n$, and $d(\tu{Reg }\Omega_0)$ the induced measure on $\tu{Reg }\Omega_0$. $[\pi_{\chi|H_{\mathrm{prin}}}:1]$ is the Frobenius factor which is given by the multiplicity with which the trivial representation occurs in the restriction of the irreducible $G$-representation $\pi_\chi$ to the isotropy subgroup of the principal orbits $H_{\mathrm{prin}}\subset G$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
As mentioned in Section \ref{sec:group_action}, the case of a compact symmetry group $G\subset GL(n,\mathbb R)$ can be reduced to the case of an orthogonal subgroup, treated in the theorem, by a standard averaging argument.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
As $G$ acts with only one orbit type $G/H_{\mathrm{prin}}$ on $\tu{Reg }\Omega_0$, the quotient $G\backslash\textup{Reg }\Omega_0 $ has the structure of a symplectic manifold (see Theorem \ref{thm:SymplRed}) and $\tu{Reg }\Omega_0$ is a fiber bundle over this quotient
\[
Pr:\Abb{\tu{Reg }\Omega_0}{G\backslash\textup{Reg }\Omega_0}{z}{[z]}
\]
with the principal orbit $G/H_{\mathrm{prin}}$ as the fiber. By its $G$-invariance, the Hamiltonian $H(z)$ takes constant values along the fibers equal to the value of the reduced Hamiltonian $\tilde H([z])$. Consequently, using a fiberwise integration we can rewrite (\ref{eq:Leading_Term_weak_asym}) as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal L_0 = [\pi_{\chi|H_{\mathrm{prin}}}:1]\int\limits_{G\backslash \tu{Reg } \Omega_0} f(\tilde H([z]))d(G\backslash \tu{Reg }\Omega_0)([z]).
\end{equation}
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
In a first step we show that $f(\hat H_\chi)$ is trace class, and express the trace as an oscillatory integral. Afterwards we will derive the asymptotic behavior for this integral from a result in \cite{Ram14}.
From the compactness of $H^{-1}(E_1-\epsilon,E_2+\epsilon)$ we conclude that $\hat H$ has purely discrete spectrum on the interval $[E_1,E_2]$ with eigenvalues $\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_r$ and eigenstates $\Psi_1,\dots\Psi_r$ \cite[Proposition 5.1]{HR83}. The expression $f(\hat H)$ is thus defined by
\[
f(\hat H)\Psi = \sum\limits_{i=1}^rf(\lambda_i) \langle \Psi_i,\Psi\rangle \Psi_i, \tu{ for }\Psi\in L^2(\mathbb R^n).
\]
As $H(z)$ is $G$-invariant, $\hat H$ commutes with the left regular representation of $G$ and the eigenstate $\Psi_i$ can be chosen such that each $\Psi_i$ belongs precisely to one $G$-representation $L^2_\chi$. Consequently, if we denote by $\sigma_\chi$ the set of all eigenvalues belonging to $\chi\in \hat G$ we can write
\[
f(\hat H)\Psi=\sum\limits_{\chi\in \hat G}\sum\limits_{\lambda_i\in \sigma_\chi} f(\lambda_i)\langle \Psi_i,\Psi\rangle \Psi_i=\left(\sum\limits_{\chi\in \hat G}f(\hat H_\chi)\right)\Psi
\]
with
\[
f(\hat H_\chi)\Psi=\sum\limits_{\lambda_i\in \sigma_\chi} f(\lambda_i)\langle \Psi_i,\Psi\rangle \Psi_i.
\]
Thus we conclude
\begin{equation}\label{eq:f(Hchi)}
f(\hat H_\chi)=f(\hat H)\hat P_\chi.
\end{equation}
Furthermore $f(\hat H_\chi)$ is of finite rank and thus trace class.
Now, for $f(\hat H)$ we can use the Helffer-Robert functional calculus \cite[Théorème 4.1]{HR83} and get for each $N\in \mathbb{N}$ the expression
\begin{equation}\label{eq:FunctCalc}
f(\hat H)= \sum\limits_{j=0}^N h^j Op_ h^w(a_j) + h^{N+1} \hat R_{N+1}( h),
\end{equation}
where the $a_j$ are symbols with $\tu{supp}(a_j)\subset H^{-1}(]E_1-\epsilon,E_2+\epsilon[)$ and $a_0=f\circ H$. Furthermore, from the proof of Théorème 5.1 in \cite{HR83} it follows that $\hat R_N$ is of trace class for $ h$ sufficiently small and that its trace norm is bounded by $\|\hat R_{N+1}\|_{\tu{Tr}}\leq C h^{-n}$.
In order to express $f(\hat H_\chi)$ as an oscillatory integral we first prove the following
\begin{lem}\label{lem:TraceKernel}
Let $Op_ h(a_j)$ be the standard quantization. Then $Op_ h(a_j)\hat P_\chi$ can be written as an integral operator with smooth kernel
\[
K(x,y) = (2\pi h)^{-n}d_\chi\int\limits_G\int\limits_{\mathbb R^n} a_j(x,\xi)\overline{\chi(g)}e^{\frac i h (x-g^{-1}y)\xi} d\xi dg.
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For $\Psi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n)$, we calculate with Fubini
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int\limits_{\mathbb R^n} K(x,y)\Psi(y)dy &=& (2\pi h)^{-n}d_\chi \int\limits_{\mathbb R^n}\left[\int\limits_G\int\limits_{\mathbb R^n} a_j(x,\xi)\overline{\chi(g)}e^{\frac i h (x-g^{-1}y)\xi} d\xi dg\right]\Psi(y) dy\\
&=&(2\pi h)^{-n} \int\limits_{\mathbb R^n}\int\limits_{\mathbb R^n} a_j(x,\xi)e^{\frac i h (x-y)\xi} \left[\int\limits_Gd_\chi\overline{\chi(g)} \Psi(gy)dg\right] d\xi dy\\
&=&[Op_ h(a_j) P_\chi \Psi] (x),
\end{eqnarray*}
where we used the fact that all integrands are compactly supported.
\end{proof}
In order to calculate the desired trace by the above lemma we need to change the quantization in (\ref{eq:FunctCalc}).
\begin{lem}\label{lem:ChangeQuant}
If $b\in S(m)$ is a $G$-invariant, compactly supported symbol, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:change_quantization}
Op_ h^w(b)=Op_ h\left(\sum\limits_{j=0}^N h^j b_j(x,\xi) + h^{N+1}R_N(x,\xi)\right)
\end{equation}
for every $N\in \mathbb{N}$, where $b_j\in S(m)$ are compactly supported and $G$-invariant. Furthermore, $b_0=b$ and $\|Op_ h(R_N)\|_{Tr}<C h^{-n}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By \cite[Theorem 4.13]{Zw12} one has (\ref{eq:change_quantization}) with $b_j=\frac{(-i h \langle D_x,D_\xi\rangle)^j}{j!}b$, so that the compactness property follows immediately. From the $G$-invariance of $b$ we conclude for arbitrary $g\in G$
\[
\begin{array}{rcl}
\left(\frac{(-i h \langle D_x,D_\xi\rangle)^j}{j!}b \right)(x)&=&\left(\frac{(-i h \langle D_x,D_\xi\rangle)^j}{j!}(b\circ g)\right)(x)\\
&=&\left(\frac{(-i h \langle gD_x,gD_\xi\rangle)^j}{j!}b\right)(gx)\\
&=&\left(\frac{(-i h \langle D_x,D_\xi\rangle)^j}{j!}b\right)(gx)\\
\end{array}
\]
which proves the $G$-invariance of the $b_j$. Finally, as $b$ is compactly supported, $b$ and consequently also $R_N$ belong to $S(\langle z\rangle^{-k})$ for all $k$. Thus, $R_N$ is a Schwartz function and $\tu{Tr}[Op_ h(R_N)]=(2\pi h)^{-n}\iint R_N(x,\xi)dxd\xi$.
\end{proof}
Equation (\ref{eq:f(Hchi)}) and (\ref{eq:FunctCalc}), together with Lemma \ref{lem:TraceKernel} and Lemma \ref{lem:ChangeQuant} finally yield
\begin{cor}
For each $N\in \mathbb{N}$ the trace of $f(\hat H_\chi)$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:WeakAsymOscInt}
\tu{Tr}(f(\hat H_\chi)) = (2\pi h)^{-n} d_\chi \sum\limits_{j=0}^N h^j \int\limits_G \int\limits_{\mathbb R^n} \int\limits_{\mathbb R^n} \tilde a_j(x,\xi)\overline{\chi(g)}e^{\frac i h (x-gx)\xi} dxd\xi dg +\mathcal O( h^{-n+N}),
\end{equation}
where the $\tilde a_j$ are compactly supported, $G$-invariant symbols and $\tilde a_0=f\circ H$.
\end{cor}
Each of the summands in (\ref{eq:WeakAsymOscInt}) is thus an oscillatory integral with phase function $\Phi(x,\xi)=(x-gx)\xi$. The critical set of such an oscillatory integral is defined by $\mathcal C:=\{(z,g)\in \mathbb R^{2n}\times G,\,d\Phi_{z,g}=0\}$. For this phase function a straightforward computation yields
\[
\mathcal C =\{(z, g)\in \Omega_0\times G,~gz=z\}.
\]
If $G$ acts with different orbit types, this set is not smooth and one cannot obtain the asymptotics directly by the stationary phase theorem. However, it has been shown \cite{Ram14} that by iteratively blowing up the critical set, the leading order term for integrals of this type can be obtained together with a remainder estimate. As all symbols of the oscillatory integral are compactly supported we can use \cite[Theorem 9.3]{Ram14} and obtain in the limit $ h \to 0$
\[
\tu{Tr}(f(\hat H_\chi)) = (2\pi h)^{-n+\kappa} d_\chi\mathcal L_0 +\mathcal O( h^{-n+\kappa+1}\log( h^{-1})^\Lambda),
\]
where $\kappa$ is the dimension of a principal orbit in $\mathbb R^n$, $\Lambda$ the maximal number of elements of a totally ordered subset of the set of orbit types, and
\[
\mathcal L_0 = \int\limits_{\tu{Reg } \mathcal C} \frac{\overline{\chi(g)}f(H(x,\xi))}{\left|\det\left( \tu{Hess }\Phi(x,\xi,g)_{|N_{x,\xi,g}\tu{Reg }\mathcal C}\right)\right|^{1/2}}d(\tu{Reg }\mathcal C)(x,\xi,g),
\]
where the set $\tu{Reg }\mathcal C:=\mathcal C\cap(\tu{Reg }\Omega_0\times G)$ is a smooth submanifold of $\mathbb R^{2n}\times G$ and $\tu{Hess }\Phi(x,\xi,g)_{|N_{(x,\xi,g)}\tu{Reg }\mathcal C}$ the restriction of the Hessian to the normal-bundle of $\tu{Reg }\mathcal C$.
Applying \cite[Lemma 7]{CR09} this expression can be simplified to
\[
\mathcal L_0 = [\pi_{\chi|H_{\mathrm{prin}}}:1]\int\limits_{\tu{Reg } \Omega_0} \frac{f(H(z))}{\tu{Vol}(Gz)}d(\tu{Reg }\Omega_0)(z).
\]
This finally proves Theorem \ref{thm:weakAsym}.
\end{proof}
\section{Equivariant Gutzwiller formula}
While the previous section treated a result on the number of eigenvalues of the symmetry-reduced operator $\hat H_\chi$, this section will be dedicated to the correlations in the spectrum of $\hat H_\chi$ which will be described by an equivariant Gutzwiller trace formula. In Section \ref{sec:SpecDist} we will introduce the equivariant spectral distribution which is the well known quantity to study asymptotic spectral correlations. This spectral distribution will be written as an oscillatory integral using results of Cassanas \cite{Cas06}. The phase analysis and a discussion of the possible singularities of the critical set will be the subject of Section \ref{sec:CritSet}. We will see that, in general, the singularities can result from the group action as well as from the Hamilton dynamics, and we will review the assumptions which were imposed by Guillemin-Uribe \cite{GU90} and Cassanas \cite{Cas06} in order to avoid these singularities. In Section \ref{sec:DynaAssumptions} we introduce a generalization of
the
former assumptions which makes no special hypothesis on the group action anymore. Under these assumptions we finally prove the equivariant Gutzwiller trace formula in Section \ref{sec:ProofGutzwiller}.
\subsection{Spectral distribution and oscillatory integrals}\label{sec:SpecDist}
Throughout this section we will assume that $H$ is a Hamiltonian fulfilling Hypothesis \ref{hyp:regularityH} and \ref{hyp:closed} and that $G\subset O(n)$ is a compact Lie group acting on $\mathbb R^n$. Furthermore we assume that $H$ is $G$-invariant. As discussed above, for an arbitrary equivalence class of irreducible unitary representation $\chi\in \hat G$ one can study the symmetry-reduced Hamilton operator $\hat H_\chi$ which has purely discrete spectrum in $[E_1,E_2]$ for $ h\in ]0, h_0]$. Let $\zeta\in C_0^\infty([E_1,E_2])$ be a smooth cut-off function and $ h \in]0, h_0]$. We can then define for each $E\in ]E_1,E_2[$ the spectral distribution $\rho^\chi_{E, h}\in \mathcal S'(\mathbb R)$ by its action on $f\in \mathcal S(\mathbb R)$ by setting
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SpecDist}
\rho^\chi_{E, h}(f):= \tu{Tr}\left(\zeta(\hat H_\chi)f\left(\frac{E-\hat H_\chi}{ h}\right)\right).
\end{equation}
This expression can be reformulated using the Fourier inversion formula, and one obtains
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SpecDistFT}
\rho^\chi_{E, h}(f):= \frac{1}{2\pi} \tu{Tr}\left( \zeta(\hat H_\chi)\int\limits_\mathbb R e^{\frac{i}{ h} E t}e^{-\frac{i}{ h} \hat H_\chi t}\hat f(t) dt\right)
\end{equation}
with $\hat f(t)$ being the Fourier transform $\hat f(t):=\int\limits_\mathbb R e^{-iEt}f(E)dE$.
In order to understand the significance of this spectral distribution, consider the following heuristics: Assume, that $\hat f(t)$ is compactly supported and that this support is very close to $t_0\neq 0$ such that it approximates the delta distribution at $t_0$. One then obtains
\[
\rho^\chi_{E, h}(f)\approx \frac{1}{2\pi} e^{\frac{i}{ h} E t_0}\sum\limits_{E_j\in \sigma(\hat H_\chi)\cap[E_1,E_2]} \zeta(E_j)e^{-\frac{i}{ h}E_j t_0}
\]
where $\sigma(\hat H_\chi)$ denotes the spectrum of $\hat H_\chi$. From the Weyl law we know that the number of eigenvalues $E_j$ of $\hat H_\chi$ in $[E_1,E_2]$ diverges as $ h\to0$. Therefore, if they are randomly distributed in $[E_1,E_2]$, the spectral distribution will be very small for small $ h$ due to phase cancellation. The contrary extreme would be a totally correlated spectrum, respectively an equidistant spectrum
\[
E_{j+1}=E_j+\frac{2\pi h}{t_0}
\]
In this case the spectral distribution gives
\[
\rho^\chi_{E, h}(f)\approx \frac{1}{2\pi} e^{\frac{i}{ h} (E-E_0) t_0}\sum\limits_{E_j\in \sigma(\hat H_\chi)\cap[E_1,E_2]} \zeta(E_j),
\]
which constitutes for small $ h$ a large quantity according to the weak asymptotics. Of course such an equidistant spectrum is only possible for very special dimensions of phase space and $G$-orbits in order to be in accordance with the equivariant Weyl law, and also the approximation of the delta distribution by $\hat f$ strictly speaking does not hold anymore in the limit $ h\to 0$. This heuristic discussion however shows that contributions of the spectral distribution at $t_0\neq 0$ measure the correlation of the spectrum with a correlation length $\tfrac{2\pi h}{t_0}$, motivating its study. The equivariant Gutzwiller trace formula will be an asymptotic expansion of the spectral distribution $\rho^\chi_{E, h}$ evaluated at a Schwartz function $f$ with $\hat f$ compactly supported away from zero.
The standard way to obtain the asymptotic expansion of the spectral distribution is to rewrite it as an oscillatory integral, and apply the stationary phase approximation. This transformation of the spectral distribution to an oscillatory integral can be performed in different ways. The most common way is to use Fourier integral operator theory in order to study the operator $e^{\frac{i}{ h} \hat H t}$ in (\ref{eq:SpecDistFT}). An alternative approach has been proposed by Combescure-Ralston-Robert \cite{CRR99} using their previous results on the propagation of coherent states \cite{CR97}. This coherent state approach has been elaborated in detail by Cassanas \cite{Cas06fg, Cas06} in exactly the same setting which we study in this work, i.e.~for symmetry-reduced $ h$-PDOs. We will thus use the following result of those works:
\begin{prop}\label{prop:OscIntGutzwiller}
Let $f\in \mathcal S(\mathbb R)$ such that $\hat f$ is compactly supported. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:OscIntegralEquiv}
\rho_{E, h}^{\chi}(f)=d_\chi \int_\mathbb R dt\int_{\mathbb R^{2n}}dz\int_{G}dg~~a_g(z, h)\hat f(t)e^{\frac{i}{ h}\phi_E(z,t,g)},
\end{equation}
where the complex phase function is given by $\phi_E=\phi_E^1+i\phi_E^2$ with
\begin{eqnarray*}
\phi_E^1(z,t,g)&=&(E-H(z))t+\frac{1}{2}\langle g^{-1} z,Jz\rangle-\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t\langle(z_t-g^{-1}z),J\dot{z}_s\rangle ds,\\
\phi_E^2(z,t,g)&=&\frac{1}{4}\langle(\mathds{1}-\hat W_t)(gz_t-z),(gz_t-z)\rangle.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $\hat W_t$ is a complex valued $2n\times2n$-matrix such that $(\mathds{1}-\hat W_t)$ defines a non-degenerate quadratic form. More precisely, $\hat W_t:=\left(\begin{array}{cc} W_t&-iW_t\\-iW_t&-W_t\end{array}\right)$ where the $n\times n$ matrice $W_t$ is given by the equation
\[
\tfrac{1}{2}(\mathds{1}+W_t):=\left(\mathds{1}-ig(C+iD)(A+iB)^{-1}g^{-1}\right)^{-1}
\]
with $A,B,C,D$ being the real $t$- and $z$-dependent $n\times n$ matrices such that the linearized flow is given by $(\Phi_t)_{*,z}=\left(\begin{array}{cc} A&B\\mathbb{C}&D\end{array}\right)$. The integrand $a_g(\bullet, h):\mathbb R^{2n}\to \mathbb{C}$ is supported in $H^{-1}([E-\delta E,E+\delta E])$ and is given by an asymptotic expansion in $ h$ with leading term
\begin{equation}\label{eq:SymbolLeadingTerm}
a_g(z, h)\sim_{ h\to 0^+}\frac{(2\pi h)^{-d}}{2\pi}\overline{\chi(g)}\chi_2(z)\zeta(H(z))\tu{det}_*^{-1/2}\left(\frac{A+iB-i(C+iD)}{2}\right).
\end{equation}
Here $\chi_2$ is a smooth cut-off function compactly supported around $\Sigma_E$ and equal to one in a neighborhood of $\Sigma_E=H^{-1}(E)$ and $\tu{det}_*^{-1/2}(M)$ is defined as the product of the reciprocal square roots of eigenvalues of the matrix $M$ with real parts chosen to be positive.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
See \cite{Cas06}, Section 4, Equation (4.1). For the non degeneracy of $\mathds{1}-\hat W_t$ see the discussion in \cite{Cas06fg} on page 10 (Section IV A).
\end{proof}
By this proposition we have thus written the spectral distribution as an oscillatory integral with complex phase function. The next section will be dedicated to its phase analysis.
\subsection{The critical set}\label{sec:CritSet}
For a complex valued phase function $\Phi\in C^\infty(\mathbb R^n)$ with $\tu{Im}(\Phi)\geq0$, the critical set is defined as (c.f. \cite{HoeI} Theorem 7.7.1)
\[
\mathcal C_\Phi :=\{x\in \mathbb R^n,~\tu{Im}(\Phi(x))=0 \tu{ and } \nabla\Phi(x)=0\}.
\]
Using the fact that $(\mathds{1}-\hat W_t)$ is non-degenerate, a straightforward but slightly tedious calculation leads to
\begin{prop}\label{prop:CritSetGutzwiller}
For the complex phase function $\phi_E$ of Proposition \ref{prop:OscIntGutzwiller}, the critical set is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:CritSetEquivariant}
\mathcal C_{\phi_E}=\{(z,t,g)\in \mathbb R^{2n}\times\mathbb R\times G,~~z\in\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E,~g\Phi_t(z)=z\}
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Proposition 4.1]{Cas06}.
\end{proof}
This critical set $ \mathcal C_{\phi_E}$ is in general a singular set. There are two different sources for these singularities: First of all, they can purely result from the Hamilton flow even if there is no symmetry group acting. For example, an isolated fixed point or a singular family of periodic orbits would lead to such singularities. A second source of singularities are, as in the case of the weak asymptotics, different orbit types of the group action. The same critical set with the same sources of singularities also appears in the work of Guillemin-Uribe \cite{GU90}. In order to make sure that the critical set is smooth, and to prove the asymptotic expansion for the equivariant Gutzwiller trace formula, both works \cite{GU90, Cas06} impose the following three conditions \ref{hyp:Reduction}-\ref{hyp:NondegOrbits} which we now recall, using the notation of \cite{Cas06}.
\begin{customhyp}{(H1)}\label{hyp:Reduction}
For $E\in \mathbb R$, the \emph{hypothesis of reduction} is fulfilled if there exists some $\delta E>0$ such that for $U=H^{-1}(]E-\delta E,E+\delta E[)$
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Omega_0\cap U\neq \emptyset$,
\item all $G$-orbits in $\Omega_0\cap U$ are of the same type.
\end{itemize}
\end{customhyp}
This hypothesis prevents the possible singularities coming from the group action. If it is fulfilled one can consider the reduced Hamiltonian $\tilde H:G\backslash(\Omega_0\cap U)\to\mathbb R$ given by Theorem \ref{thm:SymplRed}. In order to avoid the singularities coming from the Hamilton dynamics, one further needs the following two Hypothesis.
\begin{customhyp}{(H2)}\label{hyp:non_critical}
Assume that \ref{hyp:Reduction} is fulfilled. Then $E$ is a \emph{non critical value} of $\tilde H$, i.e.\,$d\tilde H\neq 0$ on $\tilde \Sigma_E:=\tilde H^{-1}(E)$.
\end{customhyp}
\begin{customhyp}{(H3)}\label{hyp:NondegOrbits}
Assume that \ref{hyp:Reduction} and \ref{hyp:non_critical} are fulfilled. Let $\gamma\subset \tilde \Sigma_E$ be an arbitrary closed orbit of the reduced Hamiltonian $\tilde H$, $[z]\in \gamma$ an arbitrary point on this orbit, and $T_\gamma>0$ the period of the orbit so that $\tilde \Phi_{T_\gamma}([z])=[z]$. Let furthermore $\tilde F_t:=\partial_z\tilde \Phi_t$ be the linearized flow. Then we assume that $\gamma$ is a \emph{non-degenerate orbit} i.e.~the eigenvalue 1 of $\tilde F_{T_\gamma}([z])$ has algebraic multiplicity 2.
\end{customhyp}
More generally, the non-degenerate orbit condition can be weakened replacing it by the \emph{clean-flow condition}. However, under this assumption, the resulting spectral asymptotics can not be written as a sum over periodic orbits anymore, and are much less explicit.
In the following we shall drop the Hypothesis \ref{hyp:Reduction} and study the Gutzwiller trace formula for general compact group actions. As the formulation of \ref{hyp:non_critical} and \ref{hyp:NondegOrbits} is usually based on \ref{hyp:Reduction}, these two conditions have to be replaced by appropriate generalizations which will be formulated in the next subsection.
\subsection{The $G$-non-stationary and $G$-non-degenerate assumption}\label{sec:DynaAssumptions}
Let \ref{hyp:Reduction} be fulfilled. Then assumption \ref{hyp:non_critical} is equivalent to the fact that the Hamilton flow of $\tilde H$ on the reduced phase space has no stationary points at the given energy level $E$. Suppose that $[z]\in \tilde \Sigma_E$ is such a stationary point, i.e.\,$\tilde\Phi_{t}([z])=[z]$ for all $t$, then we infer from (\ref{eq:Phi_red_commutes}), that $ \Phi_t(z)\subset Pr^{-1}([z])=Gz\subset \Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$ for all $t$. In particular we have $\frac{d}{dt}\Phi_t(z)_{|t=0} \in \mathfrak g z$. If, on the other hand, we have for some $z\in \Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$ that $\frac{d}{dt}\Phi_t(z)_{|t=0}= A z$ for some $A\in \mathfrak g$, then we obtain that $\Phi_t(z)=e^{At}z$ because we check that it fulfills the Hamilton equations of motions (\ref{eq:HamiltonEquations})
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d}{dt}e^{At}z_{|t=t_0} &=& e^{At_0}Az\\
&=&e^{At_0}\frac{d}{dt}\Phi_t(z)_{|t=0}\\
&=&e^{At_0}J\nabla H(z)\\
&=&J\nabla H(e^{At_0}z).
\end{eqnarray*}
Here we used in the last equality that the group action is symplectic and that the Hamiltonian is $G$-invariant. Consequently a stationary point on the symmetry-reduced system in $\tilde \Sigma_E$ is equivalent to an orbit of the Hamilton flow of $H$ which is tangent to a $G$-orbit in at least one point in $\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$. Let now \ref{hyp:Reduction} be dropped. Hypothesis \ref{hyp:non_critical} can then be easily reformulated for general compact group actions and we arrive at
\begin{customhyp}{(H2$'$)}\label{hyp:H2prime}
The given Hamilton dynamics is called \emph{$G$-non-stationary} for a given energy $E\in \mathbb R$ if and only if $J\nabla H(z)\nsubseteq \mathfrak g z$ for all $z\in \Sigma_E\cap \Omega_0$.
\end{customhyp}
The generalization of \ref{hyp:NondegOrbits} requires a little bit more work. We assume that the Hamilton dynamics is $G$-non-stationary, so that in particular $\nabla H(z)\neq 0$ on $\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$ and $\Sigma_E$ is a smooth submanifold in some neighborhood of $\Omega_0$. From the $G$-invariance of the Hamiltonian we obtain that the $G$-orbit $Gz$ of a point $z\in \Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$ is completely contained in $\Sigma_E$ thus the same inclusion holds for their tangent spaces $\mathfrak g z\subset T_z\Sigma_E$. Consequently $\nabla H(z)\perp Az$ for all $z\in\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$ and $A\in \mathfrak g$. For $z\in \Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$, we obtain thus the decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DecompTangentSpaceEquiv}
T_z\mathbb R^{2n} =(\mathbb R \nabla H(z)\oplus J\mathfrak g z)\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc(\mathbb R J\nabla H(z)\oplus\mathfrak g z)\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc \mathcal R,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal R$ is simply the orthogonal complement of $(\mathbb R \nabla H(z)\oplus J\mathfrak g z)\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc(\mathbb R J\nabla H(z)\oplus\mathfrak g z)$ in $T_z\mathbb R^{2n}$. In order to obtain a clearer interpretation of (\ref{eq:DecompTangentSpaceEquiv}) we introduce a notation which will turn out to be convenient at several other points in the sequel. We define the Lie group $F:=\mathbb R\times G$ and its action for $f=(t,g)\in F$ on $z\in \mathbb R^{2n}$ by
\[
fz:=g\Phi_t(z).
\]
The fact that the $G$-action commutes with $\Phi_t$ assures that this is really a Lie group action. We will denote its Lie algebra by $\mathfrak f=\mathbb R\oplus\mathfrak g$ and an Lie-algebra element by $(\tau, A)$. Its infinitesimal Lie-algebra action is given by $(\tau, A)z= \tau J\nabla H(z)+Az$ and for the subspace of $T_z\mathbb R^{2n}$ spanned by the $\mathfrak f$-action we write
\[
\mathfrak f z:=\{\tau J\nabla H(z)+Az,~(\tau, A)\in \mathfrak f\}=T_z(Fz).
\]
With this notation (\ref{eq:DecompTangentSpaceEquiv}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:DecompTangentSpaceF}
T_z\mathbb R^{2n} =J\mathfrak f z\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc\mathfrak f z\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc \mathcal R.
\end{equation}
Consider now a point $z\in \Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$ which fulfills $fz=z$ for some $f\in F$. We can then study the differential $f_{*,z}=(g\Phi_T)_{*,z}:T_z\mathbb R^{2n}\to T_z\mathbb R^{2n}$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:GeneralFormDgPhi}
Assume that \ref{hyp:H2prime} is fulfilled and consider for a fixed $f=(T,g)\in F$ a point $z\in \Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$ such that $fz=g\Phi_T(z)=z$. Then the differential of $f$ has the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GeneralFormDgPhi}
f_{*,z}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\begin{array}{|c|} \hline \mathcal A\\ \hline \end{array} &0&0\\
*&\begin{array}{|c|} \hline \mathcal B\\ \hline \end{array}&*\\
*&0&\begin{array}{|c|} \hline \mathcal P\\ \hline \end{array}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
where the block form is with respect to the decomposition (\ref{eq:DecompTangentSpaceF}) of the tangent space, i.e.~$\mathcal A$ acts on $J\mathfrak f z$, $\mathcal B$ on $\mathfrak f z$, and $\mathcal P$ on $\mathcal R$. Furthermore, $\mathcal B$ is given on $\mathfrak f z=\mathbb R J\nabla H(z)\oplus \mathfrak g z$ by
\[
\mathcal B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1&0\\
0&\tu{Ad}(g)
\end{array}
\right)
\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
As the $F$-action leaves the corresponding $F$-orbits invariant, $\mathfrak f z$ is invariant under $f_{*,z}$ which explains the second column in (\ref{eq:GeneralFormDgPhi}). As the Hamilton flow and the $G$ action are both symplectic, the $F$ action is symplectic as well, which implies that the symplectic complement $(J\mathfrak f z)^\perp=\mathfrak f z \perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc \mathcal R$ of $\mathfrak f z$ is an invariant subspace under $f_{*,z}$ and consequently we obtain the first row in (\ref{eq:GeneralFormDgPhi}). For the refined form of $\mathcal B$ we consider the vector $J\nabla H(z)=\tfrac{d}{dt}\Phi_t(z)_{|t=0}$. Since
\[
\frac{d}{dt}g\Phi_T(\Phi_t(z))_{|t=0} = \frac{d}{dt}g\Phi_t(\Phi_T(z))_{|t=0}= \frac{d}{dt}\Phi_t(g\Phi_T(z))_{|t=0} =J\nabla H(z),
\]
$J\nabla H(z)$ is eigenvector of $(g\Phi_T)_{*,z}$ with eigenvalue $1$. On the other hand, if $v\in \mathfrak g z$ i.e.~$v=\tfrac{d}{dt}e^{At}z_{|t=0}$, one computes
\[
\left(g\Phi_T\right)_{*,z}(v)=\frac{d}{dt}g\Phi_T(e^{At} z)_{|t=0} =\frac{d}{dt}ge^{At}g^{-1} g\Phi_T( z)_{|t=0} =(\tu{Ad}(g)A) z.
\]
\end{proof}
With this general form of the differential $(g\Phi_T)_*$ one can now reformulate \ref{hyp:NondegOrbits} to a new assumption \ref{hyp:GNonDeg} which we call \emph{$G$-non-degenerate assumption}. In order to formulate it we first introduce some further notations.
\begin{Def}
By a \emph{relative periodic point} $z\in \mathbb R^{2n}$ we will denote a point for which there are $T\neq 0$ and $g\in G$ such that $g\Phi_T(z)=z$. For a relative periodic point $z_0$ the set $\gamma=\{g\Phi_t(z_0),~g\in G\textup{ and }t\in \mathbb R\}$ is then called \emph{relative periodic orbit}. For a given relative periodic orbit $\gamma$, its \emph{primitive period length} $T_\gamma$ is defined as the smallest $T>0$ such that there exists $g\in G$ with $g\Phi_T(z) =z$ for some $z\in \gamma$.
\end{Def}
\begin{rem}
Relative periodic points are thus simply fixed points under some element $f=(T,g)\in F$ with $T\neq 0$ and the relative periodic orbits are the $F$-orbits of a relative periodic point.
\end{rem}
\begin{Def}\label{def:GNonDeg}
Let $z\in \Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$ be a relative periodic point with $g\Phi_{T}(z)=z$ for some $g\in G$ and $T>0$. Then this point, as well as the corresponding relative periodic orbit $\gamma$, are called \emph{$G$-non-degenerate} if $\mathcal P$ in (\ref{eq:GeneralFormDgPhi}) has no eigenvalue equal to 1.
\end{Def}
\begin{customhyp}{(H3$'$)}
\label{hyp:GNonDeg}
We assume that all relative periodic points in $\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$ are \emph{$G$-non-degenerate}.
\end{customhyp}
This condition assumes assumption \ref{hyp:H2prime} but not assumption \ref{hyp:Reduction}. If however the condition of reduction \ref{hyp:Reduction} is fulfilled the following equivalence holds.
\begin{lem}
If the hypothesis of reduction \ref{hyp:Reduction} is fulfilled, then an orbit is $G$-non-degenerate if and only if this orbit is non-degenerate in the sense of \ref{hyp:NondegOrbits}.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If the condition of reduction is satisfied for $E\in \mathbb R$ we obtain a smooth symplectic manifold $\Omega_{\tu{red}} =G \backslash (\Omega_0\cap U)$ with a reduced Hamiltonian $\tilde H([z])=H(z)$ and the reduced Hamilton flow given by $\tilde \Phi_t([z]):=[\Phi_t(z)]$ for $[z]\in \Omega_{\tu{red}}$. The condition that $[z]$ is a periodic point under $\tilde \Phi_t$ is equivalent to the fact that $z$ is a relative periodic point, i.e.~that there is a $g\in G$ and $T> 0$ such that $g\Phi_T(z)=z$.
As all Hamilton flows preserve the energy, the Hamilton vector field $\tilde H$ of the reduced Hamiltonian is tangential to $\tilde \Sigma_E = \tilde H^{-1}(E)$. We therefore have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:decomp_tang_red}
T_{[z]}(\Omega_{\tu{red}})=X_{\tilde H}([z])\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc \nabla \tilde H([z])\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc\mathcal R',~ [z]\in \tilde \Sigma_E.
\end{equation}
As the direction of the flow is always an eigenvector of the linearized flow with eigenvalue 1, we obtain for a relative periodic point $[z]$ the block form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:differential_red_flow}
(\tilde \Phi_T)_{*,[z]}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1&*&*\\
0&1&0\\
0&*&\begin{array}{|c|} \hline P\\ \hline \end{array}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
with respect to the decomposition (\ref{eq:decomp_tang_red}). This block form immediately implies that the characteristic polynomial of the linearized flow is
\[
\det\left(\lambda \mathds 1 - (\tilde\Phi_T)_{*,[z]}\right) = (\lambda-1)^2\det(\lambda \mathds 1-P).
\]
The ordinary hypothesis of non-degenerate orbits \ref{hyp:NondegOrbits}, demanding that the algebraic multiplicity of 1 is at most 2, is thus equivalent to the fact that $P$ has no eigenvalue equal to 1.
We finally show, that $P$ corresponds to $\mathcal P$ in (\ref{eq:GeneralFormDgPhi}). In order to see this we first consider the restriction of the reduced flow to the reduced energy shell $\tilde \Sigma_E=\tilde H^{-1}(0)$. As hypothesis \ref{hyp:H2prime} implies that $\nabla \tilde H([z])\neq 0$ for all $[z]\in \tilde \Sigma_E$ the reduced energy shell is again a smooth manifold. Equation (\ref{eq:differential_red_flow}) then reduces to
\[
((\tilde \Phi_T)_{|\tilde \Sigma_E})_{*,[z]}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1&*\\
0&\begin{array}{|c|} \hline P\\ \hline \end{array}
\end{array}
\right)
\]
where the decomposition in block form is with respect to the decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Decomp_OmegaRed_cap_Sigma}
T_{[z]}(\tilde \Sigma_E)=X_{\tilde H}([z])\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc \mathcal R'.
\end{equation}
As \ref{hyp:GNonDeg} implies \ref{hyp:H2prime} which is under \ref{hyp:Reduction} equivalent to \ref{hyp:non_critical} we conclude from \cite[Lemma 4.5]{Cas06} that $\Omega_0 \cap \Sigma_E$ is again a smooth manifold. We can therefor consider a similar restriction of $g\Phi_T$to $\Omega_0 \cap \Sigma_E$. Using the fact that $T_z(\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E)= (J\mathfrak f z)^\perp$ we obtain from Lemma \ref{lem:GeneralFormDgPhi} the expression
\[
((g\Phi_T)_{|\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E})_{*,z}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 &0&*\\
0&\begin{array}{|c|} \hline Ad(g)\\ \hline \end{array}&*\\
0&0&\begin{array}{|c|} \hline P'\\ \hline \end{array}
\end{array}
\right),
\]
where the decomposition in block form is with respect to the decomposition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Decomp_Omega_cap_Sigma}
T_{z}(\Omega_0\cap \Sigma_E)=\left(J\nabla H(z)\oplus \mathfrak g z\right)\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc \mathcal R.
\end{equation}
From the compatibility of the reduced flow with the projection
\[
Pr: \Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E\to G\backslash(\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E)=\tilde\Sigma_E
\]
we get
\[
Pr\circ ((g\Phi_T)_{|\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E})=((\tilde \Phi_T)_{|\tilde \Sigma_E})\circ Pr
\]
and consequently
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Pr_commutes_restricted}
Pr_{*,z}\circ((g\Phi_T)_{|\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E})_{*,z}=((\tilde \Phi_T)_{|\tilde \Sigma_E})_{*,[z]}\circ Pr_{*,z}.
\end{equation}
With respect to the decomposition (\ref{eq:Decomp_OmegaRed_cap_Sigma}) and (\ref{eq:Decomp_Omega_cap_Sigma}) the differential of the projection $Pr_{*,z}:T_z(\Omega_0\cap \Sigma_E)\to T_{[z]}\tilde \Sigma_E$ can be written as
\[
Pr_{*,z}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 &0&0\\
0 &0&\mathds{1}
\end{array}
\right).
\]
Inserting this expression in (\ref{eq:Pr_commutes_restricted}) and comparing both sides finally yields $P=\mathcal P$ and finishes the proof of this Lemma.
\end{proof}
The following simple example shows that in systems with different orbit types it is quite likely that the $G$-non-degenerate assumption holds, and that there is a large class of systems where \ref{hyp:H2prime} and \ref{hyp:GNonDeg} hold, but not (H1), (H2) and (H3).
\begin{exmpl}\label{exmpl:SingFromDiffGOrbits}
Let us consider the Hamiltonian of a 3-dimensional harmonic oscillator with two different frequencies $\omega_1=2\pi$ and $\omega_2=\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt 2}$
\[
H(x,\xi)=\frac{1}{2}\left((2\pi)^2\cdot(x_1^2+x_2^2)+\left(\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{2}}\right)^2x_3^2+|\xi|^2\right),~~x,\xi\in \mathbb R^3.
\]
The group $SO(2)$ acts on the phase space $\mathbb R^6$ symplectically as a symmetry group by acting canonically on the variables $x_1, x_2$ and $\xi_1,\xi_2$, respectively. As this action stabilizes the points $(0,0,x_3,0,0,\xi_3)$ it acts with different orbit types on $\Sigma_E$ for any $E>0$. In particular \ref{hyp:Reduction} is not satisfied. The zero level of the momentum map consists of the set of points with zero angular momentum in $x_3$ direction
\[
\Omega_0=\{(x_1,x_2,x_3,\lambda\cdot x_1,\lambda\cdot x_2,\xi_3):~x_i,\xi_3,\lambda\in \mathbb R\}.
\]
The general solutions $(x(t),\xi(t))=\Phi_t(x_1,x_2,x_3,\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_3)$ are explicitly given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
x(t)&=&\left(x_1\cos(2\pi t)+\frac{\xi_1}{2\pi}\sin(2\pi t),~ x_2\cos(2\pi t)+\frac{\xi_2}{2\pi}\sin(2\pi t), ~x_3\cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{2}} t\right)+\right.\\
&&\left.\frac{\sqrt{2}\xi_3}{2\pi}\sin\left(\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{2}} t\right)\right),\\
\xi(t)&=&\left(\xi_1\cos(2\pi t)-2\pi x_1\sin(2\pi t), ~ \xi_2\cos(2\pi t)-2\pi x_2\sin(2\pi t),~\xi_3 \cos\left(\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{2}} t\right)-\right.\\
&&\left. \frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{2}} x_3\sin\left(\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{2}} t\right) \right).\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, all points with $x_3=\xi_3=0$ are periodic with primitive period length 1, whereas all points with $x_1=x_2=\xi_1=\xi_2=0$ have primitive period length $\sqrt{2}$. All other points are not relative periodic at all, as the two frequencies have irrational ratio. Comparing
\[
J\nabla H(z)=\left(\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_3,-(2\pi)^2 x_1,-(2\pi)^2 x_2,-\frac{(2\pi)^2}{\sqrt 2}\right)
\]
and
\[
\mathfrak g z= \mathbb R(x_2,-x_1,0,\xi_2,-\xi_1,0)
\]
we see that all points in $\Sigma_E\cap\Omega_0$ with $E>0$ are $G$-non-stationary thus condition \ref{hyp:H2prime} is fulfilled (note that there are however points $z\in\Sigma_E$ with $J\nabla H(z)\in \mathfrak g z$). Looking at the solutions $(x(t),\xi(t))$ one sees that the points $z\in\Omega_0\cap \Sigma_E \cap\{x_3=\xi_3=0\}$ have a smaller primitive period equal to $\tfrac{1}{2}$ as relative periodic orbits. Besides there is only one other relative periodic orbit, the periodic orbit with period $\sqrt 2$ in $\Omega_0\cap \Sigma_E \cap\{x_1=x_2=\xi_1=\xi_2=0\}$.
Both relative periodic orbits are $G$-non-degenerate, which follows directly from the fact that the Hamilton flow $\Phi_t(x,\xi)$ is linear with respect to $(x,\xi)$ and the ratio of the frequencies $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ are irrational. To illustrate this, we take the relative periodic point $z_0=(1,0,0,0,0,0)\in\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_{2\pi^2}$ of the relative periodic orbit with primitive period $1/2$. It fulfills $g\Phi_{1/2}(z_0)=z_0$ for $g=-1\in SL(2,\mathbb R)$. The decomposition (\ref{eq:DecompTangentSpaceEquiv}) is given by
\[
T_{z_0}\mathbb R^3=\tu{span}(e_1,e_5)\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc\tu{span}(e_2,e_4)\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc\mathcal R
\]
with $\mathcal R=\tu{span}(e_3,e_6)$ and $e_i$ being the canonical basis of $\mathbb R^6\cong T_{z_0}\mathbb R^6$. Then the restriction of the differential $(g\Phi_{k/2})_{*,z_0}$ to $\mathcal R\cong\mathbb R^2$ for $k\in \mathbb{N}_{>0}$ is given by
\[
\mathcal P=((g\Phi_{k/2})_{*,z_0})_{|\mathcal R} =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\cos\left(\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{2}}\right)&\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\pi}\sin\left(\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\\
-\frac{2\pi}{\sqrt{2}}\sin\left(\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{2}}\right)&\cos\left(\frac{2\pi k}{\sqrt{2}}\right)
\end{array}
\right)
\]
This linear transformation has however no eigenvalue 1 for all $k \in \mathbb{N}_{>0}$. The arguments for the other relative periodic orbit are completely analogous.
\end{exmpl}
Similarly to the case of non-degenerate orbits, the hypothesis of $G$-non-degenerate orbits implies that the relative periodic orbits are discrete. This will be an important property for the proof of the equivariant Gutzwiller trace formula.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:DiscreteGNonDeg}
Let $T>0$ and denote by $(\Gamma_E^{\tu{rel}})_T$ the set of all relative periodic orbits $\gamma$ in $\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$ with $0\leq|T_\gamma|\leq T$. If all $\gamma\in (\Gamma_E^{\tu{rel}})_T$ are non-degenerate, then they are discrete, i.e.~for each $z\in \gamma$ there is $\epsilon >0$ such that the only relative periodic points in $B_\epsilon(z)\cap\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$ with primitive period length smaller than $T$ are the points on the orbit $\gamma$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $(\Gamma_E^{\tu{rel}})_T$ is not discrete, so that there exists a relative periodic point $z_0\in \Omega_0\cap \Sigma_E$ with $g_0\Phi_{T_0}(z_0)=z_0$ and a sequence $z_n\in \Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$, $z_n\to z_0$, of relative periodic points belonging to mutually disjoint relative periodic orbits which fulfill $g_n\Phi_{T_n}(z_n)=z_n$ with $|T_n|\leq T$. At the point $z=z_0$ we will now construct an eigenvector of the matrix $\mathcal P$ in (\ref{eq:GeneralFormDgPhi}) with eigenvalue 1 leading to a contradiction to the $G$-non-degenerate assumption.
\emph{Step 1:} As $[-T,T]\times G$ is compact we can assure after going to a subsequence, that $f_n:=(T_n,g_n)\in [-T,T]\times G\subset F$ converges to the element $f_\infty=(T_\infty,g_\infty)\in [-T,T]\times G$.
\emph{Step 2:} From
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lim_z0}
z_0=\lim\limits_{n\to\infty} z_n=\lim\limits_{n\to\infty} f_n z_n = f_\infty z_0
\end{equation}
we deduce that $z_0$ is relative periodic with period length $T_\infty$.
\emph{Step 3:} By definition of the vector space $\mathfrak g z_0$, for each normed vector $e_i\in \mathfrak g z_0$ there is $A\in \mathfrak g$ such that $\langle A{z_0}, e_i\rangle \neq 0$. From the continuity of the $G$-action it follows that there is a neighborhood $U\subset \mathbb R^{2n}$ of $z_0$ such that for all $z\in U$ we still have $\langle A{z}, e_i\rangle \neq 0$. From the continuity of $J\nabla H$ follows that $U$ can be chosen such that additionally $\langle J\nabla H(z), J\nabla H(z_0)\rangle \neq 0$. We can thus choose a neighborhood of $z_0$ such that all relative periodic orbits ($F$-orbits) intersect the affine vector space tangent to $(\mathfrak f z_0)^\perp=(\mathbb R J\nabla H(z_0)\oplus \mathfrak g z_0)^\perp\subset T_{z_0}$ transversally. Thus, for sufficiently large $n$ we can assume that $z_n$ is in such a neighborhood, and consequently we can choose a different point $\tilde z_n$ on the same relative periodic orbit with $\tilde z_n-z_0 \in (\mathbb R J\nabla H(z_0)\oplus \mathfrak g z_0)^\perp$. Consequently we can suppose without loss of
generality that our sequence of points $z_n$ fulfills $z_n-z_0\in (\mathbb R J\nabla H(z_0)\oplus \mathfrak g z_0)^\perp$.
\emph{Step 4:} Consider the sequence $\frac{z_n-z_0}{\|z_n-z_0\|}\in \mathcal S^{2n-1}$. After restricting once more to a subsequence, we can assume, that $\frac{z_n-z_0}{\|z_n-z_0\|}\to v$ with $\|v\|=1$. As $z_n\in \Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$, we get $v\in (\mathbb R\nabla H(z_0)\oplus J\mathfrak g z_0)^\perp$. From Step 3 we furthermore obtain
\[
v\in \Big((\mathbb R\nabla H(z_0)\oplus J\mathfrak g z_0)\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc(\mathbb R J\nabla H(z_0)\oplus \mathfrak g z_0)\Big)^\perp.
\]
So $v$ belongs to the subspace $\mathcal R$ of (\ref{eq:DecompTangentSpaceEquiv}) and the aim of the remaining steps in this proof is to show that it is an eigenvector of the matrix $\mathcal P$.
\emph{Step 5:} Setting $t_n:=\|z_n-z_0\|$ we can choose a smooth curve $\gamma\subset \Sigma_E$ such that $\gamma(0)=z_0$ and $\gamma(t_n)=z_n$. For this curve we calculate $\dot \gamma(0)=\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{\gamma(t_n)-\gamma(0)}{t_n}=v$.
\emph{Step 6:}
With this smooth path and (\ref{eq:lim_z0}) we calculate
\begin{eqnarray*}
(f_\infty)_{*,z_0}(v)&=&\frac{d}{dt}f_\infty\gamma(t)_{|t=0}\\
&=&\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{f_\infty\gamma(t_n)-f_\infty\gamma(0)}{t_n}\nonumber\\
&=&\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{f_\infty z_n-f_n z_n+z_n-z_0}{t_n}\nonumber\\
&=&v+\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\frac{f_\infty z_n -f_n z_n}{t_n}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Now, using the fact that the $F$-action is smooth, Taylor expansion yields for any $f\in F$
\[
f z_n=fz_0+f_{*,z_0}(z_n-z_0)+O(t_n^2).
\]
Consequently we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
(f_\infty)_{*,z_0}(v)&=&v+\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\left[\frac{f_\infty z_0 -f_n z_0}{t_n} + ((f_\infty)_{*,z_0}-(f_n)_{*,z_0})\left(\frac{z_n-z_0}{t_n} \right)\right]\\
&=&v+\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\left[\frac{f_\infty z_0 -f_n z_0}{t_n}\right].
\end{eqnarray*}
Since obviously
\[
\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\left[\frac{f_\infty z_0 -f_n z_0}{t_n}\right]\in \mathfrak f z_0,
\]
and $\mathcal P$ was the restriction of $(f_\infty)_{*,z_0}$ to $(J\mathfrak f z_0\oplus \mathfrak f z_0)^\perp$, $v$ is an eigenvector of $\mathcal P$ with eigenvalue 1 which finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of the equivariant Gutzwiller formula}\label{sec:ProofGutzwiller}
We are now ready to prove the equivariant Gutzwiller formula under the assumption of $G$-non-degenerate orbits. According to Section \ref{sec:SpecDist} the Gutzwiller terms are given by the asymptotic expansion of the spectral distribution $\rho_{E, h}^\chi(f)$ for a Schwartz function $f$ with $0\notin \tu{supp}\hat f$. In order to apply Proposition \ref{prop:DiscreteGNonDeg} and to avoid problems concerning the Ehrenfest time, we will additionally need to assume that $\hat f$ is compactly supported.
As a first step we show that already under the new conditions \ref{hyp:H2prime} and \ref{hyp:GNonDeg} and without any conditions on the group action, the critical set in (\ref{eq:OscIntegralEquiv}) is smooth.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:GutzwSmoothCrit}
Let $f$ be a Schwartz function with $\textup{supp}\hat f\subset [-T,T]\setminus\{0\}$. If for $E\in \mathbb R$ the Hamilton dynamics is $G$-non-stationary, the energy shell $\Sigma_E\subset \mathbb R^{2n}$ is compact, and all relative periodic orbits in $\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$ having a relative period contained in $\textup{supp} \hat f$ are $G$-non-degenerate, then the set $\mathcal C_{\phi_E} \cap \left( \mathbb R^{2n}\times \textup{supp} \hat f\times G\right)$ is a disjoint finite union of smooth submanifolds of dimension dim\,$F$.
\end{prop}
To prove this proposition, recall from Proposition \ref{prop:CritSetGutzwiller} that the critical set is given by
\[
\mathcal C_{\phi_E}=\{(z,t,g)\in \mathbb R^{2n}\times \mathbb R \times G,~~z\in\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E,~g\Phi_t(z)=z\}
\]
which can be written in terms of the $F$-action as
\[
\mathcal C_{\phi_E}=\{(z,f)\in \mathbb R^{2n}\times F,~~z\in\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E,~f\in F_z\}
\]
with $F_z$ being the stabilizer group of $z$ for the $F$-action. We are especially interested in the set of all $t$-values in this stabilizer group. In particular, we need the following
\begin{lem}
$\mathcal L_z^\tu{rel}:=\{t\in\mathbb R,~\exists g\in G\tu{ such that } (t,g) \in F_z\}\subset \mathbb R$ is a closed subgroup.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The subgroup property is clear from the definition, so that it remains to prove the closeness. Suppose that there is a sequence $t_n\in \mathcal L_z^\tu{rel}$ such that $t_n\to t_\infty$. For each $t_n$ there is a $g_n\in G$ such that $(t_n,g_n)\in F_z$. After restricting to a subsequence one can assume that $g_n$ also converges since $G$ is compact. Consequently $(t_n,g_n)$ converges in $F$ and from the closeness of $F_z$ one concludes that $t_\infty\in \mathcal L_z^\tu{rel}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor:L_red}
If $z$ is a $G$-non-stationary, relative periodic point, then there is a $T_z>0$ such that $\mathcal L^\tu{rel}_z =T_z\cdot\mathbb Z$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
All closed subgroups of $\mathbb R$ are either empty, $\mathbb R$ or of the type $k\mathbb Z$ for some $k>0$. As $z$ is relative periodic, we can exclude the empty set. As $z$ is $G$-non-stationary, the trajectory of the Hamilton flow cannot be contained in the $G$-orbit of $z$, so we can exclude $\mathbb R$.
\end{proof}
If $z$ is an arbitrary relative periodic point, the corresponding relative periodic orbit $\gamma_0$ is exactly its orbit under the $F$-action and there is an injective immersion $i:F/F_z\to \gamma_0$. Note that in general an $F$-orbit does not have to be an embedded submanifold in $\mathbb R^{2n}$. However, if $z$ is relative periodic, $\mathcal L_z^\tu{rel}=T_z\cdot\mathbb Z$ or $\mathcal L_z^\tu{rel}=\mathbb R$, and consequently $F/F_z$ is compact. The immersion $i$ is thus additionally closed, and $\gamma_0$ is diffeomorphic to $F/F_z$ as an embedded submanifold.
Next, note that the critical set $\mathcal C_{\Phi_E}$ is essentially a union of the isotropy bundles of certain relative periodic orbits $\gamma$, which are defined as
\[
\tu{Iso}(\gamma):=\{(z,f)\in \gamma\times F,~ f\in F_z\}\subset \mathbb R^{2n}\times F.
\]
For those isotropy bundles we have the following
\begin{prop}\label{prop:DecompIsoGamma}
Let $z\in \mathbb R^{2n}$ be a $G$-non-stationary, relative periodic point and $\gamma$ its relative orbit. Then $\tu{Iso}(\gamma)$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:decomp_Iso}
\tu{Iso}(\gamma)=\bigcup\limits_{k\in \mathbb Z} M_{k,\gamma},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:M_k_gamma}
M_{k,\gamma}:=\{(z,kT_\gamma,g)\in \gamma\times \mathbb R\times G:~ g\Phi_{kT_\gamma}(z)=z\}\subset \mathbb R^{2n}\times F
\end{equation}
are smooth disjoint submanifolds.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The disjoint decomposition (\ref{eq:decomp_Iso}) follows directly from Corollary \ref{cor:L_red}. It only remains to prove the submanifold property of $M_{k,\gamma}$.
We will again construct a closed injective immersion, and first recall that for general homogeneous spaces, the isotropy bundle can be written as a quotient (see e.g. \cite[Section 1.11 and 2.4]{DK00}). Consider therefore $F_z$ acting from the right on $F\times F_z$ by right multiplication on the first factor $F$ and by conjugation on the second factor $F_z$. This action is proper and free as the action in the first component is the invertible right multiplication in $F$. Consequently, the quotient $(F\times F_z)/F_z$ carries the structure of a smooth manifold. Furthermore, there is an injective immersion on $\tu{Iso}(\gamma_0)$ which is explicitly given by
\[
\mathcal I:\Abb{(F\times F_z)/F_z}{\tu{Iso}(\gamma_0)\subset \mathbb R^{2n}\times F}{(f,f_z)F_z}{(fz,ff_zf^{-1}).}
\]
For $k\in \mathbb Z$ we define the compact sets $F_z^{(k)}:=\{(kT_\gamma, g)\in \mathbb R\times G: g\Phi_{k T_\gamma}(z)=z\}\subset F_z$. As $F=\mathbb R\times G$ is commutative in its $\mathbb R$ component, conjugation with $F_z$ leaves $F_z^{(k)}$ invariant, and $(F\times F^{(k)}_z)/F_z$ is a compact smooth manifold. It is now straightforward to check that $\mathcal I((F\times F^{(k)}_z)/F_z)=M_{k,\gamma}$. So the sets $M_{k,\gamma}$ are images of a compact manifold under an injective immersion and consequently embedded submanifolds.
\end{proof}
We are now able to prove Proposition \ref{prop:GutzwSmoothCrit}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{prop:GutzwSmoothCrit}]
Proposition \ref{prop:DiscreteGNonDeg} implies that the relative periodic orbits are discrete. Together with the assumption that $\Sigma_E$ is compact, this implies that there are only finitely many relative periodic orbits in $(\Gamma_E^{\tu{rel}})_T$, so that
\[
\mathcal C_{\phi_E} \cap \left(\mathbb R^{2n}\times\textup{supp} \hat f\times G\right) =\bigcup\limits_{\gamma\in (\Gamma_E^{\tu{rel}})_T}\left(\bigcup\limits_{k\in \mathbb Z: kT_{\gamma}\in \textup{supp}\hat f}M_k,\gamma\right).
\]
Proposition \ref{prop:DecompIsoGamma} assures that the $M_{k,\gamma}$ are disjoint, smooth, submanifolds of dimension dim\,$F$, and as $\tu{supp}\hat f$ is compact, for each $\gamma\in (\Gamma_E^{\tu{rel}})_T $ there are also only finitely many $k\in \mathbb Z$ with $k T_\gamma \in\tu{supp}\hat f$.
\end{proof}
In oder to apply the generalized stationary phase theorem to (\ref{eq:OscIntegralEquiv}) it only remains to show the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:NonDegHess}
Let $(z,t,g)\in \mathcal C_{\phi_E}\cap\left( \mathbb R^{2n}\times\textup{supp} \hat f\times G\right)$, and assume that the dynamics is $G$-non-stationary and that all relative periodic orbits having relative period contained in $\tu{supp}\hat f$ are $G$-non-degenerate. Then $\left(\tu{Hess }\phi_E\right)_{|N_{(z,t,g)}\mathcal C_E}$ is a non-degenerate bilinear form.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Recall that on a $d$-dimensional Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ the Hessian of a complex valued function $\phi$ on its critical set is a complex valued symmetric 2-form given by
\[
\tu{Hess }\phi:=\nabla d\phi.
\]
The Hessian is said be non-degenerate on a subspace $V\subset T_xM$ if for $v\in V$ and $\tu{Hess }\phi(v,w)=0$ for all $w\in V$ we have $v=0$. By the metric $g$ we can identify $\tu{Hess }\phi$ with a complex valued $d\times d$ matrix $B=\Re(B)+i\Im(B)$. We denote the real kernel of the Hessian by $\ker_\mathbb R\tu{Hess }\phi(x):=\ker\Re(B)\cap\ker \Im(B)$, and recall that by \cite[Lemma 4.3.5]{Cas05} we have for $(z,t,g)\in \mathcal C_{\phi_E}$ the equivalence
\[
\left(\tu{Hess }\phi_E\right)_{|N_{(z,t,g)}\mathcal C_E}\tu{ is non-degenerate } \Leftrightarrow \tu{ker}_\mathbb R ( \tu{Hess }\phi_E(z,t,g))= T_{(z,t,g)}\mathcal C_{\phi_E} .
\]
By the definition of the critical set, $d\phi_E$ vanishes on $\mathcal C_{\phi_E}$. Consequently for $v\in T_{(z,t,g)}\mathcal C_{\phi_E}$ the one form $\nabla_{v}d\phi_E$ equals zero, which implies that $\tu{ker}_\mathbb R ( \tu{Hess }\phi_E)\supset T_{(z,t,g)}\mathcal C_{\phi_E}$. Thus, it suffices to show that in each point $(z,t,g)$ the dimensions of these two linear subspaces of $T_{(z,t,g)}(\mathbb R^{2n}\times F)$ coincide.
Furthermore, we can directly use the calculations in \cite[Prop 4.3]{Cas06} by which
\begin{equation}\label{eq:realKernel}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\tu{ker}_\mathbb R ( \tu{Hess }\phi_E)&=&\{(\alpha,\tau,A)\in \mathbb R^{2n}\times\mathbb R\times \mathfrak g:~\alpha\perp\nabla H(z),\alpha\perp J\mathfrak g z,\\
&&\tau J \nabla H(z)+Az+\left((g\Phi_t)_{*,z}-Id)\right)\alpha=0\}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Recall that under the $G$-non-stationary hypothesis we have from (\ref{eq:DecompTangentSpaceEquiv}) the decomposition
\[
T_z\mathbb R^{2n}=J\mathfrak f z\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc \mathfrak f z\perp\mkern-20.7mu\bigcirc\mathcal R,
\]
where $J\mathfrak f z$ and $\mathfrak f z$ both have dimensions equal to $\dim F- \dim F_z$. According to this decomposition we write $\alpha = (\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_R)$. The first two conditions $\alpha\perp\nabla H(z),\alpha\perp J\mathfrak g z$ in (\ref{eq:realKernel}) immediately imply $\alpha_1=0$. As $\tau J \nabla H(z)+Az\in \mathfrak f z$, the third condition in (\ref{eq:realKernel}) implies, after using the general form (\ref{eq:GeneralFormDgPhi}) of $(g\Phi_t)_{*,z}$, that
\[
(\mathcal P-\mathds 1)\alpha_R=0,
\]
and from the $G$-non-degenerate orbit property we directly conclude that $\alpha_R=0$. The third condition therefore reduces to
\[
\tau J \nabla H(z)+Az +(\mathcal B-1)\alpha_2 = 0.
\]
It forms a system of $\dim F-\dim F_z$ linear equations with $2\dim F-\tu{dim} F_z$ variables. From the $G$-non-stationary condition it follows that this system of equations has full rank. Consequently we obtain $\dim \tu{ker}_\mathbb R ( \tu{Hess }\phi_E)=\dim F=\dim \mathcal C_{\phi_E}$ which finishes the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:NonDegHess}.
\end{proof}
Taking everything together we finally arrive at
\begin{thm}\label{thm:GutzwillerAsym}
Let $H$ be a Hamiltonian fulfilling Hypothesis \ref{hyp:regularityH} and \ref{hyp:closed} which is invariant under the compact symmetry group $G\subset O(n)$. Let furthermore $f\in \mathcal S(\mathbb R)$ be such that $\textup{supp} \hat f \subset [-T,T]\setminus\{0\}$ for some $T>0$. If the Hamilton dynamics is $G$-non-stationary (Hypothesis \ref{hyp:H2prime}) for a given energy $E\in [E_1,E_2]$ and all relative periodic orbits in $\Omega_0\cap\Sigma_E$ having a relative period contained in $\textup{supp} \hat f$ are $G$-non-degenerate (Hypothesis \ref{hyp:GNonDeg}), then $\rho_{E, h}^\chi(f)$ has a complete asymptotic expansion in powers of $ h$ given by
\begin{eqnarray*}\nonumber
\rho_{E, h}^{\chi}(f) =\frac{d_\chi}{2\pi}\sum\limits_{\gamma\in (\Gamma_E^{\tu{rel}})_T}&\Bigg[&\sum\limits_{k\in \mathbb Z} e^{\phi_{k,\gamma}}\hat f(kT_\gamma)\Bigg(\int\limits_{M_{k,\gamma}} \overline{\chi(g)}d(z,t,g)d\sigma_{M_{k,\gamma}}(z,t,g)\Bigg)\\
&&+\sum\limits_j h^ja_{j,\gamma,k}\Bigg].
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $M_{k,\gamma}$ was defined in (\ref{eq:M_k_gamma}), $d\sigma_{M_{k,\gamma}}$ is the induced measure on this smooth submanifold, $\phi_{k,\gamma}={\int\limits_0^{kT_\gamma}p_s\dot q_s ds}$ is the constant value the phase function takes on $M_{k,\gamma}$, and the density which has to be integrated is given by
\[
d(z,t,g)=\tu{det}_*^{-1/2}\left(\frac{\tu{Hess }(\phi_E)_{|N\mathcal C_{\phi_E}}}{i}\right)\tu{det}_*^{-1/2}\left(\frac{A+iB-i(C+iD)}{i}\right)
\]
where the matrices $A,B,C,D$ are as in Proposition \ref{prop:OscIntGutzwiller}.
All the lower order coefficients $a_{j,\gamma,k}$ are tempered distributions with support in $kT_\gamma$ applied to $\hat f$, which can in principle be calculated from the stationary phase approximation.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Again, the case of a compact symmetry group $G\subset GL(n,\mathbb R)$ can be treated by conjugating to an orthogonal subgroup (see the discussion in Section \ref{sec:group_action}).
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
Proposition \ref{prop:OscIntGutzwiller} allows us to write the spectral distribution as an oscillating integral. Proposition \ref{prop:GutzwSmoothCrit} together with Proposition \ref{prop:NonDegHess} assure that the critical set is smooth and that the transversal Hessian is non-degenerate. We can therefore apply the generalized stationary phase theorem (see e.g. \cite[Theorem 3.3]{CRR99}) to (\ref{eq:OscIntegralEquiv}) finishing the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:GutzwillerAsym}.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
A \emph{connected dominating set} ({\sc Cds}) in a graph is a dominating set
that induces a connected subgraph.
The {\sc Cds} problem, which seeks to find the minimum such set, has been widely
studied~\cite{alzoubi, aravind,GuhaKhuller,wu,das1997routing,Srinivasan, du2013connected,liu:liang,cheng2005,cheng2007} starting from the
work of Guha and Khuller~\cite{GuhaKhuller}.
The {\sc Cds} problem is NP-hard and thus the literature has focused
on the development of fast polynomial time approximation algorithms.
For general graphs, Guha and Khuller \cite{GuhaKhuller} propose an algorithm
with a $\ln \Delta+3$ approximation factor, where $\Delta$ is the maximum degree of any vertex.
Better approximation algorithms are known in special classes of graphs.
For the case of planar~\cite{Hajiaghayi} or geometric unit
disk graphs~\cite{du} polynomial time approximation schemes (PTAS) are known.
This problem has also been extensively studied in the distributed
setting~\cite{alzoubi, aravind}.
Not surprisingly, {\sc Cds} problem in general graphs is at least as hard to approximate
as the set cover problem for which a hardness result of $(1-\epsilon) \log n$ (unless $NP\subseteq DTIME(n^{O(\log\log{n})})$) follows
by the work of Feige \cite{Feige}.
{\sc Cds} has become an extremely popular topic,
for example, the recent book by Du and Wan \cite{du2013connected}
focuses on
the study of ad hoc wireless networks as {\sc Cds}s provide a platform for routing on
such networks. In these ad hoc wireless networks, a {\sc Cds} can act as a virtual backbone so that only nodes belonging to the {\sc Cds} are responsible for packet forwarding and routing. Minimizing the number of nodes in the virtual backbone leads to increased network lifetime, and lesser bandwidth usage due to control packets, and hence the {\sc Cds} problem has been extensively studied and applied to create such virtual backbones.
One shortcoming of using a {\sc Cds} as a virtual backbone is that a few distant clients (outliers) can have the undesirable effect of increasing the size of the {\sc Cds} without improving the quality of service to a majority of the clients. In such scenarios, it is often desirable to obtain a much smaller backbone that provides services to, say, (at least) 90\% of the clients. Liu and Liang \cite{liu:liang} study this problem of finding a minimum \emph{partial connected dominating set} in wireless sensor networks (geometric disk graphs) and provide heuristics
(without guarantees) for the same.
A complementary problem is the budgeted {\sc Cds} problem where we have a budget of $k$ nodes, and we wish to find a connected subset of $k$ nodes which dominate as many vertices as possible. Budgeted domination has been studied in sensor networks where bandwidth constraints limit the number of sensors we can choose and the objective is to maximize the number of targets covered \cite{cheng2005,cheng2007}.
Another application arises in the context of social networks. Consider a social network where vertices of the network correspond to people and an edge joins two vertices if the corresponding people influence each other. Avrachenkov et al.\@ \cite{Konstantin} consider the problem of choosing $k$ connected vertices having maximum total influence in a social network using local information only (i.e., the neighborhood of a vertex is revealed only after the vertex is “bought”) and provide heuristics (without guarantees) for the same.
Borgs et al.~\cite{borgs2012power} show that no local algorithm for the partial dominating set problem can provide an approximation guarantee better than $O(\sqrt{n})$. As the influence of a set of vertices is simply the number of dominated vertices, these problems are exactly the budgeted and partial connected dominating set problems with the additional restriction of local only information.
Budgeted versions of set cover (known as max-coverage)\footnote{Here
instead of finding the smallest sub-collection of sets to cover
a given set of elements, we fix a budget on number of
sets we wish to pick with the objective of maximizing the number of
covered elements.} are well understood and the standard greedy algorithm is known to give the optimal $1 - \frac{1}{e}$ approximation~\cite{NWF}. Khuller et al.\@~\cite{Khuller2} give a $(1 - \frac{1}{e})$ approximation algorithm for a generalized version with costs on sets. In addition, we may consider a partial version of the set cover problem, also known as partial covering, in which we wish to pick the minimum number of sets to cover a pre-specified number of elements. Kearns~\cite{kearns} first showed that greedy gives a $2H_n+3$ approximation guarantee (where $n$ is the ground set cardinality and $H_n$ is the $n^{th}$ harmonic number), which was improved by Slav{\'\i}k~\cite{slavik} to obtain a guarantee of {\it min}$(H_{n'}, H_{\Delta})$(where $n'$ is the minimum coverage required and $\Delta$ is the maximum size of any set). Wolsey~\cite{wolsey82} considered the more general \emph{submodular cover} problem and showed that the simple greedy delivers a best possible $\ln n$ approximation.
For the case where each element belongs to at most $f$ (called the \emph{frequency}) different sets, Gandhi et al.\@ \cite{GKS}, using a primal-dual algorithm, and Bar-Yehuda~\cite{bar-yehuda}, using the local-ratio technique, achieve an $f$-approximation guarantee.
Unfortunately for both the budgeted and partial
versions of the {\sc Cds} problem, greedy approaches based on prior
methods fail.
The fundamental reason is that while the greedy algorithm
works well as a method for rapidly \lq\lq{}covering\rq\rq{} nodes, the cost
to connect different chosen nodes can be extremely high if the
chosen nodes are far apart. On the other hand if we try to maintain
a connected subset, then we cannot necessarily select nodes
from dense regions of the graph.
In fact, none of the approaches in
the work by Guha and Khuller~\cite{GuhaKhuller} appear to
extend to these versions.
Partial and budgeted optimization problems have been extensively studied in
the literature.
Most of these problems, with the exception of partial and
budgeted set cover, required significantly different techniques and ideas
from the corresponding \lq\lq{}complete\rq\rq{} versions.
We will now cite several such problems.
The best example is the minimum spanning tree problem, which is well known
to be polynomial time solvable. However
the partial version of this problem where
we look for a minimum cost tree which spans at least $k$ vertices is NP-hard~\cite{ravi}.
A series of approximation techniques~\cite{arora, baruch,blum,garg1} finally
resulted in a $2$-approximation~\cite{garg2} for the problem.
Partial versions of several classic location problems like $k$-center and
$k$-median have required new techniques as well. The partial
$k$-center problem, which is also called the outlier $k$-center problem or the
robust $k$-center problem, requires us to minimize the maximum distance to the
\lq\lq{}best\rq\rq{} $n'$ nodes (while the complete version requires us to
consider all the nodes) to the centers.
Charikar et al.\@~\cite{khuller:outlier} gave a 3-approximation algorithm whose
analysis was significantly different from the classic $k$-center 2-approximation
algorithm~\cite{Gonzalez,hochbaum1986unified}.
Chen~\cite{chen2008constant} gives a constant approximation for outlier
$k$-median problem, while Charikar et al.\@~\cite{khuller:outlier} gave a 4-approximation for the outlier uncapacitated facility location problem.
Several other optimization problems need special techniques
to tackle the corresponding partial versions. Notable examples of such
problems, include \emph{partial vertex cover}~\cite{srinivasan2001, bar:cappvc,mestre:pvc,GKS,bshouty,halperin2002},
quota Steiner tree problems~\cite{johnson2000prize}, budgeted and partial
node weighted Steiner tree problems~\cite{Moss,vahid}, and scheduling with
outliers~\cite{CharikarKhuller,Gupta:sched}. We end this
subsection by noting that partial versions of some optimization problems are
completely inapproximable even though, the corresponding complete version has a
small constant approximation algorithm. The best example of this is the
\emph{robust subset resource replication} problem studied by
Khuller et al.\@~\cite{khu:sah:kan}.
\subsection{Other Related Work}
In the \emph{group Steiner tree problem}, we are given a graph $G=(V,E)$, an associated cost function $c:E\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+\cup \{0\}$, and a collection of groups of vertices $g_1, g_2, \ldots, g_k$. The goal is to find a minimum cost tree that contains
at least one vertex from each group. It can be observed that the connected dominating set problem reduces to the group Steiner tree problem by creating a group for every vertex containing the neighborhood of that vertex. Garg et al.\@~\cite{Garg} obtain a $O(\log (\max_{i\in[k]} |g_i|)\log k)$ approximation for this problem, in the special case when the graph is a tree. Using a decomposition result due to Bartal~\cite{Bartal1}, Garg et al.\@~\cite{Garg} extend the tree result to obtain a $O(\log^3n\log k)$ approximation algorithm for arbitrary graphs. Fakcharoenphol et al.~\cite{FRT} improve Bartal's decomposition result, consequently obtaining a $O(\log^2n\log k)$ approximation for the group Steiner tree problem in arbitrary graphs. Halperin et al.\@~\cite{Krauthgamer} note that Garg et al.\@~\cite{Garg}'s algorithm also gives a $O(\log (\max_{i\in[k]}|g_i|))$ approximation for the budgeted group Steiner tree problem on trees. They also show a $\log^{2-\epsilon}k$ hardness of approximation for the (partial) group Steiner problem and a $\log^{1-\epsilon}k$ hardness of approximation for the budgeted version.
Chekuri et al.~\cite{CEK} gave a combinatorial algorithm for the group Steiner tree problem on trees, with an approximation guarantee of $O((\log\sum_i |g_i|)^{1+\epsilon}\log k)$. Calinescu and Zelikovsky~\cite{CZ} extended Chekuri et al.~\cite{CEK}'s result to the more general problem of \emph{polymatroid Steiner tree}.
\subsection{Our Contributions}
Our results can be summarized as follows
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] In Section~\ref{sec:partial}, we obtain the first $O(\ln \Delta)$ approximation algorithm for the {\sc Pcds} problem. To be precise, our approximation guarantee is $4\ln \Delta + 2 + o(1)$, where $\Delta$ is the maximum degree.
\item[-] In Section~\ref{sec:budgeted}, we obtain a $\frac{1}{13}(1-\frac{1}{e})$-approximation algorithm for the {\sc Bcds} problem. This is the first constant approximation known for {\sc Bcds}.
\item[-] In Section~\ref{sec:bgcd}, we generalize the above problems to a special kind of submodular optimization problem (to be defined later), which has \emph{capacitated connected dominating set} problem and \emph{weighted profit connected dominating set} problem as special cases. Again, we obtain $O(\ln q)$ and $\frac{1}{13}(1-\frac{1}{e})$ approximation algorithms for the partial and budgeted version of this problem respectively where $q$ denotes the quota for the partial version.
\end{itemize}
\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:preliminaries}
We now proceed to formally define the problems we consider in this paper.
\noindent {\sc Partial Connected Dominating Set Problem ({\sc Pcds})}.
Given an undirected graph $G=(V,E)$, and an integer (quota) $n'$, find a
minimum size subset $S \subseteq V$ of vertices such that the graph induced
by $S$ is connected, and $S$ dominates at least $n'$ vertices.
\noindent {\sc Budgeted Connected Dominating Set Problem ({\sc Bcds})}.
Given an undirected graph $G=(V,E)$, and an integer (budget) $k$, find a
subset $S \subseteq V$ of at most $k$ vertices such that the graph induced by
$S$ is connected, and the number of vertices dominated by $S$ is maximized.
Before defining the remaining problems, we introduce the notion of \emph{special submodularity}.
\noindent {\sc Special Submodular Function}.
Let $G=(V,E)$ be an arbitrary graph. A function $f:2^V\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}^+\cup \{0\}$, is said to have the \emph{special submodular} property if it satisfies the following-
\begin{itemize}
\item $f$ is submodular. That is $f(A \cup \{v\}) - f(A) \geq f(B\cup \{v\}) - f(B) \quad\forall A,B,v$ such that $A\subseteq B\subseteq V$.
\item $f_A(X) = f_{A \cup B}(X)$, if $N(X) \cap N(B) = \phi$ $\quad\forall X, A, B \subseteq V$
\end{itemize}
where $f_A(X) = f(A \cup X) - f(A)$ is the marginal profit of $X$ given $A$ and $N(X)$ denotes the neighborhood of $X$, including $X$ itself.
We now define the generalized versions of {\sc Pcds} and {\sc Bcds}.
\noindent {\sc Partial Generalized Connected Dominating Set Problem (Pgcds)}.
Given a graph $G = (V,E)$, an integer (quota) $q$, and a monotone \emph{special submodular} profit function $f : 2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{Z^+}\cup \{0\}$, find a subset $S \subseteq V$ of minimum size, such that $f(S) \geq q$ and $S$ induces a connected subgraph in $G$.
\noindent {\sc Budgeted Generalized Connected Dominating Set Problem (Bgcds)}.
Given a graph $G = (V,E)$, a budget $k$, and a monotone \emph{special submodular} profit function $f : 2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{Z^+}\cup \{0\}$, find a subset $S \subseteq V$ which maximizes $f(S)$ such that $|S| \leq k$ and $S$ induces a connected subgraph of $G$.
These problems capture the following variants of partial and budgeted connected dominating set problems.
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\sc Weighted Profit Connected Dominating Set.} In this variant, each vertex has an arbitrary profit which is obtained if it is dominated by some chosen vertex.
\item {\sc Capacitated Connected Dominating Set.} In this variant, each vertex has a capacity which is the number of vertices it can dominate.
\end{enumerate}
For all of our algorithms we will be using an algorithm for the Quota Steiner Tree problem ({\sc Qst}) as a subroutine. We now define the {\sc Qst} problem and mention relevant results.
\noindent {\sc Quota Steiner Tree Problem ({\sc Qst})}. Given an undirected graph $G=(V,E)$, a profit function $p:V \rightarrow Z^+ \cup \{0\}$ on the vertices, a cost function $c:E \rightarrow Z^+ \cup \{0\}$ on the edges, and an integer (quota) $q$, find a subtree $T$ that minimizes $\sum_{e \in E(T)} c(e)$, subject to $\sum_{v \in V(T)} p(v) \geq q$.
Johnson et al.\@~\cite{johnson2000prize} studied the {\sc Qst} problem and showed that an $\alpha$-approximation algorithm for the $k$-MST problem can be adapted to obtain an $\alpha$-approximation algorithm for the Quota Steiner Tree problem. Using this result along with the 2-approximation for $k$-MST by Garg~\cite{garg2}, gives us the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{johnson2000prize,garg2}]
\label{thm:QST}
There is a 2-approximation algorithm for the Quota Steiner Tree Problem.
\end{theorem}
\section{Shortcomings of Prior Approaches.}
We now describe the three approaches taken by Guha and Khuller~\cite{GuhaKhuller} to solve the {\sc Cds} problem and show why none of these approaches extend directly for the budgeted and partial coverage variants.
\emph{Algorithm 1.}
The first algorithm is a ``one step look-ahead'' greedy algorithm where they iteratively grow a tree by selecting a \emph{pair} of vertices that together cover the most number of previously uncovered vertices. Figure~\ref{fig:bad_example} shows a bad instance on which a $c$-step look-ahead greedy algorithm fails for the {\sc Bcds} and {\sc Pcds}. The instance contains $k$ ``spiders'' whose heads (vertices with degree $> 2$) are connected by paths of length $c+1$. The spider heads are the only vertices that offer profit greater than 3. We show that on this graph, there are {\sc Bcds} and {\sc Pcds} instances that can perform very poorly.
Consider a {\sc Bcds} instance on the graph, with a budget $k+(c+1)(k-1)$. Clearly the optimal solution picks the path connecting all the spider heads, so that the total coverage is $(M+1)k + (c+1)(k-1)$. On the other hand, the $c$-step look-ahead greedy algorithm, might get stuck inside one of the spiders and may end up selecting as many as $M+1$ vertices from it. This is because, despite the look-ahead capability of the algorithm, the spider legs will become indistinguishable from the optimal path. For a sufficiently large value of $M$, the $c$-step look-ahead algorithm might use up all its budget on a single spider, there by obtaining a coverage of $O(M+k)$. Thus in the worst case the look-ahead greedy algorithm could have a $\Omega(k)$ approximation guarantee. Using a similar argument, we can show that, for the {\sc Pcds} instance on the graph with quota $Mk$, the approximation guarantee could be $\Omega(M)$.
\begin{figure}[hnbt]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{bad_example2.pdf}
\caption{A bad example for the $c$-step look-ahead greedy algorithm}
\label{fig:bad_example}
\end{figure}
\emph{Algorithm 2.}
The second algorithm is to find a dominating set $D$ and run a Steiner tree algorithm with the vertices in $D$ as terminals. Since the optimal connected dominating set, by definition, is a tree that dominates $D$, we can show that there exists a Steiner tree of low cost with the set $D$ as terminals. Using a constant factor approximation algorithm for the Steiner tree problem, we obtain a $O(\ln n)$ approximation for the connected dominating set. However, for the partial and budgeted versions, the optimal solution does not dominate all vertices and hence it's not possible to bound the cost of the Steiner tree in terms of the optimal solution.
\emph{Algorithm 3.}
The final algorithm builds unconnected components greedily and owing to the fact that every vertex has to be dominated, makes sure that the constructed components be connected cheaply. Again this approach fails in the partial and budgeted case because the components created when we have dominated a specified number of vertices could be far apart.
\section{Partial Connected Dominating Set}
In this section, we consider the partial connected dominating set ({\sc Pcds})
problem and give a $4 \ln \Delta +2 + o(1)$-approximation algorithm for the same.
\label{sec:partial}
\subsection{Algorithm}
We now give a high level overview of the algorithm.
The algorithm itself is very simple but to show that it is
indeed a $O(\log \Delta)$ approximation requires non-trivial analysis.
The algorithm proceeds in the following manner.
We first run a simple greedy algorithm to find a
(not necessarily connected) dominating set $D$.
In each iteration, the greedy algorithm chooses a vertex that dominates the
maximum number of previously undominated vertices.
We call this number the \lq\lq{}profit\rq\rq{} associated with the chosen vertex. Given this profit function on
the nodes, we now apply a 2-approximation algorithm for the Quota
Steiner Tree ({\sc Qst}) problem, with quota of $n'$ to obtain a connected
solution\footnote{Note that we could have simply defined each node's profit
as the number of vertices it can dominate and then try to connect nodes
using the algorithm for the {\sc Qst} problem, however in this setting
there could be a set of high profit nodes that get chosen, but since they all
dominate the {\em same} subset of nodes, we do not actually gain a profit of $n'$.}.
This is a little surprising, since the profit function depends on the
choices made by the greedy algorithm in the first phase. However,
we can show that there is a subset of vertices $D'\subseteq D$,
of cardinality at most $|\text{\sc Opt}|\ln \Delta + 1$ whose profits sum up to at least
$n'$ where $|\text{\sc Opt}|$ is the size of the optimum solution of the {\sc Pcds} instance.
Furthermore the vertices in $D'$ can be connected with additional
$(\ln \Delta + 1)|\text{\sc Opt}| + 1$ vertices. Thus, if we could find the smallest tree with total profit at least $n'$, such a tree would cost (number of edges in the tree) no more than $\hide{(2\ln \Delta +1)|\text{\sc Opt}| + 2 - 1 = }(2\ln \Delta +1)|\text{\sc Opt}| +1$. This is a special case of the {\sc Qst} problem (with unit edge costs) and hence we can apply Theorem~\ref{thm:QST} to obtain a tree of size (cost) no more than $2((2\ln \Delta +1)|\text{\sc Opt}| + 1) = (4\ln \Delta + 2)|\text{\sc Opt}|+2$.
Thus, we obtain a $(4\ln \Delta +2 + o(1))$-approximate solution for the {\sc Pcds} problem.
\vspace{4mm}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\begin{algorithm}{ \sc Greedy Profit Labeling Algorithm for {\sc Pcds}.}
\label{algm:PCDS}
\noindent {\bf Input:} Graph $G=(V,E)$ and $n'\in \mathbb{Z}^+\cup\{0\}$.
\noindent {\bf Output:} Tree $T$ with at least $n'$ Coverage.
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Compute the greedy dominating set $D$ and the corresponding profit function $p:V\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ using the Algorithm~\ref{algm:greedy}.
\State Use the 2-approximation for {\sc Qst} problem \cite{johnson2000prize} on the instance $(G,p)$ with quota $n'$ to obtain a tree $T$
\end{algorithmic}
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\end{algorithm}
\vspace{4mm}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\begin{algorithm} { \sc Greedy Dominating Set.}
\label{algm:greedy}
\noindent {\bf Input:} Graph $G=(V,E)$.
\noindent {\bf Output:} Dominating Set $D$ and profit function $p:V\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}^+\cup\{0\}$.
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $D \leftarrow \phi$
\State $U \leftarrow V$
\ForAll {$v \in V$}
\State $p(v) \leftarrow 0$;
\EndFor
\While{$U \neq \phi$}
\State $v \leftarrow \displaystyle \argmax_{v \in V \setminus D} \quad |N_{U}(v)|$
\Comment \emph{{$N_U(v)$ is the set of neighbors of $v$, including itself, in the set $U$}}
\State $C_v \leftarrow N_U(v)$
\State $p(v) \leftarrow |C_v|$
\State $U \leftarrow U \setminus N_U(v)$
\State $D \leftarrow D \cup \{v\}$
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Analysis}
We first introduce some required notation.
{\bf Notation: } For every vertex $v \in D$ that is chosen by the greedy algorithm, let $C_v$ denote the set of \emph{new} vertices that $v$ dominates
i.e., we have $p(v) = |C_v|$. We say that $v$ \lq\lq{}covers\rq\rq{} a vertex $w$ if and only if $w \in C_v$.
For the sake of analysis, we partition the vertices of the graph $G$ into layers.
Let $L_1 = $ {\sc Opt} be the vertices in an optimal solution for the {\sc Pcds} instance,
$L_2$ be the set of vertices that are not in $L_1$ and have at least one neighbor in $L_1$, and
$R = V \setminus \{L_1 \cup L_2\}$ be the remaining vertices.
Let $L_3$ be the subset of vertices of $R$ that have a neighbor in $L_2$.
Furthermore let $L_i' = D \cap L_i, 1 \leq i \leq 3$ where $D$ is the
dominating set chosen by the greedy algorithm.
Figure~\ref{fig1} clarifies this notation regarding the layers $L_i$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{layers.jpg}
\caption{Pictorial Representation of Different Layers.
(a) $L_1$ is an optimal solution (b) $L_2$ is set of the vertices adjacent to $L_1$
(c) $L_3$ is the subsequent layer (d) $R$ is the set of
all vertices other than $L_1\cup L_2$ and (e) $L_i' = L_i \cap D$.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
We first show the following.
\begin{lemma}
There is a subset $D' \subseteq L_1' \cup L_2' \cup L_3'$ such that $|D'| \leq |\text{\sc Opt}|\ln \Delta + 1$ and the total profit of vertices in $D'$ is at least $n'$, i.e. $\sum_{v \in D'} p(v) \geq n'$.
\label{claim:exists}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $L_1' \cup L_2' \cup L_3' = \{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_l\}$ where the vertices are arranged according to the order in which they were selected by the greedy algorithm. Since all vertices in $L_1 \cup L_2$ are dominated by $L_1' \cup L_2' \cup L_3'$, we have $\sum_{i=1}^l p(v_i) \geq |L_1 \cup L_2| \geq n'$ where the second inequality follows from the fact that $L_1$ is a feasible solution (in fact optimal feasible solution). Choose $t$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^t p(v_i) < n'$ and $\sum_{i=1}^{t+1} p(v_i) \geq n'$. Let $\mathcal{S} = \{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_t\}$ denote the set of the first $t$ vertices chosen from the set $L_1' \cup L_2' \cup L_3'$. We now show that $|\mathcal{S}| = t \leq |\text{\sc Opt}| \ln \Delta$ and hence $D' = \mathcal{S} \cup \{v_{t+1}\}$ satisfies the requirements of the claim.
Let $C_{12}$ be the set of vertices in $L_1\cup L_2$ that are covered by $\mathcal{S}$ in the original greedy step i.e., $C_{12} = \cup_{v\in \mathcal{S}} \{ C_v\cap(L_1\cup L_2)\}$. Let $UC_{12} = (L_1 \cup L_2) \setminus C_{12}$ be the vertices in $L_1\cup L_2$ that are not covered by $\mathcal{S}$. Similarly define $C_R = \cup_{v \in \mathcal{S}}\{ C_v \cap R\}$ as the set of vertices in $R$ covered by $\mathcal{S}$ (as per the greedy step).
Then, we have that $|C_R| + |C_{12}| < n' \leq |L_1 \cup L_2| = |C_{12}| + |UC_{12}|$, where the first inequality follows from the definition of $\mathcal{S}$. Therefore we have $|C_R| < |UC_{12}|$.
We can thus assign every vertex in $C_R$ to a unique vertex in $UC_{12}$, i.e. let $I : C_R \rightarrow UC_{12}$ denote a one to one function from $C_R$ to $UC_{12}$. In the subsequent charging argument, any cost that we charge to a vertex $x\in C_R$ is transferred to its assigned vertex $I(x) \in UC_{12}$. Hence, after this charge transfer, only vertices in $L_1 \cup L_2$ will be charged.
We will now use a charging argument to show that $|\mathcal{S}| \leq |\text{\sc Opt}|\ln \Delta$.
Consider a vertex $u\in \mathcal{S}$. We recall that $C_u$ is the set of vertices covered for the first time by $u$ in the greedy step. We assign every $w\in C_u$ a charge $\rho(w) = \frac{1}{|C_u|}$. It is clear that the total charge on all vertices is equal to the size of $\mathcal{S}$. As described above, the charge of a vertex in $w\in R$ is transfered to its mapped vertex in $I(w)\in UC_{12}$.
Let $v$ be a vertex in the optimal solution set $L_1$. We denote the set of neighbors of $v$, including itself, by $\mathcal{N}(v)$. We claim that the total charge on the vertices of $\mathcal{N}(v)$ is at most $\ln \Delta$. Initially, none of the vertices in $\mathcal{N}(v)$ are charged. Let $u_1, u_2\ldots, u_l$ be the vertices in $\mathcal{S}$ which charge some vertices of $\mathcal{N}(v)$ in that order. This charge could either be the direct charge or a transfer of charge from some vertex in $R$.
For $i\in[l]$, let $O_i\subseteq \mathcal{N}(v)$ denote the set of vertices that remain uncharged (either directly or through a transfer), after the vertex $u_i$ is picked into $\mathcal{S}$.
Let $O_0 = \mathcal{N}(v)$.
We will now show that, for every $u_i$, $|C_{u_i}| \geq |O_{i-1}|$. Let us consider the iteration of the greedy algorithm in which $u_i$ is picked.
We claim that none of the vertices in $O_{i-1}$ can be dominated by any vertex chosen before $u_i$ in the greedy algorithm. Let $w\in O_{i-1}$ be some vertex which is dominated by some vertex $u'$ chosen by greedy before $u_i$, such that $w\in C_{u'}$. Clearly $u'\in L_1'\cup L_2' \cup L_3'$ should hold, because no vertex in $R\setminus L_3$ can dominate $w$. But since $u'$ was chosen before $u_i$ and $u'\in L_1'\cup L_2'\cup L_3'$, $u'$ must be chosen into $\mathcal{S}$ before $u_i$. Hence, $w$ cannot be an uncharged vertex in the current iteration leading to a contradiction.
Thus, in the iteration where the greedy algorithm was about to choose $u_i$, none of the vertices $O_{i-1}$ have been dominated. Hence if the greedy were to choose $v$, then $p(v) \geq |O_{i-1}|$. Since the greedy algorithm chooses vertex $u_i$ instead of $v$, we have $|C_{u_i}| \geq |O_{i-1}|$.
The total charge in this iteration ($C_{u_i} \cap \mathcal{N}(v)$) is thus at most $\frac{|O_{i-1}| - |O_{i}|}{|O_{i-1}|}$. Adding these charges over all $l$ iterations, we get, using an analysis very similar to the set cover analysis~\cite{cormengreedy}, $\sum_{w \in \mathcal{N}(v)} \rho(w) \leq H(\Delta)$, where $H$ is the harmonic function and $\Delta$ is the maximum degree.
Adding up the charges over all vertices in $L_1$, we get
$\sum_{u \in C_{12} \cup UC_{12}} \rho(u) \leq \sum_{v \in L_1} \sum_{w \in \mathcal{N}(v)} \rho(w) \leq |\text{\sc Opt}| \ln \Delta$. Hence we have $|\mathcal{S}| \leq |\text{\sc Opt}| \ln \Delta$. Since $\mathcal{S}$ was a maximal set having profit at most $n'$, we obtain a set $D'$ with $|D'| = |\mathcal{S}| + 1$ with profit at least $n'$ by adding a single vertex to $\mathcal{S}$, which gives us the desired result. \hfill\ensuremath{\blacksquare}
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:QST2}
Let {\sc Opt} be the optimal solution set for an instance of {\sc Pcds}. There exists a tree $\hat{T}$ with at most $2|\text{\sc Opt}|\ln \Delta +|\text{\sc Opt}|+ 1$ edges such that $\sum_{v\in \hat{T}} p(v) \geq n'$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In Lemma~\ref{claim:exists}, we have shown that there exists a subset $D' \subseteq L_1' \cup L_2' \cup L_3'$ of size $|\text{\sc Opt}|\ln \Delta + 1$ that has profit at least $n'$. However this set $D'$ need not be connected. We now show that this set $D'$ can be connected without paying too much.
Firstly we note that for every vertex $v\in L_3\cap D'$, there exists a vertex $w\in L_2$ such that $w$ dominates $v$. Thus we can pick a subset $D'' \subseteq L_2$ of size at most $|L_3\cap D'|\leq |\text{\sc Opt}|\ln \Delta + 1$ which dominates all vertices of $L_3\cap D'$.
Now, it is sufficient to ensure that all the vertices of $(D'\cap L_2)\cup D''$ are connected. This can be achieved by simply adding all the vertices of $L_1$ to our solution.
Thus we have shown that $\hat{D} = D'\cup D'' \cup L_1$ induces a connected subgraph with profit at least $n'$ and the number of vertices in $\hat{D} \leq |D'| + |D''| + |L_1| \leq 2|\text{\sc Opt}|\ln \Delta + |\text{\sc Opt}| + 2$. Hence there exists subtree $\hat{T}$ on these vertices with at most $(2\ln \Delta +1)|\text{\sc Opt}| + 1$ edges with the requisite total profit. \hfill\ensuremath{\blacksquare}
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Algorithm \ref{algm:PCDS} is a $4\ln \Delta + 2 + o(1)$-approximation algorithm for {\sc Pcds}.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Let {\sc Opt} be the optimal solution of the {\sc Pcds} instance. As per Theorem \ref{thm:QST2}, we know that there exists a Steiner tree $\hat{T}$ with at most $2|\text{\sc Opt}|\ln \Delta + |\text{\sc Opt}| + 1$ edges whose total profit exceeds the quota $n'$. Hence, the tree $T$ returned by the 2-approximation for the {\sc Qst} problem has at most $4|\text{\sc Opt}|\ln \Delta + 2|\text{\sc Opt}| +2$ edges. Thus, we obtain a $4\ln \Delta + 2 + o(1)$ approximation algorithm. \hfill\ensuremath{\blacksquare}
\end{proof}
\section{Budgeted Connected Dominating Set}
\label{sec:budgeted}
We now turn our attention to the Budgeted Connected Dominating Set ({\sc Bcds}) problem. We recall that in the {\sc Bcds} problem, we have to choose at most $k$ vertices that induce a connected subgraph and maximize the number of dominated vertices.
\subsection{Algorithm}
Algorithm~\ref{algm:BCDS} is very similar to the one we used to obtain a partial connected dominating set. We start by running the standard greedy algorithm to find a dominating set $D$ in the graph.
We set the profits of vertices in $D$ as the number of newly covered vertices
at each step of the greedy algorithm,
while we assign zero profit for the remaining vertices in $V \setminus D$.
In the analysis section, we show that there is a tree on at most $3k$ vertices that has a total profit of at least $(1-\frac{1}{e})\text{\sc Opt}$ where $\text{\sc Opt}$ is the number of vertices dominated by an optimal solution. Note that we may assume that we have guessed $\text{\sc Opt}$ by trying out values between $k$ and $n$ using, say, binary search.
We run the 2 approximation algorithm for the Quota Steiner tree problem on this instance with the quota being set to $(1-\frac{1}{e})\text{\sc Opt}$.
This will result in a tree with at most $6k$ nodes with total profit at least $(1-\frac{1}{e})\text{\sc Opt}$. Thus we obtain a $(6, 1-\frac{1}{e})$ bicriteria approximation algorithm.
To convert this bicriteria approximation into a true approximation, we use a dynamic program (Section~\ref{sec:finding-best-subtree}) to find the \lq\lq{}best\rq\rq{} subtree on at most $k$ vertices from this tree of $6k$ vertices. We use a simple tree decomposition scheme to show that the best tree dominates at least $\frac{1}{13}(1- \frac{1}{e})\text{\sc Opt}$ nodes.
\vspace{4mm}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\begin{algorithm}{\sc Greedy Profit Labeling Algorithm for {\sc Bcds}.}
\label{algm:BCDS}
\noindent {\bf Input:} Graph $G=(V,E)$ and $k\in \mathbb{N}$.
\noindent {\bf Output:} Tree $\tilde{T}$ with cost at most $k$.
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Compute the greedy dominating set $D$ and the corresponding profit function $p:V\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ using the Algorithm~\ref{algm:greedy}.
\State $\text{\sc Opt} \leftarrow $ number of vertices dominated by an optimal solution. \Comment Guess using binary search between $k$ and $n$
\State Use the 2-approximation for {\sc Qst} problem~\cite{johnson2000prize} to obtain a tree $T$ with profit at least $(1 - \frac{1}{e})\text{\sc Opt}$. \Comment
We show that $|T| \leq 6k$.
\State Use the dynamic program of Section \ref{sec:finding-best-subtree} to find $\tilde{T}$, the best subtree of $T$ having at most $k$ vertices.
\end{algorithmic}
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\end{algorithm}
\subsection{Analysis}
Let $L_1$ denote the vertices in an optimal solution. Let layers $L_2$, $L_3$, $R$, and $L_i'$ be defined as in Section~\ref{sec:partial}. $\text{\sc Opt} = |L_1 \cup L_2|$ is the number of vertices dominated by the optimal solution.
Let $L_1' \cup L_2' \cup L_3' = \{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_l\}$ where the vertices are according to the order in which they were selected by the greedy algorithm. Let $D' = \{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_k\}$ denote the first $k$ vertices from $L_1' \cup L_2' \cup L_3'$. In Lemma~\ref{lem:budgeted}, we prove that the total profit of $D' = \sum_{v \in D'} p(v)$ is at least $(1 - \frac{1}{e}) \text{\sc Opt}$. Next, we can show that these $k$ vertices can be connected by using at most $2k$ more vertices, thus proving the existence of a tree with at most $3k$ vertices having the desired total profit.
Let $g_i$ denote the total profit after picking the first $i$ vertices from $D'$, i.e., $g_i = \sum_{j=1}^i p(v_j)$. We start by proving that the following recurrence holds for every $i = 0\text{ to }k-1$.
\begin{claim}
\label{claim:maxcov}
$g_{i+1} - g_{i} \geq \frac{1}{k} (\text{\sc Opt} - g_i)$
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
Consider the iteration of the greedy algorithm, where vertex $v_{i+1}$ is being picked. We first show that at most $g_i$ vertices of $L_1 \cup L_2$ have been already been dominated. Note that any vertex $w \in L_1 \cup L_2$ that has been already dominated must have been dominated by a vertex in $\{v_1, v_2, \ldots v_i\}$. This is because no vertex from $R \setminus L_3$ can neighbor $w$. Since $g_i = \sum_{j=1}^i p(v_j)$ is the total profit gained so far, it follows that at most $g_i$ vertices from $L_1 \cup L_2$ have been dominated. Hence we have that there are at least $\text{\sc Opt} - g_i$ undominated vertices in $L_1 \cup L_2$. Since the $k$ vertices of $L_1$ together dominate all of these, it follows that there exists at least one vertex $v \in L_1$ which neighbors at least $\frac{1}{k}(\text{\sc Opt} - g_i)$ undominated vertices.
We conclude this proof by noting that since the greedy algorithm chose to pick $v_{i+1}$ at this stage, instead of the $v$ above, it follows that $p(v_{i+1}) = g_{i+1} - g_i \geq \frac{1}{k}(\text{\sc Opt} - g_i)$. \hfill\ensuremath{\blacksquare}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:budgeted}
Let $\text{\sc Opt}$ be the number of vertices dominated by an optimal solution for {\sc Bcds}. Then there exists a subset $D' \subseteq D$ of size $k$ with total profit at least $(1 - \frac{1}{e}) \text{\sc Opt}$. Further, $D'$ can be connected using at most $2k$
Steiner vertices.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
From the Claim~\ref{claim:maxcov}, the profit after $i+1$ iterations is given by
\begin{equation*}
g_{i+1} \geq \frac{\text{\sc Opt}}{k} + g_i(1 - \frac{1}{k}).
\end{equation*}
By solving this recurrence, we get
$g_{i} \geq (1 - (1 - \frac{1}{k})^i) \text{\sc Opt}$. Hence, we obtain the following.
\[\sum_{v \in D'} p(v) = g_k \geq (1 - (1 - \frac{1}{k})^k ) \text{\sc Opt} \geq (1 - \frac{1}{e}) \text{\sc Opt}\]
We show that $D'$ can be connected by at most $2k$ Steiner
nodes to form a connected tree.
Note that for every vertex $v\in L_3\cap D'$, there exists a vertex $w\in L_2$ such that $w$ neighbors $v$. Thus we can pick a subset $D'' \subseteq L_2$ of size at most $|L_3\cap D'|\leq k$ which dominates all vertices of $L_3\cap D'$. Now, it is sufficient to ensure that all the vertices of $(D'\cap L_2)\cup D''$ are connected. This can be achieved by simply adding all the $k$ vertices of $L_1$. Thus we have shown that $\hat{D} = D'\cup D'' \cup L_1$ induces a connected subgraph with profit at least $(1 - \frac{1}{e}) \text{\sc Opt}$ and $|\hat{D}| \leq |D'| + |D''| + |L_1| \leq 3k$. \hfill\ensuremath{\blacksquare}
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:biapprox}
There is a $(6, (1-\frac{1}{e}))$ bicriteria approximation algorithm for the {\sc Bcds} problem.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Lemma~\ref{lem:budgeted} shows that there exists a Steiner tree with at most $3k$ vertices having total profit greater than a quota of $(1-\frac{1}{e})\text{\sc Opt}$. Hence, using the $2$-approximation for the {\sc Qst} problem, we obtain a tree $T$ of at most $6k$ nodes and total profit at least $(1 - \frac{1}{e})\text{\sc Opt}$. Thus we obtain a (6, $(1 - \frac{1}{e})$) bicriteria approximation algorithm for the {\sc Bcds} problem. \hfill\ensuremath{\blacksquare}
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Converting the Bicriteria Approximation to a True Approximation}
In order to obtain a true approximate solution (solution of size $k$), we need a technique to find a small subtree $\tilde{T} \subseteq T$ of $k$ vertices which has high total profit.
In Section~\ref{sec:finding-best-subtree}, we show that this problem can be easily solved in polynomial time using dynamic programming. However, simply finding the subtree which maximizes the profit is not enough to give a good approximation ratio. We need a way to compare the total profit of the subtree $\tilde{T}$ with the entire profit $P = \sum_{v \in T} p(v)$. We now show that if $n = 6k$, we can obtain a subtree having profit at least $\frac{1}{13} P$
The following lemma is well known in folklore and can be easily proven by induction. It can also be seen as an easy consequence of a theorem by Jordan~\cite{jordan}.
\begin{lemma}[Jordan~\cite{jordan}]
\label{lemma:folklore}
Given any tree on $n$ vertices, we can decompose it into two trees (by replicating a single vertex) such that the smaller tree has at most $\left \lceil \frac{n}{2} \right \rceil $ nodes and the larger tree has at most $\left \lceil \frac{2n}{3} \right \rceil$ nodes.
\end{lemma}
We now show the following -
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:decomp}
Let $k$ be greater than a sufficiently large constant. Given a tree $T$ with $6k$ nodes, we can decompose it into $13$ trees of size at most $k$ nodes each.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We use Lemma~\ref{lemma:folklore} to decompose the tree into two trees $T_1$ and $T_2$ such that $|T_1| \leq |T_2|$. In this decomposition, at most one vertex is duplicated, therefore $|T_1| + |T_2| \leq 6k+1$. Also, we have $|T_1| \leq 3k$. We now have two cases:
\noindent {\bf Case 1: $|T_1| \geq 3k-1$}. In this case, $|T_2| \leq 6k+1 -|T_1| \leq 3k+2$. Now repeatedly using Lemma~\ref{lemma:folklore} we can see that $T_1$ can be decomposed into at most $6$ trees and $T_2$ can be decomposed into at most $7$ trees of size at most $k$. This is shown in the Figure~\ref{fig:case1}. Hence, in this case, we can decompose the tree $T$ into $13$ trees.
\noindent {\bf Case 2: $|T_1| \leq 3k-2$}. In this case, $|T_2| \leq 4k$. In this case, we can decompose $T_1$ into $5$ trees and $T_2$ can be decomposed into $8$ trees. This is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:case2}. Thus in this case, we can decompose $T$ into $13$ trees. \hfill\ensuremath{\blacksquare}
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[ptbh]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{decomp2.jpg}
\end{subfigure}
\quad \quad \quad
\begin{subfigure}{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{decomp3.jpg}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{ Case 1: $|T_1| \geq 3k-1$. First tree decomposes into $6$ subtrees and second tree decomposes into $7$ trees. In total, we obtain $13$ subtrees. The number associated with each node is the upper bound on the size of the subtree.}
\label{fig:case1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ptbh]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{decomp1.jpg}
\end{subfigure}
\quad \quad \quad
\begin{subfigure}[t]{0.4\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{decomp4.jpg}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Case 2: $|T_1| \leq 3k-2$. First tree decomposes into $5$ subtrees and second tree decomposes into $8$ trees. In total, we obtain $13$ subtrees. The number associated with each node is the upper bound on the size of the subtree.}
\label{fig:case2}
\end{figure}
Using Lemma~\ref{lemma:decomp}, we can convert the bicriteria approximation for {\sc Bcds} to a true approximation algorithm. In particular, we show the following -
\begin{theorem}
There is a $\frac{1}{13}(1 - \frac{1}{e})$ approximation algorithm for the {\sc Bcds} problem.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma~\ref{lemma:biapprox}, we obtain a tree $T$ with at most $6k$ nodes with profit $(1-\frac{1}{e})\text{\sc Opt}$.
Now using Lemma~\ref{lemma:decomp}, we obtain $13$ trees in the worst case, say $T_1, T_2, \ldots T_{13}$. Finally, out of these 13 trees (each of size at most $k$), we pick the tree $\tilde{T}$ with the highest total profit. Let, $p(T) = \sum_{v \in T}p(v)$ denote the total profit of tree $T$. Then we have,
\[p(\tilde{T}) \geq \frac{1}{13}\sum_{i=1}^{13} p(T_i) \geq \frac{1}{13} p(T) \geq \frac{1}{13}(1 - \frac{1}{e})\text{\sc Opt}\]
Thus we have a $\frac{1}{13}(1 - \frac{1}{e})$ approximation guarantee. \hfill\ensuremath{\blacksquare}
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Finding the Best Subtree}
\label{sec:finding-best-subtree}
Although the decomposition Lemma~\ref{lemma:decomp} is useful to prove a theoretical bound, from a practical perspective it is better to use a dynamic programming approach to find the best $k$ sub-tree. Formally, we have the following problem.
Given a tree $T = (V,E)$ of $n$ vertices, profits on vertices $p : V \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}^+ \cup \{0\}$, and an integer $k$, find a subtree $\tilde{T}$ of $k$ vertices which maximizes the total profit $\tilde{P} = \sum_{v \in \tilde{T}} p(v)$. We show that this problem can be solved in polynomial time using dynamic programming.
Let the tree $T$ be rooted at an arbitrary vertex and $T_v$ denote the subtree rooted at a vertex $v$. We define the following -
$F(v,i) \leftarrow$ best solution of at most $i$ vertices completely contained inside $T_v$.
$G(v,i) \leftarrow$ best solution of at most $i$ vertices completely contained inside $T_v$ such that $v$ is a part of the solution.
The desired solution is thus at $F(root, k)$. The base cases (when $v$ is a leaf) are trivial. Let $v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_l$ denote the children of vertex $v$. We now have the following recurrence -
\begin{align}\nonumber
F(v,i) &= \max \left\{ \max_{1\leq j \leq l} \{F(v_j, i)\} , G(v,i) \right\}\\ \nonumber
G(v,i) &= p(v) + M(l,i-1) \\ \nonumber
\shortintertext{where $M(j,i')$ denotes the best way to distribute a budget of $i'$ among the first $j$ children of $v$. In other words,}
M(l,i-1) &= \max_{i_1+i_2+\ldots+i_l= i-1} \left\{ \sum_j {G(v_j,i_j)}\right\} \nonumber
\end{align}
$M(j,i')$ is computed using another dynamic program as follows. Again the base cases when $j = 0$ or $i' = 0$ are trivial. For $1\leq j \leq l$ and $1 \leq i'\leq i-1$, we have the following recurrence -
\begin{align}\nonumber
M(j,i') &= \max_{0 \leq i^* \leq i'} \left \{ M(j-1, i^*) + G(v_j, i' - i^*)\right \}
\end{align}
\section{Budgeted Generalized {\bf \sc Cds}}
\label{sec:bgcd}
In this section, we show that our approach extends to more general budgeted connected domination problems.
Formally, given a graph $G = (V,E)$, a budget $k$, and a monotone \emph{special submodular} profit function $f : 2^V \rightarrow \mathbb{Z^+} \cup{0}$, find a subset $S \subseteq V$ which maximizes $f(S)$ such that $|S| \leq k$ and induces a connected subgraph of $G$.
\noindent As mentioned earlier in Section \ref{sec:preliminaries}, this problem captures the budgeted variants of the capacitated and weighted profit connected dominating set problems.
\subsection{ Algorithm.}
Algorithm~\ref{algm:BGCDS} begins by running the standard greedy algorithm to find a basis of the polymatroid associated with $f$. In other words, we greedily pick a vertex $v$ with the maximum marginal profit $f(D \cup \{v\}) - f(D)$ until all vertices have zero marginal profit. With every selected vertex, we associate the marginal profit gained, and associate zero profit with the other vertices. Finally, we run a quota Steiner tree algorithm using these profits to find the smallest tree that yields a profit of at least $(1 - \frac{1}{e}) \text{\sc Opt}$ where $\text{\sc Opt}$ is the optimal profit (which we guess). In the analysis section, we show that there exists a tree $\hat{T}$ of size at most $3k$ with $f(\hat{T}) \geq (1 - \frac{1}{e}) \text{\sc Opt}$. Hence, the 2-approximation for the quota Steiner tree yields a tree $T$ of size at most $6k$ yielding the desired profit. Finally using the tree decomposition described earlier, we show that we can obtain a tree $\tilde{T}$ of size at most $k$ with $f(\tilde{T}) \geq \frac{1}{13}(1 - \frac{1}{e}) \text{\sc Opt}$.
\subsection{\bf Analysis.}
\label{sec:analysis-BGCDS}
Let the $L_1$ denote the vertices in the optimal solution and $f(L_1) = \text{\sc Opt}$. Let $L_2$ denote the set of vertices which have at least one neighbor in $L_1$, and similarly let $L_3$ denote the set of vertices having a neighbor in $L_2$ (and NOT in $L_1$). Let $R = V \setminus \{L_1 \cup L_2 \cup L_3\}$ denote the rest of the vertices. Let $L_i' = D \cap L_i$ where $D$ is the set of vertices chosen by the greedy algorithm.
Further, let $D'$ denote the first $k$ vertices picked by the greedy algorithm from $L_1' \cup L_2' \cup L_3'$. To simplify notation, let $D' = \{v_1, v_2, \ldots, v_k\}$ and let $D_i$ denote the the set of vertices already picked by the greedy algorithm when the vertex $v_{i+1}$ is being chosen. Hence we have $v_{i+1} = \argmax_{v \in V \setminus D_i} f(D_i \cup \{v\}) - f(D_i)$ and $p(v_{i+1}) = f(D_i \cup \{v_{i+1}\}) - f(D_i)$. Note that in particular $D_i \subseteq D$ but may not be a subset of $D'$. Also let $D'_i = \cup_{j=1}^i v_j$ denote the first $i$ vertices in $D'$. Let $P(D'_i) = \sum_{v \in D'_i} p(v)$ denote the total profit associated with the set $D_i'$. Finally let $D_i'' = D_i \setminus D_i'$ be the vertices in $D_i \cap R$.
\begin{claim}
$p(v_{i+1}) = P(D_{i+1}') - P(D_{i}') \geq \frac{1}{k}(\text{\sc Opt} - P(D_i'))$
\label{claim:bgcds}
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}\belowdisplayskip=-11pt
Consider the marginal profit of the set $L_1 \setminus D_i'$. Since $N(D_i'')$ does not intersect with $N(L_1)$, we have,
\begin{align
f_{D_i'}(L_1 \setminus D_i') &= f_{D_i' \cup D_i''}(L_1 \setminus D_i') \nonumber \\ \nonumber
&= f_{D_i''}(D_i' \cup (L_1 \setminus D_i')) - f_{D_i''}(D_i') \\ \nonumber
&\geq f_{D_i''}(L_1) - f_{D_i''}(D_i') \\\nonumber
&= f(L_1) - f_{D_i''}(D_i') \\
\label{eq:1} &= \text{\sc Opt} - f_{D_i''}(D_i')
\shortintertext{Let us now consider the term $f_{D_i''}(D_i')$. Adding up over successive marginal profits, }\label{eq:3}
f_{D_i''}(D_i') &= \sum_{j=1}^i f_{D_i'' \cup D_{j-1}'}(v_j)
\leq \sum_{j=1}^i f_{D_{j-1}}(v_j) \\\nonumber
&= \sum_{j=1}^i p(v_j) = P(D_i') \nonumber
\shortintertext{From Eq~(\ref{eq:1}) and Eq~(\ref{eq:3}), }
f_{D_i'}(L_1 \setminus D_i') &\geq \text{\sc Opt} - P(D_i') \nonumber
\shortintertext{As $f$ is submodular, we have}
f_{D_i'}(L_1 \setminus D_i') &\leq \sum_{w \in L_1 \setminus D_i'} f_{D_i'}(\{w\}) \nonumber
\shortintertext{Since $|L_1 \setminus D_i'| \leq k$, there exists at least one vertex $w \in L_1 \setminus D_i'$ satisfying}\
f_{D_i'}(\{w\}) &\geq \frac{1}{k} f_{D_i'}(L_1 \setminus D_i') \geq \frac{1}{k} (\text{\sc Opt} - P(D_i')) \nonumber
\shortintertext{Using $f_{D_i}(\{w\}) = f_{D_i'}(\{w\})$ and the fact that greedy picked $v_{i+1}$ at this stage}
p(v_{i+1}) &= f_{D_i}(\{v_{i+1}\}) \geq f_{D_i}(\{w\}) \nonumber\\
&\geq \frac{1}{k} (\text{\sc Opt} - P(D_i')) \nonumber
\end{align} \hfill\ensuremath{\blacksquare}
\end{proof}
Solving the recurrence of Claim~\ref{claim:bgcds}, we have $P(D') \geq (1 - \frac{1}{e})\text{\sc Opt}$.
We thus have a set $D'$ of size $k$ which yields a total profit of at least $(1 - \frac{1}{e}) \text{\sc Opt}$. We now proceed to show that the above set $D'$ can be connected at a relatively low cost. Since every vertex in $D'$ can be connected to $L_1$ using at most one vertex (from $L_2$), we can obtain a connected subset $\hat{T}$ of size at most $3k$ by choosing $D'$, $L_1$ and vertices in $L_2$ as described.
Hence, the 2-approximation for the {\sc Qst} problem will yield a tree $T$ of size at most $6k$ which would give a profit of at least $(1 - \frac{1}{e}) \text{\sc Opt}$. Finally applying the tree decomposition described earlier we obtain a tree $\tilde{T}$ of size $\leq k$ with $f(\tilde{T}) \geq P(\tilde{T}) \geq \frac{1}{13} (1 - \frac{1}{e}) \text{\sc Opt}$.
\vspace{6mm}
\hrule
\vspace{0.9mm}
\hrule
\begin{algorithm}{ \sc Greedy Profit Labeling Algorithm for {\sc Bgcds}.}
\label{algm:BGCDS}
\noindent {\bf Input:} Graph $G=(V,E)$, a monotone special submodular function $f:2^V\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}^+\cup\{0\}$ and $k\in \mathbb{Z}^+\cup\{0\}$.
\noindent {\bf Output:} Tree $\tilde{T}$ with at most $k$ vertices.
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State Run the Generalized Greedy Dominating Set Routine (Algorithm~\ref{algm:gen-greedy}) on $(G,f)$ to obtain a subset $D$ and a profit function $p:V\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$.
\State $\text{\sc Opt} \leftarrow $ profit of an optimal solution. (Guess using binary search 0 and $f(V)$).
\State $T \leftarrow$ 2-approximation for QST with quota $(1-\frac{1}{e})\text{\sc Opt}$.
\State Use the dynamic program of Section \ref{sec:finding-best-subtree} to find $\tilde{T}$, the best subtree of $T$ having at most $k$ vertices.
\end{algorithmic}
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\end{algorithm}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\begin{algorithm} { \sc Generalized Greedy Dominating Set.}
\label{algm:gen-greedy}
\noindent {\bf Input:} Graph $G=(V,E)$ and a monotone special submodular function $f:2^V\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}^+\cup\{0\}$.
\noindent {\bf Output:} $D\subseteq V$ such that $f(D) = f(V)$ and profit function $p:V\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}^+\cup\{0\}$.
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $D \leftarrow \phi$
\While{$f(D) \neq f(V)$}
\State $v \leftarrow \displaystyle \argmax_{v \in V \setminus D} \quad f(D \cup \{v\}) - f(D)$
\State $p(v) \leftarrow f(D \cup \{v\}) - f(D)$
\State $D \leftarrow D \cup \{v\}$
\EndWhile
\ForAll {$v \in V \setminus D$}
\State $p(v) \leftarrow 0$
\EndFor
\end{algorithmic}
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\vspace{1mm}
\hrule
\end{algorithm}
\section{Partial Generalized Connected Domination}
We now consider a partial coverage version of the generalized connected domination presented in Section~\ref{sec:bgcd}. In this problem, the goal is to find the smallest subset of vertices which induce a connected subgraph and have total profit at least $q$ (quota).
Just as for the budgeted case, the algorithm proceeds by finding a spanning subset greedily. Using profits as defined by the greedy algorithm, we then find a {\sc Qst} having total profit at least $q$. In the analysis section, we show that there exists a tree $\hat{T}$ of size at most $2k \ln q + k$ with total profit at least $q$. Hence, the 2-approximation for {\sc Qst} yields a tree $T$ of size at most $4k \ln q + 2k$ leading to a $O(4 \ln q)$ approximation.
\subsection{Analysis}
We reuse notation from Section~\ref{sec:bgcd} regarding the layers $L_i$ and $L_i'$. Let $D'$ denote the first $k \ln q + 1$ vertices picked by the greedy algorithm from $L_1' \cup L_2' \cup L_3'$. We now show that the total profit of vertices in $D'$ is at least $q$.
\\
\\
\begin{claim}\label{claim:pgcds} $P(D') \geq q$
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
As per Claim ~\ref{claim:bgcds}, we obtain the following recurrence
\begin{align}
P(D_{i+1}') &\geq (1 - (1 - \frac{1}{k})^{i+1}) q \\
\intertext{Substituting $i+1 = k \ln q$, we get, }
P(D_{k \ln q}') &\geq (1 - (1 - \frac{1}{k})^{k \ln q}) q \\
&\geq (1 - \frac{1}{q}) q \geq q - 1
\intertext{Since profit function $f$ is integral, we have}
P(D_{k \ln q + 1}') &\geq q
\end{align} \hfill\ensuremath{\blacksquare}
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} Given that the optimal solution is of size $k$, there exists a tree $\hat{T}$ of size at most $2k \ln q + k + 2$ such that $\sum_{v \in \hat{T}} p(v) \geq q$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In Claim~\ref{claim:pgcds} above, we have demonstrated the existence of a set of size at most $k \ln q + 1$ with the requisite total profit. We now show that this set can be connected at low cost. As in Theorem~\ref{thm:QST2}, we can see that by selecting at most $k \ln q + 1$ more vertices from layer $L_2$ and at most $k$ vertices from layer $L_1$, the set $D'$ can be connected to form a tree $\hat{T}$. \hfill\ensuremath{\blacksquare}
\end{proof}
Finally using the 2-approximation for {\sc Qst}, we obtain a $O(4 \ln q)$ approximation.
\vspace{2mm}
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
We consider partial and budgeted versions of the well studied connected dominating set problem. We observe that various algorithms which perform well in the \emph{complete} version of the connected dominating set have unbounded approximation guarantee in the partial case. Using a surprising \emph{greedy profit labeling} algorithm we obtain the first $O(\log n)$ approximation for the partial connected dominating set problem and a $\frac{1}{13}(1-\frac{1}{e})$ approximation for the budgeted version. We also extend our results to a \emph{special submodular} problem, which includes capacitated and weighted profit versions of the {\sc Pcds} and {\sc Bcds} problems as special cases. Our results are tight up to a constant factor in all the cases. A natural open question is to improve these constants
\\\\
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgment:}
The first author would like to thank Yossi Azar for useful discussions, held during the Dagstuhl seminar on Scheduling (2013),
about the failure of prior methods for the budgeted {\sc Cds} problem.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
\section{Introduction}
During the past decade, a large number of exotic candidates, called $XYZ$ states, have been observed~\cite{Brambilla:2010cs}. Among these states, only a few of them are well established, such as $X(3872)$, $X(3915)$, $G(3900)$, $Y(4260)$ and $Y(4360)$. All of those are close to the thresholds of some open flavor channels. For instance, the recently observed $Z_b(10610)$ and $Z_b(10650)$ by the Belle Collaboration~\cite{Belle:2011aa,Adachi:2012im} are close to the $B\bar B^*$ and $B^*\bar B^*$ thresholds, respectively.~\footnote{The notation $B\bar B^*$ means the $B\bar B^*+c.c.$ pair which is also adapted for other analogous cases.} Similarly, the newly observed $Z_c(3900)$ and $Z_c(4020/4025)$ by BESIII~\cite{Ablikim:2013mio,Ablikim:2013wzq,Ablikim:2013emm}, Belle~\cite{Liu:2013dau} and the analysis of the CLEO-c data~\cite{Xiao:2013iha}, can be viewed as charmonium analogues of $Z_b(10610)$ and $Z_b(10650)$ near the $D\bar D^*$ and $D^*\bar D^*$ threshold, respectively.
For these near threshold states, possible explanations include hadronic molecules or threshold effects which will be the focus of this contribution. For the molecular picture, it contains two conventional mesons, i.e. $Q\bar q$ and $\bar Q q$, as an analogue of the deuteron which is a bound state of proton and neutron. If the pion-exchange interaction between the heavy meson and its anti-heavy meson is strong enough, they can be bound into molecules as first quantitatively discussed by Tornqvist in Ref.~\cite{Tornqvist:1993ng}. For the picture of threshold effects, the kinematic effect becomes important when the incoming and outgoing momentum lie in the ``singularity region"~\cite{Wang:2013hga}. This mechanism does play a role in some kinematic regions no matter the corresponding particles are bound or not. So it is urgent to identify such singularity kinematics in order to distinguish a genuine state from a threshold cusp effect.
In this contribution, we take the simplest $S$-wave interaction as an example to illustrate this singularity mechanism in Sec.~\ref{sec:singularity}. As an application, we study the production of the $Z_c(3900)$ at the mass of $Y(4260)$ in Sec.~\ref{sec:Zc3900}. The summary and outlook are given in the last section.
\section{Analysis of the $S$-wave singularity mechanism}\label{sec:singularity}
In this section, we study the production channel of the $Z_c(3900)$ in the $Y(4260)$ decays to illustrate how this singularity mechanism works. As it is known, the lowest partial wave plays a more important role than other higher partial waves near threshold. As the first nearby $S$-wave threshold (Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum}), the $D_1\bar D$ threshold should be crucial in the understanding of the $Y(4260)$ decay. Here, $D_1$ is the narrow state which belongs to the $(\frac{3}{2})^{+}$ spin multiplet in the heavy quark limit. Since $D_1$ mainly decays into $D^*\pi$, a lot of $S$-wave $D\bar D^*$ pairs can be produced and some of them have the probability to form the $Z_c(3900)$~\cite{Wang:2013cya}.
In order to demonstrate the dynamic feature of the relative $S$-wave couplings and low-momentum $D \bar D^*$ scattering, we use the following Lagrangians in our calculation
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\mathcal{L}_{Y}&=&\frac{y}{\sqrt{2}} Y^{i} \left( D_{1a}^{i\dag} \bar D_a^\dag-D_a^\dag
\bar D_{1a}^{i\dag} \right)+i\frac{y^\prime}{\sqrt 2}\epsilon^{i j k}Y^{\prime i}\left( \bar D_1^{k\dag }D^{*j\dag} - D_1^{k\dag }\bar D^{*j\dag}\right)+H.c.
\label{eq:Lag1}
\end{eqnarray}
for the $Y(4260)$ coupling to the $(\frac{1}{2})^-$ and anti-$(\frac{3}{2})^+$ heavy meson pair, and
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
\mathcal{L}_{D_1}&=&i\frac{h^\prime}{f_\pi}
[3D_{1a}^i(\partial^i\partial^j\phi_{ab})D^{*\dag
j}_b-D_{1a}^i(\partial^{j}\partial^j\phi_{ab})D_b^{*\dag
i}\\
&+&3\bar{D}_a^{*\dag
i}(\partial^i\partial^j\phi_{ab})\bar{D}_{1b}^j-\bar{D}_a^{*\dag
i}(\partial^j\partial^j\phi_{ab})\bar{D}_{1b}^i]+H.c.
\end{eqnarray}
for the $D_1$ coupling to the $D^*$ and the pion. The coupling constants $y$ and $h^\prime$ can be found in Refs.~\cite{Casalbuoni:1996pg,Colangelo:2005gb} and the details of other interactions can be found in Ref.~\cite{Cleven:2013sq}.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Feynman}, no matter what the nature of $X$ is, once it couples to $D_1\bar D^{(*)}$ in the $S$ wave and produces large numbers of $D^*\bar D^{(*)}$ through the $D_1\to D^*\pi$, these diagrams could have significant threshold enhancement when $D_1\bar D^{(*)}$ and $D^*\bar D^{(*)}$ are allowed to go on-shell simultaneously. Since the exchanged charmed meson between the $J/\psi$ and the $\pi$ is far off-shell, the $D^*\bar D^{(*)}\to J/\psi\pi$ scattering amplitude can be treated as a local function $\mathcal F (M(J/\psi\pi), t)$, with $M(J/\psi\pi)$ and $t$ the invariant mass of $J/\psi\pi$ and $t$-channel momentum transfer, respectively. Since $\mathcal F (M(J/\psi\pi), t)$ does not change very quickly with respect to $M(J/\psi\pi)$ and $t$, the four-point loop function in Fig.~\ref{fig:Feynman} can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}\nonumber
M&=&\int \frac{d^4 l}{(2\pi)^4}\frac{G\epsilon_{X}^i\epsilon_{J/\psi}^j(3q_1^iq_1^j-|q_1|^2\delta^{ij})\mathcal{F}(M(J/\psi\pi),t)}
{(l^0-\frac{|\vec{l}|^2}{2m_{D_1}}+i\varepsilon)(p^0-l^0-\frac{|\vec{l}|^2}{2m_{D^{(*)}}}+i\varepsilon)(l^0-q_1^0-\frac{|\vec{l}-\vec{q_1}|}{2m_{D^*}}+i\varepsilon)}\nonumber\\\nonumber
&\equiv &G\epsilon_{X}^i\epsilon_{J/\psi}^j(3q_1^iq_1^j-|q_1|^2\delta^{ij})\mathcal{F}(M(J/\psi\pi),t) \mathrm{I}(m_{D_1},m_{D^{(*)}},m_{D^*},W,M(J/\psi\pi),m_\pi) \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $q_1$ is the three momentum of the final pion connected to the $D_1$, and $I$ is the three-point scalar function.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:singularity}, we show contour plots to illustrate the singularity region in the $W-M(J/\psi\pi)$ plane. If the transition amplitude is strongly enhanced by the singularity mechanism, a pronounced cusp will be identified at (or very close to) the $D^*\bar D^{(*)}$ threshold. From Fig.~\ref{fig:singularity}, we see that a pronounced cusp appears around the $D\bar D^*$ threshold in the c.m. energy region $4.28~\mathrm{GeV}< W < 4.31~\mathrm{GeV}$ (left panel) and another one around the $D^*\bar D^*$ threshold in the region $4.40~\mathrm{GeV}<W<4.45~\mathrm{GeV}$ (right panel). That is because the first cut ($D_1\bar D^{(*)}$) and the second cut ($D^*\bar D^{(*)}$) are satisfied simultaneously in these two kinematic regions which then lead to the triangle singularity being fully operative. Interestingly, since the mass difference between $D$ and $D^*$ is too large, there is no overlap between these two singularity regions in terms of the c.m. energy. It means we would not expect to see the $D\bar D^*$ and $D^*\bar D^*$ cusps at the same c.m. energy. We also show the singularity regions after considering the widths of $D_1$ and $D$~\cite{Wang:2013hga} in Fig.~\ref{fig:singularityWithWidth}. The cusp effects at both $D\bar D^*$ and $D^*\bar D^*$ threshold appear smeared significantly. That is also the reason why we only consider the narrow $D_1$ here.
To illustrate the discussions above, we show the $J/\psi\pi$ invariant mass at the c.m. energy $W=4.43~\mathrm{GeV}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:Jpsipi}. Since the c.m. energy $4.43~\mathrm{GeV}$ allows the on-shell condition for the $D^*\bar D^*$ instead of the $D\bar D^*$, only one significant cusp effect at the $D^*\bar D^*$ threshold shows up. Comparing to the red solid line which does not consider the widths of the intermediate mesons, the cusp effect of the blue dashed one (after considering the widths of the intermediate mesons) is smooth and insignificant.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace{-2cm}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig1.eps}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The spectrum of vector charmonium and relative $S$-wave open charm thresholds.}
\label{fig:spectrum}
\end{minipage}\quad
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace{-2cm}
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{fig2.eps}
\caption{Feynman diagrams demonstrating a vector meson $X$ with hidden charm decays into $J/\psi\pi\pi$ via the singularity mechanism.}
\label{fig:Feynman}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{fig3.eps}
\caption{The singularity region of $D \bar D^*$ (left panel) and $ D^* \bar D^*$ (right panel) without considering the widths of the intermediated mesons.The numbers in the figures are the absolute values of three-point scalar functions and the numbers in the sidebar are their relative strengths.}
\label{fig:singularity}
\end{minipage}\quad
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{fig4.eps}
\caption{The singularity region in the charm sector after considering the widths of the intermediate $D_1$ and $D^*$. The left panel and the right panel are for $D \bar D^*$ and $D^* \bar D^*$ singularity region respectively. The numbers have the same meanings as those in Fig.3.}
\label{fig:singularityWithWidth}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace{-1cm}
\includegraphics[width=2in]{fig5.eps}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{The $J/\psi\pi$ invariant mass distribution at the c.m.
energy $4.43~\mathrm{GeV}$ in the $J/\psi \pi\pi$ channel {\it with}
(dashed) and {\it without} (solid) the width effects for the
intermediate particles. The two vertical dotted lines denote the
$\bar DD^*$ and $\bar D^*D^*$ thresholds, respectively, from left to
right.}
\label{fig:Jpsipi}
\end{minipage}\quad
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\linewidth}
\centering
\vspace{-1.5cm}
\includegraphics[width=3in]{fig6.eps}
\vspace{-4cm}
\caption{The invariant mass spectra for (a) $J/\psi\pi$ and (b)
$\pi\pi$ in $Y(4260)\to J/\psi\pi\pi$. The solid, dashed, and
dotted lines stand for the results of the full
calculation, box diagrams, and triangle diagram~\cite{Wang:2013cya} with the $Z_c(3900)$ pole,
respectively.}
\label{fig:YZc3900}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
\section{Production of the $Z_c(3900)$ in the $Y(4260)$ decay}\label{sec:Zc3900}
In this Section we present quantitative results for the production of the $Z_c(3900)$ in the $Y(4260)$ decay where the triangle singularity will play a crucial role~\cite{Wang:2013cya}.
Because the c.m. energy $4.26~\mathrm{GeV}$ lies in the $D\bar D^*$ singularity region, copious $S$-wave $D\bar D^*$ will be produced and a clear cusp effect in the $J/\psi\pi$ invariant mass distribution will be expected. As shown in Fig. 1 in Ref.~\cite{Wang:2013cya}, besides the box diagram contributions, we also include contributions of the $Z_c(3900)$. After considering the $\pi\pi$ final state interaction (FSI) properly, the contributions of the box diagram, the $Z_c(3900)$ pole and the sum of them are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:YZc3900} individually. Since the kinematic region of the two pion invariant mass is from the two-pion threshold to more than $1~\mathrm{GeV}$ and they are in the isoscalar state, the $S$-wave $\pi\pi$ interaction plays a more important role. As a result, we only consider the $S$-wave $\pi\pi$ interaction here.
The numerical results for the $J/\psi\pi$ and $\pi\pi$
invariant mass spectra of $Y(4260)\to J/\psi\pi\pi$ are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:YZc3900}. The dashed, dotted and solid lines denote the results from the box diagrams, $Z_c(3900)$ pole diagrams and the sum of them, respectively. In our case the box diagrams play a dominate role compared to the $Z_c(3900)$ pole diagrams. However, as shown by the dashed lines, an explicit enhancement around 3.9 GeV in the $J/\psi\pi$ spectrum can be produced because of the nearly-on-shell two-cut singularity condition as discussed in the previous Section. The bump structure at about $3.4~\mathrm{GeV}$ is the kinematic reflection of the $D\bar D^*$ threshold enhancement. The explicit inclusion of the $Z_c(3900)$ makes the enhancement near the $D\bar D^*$ threshold broader. If the bump structure at $D\bar D^*$ threshold is from the singularity mechanism, it will be sensitive to the incoming energy. So further scans at different c.m. energies especially out of the singularity region are necessary to determine whether the $Z_c(3900)$ is a genuine state or not.
In our scenario, a detailed analysis of the relative partial waves between the two pions demonstrates that in addition to the $S$ wave, the $D$ wave also contributes to the $\pi\pi$ productions. However, the $S$-wave dominance will result in a broad bump at lower invariant mass region and a flattened dip at about $0.5~\mathrm{GeV}$. This behavior is mainly driven by the box diagram. The dip structure in Fig.~\ref{fig:YZc3900} at around $1~\mathrm{GeV}$ should be located exactly at the $K\bar K$ threshold if the $S$-wave partial wave is the only contribution. However, the data show that the dip position is slightly shifted to be higher than 1 GeV. This indicates the presence of other higher partial waves.
Since the invariant mass distributions of the $J/\psi\pi$ and $\pi\pi$ can be well explained if the $Y(4260)$ couples strongly to $D_1\bar D$, we can expect that the $Y(4260)$ should be dominated by the $D_1\bar D$ component. If this is the case, we expect that $D\bar D^*\pi$ should be the dominate decay mode through the intermediate $D_1\to D^*\pi$ which will explain the large deficit between the total width and its decay into $J/\psi\pi\pi$. We also expect an asymmetric spectral shape of the $Y(4260)$ due to the nearby $D_1\bar D$ threshold~\cite{Cleven:2013mka}. The $D_1\bar D$ molecule scenario also predicts nontrivial cross section line shape for the $J/\psi\pi\pi$ and $h_c\pi\pi$ productions around the $Y(4260)$ for which a detailed study can be found in Ref.~\cite{Cleven:2013mka}.
\section{Summary and Outlook}\label{sec:summary}
We identify the triangle singularity kinematic regions in the heavy quarkonium decays involving $S$-wave vertices.
As a result, the $(\frac{1}{2})^-$ and $(\frac{3}{2})^+$ open charm threshold play an important role for certain vector charmonium decays.
There are some kinematic regions that can fulfill the two-cut condition such
that the intermediate heavy meson loop can produce significant cusp effects and enhance the transition amplitude significantly.
The clarification of the origin of the cusps and their evolutions with the initial masses
would be important for our understanding of those near threshold states, such as $X(3872)$, $Y(4260)$, $Z_c(3900)$ and so on.
We emphasize that a genuine state can also be observed even out of the singularity regions
defined in this work. This will provide more information about the nature of those threshold states.
Without introducing any strong assumption, the molecular nature of $Y(4260)$ as a bound state of $D_1\bar D$ can naturally explain the
observation of an enhancement around $D\bar D^*$ threshold in the $J/\psi\pi$
invariant mass spectrum. This scenario describes the experimental data very well
and provides a strong evidence for the molecular nature of $Y(4260)$.
\bigskip \bigskip \begin{center} \begin{large
Q. Wang acknowledges the collaborations with Martin Cleven, Feng-Kun Guo, Ulf-G. Mei\ss ner and Xiao-Gang Wu on the works presented in this conference and many relevant discussions and works which cannot be covered in this proceeding.
|
\section*{\large\refname
\setcounter{tocdepth}{2}
\usepackage[toc,page]{appendix}
\def\slasha#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}#1\hskip-\wd0\hbox to\wd0{\hss\sl/\/\hss}}
\def\period#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}#1\hskip-\wd0{}\hskip-\wd0{~-~}}
\def\periodb#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}#1\hskip-\wd0\hbox to\wd0{-}}
\newcommand{\slasha{\nabla}}{\slasha{\nabla}}
\newcommand{\para}[1]{\noindent{\bf #1.}}
\newcommand{\binomr}[2]{\binom{\,#1\,}{\,#2\,}}
\newcommand{\bfa}{\mathbf{a}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{A}}{\mathbf{A}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{B}}{\mathbf{B}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{b}}{\mathbf{b}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{c}}{\mathbf{c}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{e}}{\mathbf{e}}
\newcommand{\boldsymbol{\eta}}{\boldsymbol{\eta}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{f}}{\mathbf{f}}
\newcommand{\boldsymbol{\Phi}}{\boldsymbol{\Phi}}
\newcommand{\delder}[1]{\frac{\delta}{\delta #1}}
\newcommand{\boldsymbol{\phi}}{\boldsymbol{\phi}}
\newcommand{\lsc}{\{\hspace{-0.1cm}[}
\newcommand{]\hspace{-0.1cm}\}}{]\hspace{-0.1cm}\}}
\newcommand{(\hspace{-0.1cm}(}{(\hspace{-0.1cm}(}
\newcommand{)\hspace{-0.1cm})}{)\hspace{-0.1cm})}
\newcommand{[\hspace{-0.05cm}[}{[\hspace{-0.05cm}[}
\newcommand{]\hspace{-0.05cm}]}{]\hspace{-0.05cm}]}
\newcommand{\mathbf{G}}{\mathbf{G}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{g}}{\mathbf{g}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{H}}{\mathbf{H}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{L}}{\mathbf{L}}
\newcommand{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{M}}{\mathbf{M}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{N}}{\mathbf{N}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{T}}{\mathbf{T}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{V}}{\mathbf{V}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{v}}{\mathbf{v}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{w}}{\mathbf{w}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{x}}{\mathbf{x}}
\newcommand{\unit}{\mathbbm{1}}
\newcommand{\zero}{\mathbbm{0}}
\newcommand{\re}{\mathrm{re}}
\newcommand{\im}{\mathrm{im}}
\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}
\newcommand{\eff}{{\mathrm{eff}}}
\newcommand{\bfone}{\mathbf{1}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{3}}{\mathbf{3}}
\newcommand{\mathbf{4}}{\mathbf{4}}
\newcommand{\CA}{\mathcal{A}}
\newcommand{\tilde{\mathcal{A}}}{\tilde{\mathcal{A}}}
\newcommand{\bar{x}}{\bar{x}}
\newcommand{\hat{x}}{\hat{x}}
\newcommand{\bar{\mathcal{A}}}{\bar{\mathcal{A}}}
\newcommand{\hat{\mathcal{A}}}{\hat{\mathcal{A}}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{A}}{\mathscr{A}}
\newcommand{\dot{p}}{\dot{p}}
\newcommand{\dot{x}}{\dot{x}}
\newcommand{\ddot{x}}{\ddot{x}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{B}}{\mathcal{B}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{B}}{\mathscr{B}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{C}}{\mathcal{C}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{C}}{\mathscr{C}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{L}}{\mathscr{L}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{D}}{\mathcal{D}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{D}}{\mathscr{D}}
\newcommand{\bar{\mathscr{D}}}{\bar{\mathscr{D}}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{F}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{F}}{\mathscr{F}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{G}}{\mathcal{G}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{G}}{\mathscr{G}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{H}}{\mathcal{H}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{H}}{\mathscr{H}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{I}}{\mathcal{I}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{J}}{\mathcal{J}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{K}}{\mathcal{K}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{K}}{\mathscr{K}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{L}}{\mathcal{L}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{M}}{\mathcal{M}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{M}}{\mathscr{M}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{N}}{\mathcal{N}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{O}}{\mathcal{O}}
\newcommand{\bar{\mathcal{O}}}{\bar{\mathcal{O}}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{P}}{\mathcal{P}}
\newcommand{\hat{\mathcal{P}}}{\hat{\mathcal{P}}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{P}}{\mathscr{P}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{Q}}{\mathcal{Q}}
\newcommand{\hat{\mathcal{Q}}}{\hat{\mathcal{Q}}}
\newcommand{\check{C}}{\check{C}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{R}}{\mathscr{R}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{R}}{\mathcal{R}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{S}}{\mathcal{S}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{T}}{\mathcal{T}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{T}}{\mathscr{T}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{U}}{\mathcal{U}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{V}}{\mathcal{V}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{V}}{\mathscr{V}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{W}}{\mathcal{W}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{X}}{\mathcal{X}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{X}}{\mathscr{X}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{Y}}{\mathcal{Y}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{Y}}{\mathscr{Y}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{Z}}{\mathcal{Z}}
\newcommand{\mathscr{Z}}{\mathscr{Z}}
\newcommand{\mathcal{E}}{\mathcal{E}}
\newcommand{\fra}{\mathfrak{a}}
\newcommand{\frc}{\mathfrak{c}}
\newcommand{\frg}{\mathfrak{g}}
\newcommand{\frh}{\mathfrak{h}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{m}}{\mathfrak{m}}
\newcommand{\frder}{\mathfrak{der}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{A}}{\mathfrak{A}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{F}}{\mathfrak{F}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{G}}{\mathfrak{G}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{H}}{\mathfrak{H}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{N}}{\mathfrak{N}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{S}}{\mathfrak{S}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{U}}{\mathfrak{U}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{u}}{\mathfrak{u}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{X}}{\mathfrak{X}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{v}}{\mathfrak{v}}
\newcommand{\frl}{\mathfrak{l}}
\newcommand{\mbf}[1]{{\boldsymbol {#1} }}
\newcommand{{\mbf T}}{{\mbf T}}
\newcommand{{{\Large\blacktriangledown}}}{{{\Large\blacktriangledown}}}
\newcommand{\XF}{\mathcal{X}}
\newcommand{\FK}{\mathbbm{K}}
\newcommand{\FT}{\mathbbm{T}}
\newcommand{\FR}{\mathbbm{R}}
\newcommand{\FC}{\mathbbm{C}}
\newcommand{\FH}{\mathbbm{H}}
\newcommand{\FO}{\mathbbm{O}}
\newcommand{\NN}{\mathbbm{N}}
\newcommand{\DD}{\mathbbm{D}}
\newcommand{\FF}{\mathbbm{F}}
\newcommand{\VV}{\mathbbm{V}}
\newcommand{\RZ}{\mathbbm{Z}}
\newcommand{\CPP}{{\mathbbm{C}P}}
\newcommand{\PP}{{\mathbbm{P}}}
\newcommand{\HS}{\mathbbm{F}}
\newcommand{\hat{a}}{\hat{a}}
\newcommand{\hat{b}}{\hat{b}}
\newcommand{\hat{\lambda}}{\hat{\lambda}}
\newcommand{\bar{\lambda}}{\bar{\lambda}}
\newcommand{\hat{A}}{\hat{A}}
\newcommand{\hat{C}}{\hat{C}}
\newcommand{\hat{L}}{\hat{L}}
\newcommand{\hat{f}}{\hat{f}}
\newcommand{\hat{I}}{\hat{I}}
\newcommand{\AlA}{\mathcal{A}}
\newcommand{\AlC}{\mathcal{C}}
\newcommand{\dd}{\mathrm{d}}
\newcommand{\dpar}{\partial}
\newcommand{\dparb}{{\bar{\partial}}}
\newcommand{\delb}{{\bar{\delta}}}
\newcommand{\nablab}{{\bar{\nabla}}}
\newcommand{\chib}{{\bar{\chi}}}
\newcommand{\embd}{{\hookrightarrow}}
\newcommand{\diag}{{\mathrm{diag}}}
\newcommand{\dL}{\mathcal{L}}
\newcommand{\dD}{\mathcal{D}}
\newcommand{\de}{\mathrm{e}}
\newcommand{\di}{\mathrm{i}}
\newcommand{\eps}{{\varepsilon}}
\newcommand{\epsb}{{\bar{\varepsilon}}}
\renewcommand{\Re}{\mathrm{Re}}
\renewcommand{\Im}{\mathrm{Im}}
\newcommand{\bi}{{\bar{\imath}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\jmath}}}{{\bar{\jmath}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{1}}}{{\bar{1}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{w}}}{{\bar{w}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{z}}}{{\bar{z}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\psi}}}{{\bar{\psi}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\theta}}}{{\bar{\theta}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\phi}}}{{\bar{\phi}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\lambda}}}{{\bar{\lambda}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\zeta}}}{{\bar{\zeta}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{E}}}{{\bar{E}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{V}}}{{\bar{V}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{D}}}{{\bar{D}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{W}}}{{\bar{W}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{y}}}{{\bar{y}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\mu}}}{{\bar{\mu}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\eta}}}{{\bar{\eta}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\sigma}}}{{\bar{\sigma}}}
\newcommand{{\bar{\Theta}}}{{\bar{\Theta}}}
\newcommand{\hl}{{\hat{\lambda}}}
\newcommand{\ald}{{\dot{\alpha}}}
\newcommand{{\dot{\beta}}}{{\dot{\beta}}}
\newcommand{{\dot{\gamma}}}{{\dot{\gamma}}}
\newcommand{{\dot{\delta}}}{{\dot{\delta}}}
\newcommand{{\dot{\rho}}}{{\dot{\rho}}}
\newcommand{{\dot{\sigma}}}{{\dot{\sigma}}}
\newcommand{{\dot{1}}}{{\dot{1}}}
\newcommand{{\dot{2}}}{{\dot{2}}}
\newcommand{{\dot{\theta}}}{{\dot{\theta}}}
\newcommand{\tphi}{{\tilde{\phi}}}
\newcommand{{\tilde{\eta}}}{{\tilde{\eta}}}
\newcommand{\eand}{{\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad}}
\newcommand{{\qquad\mbox{with}\qquad}}{{\qquad\mbox{with}\qquad}}
\newcommand{{\qquad\mbox{for}\qquad}}{{\qquad\mbox{for}\qquad}}
\newcommand{{\qquad\mbox{on}\qquad}}{{\qquad\mbox{on}\qquad}}
\newcommand{{\mathrm{ker}}}{{\mathrm{ker}}}
\newcommand{{\,\cdot\,}}{{\,\cdot\,}}
\newcommand{\G}[3]{\Gamma^{#1}_{#2#3}}
\newcommand{\der}[1]{\frac{\dpar}{\dpar #1}}
\newcommand{\dder}[1]{\frac{\dd}{\dd #1}}
\newcommand{\derr}[2]{\frac{\dpar #1}{\dpar #2}}
\newcommand{\ddpart}[1]{\dd #1 \der{#1}}
\newcommand{\dderr}[2]{\frac{\dd #1}{\dd #2}}
\newcommand{\Der}[1]{\frac{\delta}{\delta #1}}
\newcommand{\ci}[1]{\overset{\circ}{#1}{}}
\newcommand{\tr}{\,\mathrm{tr}\,}
\newcommand{\pr}{\mathsf{pr}}
\newcommand{\tra}[1]{\,\mathrm{tr}_{#1}\,}
\newcommand{\str}{{\,\mathrm{str}\,}}
\newcommand{\ad}{\mathrm{ad}}
\newcommand{\Ad}{\mathrm{Ad}}
\newcommand{^{\mathrm{T}}}{^{\mathrm{T}}}
\newcommand{\dual}{^\vee}
\newcommand{\agl}{\mathfrak{gl}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{s}}{\mathfrak{s}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{sl}}{\mathfrak{sl}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{u}}{\mathfrak{u}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{su}}{\mathfrak{su}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{so}}{\mathfrak{so}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{spin}}{\mathfrak{spin}}
\newcommand{\mathfrak{u}}{\mathfrak{u}}
\newcommand{\sU}{\mathsf{U}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{V}}{\mathsf{V}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{SU}}{\mathsf{SU}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{SL}}{\mathsf{SL}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{GL}}{\mathsf{GL}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{Mat}}{\mathsf{Mat}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{O}}{\mathsf{O}}
\newcommand{\boldsymbol{F}}{\boldsymbol{F}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{Diff}}{\mathsf{Diff}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{Aut}}{\mathsf{Aut}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{SO}}{\mathsf{SO}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{S}}{\mathsf{S}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{Spin}}{\mathsf{Spin}}
\newcommand{\mathsf{End}\,}{\mathsf{End}\,}
\newcommand{\mathsf{Hom}\,}{\mathsf{Hom}\,}
\newcommand{\mathsf{SpecM}\,}{\mathsf{SpecM}\,}
\newcommand{|0\rangle}{|0\rangle}
\newcommand{\langle 0|}{\langle 0|}
\newcommand{\spn}{\mathrm{span}}
\newcommand{\acton}{\vartriangleright}
\newcommand{\cmpl}{\mbox{[[to be completed]]}} %
\newcommand{\z}[1]{{\stackrel{\circ}{#1}}{}}
\newcommand{{\diagup\hspace{-0.27cm}\bullet}}{{\diagup\hspace{-0.27cm}\bullet}}
\newcommand{{\diagup}}{{\diagup}}
\newcommand{\inner}{\mathrm{int}}
\def\tyng(#1){\hbox{\tiny$\yng(#1)$}}
\def\tyoung(#1){\hbox{\tiny$\young(#1)$}}
\def\cpv{\setbox0=\hbox{$\int$}\int\hskip-\wd0{}\hskip-\wd0{~-~}}
\newcommand{\todo}[1]{{\textcolor{red}{#1}}}
\newcommand{\begin{eqnarray}}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\end{eqnarray}}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{{\sf p}}{{\sf p}}
\newcommand{{\sf s}}{{\sf s}}
\newcommand{{\sf t}}{{\sf t}}
\newcommand{{\sf m}}{{\sf m}}
\newcommand{{\sf g}}{{\sf g}}
\newcommand{{\sf h}}{{\sf h}}
\newcommand{{\sf d}}{{\sf d}}
\newcommand{{\sf b}}{{\sf b}}
\newcommand{{\sf f}}{{\sf f}}
\newcommand{{\sf k}}{{\sf k}}
\newcommand{\Omega_{{\rm cl},\RZ}}{\Omega_{{\rm cl},\RZ}}
\newcommand{{\sf Pair}}{{\sf Pair}}
\newcommand{{\sf hol}}{{\sf hol}}
\newcommand{\;\cdot\;}{\;\cdot\;}
\newcommand{\mathrm{cr}}{\mathrm{cr}}
\newcommand{\gamma_\mathrm{str}}{\gamma_\mathrm{str}}
\newenvironment{conditions}{
\vspace{-2mm}\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{-1mm}
}{\vspace{-2mm}\end{itemize}}
\begin{document}
\begin{titlepage}
\begin{flushright}
EMPG--13--18
\end{flushright}
\vskip 2.0cm
\begin{center}
{\LARGE \bf The ABJM Model is a Higher Gauge Theory}
\vskip 1.5cm
{\Large Sam Palmer and Christian S\"amann}
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{thefootnote}}
\vskip 1cm
{\em Maxwell Institute for Mathematical Sciences\\
Department of Mathematics, Heriot-Watt University\\
Colin Maclaurin Building, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, U.K.}\\[0.5cm]
{Email: {\ttfamily sap2@hw.ac.uk~,<EMAIL>}}
\end{center}
\vskip 1.0cm
\begin{center}
{\bf Abstract}
\end{center}
\begin{quote}
M2-branes couple to a 3-form potential, which suggests that their description involves a non-abelian 2-gerbe or, equivalently, a principal 3-bundle. We show that current M2-brane models fit this expectation: they can be reformulated as higher gauge theories on such categorified bundles. We thus add to the still very sparse list of physically interesting higher gauge theories.
\end{quote}
\end{titlepage}
\section{Introduction and results}
M5-branes interact via M2-branes ending on them. An effective description of M5-branes should therefore be a gauge theory describing the parallel transport of the one-dimensional boundaries of these M2-branes in the worldvolume of the M5-branes. This is where higher gauge theory \cite{Baez:2004in,Baez:2010ya} enters the picture. In general, higher gauge theory with principal $n$-bundles captures the parallel transport of $(n-1)$-dimensional objects.
It is known that the effective dynamics of a single M5-brane involves an $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ tensor multiplet in six dimensions, which contains a 2-form potential $B$. Higher gauge theory naturally contains this 2-form potential, even in a non-abelian generalization: it is the gauge potential for the parallel transport of a one-dimensional object along a surface.
A Nahm transform is expected to connect the BPS sectors of effective descriptions of M2- and M5-branes and on loop space, such a transform was developed in \cite{Saemann:2010cp}. This suggests that M2-brane models should also have a higher gauge theoretic formulation. A first step in this direction was made in \cite{Palmer:2012ya}, where we showed that the 3-algebras underlying the Bagger-Lambert-Gustavsson (BLG) model \cite{Bagger:2007jr} and the Aharony-Bergman-Jafferis-Maldacena (ABJM) model \cite{Aharony:2008ug} are differential crossed modules. These differential crossed modules replace the notion of a gauge algebra in higher gauge theory with principal 2-bundles.
An important question remained open in \cite{Palmer:2012ya}. In a higher gauge theory, the so-called fake curvature should vanish and it was not clear how to achieve this. In this letter, we solve this issue and show that the ABJM model (and therefore also the BLG model) is a higher gauge theory based on principal 3-bundles rather than principal 2-bundles.
This further categorification is motivated as follows: A vanishing fake curvature $\mathcal{F}$ for the specific differential crossed modules found in \cite{Palmer:2012ya} requires the usual 2-form curvature $F$ to vanish. This is clearly too strong a condition in the ABJM model. Here, we use the observation that a higher gauge theory on a principal 2-bundle with non-vanishing $\mathcal{F}$ can be reformulated as a higher gauge theory on a principal 3-bundle for which the fake curvature does vanish \cite{Schreiber:N01,Baez:2010ya}.
Additional motivation for the use of principal 3-bundles comes from recently constructed M5-brane models. They either make direct use of principal 3-bundles, as in the twistor construction of \cite{Saemann:2013pca}, or, as in the case of the (1,0) superconformal theories of \cite{Samtleben:2011fj}, can be reformulated in terms of principal 3- or 4-bundles \cite{Palmer:2013pka}.
Finally, as mentioned in the abstract, M2-branes couple to a 3-form potential, which suggests an underlying picture involving principal 3-bundles.
Our reformulation of the ABJM model as a higher gauge theory also exhibits another interesting feature. In many cases, the gauge transformations in higher gauge theory are so general, that the theory can be gauge fixed to an abelian or even a trivial theory. This happens for example in \cite{Baez:2012bn}, where teleparallel gravity was reformulated as a higher gauge theory. All configurations there were a priori gauge equivalent to the trivial configuration. However, the Lagrangian of the underlying theory broke the usual higher gauge symmetry, allowing for non-trivial configurations. We show that the same happens in the case of the ABJM model.
So far, very few examples of physically interesting higher gauge theories have been found. Most prominent amongst these are teleparallel gravity \cite{Baez:2012bn} and the BF-models as studied e.g.\ in \cite{Martins:2010ry}. Our reformulation of the ABJM model adds another example to this very short list.
\section{Higher gauge algebras}
\subsection{From hermitian 3-Lie algebras to differential crossed modules}
We start by briefly reviewing one of the results of \cite{Palmer:2012ya}, where we showed that hermitian 3-Lie algebras\footnote{as well as their real relatives, the (generalized) 3-Lie algebras.} are so-called differential crossed modules, which, in higher category theoretical terms, correspond to strict Lie 2-algebras. We stress here that $n$-Lie algebras are different from the categorifications of Lie algebras leading to Lie $n$-algebras. The latter appear as structure Lie $n$-algebras in principal $n$-bundles.
A {\em hermitian 3-Lie algebra} \cite{Bagger:2008se} is a complex vector space $\fra$ endowed with a bilinear-antilinear triple product $[-,-;-]:\fra\times \fra\times \fra\rightarrow \fra$ such that the hermitian fundamental identity
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fundamental_identity}
[[c,d;e],a;b]-[[c,a;b],d;e]=[c,[d,a;b];e]-[c,d;[e,b;a]]
\end{equation}
is satisfied for all $a,b,c,d,e\in\fra$. A hermitian 3-Lie algebra is {\em metric}, if it comes with a positive-definite Hermitian pairing $(-,-):\fra\times \fra\rightarrow \FC$ invariant in the sense that
\begin{equation}
(d,[a,b;c])-([d,c;b],a)=0
\end{equation}
for all $a,b,c,d\in\fra$.
We also define the maps $D:\fra\times \fra\rightarrow \mathsf{End}\,(\fra)$ taking two elements of $\fra$ into an endomorphism of $\fra$ according to
\begin{equation}
D(a;b)\acton c:=[c,a;b]~,
\end{equation}
where $a,b,c\in \fra$. Because of \eqref{eq:fundamental_identity}, the span of these $D(a;b)$ forms indeed a complex Lie algebra, which we call the {\em Lie algebra of inner derivations of $\fra$}, $\frder(\fra)$. One can impose reality conditions on the $D(a;b)$, e.g.\ by combining them into $\tilde{D}(a;b)=D(a;b)-D(b;a)$, cf.\ \cite{deMedeiros:2008zh}.
A particularly important example of a one-parameter family of metric hermitian 3-Lie algebra \cite{Bagger:2008se} is the case where $\fra\cong \agl(N,\FC)$ as a vector space,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hermitian_3_Lie_bracket}
[a,b;c]:=\kappa(ac^\dagger b-b c^\dagger a)\eand (a,b):=\tr(a^\dagger b)
\end{equation}
for $a,b,c\in\fra$ and $\kappa\in \FR$. The (real) Lie algebra of inner derivations, which is the span of the $\tilde{D}(a;b)$, is given by $\mathfrak{u}(N)\times \mathfrak{u}(N)$. This example underlies the ABJM model\footnote{This is actually the ABJM model with complexified matter fields, cf.\ \cite{Bagger:2008se}. For real matter fields, one reduces $\agl(N,\FC)$ to $\mathfrak{su}(N)\oplus \di\,\mathfrak{u}(1)$, i.e.\ matrices in $\agl(N,\FC)$, whose traceless part is antihermitian and whose trace part is hermitian. Because we prefer not to clutter our discussion with the related technical details, we will work with complexified matter fields.} \cite{Aharony:2008ug}.
As shown in \cite{deMedeiros:2008zh}, hermitian 3-Lie algebras can be derived from a metric Lie algebra $\frg=\frder(\fra)$ and a faithful complex unitary representation $\fra$. Such representations form special cases of differential crossed modules.
A {\em differential crossed module} is a pair of Lie algebras $\frg,\frh$ together with a map ${\sf t}:\frh\rightarrow \frg$ and an action $\acton$ of $\frg$ onto $\frh$. We demand that ${\sf t}$ is equivariant and that the so-called {\em Peiffer identity} holds:
\begin{equation}
{\sf t}(g\acton h)=[g,{\sf t}(h)]\eand {\sf t}(h_1)\acton h_2=[h_1,h_2]
\end{equation}
for all $g\in\frg$ and $h,h_1,h_2\in\frh$. A straightforward example of a differential crossed module is the differential crossed module of inner derivations of a Lie algebra $\frg$. Here, we put $\frh=\frder(\frg)\cong \frg$, $\acton$ is the adjoint action and ${\sf t}$ is the identity.
Clearly, the above example of a hermitian 3-Lie algebra is such a differential crossed module: We put $\frh=\agl(N,\FC)$, regarded as an abelian Lie algebra, i.e.\ as a vector space with trivial Lie bracket. Moreover, $\frg=\mathfrak{u}(N)\times \mathfrak{u}(N)=\mathfrak{u}(N)_L\times \mathfrak{u}(N)_R$, ${\sf t}$ is trivial and $\acton$ is given by the left- and right-product\footnote{i.e.\ the obvious matrix product} of elements of $\mathfrak{u}(N)_L$ and $\mathfrak{u}(N)_R$, respectively. We denote this differential crossed module by $\mathfrak{m}_{\rm ABJM}(N)$.
\subsection{Inner derivation 2-crossed modules}
Just as a Lie algebra comes with a differential crossed module governing the action of inner derivations, a differential crossed module (or strict Lie 2-algebra) comes with a differential 2-crossed module of inner derivations\footnote{Note that more generally, the Chevalley-Eilenberg algebra of the inner derivations of an $L_\infty$-algebra $\frg_\infty$ is known as the {\em Weil algebra} of $\frg_\infty$.} as implied e.g.\ by the results of \cite{Roberts:0708.1741}. In higher category theoretical terms, differential 2-crossed modules are certain Lie 3-algebras, which must not be confused with 3-Lie algebras.
Recall that a differential 2-crossed module \cite{Conduche:1984:155} is a triple of Lie algebras $\frl,\frh,\frg$ arranged in a normal complex
\begin{equation}
\frl\ \xrightarrow{~{\sf t}~}\ \frh\ \xrightarrow{~{\sf t}~}\ \frg~.
\end{equation}
There are $\frg$-actions $\acton$ onto $\frh$ and $\frl$ by derivations. The Peiffer identity ${\sf t}(h_1)\acton h_2=[h_1,h_2]$ is now lifted by a $\frg$-equivariant bilinear map, called {\em Peiffer lifting} and denoted by $\{-,-\}: \frh\times \frh\rightarrow \frl$. These maps satisfy the following axioms for all $g\in\frg$, $h,h_1,h_2,h_3\in\frh$ and $\ell,\ell_1,\ell_2\in\frl$:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{-1mm}
\item[(i)] ${\sf t}(g\acton \ell)=g\acton{\sf t}(\ell)$ and ${\sf t}(g\acton h)=[g,{\sf t}(h)]$.
\item[(ii)] ${\sf t}(\{h_1,h_2\})=[h_1,h_2]-{\sf t}(h_1)\acton h_2$.
\item[(iii)] $\{{\sf t}(\ell_1),{\sf t}(\ell_2)\}=[\ell_1,\ell_2]$.
\item[(iv)] $\{[h_1,h_2],h_3\}={\sf t}(h_1)\acton\{h_2,h_3\}+\{h_1,[h_2,h_3]\}-{\sf t}(h_2)\acton\{h_1,h_3\}-\{h_2,[h_1,h_3]\}$.
\item[(v)] $\{h_1,[h_2,h_3]\}=\{{\sf t}(\{h_1,h_2\}),h_3\}-\{{\sf t}(\{h_1,h_3\}),h_2\}$.
\item[(vi)] $\{{\sf t}(\ell),h\}+\{h,{\sf t}(\ell)\}=-{\sf t}(h)\acton \ell$.
\end{itemize}
Given a differential crossed module $\frh\xrightarrow{~\tilde{{\sf t}}~}\frg$ with action $\tilde{\acton}:\frg\times \frh\rightarrow \frh$, the corresponding differential 2-crossed module of inner derivations, denoted $ \frder\big(\frh\xrightarrow{~\tilde{{\sf t}}~}\frg\big)$, has the underlying normal complex \cite{Roberts:0708.1741}
\begin{equation}
\frh\ \xrightarrow{~{\sf t}~}\ \frg \ltimes \frh\ \xrightarrow{~{\sf t}~}\ \frg~.
\end{equation}
Recall that the Lie bracket on $\frg \ltimes \frh$ reads as
\begin{equation}
[(g_1,h_1),(g_2,h_2)]:= ([g_1,g_2],[h_1,h_2]+g_1\tilde{\acton}h_2-g_2\tilde{\acton}h_1)~.
\end{equation}
The maps ${\sf t}$ are defined as
\begin{equation}
{\sf t}(h):=(\tilde{{\sf t}}(h),-h)\eand {\sf t}(g,h):=\tilde{{\sf t}}(h)+g~,
\end{equation}
the $\frg$-actions and the Lie bracket on $\frh$ are given by
\begin{equation}
g\acton h := g~\tilde{\acton}~h\eand g_1 \acton (g_2,h):=([g_1,g_2],g_1~\tilde{\acton}~h)
\end{equation}
and the Peiffer lifting reads as
\begin{equation}
\{(g_1,h_1),(g_2,h_2)\}:=g_2\tilde{\acton} h_1
\end{equation}
for all $g,g_1,g_2\in\frg$, $h,h_1,h_2\in \frh$. One readily checks that this structure satisfies the axioms of a differential 2-crossed module.
\subsection{Inner derivations of $\mathfrak{m}_{\rm ABJM}(N)$}
The inner derivations of $\mathfrak{m}_{\rm ABJM}(N)$ are captured by a differential 2-crossed module that is constructed from $\mathfrak{m}_{\rm ABJM}(N)$ as described in the previous section. To simplify the discussion, let us use the following picture: We consider a chain complex of block matrices
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rep_d2cm}
\frh:=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \agl(N,\FC)\\ 0 & 0\end{array}\right)\ \xrightarrow{~{\sf t}~}\ \frg\ltimes \frh:=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \mathfrak{u}(N) & \agl(N,\FC)\\ 0 & \mathfrak{u}(N)\end{array}\right)\ \xrightarrow{~{\sf t}~}\ \frg:=\left(\begin{array}{cc} \mathfrak{u}(N) & 0\\ 0 & \mathfrak{u}(N)\end{array}\right)~,
\end{equation}
where the two maps ${\sf t}:\frh \rightarrow \frg\ltimes \frh$ and ${\sf t}:\frg\ltimes \frh\rightarrow\frg$ read as
\begin{equation}
{\sf t}:\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & h\\ 0 & 0\end{array}\right)\mapsto \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & -h\\ 0 & 0\end{array}\right) \eand
{\sf t}:\left(\begin{array}{cc} g_L & h\\ 0 & g_R\end{array}\right)\mapsto \left(\begin{array}{cc} g_L & 0\\ 0 & g_R\end{array}\right)
\end{equation}
respectively, for $g_{L,R}\in\mathfrak{u}(N)$ and $h\in\agl(N,\FC)$. All $\frg$-actions as well as the Lie algebra commutators are given by the corresponding matrix commutators. The Peiffer lifting is defined as
\begin{equation}
\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc} g_{L1} & h_1\\ 0 & g_{R1}\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc} g_{L2} & h_2\\ 0 & g_{R2}\end{array}\right)\right\}:=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & g_{L2} h_1-h_1 g_{R2}\\ 0 & 0\end{array}\right)~,
\end{equation}
where $g_{L1,2},g_{R1,2}\in \mathfrak{u}(N)$ and $h_{1,2}\in\agl(N,\FC)$. As a consistency check, one can easily verify that this Peiffer lifting indeed captures the failure of the Peiffer identity according to
\begin{equation}
{\sf t}(\{(g_1,h_1),(g_2,h_2)\})=[(g_1,h_1),(g_2,h_2)]-{\sf t}(g_1,h_1)\acton (g_2,h_2)~.
\end{equation}
We will denote this differential 2-crossed module by $\frder(\mathfrak{m}_{\rm ABJM}(N))$.
\subsection{General higher gauge theory}
We will need the basics of the local description of higher gauge theory by a connective structure on a trivial principal 3-bundle over $M=\FR^{1,2}$. The detailed picture for gauge theory on principal 3-bundles was developed in \cite{Saemann:2013pca}, see \cite{Martins:2009aa} for a partial earlier account. Let us work for the moment with a general differential 2-crossed module $\frl\stackrel{{\sf t}}{\rightarrow}\frh\stackrel{{\sf t}}{\rightarrow}\frg$, we will restrict ourselves to the case $\frder(\mathfrak{m}_{\rm ABJM}(N))$ in the next section.
Consider 1-, 2- and 3-form potentials $A\in \Omega^1(M,\frg)$, $B\in \Omega^2(M,\frh)$ and $C\in \Omega^3(M,\frl)$. From these, we construct the corresponding field strengths
\begin{equation}
F:=\dd A+\tfrac{1}{2}[A,A]~,~~~H:=\dd B+A\acton B~,~~~G:=\dd C+A\acton C+ \{B,B\}~.
\end{equation}
The gauge transformations of the gauge potentials are given by \cite{Saemann:2013pca}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gauge_transformations}
\begin{aligned}
\tilde C&=\gamma^{-1}\acton C-\tilde\nabla^0\big(\Sigma-\tfrac12\{\Lambda,\Lambda\}\big)+\{\tilde B,\Lambda\}+\{\Lambda,\tilde B\}-\{\Lambda,\tilde{\nabla}\Lambda+\tfrac12[\Lambda,\Lambda]\}~,\\
\tilde B&=\gamma^{-1}\acton B-\tilde{\nabla}^0\Lambda-\tfrac12{\sf t}(\Lambda)\acton \Lambda-{\sf t}(\Sigma)~,\\
\tilde A&=\gamma^{-1}A \gamma+\gamma^{-1}\dd \gamma-{\sf t}(\Lambda)~,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is a function on $M$ taking values in a Lie group $\mathsf{G}$ with $\frg=\mathsf{Lie}(\mathsf{G})$, $\Lambda\in \Omega^1(M,\frh)$ and $\Sigma\in \Omega^2(M,\frl)$. Moreover, we used abbreviations $\tilde \nabla\ :=\ \dd+\tilde A\acton$ and $\tilde \nabla^0\ :=\ \dd+\big(\tilde A+{\sf t}(\Lambda)\big)\acton$.
For the higher gauge theory to describe a parallel transport of membranes along three-dimensional volumes that is invariant under reparameterizations of the volume, the so-called {\em fake curvatures} have to vanish:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fake_curvature_conditions}
\mathcal{F}:=F-{\sf t}(B)=0\eand \mathcal{H}:=H-{\sf t}(C)=0~.
\end{equation}
Together with the Bianchi identity for $F$, $F-{\sf t}(B)=0$ implies that ${\sf t}(H)=0$.
Coupling matter fields to this gauge structure is not straightforward. Assume a matter field $\phi$ behaves as $\tilde{\phi}:=g\acton \phi$ under gauge transformations. The corresponding covariant derivative then does {\em not} transform as $\widetilde{\nabla\phi}=g\acton (\nabla\phi)$ due to the modified transformation of the gauge potential $A$, cf.\ \eqref{eq:gauge_transformations}. There are essentially two solutions to this problem: First, we can impose additional conditions on the matter fields, such as e.g.\ ${\sf t}(\phi)=0$, which is appropriate in the case of principal 2-bundles \cite{Saemann:2012uq,Saemann:2013pca}. The other possibility is to restrict to so-called {\em ample gauge transformations} with ${\sf t}(\Lambda)=0$, cf.\ \cite{Palmer:2012ya}. This will turn out to be the appropriate condition for the ABJM model.
\section{The ABJM model}
\subsection{Higher gauge theoretic formulation of the ABJM model}
The ABJM model describes a stack of $N$ flat M2-branes with a $\FC^4/\RZ_k$ orbifold in the transverse directions. These eight transverse directions of the M2-branes are thus packaged into four complex fields $Z^A$, $A=1,\dots,4$, which have spinors $\psi^A$ as their superpartners. These matter fields take values in $\frh:=\agl(N,\FC)$. The gauge potential one-form $A$ lives in $\frg:=\mathfrak{u}(N)\times\mathfrak{u}(N)$. We use the representation \eqref{eq:rep_d2cm} of the differential 2-crossed module $\frder(\mathfrak{m}_{\rm ABJM}(N))$, where the action of the gauge potentials on matter fields corresponds to the matrix commutator. Besides this, there is also the ordinary matrix product between matter fields and their adjoints, which we will need for the potential terms in the ABJM model.
The ABJM action can then be written in the following way:
\begin{equation}
S_{\rm ABJM} = \int_{\FR^{1,2}} \tr\left(\tfrac{k}{4\pi
}\eta~A\wedge(\dd A
+\tfrac{1}{3}[A,A])-\nabla Z_A^{\dag}\wedge \star \nabla Z^A-\star\di\bar\psi^{A}\wedge \slasha{\nabla} \psi_A\right)+V~,
\end{equation}
where $\nabla=\dd+A\acton$ and $\eta=-\sigma_3\otimes \unit_N$ yields a metric of split signature on the gauge algebra $\mathfrak{u}(N)\times \mathfrak{u}(N)$. By $\tr(-)$, we mean the trace in the matrix representation \eqref{eq:rep_d2cm}. The potential is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
V=\tfrac{2\pi}{k}& \int_{\FR^{1,2}}~\star{\rm tr}\Big(-\di\bar\psi^{A\dag} \psi_{A} Z^\dag_B
Z^B-\di\bar\psi^{A\dag} Z^B Z^\dag_B\psi_{A}+2\di\bar\psi^{A\dag}\psi_{B} Z_A^\dag Z^B-2\di\bar\psi^{A\dag} Z^B Z_A^\dag\psi_{B}\\
&\hspace{2.5cm}+\di\varepsilon_{ABCD}\bar\psi^{A\dag}
Z^C\psi^{B\dag} Z^D -\di\varepsilon^{ABCD}Z_D^\dag\bar \psi_A Z_C^\dag\psi_B-\tfrac{4\pi^2}{3k}\Upsilon^{CD}_B\Upsilon^{\dagger B}_{CD}\Big)~,\\
\Upsilon^{CD}_B &:=
Z^CZ^\dagger_B Z^D-\frac{1}{2}\delta^C_BZ^EZ^\dagger_E Z^D+\frac{1}{2}\delta^D_BZ^EZ^\dagger_E Z^C~.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
This theory exhibits $\mathcal{N}=6$ supersymmetry and it has passed some highly non-trivial tests as an effective description of M2-branes.
Next, we extend this action to implement the fake curvature conditions \eqref{eq:fake_curvature_conditions}, introducing 2- and 3-form potential $B\in \Omega^2(\FR^{1,2},\frg\ltimes \frh)$ and $C\in \Omega^2(\FR^{1,2},\frh)$. In the matrix representation \eqref{eq:rep_d2cm} of $\frder(\mathfrak{m}_{\rm ABJM}(N))$, the fake curvature conditions amount to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:fake_curvature_conds_matrix}
\begin{aligned}
B=\left(\begin{array}{cc} F_L & b\\ 0 & F_R\end{array}\right)~,~~H= \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \dd b +A_L b-bA_R\\ 0 & 0\end{array}\right)={\sf t}(C)=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & -c\\ 0 & 0\end{array}\right)
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
for some $b,c\in\agl(N,\FC)$, where $A_L$ and $A_R$ are the first and second block diagonal entries of $A$ and $F_{L,R}=\dd A_{L,R}+\tfrac{1}{2}[A_{L,R},A_{L,R}]$. Note that because of ${\sf t}(H)=0$, $H$ has no block diagonal entries.
To enforce \eqref{eq:fake_curvature_conds_matrix}, we introduce Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_{1}\in \Omega^1(\FR^{1,2},\frg)$, $\lambda_{2}\in \Omega^0(\FR^{1,2},\frg\ltimes \frh)$ and $\lambda_{3}\in \Omega^3(\FR^{1,2},\frg)$, adding the following terms to the action\footnote{As it stands, this action is not real. However, one can either impose reality conditions on $H$ and $\lambda_2$ or add complex conjugate terms to correct for this in a straightforward manner. Again we suppress these technical details.}:
\begin{equation}
S_{\rm HGT}=S_{\rm ABJM}+ \int_{\FR^{1,2}}\tr\left(\lambda^\dagger_1\wedge(F-{\sf t}(B))+\lambda_2^\dagger(H-{\sf t}(C))+\lambda_3^\dagger{\sf t}(\lambda_2)\right)~.
\end{equation}
Varying with respect to $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:variation_l1_l2}
F-{\sf t}(B)=0~,~~~H-{\sf t}(C)+{\sf t}^*(\lambda_3)=0~,
\end{equation}
where ${\sf t}^*$ is the adjoint to ${\sf t}$. This map is the trivial embedding of $\frg$ into $\frg\ltimes \frh$. Because $H-{\sf t}(C)$ is a block off-diagonal in $\frg\ltimes \frh$, \eqref{eq:variation_l1_l2} reduces to
\begin{equation}
F-{\sf t}(B)=0~,~~~H-{\sf t}(C)=0~,~~~\lambda_3=0~.
\end{equation}
Varying $S_{\rm HGT}$ with respect to $\lambda_3$ and $C$, we have
\begin{equation}
{\sf t}(\lambda_2)={\sf t}^*(\lambda_2)=0~~~\Leftrightarrow~~~\lambda_2=0~,
\end{equation}
where ${\sf t}^*$ is here the obvious projection of $\frg\ltimes \frh$ onto $\frh$. Finally, varying the action with respect to $B$ yields
\begin{equation}
{\sf t}^*(\lambda_1)+\nabla\lambda_2=0~,
\end{equation}
which implies $\lambda_1=0$ due to $\lambda_2=0$.
Varying $S_{\rm HGT}$ with respect to the gauge potential, we obtain the usual equation of motion of the ABJM model plus terms containing the Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$. Since both vanish on-shell, we recover
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eom_F}
F=\star\left(\nabla Z^A Z^\dagger_A-Z^A\nabla Z^{\dagger}_{A}+Z^\dagger_A\nabla Z^A -\nabla Z^\dagger_A Z^A -\di \bar\psi^A \gamma\psi^\dagger_A-\di \bar\psi^{\dagger A} \gamma\psi_A\right)~,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma=\gamma_i\dd x^i$. The equations of motion for the matter fields remain obviously those of the ABJM model. Note that the four-form curvature $G$ trivially vanishes, as our trivial principal 3-bundle lives over $\FR^{1,2}$.
Altogether, the action $S_{\rm HGT}$ yields the equations of motion of the ABJM model, together with the fake curvature conditions \eqref{eq:fake_curvature_conds_matrix}. We therefore reformulated the ABJM model as a higher gauge theory.
Supersymmetry and gauge symmetry of the ABJM model are trivially preserved, if we demand that $\lambda_{1,2,3}$ transform appropriately. Explicitly, we can demand that the fields $B$ and $C$ transform in the same way as ${\sf t}^*(F)$ and ${\sf t}^*(H)$, which renders the fake curvature conditions invariant under supersymmetry. The Lagrange multipliers can then be chosen to be invariant under supersymmetry, too.
Gauge transformations should act on the Lagrange multipliers as
\begin{equation}
\lambda_1\rightarrow \tilde{\lambda}_1=\gamma\lambda_1\gamma^{-1}+\gamma[\lambda_2,\Lambda^\dagger]\gamma^{-1}~,~~~\lambda_{2,3}\rightarrow \tilde{\lambda}_{2,3}=\gamma\lambda_{2,3}\gamma^{-1}~,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma\in \Omega^0(M,\mathsf{G})$ and $\Lambda\in \Omega^1(M,\frg\ltimes\frh)$ are the gauge parameters. The second term in the $\lambda_1$ transformation renders the action gauge invariant off-shell. The 2- and 3-form potentials $B$ and $C$ transform as specified in \eqref{eq:gauge_transformations}.
Note however, that the ABJM model is {\em not} invariant under the general tensor transformations parametrized by $\Lambda$ in \eqref{eq:gauge_transformations}. In particular, the equation of motion for the 2-form curvature \eqref{eq:eom_F} breaks this symmetry. We are therefore left with the ample gauge transformations, which are parametrized by a $\Lambda$ with ${\sf t}(\Lambda)=0$. This solves a common problem when working with higher gauge theories: In many cases, e.g.\ if ${\sf t}:\frh\rightarrow \frg$ is surjective, the potential 1-form $A$ can be gauged away by a tensor transformation, leaving an abelian theory. This is not possible if these transformations are broken down to the ample ones.
The same observation was made in \cite{Baez:2012bn}, where teleparallel gravity was reformulated as a higher gauge theory. Here, all field configurations can be gauge transformed away by tensor transformations. However, the action of the theory is not invariant under these symmetries, leaving only the usual group-valued gauge transformations.
The $\Sigma$-transformations in \eqref{eq:gauge_transformations} affect only the new terms added to $S_{\rm ABJM}$, which contain the Lagrange multipliers. All these terms are invariant under these transformations.
\subsection{ABJ-model}
The ABJ model \cite{Aharony:2008gk} is a Chern-Simons matter theory closely related to the ABJM model and also invariant under $\mathcal{N}=6$ supersymmetry. We follow precisely the same formulation as above, merely replacing $\mathfrak{m}_{\rm ABJM}(N)$ by $\mathfrak{m}_{\rm ABJ}(N_1,N_2)$, which is the differential crossed module $\mathsf{Hom}\,(\FC^{N_2},\FC^{N_1})\stackrel{{\sf t}}{\rightarrow}\mathfrak{u}(N_1)\times \mathfrak{u}(N_2)$. We then obtain a differential 2-crossed module of inner derivations, which we can represent in terms of matrices as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \mathsf{Hom}\,(\FC^{N_2},\FC^{N_1})\\ 0 & 0\end{array}\right)\rightarrow \left(\begin{array}{cc} \mathfrak{u}(N_1) & \mathsf{Hom}\,(\FC^{N_2},\FC^{N_1})\\ 0 & \mathfrak{u}(N_2)\end{array}\right)\rightarrow \left(\begin{array}{cc} \mathfrak{u}(N_1) & 0\\ 0 & \mathfrak{u}(N_2)\end{array}\right)~.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
It does not seem possible to use more general types of differential crossed modules to obtain $\mathcal{N}=6$ Chern-Simons matter theories. The hermitian 3-Lie algebras underlying such models seem to be very rigid. Note in particular that, as shown in \cite{Cherkis:2008ha}, the only hermitian 3-Lie brackets that can be written as products of matrices and their adjoints are of the form \eqref{eq:hermitian_3_Lie_bracket}.
\subsection{BLG model and generalizations}
We can restrict the ABJM model to the Bagger-Lambert-Gustavsson model \cite{Bagger:2007jr} by restricting to $\mathfrak{m}_{\rm ABJM}(2)$ and imposing a reality condition, reducing $(\agl(2,\FC),\mathfrak{u}(2)\times \mathfrak{u}(2))$ to $(\mathfrak{su}(2)\oplus \di\,\mathfrak{u}(1),\mathfrak{su}(2)\times \mathfrak{su}(2))$. This turns the hermitian 3-Lie algebra into the (real) 3-Lie algebra $A_4$, which is a real four dimensional vector space with totally antisymmetric 3-bracket
\begin{equation}\label{eq:A4}
[e_\mu,e_\nu,e_\rho]=\eps_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}e_\sigma~,
\end{equation}
on the basis elements $e_\mu\in A_4$. The Lie algebra of inner derivations is represented by the matrices
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & \mathfrak{su}(2)\oplus \di\,\mathfrak{u}(1)\\ 0 & 0\end{array}\right)\rightarrow \left(\begin{array}{cc} \mathfrak{su}(2) & \mathfrak{su}(2)\oplus \di\,\mathfrak{u}(1)\\ 0 & \mathfrak{su}(2)\end{array}\right)\rightarrow \left(\begin{array}{cc} \mathfrak{su}(2) & 0\\ 0 & \mathfrak{su}(2)\end{array}\right)~.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
The resulting action $S_{\rm HGT}$ will have enhanced $\mathcal{N}=8$ supersymmetry. We can now reformulate this action in terms of 3-dimensional $\mathcal{N}=2$ superfields, cf.\ \cite{Cherkis:2008ha}, and replace the above differential 2-crossed module with a more general one. For example, we can use an inner derivation differential 2-crossed modules of a differential crossed module arising from a generalized 3-Lie algebra as constructed in \cite{Palmer:2012ya}. The result is an $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric Chern-Simons matter theory. If one is interested in such theories that are conformal, then one can take these generalizations and add further interaction terms to the potentials as discussed in \cite{Akerblom:2009gx}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank Martin Wolf for discussions and very helpful comments on a first draft of this letter. This work was supported by the EPSRC Career Acceleration Fellowship EP/H00243X/1.
|
\section{Introduction}
The mixing of the flavor-SU(3) singlet and octet states of vector and tensor
mesons to form mass eigenstates is of fundamental importance in hadronic
physics. According to the Appelquist-Carazzone
decoupling theorem, in a vectorial theory, as the mass of a particle gets large compared with a relevant scale, say, $\Lambda_{QCD} \simeq 300$ MeV, one can integrate this
particle out and define a low-energy effective field theory applicable below
this scale \cite{CS}. Evidently, even though $m_s$ is not $\gg \Lambda_{QCD}$, there is
still a nearly complete decoupling for the case of vector mesons, namely, $\rho(770)$ and $\omega(892)$ states. A similar situation of
near-ideal mixing occurs for the $J^{PC}=2^{++}$ tensor mesons
$f_2(1275)$, $f_2'(1525)$ and the $J^{PC}=3^{--}$ mesons
$\omega_3(1670)$, $\phi_3(1850)$ and this can also be understood in terms of approximate decoupling of the light $u \bar u + d \bar d$ state from the heavier $s \bar s$ state.
In the quark model, two nonets of $J^P=1^+$ axial-vector mesons are expected as the orbital excitation of the $q\bar q$ system. In terms of the spectroscopic notation $^{2S+1}L_J$, there are two types of $P$-wave axial-vector mesons, namely, $^3\!P_1$ and $^1P_1$. These two nonets have distinctive $C$ quantum numbers for the corresponding neutral mesons, $C=+$ and $C=-$, respectively. Experimentally, the $J^{PC}=1^{++}$ nonet consists of $a_1(1260)$, $f_1(1285)$, $f_1(1420)$ and $K_{1A}$, while the $1^{+-}$ nonet contains $b_1(1235)$, $h_1(1170)$, $h_1(1380)$ and $K_{1B}$. The non-strange axial vector mesons, for example, the
neutral $a_1(1260)$ and $b_1(1235)$ cannot have a mixing because of
the opposite $C$-parities. On the contrary, $K_{1A}$ and $K_{1B}$ are not the physical mass eigenstates $K_1(1270)$ and $K_1(1400)$ and they are mixed together due to the mass difference of strange and light quarks. Following the common convention we write
\begin{eqnarray} \label{K1mixing}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
|K_1(1270) \rangle \\
|K_1(1400) \rangle \end{array} \right ) =
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\sin\theta_{K_1} & \cos\theta_{K_1} \\
\cos\theta_{K_1} & -\sin\theta_{K_1} \end{array} \right )
\left( \begin{array}{c}
|K_{1A} \rangle \\
|K_{1B} \rangle \end{array} \right ) \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Various phenomenological studies indicate that the $K_{1A}$-$K_{1B}$ mixing angle $\theta_{K_1}$ is around either $33^\circ$ or $57^\circ$, \footnote{As discussed in \cite{Cheng:K1} and many early publications, the sign ambiguity of $\theta_{K_1}$ can be removed by fixing the relative sign of the decay constants of $K_{1A}$ and $K_{1B}$. We shall choose the convention of decay constants in such a way that $\theta_{K_1}$ is always positive.}
but there is no consensus as to whether this angle is greater or less than $45^\circ$.
We have shown in \cite{Cheng:K1} that the mixing angle $\theta_{K_1}$ can be pinned down based on the observation that when the $f_1(1285)$-$f_1(1420)$ mixing angle $\theta_{^3\!P_1}$ and the $h_1(1170)$-$h_1(1380)$ mixing angle $\theta_{^1\!P_1}$ are determined from the mass relations, they depend on the masses of $K_{1A}$ and $K_{1B}$, which in turn depend on $\theta_{K_1}$.
Since nearly ideal mixing occurs for vector, tensor and $3^{--}$ mesons except for pseudoscalar mesons where the axial anomaly plays a unique role, this feature is naively expected to hold also for axial-vector mesons.
Lattice calculations of $\theta_{^1\!P_1}$ and the phenomenological analysis of the strong decays of $h_1(1170)$ and $h_1(1380)$ will enable us to discriminate the two different solutions for $\theta_{K_1}$. In this talk we will elaborate on this in more detail.
\section{Mixing of axial-vector mesons}
There exist several estimations on the mixing angle $\theta_{K_1}$ in the literature. From the early experimental information on masses and the partial rates of $K_1(1270)$ and $K_1(1400)$, Suzuki found two possible solutions $\theta_{K_1}\approx 33^\circ$ and $57^\circ$ \cite{Suzuki}. A similar constraint $35^\circ\lsim \theta_{K_1}\lsim 55^\circ$ was obtained in Ref.~\cite{Goldman} based solely on two parameters: the mass difference between the $a_1(1260)$ and $b_1(1235)$ mesons and the ratio of the constituent quark masses. An analysis of $\tau\to K_1(1270)\nu_\tau$ and $K_1(1400)\nu_\tau$ decays also yielded the mixing angle to be $\approx 37^\circ$ or $58^\circ$ \cite{Cheng:DAP}.\footnote{Note that the mixing angle results in \cite{Cheng:DAP} based on CLEO \cite{CLEO} and OPEL \cite{OPEL} data differ from the the ones obtained in the CLEO paper \cite{CLEO}.}
Another determination of $\theta_{K_1}$ comes from the $f_1(1285)$-$f_1(1420)$ mixing angle $\theta_{^3\!P_1}$ to be introduced shortly below which can be reliably estimated from the analysis of the radiative decays $f_1(1285)\to \phi\gamma, \rho^0\gamma$ \cite{Close:1997nm}. A recent updated analysis yields $\theta_{^3\!P_1}=(19.4^{+4.5}_{-4.6})^\circ$ or $(51.1^{+4.5}_{-4.6})^\circ$ \cite{KCYang}.\footnote{From the same radiative decays, it was found $\theta_{^3\!P_1}=(56^{+4}_{-5})^\circ$ in \cite{Close:1997nm}. This has led some authors (e.g. \cite{DMLi}) to claim that $\theta_{K_1}\sim 59^\circ$. However, another solution, namely, $\theta_{^3\!P_1}=(14.6^{+4}_{-5})^\circ$ corresponding to a smaller $\theta_{K_1}$, was missed in \cite{Close:1997nm}.
}
As we shall see below, the mixing angle $\theta_{^3\!P_1}$ is correlated to $\theta_{K_1}$. The corresponding $\theta_{K_1}$ is found to be $(31.7^{+2.8}_{-2.5})^\circ$ or $(56.3^{+3.9}_{-4.1})^\circ$. Therefore, all the analyses yield a mixing angle $\theta_{K_1}$ in the vicinity of either $33^\circ$ or $57^\circ$.
However, there is no consensus as to whether $\theta_{K_1}$ is greater or less than $45^\circ$.
It was found in the non-relativistic quark model that $m^2_{K_{1A}}<m^2_{K_{1B}}$ \cite{DMLi,Burakovsky,Chliapnikov} and hence $\theta_{K_1}$ is larger than $45^\circ$.
Interestingly, $\theta_{K_1}$ turned out to be of order $34^\circ$ in the relativized quark model of \cite{Godfrey}.
Based on the covariant light-front model \cite{CCH}, the value of $51^\circ$ was found by the analysis of \cite{Cheng:2009ms}. From the study of $B\to K_1(1270)\gamma$ and $\tau\to K_1(1270)\nu_\tau$ within the framework of light-cone QCD sum rules, Hatanaka and Yang advocated that $\theta_{K_1}=(34\pm13)^\circ$ \cite{Hatanaka:2008xj}. There existed two recent studies of strong decays of $K_1(1270)$ and $K_1(1400)$ mesons with different approaches. One group obtained $\theta_{K_1}\approx 60^\circ$ based on the $^3P_0$ quark-pair-creation model for $K_1$ strong decays \cite{Kou}, while the other group found $\theta_{K_1}=(33.6\pm4.3)^\circ$ using a phenomenological flavor symmetric relativistic Lagrangian \cite{Giacosa}.
In short, there is a variety of different values of the mixing angle cited in the literature. It is the purpose of this work to pin down $\theta_{K_1}$.
We next consider the mixing of the isosinglet $1^3P_1$ states, $f_1(1285)$ and $f_1(1420)$, and the $1^1P_1$ states, $h_1(1170)$ and $h_1(1380)$ in the quark flavor and octet-singlet bases:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
|f_1(1285) \rangle \\
|f_1(1420) \rangle \end{array} \right ) =
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\cos\theta_{^3\!P_1} & \sin\theta_{^3\!P_1} \\
-\sin\theta_{^3\!P_1} & \cos\theta_{^3\!P_1} \end{array} \right )
\left( \begin{array}{c}
|f_1 \rangle \\
|f_8 \rangle \end{array} \right )=
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\cos\alpha_{^3\!P_1} & \sin\alpha_{^3\!P_1} \\
-\sin\alpha_{^3\!P_1} & \cos\alpha_{^3\!P_1} \end{array} \right )
\left( \begin{array}{c}
|f_q \rangle \\
|f_s \rangle \end{array} \right ) \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
|h_1(1170) \rangle \\
|h_1(1380) \rangle \end{array} \right ) =
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\cos\theta_{^1\!P_1} & \sin\theta_{^1\!P_1} \\
-\sin\theta_{^1\!P_1} & \cos\theta_{^1\!P_1} \end{array} \right )
\left( \begin{array}{c}
|h_1 \rangle \\
|h_8 \rangle \end{array} \right ) =
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\cos\alpha_{^1\!P_1} & \sin\alpha_{^1\!P_1} \\
-\sin\alpha_{^1\!P_1} & \cos\alpha_{^1\!P_1} \end{array} \right )
\left( \begin{array}{c}
|h_q \rangle \\
|h_s \rangle \end{array} \right ) \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_1=(u\bar u+d\bar d+s\bar s)/\sqrt{3}$, $f_8=(u\bar u+d\bar d-2s\bar s)/\sqrt{6}$, $f_q=(u\bar u+d\bar d)/\sqrt{2}$, $f_s=s\bar s$ and likewise for $h_1$, $h_8$, $h_q$ and $h_s$. The mixing angle $\alpha$ in the flavor basis is related to the singlet-octet mixing angle $\theta$ by the relation $\alpha=35.3^\circ-\theta$. Therefore, $\alpha$ measures the deviation from ideal mixing.
Applying the Gell-Mann Okubo relations for the mass squared of the octet states
\begin{eqnarray}
m_8^2(^3\!P_1) &\equiv& m_{^3\!P_1}^2={1\over 3}(4m_{K_{1A}}^2-m_{a_1}^2), \qquad
m_8^2(^1\!P_1) \equiv m_{^1\!P_1}^2={1\over 3}(4m_{K_{1B}}^2-m_{b_1}^2),
\end{eqnarray}
we obtain the following mass relations for the mixing angles $\theta_{^1\!P_1}$ and $\theta_{^3\!P_1}$ (for details, see \cite{Cheng:K1})
\begin{eqnarray} \label{tantheta:A}
\tan\theta_{^3\!P_1}&=& \frac{m_{^3\!P_1}^2- m_{f'_1}^2} {\sqrt { m_{^3\!P_1}^2(m_{f_1}^2+m_{f'_1}^2- m_{^3\!P_1}^2)-m_{f_1}^2m^2_{f'_1}}}
\,, \nonumber\\
\tan\theta_{^1\!P_1}&=& \frac{ m_{^1\!P_1}^2- m_{h'_1}^2} {\sqrt { m_{^1\!P_1}^2(m_{h_1}^2+m_{h'_1}^2-m_{^1\!P_1}^2)-m_{h_1}^2m^2_{h'_1}}}
\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_1$ and $f'_1$ ($h_1$ and $h'_1$) are the short-handed notations for $f_1(1285)$ and $f_1(1420)$ ($h_1(1170)$ and $h_1(1380)$), respectively, and
\begin{eqnarray} \label{K1Amass}
m_{K_{1A}}^2 &=& m_{K_1(1400)}^2 \cos^2\theta_{K_1} + m_{K_1(1270)}^2
\sin^2\theta_{K_1} \,, \nonumber \\
m_{K_{1B}}^2 &=&
m_{K_1(1400)}^2 \sin^2\theta_{K_1} + m_{K_1(1270)}^2 \cos^2\theta_{K_1} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
It is clear that the mixing angles $\theta_{^3\!P_1}$ and $\theta_{^1\!P_1}$ depend on the masses of $K_{1A}$ and $K_{1B}$ states, which in turn depend on the $K_{1A}$-$K_{1B}$ mixing angle $\theta_{K_1}$. Table \ref{tab:axial} exhibits the values of $\alpha_{^3\!P_1}$, $\theta_{^3\!P_1}$ and $\alpha_{^1\!P_1}$, $\theta_{^1\!P_1}$ calculated using Eq. (\ref{tantheta:A}) for some representative values of $\theta_{K_1}$.
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{The values of the $f_1(1285)$-$f_1(1420)$ and $h_1(1170)$-$h_1(1380)$ mixing angles in the quark flavor (upper) and octet-singlet (lower) bases calculated using Eq. (2.4) for some representative $K_{1A}$-$K_{1B}$ mixing angle $\theta_{K_1}$.} \label{tab:axial}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c| c c c c c c |}
\hline
~~$\theta_{K_1}$~~ & $57^\circ$ & $51^\circ$ & $45^\circ$ & $33^\circ$ & $30^\circ$ & $28^\circ$ \\
\hline
$\alpha_{^3\!P_1}$ & $16.5^\circ$ & $9.6^\circ$ & $2.4^\circ$ & $-13.7^\circ$ & $-18.9^\circ$ & $-23.5^\circ$ \\
$\alpha_{^1\!P_1}$ & $-53.0^\circ$ & $-44.6^\circ$ & $-21.1^\circ$ & $-6.4^\circ$ & $-3.8^\circ$ & $-2.4^\circ$ \\
\hline
$\theta_{^3\!P_1}$ & $52^\circ$ & $45^\circ$ & $38^\circ$ & $22^\circ$ & $16^\circ$ & $12^\circ$ \\
$\theta_{^1\!P_1}$ & $-18^\circ$ & $-9^\circ$ & $14^\circ$ & $29^\circ$ & $32^\circ$ & $33^\circ$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Discussion}
We see from Table \ref{tab:axial} that the $K_{1A}$-$K_{1B}$ mixing angle
$\theta_{K_1}\approx 57^\circ$ corresponds to $\alpha_{^1P_1}=-53^\circ$ which is too far away from ideal mixing for the $^1P_1$ sector. Indeed, it is in violent disagreement with the lattice result $\alpha_{^1\!P_1}=\pm(3\pm1)^\circ$ obtained by the Hadron Spectrum Collaboration \cite{Dudek:2011tt}. Since only the modes $h_1(1170)\to\rho\pi$ and $h_1(1380)\to K\bar K^*,\bar KK^*$ have been seen so far, this implies that the quark content is primarily $s\bar s$ for $h_1(1380)$ and $q\bar q$ for $h_1(1170)$. Indeed, if $\theta_{K_1}=57^\circ$, we will have $h_1(1170)=0.60n\bar n-0.80s\bar s$ and $h_1(1380)=0.80n\bar n+0.60s\bar s$ with $n\bar n=(u\bar u+d\bar d)/\sqrt{2}$. It is obvious that the large $s\bar s$ content of $h_1(1170)$ and $n\bar n$ content of $h_1(1380)$ cannot explain why only the strong decay modes $h_1(1170)\to\rho\pi$ and $h_1(1380)\to K\bar K^*,\bar KK^*$ have been seen thus far. Therefore, it is evident that $\theta_{K_1}\approx 57^\circ$ is ruled out.
Can we conclude that $\theta_{K_1}$ is less than $45^\circ$ ? Let's examine the mixing angle $\alpha_{^3\!P_1}$. There are some information available. First, the radiative decay $f_1(1285)\to\phi\gamma$ and $\rho\gamma$ yields $\alpha_{^3\!P_1}=\pm(15.8^{+4.5}_{-4.6})^\circ$ \cite{KCYang}. An updated lattice calculation gives $\alpha_{^3\!P_1}=\pm(27\pm2)^\circ$ \cite{Dudek:2013yja}. A study of $B_{d,s}\to J/\psi f_1(1285)$ decays by LHCb leads to $\alpha_{^3\!P_1}=\pm(24.0^{+3.1+0.6}_{-2.6-0.8})^\circ$ \cite{LHCb}. Hence, $\alpha_{^3\!P_1}$ lies in the range $\pm (15\sim 27)^\circ$. Unlike the $^1P_1$ sector, the deviation of $f_1(1285)$-$f_1(1420)$ mixing from the ideal one is sizable. Nevertheless, the quark content is still primarily $s\bar
s$ for $f_1(1420)$ and $q\bar q$ for $f_1(1285)$. Indeed, $K^*\bar K$ and $K\bar K\pi$ are the dominant modes of
$f_1(1420)$ whereas $f_1(1285)$ decays mainly to the $\eta\pi\pi$ and $4\pi$
states.
It is clear from from Table \ref{tab:axial} that when $\theta_{K_1}\approx (28-30)^\circ$, the corresponding $\alpha_{^3\!P_1}$ and $\alpha_{^1\!P_1}$ agree well with all lattice and phenomenological analyses. This in turn reinforces the statement that $\theta_{K_1}\sim 33^\circ$ is much more favored than $57^\circ$.
Two remarks are in order: (i) The $K_1$ mixing angle $\theta_{K_1}\approx 57^\circ$ leads to acceptable $\alpha_{^3\!P_1}$ but too large $\alpha_{^1\!P_1}$. (ii) In the octet-singlet basis, the mixing angles are of order $\theta_{^3\!P_1}\sim 15^\circ$ and $\theta_{^1\!P_1}\sim 32^\circ$.
\section{Conclusions}
The $K_1$ mixing angle $\theta_{K_1}\approx 57^\circ$ is ruled out as it will lead to a too large deviation from ideal mixing in the $^1P_1$ sector, inconsistent with the observation of strong decays of $h_1(1170)$ and $h_1(1380)$ and a recent lattice calculation of $\theta_{^1\!P_1}$. We found when $\theta_{K_1}\approx (28-30)^\circ$, the corresponding $\alpha_{^3\!P_1}$ and $\alpha_{^1\!P_1}$ agree well with all lattice and phenomenological analyses. This again implies that $\theta_{K_1}\sim 33^\circ$ is much more favored than $57^\circ$.
|
\section{Introduction}
Among the most abundant solid materials in protoplanetary discs are silicates and water ice. Inwards of the snowline no free ice is present and the size evolution of silicates dominates the formation of planetesimals and planet formation. This is a multi-step process. It starts by the aggregation of micrometer particles in sticking collisions as fractal growth \citep{Blum2000b, Kempf2000, Paszun2009}. It continues with sticking collisions up to mm-size \citep{Dominik1997, Wurm_Blum1998, Blum_Wurm2000, Wada2011}. Depending on the contact properties of the monomers, fractal growth could continue to much large sizes \citep{Okuzumi2012}. The experimental measurements on ice as reported in this paper can be used to better quantify these transitions between the growth regimes.
The further evolution is more complex. Concentration of particles in pressure bumps, in stable eddies, by turbulence -- once thought to be an obstacle to concentration -- or by streaming instabilities might enhance the solid particle number density enough to lead to a gravitational collapse \citep{Goldreich1973, Safronov1967, Weidenschilling1993, Johansen2006, Dittrich2013, Chiang2010, Youdin2002}. There is little doubt though that collisions continue to be important processes. In fact the formation of planetesimals can also be built on sticking collisions. The current idea here is that a bouncing barrier at mm or cm-size exists which essentially prevents further growth of most of the particles \citep{Zsom2010, Kelling2011}. Further growth is then possible if some particles grow large by chance or are introduced otherwise \citep{Windmark2012a}. There are several possibilities to provide these large seeds for growth, either lucky conditions (small collision velocities), large constituent grains or the aggregation of some initial aggregates \citep{Kothe2010, Jankowski2012, Windmark2012b}. Seeds might also be drifting in from further outward, i.e. might grow around the snowline and lose the water while drifting inwards \citep{Saito2011, Sirono2011, Aumatell2011, Drazkowska2013}.
Once larger aggregates exist, collisions include fragmentation and growth \citep{Wurm2005, Teiser2011, Teiser2012, Kothe2010, Beitz2011, Meisner2012, Schaefer2007,Dove2012}. A summary of collisional outcomes relevant to protoplanetary discs has been given by \citet{Guettler2010}.
The fundamental reason why dust particles are kept together after a collision is sticking forces acting at the contacts, like van der Waals forces, dipole interactions or surface tension. Depending on the strength of the contacts, growth is possible in collisions or not. If growth is possible the contact strength defines the structure of the growing aggregate, i.e. the transition from a hit-and-stick collision to compaction if the contact is weak enough to allow restructuring.
For spherical macroscopic particles, a theoretical treatment is possible which in agreement to the experiments mentioned above can be scaled down to micrometer dust particles \citep{Chokshi1993, Dominik1995, Dominik1996, Wada2007}. This will be quantified in later sections. However, it is not clear what the smallest size is to which these models can be extended and be used. Specific experiments related to rolling of microspheres seem to be in agreement with the mentioned theory \citep{Ding2007, Sumer2008}. If going to nm-scale, where the interaction of individual atoms or molecules becomes important, a down scaling might be questionable but experiments are rare (e.g. \cite{Asif1999}).
The situation gets even more complex for water ice. As ice is rather volatile, sublimation and condensation have to be considered in protoplanetary disks \citep{Aumatell2011, Saito2011, Sirono2011, Ros2013}. It has also been suggested that collisions with energy enough to heat the contacts can lead to collisional fusion \citep{Wettlaufer2010}. Otherwise, in individual collisions again the sticking forces are important to decide what the outcome of the event is. Experiments with macroscopic ice samples have been carried out in the past \citep{Bridges1996, Higa1998, Arakawa2000, Heisselmann2010}. Experiments on the sticking of micrometer ice grains only began recently \citep{Gundlach2011}.
Ice particles are often considered along with dust particles but the contacts are stronger and provide additional aspects in contact physics (see below). In general the dynamical properties related to a contact can be divided into four parts, the break-up force needed to break up a contact, the rolling torques allowing two particles in contact to roll over each other, forces related to sliding if two particles slide over each other (but do not rotate), and the twisting around a given contact which from the physics is related to sliding (a circular sliding around a fixed point on a surface). Depending on the relation in strength between these processes which are tied to particle size and the structure of a given aggregate the different processes are more or less important, e.g. with respect to restructure an aggregate \citep{Dominik1997, Geretshauser2011, Seizinger2012, Kataoka2013}. \citet{Kataoka2013} e.g. found that depending on the porosity of an aggregate either rolling friction or twisting friction dominates energy loss.
Measurements of contact forces of micrometer dust are consistent with theory. Most are related to break-up and rolling \citep{Heim1999, Ding2007}. Experiments on twisting effects are very rare \citep{Sumer2008}. In lack of data for sliding but due to the need to match simulations and experiments e.g. \citet{Seizinger2012} assumed contacts to be stiffer than predicted by existing models. To our knowledge no data exists on torsion (twisting torques) and especially not on the nm-scale. A general problem with measuring torsion is that e.g. the cantilever of an AFM as used by \citet{Heim1999} is fixed and not free to rotate. We therefore developed a new method using a 'free probe' to measure torsion, rolling and breakup, so far for water ice contacts of nm-size as reported here.
This paper is structured as follows. We first describe the experimental idea to measure forces at the nN-scale in section \ref{albert}. We then give a specific realization used to study ice aggregate contacts in section \ref{josef}. In section \ref{schaf} we show our measurements of the pull-off forces, the twisting torques and the rolling torques. Section \ref{marina} summarizes the current theoretical ideas for large microscopic particles. In section \ref{wasserstoff} we discuss our data with respect to theory and estimate correction factors based on the experimental results. Section \ref{hundeleine} is dedicated to open issues of the experiment. Section \ref{wassersack} concludes this paper.
\section{A thermal gradient force microscope}
\label{albert}
State-of-the-art instruments to measure forces on the nN-scale are atomic force microscopes (AFM). They have been used in the past to measure the pull-off force on micrometer-size dust grains \citep{Heim1999}. The basic functionality used is the detection of the deflection of a light beam by a cantilever flexing under load. An AFM in contact mechanics has the advantage that well-defined forces pulling or compressing can be applied. However, it has the disadvantage that a sample is fixed in two points and is not free to rotate around a single contact. Therefore, twisting around
one contact cannot be measured easily.
Ideally, in order to study rotation around a contact, the probing 'tip' has to be capable of free rotation as well, e.g. following the motion of a particle being in contact with a surface or other particle. The 'tip' also has to have the ability to apply a force and -- in the case of torsion to be studied -- it also has to apply a torque.
Keeping the analogy to the AFM for a while, instead of the cantilever of sub-mm size, we therefore need a free floating probe on sub-mm scale which can apply forces and torques, and the motion of which can be detected. In general, a free floating probe has to be attached to the measuring contact and an external field has to provide a force pulling the particle and providing the torque. As a free floating probe is not fixed like a cantilever, it does not necessarily flex under load in a well-defined way. The easiest way to track the motion then is microscopic observation. The torque is given by the angular acceleration around an axis if the moment of inertia of the probe (and sample) is known. The pull-off force of a contact can be determined by observation of the linear acceleration of the probe if the contact breaks and if the total mass is known. These ideas are sketched in Fig. \ref{probe1}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{AFM.eps}
\caption{In comparison to an AFM our {\it thermal gradient force microscope} uses a free floating probe (aggregate) to measure pull-off force, rolling torque and twisting torque.}
\label{probe1}
\end{figure}
As for the cantilever of the AFM where the elastic bending is measured as mechanical quantity we have an equally simple mechanical analysis here.
For the pull-off force $F_{\text{c}}$ with a probe mass $m_{\text{p}}$ it is
\begin{equation}
F_{\text{c}} = m_{\text{p}}\:a
\label{secondnewton}
\end{equation}
The acceleration $a$ is taken from the observation of the centre of mass of the probe after the contact breaks. For the torques the usual equations apply as well.
\begin{equation}
M = I\:\alpha,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is the angular acceleration, and $M$ and $I$ are the torque and moment of inertia with respect to the rotational axis under consideration, either around the vertical in the case of torsion or around a horizontal axis in the case of rolling (see below). In the current version of the setup, the detection of motion requires a microscopic motion of the probe. We therefore only detect rolling or torsion if the elastic limit is exceeded. The break-up force can only be measured once as the sample cannot be recovered after the measurement.
Therefore, with a free floating probe, three measurements of a contact are possible in principle:
\begin{itemize}
\item rolling torque,
\item twisting torque,
\item pull off force (final measurement).
\end{itemize}
Experiments with free probes require a pull on the probe. Otherwise, the probe will just follow gravity downwards and settle itself on the surface. This also implies that torsion can only be measured if the contact does not completely break once the torque is sufficient to initiate rotation around the vertical axis. This is supposed to be the case at least for water ice and metals \citep{Dominik1997}.
\subsection{A thermal gradient probe}
As external field exploited here, we use the thermophoretic force acting on a particle in a low-pressure atmosphere and in a temperature gradient field (Fig. \ref{probe1}). The thermophoretic force for a spherical particle at low pressure is given as \citep{zheng2002the}
\begin{equation}
F_{\text{th}}=-f\frac{a^2\kappa _{\text{g}}}{\sqrt{2k_{\text{B}} T_0/m}}\nabla T,
\label{thermoforce}
\end{equation}
where $a$ is the particle diameter, $\kappa_{\text{g}}$ the thermal conductivity of the ambient gas, $m$ the mass of a gas molecule, $k_{\text{B}}$ the Boltzmann constant and $T_0$ the average temperature at the particle, and $f$ is a dimensionless parameter depending on the gas pressure. For a 1 $\mu$m particle surrounded by air ($\kappa_{\text{g}}\approx$ 0.01 $\text{Wm}^{-1}$K, $m\approx 4.8\times 10^{-26}$ Kg) at a pressure of 0.5 mbar, temperature of 200 K and a temperature gradient of 4100 $\text{Km}^{-1}$, the thermophoretic force is $\approx 2.3\times 10^{-13}$ N.
As thermophoresis in a very open structured aggregate pulls on each individual constituent, different size aggregates are related to different forces, the larger the aggregate the larger the force. Due to non-sphericity there are some variations in the force, which cannot be adjusted to high degree but show some random component in the strength. However, by adjusting the aggregate size and the ambient pressure the force can be varied in principle.
In the specific case here, we use microscopic ice aggregates as probes. If the probe is of the same material as the sample to study it actually provides the contacts. The ice aggregates used are non-symmetric. This means that thermophoretic forces also show components perpendicular to the direction of the temperature gradient. This always leads to a small random twisting torque around the vertical \citep[direction of temperature gradient;][]{vanEymeren2012}. It is this torque, which allows a measurement of the strength of a contact with respect to twisting. Besides contact physics (the focus in this work), the observations also provide means to study the thermophoretic forces and torques, and from rotation frequencies in equilibrium the rotational gas-grain coupling times. We will sketch this below.
\subsection{Experimental setup}
\label{josef}
The main components of the specific setup can be seen in Fig. \ref{setup1} and Fig. \ref{setup2}. At 4 cm below a liquid nitrogen reservoir, there is a horizontally oriented copper plate attached to the bottom of the reservoir. On the bottom side of this plate, a heating foil is attached in order to create a temperature gradient above the plate.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{setup.eps}
\caption{Thermal gradient generation and sample placement}
\label{setup1}
\end{figure}
Ice aggregates are placed on a substrate within the temperature gradient field and are imaged by a long distance microscope with working distance of 18 cm. We took bright field images with particles being silhouette in front of a light source. Frame rates varied between 2 frames second$^{-1}$ for the sublimation rate studies to high speed observations at 800 frames second$^{-1}$ for observation of rotation and break up.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{setup2.eps}
\caption{Overview of the principle experiment components.}
\label{setup2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ice aggregate generation}
Water ice aggregates are formed from frozen water droplets. The droplets are generated with a vapourizer. Fig. \ref{droplets} shows an image of the droplets in-flight after they travelled a tube of 10 cm length and passed between two glass plates. The corresponding size distribution is also plotted showing a peak at 2.1 $\rm \mu m$. The ice particles are transported to the temperature gradient region below the liquid nitrogen reservoir. At temperatures below 180 K, the water particles freeze.
At normal atmospheric pressure, turbulence within the experiment chamber leads to collisions between the ice particles and growth of aggregates. As substrate a 2 mm cylinder-shaped temperature sensor is placed within the low-temperature region and is used as a target where ice aggregates attach themselves and grow. After a few minutes of particle injection, the sensor surface is covered by a large number of ice aggregates. The thickness of this aggregate layer depends on the deposition time, with sizes ranging between some $\mu$m to a few mm (Fig. \ref{aggregates}). As we use a temperature sensor as substrate for the ice aggregates, it is possible to determine the temperature of the ice aggregates at any moment.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{droplets.eps}
\caption{Left: example of liquid water droplets used to form ice aggregates. Right: size distribution of water droplets.}
\label{droplets}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{aggregates.eps}
\caption{A layer of ice aggregates forms on top of the temperature sensor.}
\label{aggregates}
\end{figure}
Once the aggregates are formed, the chamber is evacuated to a pressure between 0.1 and 1 mbar (so far), and thermophoretic forces act on the particles.
\subsection{Sublimation}
\label{subsec:sublimation}
At this pressure and at temperatures of about 180 K, the sublimation rate is too low to have visible effects at $\mu$m size at time-scales of seconds.
At a higher temperature of about 200 K. the ice samples slowly start to sublimate. In the experiments reported here, we use the sublimation to reduce the contact size but keep the temperature gradient constant. The ice experiments therefore make use of sublimation which decreases the contacting particle size and contact area until the applied torques and pull-off forces are stronger than the contacts can compensate, eventually. The onset of twisting and the break-up occur at different times. Due to sublimation this relates to different particle sizes. We calculated this difference based on the measured \textbf{and calculated} sublimation rates. The sublimation rate \textbf{for large grains} was measured as follows.
The initial particles are homogeneous spheres formed by water droplets. \citet{Saito2011} showed that the rate at which a sphere's radius $R$ decreases is given as
\begin{equation}
\frac{dR}{dt}=-\frac{P_{\text{ev}}(T)-P_{\text{H}_2 \text{O}}}{\rho_{\text{H}_2 \text{O}}}\sqrt{\frac{m_{\text{H}_2 \text{O}}}{2\pi k_{\text{B}} T}}
\label{sublimation_rate}
\end{equation}
where $P_{\text{H}_2 \text{O}}$ is the partial H$_2$O gas pressure, $\rho_{\text{H}_2 \text{O}}$ is the water ice density, $m_{\text{H}_2 \text{O}}$ is the mass of a water molecule, $T$ the ice temperature and $P_{\text{ev}}$ the equilibrium vapour pressure that depends on the temperature as \citep{Yamamoto1983}
\begin{equation}
\begin {split}
\log_{10} P(T)_{ev} & =-2445.5646/T + 8.2312log_{10}T \\
& -0.01677006T+1.20514\times 10^{-5}T^2 \\
& -3.63227.
\end{split}
\label{Pev}
\end{equation}
As seen in equation \ref{sublimation_rate}, the shrinking in radius difference per time does not depend on the absolute radius of the droplet. Under the experimental conditions, shrinking of large individual water ice droplets with a well-defined diameter is tracked. Measuring the time $\Delta t$ required for the droplet to shrink from a radius $R_1$ to a radius $R_2<R_1$ immediately gives the sublimation rate. We find
\begin{equation}
dR/dt = 0.032\pm 0.014\: \mu \text{m\:s}^{-1}
\end{equation}
at 203 K and a total pressure within the chamber of 0.66 mbar. From equation \ref{Pev} we calculate $P_{\text{ev}}$ to 0.025 mbar. Using equation \ref{sublimation_rate} and in view of the small sublimation rate observed, the partial water pressure $P_{\text{H}_2\text{O}}$ is comparable to $P_{ev}$. This implies almost saturated conditions.
For the nm-particle which sets the strength of the aggregate sublimation is important. Equation \ref{Pev} is only valid for sub-$\mu$m size or for larger particles, but for smaller radii, the vapour pressure and therefore the sublimation rate show a strong dependence on the surface curvature $K$. The equilibrium vapour pressure $P_s$ is \citep{Sirono2011b}
\begin{equation}
\ln \left(\frac{P_s}{P_{ev}}\right)=K\frac{\gamma v}{k_{\text{B}} T}
\label{P_s}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the surface energy of ice, $v$ the molecular volume, $k_{\text{B}}$ the Boltzmann constant and $T$ the temperature.
The vapor pressure $P_{\text{ev}}$ has to be substituted by $P_s$
in equation \ref{sublimation_rate}. If we further assume that the curvature of the nm-contacting grains is $K \sim 1/R$ we obtain as sublimation rate
\begin{equation}
\frac{dR}{dt}=-\frac{\sqrt{\frac{m_{\text{H}_2 \text{O}}}{2\pi k_{\text{B}} T}}}{\rho_{\text{H}_2 \text{O}}}\left(P_{\text{ev}}\text{e}^{\left(A/R\right)}-P_{\text{H}_2 \text{O}} \right)
\label{sublimation_rate2}
\end{equation}
with $A = \frac{\gamma v}{k_{\text{B}} T}$.
Equation \ref{sublimation_rate2} was used to calculate the particle sizes for the time twisting sets in. During the short sublimation times of $\sim$ 0.1 s (see below) between start of rotations and break-up, the much larger aggregate probe attached to this particle, which consists of micrometer particles, only changes insignificantly. Therefore, thermal gradient forces and torques do not change during this short time. This is also consistent with the observation that the aggregate does not change on the microscope images during the observation times of an image sequence of 0.5 s at a frame rate of 800 frames seconds$^{-1}$.
\section{Breakup Force}
\label{schaf}
As the temperature gradient force is directed from the cold to the warm side, the net direction of the thermophoretic force is upwards. Break-up of contacts and ejection of the 'probe' aggregates are observable for all aggregates. Break-up will take place sooner or later due to sublimation and depending on the weakest contact with contact area $a_0$. Some of these aggregates do not present any particular motion before they break up, move upwards and disappear from the field of view (Fig \ref{sequence} (top)). On the other hand, many of them present oscillating (Fig. \ref{sequence}, bottom) or twisting motions (Fig \ref{sequence}, center) (see below).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{sequence.eps}
\caption{Time sequences of aggregates with respect to break-up (top), twisting (middle) and rolling oscillations (bottom). For each sequence, the time passing in milliseconds is shown.}
\label{sequence}
\end{figure}
As mentioned above, all break-up forces are calculated applying Newton's second law $F=ma$ to the motion of an aggregate after break-up. Accelerations were determined from the displacement of the aggregates (visible) centre of mass on all frames while imaged and the timing between frames. This force measurement requires the determination of the acceleration and the aggregate mass.
\subsection{Determination of the aggregate mass}
\label{subsec:mass}
Sequences of aggregate images were taken when they were rotating around their vertical axis and a view at different angles was possible. As aggregates often showed compact regions which could not be resolved in any perspective we did not attempt to do a full 3D reconstruction based on all pixels on all perspectives. Instead, the particle masses were extrapolated from an approximated 3D structure. For this, the aggregate is approximated by a projected area $A$ multiplied by a thickness $x$.
Observing a full $360^o$ rotation sequence, two frames were chosen. One with the maximal cross-section $A$ and a second image where the particle rotated by $90^o$ and showed a cross-section $A'$. The thickness $x$ is then calculated from the ratio $x=A'/L$ where $L$ is the aggregate's length along the rotation axis as e.g. shown in fig. \ref{massdet}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{massdet.eps}
\caption{Two images from a rotation sequence used for mass determination;
(a) $90^o$ rotated for thickness determination, (b) largest cross-section,}
\label{massdet}
\end{figure}
The mass estimated this way does not account for hollow parts invisible and therefore is an upper limit. It can be corrected by assuming a filling factor smaller than 1. A value for the filling factor close to 1 is unlikely as this would imply a rigid solid aggregate. A very low value is not adequate to assume as might e.g. result from a pure fractal structure as the aggregation process in which the ice structure forms includes sublimation, sintering, and condensation. As an exact filling factor is not possible to obtain with the used equipment, we opted for a filling factor of 0.4 and assumed a factor 2 as the uncertainty which only rules out the extremes. This also constrains upper and lower values for its derivative variables below.
\subsection{Thermophoresis for aggregates}
The aggregates are grown through collisions and are highly porous though this is not considered in further detail here. In any case, as a first approximation, gas can flow freely around the constituents. This suggests that the thermophoretic force is proportional to the number of constituents (if monodisperse) or total mass under otherwise same conditions (temperature gradient and pressure).
In Fig. \ref{forceovermass} the thermophoretic force at break-up is seen in dependence of the aggregate mass. The forces determined by the accelerating particles have been corrected for gravity, i.e. subtracting $m g$. As a general trend, the data are consistent with a linear mass dependence plotted as a solid line. A detailed study of thermophoretic forces on aggregates is possible with the given setup but this is beyond the focus of this work. This might be exploited in future applications of this technique. Here, it is a consistency check that thermophoretic forces are responsible. Important is that, in principle, larger aggregates provide larger forces and can probe larger contact forces.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{forcevsmass.eps}
\caption{Thermophoretic force depending on aggregate mass. The line indicates
a linear dependence.}
\label{forceovermass}
\end{figure}
Giving the mass and the break-up force, we can give first estimates of the reduced radius and the contact area of the contact breaking. This requires a theory for the contact force. Noting that this does not exist yet for the nm-scale as outlined below, we use the equation which proved useful on the micro-scale \citep{Johnson1971, Dominik1997, Heim1999}
\begin{equation}
F_{\text{c}}=3\pi\gamma R,
\label{critforce}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the surface energy. For ice, literature values for $\gamma$ vary between 0.1 $\rm Jm^{-2}$ and 0.37 $\rm J/m^2$ \citep{Dominik1997, Wada2007, Gundlach2011, Kataoka2013}. In Table \ref{mainvalues} we used $\gamma = 0.37$ $\rm Jm^{-2}$. For the contact area radius we used equation \ref{a} as detailed below.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{Parameters for ice contacts at breakup: break-up force $F_{\text{c}}$, reduced radius $R$ and contact radius $a_0$. Uncertainties are estimated to a factor of 2 and result from the mass uncertainty. We assume a surface energy of $\gamma = 0.37$ $\rm Jm^{-2}$ and a filling factor of 0.4.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Id} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{Mass} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$F_c$} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$R$} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$a_0$} \\
& (pg) & (nN) & (nm) & (nm)\\ \hline\hline
1 & 508 & 9.18 & 2.63 & 2.74 \\ \hline
2 & 366 & 9.16 & 2.63 & 2.74 \\ \hline
3 & 237 & 15.5 & 4.45 & 3.89 \\ \hline
4 & 31.8 & 2.15 & 0.62 & 1.00 \\ \hline
5 & 34.8 & 2.00 & 0.56 & 1.00 \\ \hline
6 & 382 & 7.16 & 2.05 & 2.33 \\ \hline
7 & 1272 & 27.4 & 7.86 & 5.69 \\ \hline
8 & 60.0 & 5.93 & 1.70 & 2.05 \\ \hline
9 & 33.2 & 2.55 & 0.73 & 1.17 \\ \hline
10 & 95.2 & 1.60 & 0.46 & 0.86 \\ \hline
11 & 34.1 & 0.93 & 0.25 & 0.59 \\ \hline
12 & 8.40 & 0.58 & 0.17 & 0.44 \\ \hline
13 & 55.6 & 2.23 & 0.64 & 1.07 \\ \hline
14 & 248 & 6.81 & 2.00 & 2.25 \\ \hline
15 & 14.1 & 1.00 & 0.30 & 0.64 \\ \hline
16 & 5.11 & 0.65 & 0.19 & 0.47 \\ \hline
17 & 18.3 & 1.09 & 0.31 & 0.66 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{mainvalues}
\end{table*}
\section{Contact physics for large grains}
\label{marina}
There are a number of theoretical works on the forces and torques acting when two particles get in contact. \citet{Johnson1971} and \citet{Dominik1997} calculated the strength of a contact or the break-up force necessary to separate two particles again. \citet{Dominik1995} and \citet{Dominik1996} studied different aspects, rolling, sliding and twisting. This is used in \citet{Dominik1997} to calculate the behaviour of particle aggregates. \citet{Wada2007} used a different approach but got similar results as in \citet{Dominik1997}. Experiments by \citet{Heim1999}, \citet{Wurm_Blum1998} and \citet{Poppe2000a} showed that these descriptions are adequate for micrometer silicate particles. The following equations for the different forces and torques are taken from \citet{Dominik1997}. The force at which a contact breaks was used above and is given as equation \ref{critforce}. The radius of the contact area depends on the force $F$ applied and is
\begin{equation}
a = \left(\frac{3R}{4E^*}\left(F+6\pi\gamma R+\sqrt{(6\pi\gamma R)^2+12\pi\gamma RF}\right)\right)^{1/3}
\label{a}
\end{equation}
with the reduced module of elasticity $E^{\star}$ which is $0.5E$ in the case of only one material. The equilibrium radius (no external force) is
\begin{equation}
a_0=\left(\frac{9\pi\gamma R^2}{E^{\star}}\right) ^{1/3}
\label{a0}
\end{equation}
If the applied force $F$ pulls on one of the two monomers, the contact area will decrease as shown in equation \ref{a} until the contact breaks. The decrease in $a$ is shown in Fig \ref{aa0} as a normalized parameter $a / a_0$. The contact area will break once the pulling force is equal to the critical force $F_{\text{c}}$. Substituting $F_{\text{c}}$ for $F$ in equation \ref{a} we obtain $a/a_0 = (1/4)^{1/3} = 0.63$ independently of the reduced radius value $R$. This is the smallest area before the breakup takes place.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{aa0.eps}
\caption{The ratio between contact area $a$ under load and the equilibrium contact area $a_0$ depending on the pulling force. The three curves correspond to different reduced radii $R$ = 0.001, 0.01 and 0.1 $\mu$m.}
\label{aa0}
\end{figure}
The torque at or beyond the threshold for non-elastic rolling is
\begin{equation}
M_r=4F_{\text{c}}\left( \frac{a}{a_0}\right) ^{3/2} \xi_{\text{c}}
\label{Mr}
\end{equation}
with the critical distance $\xi_{\text{c}}$ being on the order of 0.1 nm, but this parameter is not determined by the theoretical model. The torque for non-elastic twisting is
\begin{equation}
M_t=\frac{G^{\star}a^3}{3\pi} + \frac{\pi}{3}F_{\text{c}}a_0\left( \frac{3}{4}\left( \frac{a}{a_0}\right) ^4 - \left( \frac{a}{a_0}\right)^{5/2}\right) - \frac{2}{9}\pi a^3p_{\text{c}}
\label{Mt}
\end{equation}
where $p_{\text{c}}$ is given as
\begin{equation}
p_{\text{c}}=\frac{2.67b^3}{\pi\sigma^3}G^{\star} - \frac{24.72b^4}{\pi\sigma^5}\gamma
\label{pc}
\end{equation}
and $G^{\star}$ is the reduced shear modulus which is $0.5G$ considering the same material (water ice) for contacting particles. Further constants are $b$ as inter-atomic distance in the grain material and $\sqrt[6]{2\sigma}$ as equilibrium distance in the pair-potential model between atoms of the two contacting surfaces.
In total these equations contain a few material parameters $\gamma, b, E, G, \xi_{\text{c}} and \sigma$. The constants $\gamma, E$, and $G$ are macroscopic quantities and constrained to some level. $E$ is $7\times 10^9 \text{N\:m}^{-2}$, and the shear modulus is $G = 2.8\times 10^9 \text{N\:m}^{-2}$ \citep{Anderson1981}. These values might vary for different ice phases and temperatures but we consider them to be given for the moment. The constants $b = 0.336$ nm and $\sigma = 0.336$ nm refer to atomic scales \citep{Dominik1997}.
According to \cite{Dominik1997} equation \ref{Mt} is valid for ice (and e.g. iron). For silicate particles, the second and third terms do not exist. The basic quantity, unknown but relating model and experiment, is the reduced radius of the contacting particles. However, the break-up force is linearly connected to the reduced radius with $\gamma$ being the only material parameter that has to be known. We use this to (at least formally) determine a reduced size from our measurements of the break-up force.
\section{Rotations}
\label{wasserstoff}
\subsection{Rolling}
Some aggregates show an oscillation along a perpendicular direction to the lifting force resembling similarities to an upside down pendulum. The amplitude of these oscillations is small compared to the size of the aggregate (between 1$^{\circ}$ and 10$^{\circ}$), but measurable. The oscillations are not bending throughout the whole aggregate. The aggregate remains rigid and the motion can be traced to a rotation along one point. Therefore, the oscillation is related to the physics of rolling along the contact. An example of an aggregate showing this rotation is shown in Fig. \ref{sequence} and the data for the oscillation are given in Fig. \ref{golem_oscillation}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{golem_oscillation.eps}
\caption{Oscillation (rotation at a contact) of an aggregate. The solid line corresponds to a harmonic function fitted to the data.}
\label{golem_oscillation}
\end{figure}
These oscillations can well be approximated by harmonic functions. A constant harmonic oscillation in angle requires (1) a restoring torque linear with displacement, (2) an exciting torque and (3) a damping torque. The exciting torque results from the substrate or temperatures sensor to which frequencies of about 100 Hz couple from the laboratory environment. For the restoring torques and damping different possibilities exist a priori. This is visualized in Fig. \ref{rollingsketch} as follows.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{rollingsketch.eps}
\caption{Sketch of all rolling torques acting on an aggregate.}
\label{rollingsketch}
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item Restoring torque: elastic bending at the contact, resistance to rolling,
\item Restoring torque: component of the thermophoretic lifting force if
the aggregate is displaced. Motion due to this torque kind of compares to a simple physical pendulum under gravity. Only the direction of the force (upwards instead of downwards) is inverted.
\item Gravitational torque: for an aggregate with resistance free contact, thermophoretic torque and gravitational torque need to cancel out in the equilibrium position, but displaced aggregates can show varying gravitational torques.
\item Damping: resistance within the contact area once displacements are too large for elastic torques.
\item Damping: gas drag or friction with the remaining gas due to the motion of the aggregate oscillating.
\end{itemize}
We can measure the restoring torque using the oscillation. As damping and excitation balance each other on average the restoring torque is determined by
\begin{equation}
M = I \alpha,
\label{torque}
\end{equation}
where $I$ is the moment of inertia and $\alpha$ its angular acceleration. The moment of inertia is given as
\begin{equation}
I = \sum\limits_i = m_i r_i^2,
\label{inertia}
\end{equation}
where the index $i$ corresponds to each pixel of the aggregate image, $r_i$ is the distance between the $i$-th pixel and the point where the aggregate is sustained. The mass per pixel $m_i$ is chosen such that each pixel has the same mass and the total mass adds up to the aggregate mass given above. The mass associated with each pixel is equal to the water ice density ($\sim 0.92$ $\text{g\:cm}^{-3}$ at 200 K) times its area (3.533 $\pm$ 0.011 $\mu$m$^2$) multiplied by the thickness $x$ defined in Section \ref{subsec:mass}. As done before for the determination of the whole aggregate mass, we assume a filling factor of 0.4 with an associated factor of 2 uncertainty per pixel mass.
Torques related to rolling for a number of aggregates measured are listed in Table \ref{rolling} for the maximum elongation. $M_r$(osc) is the torque measured by the oscillations. $M_r$(therm) is based on the thermophoretic part of the break-up forces and assumed to act at the centre of mass (pendulum). The theoretical torques are taken from the model by \citet{Dominik1995} (see below). They are based on the size of the contact at break-up.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{Rolling torques as calculated by the model for the given contact $M_r$ (theor) for $\xi$ = 0.1 nm, as measured by the excited oscillations $M_r$ (osc), as determined from damped oscillations $M_r$ (damp), as estimated by the critical force $F_{\text{c}}$ times the projected distance between the centre of mass and the contact point at maximum elongation and the ratios between different torques.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Aggregate & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$M_r$ (theor) N$\cdot$m} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$M_r$ (osc) N$\cdot$m} & $M_r$ (damp) N$\cdot$m & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$M_r$ (therm) N$\cdot$m} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$\frac{M_r (osc)}{M_r (theor)}$} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$\frac{M_r (damp)}{M_r (theor)}$} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$\frac{M_r (therm)}{M_r (osc)}$}\\ \hline
1 & 1.84E-018 & 1.55E-014 & -& 1.34E-014 & 8420 &-& 0.86 \\ \hline
2 & 1.83E-018 & 1.96E-014 & \multicolumn{1}{r|}{4.31E-015} & 6.46E-014 & 10700 & 2350 & 3.29 \\ \hline
6 & 6.83E-019 & 2.20E-013 & - & - & 322000 & - & - \\ \hline
7 & 5.48E-018 & 3.37E-014 & - & 4.70E-013 & 6150 & - & 13,95\\ \hline
13 & 4.47E-019 & 2.51E-015 & \multicolumn{1}{r|}{5.72E-016} & 4.92E-015 & 5610 & 1280 & 1.96 \\ \hline
14 & 1.36E-018 & 2.09E-015 & - & 6.93E-015 & 1530 & - & 5.09 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{rolling}
\end{table*}
A first hint that the contact is not providing the restoring torque is that the oscillation does not change with time and sublimation does not affect the torques.
Quantitatively, the measured torques are also way larger than the theoretical expectations for the contact torques. However, they are on the same order as the thermophoretic torques. This suggests that the contact contributes little to the restoring torque and thermophoresis (and gravity) dominate the restoring torques. The measurements are therefore an upper limit on the rolling torques which is consistent to the estimate of the much smaller rolling torques at least as deduced from existing models (see below).
Further information on rolling can be deduced from oscillating aggregates where excitation occurs as a one-time event and where the amplitude then decays. We found two examples of such events. They were observed after some rearrangement of the aggregate, i.e. a second contact might have broken which allows rotation around a small contact left. Such an oscillation is seen in Fig. \ref{Oscillations2}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{daempfung.eps}
\caption{Damped oscillation (rotation at a contact) of aggregate 13. The solid line corresponds to an exponentially decaying harmonic function fitted to the data.}
\label{Oscillations2}
\end{figure}
In the damped case without continuous excitation the oscillation can be used to deduce the damping strength. This might either be dominated by gas drag or by the friction of the contact if the elastic limit is exceeded. As a friction force related to the contact is always of the same strength while the gas drag depends on the velocity there are two slightly different equations of motion for the damped oscillation. For the gas drag it is
\begin{equation}
I\frac{\mbox{d}^2\theta}{\mbox{d}t^2}+\beta\frac{\mbox{d}\theta}{\mbox{d}t}+(F_{\text{T}}-F_{\text{G}}) l\theta = 0,
\label{gasdrag}
\end{equation}
where $I$ is the moment of inertia, $\beta$ is the damping constant, $F_{\text{T}}$ the thermophoretic force, $F_{\text{G}}$ the gravity and $l$ the distance from the contact point to the centre of mass. We assume $F_T$ and $F_G$ to act at the same point. Upper direction is chosen as positive. The general solution is
\begin{equation}
\theta (t)= \theta_0 \mbox{e}^{-\beta t/2I} \cos(\omega_0 t+\varphi),
\label{gasdragsol}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_0 \equiv \left[ (F_{\text{T}}-F_{\text{G}})/I - (\beta/2I)^2\right]^{1/2}$ is the angular frequency, $\theta_0$ is the oscillation's amplitude and $\varphi$ the initial phase of the motion.
For the contact friction it is
\begin{equation}
I\frac{\mbox{d}^2\theta}{\mbox{d}t^2} \pm M_r +(F_{\text{T}}-F_{\text{G}}) l\theta = 0.
\label{friction}
\end{equation}
Here, $M_r$ is the contact friction torque which changes its sign each semi-oscillation, depending the direction on which the aggregate moves. The solution can be written stepwise as \citep{Zonetti, Marchewka}
\begin{equation}
\theta (t)=\theta^{\text{max}} \cos(w_0t+\varphi)+C,
\label{frictionsol}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_0 = \left[ (F_{\text{T}}-F_{\text{G}})l/I\right]^{1/2}$, $C = M_r/I \omega_0^2$ and
\begin{equation}
\theta_n^{\text{max}} = \theta_0^{\text{max}} -2nC.
\label{damping}
\end{equation}
For $n=0$, the aggregate is at its starting oscillation point, for $n=1$ it is oscillating in the other direction, etc. This process continues until it finally remains motionless. Using the identity defined in equation \ref{damping}, the equation \ref{frictionsol} may be written as \citep{Marchewka}
\begin{equation}
\theta (t)=(\theta_0-2nC) \cos(w_0t)+(-1)^nC.
\label{frictionsol2}
\end{equation}
In contrast to the case before, the amplitude does not decay exponentially but linear. This fact can be used to distinguish between contact friction and gas drag. A linear decrease is not consistent with the observed oscillation down to small amplitudes, and gas drag should be the dominating damping. This allows us to establish a maximum value for the effective rolling friction at the contact $M_r$, which will be lower than the total $M_r$(damp). Making use of equation \ref{frictionsol} for the data corresponding to aggregate 13 (Fig. \ref{Oscillations2}) and assuming that all the torque takes place at the contact point, we obtain the value for $C = F_rl/I\omega_0^2 = 8.05 \times 10^{-3}$ rad, and therefore the corresponding torque shown in Table \ref{rolling}. This sets an upper limit to the rolling torque due to contact friction as shown in the fourth column of Table \ref{rolling} as $M_r$ (damp). While this is closer to the theoretical value it is still a factor of 1000 larger. We note though that we currently only have two cases of this damped motion. As damping strongly indicates to be dominated by gas drag we did not collect more data here.
\subsection{Twisting}
As noted above, this experiment is the only one where twisting on an nm-size contact can be studied, so far. Rotation around the vertical or around the direction of thermophoretic pull was observed on many aggregates before their break-up. That implies that a torque on the aggregates exists. There are again different cases to be distinguished, either the initial rotational acceleration is resolved from an aggregate at rest or a more or less constant rotation frequency is observed. In the first case, the accelerating torque can be measured directly. In the latter case, damping equals the acceleration and the damping can be deduced if the accelerating torque was measured before.
The value of $M_t$ is determined experimentally again using equation \ref{torque} and \ref{inertia}. This time, the angular acceleration $\alpha$ corresponds to the aggregate rotation around a vertical axis though, and $r_i$ refers to the distance between the $i$-th aggregate pixel and the rotation axis. Since the images of the aggregates are 2D projections, the angular position of a pixel traced can be estimated by $\theta = \arcsin(x'/x)$, where $x$ is the maximum amplitude of the selected pixel on the horizontal axis and $x'$ the horizontal position at a given moment. The pixel's path can be plotted as a function of time as can be seen in Fig \ref{rotation}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{rotation.eps}
\caption{Angle of a selected aggregate pixel around the rotation axis.}
\label{rotation}
\end{figure}
Considering that the position of the selected pixel describes a uniform accelerated rotation until a constant velocity is achieved, a parabolic fit gives the initial angular acceleration, e.g. $\alpha = 6300 \pm 200$ rad/s$^{-2}$ in the case of Fig. \ref{rotation}.
\begin{table*}[htbp]
\caption{Twisting torques, as measured, predicted by the theory at the break-up moment and at the moment when aggregates start to twist.}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Aggregate & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$M_t$(exp) (Nm)} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$M_t$(theory) (N m)} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$M_t^{corr}$(theory) (N m)} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$\frac{M_t\textrm{(exp)}}{M_t \textrm{(theory)}}$} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{$\frac{M_t\textrm{(exp)}}{M_t^{corr}\textrm{(theory)}}$} \\ \hline
2 & 3.97E-015 & 2.25E-17 & 2.80E-16 & 176.4 & 14.2\\ \hline
3 & 2.95E-015 & 6.69E-17 & 8.91E-16 & 44.1 & 3.31\\ \hline
4 & 9.94E-017 & 1.07E-18 & 1.14E-15 & 92.9 & 0.09\\ \hline
5 & 1.75E-016 & 8.61E-19 & 6.49E-16 & 203.2 & 0.27\\ \hline
8 & 1.47E-015 & 9.10E-18 & 4.45E-16 & 161.5 & 3.30\\ \hline
9 & 1.81E-016 & 1.53E-18 & 4.73E-16 & 118.3 & 0.38\\ \hline
10 & 4.20E-016 & 5.66E-19 & 1.13E-15 & 742.0 & 0.37\\ \hline
11 & 4.71E-017 & 1.69E-19 & 6.20E-16 & 278.0 & 0.08\\ \hline
12 & 3.39E-017 & 5.91E-20 & 9.17E-16 & 573.8 & 0.04\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{twisting}
\end{table*}
Fig. \ref{mtvsfc} shows the twisting torque depending on the break-up force. There seems to be a linear trend between twisting torque and break-up force. It has to be noted that twisting starts before break-up and the contact area will be larger at this time due to sublimation. We will consider this in the section below where we compare the results to the model.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{MtVSFc.eps}
\caption{Twisting torque over break-up force. The solid line corresponds to linear dependence fitted to the data.}
\label{mtvsfc}
\end{figure}
Measuring a finite torque once a particle starts a twisting motion implies that the friction is reduced suddenly. This is obviously similar to the macroscopic case where sliding friction is smaller than sticking friction. Otherwise rotation should start very slowly.
\subsection{Gas--grain coupling}
Coagulation via hit and stick events is the dominating growth process during the first steps of planetesimal formation. Relative velocities are generated by differences in gas--grain coupling or friction times. It is therefore important to know how different kinds of aggregates (e.g. fractal cluster--cluster aggregates) couple to the gas. If torques by radiation or gas drag act on an aggregate, it will rotate with a constant velocity eventually. This rotation might be related to alignment, and it might provide a significant part of the collision energy if two aggregates collide. The final rotation frequency is set by gas drag. Experiments are lacking for this. The observed interactions in our experiments are directly related to the interaction between gas and $\mu$m ice grains. A systematic study on cluster-cluster aggregates would provide basic information needed to detail the physics of particle motion and collisions in protoplanetary discs.
Rotation and gas--grain coupling related to this is not easily measured for microscopic particles. \citet{vanEymeren2012} observed rotation frequencies of 1--100 Hz for 10--100 $\mu$m size ice aggregates freely levitated. This is comparable to the rotation frequencies measured here related to twisting. The setup therefore offers one way to study the interaction between gas and aggregates related to rotation. Especially, it allows us to determine coupling times. In Fig. \ref{HzVSIn} we show the rotation frequencies over aggregate moments of inertia.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{HzVSInertia.eps}
\caption{Twisting frequency measured for different aggregates.}
\label{HzVSIn}
\end{figure}
The equilibrium frequency is $\omega = \alpha \tau_{rot}$, and for typical angular accelerations of $10^4 \text{rad\:s}^{-2}$, we get a coupling time of $\tau_{rot} \sim$ 0.04 s at a pressure of $\sim$ 0.5 mbar. To set this in context, we compare this to the linear coupling time for spherical particles of the aggregate masses at the same pressure calculated by \citet{Blum1996a}:
\begin{equation}
\tau_f=\varepsilon\frac{m}{\sigma_{\text{a}}}\frac{1}{\rho_{\text{g}} v_{\text{m}}}
\label{}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon$ is a constant 0.68, $m$ the mass of the aggregate, $\sigma_{\text{a}}$ its cross-section, $\rho_{\text{g}}$ the gas density and $v_{\text{m}}$ the mean thermal velocity of the gas molecules. Introducing the parameters corresponding to our experimental conditions, the linear coupling time is of the order of $\tau_f \sim 0.10$ s. This is consistently of the same order and the quick estimate shows the ability of the setup to quantify these properties. Details are a separate topic and beyond this paper.
\section{Discussion}
\label{hundeleine}
How do the experimental results especially on twisting compare to existing models for macroscopic particles? The first thing to note is that a contact around which a continuous twisting rotation is induced is still holding if a pulling force is applied. Macroscopically, if a contact breaks to allow sliding or twisting such a particle would instantly lift off under a pulling force. This is not the case for the ice aggregates. This indicates that friction is indeed provided by stepwise motion of atoms from one potential well into the next one, and during twisting a contact only loses part of its sticking ability. This is the idea of the two extra terms for ice and iron in equation \ref{Mt} provided by \citet{Dominik1997}. The observation of a freely rotating contact might also occur if the particle was a fluid. \citet{johnston2012} show that water ice particles at 200 K behave like fluids if they are smaller than $\sim$1.4 nm. This is of the order of the size of some of the particles if we assume the highest value for $\gamma$ but is much smaller for the lowest $\gamma$. Also, rotation should not set in with a sudden jump in the case of a fluid connection unless the transition is exactly reached during sublimation. However, especially for the small particles, sublimation is significant and implies that twisting sets in at much larger sizes where particles would not be fluid. In any case, the largest particles studied are way larger and we assume that we can regard them as solid here.
With the given technique, we cannot resolve the contacting particles nor the contact area. Therefore, we use equation \ref{critforce} to deduce a reduced radius assuming a certain value of $\gamma$. This assumes that this equation still holds and should give a size estimate of the order of magnitude but otherwise is a formal parameter here.
We then use equation \ref{a0} to estimate the equilibrium contact area $a_0$. The contact area under load $a$ may be substituted in all cases by $(a/a_0)a_0$. The ratio $a/a_0$ might vary between 0.63 and 1 (see Fig \ref{aa0}). However, we take $a/a_0$ = 0.63 in all cases here due to the proximity of the applied force to the critical force for break-up.
\subsection{Rolling}
An experimental torque for rolling motion was measured from the oscillations, but it proved to be of the same order as expected for a pendulum driven by thermophoresis of a displaced aggregate. This implies that the rolling torque due to the contact is much smaller. Assuming the validity of the theory on the small scale it can be estimated from equation \ref{Mr}. Values are plotted in table \ref{rolling} for a contact area at the time of break-up. They are a factor of $\sim 1500$ to $\sim 3\times 10^5$ smaller than the observed torque. If sublimation is considered, the contact area should be larger at earlier times and the torque due to the contact as well. This should decrease the amplitude of the oscillation at earlier times. However, no change is observed. Values for the rolling torque deduced from the damped case are consistent with gas drag, and while an order of magnitude smaller than the thermal gradient torques they are still two orders of magnitude larger than the modelled values.
All this indicates that the contact has an insignificant part in the measured rolling motions. The measurements therefore (only) provide an upper limit to the contact rolling torques. We estimate that we should be capable of seeing effects if the contact torques were on the 10 per cent level of the measured torque. This implies that the best guess for an upper limit for real torques as given in Table \ref{rolling} is a factor of 100 larger than the given model values, meaning that on the nanoscale the model is still consistent, but deviations cannot be excluded from the experiments.
\subsection{Twisting}
Using equation \ref{Mt} a theoretical value for twisting can be deduced. We use $\gamma=0.1 \rm J\:m^2$ and the values provided by \citet{Dominik1997} $b=3.36$ \AA, $E=7\times 10^9 \text{N\:m}^2$, $G=2.8\times 10^9 \text{N\:m}^2$ and $\sigma=3.36$ \AA. The experimental and theoretical results of $M_t$ for different aggregates are shown in Table \ref{twisting} and the ratios are shown in Fig. \ref{Twistingratio}. The figures contain two data sets, one where the measured twisting torque is directly compared to the modelled one. The other (black circles) is corrected using equation \ref{Twistingratio}, considering that the sublimation changes the reduced radius in the time between onset of twisting and break-up.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.47\textwidth]{MtRatio01.eps}
\caption{Comparison of experimental twisting torque and theoretical twisting torque. $\gamma=0.10 \text{J\:m}^2$. Red squares: uncorrected ratios; Black circles: twisting corrected ratios for sublimation to the time twisting sets in.}
\label{Twistingratio}
\end{figure}
Especially for the small break-up forces which go with small reduced radii, this has a large influence on the result. We note that this correction assumes that the reduced radius and contact areas change according to the simple sublimation model and that the dependence of the twisting torque on the contact area given by the model is correct. If so, this would suggest that the modelled torque overestimates smaller particles in contact and underestimates torques for the larger ones. A less extreme correction might reduce the ratio between measured torque and modelled torque somewhat less, but this is mere speculation so far. In that case, especially in view of the ratio at larger break-up forces which are less sensitive to corrections, the measured twisting torque would be about a factor of 10 larger than the modelled one.
Not considered yet is that the twisting torque is usually considered to increase linearly with the angle in the elastic regime and stays constant once the inelastic regime is reached. In that case twisting motion would set in smoothly. However, the twisting motion has a clear starting point and a finite initial acceleration. We note though that we only measure the decrease between maximum elastic torque and reduced torque while twisting. One might argue that we keep the terms related to the water which still lead to a bound system while twisting and the decrease in torque would be about half of the maximum torque at transition. This 'only' changes the ratio between experiment and model by a factor of 2 though, which is currently well within the uncertainty range.
We considered only a model with spherical contacts. This might not necessarily be the case in reality. Rather unshaped contact areas are a possibility as well \citep{Mo2010}. Twisting might change the shape and size of the area which would imply a possible jump in the twisting torque. This would fit to the observation that the rotation velocity can vary periodically (see Fig. \ref{rotation}). In some cases, the rotation almost comes to rest again in certain positions though this can also be explained by the influence of gravity on an asymmetric aggregate. However, an extreme of this idea of non-spherical contacts would be a scenario in which two separated contacts would exist some distance apart. These can provide a much larger torque. If one of these contacts then breaks or vanishes e.g. due to sublimation, the other contact would be too weak to oppose the thermal gradient torque and would start to be twisted instantly with a finite acceleration. We cannot rule this out completely for all cases, but as the second contact also prevents rolling in a certain direction a particle should relax visibly by realignment upon break-up of this second contact towards the thermophoretic force. Such events occur but are not analysed here.
Another idea that cannot be ruled out a priori is that a contact initially is not just based on surface forces but rather sintered together. This might initially provide a larger torque and would explain a jump to a finite acceleration once the contact breaks. However, we observe aggregates to start twisting which readjusted around this contact before by rolling, aligning themselves to the thermophoretic pull. Therefore, such contacts would no longer be sintered.
If one of this possibilities were true, we would again measure an upper limit. This would not explain though why we see twisting aggregates which change their orbital velocity periodically in a steady way as seen in Fig. \ref{rotation}. This cannot be explained if a second contact vanished before or a sintered contact breaks, and this rather suggests that we really measure a twisting torque related to the contact.
We currently do not have any other theory at hand to compare our experimental data to. We also cannot resolve the size of the contact area directly. We therefore have to imply the size from an equation without knowing if it applies. However, if we use this model, it still provides an analytic expression how to calculate the forces and torques in kind of a self-consistent way if we consider a potential correction factor deduced from experiments. Certainly, a theory e.g. molecular dynamics describing the contact forces at this small scale including torques would be desirable but is not yet available even though current work is pointing in this direction \citep{Tanaka2012}.
\section{Summary and conclusions}
\label{wassersack}
The motivation behind this work is the need to understand contacts between grains in astrophysical environments. Much work on this has already been carried out as outlined in the introduction. In collisions with energy low enough, individual grains in an aggregation process stay intact. The contacts between them especially if the forces are only surface forces (surface tension, van der Waals forces and dipole interactions) are the weak connections. There are four processes related to changes in the contact: complete break-up, sliding, rolling and twisting. The importance of each process varies for different overall aggregate structures and porosities. Measurements for large ($\mu$m-size and larger) silicate (dust) particles exist with respect to break-up and rolling, and the equations given above are valid and can be applied.
What is lacking is the knowledge on sliding and twisting and an extrapolation to the nm-scale as e.g. interstellar grains are often supposed to be built from nm-monomers \citep{Mathis1986,Dwek2004}. Also lacking is the knowledge on the contact physics of ice. While sliding, rolling and break-up can well be studied by AFM on silicates, this technique has not yet provided data on twisting on the small size scale. What we accomplished in general by our new setup can be listed as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item First of all we developed a new method to determine small forces between
nm-size particles and especially one which allows twisting to be observed.
\item This technique can be used to study thermophoretic forces on aggregates.
\item This method can also be used to study rotational gas--grain coupling.
\item Most of all the method can relate break-up forces to rolling and twisting torques.
\item The experiments so far provide upper limits on the torques which nm-ice contacts
can provide to oppose rolling. These upper limits are a factor of 100--1000 larger than the existing contact model given by \citet{Dominik1997} scaled down to nm-size. As these are upper limits, the torques are still consistent with the model, but we cannot exclude the torques to be a factor 100 to 1000 larger.
\item We find torques opposing twisting which are up to a factor of 10 larger than the model would predict. In our view of the data these are not upper limits and a correction factor of 10 might be appropriate for nm-ice-particles if the model -- in lack of any other model -- is to be kept.
\item Qualitatively, it might also be worth noting that ice particles can
rotate around their contact 'freely' even if the contacting particles are pulled apart.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Astrophysical application}
Twisting, sliding, rolling and breaking are of fundamental importance to understand aggregation in astrophysical settings. This ranges from interstellar aggregates to aggregates in protoplanetary discs. The fact that ice aggregates are more robust against twisting implies that they are less likely to be restructured. If the evolution of large particles currently discussed for coreshine e.g. by \citet{Steinacker2010} and \citet{Pagani2010} is modelled this might be a fact to consider. \citet{Seizinger2012} modelled aggregate compression and in order to explain experimental results on compression they had to stiffen the contacts, i.e. adding a factor to the sliding force.
As sliding and twisting are based on the same mechanisms the higher values measured in our experiments might support this ad hoc modification by \citet{Seizinger2012}. In general, ice and dust aggregates of small grains growing their way to planetesimals would have a higher porosity at a given size. With such changes, transitions in planetesimal formation would shift or change. From our very basic results, we can only speculate so far, but the transitions between sticking and bouncing or fragmentation might shift to larger sizes if smaller particles and/or ice are considered \citep[Kelling et al., submitted]{Teiser2009, Windmark2012a, Kelling2013}. This might allow particles to reach a size where they get susceptible to concentration in turbulent discs and subsequent gravitational collapse \citep{Chiang2010}. In this sense, the results can shift the picture of planetesimal formation quite a bit.
Thermal creep provides a means to produce a gas flow around and through a particle. If sublimation takes place in a dry environment, a large aggregate might be eroded from the outside as well as the inside by the gas flow. Therefore, a similar setup might also be used to observe how large highly porous ice aggregates might evolve in a gas flow, but this is a topic apart from contact physics.
\subsection{Future experiments}
So far we used ice particles but similar experiments should allow us to quantify contact forces between metallic nm-particles. However, as the ice experiments make use of sublimation in the present version, the thermophoretic force would need to be varied. This can be done by changing ambient pressure and temperature gradient. The effect of such variations have not been exploited systematically yet and are also a possible road to decrease the gas damping in oscillations. As temperature is important, a faster control is most desirable e.g. to prevent a rotating dust aggregate from further sublimation and break-up for long-term studies. Also sublimation itself for different parameter ranges has to be studied in more detail. This is currently one of the largest uncertainties for correcting between times of break-up and times of twisting
One idea to better discern contact dynamics from external forcing is resonant excitation, which is currently being tested. Oscillating the substrate with variable frequency should allow us to determine the rolling force of a contact even in view of larger thermophoretic torques. In general, analysis of the mass and motion of the ice aggregates can be improved by generating ice aggregates which are better defined (e.g. fractal aggregates) and observing them with better time and spatial (and 3D) resolution. A still somewhat speculative perspective is the construction of well-defined microprobes which can be attached to the ice particles under consideration and be subjected to external electrical or magnetic forces and torques.
If force balances can be adjusted accurate enough, this might also allow the study of dust particles in the future.
However, in the near future we aim at quantifying the contact dynamics of water ice particles to higher accuracy including twisting and break-up but also rolling which is currently only known in large bounds.
\section{Acknowledgements}
G A is funded within the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/ 2007-2013 under grant agreement No. 238258). We thank the anonymous referee for the review of our manuscript.
\bibliographystyle{mn2e}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{introduction}
The exclusive production of mesons, pairs of quark and antiquark,
pairs of leptons or other Standard Model particles in ultraperipheral heavy ion collisions
(UPC) has been attracting much attention
\cite{rewiev_articles, rewiev_articles_ours}.
A measurement of such reactions at the high energies of present day colliders
(RHIC, LHC) often requires special triggers. Large charges of colliding ions
lead to the production of huge fluxes of associated photons. These
photons when scattered on the collision partner lead to its excitation.
As will be discussed in the present paper low-energy excitations
($E^* <$ 50~MeV) play especially important role.
The low-energy excited nuclear heavy systems,
close to giant resonance region,
decay predominantly via emission of neutrons. Because the energy
of the neutrons in the nucleus rest frame is rather small
($\sim$ 10 - 20 MeV), in UPCs the neutrons are emitted in very small cones
around beam directions. Such neutrons can be registered by the so-called
zero-degree calorimeters (ZDC's) which are associated with many
high-energy detectors, such as e.g. STAR at RHIC \cite{ZDC_STAR} and
ALICE at LHC \cite{ZDC_ALICE}.
In the present paper we wish to present our approach which
includes description of photoexcitation of nuclei and decay of excited
nuclei in the framework of Hauser-Feshbach theory. Results of our
calculations for $\gamma$ Pb $\to$ Pb$^*$ k n are confronted with
existing experimental data. Then topological cross sections
with a given number of neutrons in ion-ion collisions are calculated and
compared to RHIC and LHC data. We discuss the role of single and double-photon
excitations. We present simple parametrizations of the relevant impact parameter
profiles which can be conveniently used for a multitude of central final states
produced in diffractive or $\gamma \gamma$ subprocesses, such as
vector mesons, leptons, pions, etc.
\section{Formalism}
\label{sec:formalism}
\subsection{Electromagnetic excitation in UPC}
\label{subsec:em_exc}
In this subsection we collect the classical probability calculus methods needed
\cite{Llope:1990vp,Pshenichnov:2011zz,Baur:2003ar} to describe
the electromagnetic excitation of ions in UPCs due to multiple photon exchanges.
From the usual Weizs\"acker-Williams flux of photons
$N_A(E,{\bf b})$ and the total photoabsorption cross section
$\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(\gamma A; E)$ discussed in section \ref{subsec:photon_exc},
we introduce the mean number
of photons absorbed by a nucleus $A_2$ in the collision with nucleus $A_1$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar n_{A_2} ({\bf b}) \equiv \int_{E_{\mathrm{min}}}^\infty dE \,
N_{A_1}(E,{\bf b}) \sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(\gamma A_2; E) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Here the upper limit in the integral is only formal: the photon flux (see any of the reviews \cite{rewiev_articles})
\begin{eqnarray}
N_A(E,{\bf b}) = {1 \over E} \, { Z^2 \alpha_{\mathrm{em}} \over \pi^2} \, {1 \over {\bf b}^2} \, \xi^2 K^2_1(\xi), \, \, \xi = {Eb \over \gamma_\mathrm{lab}} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
implicitly contains a cut off in energy.
Above $E$ is the photon energy in the rest frame of nucleus $A_2$, $Z$ is the nuclear charge and
$K_1$ is a modified Bessel function. The boost to the rest frame of nucleus $A_2$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{\mathrm{lab}} = 2 \gamma^2_{\mathrm{cm}} -1 \, , \, \gamma_{\mathrm{cm}} = {\sqrt{s_{NN}} \over 2 m_N} \, .
\end{equation}
The lower limit
of integration $E_{\mathrm{min}}$ is the threshold for photoexcitation.
As in practice $\bar n_A({\bf b}) \ll 1$, for statistically independent
absorption, we can state the probability of absorption of $n$ photons
at impact parameter ${\bf b}$ in the Poissonian form
\begin{eqnarray}
w_n({\bf b}) = {\Big(\bar n_A({\bf b}) \Big)^n \over n !} \, \exp[-\bar n_A({\bf b})] \, .
\end{eqnarray}
We define the probability density for a single photon to excite nucleus $A_2$
in a collision at impact parameter ${\bf b}$ of the $A_1-A_2$ collision as
\begin{eqnarray}
p^{(1)}_{A_2}(E,{\bf b}) = {N_{A_1}(E,{\bf b}) \sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(\gamma A_2; E) \over \bar n_{A_2} ({\bf b})} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
which is fulfilled, at each ${\bf b}$
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{E_{\mathrm{min}}}^\infty dE \, p^{(1)}_{A_2}(E,{\bf b}) = 1 \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Still under the assumption of statistical independence, $n$ photons
will excite the nucleus with the probability density
\begin{eqnarray}
p^{(n)}_{A_2}(E,{\bf b}) = \int dE_1 dE_2 \dots dE_n \, \delta(E-\sum_{j=1}^n E_j) \, p^{(1)}_{A_2}(E_1,{\bf b}) p^{(1)}_{A_2}(E_2,{\bf b}) \dots p^{(1)}_{A_2}(E_n,{\bf b}) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
All the $n$-photon probability densities are properly normalized:
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{E_{\mathrm{min}}}^\infty dE \, p^{(n)}_{A_2}(E,{\bf b}) = 1 \; .
\end{eqnarray}
Below we will explicitly calculate processes up to $n=2$ photon exchanges, see diagrams
in Figs. \ref{fig:single_exc},\ref{fig:double_exc}.
Then, the probability for excitation of nucleus $A_2$ in the $n$-photon process is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
w_n({\bf b}) p^{(n)}_{A_2}(E,{\bf b}) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
We should sum over all numbers of photons
\begin{eqnarray}
{d P^{\mathrm{exc}}_{A_2} ({\bf b}) \over dE} = \sum_n w_n({\bf b}) p^{(n)}_{A_2}(E,{\bf b}) \approx \exp[-\bar n_{A_2}({\bf b})]
N_{A_1}(E,{\bf b}) \sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(\gamma A_2; E)
\, ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we indicated that we expect the single-photon absorption to
dominate. Notice that this may in practice depend on impact parameter.
The total probability for the nucleus to be excited is then
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{\mathrm{exc}}_{A_2}({\bf b}) = \int dE {d P^{\mathrm{exc}}_{A_2} ({\bf b}) \over dE} = 1- \exp[-\bar n_{A_2}({\bf b})] \approx \bar n_{A_2}({\bf b})
\exp[-\bar n_{A_2}({\bf b})] \, .
\end{eqnarray}
The excitation cross section is then
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(A_1 A_2 \to A_1 A_2^*) = \int d^2{\bf b} \, P_{\mathrm{surv}}({\bf b}) P^{\mathrm{exc}}_{A_2}({\bf b}) = \int d^2{\bf b} P_{\mathrm{surv}}({\bf b}) \Big( 1- \exp[-\bar n_{A_2}({\bf b})] \Big) \; .
\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
Sometimes we are interested in the excitation cross section containing
only excitations up to
$E_{\mathrm{max}} \mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$} 100 \, {\mathrm{MeV}}$, then we can
calculate the cross section from
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(A_1 A_2 \to A_1 A_2^*;E_{\mathrm{max}}) \approx
\int d^2{\bf b} P_{\mathrm{surv}}({\bf b}) \exp[-\bar n_{A_2}({\bf b})] \nonumber \\
&&\times \int_{E_{\mathrm{min}}}^{E_{\mathrm{max}}} dE \, N_{A_1}(E,{\bf b}) \sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(\gamma A_2; E) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
Here
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{\mathrm{surv}}({\bf b}) \sim \theta(|{\bf b}|-(R_{A_1}+R_{A_2})) \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
is the probability for the nuclei to survive the collision without
additional strong interactions. As is apparent
\begin{eqnarray}
w_0({\bf b}) = \exp[-\bar n_{A_2}({\bf b})] \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
is the contribution to the survival probability from the electromagnetic
dissociation channels. The cross section for mutual electromagnetic
dissociation is simply obtained from
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\sigma_{\mathrm{tot}}(A_1 A_2 \to A_1^* A_2^*) = \int d^2{\bf b} \, P_{\mathrm{surv}}({\bf b}) P^{\mathrm{exc}}_{A_2}({\bf b}) P^{\mathrm{exc}}_{A_1}({\bf b}) \, .
\label{eq:em_diss}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{single_exc.eps}
\caption{
\small Single excitation in UPCs.}
\label{fig:single_exc}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig:double_exc} we show the situation when
two photons emitted by one of the colliding nuclei hit the
second nucleus.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{double_exc.eps}
\caption{
\small Double excitation in UPCs.}
\label{fig:double_exc}
\end{figure}
Finally in Fig. \ref{fig:mutual_exc} we show as an example the case when
each of the nuclei emit a photon which excites then the collision partner. We shall call this case mutual excitations.
The diagram shows a minimal mechanism needed to excite both nuclei simultaneously. Higher-order diagrams are possible too.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{mutual_exc.eps}
\caption{
\small Minimal mechanism for mutual excitation in UPCs.}
\label{fig:mutual_exc}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dissociation into specific final states}
\label{subsec:dissociation}
In the present paper we are interested mainly in final states that contain a few neutrons, and want to study excitation cross sections as a
function of neutron multiplicity (a type of ``topological cross sections''). Here the crucial input are
the fractions $f(E,k)$ of a final state with $k$ neutrons coming from the decay of an excited nucleus at excitation energy $E$.
With their help, we can calculate the impact parameter profiles for processes with $k$ evaporated neutrons as:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& {d P^{\mathrm{exc}}_{A_2} ({\bf b},k) \over dE} = f(E,k) \cdot \sum_n w_n({\bf b}) p^{(n)}_{A_2}(E,{\bf b}) \approx f(E,k) \, p^{(1)}_{A_2}(E,{\bf b})
\bar n_{A_2}({\bf b})\exp[-\bar n_{A_2}({\bf b})], \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
and, correspondingly:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& P^{\mathrm{exc}}_{A_2}({\bf b},k) = \int_{E_{\mathrm{min}}}^{E_{\mathrm{max}}} dE {d P^{\mathrm{exc}}_{A_2} ({\bf b}) \over dE} \, .
\end{eqnarray}
In Fig. \ref{fig:P_b} we plot these distributions as a function of impact parameter for $k=1,2,3$ at $\gamma_{\mathrm{cm}} = 1470$.
The cross section for $k$-neutron excitation is then
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma(A_1 A_2 \to A_1 (k{\mathrm{N}},X)) = \int d^2{\bf b} \, P_{\mathrm{surv}}({\bf b}) \, P^{\mathrm{exc}}_{A_2}({\bf b},k) \, .
\label{eq:single}
\end{eqnarray}
Of course we are confined to low-neutron multiplicities, as final states
of large number of neutron ($k$) can be produced by processes in the energy region
$E > E_{\mathrm{max}}$ which we do not model so far.
Analogously, the mutual excitation cross sections with $m$ and $k$
neutrons in the debris of nucleus $A_1,A_2$, respectively, is
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma(A_1 A_2 \to (m{\mathrm{N}},X) (k{\mathrm{N}},Y)) = \int d^2{\bf b} \, P_{\mathrm{surv}}({\bf b}) \, P^{\mathrm{exc}}_{A_1}({\bf b},m) \, P^{\mathrm{exc}}_{A_2}({\bf b},k) \, .
\label{eq:mutual}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{P_b.eps}
\caption{
\small Impact parameter profile for processes with evaporation of $k$ neutrons for $k=1,2,3$.}
\label{fig:P_b}
\end{figure}
\section{Photon-induced excitation of nuclei and neutron evaporation}
\label{subsec:photon_exc}
To evaluate the photoabsorption probabilities, we need a parametrization
of the total phtotabsorption cross section over a broad range of
energies. Here we are not interested in a microscopic
modelling of the different mechanisms play an important role at different
energies, but rather in a fit of empirical data.
At the lowest energies of relevance, photoabsorption
is dominated by giant resonances.
The energy dependence of the cross section
for the giant dipole resonance (GDR) component ($\sigma_{\mathrm{GDR}}$)
is parametrized following Ref.~\cite{Speth,Plujko}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\mathrm{GDR}} = \frac{2}{\pi} \sigma_{TRK} \frac{E^2 \Gamma_r}{\left( E^2-E_r^2 \right)^2+\left( E \Gamma_r \right)^2} S_r \; .
\end{eqnarray}
The parameters
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{TRK} = 60 \frac{NZ}{A} \mbox{ mb MeV},
E_r = 13.373 \mbox{ MeV},
\Gamma_r = 3.938 \mbox{ MeV},
S_r = 1.33716.
\end{eqnarray}
are taken from Ref.~\cite{GDRparameters}.
At somewhat larger energies a so-called quasi-deuteron contribution plays
important role and following \cite{Chadwick} is parametrized as
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\mathrm{QD}} = 6.5 \frac{NZ}{A} \sigma_d f(E) \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\sigma_d = 61.2 \frac{\left( E-2.224 \right)^{3/2}}{E^3} \mbox{ mb} \; ,
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
f(E<20 MeV ) &=& \exp \left( -73.3/E \right), \nonumber \\
f(20<E<140 MeV) &=& 8.3714 \times 10^{-2} \nonumber \\
&-& 9.8343 \times 10^{-3}E + 4.1222 \times 10^{-4} E^2 \nonumber \\
&-& 3.4762 \times 10^{-6} E^3 + 9.3537 \times 10^{-9} E^4\; , \nonumber \\
f(E>140 MeV) &=& \exp \left( -24.2/E \right) \; .
\end{eqnarray}
Above a photon energy $E_{\gamma} >$ 100 MeV the nucleon resonances are taken into account. The $\Delta$ resonance being the dominant feature of the
excitation spectrum.
We parametrize this region of the photoabsorption cross section with the help of
a Gaussian function
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{Gauss} = \frac{C_G}{\sigma_G \sqrt{2\pi}}
\exp\left( \frac{-\left( E-\mu_G \right)^2}{2\sigma_G^2} \right) \; ,
\end{equation}
where $C_G = 23 \, \mathrm{barn \, MeV}$, $\sigma_G$ = 110 MeV, $\mu_G$ = 350~MeV.
Above $E_{\gamma} >$ 0.5 GeV the resonant contributions disappear
and the continuum related to break-up of nucleons starts to be important.
The corresponding total cross section (forward amplitude of photon elastic
scattering) is usually parametrized by exchange of pomeron at very large
energies and subleading reggeons at intermediate energies.
In our simple parametrization the pomeron exchange contribution
is parametrized as a constant and slightly phenomenological
function is used to represent the reggeon exchange contribution.
For the highest energy part ($E_{\gamma} >$ 8 GeV) we use a simple form
given in \cite{Vidovic} (below $\omega_0 = 80 \, \mathrm{GeV}$)
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{\gamma A} = \Big( 15.2+0.06 \ln ^2 \left( \frac{E}{\omega_0} \right) \Big) \, \mathrm{mb},
\end{eqnarray}
This multicomponent parametrization is compared to the
experimental data for photoabsorption on lead \cite{photoabsorption_data}
in Fig. \ref{fig:photoabsorption}.
The quality of the description of the data is fully sufficient for
our purpose.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{sig_gamPb_data.eps}
\caption{
\small Photoabsorption cross section for the $\gamma^{208}$Pb $\to$ $^{208}$Pb reaction}
\label{fig:photoabsorption}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Decays of excited nuclear systems}
\label{subsec:decays}
The calculation of probability of evaporated neutron multiplicity as a
function of $^{208}$Pb excitation energy was performed with
the help of a Monte Carlo code GEMINI++~\cite{gemini}.
In this code the evaporation process is described by Hauser-Feshbach
formalism~\cite{refhaus}, in
which the decay width for evaporation of a particle $i$ from
the compound nucleus with excitation energy $E^*$ and spin $S_{CN}$ is:
\begin{align}
\Gamma_i = \frac{1}{2\pi \rho (E^*, S_{CN})} \int d \epsilon \sum_{S_d=0}^{\infty}
\sum_{J=|S_{CN}-S_d|}^{S_{CN} -S_d} \sum_{\ell=|J-S_i|}^{J+S_i}
T_\ell (\epsilon) \rho(E^*-B_i - \epsilon, S_d),
\end{align}
where $S_d$ is the spin of the daughter nucleus, $S_i$, $J$ and $\ell$
are spin, total and angular momentum of the evaporated particle,
$\epsilon$, $B_i$ are kinetic and separation energies, $T_\ell$ is its
transmission coefficient, $\rho$ and $\rho_{CN}$ are level densities of
the daughter and compound nucleus, which can be calculated from the formula:
\begin{align}
\rho(E^*,S) \propto (2S +1) \exp\left(2\sqrt{a(U,S)U}\right),
\end{align}
where $U = E^* - E_{rot}(S) - \delta P$ is thermal excitation energy calculated by taking into account pairing corrections to the empirical mass formula ($\delta P$) and rotational energy $E_{rot}(S)$.
In calculations the separation energies $B_{i}$, nuclear masses, shell and pairing corrections were used according to Ref.~\cite{moller}.
Level density parameter $a(U,S)$ was calculated as:
\begin{align}
a(U,S) = \tilde{a}(U) \left ( 1 - h(U/\eta +S/S_\eta) \frac{\delta W}{U} \right),
\end{align}
where $\delta W $ is the shell correction to the liquid-drop mass and $\tilde{a}$ is smoothed level-density parameter,
the function specifying the rate of fadeout is $h(x) = \tanh{x}$, the fadeout parameter $\eta $
was equal 18.52~MeV and the parameter $S_\eta$ was set to 50~$\hbar$.
The smoothed level density parametrization depends on the nuclei excitation energy as:
\begin{align}
\tilde{a}(U) =\frac{A}{k_{\infty} - (k_\infty -k_0)\exp\left(-\frac{\kappa}{k_\infty - k_0}\frac{U}{A} \right)},
\end{align}
where $k_0 = 7.3$, $k_{\infty}=12$ and $\kappa = 0.00517\exp(0.0345 A)$~\cite{gemini}.
We assume that excited nucleus is
formed with angular momentum equal to 0 (which we believe is a good approximation for photoproduction) and full energy is used for excitation.
The calculation is done with energy step of 1~MeV.
For each excitation energy $10^6$ events (decays) were generated.
Finally neutron emissions probabilities were obtained from the MC
sample for each excitation energy (see histogram in Fig.~\ref{fig:P_k}).
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{P_E_PLUS_fit_log.eps}
\caption{
\small Probability of neutron multiplicity as a function of excitation energy~($E^*$) of $^{208}$Pb nuclei.}
\label{fig:P_k}
\end{figure}
The fractions of events with a $k$-neutron final state at excitation energy $E^*$ can
be well fitted by a sum of the following purely empirical functions:
\begin{equation}
f(E^*,k) = f^{exp} (E^*,k) + f^{Gauss} (E^*,k) \; .
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
f^{exp} (E^*,k) = C_e \left( E^*-\mu_e \right)^2 \exp \left( \frac{-\left( E^*-\mu_e \right)}{\sigma_e} \right) \; ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
f^{Gauss} (E^*,k) = \frac{C_G}{\sigma_G \sqrt{2\pi}} \exp\left( \frac{-\left( E^*-\mu_G \right)^2}{2\sigma_G^2} \right) \; .
\end{equation}
The parameters of the phenomenological functions found in the fit are collected in Table \ref{tab:parameters_neutrons}
and can be used in any calculations.
To ensure that probabilities always add up to unity, in practice we impose
\begin{eqnarray}
f(E^*,2) &&= 1 - f(E^*,1) \, \, \mathrm{for} \, E^* < 22 \, \mathrm{MeV},
\nonumber \\
f(E^*,3) &&= 1 - f(E^*,1) - f(E^*,2) \, \, \mathrm{for} \, E^* < 30 \, \mathrm{MeV} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
and similarly for higher $k$.
\begin{table}
\caption{Parameters of fit functions for probability of neutron multiplicity $P_k(E^*)$.}
\label{tab:parameters_neutrons}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c||c|c|c|}
\hline
Number of neutrons & $C_e$ & $\mu_e$ & $\sigma_e$ & $C_G$ & $\mu_G$ & $\sigma_G$ \\ \hline \hline
0 & 0 & - & - & 0.02 & 9 & 3.5 \\ \hline
1 & 0 & - & - & 9.9 & 12 & 3.5 \\ \hline
2 & 0.08 & 21.6 & 1.7 & 10.3 & 21.5 & 4.2 \\ \hline
3 & 0.0015 & 38 & 1.2 & 9.4 & 31.5 & 4.2 \\
& 0.0005 & 40 & 2.6 & & & \\ \hline
4 & 0.0012 & 45 & 2.3 & 11 & 41 & 4.8 \\
& 0.000008 & 62 & 8 & & & \\ \hline
5 & 0.03 & 53 & 2.6 & 8.7 & 51 & 4.3 \\
& 0.00015 & 72 & 4.9 & & & \\ \hline
6 & 0.023 & 62.2 & 2.8 & 11.5 & 61.8 & 5.5 \\
& 0.003 & 68 & 4.35 & & & \\ \hline
7 & 0.015 & 76 & 4 & 9.5 & 73.5 & 5.3 \\ \hline
8 & 0 & - & - & 8.8 & 84 & 5.3 \\ \hline
9 & 0 & - & - & 10.5 & 99 & 7.2 \\ \hline
10 & 0 & - & - & 10.1 & 110 & 6.5 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Excitation functions for the $\gamma$ Pb $\to$ Pb$^*$ $\to$ k n reaction}
\label{subsec:exc_functions}
Using photoabsorption cross section shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:photoabsorption}
and probability to emit a fixed number of neutrons (k)
obtained as described in section \ref{subsec:photon_exc} we can calculate
photon-induced excitation function with a given number of associated
neutrons. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1n}, \ref{fig:2n}, \ref{fig:3n}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{sig_G1n_Pb.eps}
\caption{
\small Excitation energy for the $\gamma^{208}$Pb $\to$ n$^{207}$Pb
reaction. Experimental data are from Refs.
~\cite{1n:1972, 1n:1978, 1n:1985_1, 1n:1985_2, 1n:1991, 1n:1993, Livermore_1964, Saclay_1970}.
}
\label{fig:1n}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{sig_G2n_Pb.eps}
\caption{
\small Excitation energy for the $\gamma^{208}$Pb $\to$ 2n$^{206}$Pb
reaction. Experimental data are from Refs.
~\cite{2n:2003, Livermore_1964, Saclay_1970}.
}
\label{fig:2n}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{sig_G3n_Pb.eps}
\caption{
\small Excitation function for the $\gamma^{208}$Pb $\to$ 3n$^{205}$Pb
reaction. Experimental data are from Ref.~\cite{Saclay_1970}.
}
\label{fig:3n}
\end{figure}
Quite a good agreement with the world data is obtained.
This is quite surprising given that our calculation implicitly assumes
equilibration of the nuclear system (Hauser-Feshbach formalism)
formed after absorption of the photon. If we assumed that part of
the energy of the photon would escape before equilibration of
the nuclear system (due to pre-equilibrium processes) the agreement with
the data would be much worse. Having proven usefulness of our approach
we can proceed to the excitation of nuclei in UPCs and
related production of neutrons from the excited nuclear systems.
In the following we shall present the results of the formalism discussed above.
\section{Results for electromagnetic excitations in UPCs}
\label{sec:EM_exc_UPC}
Now we shall present our results for electromagnetic excitation of
nuclei in UPCs.
In Table \ref{table:single_excitation} we have collected
cross section in barns for single-nucleus single-photon excitation
for different ranges of excitation energy
and different collision energies represented by different
$\gamma_{\mathrm{cm}}$ adequate for RHIC and LHC. In both cases the calculation was done for lead nuclei.
Our results are compared with an earlier calculation by Vidovi\'c et al. \cite{Vidovic}.
Very good agreement can be observed.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Cross section in barns for single-nucleus, single-photon
excitation for different ranges of excitation energy
for $^{208}$Pb + $^{208}$Pb collisions.}
\label{table:single_excitation}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c}
\hline
& (6-40) MeV & (40-2000) MeV & (2-80) GeV \\ \hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$\gamma_{\mathrm{cm}}$ = 100}\\ \hline
M.Vidovi\'c et al. \cite{Vidovic} & 77.6 & 25.7 & 5.6 \\
Our results & 80.16 & 25.6 & 5.6 \\ \hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{$\gamma_{\mathrm{cm}}$ = 3100}\\ \hline
M.Vidovi\'c et al. \cite{Vidovic} & 133.6 & 53.7 & 18.7 \\
Our results & 133.8 & 54.6 & 18.7 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
As already discussed, we are very interested also in calculating
associated neutron multiplicities. In Table
\ref{table:single_excitations_neutrons} we have collected appropriate
cross sections for one-photon single nucleus excitation in barns for different neutron multiplicities
k = 0, 1, 2, 3. We compare results with and without the exponential
factor in Eq.(\ref{eq:single}). As can be seen from Table \ref{table:single_excitations_neutrons}
the exponential factor plays here only a minor role in practical calculations.
We have also collected experimental data of the ALICE collaboration \cite{ALICE2012}.
We observe some disagreement especially for 3 neutrons.
For the ratio $2n/1n$ we obtain $22 \%$, in good agreement with the ALICE result of
$22.5 \pm 0.5 \, \mathrm{stat} \, \pm 0.9 \, \mathrm{syst} \, \%$.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Cross section in barns for a given multiplicity of neutrons
in single-nucleus, single-photon excitation in $^{208}$Pb + $^{208}$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.}
\label{table:single_excitations_neutrons}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||r|r|r|}
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Single excitations [b]} \\ \hline \hline
& Our results & $\exp(-\bar n)$ & ALICE (Ref.~\cite{ALICE2012}) \\ \hline
0 neutrons & 6.403 & without & \\
& 6.394 & with & \\ \hline
1 neutron & 84.301 & without & ~93.0 \\
& 82.888 & with & \\ \hline
2 neutrons & 18.608 & without & ~21.0 \\
& 18.532 & with & \\ \hline
3 neutrons & 2.858 & without & ~~6.5 \\
& 2.856 & with & \\ \hline \hline
sum & 112.170 & without & \\
& 110.670 & with & \\ \hline \hline
total &
& & 187.4 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Two-photon exchanges may also lead to simultaneous excitation
of both nuclei (see Fig.~\ref{fig:mutual_exc}).
In Table \ref{table:mutual_excitations} we have collected
topological cross sections with a given number of neutrons emitted from
first ($k_1$) and second ($k_2$) nucleus. As previously we show results
of the calculation with and without the extra exponential factor, which seems
here more important than for single-nucleus single-photon excitations.
This indicates an importance of smaller impact parameters in the two-photon
processes.
Our results could be compared to those in
Ref.~\cite{Pshenichnov:2011zz}. Compared to Ref.~\cite{Pshenichnov:2011zz}
our cross section for neutron multiplicities $k_1$ = 1 and $k_2$ = 1
are larger by about 25 \%.
Other numbers seem to be in much better agreement.
The differences quantify the uncertainties of theoretical calculations.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Cross section in barns for mutual excitation with
a given number of neutrons emitted from both nuclei in $^{208}$Pb + $^{208}$Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.}
\label{table:mutual_excitations}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{|c|}{Mutual excitations [b]} \\ \hline
& 0 neutrons & 1 neutron & 2 neutrons & 3 neutrons & $\exp(-\bar n)$ \\ \hline \hline
0 neutrons & 0.00917 & 0.12093 & 0.02675 & 0.00414 & without \\
& 0.00883 & 0.09317 & 0.02483 & 0.00402 & with \\ \hline
1 neutron & 0.12093 & 1.59450 & 0.35275 & 0.05448 & without \\
& 0.09317 & 1.00124 & 0.26286 & 0.04238 & with \\ \hline
2 neutrons & 0.02675 & 0.35275 & 0.07803 & 0.01205 & without \\
& 0.02483 & 0.26286 & 0.06989 & 0.01130 & with \\ \hline
3 neutrons & 0.00413 & 0.05448 & 0.01205 & 0.00186 & without \\
& 0.00402 & 0.04238 & 0.01130 & 0.00183 & with \\ \hline \hline
sum & 0.16098 & 2.12266 & 0.46958 & 0.07252 & without \\
& 0.19285 & 1.39965 & 0.36888 & 0.05953 & with \\ \hline
& \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{2.82574} & without \\
& \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{2.02091} & with \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|}
\hline
Mutual excitations [b] \\
ALICE (Ref. \cite{ALICE2012}) \\ \hline
5.7 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
In Table \ref{table:double_photon} we have collected contributions
to the double-photon excitation cross section when each of the two photons is in different
energy intervals (the same integrals as defined previously in Table \ref{table:single_excitation}).
The nine different regions in (E$_1$ $\times$ E$_2$) space give comparable contribution to the total
cross section for double-excitation of a single nucleus.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{Cross section in barns for double-photon excitation
of one of nuclei in $^{208}$Pb + $^{208}$Pb
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.}
\label{table:double_photon}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l||r|r||r|r|}
\hline
& $E_1$ = (6 - 40) MeV & $E_1$ = (40 - 2 000) MeV & $E_1$ = (2 - 80) GeV & sum \\ \hline
$E_2$ = (6 - 40) MeV & 2.893 & 1.438 & 0.723 & 5.054 \\
$E_2$ = (40 - 2 000) MeV & 1.438 & 0.716 & 0.357 & 2.511 \\
$E_2$ = (2 - 80) GeV & 0.723 & 0.357 & 0.178 & 1.258 \\ \hline \hline
& 5.054 & 2.511 & 1.258 & 8.823 \\ \hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
It is particularly interesting how nuclei are excited in UPCs.
In Fig. \ref{fig:EMD_sNN} we show the total cross section for electromagnetic excitation as a function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ as well as the partial cross sections
into one and two-neutron final states.
It should be noted that we concentrate only on the neutrons
evaporated from the electromagnetically excited nuclei. We do not account
for neutrons from other hadronic processes, like the intranuclear cascading
(see for example \cite{Pshenichnov:2001qd, Pshenichnov:2011zz}).
We also neglect the mutual excitation of nuclei by strong interactions.
In Fig. \ref{fig:dsig_dE_UPC} we show our result for
$^{208}$Pb + $^{208}$Pb $\to$ $^{208}$Pb$^*$ + $^{208}$Pb reaction at the LHC
energy $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76~TeV. For technical reasons different
regions (low (6-40 MeV), intermediate (40-2000 MeV), high ($>$2 GeV))
of excitation energy were calculated separately.
The dashed line represents contribution of single-photon excitation (diagram in Fig. \ref{fig:single_exc}) and
the dotted line double-photon excitation (diagram in Fig. \ref{fig:double_exc}).
Even at the very high collision energy ($\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV) the
low-energy excitations are still essential. Please note, however,
the logarithmic scale for the excitation energy axis,
which emphasises the low-energy excitation.
The double-photon excitation contribution is much smaller than
the single-photon one. In addition, the highest peak appears at the
excitation energy twice larger than for single-photon excitation, which
corresponds to excitation of giant dipole resonance excited on top of an already
excited one.
Such processes were already discussed in the literature (\cite{Pshenichnov:2011zz}
and the references therein).
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{EMD_sNN.eps}
\caption{
\small Single EMD cross sections as the function of $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$. Data are from
SPS \cite{Golubeva:2005nq} and LHC (ALICE) \cite{ALICE2012}.
}
\label{fig:EMD_sNN}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{dsig_dE_sum.eps}
\caption{
\small Excitation function $\frac{d\sigma}{dE^*}$
for electromagnetic excitation of single nucleus in single-photon
(dashed) and double-photon (dotted) exchange
in UPCs at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$ = 2.76 TeV.
}
\label{fig:dsig_dE_UPC}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have presented a new approach for calculating
excitation of lead nuclei in photoabsorption reactions as well as
in ultraperipheral ultrarelativistic heavy ion collisions.
The photoabsorption cross section on lead nuclei is fitted using physics
motivated multicomponent parametrization. The giant resonances,
quasi-deuteron, excitation of nucleon resonances and break up of
nucleon mechanism are included in the fit to the world data.
Good quality fit is obtained.
The neutron emission from the excited nuclear system is calculated
within the Hauser-Feshbach formalism.
Within our approach we get a very good description of excitation
functions for $\gamma$ + $^{208}$Pb with a fixed number of neutrons.
The excitation function is used next to calculate cross sections
in peripheral UPCs.
Both single and double-photon excitation processes are included and discussed.
We have calculated corresponding excitation functions for both single
(one-nucleus) and mutual (both nuclei) excitations.
We have obtained a good agreement of the calculated total cross section for electromagnetic excitation as well as cross section for one-neutron and two-neutron emission with recent experimental data of ALICE collaboration.
The formalism presented here may be easily applied to other exclusive
ultrarelativistic heavy ion processes such as:
$A A \to A A J/\Psi$, $A A \to A A \rho^0$, $A A \to A A e^+ e^-$,
$A A \to A A \mu^+ \mu^-$. $A A \to A A \pi^+ \pi^-$,
$A A \to A A \pi^+ \pi^- \pi^+ \pi^-$. This will be discussed in our future analyses.
\vspace{1cm}
{\bf Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank Igor Pshenichnov for the correspondence and
Christoph Mayer and Joakim Nystrand for discussions.
This work was partially supported by the
Polish grant N N202 236640 and DEC-2011/01/B/ST2/04535
as well as by the Centre for Innovation and Transfer of Natural Sciences and Engineering Knowledge in Rzesz\'ow.
A~part of the calculations within this analysis was carried out
with the help of cloud computer system (Cracow Cloud One\footnote{cc1.ifj.edu.pl})
of the Institute of Nuclear Physics (PAN).
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Problem formulation}
Consider $K$ sources of observations (sensors) which transmit their data to a global decision maker (fusion center).
We assume that observations from different sensors are independent and that, for each $1 \leq k \leq K$, sensor $k$ observes a sequence $(X^{k}_{t})_{t \in \mathbb{N}}$ of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with common density $f^{k}$ with respect to a dominating, $\sigma$-finite measure $\nu^{k}$. We denote by $\{\Fc_{t}^{k}, t\in \mathbb{N}\}$ the filtration generated by the observations at sensor $k$, i.e.,
$\Fc_{t}^{k}:=\sigma(X_{s}^{k}; 1 \leq s \leq t)$ for every $t \in \mathbb{N}$. For each density $f^{k}$, we consider two possibilities, $f_{0}^{k}$ and $f_{1}^{k}$, so that the corresponding Kullback-Leibler information numbers,
\begin{align*}
I_1^{k} &:= \int \log \Bigl( \frac{f_1^{k}(x)}{f_0^{k}(x)} \Bigr) f_{1}^{k}(x) \, \nu^{k}(dx) \quad \text{and} \\
I_0^k &:= \int \log \Bigl(\frac{f_0^{k}(x)}{f_1^k(x)} \Bigr) f_{0}^{k}(x) \, \nu^{k}(dx),
\end{align*}
are positive and finite. The goal is to distinguish at the fusion center between the following two hypotheses:
\begin{align*}
& \Hyp_{0}: f^{k}= f_{0}^{k}, \quad 1 \leq k \leq K \\
& \Hyp_{1}: f^{k}= f_{0}^{k}, \, k \notin \cA \quad \text{and} \quad f^{k}= f_{1}^{k}, \, k \in \cA,
\end{align*}
where $\cA \subset \{1, \ldots, K\}$ is a subset of sensors that belongs to some class $\cP$. The interpretation is that signal is present (resp. absent) at sensor $k$ when its observations are distributed according to $f_{1}^{k}$ (resp. $f_{0}^{k}$). Thus, the null hypothesis, $\Hyp_{0}$, represents the situation in which all sensors observe noise, whereas the alternative hypothesis, $\Hyp_{1}$, corresponds to the case that signal is present in some subset of sensors. In what follows, we denote by $\Pro_{1}^{\cA}$ and $\Exp_{1}^{\cA}$ the probability measure and the expectation, respectively, under $\Hyp_{1}$ when the
subset of affected sensors is $\cA$, whereas the corresponding notation under $\Hyp_{0}$ will be $\Pro_{0}$ and $\Exp_{0}$.
We will be interested in the sequential version of this hypothesis testing problem. Thus, we assume that observations at the sensors and the fusion center are acquired sequentially and we want to select the correct hypothesis at the fusion center as soon as possible. This means that the goal is to find a \textit{sequential test}, $(T,d_{T})$, which consists of an $\{\Fc_{t}\}$-stopping time $T$ and an $\Fc_{T}$-measurable random variable $d_{T}$ that takes values in $\{0,1\}$, so that $\Hyp_{j}$ is selected on $\{d_{T}=j, T<\infty\}$, $j=0,1$, where $\{\Fc_t\}$ is the filtration generated by the observations of \textit{all} sensors, i.e.,
$$\Fc_{t}:=\sigma(X_{s}^{k}; 1 \leq s \leq t, 1 \leq k \leq K), \quad t \in \mathbb{N}.$$
An ideal sequential test should have small detection delay under both hypotheses, while controlling its error probabilities below prescribed levels.
Specifically, given $\alpha, \beta \in (0,1)$ and a class of subsets of $\{1, \ldots, K\}$, $\cP$, we set
\begin{align*}
\ccab(\cP) := \{ (T,d_{T}): & \;\Pro_{0}(d_{T}=1) \leq \alpha \\
\text{and} & \; \max_{\cA \in \cP} \Pro_{1}^{\cA}(d_{T}=0) \leq \beta\},
\end{align*}
i.e., $\ccab(\cP)$ is the class of sequential tests whose probabilities of type-I and type-II error are bounded above by $\alpha$ and $\beta$, respectively.
Then, the problem is to find a sequential test that attains
\begin{equation} \label{infima1}
\inf_{(T,d_{T}) \in \ccab(\cP)} \Exp_{0}[T]
\end{equation}
and, \textit{for every set $\cA \in \cP$},
\begin{equation} \label{infima2}
\inf_{(T,d_{T}) \in \ccab(\cP)} \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[T].
\end{equation}
This is indeed possible when $\cP=\{\cA\}$, that is when the subset of sensors in which signal may be present is known in advance. In this case,
$\ccab(\cP)$ reduces to
\begin{align*}
\ccab(\cA) := \{ (T,d_{T}): & \;\Pro_{0}(d_{T}=1) \leq \alpha \\
\text{and} & \; \Pro_{1}^{\cA}(d_{T}=0) \leq \beta\},
\end{align*}
and from Wald and Wolfowitz \cite{wolf} it follows that, for any $\alpha, \beta$ so that $\alpha+\beta<1$, both (\ref{infima1}) and (\ref{infima2})
are attained by Wald's \cite{wald} Sequential Probability Ratio Test (SPRT):
\begin{align} \label{sprt}
\begin{split}
S^{\cA} &:= \inf\{t: Z_{t}^{\cA} \notin (-A,B)\} \\
d_{S^{\cA}} &:= \left\{\begin{array}{cl}1&\text{if}~Z^{\cA}_{S^{\cA}} \geq B\\
0&\text{if}~ Z^{\cA}_{S^{\cA}} \leq -A
\end{array}\right.
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $A,B$ are positive thresholds selected so that $\Pro_{0}( d_{S^{\cA}}=1)=\alpha$ and $\Pro_{1}^{\cA}(d_{S^{\cA}}=0)=\beta$, whereas
$Z^{\cA}$ is the log-likelihood ratio process of $\Pro_{1}^{\cA}$ over $\Pro_{0}$. Since we have assumed that observations coming from different sensors are independent (an assumption that is not required for the optimality of the SPRT), it is clear that $Z_{t}^{\cA}=\sum_{k \in \cA} Z_{t}^{k}$, where
$$Z_{t}^{k} = Z_{t-1}^{k}+ \log \frac{f_{1}^{k}(X_{t}^{k})}{f_{0}^{k}(X_{t}^{k})}; \quad Z_{0}^{k}:=0$$
is the log-likelihood ratio of the observations acquired by sensor $k$ up to time $t$.
While the optimality of the SPRT holds for any given $\alpha, \beta$ so that $\alpha+\beta <1$, closed-form expressions for its operating characteristics
are, in general, available only in an asymptotic setup, that is as $\alpha, \beta \rightarrow 0$. In what follows, whenever $\alpha$ and $\beta$ go to 0 simultaneously, we will assume implicitly that $|\log \alpha|/|\log \beta|$ converges to some positive constant and we will write $x \sim y$ when $\lim(x/y) = 1$ and $x \succ y$ (resp. $x \prec y$) when $\liminf(x/y) \geq 1$ (resp. $\limsup(x/y) \leq 1$). Then, it is well known that
\begin{align} \label{sprt_perform}
\Exp_{0}[S^{\cA}] \sim \frac{|\log \beta|}{I_{0}^{\cA}} \quad \text{and} \quad \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[S^{\cA}] &\sim \frac{|\log \alpha|}{I_{1}^{\cA}},
\end{align}
where $I_{1}^{\cA}:=\Exp_{1}^{\cA}[Z_{1}^{\cA}]$ and $I_{0}^{\cA}:=\Exp_{0}[-Z_{1}^{\cA}]$ are the Kullback-Leibler information numbers between $\Pro_{0}$ and $\Pro_{1}^{\cA}$, which --due to the assumption of independence across sensors-- take the form $I_{j}^{\cA}=\sum_{k \in \cA} I_{j}^{k}$, $j=0,1$.
When the class $\cP$ is not a singleton, i.e., when the alternative hypothesis is composite, it is not possible to find a sequential test that
attains (\ref{infima2}) \textit{for every subset $\cA \in \cP$}. For this reason, we need to restrict ourselves to sequential tests that are optimal in an asymptotic sense. Therefore, given a class $\cP$ of subsets of $\{1, \ldots, K\}$, we will say that a sequential test $(\tilde{T},\tilde{d}) \in \ccab(\cP)$ is \textit{asymptotically optimal} under $\Hyp_{0}$, if
\begin{align*}
& \Exp_{0}[\tilde{T}] \sim \inf_{(T,d_{T}) \in \ccab(\cP)} \Exp_{0}[T]
\end{align*}
and under $\Hyp_{1}$, if \textit{for every $\cA \in \cP$}
\begin{align*}
& \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[\tilde{T}] \sim \inf_{(T,d_{T}) \in \ccab(\cP)} \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[T].
\end{align*}
A number of asymptotically optimal (under both hypotheses) sequential tests have been proposed and studied
in the case that signal may be present in \textit{at most one sensor}, that is when
\begin{equation*}
\cP=\{\cA: |\cA|=1\}=\{\{k\}, 1 \leq k \leq K\},
\end{equation*}
where $|\cA|$ represents the cardinality of $\cA$. An example of such a test is given by the SPRT-bank, according to which each sensor runs an SPRT locally,
transmits its decision to the fusion center and the latter stops and selects $\Hyp_{1}$ the first time that any sensor makes a selection in favor of the alternative, whereas it stops and selects $\Hyp_{0}$ when all sensors have made a decision in favor of the null (see, e.g., \cite{Tartakovskyetal-IEEEIT03}).
Another asymptotically optimal sequential test
in this setup can be obtained if $Z^{\cA}$ in (\ref{sprt}) is replaced by the generalized log-likelihood ratio statistic, $\max_{1 \leq k \leq K} Z^{k}$, or more generally by any statistic of the form
$$
\log \Bigl(\sum_{k=1}^{K} p_{k} e^{Z^{k}}\Bigr) \quad \text{or} \quad
\log \Bigl(\max_{1 \leq k \leq K} p_{k} e^{Z^{k}} \Bigr),
$$
where each $p_{k}$ is a positive constant \cite{Tartakovskyetal-IEEEIT03}, \cite{feltar}.
The latter approach can in principle be applied to the case that signal may be present in more than one sensors. Indeed, given \textit{any} class $\cP$, it can be shown that replacing
$Z^{\cA}$ in (\ref{sprt}) with either
$$
\log \Bigl(\sum_{\cB \in \cP} p_{\cB} \, e^{Z^{\cB}}\Bigr) \quad \text{or} \quad
\log \Bigl(\max_{\cB \in \cP} p_{\cB} \, e^{Z^{\cB}} \Bigr),
$$
where $Z^{\cB}:=\sum_{k \in \cB} Z^{k}$ and each $p_{\cB}$ is a positive constant, leads to an asymptotically optimal sequential test.
However, this test may not be implementable in practice, even for a moderate number of sensors. Consider, for example, the completely \textit{unstructured} case, where there is absolutely no prior information regarding the set of affected sensors and $\cP$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{powerset}
\cP=\{\cA: 1 \leq |\cA| \leq K\}.
\end{equation}
Then, the implementation of the above sequential tests demands summing/maximizing $2^{K}$ statistics at every time $t$, a requirement that may be prohibitive in practice.
\subsection{Main contributions}
In the present paper, we focus on the case that $\cP$ is given by (\ref{powerset}), i.e., we assume that signal may be present
in \textit{any} subset of sensors under the alternative hypothesis.
In this context, we propose a class of sequential tests, whose implementation at any time $t$ requires $K$ (instead of $2^{K}$) operations,
and we establish their asymptotically optimality. Specifically, we set
$$T^{*}:=\min \{\hat{T}_{B}, \check{T}_{A}\}, \quad d^{*}:= \left\{\begin{array}{cl}1&\text{if}~\hat{T}_{B} \leq \check{T}_{A}\\
0&\text{if}~ \hat{T}_{B}> \check{T}_{A}
\end{array}\right.$$
where $\hat{T}_{B}$ and $\check{T}_{A}$ are one-sided stopping times of the form
\begin{align*}
\check{T}_{A} &:= \min\{t: \check{Z}_{t} \leq -A \}; \quad \check{Z}_{t}:=\max_{1 \leq k \leq K} Z^{k}_{t} \\
\hat{T}_{B} &:= \min\{t: \hat{Z}_{t} \geq B \}; \quad \hat{Z}_{t}:=\sum_{k=1}^{K} \hat{Z}^{k}_{t} ,
\end{align*}
and each $\hat{Z}^{k}$ is an $\{\Fc_{t}^{k}\}$-adapted statistic that should be chosen appropriately. Our main contribution in this work is that we show how to select these statistics, as well as the thresholds $A$ and $B$, in order to guarantee the asymptotic optimality of the proposed sequential test.
Thus, in Section \ref{sec2} we show that $(T^{*}, d^{*})$ is asymptotically optimal under both hypotheses, when for every $1 \leq k \leq K$ and $t \in \mathbb{N}$
\begin{equation} \label{condi}
\hat{Z}_{t}^{k} \leq M_{t}^{k}:= \max_{1 \leq s \leq t} Z_{s}^{k},
\end{equation}
there is a constant $\Di \geq 0$ so that
\begin{equation} \label{condi2}
\hat{Z}^{k}_{t} \geq \max\{Z^{k}_{t}-\Di, 0\}
\end{equation}
and thresholds $A$ and $B$ are selected so that
\begin{equation} \label{AB}
A=A_{\beta}:= |\log \beta| \quad \text{and} \quad B=B_{\alpha}:=F^{-1}(\alpha),
\end{equation}
where $F^{-1}$ is the inverse of the survival function of the Erlang distribution with parameters $1$ and $K$, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{F}
F(x):=e^{-x} \sum_{j=0}^{K-1} \frac{x^{j}}{j!}, \quad x>0.
\end{equation}
Conditions (\ref{condi})-(\ref{condi2}) are clearly satisfied when each $\hat{Z}^{k}_{t}$ is chosen as the positive part of $Z_{t}^{k}$, $\max\{Z_{t}^{k},0\}$, in which case $\Di=0$. In Section \ref{sec3}, we show that if each sensor $k$ communicates with the fusion center only when $Z^{k}$ increases by $\Di>0$ since the previous communication time, then selecting $\hat{Z}^{k}$ as the value of $Z^{k}$ at the most recent communication time also satisfies conditions (\ref{condi})-(\ref{condi2}). Furthermore, we show that the asymptotic optimality of $(T^{*}, d^{*})$ remains valid in this context, even with an asymptotically low rate of communication.
This infrequent communication is a very important property in applications characterized by limited bandwidth,
where it is necessary to design schemes that require minimal transmission activity from the sensors to the fusion center (see, e.g., \cite{tsi}, \cite{vij}). Such communication constraints have motivated the problem of \textit{decentralized} sequential hypothesis testing (see, e.g., \cite{sama}- \cite{yil}), where each sensor is required to transmit a small number of bits whenever it communicates with the fusion center. However,
in this literature, it is typically assumed that the set of affected sensors is known in advance (i.e., $\cP=\{\cA\}$) and asymptotically optimal decentralized sequential tests have been proposed only under this assumption (see \cite{mei}, \cite{felmoust}, \cite{yil}). Our second main contribution in the present work is that we construct a decentralized sequential test which requires \textit{infrequent} transmission of \textit{one-bit messages} from the sensors and we establish its asymptotic optimality when $\cP$ is given by (\ref{powerset}).
The remaining paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{sec2} we state and prove the main results of the paper and in Section \ref{sec3} we consider the decentralized setup. In Section \ref{sec4} we discuss certain extensions of this work, which will be presented elsewhere.
\section{Main results} \label{sec2}
In what follows, $\cP$ is given by (\ref{powerset}). We start by obtaining an asymptotic lower bound for the optimal performance under each hypothesis.
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{theorem} \label{theo0}
As $\alpha, \beta \rightarrow 0$
\begin{align} \label{deli2}
\inf_{(T,d_{T}) \in \ccab(\cP)} \Exp_{0}[T] &\succ \frac{|\log \beta|}{ \min_{1 \leq k \leq K} I_{0}^{k}}
\end{align}
and, for every $\cA \in \cP$,
\begin{equation} \label{deli4}
\inf_{(T,d_{T}) \in \ccab(\cP)} \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[T] \succ \frac{|\log \alpha|}{I_{1}^{\cA}}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{proof}
Since $\ccab(\cP) \subset \ccab(\cA)$ for any $\cA \in \cP$,
\begin{align*}
\inf_{(T,d_{T}) \in \ccab(\cP)} \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[T] &\geq \inf_{(T,d_{T}) \in \ccab(\cA)} \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[T] \sim \frac{|\log \alpha|}{I_{1}^{\cA}}
\end{align*}
where the asymptotic equality follows from (\ref{sprt_perform}). This proves (\ref{deli4}). In a similar way we can show that
\begin{align*}
\inf_{(T,d_{T}) \in \ccab(\cP)} \Exp_{0}[T] & \geq \inf_{(T,d_{T}) \in \ccab(\cA)} \Exp_{0}[T] \sim \frac{|\log \beta|}{I_{0}^{\cA}}
\end{align*}
and optimizing the asymptotic lower bound over $\cA \in \cP$ we obtain
\begin{align*}
\inf_{(T,d_{T}) \in \ccab(\cP)} \Exp_{0}[T] &\succ \max_{ \cA \in \cP} \frac{|\log \beta|}{I_{0}^{\cA}} = \frac{|\log \beta|}{ \min_{\cA \in \cP} I_{0}^{\cA}}.
\end{align*}
Since $I_{0}^{\cA}=\sum_{k \in \cA} I_{0}^{k}$ and $I_{0}^{k}>0$ for every $k$, it is clear that
$\min_{\cA \in \cP} I_{0}^{\cA}= \min_{1 \leq k \leq K} I_{0}^{k}$, which proves (\ref{deli2}).
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.3cm}
In the following theorem we show that selecting $A$ and $B$ according to (\ref{AB}) guarantees that $(T^{*},d^{*}) \in \ccab(\cP)$,
as long as each statistic $\hat{Z}^{k}$ satisfies (\ref{condi}).
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{theorem} \label{theo1}
If $A$ and $B$ are selected according to (\ref{AB}) and each $\hat{Z}^{k}$ satisfies (\ref{condi}), then $(T^{*}, d^{*}) \in \ccab(\cP)$.
\end{theorem}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{proof}
For any $A,B>0$ we have
$$\Pro_{0} (\hat{T}_{B} \leq \check{T}_{A}) \leq \Pro_{0} (\hat{T}_{B}< \infty) =\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \Pro_{0} (\hat{T}_{B} \leq t) $$
and for any $t\in \mathbb{N}$
\begin{align*}
\Pro_{0} (\hat{T}_{B} \leq t) &= \Pro_{0} \Bigl(\max_{0 \leq s \leq t} \sum_{k=1}^{K} \hat{Z}^{k}_{s} \geq B \Bigr)
\leq \Pro_{0}\Bigl(\sum_{k=1}^{K} M^{k}_{t} \geq B \Bigr),
\end{align*}
where the inequality is due to \eqref{condi}. Now, for any given $k$ and $t$, it is clear that
\begin{align*}
\Pro_{0}(M^{k}_{t}\geq B) &= \Pro_{0}(S^{k}_{B} \leq t) \leq \Pro_{0}(S^{k}_{B} < \infty),
\end{align*}
where $S_{B}^{k}:= \inf \{ t: Z_{t}^{k} \geq B\}$, and from Wald's likelihood ratio identity it follows that
\begin{align*}
\Pro_{0}(S^{k}_{B} < \infty) =\Exp_{1}^{k} \Bigl[e^{-Z^{k}_{S^{k}_{B}}}\Bigr] \leq e^{-B},
\end{align*}
where $\Exp^{k}_{1}$ is expectation with respect to $\Pro_{1}^{k}$, the probability measure under which $f^{k}=f_{1}^{k}$ and $f^{j}=f_{0}^{j}$ for $j \neq k$.
The last two relationships imply that, for any given $k$ and $t$, $\Pro_{0}(M^{k}_{t}\geq B) \leq e^{-B}$, which means that the random variable $M^{k}_{t}$ is stochastically dominated by an exponential random variable with rate 1. Since, due to the assumed independence across sensors, $M_{t}^{1}, \ldots, M_{t}^{K}$ are independent, this implies that $\sum_{k=1}^{K}M^{k}_{t}$ is stochastically dominated by an Erlang random variable with parameters 1 and $K$, i.e.,
$$\Pro_{0}\Bigl(\sum_{k=1}^{K} M^{k}_{t} \geq B \Bigr) \leq F(B),$$ where $F(x)$ is defined in (\ref{F}). From the latter observation and the definition of $B_{\alpha}$ it follows that for any $A>0$:
$$
\Pro_{0}(\hat{T}_{B_{\alpha}} \leq \check{T}_{A}) \leq F(B_{\alpha})= \alpha.
$$
Furthermore, for any given $\cA \in \cP$, from Wald's likelihood ratio identity it follows that for any $A,B>0$
\begin{align*}
\Pro_{1}^{\cA} (\check{T}_{A} < \hat{T}_{B}) &\leq \Pro_{1}^{\cA} (\check{T}_{A} < \infty) \\
&= \Exp_{0}\Bigl[ e^{\sum_{k \in \cA} Z^{k}_{\check{T}_{A}}}] \\
&\leq e^{-|\cA| A} \leq e^{-A},
\end{align*}
where the second inequality holds because $Z^{k}_{\check{T}_{A}}\leq -A$ on $\{\check{T}_{A} < \infty\}$ for every $1 \leq k \leq K$ and the third one
because $|\cA| \geq 1$ for any $\cA \in \cP$. Consequently,
\begin{align*}
\max_{\cA \in \cP} \Pro_{1}^{\cA} (\check{T}_{A} < \hat{T}_{B}) &\leq e^{-A}
\end{align*}
and from the definition of $A_{\beta}$ it follows that for any $B>0$
\begin{align*}
\max_{\cA \in \cP} \Pro_{1}^{\cA} (\check{T}_{A_{\beta}} < \hat{T}_{B}) &\leq e^{-A_{\beta}}=\beta,
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.3cm}
In the following theorem we show that if $A$ and $B$ are selected according to (\ref{AB}) and each statistic $\hat{Z}^{k}$ satisfies (\ref{condi2}), then
$(T^{*},d^{*})$ attains the asymptotic lower bounds in (\ref{deli2}) and (\ref{deli4}).
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{theorem} \label{theo2}
(i) As $A \rightarrow \infty$,
\begin{equation} \label{deli1}
\Exp_{0}[T^{*}] \prec \frac{A}{\min_{1 \leq k \leq K} I_{0}^{k}}
\end{equation}
and $(T^{*},d^{*})$ attains the asymptotic lower bound in (\ref{deli2}) when $A=A_{\beta}$.
(ii) If each $\hat{Z}^{k}$ satisfies (\ref{condi2}), then as $B \rightarrow \infty$
\begin{equation} \label{deli3}
\Exp_{1}^{\cA}[T^{*}] \prec \frac{B+ \sum_{k \in \cA} \Di}{I_{1}^{\cA}} \quad \text{for every} \; \cA \in \cP
\end{equation}
and $(T^{*},d^{*})$ attains the asymptotic lower bound in (\ref{deli1}) when $B=B_{\alpha}$.
\end{theorem}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{proof}
The proof of (i) is a direct consequence of Theorem 2 in \cite{Tartakovskyetal-IEEEIT03}.
In order to prove (ii), we observe that for any $k$ and $t$
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k=1}^{K} \hat{Z}^{k}_{t} &= \sum_{k \in \cA} \hat{Z}^{k}_{t} + \sum_{k \notin \cA} \hat{Z}^{k}_{t} \\
&\geq \sum_{k \in \cA} (Z^{k}_{t}-\Di) = Z_{t}^{\cA}- \sum_{k \in \cA} \Di ,
\end{align*}
where the inequality is due to (\ref{condi2}). As a result, $$T^{*} \leq \hat{T}_{B} \leq \inf\Bigl\{t: Z_{t}^{\cA}\geq B+ \sum_{k \in \cA} \Di\Bigr\}$$
and taking expectations we obtain (\ref{deli3}). From this relationship and (\ref{deli4}) it is clear that it
suffices to show that $B_{\alpha} \sim |\log \alpha|$ as $\alpha \rightarrow 0$. Indeed,
taking logarithms in the definition of $B_{\alpha}$ in (\ref{AB})-(\ref{F}) we have
\begin{align} \label{ba}
|\log \alpha| &= B_{\alpha} - \log \Bigl(\sum_{j=0}^{K-1} \frac{B_{\alpha}^{j}}{j!} \Bigr) \sim B_{\alpha},
\end{align}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\vspace{0.3cm}
From the previous theorems it follows that selecting $A$ and $B$ according to (\ref{AB}) and the statistics $\{\hat{Z}^{k}, 1\leq k \leq K\}$ so that (\ref{condi})-(\ref{condi2}) hold guarantees the asymptotic optimality of $(T^{*},d^{*})$ under both hypotheses, when $\cP$ is given by (\ref{powerset}).
Let us add a few remarks to this statement:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Conditions (\ref{condi})-(\ref{condi2}) are clearly satisfied when $\hat{Z}^{k}_{t}= \max\{Z_{t}^{k},0\}$. An alternative specification that satisfies these conditions is presented in the next section.
\item Condition (\ref{condi2}) is \textit{not} needed for $(T^{*},d^{*})$ to belong in $\ccab(\cP)$ and to be asymptotically optimal under $\Hyp_{0}$.
\item The asymptotic optimality of $(T^{*},d^{*})$ remains valid even if $\Di\rightarrow \infty$ for one or more $k$, as long as $\Di=o(|\log \alpha|)$. In the next section we will show that, with a particular specification for $\hat{Z}^{k}$, this property has an interesting interpretation in terms of the communication requirements of the proposed scheme.
\end{enumerate}
\section{The decentralized setup} \label{sec3}
Let us first note that the one-sided sequential test $\check{T}_{A}$ is an one-shot scheme; it requires that each sensor communicate with the fusion center
at most once, as soon as its local log-likelihood statistic takes a value smaller than $-A$, at which time it simply needs to transmit a one-bit message to the fusion center, informing it about this development.
On the other hand, the implementation of the stopping rule $\hat{T}_{B}$ can be much more demanding from a communication point of view. For example, if we set $\hat{Z}^{k}_{t}= \max\{Z_{t}^{k},0\}$, sensor $k$ needs to transmit the actual value of $Z^{k}$ at every time $t$ (or at least whenever it is positive). As we discussed in the Introduction, this may not be possible in applications characterized by bandwidth constraints.
In what follows, we assume that thresholds $A$ and $B$ are selected according to (\ref{AB}) and our goal is to suggest specifications for $\{\hat{Z}^{k}\}_{1 \leq k \leq K}$ that induce low transmission activity, while preserving the asymptotic optimality of the sequential test $(T^{*},d^{*})$.
In order to achieve this, we require that each sensor $k$ communicate with the fusion center
only at an increasing sequence of $\{\cFt^{k}\}$-stopping times, $(\tau_{n}^{k})_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$, which are finite under $\Pro_{1}^{k}$. In other words,
each sensor should communicate with the fusion center only at some particular time instances and, at any given time, the decision to communicate or not should
depend exclusively on the observations that have been acquired locally at the sensor until this time.
Given such a sequence of communication times, we denote by $\tau^{k}(t)$ the instance of the most recent transmission and by $N_{t}^{k}$ the number of transmitted messages up to time $t$, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\tau^{k}(t) &:= \max\{\tau_{n}^{k}:\tau_{n}^{k} \leq t\}, \quad N_{t}^{k} := \max\{n: \tau_{n}^{k} \leq t\}.
\end{align*}
At any given time $t$, the value of $Z^{k}$ at the most recent communication instance,
\begin{equation} \label{second}
Z^{k}_{\tau^{k}(t)}= \sum_{n=1}^{N_{t}^{k}} \ell_{n}^{k}, \quad \ell_{n}^{k}:= Z_{\tau_{n}^{k}}^{k}- Z_{\tau_{n-1}^{k}}^{k},
\end{equation}
cannot be larger than $M_{t}^{k}$, the maximum value of $Z^{k}$ up to time $t$. Indeed, note that $Z^{k}_{\tau^{k}(t)}$ coincides with $Z^{k}$ at the communication times $(\tau_{n}^{k})_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ and stays flat in between. Therefore, selecting $\hat{Z}_{t}^{k}$ according to (\ref{second})
satisfies condition (\ref{condi}) and, consequently, it guarantees that $(T^{*},d^{*})$ belongs in $\ccab(\cP)$ and is asymptotically optimal under $\Hyp_{0}$.
When, in particular, the communication times are described by the recursion
\begin{align} \label{tau}
\tau_{n}^{k} &:=\inf \{t \geq \tau_{n-1}^{k}: Z_{t}^{k}- Z_{\tau_{n-1}^{k}}^{k} \geq \Di\}, \quad n \in \mathbb{N}
\end{align}
where $\tau_{0}^{k}:=0$ and $\Di$ is a positive constant, then it is straightforward to see that, for any time $t$, $Z^{k}_{\tau^{k}(t)}\geq 0$
and $Z_{t}^{k}- Z^{k}_{\tau^{k}(t)} \leq \Di$. Therefore, in the case of the communication scheme (\ref{tau}), setting $\hat{Z}^{k}_{t}$ equal to $Z^{k}_{\tau^{k}(t)}$ satisfies condition (\ref{condi2}) as well and implies that $(T^{*},d^{*})$ is asymptotically optimal also under $\Hyp_{1}$. Furthermore, the final remark in the end of Section \ref{sec2} suggests that the latter asymptotic optimality property is preserved even with an asymptotically low rate of communication from one or more sensors, as the constant $\Di$ in this setup controls the average period of communication at sensor $k$.
From the right-hand side in (\ref{second}) it is clear that selecting $\hat{Z}^{k}_{t}$ as $Z^{k}_{\tau^{k}(t)}$ requires
that at each time $\tau_{n}^{k}$ sensor $k$ transmit to the fusion center (with an ``infinite-bit'' message) the exact value of $\ell_{n}^{k}$, the ``realized'' local log-likelihood ratio between $\tau_{n-1}^{k}$ and $\tau_{n}^{k}$. However, if one insists that a small number of bits be transmitted at each communication, which is the main requirement in decentralized sequential testing \cite{veer}, then this selection is no longer acceptable. Nevertheless, in the case of the communication scheme (\ref{tau}), it is intuitively clear that the value of each $\ell_{n}^{k}$ should be close to $\Di$, at least when $Z^{k}$ does not have ``heavy tails'' and/or $\Di$ is ``large''. This suggests selecting each $\hat{Z}^{k}_{t}$ according
\begin{align} \label{third}
\sum_{n=1}^{N_{t}^{k}} \Di = \Di N_{t}^{k},
\end{align}
a selection that requires transmission of a \textit{single bit} from each sensor at each communication time. Moreover, for every time $t$ it is clear that
\begin{equation} \label{ineqa2}
\D \, N_{t}^{k} \leq Z^{k}_{\tau^{k}(t)} \leq M_{t}^{k},
\end{equation}
therefore, selecting $\hat{Z}^{k}_{t}$ according to (\ref{third}) satisfies condition (\ref{condi}) and, consequently, it
guarantees that $(T^{*},d^{*})$ belongs in $\ccab(\cP)$ and is asymptotically optimal under $\Hyp_{0}$.
On the other hand, for every $t$ we have
\begin{equation} \label{ineqa}
Z_{t}^{k}- \Di N_{t}^{k} = Z_{t}^{k}- Z^{k}_{\tau^{k}(t)} + \sum_{n=1}^{N_{t}^{k}} \eta_{n}^{k} \leq \Di + \sum_{n=1}^{N_{t}^{k}} \eta_{n}^{k},
\end{equation}
where $\eta_{n}^{k}:= Z_{\tau_{n}^{k}}^{k}- Z_{\tau_{n-1}^{k}}^{k}-\Di$ is the random, non-negative overshoot associated with the $n^{th}$ transmission from sensor $k$. This means that selecting each $\hat{Z}^{k}$ according to (\ref{third}) does not satisfy condition (\ref{condi2}), therefore Theorem \ref{theo2}(ii)
can no longer be applied to establish the asymptotic optimality of $(T^{*},d^{*})$ under $\Hyp_{1}$.
Nevertheless, in the following theorem we show that this property remains valid if two additional conditions are satisfied.
The first is that, for every $k \in \cA$, each $Z_{1}^{k}$ must have a finite second moment under $\Pro_{1}^{k}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{moment}
\Exp_{1}^{k}[(Z_{1}^{k})^{2}]= \int \log \Bigl( \frac{f_1^{k}(x)}{f_0^{k}(x)} \Bigr)^{2} \, f_{1}^{k}(x) \, \nu^{k}(dx) <\infty,
\end{equation}
a condition that guarantees that
\begin{equation} \label{C}
C_{\cA}:=\max_{k \in \cA} \, \sup_{\Di>0} \, \Exp_{1}^{k}[\eta^{k}_{1}]
\end{equation}
is a finite quantity for any given $\{\Di, k \in \cA\}$ and an $\calo(1)$ term as $\Di \rightarrow \infty$ for every $k \in \cA$.
The second is that, now, we \textit{must} let $\Di \rightarrow \infty$ so that $\Di=o(|\log \alpha|)$ for every $1 \leq k \leq K$,
so that each sensor does not communicate with the fusion center very frequently
and the (unobserved) overshoots do not accumulate very fast.
In what follows, we denote by $\calo(\oD)$ a term that is bounded above when divided by $\oD$ as $\uD \rightarrow \infty$, where
$$\uD:=\min_{1 \leq k \leq K} \Di, \quad \oD:=\max_{1 \leq k \leq K} \Di.$$
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{theorem} \label{theo4}
Suppose that each sensor $k$ communicates with the fusion center at the sequence of times described by (\ref{tau}) and
that each $\hat{Z}^{k}_{t}$ is selected according to (\ref{third}).
(i) If $A=A_{\beta}$ and $B=B_{\alpha}$, then $(T^{*},d^{*})$ belongs to $\ccab(\cP)$ and
attains the asymptotic lower bound in (\ref{deli2}).
(ii) If (\ref{moment}) holds, then for any $B$ and $\{\Di, 1 \leq k \leq K\}$
\begin{align} \label{deli5}
\Exp_{1}^{\cA}[T^{*}] &\leq \frac{1}{I_{1}^{\cA}} \Bigl[ \calo(\oD) + \Bigl(1+\frac{C_{\cA}}{\uD}\Bigr) B \Bigr],
\end{align}
and $(T^{*},d^{*})$ attains the asymptotic lower bound in (\ref{deli4}) when $B=B_{\alpha}$, as long as $\Di \rightarrow \infty$ so that $\Di=o(|\log \alpha|)$ for every $1 \leq k \leq K$.
\end{theorem}
\vspace{0.3cm}
\begin{proof}
The proof of (i) follows from (\ref{ineqa2}) and Theorems \ref{theo0}(i), \ref{theo1} and \ref{theo2}(i). In order to prove (ii),
we start with the observation that $T^{*} \leq \hat{T}_{B}$ for any thresholds $A,B$ and that for any subset $\cA$ we have
\begin{align} \label{repli}
\begin{split}
I_{1}^{\cA} \, \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[\hat{T}_{B}] &= \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[Z_{\hat{T}_{B}}^{\cA}] \\
&= \sum_{k \in \cA} \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[(Z^{k}-\hat{Z}^{k})_{\hat{T}_{B}}] + \sum_{k \in \cA} \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[\hat{Z}^{k}_{\hat{T}_{B}}] \\
&\leq \sum_{k \in \cA} \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[(Z^{k}-\hat{Z}^{k})_{\hat{T}_{B}}] + \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[\hat{Z}_{\hat{T}_{B}}],
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the equality follows from Wald's identity, whereas the inequality holds because $\sum_{k \in \cA} \hat{Z}^{k} \leq \hat{Z}$
whenever every $\hat{Z}^{k}$ is non-negative, as it is the case with (\ref{third}).
For any $k \in \cA$, setting $t=\hat{T}_{B}$ in (\ref{ineqa}) and strengthening the inequality we have
\begin{align} \label{des}
(Z^{k}-\hat{Z}^{k})_{\hat{T}_{B}} &\leq \Di + \sum_{n=1}^{N_{\hat{T}_{B}}^{k}+1} \eta_{n}^{k}.
\end{align}
Moreover, setting $\Gc_{n}^{k}:=\Fc_{\tau_{n}^{k}}$, $n \in \mathbb{N}$, we can see that $N_{\hat{T}_{B}}^{k}+1$ is a $\Pro_{1}^{\cA}$-integrable,
$\{\Gc_{n}^{k}\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$-adapted stopping time and $(\eta_{n}^{k})_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ a sequence of $\{\Gc_{n}^{k}\}$-adapted, i.i.d. random variables with finite expectation, $\Exp_{1}^{\cA}[\eta_{1}^{k}]=\Exp_{1}^{k}[\eta_{1}^{k}]$. As a result, from Wald's first identity it follows that
for every $k \in \cA$:
$$\Exp_{1}^{\cA}\Bigl[\sum_{n=1}^{N_{\hat{T}_{B}}^{k}+1} \eta_{n}^{k}\Bigr]= \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[N_{\hat{T}_{B}}^{k}+1] \, \Exp_{1}^{k}[\eta_{1}^{k}].$$
Therefore, taking expectations in (\ref{des}) and recalling the definition of $C_{\cA}$ in (\ref{C}) we have
\begin{align*}
\Exp_{1}^{\cA}[(Z^{k}-\hat{Z}^{k})_{\hat{T}_{B}}] &\leq \Di + C_{\cA} + C_{\cA} \, \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[N_{\hat{T}_{B}}^{k}].
\end{align*}
Then, summing over $k \in \cA$ and setting $N_{t}:=\sum_{k=1}^{K} N_{t}^{K}$, we obtain
\begin{align*
\sum_{k \in \cA} \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[(Z^{k}-\hat{Z}^{k})_{\hat{T}_{B}}]
&\leq \sum_{k \in \cA} [\Di+C_{\cA}] + C_{\cA} \, \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[ N_{\hat{T}_{B}}].
\end{align*}
However, since each $\hat{Z}^{k}$ is selected according to (\ref{third}), then it is clear that
$\hat{Z}_{t} \geq \uD \, N_{t}$ for every $t$. Therefore,
\begin{align*
\sum_{k \in \cA} \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[(Z^{k}-\hat{Z}^{k})_{\hat{T}_{B}}]
&\leq \sum_{k \in \cA} [\Di+C_{\cA}] + C_{\cA} \, \frac{ \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[\hat{Z}_{\hat{T}_{B}}]}{\uD}
\end{align*}
and from (\ref{repli}) it follows that $I_{1}^{\cA} \, \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[T^{*}]$ is bounded above by
\begin{align} \label{uppers}
\sum_{k \in \cA} [\Di+C_{\cA}] + \Bigl(1+ \frac{C_{\cA}}{\uD}\Bigr) \, \Exp_{1}^{\cA}[\hat{Z}_{\hat{T}_{B}}].
\end{align}
But since each $\hat{Z}^{k}$ is selected according to (\ref{third}), it is clear that the overshoot $\hat{Z}_{\hat{T}_{B}} - B$ cannot take a value larger than
$\sum_{k=1}^{K}\Di \leq K \oD$. As a result, $\hat{Z}_{\hat{T}_{B}}\leq B + K \oD$ and the upper bound (\ref{uppers}) takes the form
$$
\Bigl[\sum_{k \in \cA} (\Di+C_{\cA}) + \Bigl(1+ \frac{C_{\cA}}{\uD}\Bigr) K \oD \Bigr] + \Bigl(1+ \frac{C_{\cA}}{\uD}\Bigr) B.
$$
Then, in order to prove (\ref{deli5}), it suffices to note that the first two terms in the latter expression are $\calo(\oD)$,
since $C_{\cA}$ is an $\calo(1)$ term as $\uD \rightarrow \infty$, due to assumption (\ref{moment}).
Finally, since $B_{\alpha} \sim |\log \alpha|$ as $\alpha \rightarrow 0$ (recall \eqref{ba}),
from (\ref{deli5}) it follows that $(T^{*},d^{*})$ attains the asymptotic lower bound in (\ref{deli4}) when $B=B_{\alpha}$,
as long as $\uD \rightarrow \infty$ so that $\oD=o(|\log \alpha|)$, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Extensions} \label{sec4}
Theorems \ref{theo0}, \ref{theo1} and \ref{theo2} do not rely heavily on the assumed i.i.d. structure of the sensor observations. Thus, it can be shown that the asymptotic optimality of $(T^{*},d^{*})$ remains valid for any statistical model (in discrete or continuous time) that preserves the asymptotic optimality of the SPRT. Moreover, the above results can be generalized in the case that a lower bound, $\uK \geq 1$, and an upper bound, $\oK \leq K$, are available on the number of affected sensors, that is when $\cP=\{\cA: \uK \leq |\cA| \leq \oK\}$.
Furthermore, it is straightforward to generalize the decentralized sequential test described in Section \ref{sec3}, so that more than one bits are transmitted per communication. These additional bits can be utilized for the quantization of the unobserved overshoots and can improve the performance of the proposed test in the case of high rates of communication.
Finally, we should note that all these extensions, which will be presented elsewhere, require the assumption of independence across sensors. Removing this assumption remains an open problem.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the U.S.\ Air Force Office of Scientific Research under MURI grant FA9550-10-1-0569, by the U.S.\ Defense Threat Reduction Agency under grant HDTRA1-10-1-0086, by the U.S.\ Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under grant W911NF-12-1-0034, by the U.S.\ National Science Foundation under grants CCF-0830419, EFRI-1025043, and DMS-1221888 and by the U.S. Army Research Office under grant W911NF-13-1-0073 at the University of Southern California, Department of Mathematics.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
Core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) are spectacular highlights throughout the transient universe. As the extremely luminous end-point of the evolution of massive stars \citep[$\geq$~8~M$_{\odot}$;][]{smartt09}, CCSNe are valuable tools to many areas of astrophysical research. Their ability to probe the environments they inhabit and our understanding of the diverse range of explosions that occur, however, is limited by our knowledge of the progenitor system for each event, and the surrounding medium.
If the event occurs in a local galaxy, searches in high resolution archival imaging can allow direct observations of the progenitor system to be made; such analysis has proved successful in a growing number of cases \cite[e.g.][see \citealt{smartt09} for a review]{vandyk03,smartt04,li07,galyam09,vandyk12a,maund11}. This technique is clearly reliant on the proximity of the SN, to be able to resolve individual progenitor systems from star clusters, and also the existence of archival high-resolution imaging to a sufficient depth for direct detection or stringent upper limits to be made (preferably in several bands). For the vast majority of discovered SNe, direct studies cannot be performed; post-explosion observations and modelling of the luminous event must be used to infer the properties of the progenitor star and the explosion. Dedicated SN searches are finding SNe of all types with such regularity that in-depth observational follow up, required for accurate modelling, is not feasible for most SNe discovered.
Modelling of CCSNe, from simple analytical descriptions of the light curve evolution \citep{arnett82,valenti08} to spectral synthesis codes \citep[e.g.][]{mazzali93} and hydrodynamical modelling \citep[e.g.][]{nakamura01,utrobin07,tanaka09} can provide good estimates of the physical parameters of the explosion; typically the mass of nickel synthesised and the mass and kinetic energy of the ejecta. Such modelling typically requires at the very least one spectroscopic observation near peak (for analytical methods), with good spectroscopic coverage into the nebular phase desired to obtain the most accurate results from spectral/hydrodynamical modelling. However, to obtain accurate explosion parameters, models must typically be scaled to a bolometric light curve, this is particularly true for hydrodynamical modelling.
A NUV-NIR light curve contains the vast majority of the light from a SNe, but obtaining well-sampled data over this wavelength range is expensive, especially for significant samples of objects. Data are often limited to much shorter wavelength ranges, meaning estimates of bolometric magnitudes can be vastly underestimating the emitted flux. \emph{(U)BVRI} integrated light curves have been used as a proxy for a bolometric light curve, although a comparable amount of flux is emitted in the NIR alone. Either no attempt is made to correct for flux outside this regime \citep[e.g.][]{young10,sahu11}, since no reliable methods exist, or a zero order assumption, that the fraction of flux outside the observed window is constant with time, is made \citep{elmhamdi11}, despite this demonstrably not being the case \citep[e.g.][Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:fluxcont} of this paper]{valenti08, modjaz09}. An improved method is to find a similar object and assume the same proportional flux to be emitted outside the observed window \citep[][Schulze et al. in prep]{valenti08,mazzali13}. Bolometric light curves are therefore created using a variety of methods and this introduces uncertainties on how to compare the results of modelling consistently across events.
\citet{bersten09} have investigated bolometric corrections (BC) to three well-observed type II-P SNe (SNe~II-P) and two sets of atmosphere models. The progenitor stars of SNe~II-P are expected to be at the lower end of the mass range for CCSNe \citep{smartt09} and to have kept their outer layers throughout their evolution. These hydrogen-rich envelopes make their evolution well approximated by spherical explosions whose evolution is blackbody-like and continuum-dominated (until the end of the plateau phase). \citet{bersten09} indeed find very tight correlations between the bolometric correction and optical colour of the SNe/models in their sample, providing a parameterised way of obtaining bolometric magnitudes from \emph{BVI} photometry. Including another well observed SN~II-P, \citet{maguire10} looked at bolometric corrections versus time, and found relatively similar evolution of the BC to $R$-band magnitudes between the four SNe, although the $V$-band BC appears rather more diverse.
\citet{pritchard13}, utilising \emph{Swift} data, have considered all CCSNe types to produce bolometric and ultraviolet corrections (UVC). The \emph{Swift} dataset is uniquely able to constrain the behaviour of SNe in the $\sim$1800--3000\ \AA{} wavelength regime. By correlating directly with optical colours and UV integrated fluxes, both taken with the UVOT instrument, they find a linear behaviour of the UVC, which appears to have no strong dependence on CCSN type. These correlations, however, are subject to substantial spread, which highlights the diversity of UV evolution in CCSNe. An attempt was also made to create a BC for CCSNe, however since the reddest filter available on UVOT is $V$, the BC is reliant upon modelling and the blackbody (BB) approximation for wavelength regimes that contain the majority of the bolometric flux at all but the very earliest epochs. As the authors noted, ground-based observations will provide a more robust estimate for the contribution of these longer wavelengths to CCSN bolometric light curves, particularly when including near infrared (NIR) observations.
Clearly a consistent manner in which to obtain an approximation for the bolometric output, particularly for stripped-envelope CCSNe (SE~SNe; i.e.\ types Ib, Ic and IIb), is lacking. Such a method would allow results from modelling to be compared more consistently, as well as providing further tests for current and future models and simulations of SNe.
In this paper we utilise literature data for well observed CCSNe to investigate flux contributions of different wavelength regimes, and to construct BCs based on optical colours. Although these literature SNe are predominantly observed in the Johnson-Cousins systems, we also present fits in Sloan optical bands given their prevalence in current and future SN surveys. In Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:data} we present the data and the SN sample, Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:method} describes the steps involved in creating spectral energy distributions (SEDs) for the SN sample. Results and fit equations are presented in Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:results} and discussed in Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:discuss}.
\section{Data}
\label{sect:data}
\subsection{Photometry}
\label{sect:photometry}
SEDs, from which to calculate integrated light curves, would ideally be constructed from spectra. However the expense of such spectral coverage, and consequent dearth of available observations, means that the SEDs analysed here have been constructed exclusively from broad-band photometric data. The phase ranges covered by this analysis (typically $<$~70 days past peak for SE~SNe, and the duration of the plateau for type II SNe; SNe~II) are regions where continuum emission dominates the brightness of a SN, with line emission only dominating in the later, nebular phases. As such, photometric and spectroscopic integrated luminosities will typically agree well in the phase ranges explored here.
All photometric data used here are taken from the literature where a CCSN has photometric coverage over the $U$-to-$K${} wavelength range. All types of CCSNe are included except those exhibiting strong interaction with their surrounding medium (typically with an `n' designation in their type). Strong CSM interaction introduces a range of photometric and spectroscopic evolution, as well as the possibility of early dust formation \citep[e.g. SN2006jc;][]{smith08,nozawa08}, making SED evolution between these events diverse.\footnote{Furthermore, recent evidence suggest some fraction of SN~IIn could be type Ia, thermonuclear, explosions that are expanding into a dense hydrogen-rich medium \citep{silverman13}.} See \citet{moriya13} for an analytical treatment of SNe~IIn bolometric light curves.
\subsection{SN sample}
\label{sect:sn_sample}
Naturally, a sample of well-observed SNe taken from the literature will be extremely heterogeneous since it is often the events that display unusual or peculiar characteristics (and/or are very nearby) that find the most attention. As such this sample is by no means a representative sample of discovered CCSNe, or CCSNe as a whole. This makes it more difficult to break down the sample by type as some are unique events. The unusual characteristics across this sample are evident from the uncertain and peculiar flags on their initial IAU typing.\footnote{\url{http://www.cbat.eps.harvard.edu/lists/Supernovae.html}} In Table\nobreakspace \ref {tab:sn_sample} we present SN type, as taken from more detailed literature studies of the objects, host galaxy name and redshift from the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED)\footnote{\url{http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/}}, $E(B-V)$ values for Galactic and total reddening, the filters used to construct the SED, an epoch range over which the full filter set can be reliably used in constructing the SED (see Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:interps}), and a $\Delta m_{15,V}${} value (see Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:fluxcont}) for each SN in the sample.
The sample includes a GRB-SN (SN1998bw), XRF-SNe (SN2006aj, SN2008D) and the unusual SN2005bf that displayed two peaks and a transition from type Ic to Ib, discussed variously as a magnetar \citep{maeda07} and an asymmetric Wolf-Rayet explosion \citep[e.g.][]{folatelli06}. See the references in Table\nobreakspace \ref {tab:sn_sample} for a detailed discussion of individual events and further unusual characteristics.
Given the limited sample and the previously mentioned eclectic and peculiar nature of many of them, we limit our sub-typing to SE~SNe (i.e.\ those of type Ib, Ic and IIb) and SNe~II (i.e.\ those of any type II except IIb). Practically, we consider SN1987A, SN1999em, SN2003hn, SN2004et, SN2005cs and SN2012A as the SNe~II sample ($N=6$), with all others being SE~SNe ($N=15$).
\begin{table*}
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Data for SNe in the sample.}
\begin{tabular}{lllccccHccc}
\hline
SN name & Type & Host & Redshift & $E(B-V)_{MW}$ & $E(B-V)_{tot}$ &Filter coverage & Photometric coverage & Full SED coverage\tnote{a} & $\Delta m_{15,V}${}\tnote{b}& Refs.\\
& & & & (mag) & (mag) & & ($\Delta t_{peak,V}$)& ($\Delta t_{peak,V}$) & (mag) & \\
\hline
1987A & II-pec& LMC & 0.0009 & 0.08 & 0.17 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & 1--134\tnote{c} & 2--134\tnote{c} & --- & 1--4 \\
1993J & IIb & M81 & -0.0001 & 0.081 & 0.194 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & $-$18--27 & $-$18--$-$10, 14--27 & 0.935 & 5--7 \\
1998bw & Ic-BL & ESO~184-G82 & 0.0087 & 0.065 & 0.065 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & $-$8--70 & 6, 31, 49 & 0.816 & 8,9 \\
1999dn & Ib & NGC~7714 & 0.0093 & 0.052 & 0.10 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & $-$1--123 & 24, 38, 123 & 0.500 & 10 \\
1999em & II-P & NGC~1637 & 0.0024 & 0.043 & 0.10 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & 9--124\tnote{c} & 11--117\tnote{c} & --- & 11,12 \\
2002ap & Ic & M74 & 0.0022 & 0.072 & 0.09 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & $-$8--25 & $-$8--25 & 0.881 & 13--20 \\
2003hn & II-P & NGC~1448 & 0.0039 & 0.014 & 0.187 & \emph{UBVRIYJHK} & 20--170 & 20--140 & --- & 12 \\
2004aw & Ic & NGC~3997 & 0.0159 & 0.021 & 0.37 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & $-$8-45 & 4--27 & 0.558 & 21 \\
2004et & II-P & NGC~6946 & 0.0001 & 0.314 & 0.41 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & 8--112\tnote{c} & 8--112\tnote{c} & --- & 22,23 \\
2005bf & Ib/c & MCG~+00-27-5 & 0.0189 & 0.045 & 0.045 & \emph{UBVriJHK} & $-$27--28\tnote{d}& $-$17--20\tnote{d} & 0.462 & 24 \\
2005cs & II-P & M51 & 0.0015 & 0.035 & 0.050 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & 3--93\tnote{c} & 3--80\tnote{c} & --- & 25 \\
2006aj & Ib/c & Anon. & 0.0335 & 0.142 & 0.142 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & $-$9--14 & $-$7--6 & 1.076 & 26,27 \\
2007Y & Ib & NGC~1187 & 0.0046 & 0.022 & 0.112 & \emph{uBgVriYJHK} & $-$16--29 & $-$13--29 & 1.049 & 28 \\
2007gr & Ic & NGC~1058 & 0.0017 & 0.062 & 0.092 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & $-$8--141 & $-$3--141 & 0.861 & 29 \\
2007uy & Ib & NGC~2770 & 0.0065 & 0.022 & 0.63 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & XXXXXXXX & $-$4--5,33--35 & 0.815 & 30 \\
2008D & Ib & NGC~2770 & 0.0065 & 0.023 & 0.6 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & $-$17--18 & $-$16--18 & 0.697 & 31 \\
2008ax & IIb & NGC~4490 & 0.0019 & 0.022 & 0.4 & \emph{uBVrRIJHK} & $-$18--25 & $-$10--25 & 0.909 & 32,33 \\
2009jf & Ib & NGC~7479 & 0.0079 & 0.112 & 0.117 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & $-$20--54 & $-$17--54 & 0.592 & 34,35 \\
2011bm & Ic & IC~3918 & 0.0015 & 0.032 & 0.064 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & $-$19--78 & 8--56 & 0.251 & 36 \\
2011dh & IIb & M51 & 0.0015 & 0.031 & 0.07 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & $-$18--77 & $-$18--70 & 0.968 & 37 \\
2012A & II-P & NGC~3239 & 0.0025 & 0.028 & 0.037 & \emph{UBVRIJHK} & 3--140\tnote{c} & 9--90\tnote{c} & --- & 38 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:sn_sample}
\begin{tablenotes}
\item [a]{The phase(s) over which there exists a full complement of filter observations (or well constrained interpolations) from which to construct an SED in days relative to the $V$-band peak}
\item [b]{Difference in magnitudes of the $V$-band light curve} at peak and 15 days later
\item [c]{Phase is quoted with respect to estimated explosion date}
\item [d]{The second $V$-band peak is used as $t_{peak}$, SN2005bf is the famous `double-humped' SN.}
\end{tablenotes}
\vspace{0.3cm}
References:
(1) \citet{menzies87}; (2) \citet{catchpole87}; (3) \citet{gochermann89}; (4) \citet{walker90};
(5) \citet{richmond94}; (6) \citet[][and IAU circulars within]{matthews02}; (7) \citet{matheson00};
(8) \citet{clocchiatti11}; (9) \citet{patat01};
(10) \citet{benetti11};
(11) \citet{elmhamdi03}; (12) \citet{krisciunas09};
(13) \citet{mattila02}; (14) \citet{hasubick02}; (15) \citet{riffeser02};(16) \citet{motohara02}; (17) \citet{galyam02}; (18) \citet{takada02}; (19) \citet{yoshii03}; (20) \citet{foley03};
(21) \citet{taubenberger06};
(22) \citet{zwitter04}; (23) \citet{maguire10};
(24) \citet{tominaga05};
(25) \citet{pastorello09};
(26) \citet{mirabal06}; (27) \citet{kocevski07};
(28) \citet{stritzinger09};
(29) \citet{hunter09};
(30) \citet{roy13};
(31) \citet{modjaz09};
(32) \citet{taubenberger11}; (33) \citet{pastorello08};
(34) \citet{valenti11}; (35) \citet{sahu11};
(36) \citet{valenti12};
(37) \citet{ergon13};
(38) \citet{tomasella13}.
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table*}
\section{Method}
\label{sect:method}
Flux evolution and BCs are found through integrations of various wavelength regimes of SEDs for our SN sample. A description of how these SEDs are constructed from the photometric data, and the treatment of unconstrained wavelengths follows.
\subsection{Interpolations of light curves}
\label{sect:interps}
Photometric data will not have equal sampling across all filters. For example optical data may be taken on a different telescope to the NIR, or poor weather prevent the observations in one or more bands on a given night. Since we are interested in obtaining a full SED over the $U$-to-$K${} filter range, we must rely on interpolations in order to provide good estimates for these missing data.
Such interpolations were fitted to each filter light curve as a whole and chosen as the best estimate of the missing evolution of the light curve. Typically interpolation functions were either linear, spline or a composite fit \citep[consisting of an exponential rise, a Gaussian peak, and magnitude-linear decay; see][]{vacca96}. The choice of function was linked to the sampling; where the light curve had densely sampled evolution ($\sim$ daily), linear interpolation was sufficient, whereas splines and the composite model were used when the light curve had substantial gaps (\simgt{} several days) where the light curve was not constrained.
Interpolated values were used to fill in missing values from literature photometry such that at every epoch of observation a full complement of magnitudes in each filter of the $U$-to-$K${} range existed from a mixture of observed and interpolated data points. Epochs over which the interpolations were valid were noted and interpolated values were only trusted within a few days of observations; for regions of simple behaviour, where we could be confident the interpolation accurately represented the missing part of the light curve (e.g.\ epochs on the plateau for SNe~II), this limit was increased. Any epoch where the evolution of the SN light curve in one or more filters was not well constrained was rejected from further analysis. Extrapolations were typically not relied upon, although some cases warranted extrapolated magnitudes to be used in one or two filters -- these were only used {\small\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel{\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle <$}}{\sim}\,$}}{}2 days beyond the data, and where the function was well-behaved. See Table\nobreakspace \ref {tab:sn_sample} for ranges where full $U$-to-$K${} fluxes could be used in SED construction for each SN.
\subsection{SED construction}
\label{sect:sed}
SED construction is performed using a different method for three different wavelength regimes: The optical-NIR (3659--21900\ \AA{}; the wavelength range covered by the $U$-to-$K${} photometry), the BB tail ($>$21900\ \AA{}) and the UV ($<$3569\ \AA{}). A discussion of the construction of the SED in each regime follows.
\subsubsection{The optical-NIR regime}
\label{sect:sed_opt}
In this wavelength range we are constrained by photometric observations from the interpolated light curves, which form tie points of the SED. Prior to SED construction, the photometry is corrected for extinction assuming a \citet{fitzpatrick99}\footnote{The choice of extinction law has minimal impact on the final results.} $R_V=3.1$ Galactic extinction curve for both Milky Way and host galaxy extinction. $E(B-V)_{tot}$ ($= E(B-V)_{MW} + E(B-V)_{host}$) values are given in Table\nobreakspace \ref {tab:sn_sample}.
Extinction-corrected magnitudes are then converted to fluxes ($F_{\lambda}$). An optical-NIR SED is created for every epoch of observation using the $F_{\lambda}$ and effective wavelength ($\lambda_{eff}${}) values of each filter. Filter zeropoints, to convert to $F_{\lambda}$, and $\lambda_{eff}${} values are taken from \citet{fukugita96}, \citet{bessell98} and \citet{hewett06}. Note that $K$-corrections were neglected in this analysis due to the very low redshift of the sample (see Table\nobreakspace \ref {tab:sn_sample}). $K$-corrections were investigated using available spectra of the SN sample at similar epochs to SED construction in WISeREP \citep{yaron12}, with over 90 per cent of measurements across all filters having $|K| < 0.03$~mag.
\subsubsection{The BB tail}
\label{sect:sed_ir}
Although longer wavelengths than $K$-band are not expected to contribute significantly to the bolometric flux, a treatment of these wavelengths in the SEDs must be made to avoid systematically underestimating the bolometric flux. During the photospheric epochs mainly investigated here, we assume the flux evolution of the long wavelength regime to be well described by a BB tail -- see Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:uvir_treatment} for a discussion of this approximation.
A BB was fit using the $R$ (or $r$), $I$ (or $i$), $J$, $H$ and $K$-band fluxes ($R$-to-$K$), since optical fluxes, particularly for SE~SNe, fall below the expectation from a BB once strong line development of Fe-group elements begins \citep[see][and references therein]{filippenko97}. Epochs where bluer bands are expected to be well characterised by a BB fit ({\small\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel{\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle <$}}{\sim}\,$}}{}20 days for SE~SNe and prior to the end of the plateau for SNe~II), were also separately fitted, here including $B$- and $V$-bands, to ascertain the difference to the $R$-to-$K$ fits. Including these extra bands had very little impact on the fits and resulting integrated luminosities. As such we favour using the $R$-to-$K$ bands for our BB fits, since this is appropriate for each SNe at all epochs investigated here and we reduce the danger of erroneously fitting to wavelengths that are not described by a BB.
{\sc curve\_fit} in the {\sc Scipy}\footnote{\url{http://www.scipy.org/}} package was used on each pair of parameters in an initial grid of reasonable SN temperatures and radii to find the global $\chi^2$ minimised BB function. The resulting function was appended to the optical-NIR SED at the red cut off of the $K$-band filter (defined as 10 per cent transmission limit, 24400\ \AA{}) and extended to infinity. The $K$-band and beginning of the BB tail were linearly joined in the SED.
\subsubsection{The UV}
\label{sect:sed_uv}
The UV represents a wavelength regime with complex and extremely heterogeneous evolution for CCSNe \citep{brown09}. Coupled with a dearth of observations, correcting for flux in the UV is uncertain. Early epochs in the evolution of a SN can be dominated by the cooling of shocked material which emerges after the short-lived shock breakout (SBO) emission. This cooling phase is observed as a declining bolometric light curve that is very blue in colour. After this the radioactively powered component of the light curve begins to dominate and the light curve then rises to the radioactive peak (in SE~SNe; for SNe~II-P the recombination-powered light curve will become dominant and the light curve will settle to the plateau phase). The time over which the cooling phase dominates is highly dependent on the nature of the progenitor star, primarily driven by its size. The extended progenitors of SNe~II, which have retained their massive envelopes, can display the signature of this cooling phase for many days, whereas in compact SE~SNe progenitors it is shorter and often {\small\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel{\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle <$}}{\sim}\,$}}{}1~day. Indeed for SE~SNe it has only been seen in a handful of cases (e.g. SNe 1993J, \citealt{richmond94}; 1999ex, \citealt{stritzinger02}; 2008D, \citealt{modjaz09}; 2011dh, \citealt{arcavi11}), generally thanks to extremely early detections.
The evolution in the UV regime also quickly falls below the expectations of a BB approximation, as mentioned in Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:sed_ir}, and as such a BB fit to these wavelength ranges over most of the evolution of a SN would be inconsistent with one drawn from longer wavelengths. During the cooling phase however, a BB fit across all wavelengths is appropriate as the SN is dominated by the hot, continuum flux.
Given the changing behaviour of the UV we utilise two treatments for the differing cases.
For epochs over the cooling phase, the UV flux is taken to be the integrated flux of a BB function, from zero\ \AA{} to the blue edge of the $U$-band \citep[following e.g.][]{bersten09}; the BB is fitted and joined to the SED in the same manner as Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:sed_ir}. (Note that for these epochs we opted to include the $B$ and $V$ filters as further constraints for the BB.) Signatures of this cooling phase were taken to be early declines in the $U$- and $B$-bands in the light curves of SNe. All SNe~II and SNe 1993J, 2008D and 2011dh had epochs during the cooling phase which contained full $U$-to-$K${} photometry, i.e.\ where we could contruct SEDs for them. The extent of the cooling phase was determined by observing a drop in the $U$-band flux in the SED, relative to that predicted by the BB fit.
To account for UV flux at later epochs, when the BB approximation is not appropriate, each SED was tied to zero flux at 2000\ \AA{} by linearly extrapolating from the $U$-band flux. This was found to be a good estimate of the UV flux when compared to UV observations, as discussed in Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:uvir_treatment}.
\section{Results}
\label{sect:results}
Using the constructed SEDs, investigations into the contributions of different wavelength regimes can be made over various epochs of SN evolution and across different types.
\subsection{Flux contributions with epoch}
\label{sect:fluxcont}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fluxvstime_se}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{fluxvstime_ii}
\caption{The evolution with time of the UV (blue), optical (green), and IR (red) fluxes as a fraction of the bolometric flux for SE~SNe (top) and SNe~II (bottom). Light curve evolution has been stretched for each SE~SNe to a common $\Delta m_{15,V}${} of 0.758 (see text).}
\label{fig:fluxvstime}
\end{figure}
Initially, SEDs were integrated over three wavelength regimes: an optical regime (defined here as covering the \emph{gri} bands; 3924--8583\ \AA{}), the IR (including the BB tail; 9035\ \AA{}--infinity) and the UV (0--3924\ \AA{}). For the SE~SNe each SED was assigned an epoch relative to the peak of the $V$-band light curve, where the peak was found by fitting a polynomial to the data near maximum. A $\Delta m_{15,V}${} value for each SN was also found, following the method of \citet{phillips93}, using the $V$-band. $\Delta m_{15,V}${} values are presented in Table\nobreakspace \ref {tab:sn_sample}. Each SN was normalised to the evolution of the average $\Delta m_{15,V}${} (0.758) in order to correct for varying light curve evolution time-scales. This was done by applying a linear stretch factor, $S$ to the epoch for each SN, where $S = \Delta m_{15,V}/0.758$. For SNe~II each SED epoch was made relative to the time of explosion (see references in Table\nobreakspace \ref {tab:sn_sample}).
The behaviour of the flux contained in the UV, optical, and IR are plotted as a function of the total bolometric flux in Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:fluxvstime}. Clearly the individual components, as fractions of the total emitted flux, evolve strongly with respect to time, as has been indicated previously for individual or small samples of events \citep[e.g.][]{valenti08,modjaz09,stritzinger09}. This behaviour appears to be qualitatively similar for all SE~SNe (after normalising to a common light curve evolution time-scale). IR fractions typically reach a minimum on or slightly before $V$~peak and then rise until $\sim 20/S$ days after peak, reaching a comparable fraction of the bolometric flux to that of the optical. The UV is weak at most epochs, falling from $\sim$10--20 per cent prior to peak to just a few per cent a week past peak for most SE~SNe. However, in the case of an observed SBO cooling phase, as is the case particularly for SN1993J and, to a lesser extent, SNe 2008D and 2011dh, the UV contributes a significant fraction of the bolometric flux for a short time after explosion. Due to the putative compact nature of the progenitors of these SNe however, the fraction of the light emitted in the UV falls rapidly.
For SNe~II we see largely coherent behaviour amongst the sample in the three regimes, albeit very different from that of SE~SNe. The IR rises almost monotonically from explosion until the end of the plateau, where it contributes $\sim$40 per cent to the bolometric flux. The optical remains roughly constant with time indicating the BC to optical filters should be roughly constant \citep[e.g.][]{maguire10}. The UV contributes a larger fraction than in SE~SNe and for a longer time, owing largely to the generally much more extended cooling phase that SNe~II exhibit, for example SN2003hn shows significant UV contributions to its bolometric flux ($\sim$30~per~cent) more than 20 days past explosion. SN1987A, however, is very unusual compared to the other events. Being UV deficient \citep{danziger87}, any significant contribution from the cooling phase rapidly falls, with the UV making up only a few percent of the bolometric flux within a week of explosion. The IR of SN1987A also increases much more rapidly than other SNe~II, maintaining a similar fraction as that of the optical from 20~days, and overtaking the optical as the dominant regime after $\sim$80~days.
\subsection{Optical colours and bolometric corrections}
\label{sect:optcols}
CCSNe evolve strongly in colour during the rise and fall of their brightness. Previous work looking at the optical colours of SE~SNe and SNe~II \citep[e.g.][]{drout11,maguire10} shows that the colour evolution
changes strongly as a function of time.
The driving force of these large colour changes during the photospheric evolution of a SN is the change in temperature of the photosphere, with some smaller contribution from development of heavy element features in the spectra.
It is expected that the BC should be linked to the colour of the SN (a diagnostic for the temperature) at that epoch.
Given the relative ease of obtaining colours for SNe as oppose to characterising entire flux regimes as is given in Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:fluxcont}, it is prudent to quantify BCs as functions of the colours sensitive to the SN's temperature (i.e.\ those in the optical regime).
For filters used in the construction of the SEDs, obtaining the colour at each epoch is trivial. However, when one or both filters are not observed and thus do not form tie points of the flux in the SEDs, we must rely on interpolations. The linear SED interpolations used in order to integrate over wavelength were used to sample the SEDs at the $\lambda_{eff}${} of the desired filter, and fluxes in $F_\lambda$ were then converted to apparent magnitudes. The continuum-dominated SEDs largely do not contain significant fluctuations on the scale of broadband filter widths between neighbouring broadband filters and one would not expect large deviations from a linear interpolation between neighbouring filters. In the interest of presenting results that will be useful for future surveys, corrections to Sloan magnitudes were investigated. An analysis of using these linear interpolations to derive Sloan magnitudes is made in Appendix\nobreakspace \ref {sect:extractsloan} by comparing to the expected magnitudes directly from contemporaneous spectra. We find that $g$ and $r$ magnitudes are very well estimated by the linear interpolation method, however there is some systematic offset in $i$.
Given the highly uncertain nature of the UV correction, two types of BC were investigated. These are a `true' BC including the UV, and what will be termed a \emph{pseudo-}BC (\emph{p}BC{}) which will neglect contributions from the UV (i.e.\ the BB integration to zero\ \AA{} or linear extrapolation to 2000\ \AA{}, see Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:sed_uv}) and instead cut off at the blue edge of the $U$-band. This makes the \emph{p}BC{} independent of the treatment of the UV presented here and makes no attempt to account for these shorter wavelengths, useful in the case where UV observations exist, where indications of unusual UV behaviour are present, or where a complementary treatment of the UV exists that may be added to the \emph{p}BC{}.
The SEDs were integrated over each of the wavelength ranges to obtain (pseudo-)bolometric fluxes. These were then converted to luminosities, and finally to bolometric (or pseudo-bolometric) magnitudes using:
\begin{equation}
M_{bol} = M_{\odot,bol}-2.5\log_{10}\left(\frac{L_{bol}}{L_{\odot,bol}}\right),
\label{eq:bolo}
\end{equation}
where $M_{bol}$ and $L_{bol}$ can be replaced by their pseudo-bolometric counterparts. A BC (or \emph{p}BC{}) to filter $x$ can then be defined as:
\begin{equation}
\text{BC}_{x} = M_{bol} - M_{x},
\label{eq:bc}
\end{equation}
where $M_{x}$ is the absolute magnitude of SN in filter \emph{x} that has been corrected for extinction (see Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:sed_opt}). This definition can also be expressed in observed magnitudes \mbox{($\text{BC}_{x} = m_{bol} - m_{x}$)} using the distance modulus for each SN host.\footnote{Although the BC is accounting for missing flux, its value can be positive in magnitudes, given the difference in the zeropoints for the filter magnitudes and $M_{bol}$.}
All colours and (\emph{p})BCs in the $BVRI$ and $gri$ ranges were computed. For both the \emph{p}BC{} and BC, the tightest correlation for the Johnson-Cousins filters was $BC_{B}$ against $B-I$ colour. For the Sloan filters this was the $BC_{g}$ against $g-i$ colour, however, as detailed in Appendix\nobreakspace \ref {sect:extractsloan}, the $i$-band derived magnitudes are susceptible to a systematic offset, and as such we present $g-r$ as the representative fit.
We will limit our discussion here to mainly the BC to $B-I$, alongside plotting the BC to $g-r$ relation for a visual comparison; the parameters for all reasonable \emph{p}BC{} and BC fits, which may be useful in the case where good coverage is not available in either of these filter pairs, are presented in Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:otherfits}.
Furthermore, distinct behaviour was observed for those epochs during the cooling phase (see Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:sed_uv}) and subsequent epochs, mainly due to the differing behaviour of the UV and subsequent differing treatment in our method. We thus present the two phases separately and offer distinct fits to each.
\subsection{The radiatively/recombination powered phase}
\label{sect:radphase}
Those epochs post cooling from SBO are analysed here. The $B-I$ and $g-r$ data for these epochs are plotted in Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:bc_all} for the BC and Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:pbc_all} for the \emph{p}BC{}.\footnote{All plots of BC against a given colour have equal plotted ranges. for ease of comparison.} As is evident, even across all SNe types, we find a tight correlation between the (\emph{p}{})BC, and the respective colour. Such a universal trend of behaviour allows us to construct fits to describe the bolometric evolution of CCSNe for each filter set. The BC has some parabolic evolution evident at blue and very red epochs, and as such a second order polynomial is fitted for the BC in each case.
Equations\nobreakspace \textup {(\ref {eq:bc_all_jc})} and\nobreakspace \textup {(\ref {eq:bc_all_sl})} describe the BC fits to the entire sample, which allow a good estimate of a SN's bolometric magnitude to be made based on the colour in each equation.
\begin{equation}
\text{BC}_{B} = -0.057 - 0.219 \times (B-I) - 0.169 \times (B-I)^{2}
\label{eq:bc_all_jc}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\text{BC}_{g} = 0.055 - 0.219 \times (g-r) - 0.629 \times (g-r)^{2}
\label{eq:bc_all_sl}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{bc_all_jc}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{bc_all_sl}
\caption{BC for all SNe in the sample presented for a relation in the Johnson-Cousins (top) and Sloan (bottom) filters. Epochs shown \emph{do not} include those exhibiting signatures of strong cooling after SBO. SNe~II are denoted by triangles. A best-fitted second order polynomial is shown for each (see text).}
\label{fig:bc_all}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{pbc_all_jc}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{pbc_all_sl}
\caption{\emph{p}BC{} for all SNe in the sample presented for a relation in the Johnson-Cousins (top) and Sloan (bottom) filters. Epochs shown include those exhibiting signatures of strong cooling after SBO, since the UV is not accounted for in the \emph{p}BC{}. SNe~II are denoted by triangles. A best-fitted second order polynomial is shown for each (see text).}
\label{fig:pbc_all}
\end{figure}
The BC in each case is a tight correlation, with deviations of just $\sim$0.1~mag from the best fitted function for even the most extreme objects in each case. The rms scatter and colour range for the $B-I$ fit are 0.053~mag and $-$0.4--2.8. For the $g-r$ fit the rms and colour range are 0.070~mag and $-$0.3--1.2.
Despite the generally universal behaviour of the SNe in the sample, there is certainly a difference in scatter and colour range between the two types, with SNe~II populating very red regions of the plots, and, although there is no indication for a strong divergence of the SE~SNe from the extended behaviour of the SNe~II, each SN type should only be trusted over the observed colour range. For these reasons, it is useful to define individual fits for SE~SNe and SNe~II separately. These are plotted in Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:bc_twotype} for each filter set, colour-coded by type and with the individual fits to SE~SNe and SNe~II shown. As is clear from these fits, there is good agreement between the two samples over the range of colours for which the samples overlap.
The equations describing the SE~SN-sample fits shown in Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:bc_twotype} are:
\begin{equation}
\text{BC}_{B} = -0.055 - 0.240 \times (B-I) - 0.154 \times (B-I)^{2}
\label{eq:bc_se_jc}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\text{BC}_{g} = 0.054 - 0.195 \times (g-r) - 0.719 \times (g-r)^{2}
\label{eq:bc_se_sl}
\end{equation}
\noindent
And for the SNe~II sample, the fits are:
\begin{equation}
\text{BC}_{B} = 0.004 - 0.297 \times (B-I) - 0.149 \times (B-I)^{2}
\label{eq:bc_ii_jc}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\text{BC}_{g} = 0.053 - 0.089 \times (g-r) - 0.736 \times (g-r)^{2}
\label{eq:bc_ii_sl}
\end{equation}
As might be expected given their more homogeneous evolution, SNe~II appear to evolve extremely similarly (including SN1987A, which displayed a very unusual light curve) until the end of the plateau, the time range over which this analysis is made. This confirms the coherent behaviour of SNe~II-P shown by \citet{bersten09} and indicates colour is a very good indicator of the BC for SNe~II. We present the bolometric light curve of SN1987A constructed using the fits of \citet{bersten09} and those presented here in Appendix\nobreakspace \ref {sect:09jf}. We find a simple second-order polynomial sufficient to define the BC from our colours with a larger sample (up until the end of the plateau), which means the bolometric light curve of a SN~II can be robustly estimated from just two-filter observations with minimal scatter in the relation. An increase in sample size is obviously desired to improve and confirm this relation across the family of SNe~II.
SE~SNe are an inherently diverse range of explosions given their various expected progenitor channels; notwithstanding this, we still see evolution remarkably well described by a second-order polynomial in each colour. Rather the opposite of investigating a ``typical'' SE~SNe sample, we here show many unique and unusual outbursts, which suggests that the spread observed here is plausibly close to the worse-case scenario of uncertainties on computing a bolometric magnitude for a given SE~SN that is constrained only in the optical. SN2007uy appears as somewhat of an outlier from the SE~SNe fit and this SN is discussed further in Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:uvir_treatment}.
For the fits to $B-I$ the rms values are 0.061 and 0.026~mag for SE~SNe and SNe~II, respectively. The SE~SN (SN~II) fit is valid over the $B-I$ colour range $-$0.4--2.3 (0.0--2.8).
For the fits to $g-r$ the rms values are 0.076 and 0.036~mag for SE~SNe and SNe~II, respectively. The SE~SN (SN~II) fit is valid over the $g-r$ colour range $-$0.3--1.0 ($-$0.2--1.3)
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{bc_twotype_jc}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{bc_twotype_sl}
\caption{As for Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:bc_all} but SNe are split between SNe~II (red triangles) and SE~SNe (Ib/c, IIb; grey circles) with a best-fitting second-order polynomial constructed for each SN type. Epochs shown \emph{do not} include those exhibiting signatures of strong cooling after SBO.}
\label{fig:bc_twotype}
\end{figure}
\subsection{The cooling phase}
\label{sect:coolingphase}
Due to the different treatment of the UV during the cooling phase of SNe evolution from that at later phases, where the BB approximation is more valid than a linear interpolation, we find these epochs require a separate treatment as they are not well described by the parabolas given in Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:radphase}. This is clearly displayed Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:bc_cooling}, where the epochs over the cooling phase are plotted alongside the data from the radiative and recombination epochs. The fact this cooling phase forms a `branch' in this plot rather than an extension in colour also prompts a separate fit, since the cooling phase occurs over the same optical colours as the later evolution for some SNe. We follow the same procedure as in Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:radphase} and fit parabolas to the cooling phase data for each colour. Separate fits for SE~SNe and SNe~II were not done due to the low number of points. The fitted functions are:
\begin{equation}
\text{BC}_{B,cool} = -0.473 + 0.830 \times (B-I) - 1.064 \times (B-I)^{2}
\label{eq:bc_cooling_jc}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\text{BC}_{g,cool} = -0.146 + 0.479 \times (g-r) - 2.257 \times (g-r)^{2}
\label{eq:bc_cooling_sl}
\end{equation}
The rms value for $B-I$ ($g-i$) is 0.072 (0.078) and the colour range is $-$0.2--0.8 ($-$0.3--0.3). The cooling branch, as expected, is only observed over the bluer colours of SNe evolution, and shows a larger scatter than the later epochs for each colour, which is reflected in the generally larger rms values of the fits given in Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:otherfits}. The reader's attention is drawn to Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:uvir_treatment} for a discussion of the UV treatment in this regime.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{bc_cooling_jc}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{bc_cooling_sl}
\caption{As for Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:bc_all} (grey markers), overlaid with those epochs which exihibit the signature of strong cooling after SBO emission. As is clear these epochs do not occur at unique colours, and as such a separate fit must account for this phase of evolution. A best-fitted second order polynomial is shown for each, fitted to all SNe types (see text).}
\label{fig:bc_cooling}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Fits to other colours}
\label{sect:otherfits}
Following \citet{bersten09}, we present all calculated fits for our BC and \emph{p}BC{} as tables of coefficients to the polynomials:
\begin{equation}
\text{BC}_{x} = \displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^{2} c_i(x-y)^i
\label{eq:bc_poly}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
p\text{BC}_{x} = \displaystyle\sum_{i=0}^{2} c_i(x-y)^i
\label{eq:pbc_poly}
\end{equation}
where BC$_{x}$ and \emph{p}BC{}$_{x}$ are the bolometric and pseudo-bolometric corrections to filter $x$, based on colour $x-y$. The coefficients are presented in Tables\nobreakspace \ref {tab:se_params} and\nobreakspace \ref {tab:ii_params} for SE~SNe and SNe~II respectively. The parameters for the BC appropriate during the cooling phase are provided in Table\nobreakspace \ref {tab:cooling_params}, note these are appropriate for both SE~SNe and SNe~II, as we neglect to divide the sample by type during this phase due to the small numbers involved. Also given are the colour ranges over which the fitted data extend and rms values of the fits in magnitudes.
Note that the data used to produce the $g-i$ fits were corrected for the systematic offset found when estimating $i$-band fluxes from a linear interpolation of the SED, see Appendix\nobreakspace \ref {sect:extractsloan} for more details. However, it was found that the $g-i$ relation has the smallest intrinsic scatter of any colours investigated here, and a fit to this colour should be reassessed once a data set of SNe observed in Sloan filters with good UV/NIR coverage exists.
Fits to $R-I$ and $r-i$ were calculated, but the scatter about these fits was rather larger than the fits presented here, and as such are not included in Tables\nobreakspace \ref {tab:se_params} to\nobreakspace \ref {tab:cooling_params} . The larger scatter is probably due to both of these pairs of filters failing to characterise the peak of the SED at any epoch. As such, a given value for either of these colours has a large uncertainty on the strength of the peak of the SED, where the majority of the flux is emitted, and thus a large uncertainty on the BC (or \emph{p}BC).
\begin{table*}[]
\caption{Fit parameters for SE~SNe. We indicate in bold the fits with the smallest dispersions (see text).}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc@{\hskip 1.1cm}rrrr@{\hskip 1.1cm}rrrr}
& & & \multicolumn{ 4}{c}{{\bf BC}} & \multicolumn{ 4}{c}{{\bf \emph{p}BC}} \\
$x$ & $y$ & $x-y$ range &{$c_0$} & {$c_1$} & {$c_2$} & {rms}&{$c_0$} & {$c_1$} & {$c_2$} & {rms} \\
\hline
$B$ & $V$ & 0.0--1.3 & $-0.083$ & $-0.139$ & $-0.691$ & $0.109$ & $+0.076$ & $-0.347$ & $-0.620$ & $0.112$ \\
$B$ & $R$ & 0.1--2.0 & $-0.029$ & $-0.302$ & $-0.224$ & $0.069$ & $+0.136$ & $-0.464$ & $-0.181$ & $0.067$ \\
$B$ & $I$ & $-$0.4--2.3 & $-0.055$ & $-0.240$ & $-0.154$ & $\mathbf{0.061}$ & $+0.097$ & $-0.354$ & $-0.131$ & $\mathbf{0.064}$ \\
$V$ & $R$ & $-$0.2--0.7 & $+0.197$ & $-0.183$ & $-0.419$ & $0.101$ & $+0.299$ & $-0.372$ & $-0.358$ & $0.087$ \\
$V$ & $I$ & $-$0.7--1.1 & $+0.213$ & $-0.203$ & $-0.079$ & $0.090$ & $+0.306$ & $-0.283$ & $-0.084$ & $0.072$ \\
$g$ & $i$ & $-$0.8--1.1& $-0.029$ & $-0.404$ & $-0.230$ & $\mathbf{0.060}$ & $+0.051$ & $-0.511$ & $-0.195$ & $\mathbf{0.055}$ \\
$g$ & $r$ & $-$0.3--1.0 & $+0.054$ & $-0.195$ & $-0.719$ & $0.076$ & $+0.168$ & $-0.407$ & $-0.608$ & $0.074$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab:se_params}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[]
\caption{Fit parameters for SNe~II. We indicate in bold the fits with the smallest dispersions (see text).}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc@{\hskip 1.1cm}rrrr@{\hskip 1.1cm}rrrr}
& & & \multicolumn{ 4}{c}{{\bf BC}} & \multicolumn{ 4}{c}{{\bf \emph{p}BC}} \\
$x$ & $y$ & $x-y$ range &{$c_0$} & {$c_1$} & {$c_2$} & {rms}&{$c_0$} & {$c_1$} & {$c_2$} & {rms} \\
\hline
$B$ & $V$ & 0.0--1.6 & $-0.138$ & $-0.013$ & $-0.649$ & $0.094$ & $+0.058$ & $-0.331$ & $-0.520$ & $0.092$ \\
$B$ & $R$ & 0.1--2.5 & $+0.004$ & $-0.303$ & $-0.213$ & $0.037$ & $+0.124$ & $-0.406$ & $-0.191$ & $0.038$ \\
$B$ & $I$ & 0.0--2.8 & $+0.004$ & $-0.297$ & $-0.149$ & $\mathbf{0.026}$ & $+0.121$ & $-0.387$ & $-0.131$ & $\mathbf{0.028}$ \\
$V$ & $R$ & 0.0--0.9 & $+0.073$ & $+0.902$ & $-1.796$ & $0.050$ & $+0.059$ & $+1.039$ & $-1.958$ & $0.060$ \\
$V$ & $I$ & 0.0--1.2 & $+0.057$ & $+0.708$ & $-0.912$ & $0.043$ & $+0.065$ & $+0.744$ & $-0.953$ & $0.053$ \\
$g$ & $i$ & $-$0.5--1.4 & $-0.007$ & $-0.359$ & $-0.336$ & $\mathbf{0.022}$ & $+0.063$ & $-0.497$ & $-0.268$ & $\mathbf{0.024}$ \\
$g$ & $r$ & $-$0.2--1.3 & $+0.053$ & $-0.089$ & $-0.736$ & $0.036$ & $+0.165$ & $-0.332$ & $-0.612$ & $0.037$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab:ii_params}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[]
\caption{Fit parameters for the cooling phase, appropriate for both SNe types. We indicate in bold the fits with the smallest dispersions (see text).}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc@{\hskip 1.1cm}rrrr}
& & & \multicolumn{ 4}{c}{{\bf BC}} \\
$x$ & $y$ & $x-y$ range &{$c_0$} & {$c_1$} & {$c_2$} & {rms}\\
\hline
$B$ & $V$ & $-$0.2--0.5 & $-0.393$ & $+0.786$ & $-2.124$ & $0.089$\\
$B$ & $R$ & $-$0.2--0.8 & $-0.463$ & $+0.790$ & $-1.034$ & $0.078$\\
$B$ & $I$ & $-$0.2--0.8 & $-0.473$ & $+0.830$ & $-1.064$ & $\mathbf{0.072}$\\
$V$ & $R$ & 0.0--0.4 & $-0.719$ & $+4.093$ & $-6.419$ & $0.125$\\
$V$ & $I$ & 0.0--0.4 & $-0.610$ & $+2.244$ & $-2.107$ & $0.146$\\
$g$ & $i$ & $-$0.7--0.1& $-0.158$ & $-0.459$ & $-1.599$ & $\mathbf{0.069}$\\
$g$ & $r$ & $-$0.3--0.3 & $-0.146$ & $+0.479$ & $-2.257$ & $0.078$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab:cooling_params}
\end{table*}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sect:discuss}
Our results show that it is possible to obtain the full bolometric flux of a CCSN from two-filter observations through a simple second-order polynomial correction. Here we will discuss aspects of the results in terms of the BC, although they also largely apply to the \emph{p}BC{} relation as well (excluding discussion of UV treatment).
We observe differing scatter for the two samples. As mentioned, SNe~II are expected to be a more homogeneous type of explosion, with the large hydrogen-rich envelopes of the progenitors upon explosion meaning continuum-dominated emission occurs throughout the plateau. The expected sphericity (and likely single-star nature) of the events also means viewing angle will introduce little if any scatter in the relations. We see extremely similar evolution across our SN~II sample, even the peculiar SN1987A. The SE~SNe are subject to other factors that could explain the increased scatter we observe in their relations. Firstly, several progenitor channels are proposed and it is likely that a combination produce the SNe we observe. Binarity and rotation of the progenitor and the intrinsic asphericity of the explosions \citep[e.g.][]{maeda02} are all likely to contribute to scatter in the BC across the sample. High energy components (e.g. gamma-ray burst afterglow components) could be expected also to affect the colours of the SNe. For example we see that SN2008D lies somewhat below the general trend in the $g-r$ fit, and to a lesser extent in $B-I$ fit, as shown in Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:bc_all}, although other SNe with high energy components are well described by the fit (e.g.\ SNe 1998bw and 2006aj). The stripped nature also introduces a range of possible evolution time-scales as more highly stripped progenitors will reveal their heavier elements earlier than those retaining more of their envelopes, making their spectra potentially diverge from homogeneous evolution due to the different chemical composition and pre-mixing of the progenitors.
A factor that could affect the evolution of any SN is the CSM into which it is expanding. Although we have ruled out SNe that show strong interaction with their surrounding medium, in reality, all SNe will have some level of interaction that is dictated by density and composition of the CSM; this being linked to the mass loss of the progenitor system in the final stages of its evolution. Again, this may affect the SE~SN sample more markedly than SNe~II, which are expected to have retained the vast majority of their envelopes until explosion.
\subsection{Treatment of the UV/IR}
\label{sect:uvir_treatment}
Some extremely well-observed SNe have observations that show that the bulk of the light is emitted in the near-ultraviolet (NUV) to near-infrared (NIR) regime. The observed wavelength range investigated here stops at 24400\ \AA{} due to a paucity of data in wavelengths redder than this for CCSNe. \citet{ergon13} show that the MIR regime contributes at most few per cent to their UV-MIR light curve of SN2011dh and the contribution diminishes to negligible values beyond these wavelengths ($\sim$1 per cent). There are no mechanisms producing significant sources of flux at long wavelengths in CCSNe over the epochs investigated here \citep[e.g.][]{soderberg10} and as such the treatment of wavelengths longer than the NIR as a Rayleigh-Jeans law is appropriate.
Wavelengths shorter than $U$-band constitute a significant fraction of the bolometric flux at certain epochs\footnote{We neglect a treatment of very high energy emission since this is insignificant in terms of bolometric luminosity on the time-scales of SN detections.} and this fraction is difficult to quantify for a large sample of SNe due to the inherently diverse behaviour, the prospect of strong, very blue emission occurring after the SBO in certain SNe, and the fact it is not a very well observed wavelength range in CCSNe. The validity of the treatment of the UV used here (a BB extrapolation to zero\ \AA{} during the cooling phase and a linear extrapolation to zero flux at 2000\ \AA{} for epochs of no strong cooling) was tested using UV observations. Eight SNe of the sample presented (2 SNe~II and 6 SE~SNe) have sufficient existing \emph{Swift} data, as presented in \citet{pritchard13}, to test our method. For each SN with UV data, SEDs were constructed using both the method described in Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:sed} and the following: instead of extrapolating the UV flux (using the UV approximation appropriate to each epoch), \emph{Swift} UV observations are added to our SEDs, having corrected their magnitudes for reddening using the same method as for the optical and NIR filters. The large red leak of the \emph{uvw2} filter \citep[as demonstrated in relation to SN2011dh by][]{ergon13} was evident from a strong excess in some SEDs for this filter. For this reason the \emph{uvw2} filter was only used for SNe 2007uy, 2008ax and 2012A in epochs $< 2$ weeks from detection, when the blue continuum will minimise contamination in \emph{uvw2} from the red leak. Each SED constructed with \emph{Swift} data was tied to 1615\ \AA{} (the blue cut off of \emph{uvw2}) in all cases. The UV luminosities at each epoch were computed in each case via an integration of the wavelengths from 1615\AA{} (2030\AA{} in the linear extrapolation case) to $U$-band. By comparing the UV luminosity results of each method of SED construction, the accuracy of the UV treatments used here was tested.
The results of this test are shown in Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:swiftuv} for the $B-I$ colour. There is generally good agreement between our simple treatments of the UV and when including \emph{Swift} data for the majority of the epochs, with differences in most cases being of the order of a few per cent of the bolometric luminosity. SN2007uy, the SN which shows the largest deviation barring epochs with strong post-SBO cooling (although still $<10$ per cent), has extremely large and uncertain reddening \citep{roy13}. The larger discrepancy between the linear interpolation and the \emph{Swift} data seen for this SN could be indicative of an incorrect reddening value, or reddening law, but it cannot be ruled out that it is intrinsic to the SN. Contributions from wavelengths shorter than 1615\ \AA{} will not contribute much to the bolometric flux except during the cooling phase, when SNe are UV bright. Thus the \emph{Swift} data and, given the good agreement seen, our linear extrapolation method, accounts for the vast majority of the UV flux in a SN.
The cooling branch in this plot, however, displays fairly large discrepancies, even though we are unfortunately limited to 3 SNe (2005cs, 2011dh and 2012A) that have contemporaneous UV-optical-NIR data over the cooling phase. As may be expected from its relatively modest cooling phase, SN2011dh exhibits the best agreement, with even the earliest epochs ({\small\raisebox{-0.6ex}{$\,\stackrel{\raisebox{-.2ex}{$\textstyle <$}}{\sim}\,$}}{}2~day after explosion) discrepant by less than 5 per cent at all epochs. The BB treatment of 2005cs and 2012A, both of type II-P, appears to overestimate the UV luminosity at early epochs by 10--20 per cent. An explanation that may account for some of this discrepancy is that the \emph{Swift} SED is tied to zero flux at 1615\AA{} (the limit of the UV integration), whereas the BB will obviously be at some positive flux value. This `cutting-off' of the \emph{Swift} SED is an under estimation of the flux, especially in these extremely blue phases, but a lack of data at shorter wavelengths necessitates this treatment. Two very early epochs of the evolution of SN~2005cs are well matched by the BB treatment however, and it may be that the later cooling phase epochs are falling from the BB approximation quicker than expected. The intrinsically heterogeneous nature of this cooling phase is evident in the large scatter observed during these epochs (Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:bc_cooling}) and we must also add the caveat that our simple UV treatment may be discrepant at the 10--20 per cent level. This discrepancy, however, appears only evident in SNe~II-P and at the very early epochs. An increase in sample size is desired to further quantify this and thus improve upon the UV treatment at these epochs. Given this, for events where UV data exist which is indicative of post-SBO cooling emission, it is advisable to use the \emph{p}BC{} and add the UV contribution directly from observations.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{swift_uv}
\caption{The difference between the UV integrated luminosityies (as a fraction of the bolometric luminosity) between using \emph{Swift} data in SED construction and the UV treatments presented here. Larger, black-edged points represent the epochs where the BB extrapolation method was used for the UV, whereas smaller points represent a linear extrapolation to 2000\AA{} (see Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:sed_uv}). The methods are consistent within a few per cent except for the case of strong SBO cooling emission for SNe 2005cs and 2012A.}
\label{fig:swiftuv}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Time-scales of validity}
\label{sect:epochrange}
It is important to determine over what epoch range these relations are valid for each sample. Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:epoch_se} shows the evolution in time of the SE~SNe in the BC plot. The intrinsic scatter about the fits does not change dramatically with epoch and a largely coherent evolution from top-left to bottom-right in each plot is observed, with very late-time data beginning to move top-left again. The duration of validity after the peak is tied to the time-scale of evolution of the SNe. We have normalised our SE~SN evolution by making use of the $\Delta m_{15,V}${} value for each SN (Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:fluxcont}). When evolution is normalised by this factor, the two SNe with the data furthest past peak are SN2011dh ($\sim$93 days) and SN2007gr ($\sim$75 days). The data representing these late epochs are clearly visible in Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:epoch_se}, with the evolution of SN2011dh explicitly shown offset from the data -- both show a trend towards moving above (below) the $B-I$ ($g-r$) fit at late epochs. Data covering $U$-to-$K${} for SN2007gr actually extend to roughly 120 days after optical peak. These data are not included as they diverge from the correlation, as appears to be happening for SN2011dh. SN2011dh and SN2007gr are at the higher end of the $\Delta m_{15,V}${} range (0.968 and 0.861, respectively) and may be considered to give a good limit for the range of validity of this fit. The data presented show the corrections for SE~SNe to be valid from shortly after explosion (earliest data are $\sim$2 days post-explosion) to $\sim$50 days past peak, and potentially further, although we are limited to analysing only two SNe.
Figure\nobreakspace \ref {fig:epoch_ii} shows the evolution of the BC for the SN~II sample, where the colour indicates days from explosion date. For the SN~II sample we see that even very early data (e.g.\ beginning at $\sim$5 days past explosion for SN1987A) have a small dispersion. Evolution in this plot appears to be simpler than the SE~SNe with a smooth transition from top-left to bottom-right. However, SN1987A undergoes a phase of little evolution in colour (and BC) from days $\sim$40--80, with other SNe~II displaying a similar period of inactivity in the plot during the plateau phase. Despite the fact SN1987A also appears to evolve much more rapidly and evolves to much redder colours, as can be seen in Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:fluxvstime}, its evolution is still remarkably consistent with the other objects in the BC plots, and its additional, redder, evolution follows the parabolic fit. The phase range investigated here is broadly over the plateau of SNe~II, after which the deeper layers of the ejecta act to destroy any homogeneous evolution. For example, \citet{inserra12} show optical colours for several SNe~II-P to late times, with diverse behaviour observed after $\sim$120 days (the end of the plateau). This can also be seen in the BCs presented by \citet{bersten09}, where the BC scatter increases dramatically after the end of the plateau. We therefore limit the use of these fits from explosion until the time of transition from plateau to radioactive tail.
It must be stressed however that the use of these fits will primarily be for SNe detected only in the optical regime. As such, there is no knowledge of any UV bright SBO cooling emission, given that the optical colour ranges overlap for the cases of strong and no cooling emission (as shown for the fits in Fig.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:bc_cooling}). Relying only on optical follow up, although vastly increasing the number of SNe with the requisite data, means there is uncertainty in the early light curve. Hence, although the above described fits \emph{are} valid at early epochs, they are valid only for the case of no strong SBO cooling emission. In the case where unobserved SBO emission is present, the fits will under predict the actual bolometric luminosity. In such cases, use of the cooling phase fits will provide an alternate, plausible, bolometric luminosity in these early epochs by assuming the case of strong SBO cooling emission. This uncertainty can be coupled with previous knowledge of the durations of SBO cooling emission and the type of SN. For example a SN~Ib/c would not be expected to have SBO cooling emission beyond 1--2 days and the cooling fit would over estimate the luminosity at further epochs. Complementary data indicative of SBO cooling emission would warrant the sole use of the cooling phase fit for those epochs, or the use of the \emph{p}BC{} and a separate treatment of the UV emission from the available data. The cooling phase fits include data from early after explosion ($\sim$2 days) to the end of the SBO cooling being dominant.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{epoch_se_jc}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{epoch_se_sl}
\caption{The BC for SE~SNe, colour-coded to show evolution with time. The colour bar indicates the phase with respect to the $V$-band peak ($t_{peak}$), where the SN evolution has been stretched such that $\Delta m_{15,V}${} $= 0.758$ (see Section\nobreakspace \ref {sect:fluxcont}). Epochs shown \emph{do not} include those exhibiting signatures of strong cooling after SBO. To illustrate the typical movement of a SN in this plot, the polynomial-smoothed evolution of SN2011dh is plotted offset from the data. The effect of reddening is shown by re-analysing SN2011dh with an increase in $E(B-V)$ of 0.2 (black dot-dash line). Equation\nobreakspace \textup {(\ref {eq:bc_se_sl})} (top) and Eq.\nobreakspace \textup {(\ref {eq:bc_se_jc})} (bottom) are also plotted for each filter set (thick black dashed line).}
\label{fig:epoch_se}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{epoch_ii_jc}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{epoch_ii_sl}
\caption{The BC for SNe~II, colour-coded to show evolution with time. The colour bar indicates the phase with respect to the explosion date. Epochs shown \emph{do not} include those exhibiting signatures of strong cooling after SBO. To illustrate the typical movement of a SN in this plot, the polynomial-smoothed evolution of SN1987A is plotted offset from the data. The effect of reddening is shown by re-analysing SN1987A with an increase in $E(B-V)$ of 0.2 (black dot-dash line). Equation\nobreakspace \textup {(\ref {eq:bc_ii_sl})} (top) and Eq.\nobreakspace \textup {(\ref {eq:bc_ii_jc})} (bottom) are also plotted for each filter set (thick black dashed line).}
\label{fig:epoch_ii}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Reddening}
An uncertainty when constructing the SEDs is the reddening towards each SN. Although Galactic reddening may be well known, $E(B-V)_{host}$ values are generally less certain. Additional to this, the reddening law for each host is assumed to match that of the Galaxy, an assumption made in the absence of detailed knowledge of the gas and dust properties of the hosts. An increase in assumed $E(B-V)$ will cause a decrease in $B-I$ and $g-r$ (i.e.\ make the SN intrinsically bluer); this will also affect the BC, however. The BC becomes more positive with increasing $E(B-V)$ as the $g$ (or $B$)-band value increases more rapidly than the bolometric magnitude for a given change in $E(B-V)$. Combining these effects means that the SNe actually move somewhat along the fits when reddening is varied. This effect is plotted in Figs.\nobreakspace \ref {fig:epoch_se} and\nobreakspace \ref {fig:epoch_ii} via an artificial increase of 0.2 in $E(B-V)$ for the offset SN in each plot. Moderate reddening uncertainties do not affect the actual value of the fits drastically, although clearly an accurate reddening value is desired when using the fits, to ensure the SN's true colour for a given epoch is measured (and consequently the correct value for the BC is used).
\section{Summary}
We have presented simple fits making it possible to easily obtain accurate estimates of the bolometric light curves of any CCSN given only two filter observations. We have presented both Johnson-Cousins and Sloan colour corrections and shown our method for determining Sloan magnitudes is robust for $g$ and $r$, and accounted for the systematic offset present in $i$-band determinations. Fits to $B-I$ and $g-r$ are presented as the best fits to each filter set. The SE~SNe corrections (Eqs.\nobreakspace \textup {(\ref {eq:bc_se_jc})} and\nobreakspace \textup {(\ref {eq:bc_se_sl})}) are constrained in the colour ranges $-0.4 < B-I < 2.3$ (rms 0.061~mag) and $-0.3 < g-r < 1.0$ (0.076~mag). The SNe~II corrections (Eqs.\nobreakspace \textup {(\ref {eq:bc_ii_jc})} and\nobreakspace \textup {(\ref {eq:bc_ii_sl})}) hold for $0.0 < B-I < 2.8$ (0.026~mag) and $-0.2 < g-r < 1.3$ (0.036~mag). Corrections for other optical colours are presented; these corrections are valid over the radiatively/recombination powered, photospheric epochs of CCSN evolution. Evolution during epochs that show cooling following SBO emission are fitted separately (Eqs.\nobreakspace \textup {(\ref {eq:bc_cooling_jc})} and\nobreakspace \textup {(\ref {eq:bc_cooling_sl})}) and are subject to larger uncertainties. Given the diversity and uncertainty of UV evolution, separate pseudo-bolometric fits are given where no treatment of the UV regime is made.
The bolometric corrections presented here will allow current and future SNe surveys, where the sheer number of detected events prevents intense monitoring of the large majority of SNe, to accurately and easily use their optical detections to obtain estimates of the bolometric light curves of CCSNe of all types, essential for modelling of such events.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors wish to thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions, which led to a significantly improved paper. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Weizmann interactive supernova data repository (www.weizmann.ac.il/astrophysics/wiserep) was used to obtain SN spectra. JDL acknowledges the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council for research studentship support.
\newcommand{ARA\&A} \newcommand{\aap}{A\&A}{ARA\&A} \newcommand{\aap}{A\&A}
\newcommand{AJ} \newcommand{\apj}{ApJ}{AJ} \newcommand{\apj}{ApJ}
\newcommand{ApJ} \newcommand{\apjs}{ApJS}{ApJ} \newcommand{\apjs}{ApJS}
\newcommand{MNRAS} \newcommand{\nat}{Nature}{MNRAS} \newcommand{\nat}{Nature}
\newcommand{PASJ} \newcommand{\pasp}{PASP}{PASJ} \newcommand{\pasp}{PASP}
\newcommand{Proc.\ SPIE} \newcommand{\physrep}{Phys. Rep.}{Proc.\ SPIE} \newcommand{\physrep}{Phys. Rep.}
\newcommand{APSS}{APSS}
\newcommand{Sol. Phys.}{Sol. Phys.}
\newcommand{Acta Astronom}{Acta Astronom}
\newcommand{A\&A Supp}{A\&A Supp}
\newcommand{IAU Circular}{IAU Circular}
\bibliographystyle{mn2e}
|
\subsection{Experiment setup, device parameters, and readout properties}
Our measurements are performed in a cryogen-free dilution refrigerator with a base temperature of about 10~mK. Figure~S1 shows the schematic of the measurement setup. A Josephson bifurcation amplifier (JBA)~\cite{Siddiqi,Vijay2} operating in a double-pumped mode~\cite{Kamal,Murch,Sliwa} is used as the first stage of amplification between the readout cavity output and the high electron mobility transistor (HEMT), allowing for a high-fidelity single-shot dispersive readout of the qubit state. We typically operate the JBA in the saturated regime with about 20 readout photons for a better signal-to-noise ratio.
The transmon qubit is fabricated on a $c$-plane sapphire (Al$_2$O$_3$) substrate with a double-angle evaporation of aluminum after a single electron-beam lithography step. The qubit has a transition frequency $\omega_q/2\pi=5.938$ GHz with an anharmonicity $\alpha_q/2\pi=(\omega_{ge}-\omega_{ef})/2\pi$=240 MHz, an energy relaxation time $T_1=8~\mu$s and a Ramsey time $T_2^*=5~\mu$s. Even at the lowest base temperature, the qubit is measured to have about 86\% ground state $\ket{g}$, 11\% excited state $\ket{e}$, and 3\% of states higher than $\ket{e}$, denoted as $\ket{f}$. These excitations of the qubit could come from stray infrared photons leaking into the cavity, although the exact source remains unknown.
The qubit serves as an ancilla and provides the necessary non-linearity for the manipulation of coherent states in the storage cavity. Both the storage and readout cavities are made of aluminum alloy 6061. The state dependent frequency shifts between the qubit and the storage and readout cavities are $\chi_{qs}/2\pi=1.789$ MHz and $\chi_{qr}/2\pi=0.930$ MHz respectively. For simplicity, we will refer to the storage cavity as ``the cavity" henceforth. The inset of Fig.~S2 shows the so-called number splitting peaks of the qubit due to different photon numbers in the cavity, which is displaced with a 10~ns square pulse right before the spectroscopy measurement. A second order polynomial fit $\chi(N)=-\chi_{qs}N+\chi_{qs}'N^2$ gives a non-linear correction to the dispersive shift~\cite{Vlastakis} $\chi_{qs}'/2\pi=1.9\pm0.1$~kHz which is small enough to be neglected in the cavity dynamics. Figure~S2 shows the probability of the first seven Fock states $n=0,1,2,...6$ as a function of displacement amplitude $|\alpha|$ in excellent agreement with a Poisson distribution, indicating a good control of the coherent state in the cavity. We scale the x-axis from the voltage amplitude of the displacement pulse applied from an arbitrary waveform generator and use this scaling as a calibration. There is a small residual amplitude for the $n=1$ peak even with no displacement (point near origin), allowing us to infer that there is a background photon population $n_{th}=0.02$ in the cavity. The lifetime of the cavity is characterized by measuring a free parity evolution of a coherent state as shown in Fig.~S3, which is nearly identical to Fig.~4 in the main text. A global fitting gives a time constant $\tau_0=55~\mu$s.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fig_S1.eps}
\caption {Schematic of the measurement setup. We use two separate lines to drive the readout and the storage cavity. Qubit state manipulations are realized through the readout cavity input line. The readout cavity output signal is first amplified by a JBA operating in a double-pumped mode, and the reflected signal then goes through three isolators in series before being further amplified by a HEMT at 4 K. The amplified signal is finally down-converted to 50~MHz and then digitized by a fast 1 GS data-acquisition card.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fig_S2.eps}
\caption {Poisson distribution of photon numbers in the cavity. Dotted color lines are data for the first seven Fock states $n=0,1,2,...6$ as a function of displacement amplitude $|\alpha|$. The measurements are performed with a selective $\pi$ pulse on each number splitting peak and the resulting signal amplitude should be proportional to the corresponding number population. These oscillation amplitudes have been normalized to probabilities such that the sum of the amplitudes corresponding to $n=0$ and $n=1$ equals to unity. Dashed lines are theoretical curves with a Poisson distribution $\mathbb{P}(|\alpha|)=|\alpha|^{2n}e^{-|\alpha|^2}/n!$ where the x-axis has had a single scale factor adjusted to fit all these probabilities. The excellent agreement indicates a good control of the coherent state in the cavity. Based on the probability of $n=1$ at $|\alpha|=0$, we find a background photon population $n_{th}=0.02$ in the cavity. Inset: spectroscopy (left axis) of the number splitting peaks of the qubit when populating different photon numbers in the cavity. Top panel shows the difference between peak positions and a linear fit. The curvature necessitates a second order polynomial fit resulting a linear dispersive shift $\chi_{qs}/2\pi=1.789\pm0.002$~MHz and a non-linear dispersive shift $\chi_{qs}'/2\pi=1.9\pm0.1$~kHz.}
\end{figure}
We have adjusted the phase between the JBA readout signal and the pump such that $\ket{g}$, $\ket{e}$, and $\ket{f}$ states can be distinguished with optimal contrast. Figure~S5a shows the histogram of the qubit readout for the parity protocol used in repeated single-shot traces in Fig.~3 in the main text. The histogram is clearly trimodal. Thresholds between $\ket{g}$ and $\ket{e}$, and between $\ket{e}$ and $\ket{f}$ states have been chosen to digitize the readout signal to $+1, -1$, and $0$ for $\ket{g}$, $\ket{e}$, and $\ket{f}$ state respectively. We assign a zero to the $\ket{f}$ states to indicate a ``failed" measurement with no useful information about the parity. These $\ket{f}$ states can be fixed with a field programmable gate array applying proper pulses to drive the qubit back to either $\ket{g}$ or $\ket{e}$ in real time. Figure~S5b shows the basic qubit readout properties with the cavity left in vacuum. The $\ket{g}$ state is prepared through a post-selection of an initial qubit measurement, while $\ket{e}$ and $\ket{f}$ are prepared by properly pulsing the selected $\ket{g}$ state. The loss of fidelity predominantly comes from the $T_1$ process during both the waiting time of the initialization measurement (300~ns) and the qubit readout time (340~ns).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fig_S3.eps}
\caption{Ensemble averaged free parity evolution of a coherent state. The measurement protocol is shown in the inset. The single parity measurement gives a readout voltage that has been converted to parity through thresholding. All measured evolution curves saturate at the same value in the long time limit. This saturation level has been forced to 0.96 (due to $n_{th}=0.02$), represented by the dashed Horizontal line. The solid lines are global fits, giving a time constant $\tau_0=55~\mu$s.}
\end{figure}
To perform a good parity measurement, the $\pi/2$ pulses $R_{\hat{y},\pm\frac{\pi}{2}}$ should equally cover as many number splitting peaks as possible without significantly exciting the $\ket{f}$ state. We choose a Gaussian envelope pulse truncated to $4\sigma=8~ns$ ($\sigma_f=80$~MHz) for a good compromise. Figure~S4 shows the effectiveness of those $R_{\hat{y},\pm\frac{\pi}{2}}$ pulses as a function of $\bar{n}$ in the cavity. The curvature for $\bar{n}>4$ is due to the finite bandwidth of those pulses in the frequency domain.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fig_S4.eps}
\caption {Effectiveness of $R_{\hat{y},\pm\frac{\pi}{2}}$ pulse. Blue and red data (bottom axis) are ensemble averaged qubit readout after consecutively (with no wait time) applying ($R_{\hat{y},\frac{\pi}{2}}$, $R_{\hat{y},\frac{\pi}{2}}$) and ($R_{\hat{y},\frac{\pi}{2}}$, $R_{\hat{y},-\frac{\pi}{2}}$) respectively as a function of different $\bar{n}$ introduced into the cavity. The curvature for $\bar{n}>4$ comes from the finite bandwidth of the pulses in the frequency domain. Green curve (top axis) is a time Rabi trace for an amplitude comparison with no initial cavity displacement.}
\end{figure}
We emphasize that it is the correlation $C_t$ of the qubit states before and after the parity measurement that reveals the photon state parity. Figure~S5c shows the parity readout properties of our system. The loss of fidelity of the parity measurement mainly comes from qubit decoherence process during the parity measurement. Conditional probabilities $\mathbb{P}(+1|even)$, $\mathbb{P}(+1|odd)$, $\mathbb{P}(-1|even)$, $\mathbb{P}(-1|odd)$, $\mathbb{P}(0|even)$, and $\mathbb{P}(0|odd)$ are time-independent probabilities which have a positive, negative, and zero correlation between the digitized qubit readouts before and after a parity measurement for a given even or odd state. However, a pure even or odd state cannot be prepared easily in our system due to the finite thermal population of the cavity, which is small but can still introduce systematic errors. We determine $\mathbb{P}(\pm1,0|even/odd)$ by post-selecting the cases with five consecutive identical parity results, which give a good confidence of the photon state parity, and then performing a histogram on the sixth parity measurement.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fig_S5.eps}
\caption {(a) Histogram of qubit readout for the parity protocol used in repeated single-shot traces in Fig.~3 in the main text. The phase between the JBA readout and the pump has been adjusted such that $\ket{g}$, $\ket{e}$, and $\ket{f}$ states can be distinguished with optimal spacings. Thresholds between $\ket{g}$ and $\ket{e}$, and between $\ket{e}$ and $\ket{f}$ have been chosen to digitize the readout signal to $+1, -1$, and $0$ for $\ket{g}$, $\ket{e}$, and $\ket{f}$ respectively. Note that we assign a zero to the $\ket{f}$ states to indicate a ``failed" measurement with no useful information about the parity. (b) Qubit readout properties for an initial qubit state at $\ket{g}$, $\ket{e}$, and $\ket{f}$ state respectively. (c) Parity readout property for a given even and odd parity state. $\mathbb{P}(\pm1,0|even/odd)$ are determined by post-selecting the cases with five consecutive identical parity results, which give a good confidence of the photon state parity, and then performing a histogram on the sixth parity measurement.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Quantum filter and correlated data}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fig_S6.eps}
\caption {Schematic of the quantum filter. At time $t$, the density matrix of the photon state is $\rho(C_{t})$, which depends on all previous correlations. At $t+dt$, only considering the decoherence of the cavity, the expected density matrix from free evolution becomes $\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt})$. The additional information $C_{t+dt}$ acquired from the parity measurement at $t+dt$ changes the knowledge of the parity of the photon state according to Eq.~S\ref{eq:QuantumFilter1}.}
\end{figure}
In order to mitigate the effects due to qubit decoherence, $\ket{f}$ state of the qubit (an undesirable state that obscures the parity measurement), and other imperfections in the qubit readout in extracting the parity, we have applied a quantum filter that best estimates the photon state parity. We note that the quantum filter depends on the measured trajectory, that is on the past history of measurement results. Figure~S6 shows the schematic of the quantum filter. This quantum filter at each point in time is realized in two steps: first, a new density matrix $\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt})$ is calculated from the best estimation $\rho(C_t)$ at the previous point based only on the decoherence of the cavity; second, the density matrix $\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt})$ gets updated as the best estimation $\rho(C_{t+dt})$ according to Bayes law based on the newly acquired knowledge from the current parity measurement. This best estimated density matrix $\rho(C_{t+dt})$ is then used as the input for the next iteration. We have truncated the dimension of the density matrix to $N=5\bar{n}$, which is large enough to cover all relevant number states. To initialize the density matrix after a displacement $D(\alpha)$, we have set ${\rho}(t=0)=(1-n_{th})D(\alpha)\ket{0}\bra{0}D^\dagger(\alpha)+n_{th}D(\alpha)\ket{1}\bra{1}D^\dagger(\alpha)$, taking into account the background photon population in the limit $n_{th}\ll1$.
At time $t$, the density matrix of the photon state is $\rho(C_t)$, which depends on all previous correlations. At $t+dt$, only considering the decoherence of the cavity, the expected density matrix from free evolution becomes $\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt})=M_{down}\rho(C_{t}) M_{down}^\dagger+M_{up}\rho(C_{t}) M_{up}^\dagger+M_{no}\rho(C_{t}) M_{no}^\dagger$, where $M_{down}=\sqrt{\kappa_{down}dt}a$, $M_{up}=\sqrt{\kappa_{up}dt}a^\dagger$, and $M_{no}=I-(M_{down}^\dagger M_{down}+M_{up}^\dagger M_{up})/2$ are the Kraus operators for photon loss, absorption of thermal photons, and no jump events respectively. We have $\kappa_{down}=(n_{th}+1)\kappa$ and $\kappa_{up}=n_{th}\kappa$, and $\kappa=1/\tau_{\rm tot}$ is the energy decay rate in the cavity under repeated parity measurements. The additional information $C_{t+dt}$ acquired from the parity measurement at $t+dt$ changes the quantum state according to:
\begin{equation}
\rho(C_{t+dt})=
\begin{cases}
\mathbb{P}(even|C_{t+dt})\frac{\hat{P}_{even}\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt})\hat{P}_{even}}{tr(\hat{P}_{even}\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt})\hat{P}_{even})}+\mathbb{P}(odd|C_{t+dt})\frac{\hat{P}_{odd}\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt})\hat{P}_{odd}}{tr(\hat{P}_{odd}\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt})\hat{P}_{odd})}, & \text{if $C_{t+dt}\neq 0$,}\\
\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt}) & \text{if $C_{t+dt}=0.$}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:QuantumFilter1}
\end{equation}
where $\hat{P}_{even}$ and $\hat{P}_{odd}$ are the projectors onto the even and odd manifolds, $\hat{P}=\hat{P}_{even}-\hat{P}_{odd}=e^{i\pi a^\dagger a}$ is the parity operator, $\mathbb{P}(even|C_{t+dt})$ and $\mathbb{P}(odd|C_{t+dt})$ are the probabilities of being in the even and odd parity respectively for a measured $C_{t+dt}$. To simplify the quantum filter, we assume that the event of the qubit jumping to the $\ket{f}$ states is independent of the cavity parity being even or odd. Hence, if the measured correlation is zero, the density matrix of the photon state is assigned to the expected one from free evolution. Based on Bayes law, Eq.~S\ref{eq:QuantumFilter1} becomes:
\begin{equation}
\rho(C_{t+dt})=
\begin{cases} \frac{\mathbb{P}(C_{t+dt}|even)\hat{P}_{even}\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt})\hat{P}_{even}+\mathbb{P}(C_{t+dt}|odd)\hat{P}_{odd}\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt})\hat{P}_{odd}}{\mathbb{P}(C_{t+dt})}, & \text{if $C_{t+dt}\neq 0$,}\\
\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt}) & \text{if $C_{t+dt}=0.$}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:QuantumFilter2}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbb{P}(C_{t+dt})=\mathbb{P}(C_{t+dt}|even)tr[\hat{P}_{even}\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt})\hat{P}_{even}]+\mathbb{P}(C_{t+dt}|odd)tr[\hat{P}_{odd}\tilde{\rho}(C_{t+dt})\hat{P}_{odd}]$. The best parity estimation of the photon state is then:
\begin{equation}
\rm{P}\mathnormal{(t+dt)=tr[\rho(C_{t+dt})\hat{P}]}
\label{eq:QuantumFilter3}
\end{equation}
This formula has been used extensively in the main text to estimate the parity of the photon state.
In order to make a comparison with the best parity estimation based on the above quantum filter, we also directly correlate the neighboring parity measurements without any further processing. For zero correlation cases, since no information of the photon state parity is acquired, the best knowledge of parity at those points is just the last measured non-zero correlation. We assume the repeated parity measurement is a Markovian process. The ensemble averaged parity dynamics obtained from the correlation under a repeated parity monitoring is then simply:
\begin{align}
<C_{cor}(t)>=\mathbb{P}(+1,t)-\mathbb{P}(-1,t)+\mathbb{P}(0,t)\frac{\mathbb{P}(+1,t)-\mathbb{P}(-1,t)}{\mathbb{P}(+1,t)+\mathbb{P}(-1,t)}
\label{eq:Correlated_results}
\end{align}
where $\mathbb{P}(+1,t)$, $\mathbb{P}(-1,t)$, and $\mathbb{P}(0,t)$ are the probability of measuring positive, negative, and zero correlations at time $t$. The third term comes from the fact that the cases with zero correlation is assigned to previously measured non-zero correlation +1 or -1 whose probability is $\mathbb{P}(+1,t-\Delta t)$ and $\mathbb{P}(-1,t-\Delta t)$. For small $\Delta t$, $\mathbb{P}(\pm1,t-\Delta t) \approx \mathbb{P}(\pm1,t)$.
The probabilities $\mathbb{P}(+1,t)$, $\mathbb{P}(-1,t)$, and $\mathbb{P}(0,t)$ depend on both the measured parity readout property $\mathbb{P}(\pm1,0|even/odd)$ and the even and odd parity evolution $\rm{P}_e(\mathnormal t)$ and $\rm{P}_o(\mathnormal t)$ of the photon state:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \mathbb{P}(+1,t)=\mathbb{P}(+1|even)\rm{P}_e(\mathnormal t)+\mathbb{P}(+1|odd)\rm{P}_o(\mathnormal t)\\
\displaystyle \mathbb{P}(-1,t)=\mathbb{P}(-1|even)\rm{P}_e(\mathnormal t)+\mathbb{P}(-1|odd)\rm{P}_o(\mathnormal t)\\
\displaystyle \mathbb{P}(0,t)=\mathbb{P}(0|even)\rm{P}_e(\mathnormal t)+\mathbb{P}(0|odd)\rm{P}_o(\mathnormal t)
\end{array}
\label{eq:P_plus_minus_zero}
\end{equation}
where $\rm{P}_e(\mathnormal t)=\mathnormal {(e^{-2|\alpha|^2 e^{-\kappa t}}+1)/2}$ and $\rm{P}_o(\mathnormal t)=\mathnormal {(1-e^{-2|\alpha|^2 e^{-\kappa t}})/2}$.
With all the parameters in Eq.~S\ref{eq:Correlated_results} known, $<C_{cor}(t)>$ can then be predicted. The agreement with the measured data is excellent as shown in Fig.~S7. This data set is the same as that shown in Fig.~4 in the main text. Equation~S\ref{eq:Correlated_results} even accurately predicts the offset in the averaged parity at $t=0$ which comes from the asymmetric parity readout fidelities between the even and odd states. The fact that the saturated parity value in the long time limit in Fig.~S7 is much lower than that in Fig.~4 in the main text mainly comes from the qubit decoherence and the imperfections in the qubit readout. This large difference is additional proof of the effectiveness of the quantum filter.
For a coherent state in a thermal bath, its parity dynamics is simply~\cite{Haroche}:
\begin{equation}
\rm{P}=\mathnormal{\frac{1}{1+2n_{th}}e^{-2|\alpha|^2 e^{-\kappa t}/(1+2n_{th})}},
\label{eq:Parity_coherent_with_nBG}
\end{equation}
which has been used to fit Fig.~4 in the main text.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fig_S7.eps}
\caption{Ensemble averaged parity dynamics obtained directly from the correlation of qubit states between neighboring parity measurements under a repeated parity monitoring. The data set is the same as that shown in Fig.~4 in the main text. Solid lines are predictions based on Eq.~S\ref{eq:Correlated_results}, in excellent agreement with the measured data. The offset of the averaged parity at $t=0$ comes from the asymmetric parity readout fidelities between the even and odd states. The fact that the saturated parity value in the long time limit is much lower than that in Fig.~4 in the main text mainly comes from the qubit decoherence and the imperfections in the qubit readout. This large difference is additional proof of the effectiveness of the quantum filter.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Statistics of photon jumps}
In order to test how faithfully our repeated parity measurement can track photon losses, we simply count the number of jumps extracted from the parity estimator during 500~$\mu$s repeated parity measurements. We have applied a Schmitt trigger to digitize the parity estimator to reject the unavoidable noise (spikes in the estimator) coming from qubit decoherence and erred parity readout. The two thresholds for the Schmitt trigger are chosen to be $\pm0.9$ for a large discrimination. Then the number of parity jumps is inferred from the number of transitions in the digital data after the Schmitt trigger.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fig_S8.eps}
\caption{Response time of the quantum filter applied to typical photon jump events. Blue curve is the raw data from a repeated parity measurement. Red curve is the corresponding parity estimator based on the quantum filter. Green (cyan) curves are fits to tanh functions of the parity estimator at the transition down (up), giving a transition time constant of less than 1~$\mu$s. However, the response time of the filter to make a transition between $\pm0.9$ is $\tau_f\sim2~\mu$s.}
\end{figure}
Although our averaged single parity readout fidelity is 80\% (90\% to be correct and 10\% to be wrong), due to the averaging effect of the quantum filter, we actually can achieve nearly unity detection sensitivity of single photon jump events. However, because of the finite bandwidth of the filter, if two photon jumps occur within the response time of the filter $\tau_f$ (defined as the time to make a transition between the two thresholds for the Schmitt trigger), our Schmitt trigger will not catch both jumps. Figure~S8 shows the time response of the quantum filter applied to typical photon jump events. Green and cyan curves are fits of the parity estimator at the transition based on a tanh function, giving a transition time constant less than 1~$\mu$s. We also find the response time of the filter to make a transition between $\pm0.9$ is $\tau_f\sim2~\mu$s. The probability of having a second photon jump within $\tau_f$ after the first jump is simply $\mathbb{P}_{jump}=\frac{\bar{n}}{\tau_{\rm tot}}\int_0^{\tau_f}\mathrm{e}^{-t\bar{n}/\tau_{\rm tot}}\,\mathrm{d}t=1-e^{-\tau_f\bar{n}/\tau_{\rm tot}}$. For $\bar{n}=1$ and $\tau_{\rm tot}=49~\mu$s, the above probability is $\mathbb{P}_{jump}=4\%$, while $\mathbb{P}_{jump}=15\%$ for $\bar{n}=4$, which is the probability of missing both jumps.
Figure~S9 shows the histograms of the extracted number of jumps for an initial even or odd cat state by post selections. We note that the almost non-mixing distribution of even and odd numbers is trivial due to the following reason. At the end of 500~$\mu$s repeated parity measurements, the cavity is already in a steady state with $n_{th}=0.02$ photons, that is 98\% probability at vacuum (even parity) and 2\% probability with one photon (odd parity). When the initial parity of the cat state, for example an even parity, is determined by post selections, the number of jumps should have 98\% probability of being even and only 2\% probability of being odd closely tied with the distribution of the final parity at $t=500~\mu$s. Similar argument applies to an initially odd parity cat. The even/odd distributions in Fig.~S9 indeed show a 98\%-2\% mixing, providing another way of determining $n_{th}$.
In reality, we have no way of knowing the true number of photon jumps for each parity measurement trajectory. The only way to test how faithfully our repeated parity measurement can track photon jumps is to see whether the distribution of jumps agrees with what we expect. Due to the complication of background thermal excitation and finite response time of the filter, to get an analytic solution is difficult. Instead, we perform a numerical Monte Carlo simulation to compare with the experiment. In the simulation, we use a coherent state as the initial state without distinguishing the parity. Each simulation trajectory is 500~$\mu$s long including a transition probability $n \rightarrow n+1$ from the background thermal excitation. In the simulation, we also neglect those who have neighboring jumps within the response time $\tau_f$ of the quantum filter. Then for each trajectory we count the number of jumps and finally we perform a histogram (black solid lines in Fig.~S9) of those numbers based on 100,000 trajectories. The good agreement between simulation and data demonstrates that the repeated parity measurement can track the error syndromes faithfully.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics{Fig_S9.eps}
\caption{Histograms of the number of jumps extracted from the parity estimator during 500~$\mu$s repeated parity measurements for an initial even or odd cat state by post selections. (a) and (b) are for $|\alpha|=2.0$, (c) and (d) are for $|\alpha|=1.4$, and (e) and (f) are for $|\alpha|=1.0$. Solid lines are numerical simulations including the background thermal excitation and finite response time of the quantum filter. In the simulation, we use a coherent state as the initial state without distinguishing the parity. The good agreement between data and simulation demonstrates that the repeated parity measurement can track the error syndromes faithfully.}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Quantifying parity tracking performance}
Our demonstrated parity tracking protocol has two major sources of infidelity that lead to the decay of our cat states, ultimately putting a bound on the improvement we would be able to achieve in an actual QEC protocol. These are: missing photon jumps and qubit $T_1$ decay. Missing a jump would result in an errant interpretation of the cavity state we are decoding. Qubit $T_1$ decay would instead impart an arbitrary phase on the cat states that without some auxiliary correction protocol would be impossible to recover from.
Given our system's parameters, we can quantify what level of improvement we can achieve with the demonstrated parity tracking protocol over a photon jump rate $\bar{n}\kappa$. An optimal balance must be struck between the infidelity induced by each of the two mechanisms. If one measures too frequently, qubit $T_1$ decay will dominate the decay due to missing jumps. Conversely, not measuring often enough, although mitigating the effects of qubit errors, risks missing a photon jump. In particular, one can write down an effective decay rate $\kappa_{eff}$ as:
\begin{equation}
\kappa_{eff}=[\frac{(\bar{n}\kappa)^2(\tau_M+\tau_W)^2}{2}+P_C(T_1)]\frac{1}{\tau_M+\tau_W},
\end{equation}
where $\tau_M$ is the parity measurement time, $\tau_W$ is a waiting time between two consecutive parity measurements that can take on any value $\geq0~\mu$s, and $P_C(T_1)$ is a constant probability of dephasing due to qubit decay. The minimum $\kappa_{eff}$ is achieved when the decay rates are equal:
\begin{equation*}
(\tau_M+\tau_W)^2=\frac{2P_C(T_1)}{(\bar{n}\kappa)^2}\Rightarrow\kappa_{eff}=\bar{n}\kappa\sqrt{2P_C(T_1)}
\end{equation*}
The improvement over $\bar{n}\kappa$ is thus on the order of $\sqrt{2P_C(T_1)}$. The probability $P_C(T_1)$ can simply be taken as $\tau_M/T_1$, the relevant figure of merit that quantifies a worst case scenario, namely that the qubit remains in $\ket{e}$ during and after each measurement. However, with current real-time feedback technologies rapidly advancing, it should in principle be possible to keep the qubit in $\ket{g}$ after each measurement. Given each full parity measurement takes $1~\mu$s in our system, $\tau_M$ could in principle be cut down to $\sim400$~ns, with $\pi/\chi_{qs}\sim275$~ns and a projective measurement lasting just over $\sim100$~ns. Putting the numbers together, one could in principle enhance the lifetime of a quantum bit encoded in the resonator by a factor of 3, from $1/\bar{n}\kappa=12~\mu$s to $\sim36~\mu$s. In addition, the optimal waiting time between measurements $\tau_W$ would be $\sim4~\mu$s. Given that $\tau_M$ is dominated in large part by the parity protocol waiting time $t=\pi/\chi_{qs}$, a relevant benchmark for the overall performance becomes the product $\chi_{qs}T_1$. We emphasize that even for this system's modest coherence properties, a factor of 3 improvement would be significant. Indeed, just doubling $T_1$ would already take the lifetime of the information to $52~\mu$s, the lifetime of a single photon Fock state in the storage cavity.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The current IP-based Internet architecture represents an unprecedented success story, wildly
exceeding its designers' expectations in terms of adoption, size of deployment and scalability.
Part of IP's success is due to its light-weight design: virtually all state used for
communication is maintained at the endpoints, rather than within the network. For this reason,
IP-based networks are -- arguably, by design -- extremely
robust against random failures.
However, lack of in-network state is the reason for some of IP's shortcomings, including
poor support for efficient large-scale content distribution.
Content distribution currently
accounts for most Internet traffic~\cite{traffic-distribution}.
Therefore, most major services~\cite{youtube,itunes,facebook,google} have been -- for
performance, cost and reliability reasons~\cite{akamai} -- relying on Content Distribution
Networks (CDNs):
large, complex, geographically distributed infrastructures implemented at various layers of the
networking stack that efficiently deliver content to end users. This state of affairs
motivated research into new networking architectures that can better
serve today's Internet traffic. Named Data Networking (NDN)~\cite{ndn} is
one of these architectures.
NDN is an example of Content-Centric Networking (CCN).
In NDN, location-agnostic content is directly addressable by name,
regardless of who publishes it. This allows routers to store a copy of forwarded data
in a local cache, which can be used to satisfy subsequent requests. Content is
requested using a special kind of packets, called {\em interests}. Interests are routed
similarly to IP packets; however, content is forwarded along the reverse path
traversed by the corresponding interest. Data forwarding information is stored by routers, for
a short amount of time, in a data structure called Pending Interest Table (PIT).
User-driven soft-state on routers facilitates efficient content distribution at the network
layer. However, availability of this state within the network creates a new set of
problems. In particular, NDN prompts new security~\cite{ndn-dos,ersin_dos,poseidon,WahlishSV12,pollution,haining}
and privacy~\cite{AcsCGGT13,andana} issues. In
this paper, we investigate whether router state can be used for covert and ephemeral
communication. We show how two parties can secretly communicate, without directly exchanging
any packets, and without injecting new content into the network (i.e., without
publishing new data). This is a significant departure from what can be done with IP, where lack
of user-driven state within the network forces users to rely on the application layer for
implementing covert channels.
We believe that this work is both timely and important. The former -- because of a recent surge
of interest in content-centric networking, and in NDN in particular. The latter, because, to
the best of our knowledge, it represents the first attempt to identify and address covert
ephemeral communication (CEC) in a content-centric architecture.
CEC is, in fact, relevant in many realistic scenario, e.g.:
\begin{compactenum}
\item In tightly-controlled environments, where mandatory access control is in place (e.g., in
the military), CEC can be used to exfiltrate sensitive information, possibly collected by malware. Ephemeral nature of published data makes subsequent forensic analysis
difficult.
\item In countries with oppressive governments, civil rights activists can covertly
communicate to coordinate and exchange information.
CEC offers plausible deniability.
\end{compactenum}
Studying whether CEC in NDN is possible -- and how to implement it -- is an important step
towards fully understanding this means of communication, regardless of whether NDN sees limited
deployment (e.g., as an overlay on top of IP) or widespread adoption (i.e., as a replacement
for IP).
With this motivation, we design several protocols for exchanging covert ephemeral messages
(CEMs) between a single
sender and one or more receivers. We perform extensive evaluation of our techniques on a local
network and on a geographically distributed NDN testbed. Our experiments confirm that
CEC is indeed possible, and show that our techniques provide high
bandwidth and low error rate.
\paragraph{Organization} We present an overview
of NDN in Section~\ref{sec:overview}. Section~\ref{systemmodel} introduces the system model. We
present the delay-based CEC mechanisms in Section~\ref{sec:singlebit_timingchannels} and
common-prefix-based CEC techniques in Section~\ref{sec:namespacechannel}.
Section~\ref{sec:error_handling} discusses sources of error and error handling. Experimental
results are described in Section~\ref{sec:evaluation}. Security analysis is discussed in
Section~\ref{sec:securityanalysis}. Section~\ref{sec:related_work} reviews related work. We
conclude in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{NDN Overview}
\label{sec:overview}
{\em In this section we present an overview of NDN. Readers familiar with NDN may skip this section without loss of continuity. }
NDN is a networking architecture based on named data. Data is requested via {\em interests},
and delivered in {\em data packets}~\cite{CCNxNodeImplementation}.
Data packets include a name, a payload and a digital signature computed by the content
producer.\footnote{Data packets also carry additional fields that are not relevant to this
paper and are therefore ignored.}
A name is composed of one or more components, which have a hierarchical structure. In NDN
notation, ``\ndnname{/}'' separates name components, e.g., \ndnname{/cnn/politics/frontpage}.
Content is delivered to consumers only upon explicit request, which can include the full name
of a particular data packet or a prefix of such a name -- e.g.,
\ndnname{/cnn/politics} is a prefix of \ndnname{/cnn/politics/frontpage}. In case of multiple
data packets under a given name (or prefix), optional control information can be carried within
the interest to restrict desired content. If no additional information is provided, producers
and routers return arbitrary data packets matching the request (preferably, from a local
cache).
If no local copy of a data packet is available, NDN routers forward interests towards content
producers responsible for the requested name, using name prefixes (instead of today's IP
address prefixes) for routing. Each NDN router maintains a Pending Interest Table (PIT) -- a
lookup table containing outstanding [{\em interest}, {\em arrival-interfaces}] entries.
When an NDN router receives an interest, it first looks up its PIT to determine
whether another interest for the same name is currently outstanding. There
are three possible outcomes:
(1) If the same name is already in the router's
PIT and the arrival interface of the present interest is already in the set of
{\em arrival-interfaces} of the corresponding PIT entry, the interest is discarded.
(2) If a PIT entry for the same name exists, yet the arrival interface is new, the
router updates the PIT entry by adding a new interface to the set.
The interest is not forwarded further.
(3) Otherwise, the router creates a new PIT entry and forwards the
present interest.
We refer to (1) and (2) as PIT hit, and to (3) as PIT miss.
Upon receipt of the interest, the producer injects a matching data packet into the network, thus
{\em satisfying} the interest. The requested content is then forwarded towards the consumer,
traversing -- in reverse -- the path of the corresponding interest. Each router on this path
deletes the PIT entry corresponding to the satisfied interest. In addition, each router caches a
copy of forwarded content in its local cache.
Unlike their IP counterparts, NDN routers can forward interests out on multiple interfaces
simultaneously. This is done in order to maximize the chances of quickly retrieving requested
content. A router that receives an interest for already-cached content does not forward the
interest further; it simply returns cached content and retains no state about the interest.
Not all interests result in content being returned. If an interest encounters either a router
that cannot forward it further, or a content producer that has no such content, no error packets
are generated. PIT entries for unsatisfied interests in intervening routers are removed after a
predefined {\em expiration} time. The consumer can choose whether to regenerate the same
interest after a timeout.
\section{System Model}
\label{systemmodel}
A CEC system involves a sender ({\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}) and one or more receivers
({\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}). {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ wants to covertly publish a {\em time-bounded} (i.e., ephemeral) message
$M$, while {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ wants to retrieve it. A time-bounded message can only be read for a given
period of time~\cite{CastellucciaCFK11}, after which it becomes unavailable, i.e., it {\em
expires}. Depending on the scenario, the action of retrieving a CEM either makes it expire
immediately, or ``refreshes'' it, hence deferring its expiration.
{\sender\ and \receiver}\ are not allowed to communicate directly. For example, the Internet provider of {\sender\ and \receiver}\
might monitor all activity between its users. Moreover, {\sender\ and \receiver}\ are not allowed to use services
(such as email or on-line forums) to exchange data indirectly. {\sender\ and \receiver}\ have
access to a producer ({\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}), which is unaware of {\sender\ and \receiver}'s intent to communicate, and
only hosts content that cannot be modified by consumers.
All packets to and from {\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}\ are routed through an NDN router ({\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}), which caches all
data packets it forwards. At first we will assume that {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ is {\sender\ and \receiver}'s first-hop router. We
will then relax this assumption, allowing {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ to be an arbitrary number of hops away from
both. Figure~\ref{img:system_model} depicts our model.
We assume that {\sender\ and \receiver}\ have tightly synchronized clocks.\footnote{However, this is not required in all our protocols.}
We believe that this assumption is realistic: two parties can use NTP servers or
GPS devices to synchronize their clocks accurately, i.e., within 500 ns to a few
milliseconds, depending on the synchronization protocol~\cite{spectracomcorp}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{images/system_model}
\caption{System model.}
\label{img:system_model}
\end{figure}
The adversary ({\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}) has three goals: (1) detecting
CEMs from {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ to {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}; (2) preventing {\sender\ and \receiver}\ from communicating; and (3) accessing
CEMs after they expire. {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ can monitor and modify traffic between users. Following
the {\em retroactive privacy} definition of~\cite{CastellucciaCFK11}, we say that a CEC system
is secure if any efficient {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ can win the following game with probability at most
negligibly over 1/2:
\begin{compactenum}
\item {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ selects two same-length message $M_0$ and $M_1$, and sends them to {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}.
\item {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ selects a random bit $a$ and publishes $M_a$.
\item After $M_a$ is expired, {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ tries to retrieve $M_a$.
\item {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ outputs its guess $a'$ for $a$; {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ wins if $a'=a$.
\end{compactenum}
In all the proposed CECs, after {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ has sent a CEM, it deletes locally.
Similarly, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ deletes all CEMs soon after receiving them, i.e., before
the messages expire. We assume that all parties can effectively delete data.
\section{Delay-Based Covert Communication}
\label{sec:singlebit_timingchannels}
Delay-based communication relies on the ability of {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ to differentiate between a cache
(or PIT) hit, and a cache (PIT) miss. {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ can exploit this by selecting a set of packets
for which it issues interests, therefore causing cache/PIT hits for {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}.
As a warm-up, we show how timing information can be used to covertly transmit a
single-bit CEM from {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ to {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}.
Then, we describe how this can be efficiently extended to CEMs of
arbitrary length. To simplify our notation, we refer to the RTT of a pair interest-data packet
as the RTT of the data packet.
\subsection{Single-Bit Transmission via Cache}\label{sec:sbtc}
We now show how {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ sends $b\in\{0,1\}$ to {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}. If $b=1$, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ requests
a data packet $C$. Otherwise, it does nothing. {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ determines the value of $b$ by
requesting the same data packet $C$. If the RTT of
$C$ is below the expected RTT for non-cached data packets, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ sets $b'$ to $1$.
Otherwise, $b'$ is $0$.
This mechanism works reliably, i.e., $b'=b$ with overwhelming probability, if the following
conditions are met:
\begin{compactenum} %
\item {\sender\ and \receiver}\ agree ahead of time on a data packet that will be used for communicating, and when
{\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ will send $b$.
\item $C$ must be non-popular, i.e., it should not be in {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache prior to {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}'s
request.
\item There must be separation between the RTTs associated with cache hits and cache misses,
and {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ must have a good estimate for at least one of them with respect to $C$.
\item {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ should cache data packets for a non-negligible amount of time.
\end{compactenum}
We believe that 1 and 2 can be easily satisfied in practice.
With respect to 3, in order to distinguish a cache hit from a miss, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ must
determine an appropriate threshold value $t_\mathit{thresh}$: iff the RTT of $C$ is below $t_
\mathit{thresh}$, then {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ considers $C$ as originating from a nearby cache.
$t_\mathit{thresh}$ can be estimated by requesting (more than once) a large number of non-
popular data packets from the same producer that distributes $C$. The first interest for each
data packet will be satisfied by the producer itself. All subsequent (closely spaced) requests
for the same data packet will come from a nearby cache. Regardless of the network topology,
there is usually a clear separation between cache hits and cache misses (see
Section~\ref{sec:evaluation}, figures~\ref{img:cache_hit_miss_distributions_LAN}
and~\ref{img:hit_miss_distribution_testbed}) and, therefore, also an appropriate value for $t_
\mathit{thresh}$.
{\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ can determine if condition 4 holds by issuing multiple interests for data
packets distributed by multiple producers, and measuring effects (if any) of content
caching. If 4 does not hold, a different mechanism -- such as the one based on PIT -- is more
appropriate.
We say that a CEM exchanged by {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ and {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ is expired if $C$ has been removed
from all caches, or once it has been retrieved by {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}.
\paragraph{Timing Constraints}
In order to receive $b$ reliably, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ must observe a set of timing constraints. In
particular, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}'s interest for $C$ must be processed by {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ after $C$ is cached (and
made available to consumers), but before $C$ expires from the same cache.
(Without loss of generality, in the rest of the paper we assume that data packets in {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s
cache are available to consumers as soon as they are received by the router.) Let $I$ indicate
an interest for $C$, and $\interest{A}{B}$, $\content{A}{B}$ the time required to
$I$ and $C$ to travel from $A$ to $B$. Let $t_0$ be the time at which
{\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ writes $b$, either by issuing $I$ ($b=1$) or by doing nothing ($b=0$). Let $t_C = \interest{{\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}}
{{\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}} + \content{{\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}}{{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}}$. $C$ is available from {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache at $t_0 + t_C$.
Therefore, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ can ``read'' $b$ starting at $t_b = t_0 + t_C
- \interest{{\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}}{{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}}$. When $\interest{{\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}}{{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}} \approx \interest{{\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}}{{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}}$, $t_b
\approx t_0 + \mbox{RTT}_{{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}}$ where $\mbox{RTT}_{{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\rightarrow
{\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}}$ represents the RTT for $C$ between {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ and {\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}. {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ must retrieve
$b$ before $t_b + {\ensuremath Exp_\router}$, where ${\ensuremath Exp_\router}$ represents the freshness field of $C$, or
the time after which $C$ is evicted from {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache, whichever comes first.
Figure~\ref{img:cache_timing_channel} summarizes these observations.
Time needed to read a single bit depends on the RTT associated with a cache hit, from
{\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}'s point of view. Let ${\ensuremath \mbox{RTT}_{\sf hit}}$ and ${\ensuremath \mbox{RTT}_{\sf miss}}$ indicate the average RTT for a cache hit and
cache miss relative to $C$, as observed by {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}.
{\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ sets $b=1$ iff the RTT of $C$ is below ${\ensuremath \mbox{RTT}_{\sf hit}} + \Delta<{\ensuremath \mbox{RTT}_{\sf miss}}$,
where $\Delta$ is a small constant used to account for variance in $C$'s RTT. {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ can
therefore determine $b$ within ${\ensuremath \mbox{RTT}_{\sf hit}} + \Delta$.
Covert messages distributed with this technique are ephemeral, i.e., they become unavailable
after a certain amount of time without any further action from {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ or {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}. Because
{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ caches forwarded traffic, $C$ will eventually be evicted from
{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache. In fact, we argue that $C$ is always a good candidate for deletion: since $C$
is not popular, both Least Frequently Used (LFU) and Least Recently Used (LRU) cache replacement
policies will consider it for removal relatively early.
Once {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ requests $C$, it will be stored in cache regardless of the original value of
$b$. Therefore, after being retrieved, $b$ will be set to 1 until $C$ is evicted from {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s
cache.
Our experiments, reported in Section~\ref{sec:evaluation}, show that this technique provides
high bandwidth, with low error. Moreover, it is relatively easy to
implement, since it does not require strict time synchronization.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\textwidth}\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{images/CEP-cache}
\caption{Cache}
\label{img:cache_timing_channel}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{\textwidth}\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{images/CEP-pit}
\caption{PIT}
\label{img:pit_constraint_single_content}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Time constrains for retrieving a CEM published using {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache (top) and PIT (bottom). The colored area delimits the interval in which {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ can retrieve $b$.}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Single-Bit Transmission via PIT}\label{sec:sbtp}
In some circumstances, cache-based %
CEC
is not applicable:
\begin{compactenum}
\item {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ might have no cache: small, low-cost, low-power embedded routers may not store
forwarded data packets.
\item {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s entire cache may be overwritten before {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\
issues $I$. This can happen if {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache is very small, and the router forwards a large
amount of traffic.
\item To prevent cache pollution attacks~\cite{pollution,haining}, {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ may not add to
its cache data packets that are forwarded only once. This behavior would force {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ to issue
$I$ multiple times before $C$ is stored in {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache, negatively affecting both
bandwidth and detectability.
\item {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ may implement cache privacy techniques that involve delaying serving $C$ when it
is retrieved from the cache~\cite{AcsCGGT13}.
\end{compactenum}
To overcome the above limitations, we design a technique based on PIT state. This technique
requires strict time synchronization between parties. It is based on PIT hits
(see Section~\ref{sec:overview}): when {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ receives
interest $I'=I$, while $I$ is still in {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s
PIT, the two interests are ``collapsed'' within the same PIT entry. {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ adds
the incoming interface of $I'$ to the PIT entry of $I$, and does not propagate $I'$ any further.
Once $C$ is received by {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}, it is forwarded to the interfaces on which $I$ and $I'$
were received.
This feature of NDN can be used by {\sender\ and \receiver}\ to covertly exchange a bit $b$ as follows. If $b=1$,
{\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ issues $I$, otherwise it does nothing. To receive $b$, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ issues $I'=I$ while
a copy of $I$ intents is still in {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s PIT -- if originally issued by {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}. If $I$
is in {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s PIT, then {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}'s interest will be satisfied more quickly than if it was not,
because either the original $I$ would be already past {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}, or $C$ would be
already on its way back to {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}. If {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ can correctly measure the corresponding
difference in RTT, it can reliably receive $b$.
With this technique, we say that a CEM has expired if $I$ has been removed from {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s PIT
{\em and} from all caches, or it has been retrieved by {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}.
\paragraph{Timing Constraints}
While the PIT-based CEC works regardless of {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache behavior (or even cache
availability),
it imposes much stricter timing requirements on {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}. In fact, $I'$ must be received by {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ after $I$ (if
issued) is added to {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s
PIT. Moreover, $I'$ must be received before $C$ is forwarded to by {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}. This gives to
{\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ a time window of $\mbox{RTT}_{{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\rightarrow{\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}}$.
As in the cache-based technique, messages exchanged via PIT are ephemeral: if $I$ is not
issued on time, the corresponding PIT entry will be removed once $C$ is forwarded back to {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}. Also,
after {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ issues $I$, any attempt to retrieve $b$ within the correct timing constraints
will result in a collapsed interest (and therefore set $b=1$), regardless of the original value
of $b$.
Figure~\ref{img:pit_constraint_single_content} gives a graphical representation these constraints.
\subsection{Tandem Data Packets}\label{sec:tdp}
With geographically distributed deployments of NDN, and when {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ is far
from {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}, RTT associated with cache hits and misses may fluctuate significantly over
time. In order to reduce the probability of erroneously detecting cache hits/misses, we introduce
a technique -- called Tandem Data Packets (TDP) -- that uses two data packets to covertly receive a single bit. To transmit $b$, {\sender\ and \receiver}\
agree on data packets $C_0$ and $C_1$, which are assumed not to be in any cache. Then,
{\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ requests $C_b$. {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ issue two consecutive interests, one for $C_0$ and one for
$C_1$; if RTT of $C_0$ is lower than RTT of $C_1$, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ sets $b'=0$, otherwise
it sets $b'=1$. The CEM is exchanged correctly if $b'=b$.
This technique does not require {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ to make any {\em a priori} assumption on the
exact RTT associated with cache hits and misses, besides the fact that the RTT of $C_b$ is
lower than the RTT of $C_{\neg b}$. As our experiments confirm, this reduces receiver error
when, since RTT for both hits and misses is continuously updated according to network
conditions.
With this technique, after it is obtained by {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ $b$ becomes inaccessible. In fact, both
$C_0$ and $C_1$ will be stored in {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache, due to {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}'s interests. Therefore, any
difference in the RTT associated with $C_0$ and $C_1$ will not depend on $b$. Therefore, $b$
expires if it has been removed from {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache or it has been retrieved by
{\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}.
\paragraph{Timing Constraints} Timing constraints are identical to those in Section~\ref{sec:sbtc}.
\subsection{Transmission of Multi-Bit Messages}
\label{sec:multi-bit}
{\sender\ and \receiver}\ may want to exchange messages composed of more than one bit.
We discuss how to determine {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}'s and {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}'s speed separately, since the two may send
and receive at different rates.
Let $M = b_1,\ldots,b_n$ be an n-bit string. Suppose that {\sender\ and \receiver}\ agree on $n$
different data packets $C_1,...,C_n$.
Instead of waiting for the full RTT of $C$, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ can send new $I_i$ for $C_i$ before
$C_{i-1}$ has been received. {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ selects an interval $t$; two consecutive interests $I_i,
I_{i+1}$ are sent at $t_i$ and $t_{i+1}$, where $t_{i+1} = t_i + t$. The minimum value for $t$
is denoted as $t_\mathit{min}$, and corresponds to sending an uninterrupted burst of interests.
Similarly, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ selects a value $t$ which is used to determine how subsequent interests are spaced. {\sender\ and \receiver}\ can select $t$ independently, as long as the timing constraints associated with the protocol are not violated.
We evaluate how this technique affects transmission error as a function of $t$ and report our findings in Section~\ref{sec:evaluation}.
\paragraph{Transmitting Multiple Bits with a Single Interest} For efficiency reasons, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\
can use a generalization of the TDP technique to send multiple bits using a single interest.
Two parties agree a priori on a set of data packets, which we represent as a matrix:
$$ Y = \begin{bmatrix}
C_{(1,1)} & \cdots & C_{(1,2^m)} \\[0.4em]
\vdots & & \\[0.4em]
C_{(\ell,1)} & & C_{(\ell,2^m)}
\end{bmatrix}
$$
where $m$ is the number of bits transmitted using one interest, and
$\ell = {\lceil n/m \rceil}$. In order to
publish $M$, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ splits it in words $W_1, \ldots, W_\ell$ of $m$
bits each (i.e., $W_1 = (b_1,\ldots,b_m)$, $W_2 = (b_{m+1}, \ldots, b_{2m})$, etc.). {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\
then issues interests for $C_{(1,W_1)}, C_{(2,W_2)}, \ldots, C_{(\ell, W_\ell)}$, where $W_i$
is used as integer representation of the corresponding bit string.
Thus, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ can publish an $n$-bit message using ${\lceil n/m \rceil}$
interests.
To retrieve $M$, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ issues interests for all data packets in $Y$. Let
$C_{i,j}$ be the data packet on the $i$-th row of $Y$ such that the RTT of $C_{i,j}$ is the
smallest across all $C_{i,1}, \ldots, C_{i,2^m}$. {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ sets $W_i = j$, and $M = W_1|
\ldots|W_\ell$.
The cost of retrieving $M$ for {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ is therefore exponential in $m$. (In practice,
reasonable values for $m$ are between $1$ and $5$).
Note that when $m=1$, this technique corresponds to TDP.
\section{Common-Prefix-Based Covert Communication}
\label{sec:namespacechannel}
Using previous techniques, a covert message can be retrieved only by a single receiver. Message
is automatically ``deleted'' after it is ``read'' by {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}. This is
desirable when a CEM has only one intended recipient. However, when the CEM has multiple
recipients, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ must create a separate ``instance'' of the message for each. In this
section, we propose a technique -- called Common-Prefix-Based Covert Communication (CPC) --
that allows {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ to publish a message once, and have multiple parties to retrieve it.
Similarly to previous techniques, CEMs published using CPC are ephemeral.
CPC relies on NDN's longest prefix matching feature, instead of RTT measurements. This
makes it robust against cache privacy techniques~\cite{AcsCGGT13}, which could
defeat CEC techniques introduced in Section~\ref{sec:singlebit_timingchannels}.
Communication via CPC works as follows. {\sender\ and \receiver}\ agree on two data packets $C_0, C_1$ which share
a common name prefix, e.g., \ndnname{/common/prefix/C0}, and \ndnname{/common/prefix/C1}.
\footnote{Common prefix can be followed by
different children namespaces, e.g.,
\ndnname{/common/prefix\textbf{/foo/}C0} and \ndnname{/common/prefix\textbf{/yet}}
\ndnname{\textbf{/another/prefix/}C1}.}
The common namespace is selected such that data packets published under
it are not popular, i.e., not in {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache.
In order to transmit a single bit, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ simply requests $C_b$.
To receive $b$, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ issues an interest for \ndnname{/common/prefix/}. Both $C_0$ and
$C_1$ match {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}'s interest. Therefore, {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ will return one data packet among $C_0$
and $C_1$ that is still in its cache -- or in its PIT, if {\sender\ and \receiver}'s interests are closely spaced
(see timing constraints below).
This communicates $b$ to {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}.
This technique is very robust against changing network conditions. In particular, since timing
is not used to either set or determine $b$, transient changes in RTT do not
introduce communication errors: {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ receives only $C_b$, regardless of how long it
waits.
Moreover, in contrast with previous techniques, when {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}'s interest is dropped (or,
similarly $C_b$ in response to {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}'s interest is dropped) {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ can re-issue
its interest, since this process does not affect $C_b$.
Common-prefix-based covert channels are suitable for distributing a single message to a (possibly
large) set of receivers. Each interest for \ndnname{/common/prefix/} issued by a recipient
has the side-effect of ``refreshing'' $C_b$ in {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache, making $b$ available
longer. After recipients stop retrieving $C_b$, it ``fades away'' from all
involved routers' caches, effectively erasing $b$.
As an alternative, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ or one of the recipients can request $C_{\neg b}$ which achieves a
similar result.
A message exchanged using CPC expires when it is removed from all caches.
\paragraph{Timing Constraints} In order to successfully retrieve $b$, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ must issue an
interest for \ndnname{/common/prefix/} such that the interest is received by
{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ after the interest for $C_b$ from {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}. If the interest from {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ is received
before $C_b$ is returned to {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}, communication between {\sender\ and \receiver}\ is implemented through
{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s PIT. Otherwise, {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache is used to exchange $b$.
{\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}'s interest must also be received by {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ before $C_b$ is removed from the cache.
\subsection{Multiple-Bit Transmission}
Since this technique is less susceptible to RTT fluctuations and packet loss, using it for
sending and receiving multiple bits in bursts does not introduce significant errors. This is
confirmed by our experiments, in Section~\ref{sec:evaluation}.
\paragraph{Transmitting Multiple Bits with a Single Interest} {\sender\ and \receiver}\ can agree on data packets
in matrix $Y$ with the additional requirements
that for $i\in [1,\ell]$, data packets in row $i$ share the same common prefix
$\mathit{pref}_i$.
{\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ splits $M$ in $W_1, \ldots, W_\ell$, and -- for each $i$ -- issues one interest for
$C_{i,W_i}$.
{\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ needs to issue only {\em one} interest per word (i.e., per
matrix row), requesting a data packet from $\mathit{pref}_i$. For this reason, {\sender\ and \receiver}\ can
exchange an $n$-bit message using ${\lceil n/m \rceil}$ interests/data packets each.
In practice, $m$ is limited only by availability of un-popular namespaces containing a
sufficient number of data packets.
\section{Errors and Error Handling}
\label{sec:error_handling}
Bit errors may be introduced by both {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ (write errors) and {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ (read errors).
Depending on the technique used to communicate, errors may be injected in $M$ for different
reasons and may be detected and dealt with in different ways.
A write error occurs when a data packet requested by {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ is not added to {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s
cache or PIT. A read errors occurs as a result of an incorrect retrieval of a message bit after
it has been correctly written, and before it is expired.
\paragraph{Delay-Based: Cache}
We consider the following two issues as common causes for write errors:
\begin{compactenum}
\item \underline{Packet loss (either interests or data packets)}. Interests from {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ may be
dropped along their way to {\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}. Similarly, data packets from {\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}\ may be
dropped before they reach {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}. In both cases, no data packets added to {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s
cache, and therefore the send operation fails. This, however, can be detected by {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}, who
simply re-issues interests for which it does not receive data packets.
\item \underline{Forwarded data packets not added to {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache}. This can
be caused, for example, by meta-cache algorithms on {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}. {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ can detect this only
by re-requesting all bits set to 1 in its messages and, for each comparing the RTT of the
first request with the RTT of the second.
\end{compactenum}
We identify the following causes for read errors:
\begin{compactenum}
\item \underline{RTT fluctuations}. Since retrieving a message relies on correctly identifying cache
hits and misses, any overlap in the RTT between {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ and {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ and between {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\
and {\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}\ could cause a read error. These errors are not detectable, and cannot be
addressed by simply re-sending interests.
\item \underline{Interests from other consumers}. Some consumers may request a data packet
that correspond to a bit in the message set to 0, and have it added to {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache. We
assume that this happens with negligible probability, since {\sender\ and \receiver}\ exchange messages using a set
of data packets that are not popular.
\item \underline{Packet loss (data packets)}. If a data packet is dropped on the path
from {\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}\ to {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}, it can be safely be re-requested by {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ without altering the
original message. However, if it is dropped on its way from {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ to {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}, the
corresponding message bit will be set to 1 regardless of its original value. {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ can only distinguish between the two cases -- and determine the correct value of the corresponding message bit $b$ -- when $b$ is read as $0$.
\item \underline{Packet loss (interests)}. When interests are dropped on their way from {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ to
{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ (if the corresponding data packet is in {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache) or to {\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}\ (if it is
not), {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ cannot retrieve the corresponding bit. In this case, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ can re-issue
the same interest without altering the original message, since no data packets have been
added to {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache. However, since loss of interest cannot be distinguished from loss of data packet, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ may not be able to recover from this error.
\item \underline{{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ is rebooted.} This causes all data packets in {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache to be
deleted, therefore ``erasing'' all messages from {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}. This can be detected if {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ knows that $M\neq0^n$.
\end{compactenum}
{\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ can reduce errors induced by RTT fluctuations using the ``scope'' field in
interests, when {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ is its first-hop router. This field works similarly to the IP TTL
field. When scope is set to 2, interests are forwarded for up to one hop. (Values higher than 2
are not allowed~\cite{CCNxInterests}). If the {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}'s first hop cannot satisfy the
interests, it simply drops it. This way, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ does not need to measure any difference in
the delay of cache hits and misses, since only cache hits will result in returned content.
Moreover, this would allow interest retransmission in case of packet loss, since setting scope
to 2 would prevent {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}'s interests from adding any new content into the cache. We argue
that, however, setting the scope field would make {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}'s activity easier to detect.
\paragraph{Delay-Based: PIT} As in to the previous technique, write errors
correspond to interests sent by {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ and are not added to {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s PIT.
The main cause for write errors is loss of the interest from {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ to {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}. This cannot
be detected on time by {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}, since the same interest must be issued by {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\
before the corresponding data packet is received by {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}.
On the receiver side, errors may have the following causes:
\begin{compactenum}
\item \underline{RTT fluctuations.} Similarly to the previous technique, significant fluctuations of
RTT can introduce read errors.
\item \underline{Packet loss (either interests or data packets)}. In case of packet loss,
{\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ will learn no information about the corresponding bit in the covert message.
Moreover, re-transmitting an interest may provide no useful information, since by then the PIT
entry corresponding to the original interest from {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}, if any, will be either expired or
removed.
\item \underline{Interests from other consumers.} Other consumers may issue the same interests that
{\sender\ and \receiver}\ are using to covertly exchange information. However, this happens with negligible
probability, because: (1) data packets used to covertly publish messages are non-popular, and (2)
interests from other consumers must be issues a few milliseconds before {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ issues its
interests.
\item \underline{Lack of synchronization between {\sender\ and \receiver}}. Depending on the topology, {\sender\ and \receiver}\ must be
tightly synchronized, i.e., roughly within half RTT between {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ and {\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}. Lack of
synchronization may lead to a high rate of read errors.
\item \underline{Message expiration}. Even though this technically is not a read error, it may happen
that {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ cannot retrieve part of the message on time due to the strict timing
requirements.
\end{compactenum}
As before, the scope field can be set in {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}'s interest to
reduce error rate.
\paragraph{TDP} Write errors have the same
causes, as well as detectability, as the write errors in delay-based cache technique.
Similarly, read errors have the same causes as with delay-based, single-bit cache. However,
data packet-pairs provide more robustness against RTT fluctuations and packet loss. Since two subsequent RTTs -- one
corresponding to a cache hit, and one for a cache miss -- are measured for each message bit, the
probability of error associated with random RTT fluctuations is greatly reduced.
With respect to packet loss, at least one of the data packets corresponding to a single
message bit will be returned with relatively high probability. The associated RTT will still
allow {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ to estimate whether it is coming from {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s cache -- although less
accurately.
\paragraph{Common-prefix-based Covert Communication} Using this technique, write errors may be
introduced by the same events that trigger packet loss in delay-based, single bit cache.
With respect to read errors, this technique is significantly more robust than the previous ones
because: (1) it does not rely on timing measurements, and is therefore immune to RTT
fluctuations; and (2) in case of packet loss (affecting either interests or data packets), {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ can simply re-issue its interest, without affecting the covert message.
\subsection{Error Correction} To address potential read/write errors, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ can use
error-correction codes with CEM.
For example, Reed-Solomon error correction codes~\cite{reed-solomon} could be used. We do not
investigate this any further, since the goal of this paper is to assess feasibility of the
channel and the corresponding error rate.
\section{Evaluation}
\label{sec:evaluation}
We implemented a prototype CEC system to evaluate our protocols. In this section we present the
results of our experiments.
The prototype is based on CCNx \cite{ccnx}, an open-source implementation of NDN which runs as
an overlay on top of IP.
We performed experiments on the two topologies:
\begin{compactitem}
\item \underline{{LAN}}, composed of {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}, {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ and {\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}\ within
the same broadcast domain. Each party runs a separate instance of CCNx.
\item \underline{NDN testbed}~\cite{ndn-testbed}, where {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ and {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ (located in
Europe)
are connected to the UCLA NDN hub (which acts as {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}), and {\ensuremath{\sf Pr}}\ is connected to the
testbed through the UCI hub. UCLA and UCI hubs are one NDN hop apart (ten hops over IP).
\end{compactitem}
{\sender\ and \receiver}\ exchange 1,000-bit messages. Each message is a fresh random bit
string. This is representative of the distribution of encrypted messages.
Naturally, our protocols generate communication overhead. We used 41-byte
interests and 377-byte data packets (on average). With single-bit transmission (either using
PIT and cache), each message bit set to 1 requires {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ to exchange 418 bytes. Regardless
of message content, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ needs to send/receive 418 bytes per message bit. With the TDP
protocol, each message bit costs 418 bytes to {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ and 836 bytes to {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}. When transmitting
multiple bits with a single interest, $m$ message bits cost {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ 418 bytes, and $2^m\cdot\ $418
bytes to {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}. Finally, with CPC both {\sender\ and \receiver}\ exchange 418 bytes for each $m$-bit word.
\subsection{Evaluation of Delay-Based (Cache) Techniques}
\label{sec:eval-cache-hits}
In order to assess feasibility of cache-based techniques, we compared RTT associated
with cache hits and cache misses in both LAN and testbed scenarios.
Figure~\ref{img:hit_miss_distribution} summarizes our findings and represents average values
over 100,000 data packets. While there is virtually no overlap between RTT of cache hits and
misses in a controlled (LAN) environment, RTT fluctuations on the testbed do not always allow
us to
distinguish a cache hit from a cache miss. However, the overlap is still relatively small
and, as confirmed by further experiments, it is possible to implement a reliable
CEC on the testbed.
\begin{figure}[ht]
%
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{images/hit-miss-pdf}
\caption{LAN}
\label{img:cache_hit_miss_distributions_LAN}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{images/hit-miss-test-testbed}
\caption{Testbed}
\label{img:hit_miss_distribution_testbed}
\end{subfigure}
\caption {PDF for cache hit and cache miss.\label{img:hit_miss_distribution}}
\end{figure}
We then looked into how interest sending rate affects RTT. We selected values
for $t$ varying from $t_\mathit{min} = 0.3\ \mu$s to $t=5$ ms (see Section~\ref{sec:multi-bit}). We performed
several experiments, each using 100,000 data packets. Before each experiment, we restarted
{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ in order to remove all cache entries. Results are reported in
Figure~\ref{img:cache_hit_miss_burst}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{images/rtt_0_0-confidence-95}
\caption{LAN, $t=t_\mathit{min}$}
\label{img:cache_hit_miss-0.0_95_LAN}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{2cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{images/rtt_0_2-confidence-95}
\caption{LAN, $t=0.2$ ms}
\label{img:cache_hit_miss-0.2_95_LAN}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{2cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{images/rtt_0_5-confidence-95}
\caption{LAN, $t=0.5$ ms}
\label{img:cache_hit_miss-0.5_95_LAN}
\end{subfigure}
\newline
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{images/rtt_0_0-1000-confidence-95-testbed}
\caption{Testbed, $t=t_\mathit{min}$}
\label{img:cache_hit_miss-0.0_95_TB}
\end{subfigure}\hspace{2.15cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{images/rtt_0_2-1000-confidence-95-testbed}
\caption{Testbed, $t=0.2$ ms}
\label{img:cache_hit_miss-0.2_95_TB}
\end{subfigure}\hspace{2.15cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.2\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.2]{images/rtt_0_5-1000-confidence-95-testbed}
\caption{Testbed, $t=0.5$ ms}
\label{img:cache_hit_miss-0.5_95_TB}
\end{subfigure}
\caption {RTT for data packets, varying request rate.
\label{img:cache_hit_miss_burst}}
\end{figure*}
In LAN (figures~\ref{img:cache_hit_miss-0.0_95_LAN}, \ref{img:cache_hit_miss-0.2_95_LAN},
and \ref{img:cache_hit_miss-0.5_95_LAN}), RTTs of cache hits and cache misses are clearly
separated, regardless of $t$. On the testbed (figures~\ref{img:cache_hit_miss-0.0_95_TB},
\ref{img:cache_hit_miss-0.2_95_TB}, and \ref{img:cache_hit_miss-0.5_95_TB}), for small values
of $t$, cache hits and misses significantly overlap for messages longer than 200 bits.
This suggests that short busts, separated by short pauses, provide lower error rates.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
%
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{images/sct-sender-thr1_5}
\caption{LAN}
\label{img:sct_cache_receiver_t_local}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
%
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{images/sct-sender-testbed}
\caption{Testbed}
\label{img:sct_cache_receiver_t_testbed}
\end{subfigure}
\caption {Cache-hit-based communication: write error, varying $t$.\label{img:sct_cache_sender}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{images/sct-receiver-local}
\caption{LAN}
\label{img:sct_cache_receiver_local}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{images/sct-receiver-testbed}
\caption{Testbed}
\label{img:sct_cache_receiver_testbed}
\end{subfigure}
\caption {Cache-hit-based communication: read error varying $t_\mathit{thresh}$ and $t$. \label{img:sct_cache_receiver}}
\end{figure}
For cache-based CEC, we evaluated read and write errors separately, while varying $t$ and
$t_\mathit{thresh}$.
To evaluate write errors, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ published of 100,000 covert bits for each value of $t$.
Covert bits were subsequently requested at a low rate ($t =
100$ ms) by {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}. We then estimated how many data packets were not retrieved from cache.
Figure~\ref{img:sct_cache_sender} summarizes our findings.
In this experiment, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ introduces a small measurement error. We estimate to be
negligible in LAN, and below 1.5\% on the testbed. With cache-based CEC, write errors can be completely
eliminated if {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ re-issues interests for content that it did not receive; although,
writing time increases.
To measure read errors, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ published 100,000 covert bits, separated in groups of 1,000-
bit CEMs, for each value of $t$ and $t_\mathit{thresh}$.
Results of this experiment are shown in Figure~\ref{img:sct_cache_receiver}.
Due to the clear separation between RTTs associated with cache hits and misses in LAN, read
errors were very low for a wide range of parameters (e.g., for $t_\mathit{thresh}$ between 1 and 1.5 ms). On the testbed, error was typically between 3\% and 5\% for $t_\mathit{thresh}$ between 191 and 193 ms.
\subsection{Evaluation of Delay-Base (PIT) Techniques}
We
requested the same data packet from both {\sender\ and \receiver}\ at very close intervals (i.e., 0.8 and 1~ms in
LAN and 2 ms on testbed), in order to trigger interest collapsing on {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}, and,
therefore, a PIT hit. {\sender\ and \receiver}\ were synchronized using a local NTP server; we
estimated the time difference between the two hosts to be below 0.2 ms. Our experiments show that is
possible to distinguish PIT hits from misses using appropriate intervals between interests
from {\sender\ and \receiver}. Results of this
experiment are shown in Figure~\ref{PIT_resp_time_ALL}.
However, the separation is less clear than with cache, as shown in the same figure.
Moreover, this channel requires much tighter synchronization between {\sender\ and \receiver}\ (i.e.,
sub-millisecond in LAN, and within 2 ms on testbed). For these reasons,
PIT-based CEC are significantly more difficult to implement.
\begin{figure}[ht]
%
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
%
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{images/PIT_resp_time}
\caption{LAN}
\label{img:pit_resp_time_distr_LAN}
\end{subfigure}
\vspace{-0.4cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
%
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{images/PIT_resp_time_testbed}
\caption{Testbed}
\label{img:pit_resp_time_distr_Testbed}
\end{subfigure}
\caption {RTT for data packets causing PIT collisions.\label{PIT_resp_time_ALL}}
\end{figure}
Since {\sender\ and \receiver}\ must operate synchronously and with the same $t$, we measured read and write errors
jointly. For this experiment, the delay between interests from {\sender\ and \receiver}\ is 0.8 ms in LAN, and 8 ms
on the testbed. Results are shown in Figure~\ref{img:sct_pit}.
With appropriate
choice of the threshold parameter, errors in LAN are negligible, and below 7.5\% in the
testbed.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{images/sct-pit-res}
\caption{LAN}
\label{img:sct_pit_local}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{images/sct-pit-res-testbed}
\caption{Testbed}
\label{img:sct_pit_testbed}
\end{subfigure}
\caption {Joint write and read error varying $t$ in our PIT hit-based protocol. \label{img:sct_pit}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{TDP Evaluation}
We measured the error rate varying write and read speeds separately for {\sender\ and \receiver}. Figures~\ref{img:nmsp-receiver-TDP} and \ref{img:res_sct_burst_cache} summarize our findings. On the receiver side, this technique performs better than the cache-hit-based one. For example, for $t$ = 1.5 ms in the testbed, the error for TPD is less than 2\% (see Figure \ref{img:res_sct_burst_cache_testbed}), while for $t=3$ (i.e., the same effective bit rate relative to the CEM) in the cache-hit-based technique the error for is more than 4\% (Figure \ref {img:sct_cache_receiver_t_testbed}).
\begin{figure}[ht]
%
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
%
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{images/nmc-sender-local}
\label{img:nmsp-sender-local}
\caption{LAN}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.4cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
%
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{images/nmc-sender-testbed}
\label{img:nmsp-sender-testbed}
\caption{Testbed}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Write error with TDP, varying {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}'s $t$.\label{img:nmsp-receiver-TDP}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h!]
%
%
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
%
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{images/mct-receiver}
\caption{LAN}
\label{img:res_sct_burst_cache_LAN}
\end{subfigure}
\hspace{0.4cm}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.4\textwidth}
%
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{images/mct-receiver-testbed}
\caption{Testbed}
\label{img:res_sct_burst_cache_testbed}
\end{subfigure}
\caption {Read error with TDP, varying {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}'s $t$.\label{img:res_sct_burst_cache}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Evaluation of Common-Prefix-Based Technique}
We set $m=1$ (i.e., each data packet encodes one
bit), in order to encode 1,000-bit CEM using 1,000 data packets.
We run separate experiments to evaluate {\sender\ and \receiver}\ errors. As mentioned in
Section~\ref{sec:error_handling}, both parties can avoid packet-loss-induced errors
using interest retransmission. For a fair comparison with previous protocols, we test how the
common-prefix-based technique performs {\em without} retransmissions.
Results on write errors, both in our LAN and on the testbed, are identical to those in
Figure~\ref{img:res_sct_burst_cache}. In fact, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ performs the
same actions to send a CEM.
Read errors on the testbed are reported in Figure~\ref{img:nmsp-receiver}. We omit the plot corresponding to read errors in LAN, since for all tested values of $t$ error rate was below 0.03\%. Errors for both {\sender\ and \receiver}\ are due to packet loss.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{images/nmc-receiver-testbed}
\caption{Common-prefix-based protocol: read error varying $t$.\label{img:nmsp-receiver}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Bit Rate and Error Comparison}
To simplify comparison of techniques introduced in this paper, we combine effective bit
rate and corresponding error for all our protocols in Figure~\ref{img:FinalComparison}. Note
that, for TDP, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}'s effective bit rate can be {\em multiplied} by an arbitrary $m$, while
{\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}'s bit rate should be {\em divided} by $2^m$. Analogously, the bit rate for both {\sender\ and \receiver}\ in the common-prefix protocol should be multiplied by $m$ as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:namespacechannel}.
\begin{figure*}[ht!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{images/comparison-local-sender}
\caption{LAN ({\ensuremath{\sf Snd}})}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{images/comparison-testbed-sender}
\caption{Testbed ({\ensuremath{\sf Snd}})}
\end{subfigure}
\\
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{images/comparison-local-receiver}
\caption{LAN ({\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}})}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.48\textwidth}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{images/comparison-testbed-receiver}
\caption{Testbed ({\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}})}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Performance comparison.}
\label{img:FinalComparison}
\end{figure*}
\section{Security Analysis}
\label{sec:securityanalysis}
We now analyze security of CEC techniques. We start by showing that proposed
protocols are retroactively private and secure against message recovery attack. We then conclude with an informal discussion on the detectability and robustness of our approaches.
\subsection{Retroactive Privacy}
{\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ has non-negligible advantage over 1/2 in the retroactive privacy game (see Section~\ref{systemmodel}) only if it can
infer information about $a$ from interaction with {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}, {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ and
{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ {\em after} the message $M_a$ has expired. That is, {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ can only interact with
protocol participants after data packets used to encode $M_a$ have been removed from
{\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}'s PIT and from all caches.
Since {\sender\ and \receiver}\ delete $M_a$ as soon as they (respectively) send and receive it, {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\
cannot acquire information about $M_a$ by compromising the two parties.
Similarly, NDN routers do not keep track of data packets once they disappear from both
PIT and cache. Therefore, after $M_a$ expires, {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ carries no information about the
message.
As a result, there is simply no information about $M_a$ within the network after the message
expires.
\subsection{Security Against Message-Recovery Attacks}
In order to reconstruct a CEM, {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ can probe all NDN routers, and try to identify
data packets used for covert communication. However, this approach has two problems: (1)
there is no data packet in routers caches for a bit set to 0; therefore, {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ cannot learn
information about these bits by simply observing routers caches. (2) even for a relatively small NDN deployment, the number of routers and the size of their caches makes this attack infeasible.
Another adversarial strategy consists in infiltration of the routing infrastructure:
{\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\
could mount a Sybil attack~\cite{defeating-vanish}, deploying a large number of malicious NDN routers. We believe that
this approach is not feasible, since: (1) {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ cannot deploy an
arbitrary number of NDN routers. Even if NDN is implemented as an overlay, routers are identified by
their unique IP address. This would force {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ to obtain a very large number of public
IP address. (2) Even if the adversary succeeds deploying a large number of routers, it must log all data packets forwarded by all controlled routers. This may not be feasible. (3) Similarly, even if {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ can compromise arbitrary routers, maintaining logs for all forwarded data packets would not be viable.
\subsection{Detectability}
In order to exchange a message through our protocols, {\sender\ and \receiver}\ do not need to communicate directly,
nor they need to be connected through the same NDN router. Moreover, they only interact with the
network as prescribed by NDN specifications.
A single-bit message $b=0$ sent using single-bit transmission via cache or PIT cannot be
detected, since {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ performs no action. When $b=1$, {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ retrieves a non-popular
data packet. We believe that, in practice, by flagging all single interests for non-popular
data packets as ``suspicious'', {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ would incur in an overwhelmingly large number of false
alarms.
Similarly, a single interest issued by {\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}\ to retrieve $b$ would be easily hidden by the
existing traffic.
When {\sender\ and \receiver}\ exchange messages longer than a single bit, however, their actions become more detectable. In particular,
the longer the message, the more likely it is for {\ensuremath{\sf Adv}}\ to correctly identify a
CEM between two or more parties. While a single interest for non-popular data packets may not raise any suspect, a long streak of interests for non-popular data packets
may be easy to notice. For this reason, {\sender\ and \receiver}\ should limit the size of the exchanged messages
to reduce detectability.
Finally, with namespace-based covert communication detectability mostly depends on $m$ and on the
size of the covert. In particular, a higher value for $m$ implies lower detectability: less data packets have to be requested to write and read a covert message.
\subsection{Robustness}
When {\ensuremath{\sf Rt}}\ introduces arbitrary delays to conceal cache hits, our techniques based on
measuring time difference between these two events do not work. However, techniques based on PIT
and on common prefixes are not affected by cache hit delays, since they either do not rely on
cache or do not consider RTT.
Similarly, when the network introduces unpredictable delays on packets (e.g., when traffic
intensity has sudden wide fluctuations), common-prefix-based technique may be more appropriate
since it does not rely on timing measurements.
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:related_work}
We divide relevant related work in two classes: {\em covert communication} and {\em ephemeral communication}.
\paragraph{Covert Communication}
The goal of a covert channel is to conceal the very existence of a covert message by
communicating it through legitimate channels~\cite{CoCo}.
In~\cite{jitterbug}, Shah et al.~present Jitterbug, a hardware device and a communication
protocol that covertly transmit data by perturbing the timing of keyboard events. In
particular, the authors design and implement a small hardware {\em pass-through} device that
introduces small -- although, measurable -- variations in the times at which keyboard events
are delivered to the host. When the user runs an interactive communication protocol (e.g., SSH,
instant messaging), a receiver monitoring the host's network traffic can recover the leaked
data. According to the experimental results reported in~\cite{jitterbug}, the bandwidth offered
by Jitterbug is roughly 500 bps over 14 network hops, with 8.9\% error rate. In contrast, our
technique provide a bit rate of about 15,000~bps in a similar scenario with analogous error
rate. Another difference is that with Jitterbug the receiver must be able to intercept network
traffic, while our approach can be used by any unprivileged user.
CoCo, introduced in~\cite{CoCo} by Houmansadr et al., is a framework for establishing covert
channels via inter-packet delays. The sender generates a traffic flow directed to the receiver,
then manipulates the flow according to the covert message and a key, shared between the two
parties. The coding algorithm used in CoCo ensures robustness of the covert message to
perturbations. The authors show statistical evidence on the undetectability of the
communication channel. We emphasize that CoCo would not satisfy our requirements because sender
and receiver must communicate directly.
Murdoch et al.~\cite{MurdochL} investigate covert channel implemented by embedding information
in random-looking TCP fields. They show that na\"ive approaches -- such as embedding ciphertext
in the initial sequence number (ISN) field -- can be easily detected. Then, they discuss how to
implement networking stack-specific covert channel, which are provably undetectable. Similarly to CoCo, the main difference between our work and the work of Murdoch et al.~is that sender and receiver must exchange packets directly.
\paragraph{Ephemeral Communication}
Geambasu et al.~introduced the Vanish system~\cite{vanish}, which allows users to publish
ephemeral messages. Users encrypt their messages using a random symmetric key. Then, they
publish shares of the key (computed using Shamir secret sharing~\cite{shamirSS}) in random
indices in a large, pre-existing distributed hash table (DHT). A DHT is a distributed data
structure that holds key-value pairs. Since data on DHTs is automatically deleted over time,
shares of the key automatically ``disappear''. Once enough shares have been deleted, the key --
and therefore the encrypted message -- is effectively erased.
Wolchok et al.~\cite{defeating-vanish} showed that Vanish can be defeated using low-cost Sybil
attacks on the DHT. In particular, they exploited one of the design flaws of Vanish, namely the
assumption that DHTs are resistant to crawling. This is in contrast with our approach, where
monitoring all routers' caches is clearly infeasible. Although the authors of Vanish have since
proposed countermeasures~\cite{vanish2}, these techniques
only slightly raise the bar against existing attacks~\cite{CastellucciaCFK11}.
Castelluccia et al.~\cite{CastellucciaCFK11} introduced EphPub, a DNS-based ephemeral
communication technique. A publishers encrypts and distributes a message. Then, it distributes
the decryption key as follows: for each key bit set to 1, the publisher picks a DNS resolver
and uses it to answer a recursive DNS queries for a specific domain. Since DNS resolvers cache
responses for a pre-determined amount of time, one or more receivers can subsequently issue
{\em non-recoursive} queries to the same resolver. These queries will be answered only if the
corresponding domain-IP pair is in cache. Once enough cache entries expire (or get
overwritten), the decryption key -- and therefore the published message -- disappears.
There are several differences between EphPub and our techniques. First, while
EphPub relies on an application-layer service (DNS resolver) to publish an
ephemeral piece of data, our techniques leverage routers' PITs and caches, which
are part of the routing architecture. Moreover, while EphPub can be blocked by
forcing users to use a local DNS server with no cache (e.g., by filtering out DNS queries at the network gateway), our PIT-based
technique allows two parties to exchange CEMs even if routers do not provide
content caching. Moreover, if EphPub sees wide adoption, there are several
concerns (raised also by Castelluccia et al.~in~\cite{CastellucciaCFK11}) that
would impose excessive load on DNS servers, which would then be forced to
stop acting as ``open'' resolvers. In contrast, with our approach, communicating
parties do not impose higher-than-usual load on routers: consumers simply use
their allocated bandwidth for content retrieval.
Furthermore, routers cannot determine the source of data requests (interests do
not carry a source address), and therefore always operate similarly to open
resolvers. Finally, EphPub does not provides covert communication,
since the behavior of two users who communicate via EphPub is difficult to
conceal. In fact, ``regular'' users rarely query multiple remote DNS servers in
short bursts. With our techniques, instead, {\sender\ and \receiver}~do not perform any easily
identifiable activity.
Perlman~\cite{ephemerizer} proposed Ephemerizer, a centralized approach to secure data
deletion. The goal of Ephemerizer is to find a balance between data availability and the
ability to properly delete data. Users encrypt their data using a symmetric
encryption scheme. Then they delegate key storage to a trusted third party. This
third party destroys cryptographic keys when they ``expire'', effectively making the original
data unaccessible. Compared to~\cite{vanish}, \cite{CastellucciaCFK11}, as well as to our
approach, Ephemerizer requires an always on-line, trusted third party.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper, we have presented the first evaluation of covert ephemeral communication in NDN.
Our techniques do not require {\sender\ and \receiver}\ to exchange any packet directly. Rather, they rely on
user-driven state on routers to publish and retrieve covert messages.
Messages published with our approach are ephemeral, i.e., they are automatically deleted from
the network after a certain amount of time, without requiring any action from {\ensuremath{\sf Snd}}\ or
{\ensuremath{\sf Rcv}}. Additionally, our delay-based techniques, messages {\em expire} immediately after
being retrieved.
Our techniques are based on fundamental components on NDN, and do not require ``abuse'' of
application-layer protocols. In practice {\sender\ and \receiver}\ only need access to non-popular content.
We performed experiments on a prototype implementation of our protocols. In particular, we
measured the the bandwidth and robustness of our approaches on a local (LAN) setup and in a
geographically distributed environment -- the official NDN testbed. Our experiments confirm
that the techniques proposed in this paper provide high bandwidth and low error rate.
\balance
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
{
|
\section{Introduction}
Visual tracking is one of the most active research topics due to its
wide range of applications such as motion analysis, activity
recognition, surveillance, and human-computer
interaction, to name a few~\cite{Yilmaz_CSUR_2006}.
The main challenge for robust visual
tracking is to handle large appearance changes of the target
object and the background over time due to occlusion,
illumination changes, and pose variation.
Numerous algorithms have been proposed with focus on effective
appearance models, which can be
categorized into
generative~\cite{collins2003mean,Collins_PAMI_2005,
Adam_CVPR_2006, yang2007spatial, Ross_IJCV_2008,
Kwon_CVPR_2010,kwon2011tracking,
Mei_PAMI_2011,Li_CVPR_2011, sevilla2012distribution,
oron2012locally, zhang2012robust} and
discriminative~\cite{Grabner_BMVC_2006,Kalal_CVPR_2010, Hare_ICCV_2011,
Babenko_PAMI_2011, Zhang_ECCV_2012,
henriques2012circulant} approaches.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{figs/girldemo.eps}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{center}
\caption{
The proposed method handles heavy occlusion well by learning spatio-temporal
context information.
Note that the region inside the
red rectangle is the context region which includes the target and
its surrounding background.
Left: although the target appearance
changes much due to heavy occlusion, the spatial relationship
between the object center (denoted by solid yellow circle) and its
surrounding locations in the context region (denoted by solid red
circles) is almost unchanged.
Middle: the learned spatio-temporal context
model (the regions inside the blue rectangles have similar values
which show the corresponding regions in the left frames have similar
spatial relations to the target center.).
Right: the learned confidence map.}
\label{fig:demoocc}
\end{figure}
A generative tracking method learns an appearance model to represent
the target and search for image regions with best matching scores as
the results.
While it is critical to construct an effective
appearance model in order to to handle various challenging
factors in tracking,
the involved computational complexity is often increased at the
same time.
Furthermore, generative methods discard useful
information surrounding target regions that can be exploited to
better separate objects from backgrounds.
Discriminative methods treat
tracking as a binary classification problem with local search
which estimates decision boundary between an object image patch and
the background.
However, the objective of classification is to predict instance
labels
which is different from the goal of tracking
to estimate object locations~\cite{Hare_ICCV_2011}.
Moreover, while some efficient feature extraction techniques (e.g.,
integral image~\cite{Grabner_BMVC_2006,Kalal_CVPR_2010,Hare_ICCV_2011,
Babenko_PAMI_2011,Zhang_ECCV_2012} and
random projection~\cite{Zhang_ECCV_2012}) have been proposed for
visual tracking, there often exist a large number of samples from which
features need to be extracted for classification, thereby
entailing computationally expensive operations.
Generally speaking, both generative and discriminative tracking
algorithms make trade-offs between effectiveness and efficiency of
an appearance model.
Notwithstanding much progress has been made in recent years, it
remains a challenging task to develop an efficient and robust tracking
algorithm.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{figs/flowa.eps}\\
\scriptsize
(a) Learn spatial context at the $t$-th frame\\
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{figs/flowb.eps}\\
\scriptsize
(b) Detect object location at the $(t\rm{+}1)$-th frame\\
\end{center}
\caption{Basic flow of our tracking algorithm. The local context
regions are inside the red rectangles while the target locations are
indicated by the yellow rectangles. FFT denotes the Fast Fourier Transform
and IFFT is the inverse FFT.}
\label{fig:basicflow}
\end{figure*}
In visual tracking, a local context consists of a target object and
its immediate surrounding background within a determined region
(See the regions inside the red rectangles in Figure~\ref{fig:demoocc}).
Therefore, there exists a strong spatio-temporal relationship between
the local scenes containing the object in consecutive frames.
For instance, the target in
Figure~\ref{fig:demoocc} undergoes heavy occlusion which makes the
object appearance change significantly.
However, the local context containing the object does not change much
as the overall appearance remains similar and only a small part of the
context region is occluded.
Thus, the presence of local context in the current frame helps
predict the object location in the next frame.
This temporally proximal information in consecutive frames is
the temporal context which has been recently applied to object
detection~\cite{divvala2009empirical}.
Furthermore, the spatial relation between an object and its
local context provides specific information about the configuration
of a scene (See middle column in Figure~\ref{fig:demoocc}) which helps
discriminate the target from background when its appearance changes
much.
Recently, several methods~\cite{yang2009context, grabner2010tracking,
dinh2011context, Wen_ECCV_2012}
exploit context information to facilitate visual tracking with
demonstrated success.
However, these approaches require high computational loads for feature
extraction in training and tracking phases.
In this paper, we propose a fast and robust tracking algorithm which
exploits spatio-temporal local context
information.
Figure~\ref{fig:basicflow} illustrates the basic flow of
our algorithm.
First, we learn a spatial context model between
the target object and its local surrounding background based on their
spatial correlations in a scene by solving a deconvolution
problem.
Next, the learned spatial context model is used to
update a spatio-temporal context model for the next frame.
Tracking in the next frame is formulated by computing a
confidence map as a convolution problem that integrates the
spatio-temporal context information, and the best object
location can be estimated by maximizing the confidence map (See
Figure~\ref{fig:basicflow} (b)).
Experiments on numerous challenging
sequences demonstrate that the proposed algorithm performs favorably
against state-of-the-art methods in terms of accuracy, efficiency and
robustness.
\section{Problem Formulation}
The tracking problem is formulated by computing a confidence map which
estimates the object location likelihood:
\begin{equation}
c(\textbf{x})=P(\textbf{x}|o),
\label{eq:confmap}
\end{equation}
where $\textbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^2$ is an object location and $o$ denotes
the object present in the scene.
In the following, the spatial context information is used to estimate
(\ref{eq:confmap}) and
Figure~\ref{fig:graphrepresentation} shows its graphical model
representation.
In the current frame, we have the object location $\textbf{x}^{\star}$
(i.e., coordinate of the tracked object center).
The context feature set is defined as
$X^c=\{\textbf{c}(\textbf{z})=(I(\textbf{z}),\textbf{z})|
\textbf{z}\in\Omega_c(\textbf{x}^\star)\}$
where $I(\textbf{z})$ denotes image intensity at location $\textbf{z}$
and $\Omega_c(\textbf{x}^\star)$ is the neighborhood of location
$\textbf{x}^\star$.
By marginalizing the joint probability
$P(\textbf{x},\textbf{c}(\textbf{z})|o)$, the object location likelihood
function in (\ref{eq:confmap}) can be computed by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
c(\textbf{x})&=P(\textbf{x}|o)\\
&=\textstyle\sum_{\textbf{c}(\textbf{z})\in X^c}P(\textbf{x},\textbf{c}(\textbf{z})|o)
\\
&=\textstyle\sum_{\textbf{c}(\textbf{z})\in
X^c}P(\textbf{x}|\textbf{c}(\textbf{z}),o)P(\textbf{c}(\textbf{z})|o)
,
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:marginalizingconfmap}
\end{equation}
where the conditional probability
$P(\textbf{x}|\textbf{c}(\textbf{z}),o)$ models the spatial
relationship between the object location and its context information which
helps resolve ambiguities when the image measurements allow
different interpretations, and
$P(\textbf{c}(\textbf{z})|o)$ is a context prior probability which
models appearance of the local context.
The main task in this work is to learn
$P(\textbf{x}|\textbf{c}(\textbf{z}),o)$ as it bridges the gap
between object location and its spatial context.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\linewidth]{figs/graphrepresentation.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Graphical model representation of spatial relationship
between object and its local context.
The local context region $\Omega_c$ is inside the red rectangle which
includes object region surrounding by the yellow rectangle
centering at the tracked result $\textbf{x}^\star$.
The context feature at location $\textbf{z}$ is denoted by
$\textbf{c}(\textbf{z})=(I(\textbf{z}),\textbf{z})$ including
a low-level appearance representation (i.e., image intensity
$I(\textbf{z})$) and location information.}
\label{fig:graphrepresentation}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spatial Context Model}
The conditional probability function
$P(\textbf{x}|\textbf{c}(\textbf{z}),o)$ in
(\ref{eq:marginalizingconfmap}) is defined as
\begin{equation}
P(\textbf{x}|\textbf{c}(\textbf{z}),o)=h^{sc}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{z}),
\label{eq:spatialcontext}
\end{equation}
where $h^{sc}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{z})$ is a function
(See Section~\ref{sec:fast-learning}) with respect to
the relative distance and direction between object
location $\textbf{x}$ and its local context location $\textbf{z}$,
thereby encoding the spatial relationship between an object and its
spatial context.
Note that $h^{sc}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{z})$ is not a radially
symmetric function (i.e., $h^{sc}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{z})\neq
h^{sc}(|\textbf{x}-\textbf{z}|)$), and takes into account
different spatial relationships between an object and its local contexts,
thereby helping resolve ambiguities when similar objects appear in close
proximity.
For example, when a method tracks an eye based only on appearance
(denoted by $\textbf{z}_l$) in the $davidindoor$ sequence shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:graphrepresentation}, the tracker may be easily
distracted to the right one (denoted by $\textbf{z}_r$)
because both eyes and their surrounding backgrounds have
similar appearances (when the object moves fast and the search
region is large).
However, in the proposed method, while the locations of both eyes are
at similar distances to location $\textbf{x}^\star$
(here, it is location
of the context relative to object location $\textbf{z}_l$), their
relative locations to $\textbf{x}^\star$ are different,
thereby resulting in different spatial relationships,
i.e.,
$h^{sc}(\textbf{z}_{l}-\textbf{x}^\star)\neq
h^{sc}(\textbf{z}_{r}-\textbf{x}^\star)$.
That is, the non-radially symmetric function $h^{sc}$
helps resolve ambiguities effectively.
\subsection{Context Prior Model}
In (\ref{eq:marginalizingconfmap}), the context prior probability is
simply modeled by
\begin{equation}
P(\textbf{c}(\textbf{z})|o)=I(\textbf{z})w_{\sigma}(\textbf{z}-\textbf{x}^\star),
\label{eq:context-prior}
\end{equation}
where $I(\cdot)$ is image intensity that represents appearance of
context and $w_{\sigma}(\cdot)$ is a weighted function defined by
\begin{equation}
w_{\sigma}(\textbf{z})=ae^{-\frac{|\textbf{z}|^2}{\sigma^2}},
\label{eq:weight}
\end{equation}
where $a$ is a normalization constant that restricts
$P(\textbf{c}(\textbf{z})|o)$ in (\ref{eq:context-prior}) to range
from 0 to 1 that satisfies the definition of probability and $\sigma$
is a scale parameter.
In (\ref{eq:context-prior}), it models focus of attention that is
motivated by the biological visual system which
concentrates on certain image regions requiring detailed
analysis~\cite{torralba2003contextual}.
The closer the context
location $\textbf{z}$ is to the currently tracked target location
$\textbf{x}^\star$, the more important it is to predict the object
location in the coming frame, and larger weight should be
set.
Different from our algorithm that uses a spatially weighted function to
indicate the importance of context at different locations,
there exist other methods~\cite{belongie2002shape,wolf2006critical} in
which spatial sampling techniques are used to focus more detailed contexts
at the locations near the object center (i.e., the closer the location is
to the object center, the more context locations are sampled).
\subsection{Confidence Map}
The confidence map of an object location is modeled as
\begin{equation}
c(\textbf{x})=P(\textbf{x}|o)=be^{-|\frac{\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^\star}{\alpha}|^\beta},
\label{eq:confidencemap}
\end{equation}
where $b$ is a normalization constant, $\alpha$ is a scale parameter
and $\beta$ is a shape parameter (See
Figure~\ref{fig:confidencemap}).
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\linewidth]{figs/confb.eps}\\
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of 1-D cross section of the confidence map $c$(\textbf{x}) in (\ref{eq:confidencemap}) with different parameters $\beta$. Here, the object location $\textbf{x}^\star=(100,100)$.}
\label{fig:confidencemap}
\end{figure}
The object location ambiguity problem often occurs in visual tracking
which adversely affects tracking performance.
In~\cite{Babenko_PAMI_2011},
a multiple instance learning technique is adopted to handle the
location ambiguity problem with favorable tracking results.
The closer the location is to the currently tracked position, the
larger probability that the ambiguity occurs with (e.g., predicted
object locations that differ by a few pixels are all plausible
solutions and thereby cause ambiguities).
In our method, we resolve the location ambiguity problem by choosing a
proper shape parameter $\beta$.
As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:confidencemap}, a large $\beta$
(e.g., $\beta=2$) results in an oversmoothing effect for the
confidence value at locations near to the object center, thereby
failing to effectively reduce location ambiguities.
On the other hand, a small $\beta$ (e.g.,
$\beta=0.5$) yields a sharp peak near the object center,
thereby only activating much fewer positions when learning the spatial
context model.
This in turn may lead to overfitting in searching for the object
location in the coming frame.
We find that robust results can be obtained when $\beta=1$ in our
experiments.
\subsection{Fast Learning Spatial Context Model}
\label{sec:fast-learning}
Based on the confidence
map function (\ref{eq:confidencemap}) and the context prior model
(\ref{eq:context-prior}), our objective is to learn the spatial
context model (\ref{eq:spatialcontext}).
Putting (\ref{eq:confidencemap}),
(\ref{eq:context-prior}) and (\ref{eq:spatialcontext}) together,
we formulate (\ref{eq:marginalizingconfmap}) as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
c(\textbf{x})&=be^{-|\frac{\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^\star}{\alpha}|^\beta}\\
&=\textstyle\sum_{\textbf{z}\in \Omega_c(\textbf{x}^\star)}
h^{sc}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{z})
I(\textbf{z})w_{\sigma}(\textbf{z}-\textbf{x}^\star)\\
&=h^{sc}(\textbf{x})\otimes(I(\textbf{x})
w_{\sigma}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^\star)),
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:convolutionconfmap}
\end{equation}
where $\otimes$ denotes the convolution operator.
We note (\ref{eq:convolutionconfmap}) can be transformed to the
frequency domain in which the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)
algorithm~\cite{oppenheim1983signals} can be used for fast
convolution. That is,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F}(be^{-|\frac{\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^\star}{\alpha}|^\beta})=
\mathcal{F}(h^{sc}(\textbf{x}))\odot
\mathcal{F}(I(\textbf{x})w_{\sigma}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^\star)),
\label{eq:fft}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}$ denotes the FFT function and $\odot$ is
the element-wise product. Therefore, we have
\begin{equation}
h^{sc}(\textbf{x}) = \mathcal{F}^{-1}\bigg(
\frac{\mathcal{F}(be^{-|\frac{\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^\star}{\alpha}|^\beta})}
{\mathcal{F}(I(\textbf{x})w_{\sigma}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}^\star))}
\bigg),
\label{eq:fftspatialcontextmodel}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{F}^{-1}$ denotes the inverse FFT function.
\section{Proposed Tracking Algorithm}
Figure~\ref{fig:basicflow} shows the basic flow of our
algorithm.
The tracking problem is formulated as a detection task.
We assume that the target location in the first frame has been
initialized manually or by some object detection algorithms.
At the $t$-th frame, we learn the spatial context model
$h_{t}^{sc}(\textbf{x})$ (\ref{eq:fftspatialcontextmodel}),
which is used to update the spatio-temporal context model
$H_{t+1}^{stc}(\textbf{x})$ (\ref{eq:spatiotemporal}) and applied
to detect the object location in the $(t\rm{+}1)$-th frame.
When the $(t\rm{+}1)$-th frame arrives, we crop out the local context region
$\Omega_{c}(\textbf{x}_{t}^\star)$ based on the tracked location
$\textbf{x}_{t}^\star$ at the $t$-th frame and construct the
corresponding context feature set
$X_{t+1}^c=\{\textbf{c}(\textbf{z})=
(I_{t+1}(\textbf{z}),\textbf{z})|\textbf{z}\in\Omega_c(\textbf{x}_t^\star)\}$.
The object location $\textbf{x}_{t+1}^\star$ in the
$(t\rm{+}1)$-th frame is determined by maximizing the new confidence map
\begin{equation}
\textbf{x}_{t+1}^\star=\mathop{\arg\max}_{\textbf{x}\in
\Omega_c(\textbf{x}_t^\star)}c_{t+1}(\textbf{x}),
\label{eq:confmaptt}
\end{equation}
where $c_{t+1}(\textbf{x})$ is represented as
\begin{equation}
c_{t+1}(\textbf{x})=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\bigg(\mathcal{F}(H_{t+1}^{stc}(\textbf{x}))
\odot
\mathcal{F}(I_{t+1}(\textbf{x})w_{\sigma_t}(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}_t^\star))\bigg),
\label{eq:confmapdeftt}
\end{equation}
which is deduced from (\ref{eq:fft}).
\subsection{Update of Spatio-Temporal Context}
\label{sec:stc}
The spatio-temporal context model is updated by
\begin{equation}
H_{t+1}^{stc}=(1-\rho)H_{t}^{stc}+\rho h_t^{sc},
\label{eq:spatiotemporal}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is a learning parameter and $h_t^{sc}$ is the spatial
context model computed by (\ref{eq:fftspatialcontextmodel}) at
the $t$-th frame.
We note (\ref{eq:spatiotemporal}) is a temporal filtering procedure
which can be easily observed in frequency domain
\begin{equation}
H_{\omega}^{stc} = F_{\omega}h_{\omega}^{sc},
\label{eq:temporalFrequency}
\end{equation}
where $H_{\omega}^{stc}\triangleq\int H_t^{stc}e^{-j\omega t}dt$ is
the temporal Fourier transform of $H_{t}^{stc}$ and similar to
$h_{\omega}^{sc}$. The temporal filter $F_{\omega}$ is formulated as
\begin{equation}
F_{\omega}=\frac{\rho}{e^{j\omega}-(1-\rho)},
\label{eq:filter}
\end{equation}
where $j$ denotes imaginary unit.
It is easy to validate that
$F_{\omega}$ in (\ref{eq:filter}) is a low-pass
filter~\cite{oppenheim1983signals}.
Therefore, our
spatio-temporal context model is able to effectively filter out
image noise introduced by appearance variations, thereby leading to
more stable results.
\subsection{Update of Scale}
According to (\ref{eq:confmapdeftt}), the target location in the
current frame is found by maximizing the confidence map derived from
the weighted context region surrounding the previous target
location.
However, the scale of the target often changes over
time.
Therefore, the scale parameter $\sigma$ in the weight function
$w_{\sigma}$ (\ref{eq:weight}) should be updated accordingly. We
propose the scale update scheme as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:scaleupdate}
\left\{\begin{array}{rl}
s_{t}^{\prime}&= \sqrt{\frac{c_t(\textbf{x}_t^{\star})}
{c_{t-1}(\textbf{x}_{t-1}^{\star})}},\\
\overline{s}_t&=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}s_{t-i}^{\prime},\\
s_{t+1}&=(1-\lambda)s_t + \lambda\overline{s}_t,\\
\sigma_{t+1}&=s_t\sigma_t,
\end{array} \right.
\end{equation}
where $c_t(\cdot)$ is the confidence map that is computed by
(\ref{eq:confmapdeftt}), and $s_t^{\prime}$ is the estimated scale
between two consecutive frames.
To avoid oversensitive adaptation and
to reduce noise introduced by estimation error, the estimated target
scale $s_{t+1}$ is obtained through filtering in which
$\overline{s}_t$ is the average of the estimated scales from $n$
consecutive frames, and $\lambda>0$ is a fixed filter parameter
(similar to $\rho$ in (\ref{eq:spatiotemporal})).
The derivation details of~\eqref{eq:scaleupdate}
can be found in the Appendix~\ref{appen}.
\subsection{Analysis and Discussion}
\label{discussion}
We note that the low computational complexity is one prime
characteristic of the proposed algorithm in which only $6$ FFT
operations are involved for processing one frame including learning
the spatial context model (\ref{eq:fftspatialcontextmodel}) and
computing the confidence map (\ref{eq:confmapdeftt}).
The computational complexity for
computing each FFT is only $\mathcal{O}(MN\log(MN))$ for the local
context region of $M\times N$ pixels, thereby resulting in a fast
method ($350$ frames per second in MATLAB on an i$7$ machine).
More importantly, the proposed
algorithm achieves robust results as discussed bellow.
{\flushleft\textbf{Difference with related work.}}
It should be noted
that the proposed spatio-temporal context tracking algorithm is
significantly different from recently proposed context-based
methods~\cite{yang2009context,grabner2010tracking, dinh2011context,
Wen_ECCV_2012} and approaches that use FFT for efficient
computation~\cite{bolme2009average, bolme2010visual,
henriques2012circulant}.
All the above-mentioned context-based methods adopt some
strategies to find regions with consistent motion correlations to the
object.
In~\cite{yang2009context}, a data mining method is used to
extract segmented regions surrounding the object as auxiliary objects
for collaborative tracking.
To find consistent regions, key points surrounding the
object are first extracted to help locate the object
position~\cite{grabner2010tracking,dinh2011context,Wen_ECCV_2012}.
Next, SIFT or SURF descriptors are used to represent
these consistent regions~\cite{grabner2010tracking,
dinh2011context,Wen_ECCV_2012}.
Thus, computationally expensive operations are required in
representing and finding consistent regions.
Moreover, due to the sparsity nature of key points, some
consistent regions that are useful for locating the object position
may be discarded.
In contrast, the proposed algorithm does not have these problems
because all the local regions surrounding the object are
considered as the potentially consistent regions, and the motion
correlations between the objects and its local contexts in consecutive
frames are learned by the spatio-temporal
context model that is efficiently computed by FFT.
In~\cite{bolme2009average,bolme2010visual}, the formulations are based
on correlation filters that are directly obtained by classic signal
processing algorithms.
At each frame, correlation filters are trained using a large
number of samples, and then combined to find the most correlated
position in the next frame.
In~\cite{henriques2012circulant}, the filters
proposed by~\cite{bolme2009average,bolme2010visual} are
kernelized and used to achieve more stable results.
The proposed algorithm is significantly different
from~\cite{bolme2009average, bolme2010visual, henriques2012circulant}
in several aspects.
First, our algorithm models the spatio-temporal relationships between
the object and its local contexts which is motivated by the human
visual system that uses context to help resolve ambiguities in complex
scenes efficiently and effectively.
Second, our algorithm focuses on the regions which require
detailed analysis, thereby effectively reducing the adverse effects of
background clutters and leading to more robust results.
Third, our algorithm handles the object location ambiguity problem
using the confidence map with a proper prior distribution,
thereby achieving more stable and accurate performance for visual
tracking.
Finally, our algorithm solves the scale adaptation problem but the
other FFT-based tracking methods~\cite{bolme2009average, bolme2010visual,
henriques2012circulant} only track objects with a fixed scale
and achieve less accurate results than our method.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{figs/newocc.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of why the proposed model is equipped to
handle distractor. The target inside the dotted rectangle is the distractor.
The different surrounding contexts (e.g., $\textbf{z}_i$ and $\textbf{z}_i^{\prime}$, $i=1,2,4,5,7,8$) can well discriminate target from distactor.}
\label{fig:distractor}
\end{figure}
{\flushleft\textbf{Robustness to occlusion and distractor.}}
\label{sec:distractor}
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:demoocc}, the proposed algorithm handles
heavy occlusion well as most of context regions are not occluded
which have similar relative spatial relations (See middle column of
Figure~\ref{fig:demoocc}) to the target center, thereby helping
determine the target center.
Figure~\ref{fig:distractor} illustrates
our method is robust to distractor (i.e., the right object).
If tracking the target only based on its appearance information, the tracker will be distracted to the right one because of their similar appearances.
Although the distractor has similar appearance to the target, most of their
surrounding contexts have different appearances (See locations
$\textbf{z}_i,\textbf{z}_i^{\prime},i=1,2,4,5,7,8$) which are useful
to discriminate target from distractor.
\section{Experiments}
We evaluate the proposed tracking algorithm based on spatio-temporal
context (STC) algorithm using $18$ video sequences with challenging factors
including heavy occlusion, drastic illumination changes, pose and
scale variation, non-rigid deformation, background cluster and motion
blur.
We compare the proposed STC tracker with $18$ state-of-the-art
methods.
The parameters of the proposed algorithm are {\textit{fixed}} for all
the experiments.
For other trackers, we use either the original source or binary codes
provided in which parameters of each tracker are tuned for best
results.
The $18$ trackers we compare with
are: scale mean-shift (SMS) tracker~\cite{collins2003mean}, fragment
tracker (Frag)~\cite{Adam_CVPR_2006}, semi-supervised
Boosting tracker (SSB)~\cite{Grabner_ECCV_2008}, local orderless
tracker (LOT)~\cite{oron2012locally}, incremental visual tracking
(IVT) method~\cite{Ross_IJCV_2008}, online AdaBoost tracker
(OAB)~\cite{Grabner_BMVC_2006}, multiple instance learning tracker
(MIL)~\cite{Babenko_PAMI_2011}, visual tracking decomposition method
(VTD)~\cite{Kwon_CVPR_2010}, L1 tracker (L1T)~\cite{Mei_PAMI_2011},
tracking-learning-detection (TLD) method~\cite{Kalal_CVPR_2010},
distribution field tracker (DF)~\cite{sevilla2012distribution},
multi-task tracker (MTT)~\cite{zhang2012robust}, structured output
tracker (Struck)~\cite{Hare_ICCV_2011}, context tracker
(ConT)~\cite{dinh2011context}, minimum output sum of square error
(MOS) tracker~\cite{bolme2010visual}, compressive tracker
(CT)~\cite{Zhang_ECCV_2012}, circulant structure tracker
(CST)~\cite{henriques2012circulant} and local-global tracker
(LGT)~\cite{cehovin2013robust}.
For the trackers involving randomness,
we repeat the experiments $10$ times on each sequence and
report the averaged results.
Implemented in MATLAB, our tracker runs
at $350$ frames per second (FPS) on an i$7$ $3.40$
GHz machine with $8$ GB RAM.
The MATLAB source codes will be released.
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
The size of context region is initially set to twice the size of the
target object.
The parameter $\sigma_t$ of~\eqref{eq:scaleupdate}
is initially set to $\sigma_1=\frac{s_h+s_w}{2}$, where $s_h$ and
$s_w$ are height and width
of the initial tracking rectangle, respectively.
The parameters of the map
function are set to $\alpha=2.25$ and $\beta=1$.
The learning parameter
$\rho=0.075$.
The scale parameter $s_t$ is initialized to $s_1=1$,
and the learning parameter $\lambda=0.25$.
The number of frames for updating the scale is set to $n=5$.
To reduce effects of illumination
change, each intensity value in the context region is
normalized by subtracting the average intensity of that region.
Then, the intensity in the context region multiplies a Hamming
window to reduce the frequency effect of image boundary
when using FFT~\cite{oppenheim1983signals,bolme2009average}.
\renewcommand{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
\begin{table}[t]\center
\caption{Success rate (SR)(\%). \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Red}} fonts
indicate the best
performance while the \textcolor{blue}{\textbf{blue}} fonts indicate
the second best
ones. The total number of evaluated frames is $7,591$.
}
\label{Table1}
\tiny
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{| c |c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
Sequence &SMS~\cite{collins2003mean} &Frag~\cite{Adam_CVPR_2006} &SSB~\cite{Grabner_ECCV_2008} &LOT~\cite{oron2012locally} &IVT~\cite{Ross_IJCV_2008} &OAB~\cite{Grabner_BMVC_2006} &MIL~\cite{Babenko_PAMI_2011} &VTD~\cite{Kwon_CVPR_2010} &L1T~\cite{Mei_PAMI_2011} &TLD~\cite{Kalal_CVPR_2010} &DF~\cite{sevilla2012distribution} &MTT~\cite{zhang2012robust} &Struck~\cite{Hare_ICCV_2011} &ConT~\cite{dinh2011context} &MOS~\cite{bolme2010visual} &CT~\cite{Zhang_ECCV_2012} &CST~\cite{henriques2012circulant} &LGT~\cite{cehovin2013robust} &\textbf{STC} \\ \hline
{\textit{animal}}&13 &3 &51 &15 &4
&17 &83 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{96}} &6 &37 &6 &87 &93 &58 &3 &92 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{94}} &7 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{94}}\\
{\textit{bird}} &33 &64 &13 &5 &78 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{94}} &10 &9 &44 &42 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{94}} &10 &48 &26 &11 &8 &47 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{89}} &65\\
{\textit{bolt}}&58 &41 &18 &89 &15
&1 &92 &3 &2 &1 &2 &2 &8 &6 &25 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{94}} &39 &74 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{98}}\\
{\textit{cliffbar}}&5 &24 &24 &26 &47
&66 &71 &53 &24 &62 &26 &55 &44 &43 &6 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{95}} &93 &81 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{98}}\\
{\textit{chasing}}&72 &77 &62 &20 &82
&71 &65 &70 &72 &76 &70 &95 &85 &53 &61 &79 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{96}} &95 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{97}}\\
{\textit{car4}}&10 &34 &22 &1 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{97}}
&30 &37 &35 &94 &88 &26 &22 &96 &90 &28 &36 &44 &33 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{98}}\\
{\textit{car11}}&1 &1 &19 &32 &54
&14 &48 &25 &46 &67 &78 &59 &18 &47 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{85}} &36 &48 &16 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{86}}\\
{\textit{cokecan}}&1 &3 &38 &4 &3
&53 &18 &7 &16 &17 &13 &85 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{94}} &20 &2 &30 &86 &18 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{87}}\\
{\textit{downhill}}&81 &89 &53 &6 &87 &82 &33 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{98}} &66 &13 &94 &54 &87 &71 &28 &82 &72 &73 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{99}}\\
{\textit{dollar}}&55 &41 &38 &40 &21
&16 &46 &39 &39 &39
&\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}} &39
&\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}} &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}}
&\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{89}} &87 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}}
&\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}} &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}}\\
{\textit{davidindoor}}&6 &1 &36 &20 &7
&24 &30 &38 &18 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{96}} &64 &94 &71 &82 &43 &46 &2 &95 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}}\\
{\textit{girl}}&7 &70 &49 &91 &64
&68 &28 &68 &56 &79 &59 &71 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{97}} &74 &3 &27 &43 &51 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{98}}\\
{\textit{jumping}} &2 &34 &81 &22 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}}
&82 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}} &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{87}} &13 &76 &12 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}} &18 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}} &6 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}} &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}} &5 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}}\\
{\textit{mountainbike}}&14 &13 &82 &71 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}}
&\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{99}} &18
&\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}} &61 &26 &35
&\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}} &98 &25 &55 &89
&\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}} &74
&\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}}\\
{\textit{ski}}&22 &5 &65 &55 &16 &58 &33 &6 &5 &36 &6 &9 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{76}} &43 &1 &60 &1 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{71}} &68\\
{\textit{shaking}}&2 &25 &30 &14 &1
&39 &83 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{98}} &3 &15 &84 &2 &48 &12 &4 &84 &36 &48 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{96}}\\
{\textit{sylvester}}&70 &34 &67 &61 &45
&66 &77 &33 &40 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{89}} &33 &68 &81 &84 &6 &77 &84 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{85}} &78\\
{\textit{woman}}&52 &27 &30 &16 &21
&18 &21 &35 &8 &31 &93 &19 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{96}} &28 &2 &19 &21 &66 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{100}}\\\hline
Average SR &35 &35 &45 &35 &49 &49 &52 &49 &40 &62 &53 &59 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{75}} &62 &26 &62 &60 &68 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{94}}\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{Center location error (CLE)(in pixels) and
average frame per second (FPS). \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Red}}
fonts indicate the
best performance while the \textcolor{blue}{\textbf{blue}} fonts
indicate the second
best ones. The total number of evaluated frames is $7,591$.
}
\label{Table2}
\tiny
\begin{center}
\center\begin{tabular}{| c |c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
Sequence &SMS~\cite{collins2003mean} &Frag~\cite{Adam_CVPR_2006} &SSB~\cite{Grabner_ECCV_2008} &LOT~\cite{oron2012locally} &IVT~\cite{Ross_IJCV_2008} &OAB~\cite{Grabner_BMVC_2006} &MIL~\cite{Babenko_PAMI_2011} &VTD~\cite{Kwon_CVPR_2010} &L1T~\cite{Mei_PAMI_2011} &TLD~\cite{Kalal_CVPR_2010} &DF~\cite{sevilla2012distribution} &MTT~\cite{zhang2012robust} &Struck~\cite{Hare_ICCV_2011} &ConT~\cite{dinh2011context} &MOS~\cite{bolme2010visual} &CT~\cite{Zhang_ECCV_2012} &CST~\cite{henriques2012circulant} &LGT~\cite{cehovin2013robust} &\textbf{STC} \\ \hline
{\textit{animal}} &78 &100 &25 &70 &146
&62 &32 &17 &122 &125 &252 &17 &19 &76 &281 &18 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{16}} &166 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{15}}\\
{\textit{bird}}&25 &13 &101 &99 &13 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{9}} &140 &57 &60 &145 &12 &156 &21 &139 &159 &79 &20 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{11}} &15\\
{\textit{bolt}}&42 &43 &102 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{9}} &65
&227 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{9}} &177 &261 &286 &277 &293 &149 &126 &223 &10 &210 &12 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{8}} \\
{\textit{cliffbar}}&41 &34 &56 &36 &37
&33 &13 &30 &40 &70 &52 &25 &46 &49 &104 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{6}} &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{6}} &10 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{5}}\\
{\textit{chasing}}&13 &9 &44 &32 &6
&9 &13 &23 &9 &47 &31 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{5}} &6 &16 &68 &10 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{5}} &6 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{4}}\\
\textit{car4} &144 &56 &104 &177 &14
&109 &63 &127 &16 &13 &92 &158 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{9}} &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{11}} &117 &63 &44 &47 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{11}}\\
{\textit{car11}}&86 &117 &11 &30 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{7}}
&11 &8 &20 &8 &12 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{6}} &8 &9 &8 &8 &9 &8 &16 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{7}}\\
{\textit{cokecan}}&60 &70 &15 &46 &64
&11 &18 &68 &40 &29 &30 &10 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{7}} &36 &53 &16 &9 &32 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{6}}\\
{\textit{downhill}}&14 &11 &102 &226 &22 &12 &117 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{9}} &35 &255 &10 &77 &10 &62 &116 &12 &129 &12 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{8}}\\
{\textit{dollar}}&55 &56 &66 &66 &23
&28 &23 &65 &65 &72 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{3}} &71 &18 &5 &12 &20 &5 &4 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{2}}\\
{\textit{davidindoor}}&176 &103 &45 &100 &281
&43 &33 &40 &86 &13 &27 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{11}} &20 &22 &78 &28 &149 &12 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{8}}\\
{\textit{girl}}&130 &26 &50 &12 &36
&22 &34 &41 &51 &23 &27 &23 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{8}} &34 &126 &39 &43 &35 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{9}}\\
{\textit{jumping}}&63 &30 &11 &43 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{4}}
&11 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{4}} &17 &45 &13 &73 &7 &42 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{4}} &155 &6 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{3}} &89 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{4}}\\
{\textit{mountainbike}}&135 &209 &11 &24 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{5}}
&11 &208 &7 &74 &213 &155 &7 &8 &149 &16 &11 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{5}} &12 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{6}}\\
{\textit{ski}}&91 &134 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{10}} &12 &51 &11 &15 &179 &161 &222 &147 &33 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{8}} &78 &386 &11 &237 &13 &12\\
{\textit{shaking}}&224 &55 &133 &90 &134
&22 &11 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{5}} &72 &232 &11 &115 &23 &191 &194 &11 &21 &33 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{10}}\\
{\textit{sylvester}}&15 &47 &14 &23 &138
&12 &9 &66 &49 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{8}} &56 &18 &9 &13 &65 &9 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{7}} &11 &11\\
{\textit{woman}}&49 &118 &86 &131 &112
&120 &119 &110 &148 &108 &12 &169 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{4}} &55 &176 &122&160 &23 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{5}}\\\hline
Average CLE &79 &63 &54 &70 &84 &43 &43 &58 &62 &78 &52 &80 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{19}} &42 &103 &29 &54 &22 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{8}} \\\hline
Average FPS &12 &7 &11 &0.7
&33 &22 &38 &5 &1 &28 &13 &1 &20 &15 &\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{200}} &90 &120 &8 &\textcolor{red}{\textbf{350}} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
}
\end{table}
\subsection{Experimental Results}
We use two evaluation criteria to quantitatively evaluate the $19$
trackers: the center location error (CLE) and success rate (SR), both
computed based on the manually labeled ground truth results of each frame.
The score of success rate is defined as
$score=\frac{area(R_t\bigcap R_g)}{area(R_t\bigcup R_g)}$,
where $R_t$ is a tracked bounding box and $R_g$ is the ground
truth bounding box, and the result of one frame
is considered as a success if $score>0.5$.
Table~\ref{Table1} and Table~\ref{Table2}
show the quantitative results in which the proposed STC tracker
achieves the best or second best performance in most sequences both in
terms of center location error and success rate.
Furthermore, the proposed tracker is the most efficient ($350$ FPS on
average) algorithm among all evaluated methods.
Although the CST~\cite{henriques2012circulant} and
MOS~\cite{bolme2010visual} methods also use FFT for fast computation,
the CST method performs time-consuming kernel operations
and the MOS tracker computes several correlation filters in
each frame, thereby making these two approaches less efficient than the
proposed algorithm.
Furthermore, both CST and MOS methods only track target with fixed
scale, which achieve less accurate results that the proposed method
with scale adaptation.
Figure~\ref{fig:screenshots} shows some tracking results of different
trackers.
For presentation clarity, we only show the results of the top $7$
trackers in terms of average success rates.
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\hspace{-.3cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/car4/20.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/car4/200.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/car4/250.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/davidIndoor/10.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/davidIndoor/330.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/davidIndoor/480.eps}\\
\scriptsize (a) car4 & \scriptsize (b) davidindoor \\
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/girl/100.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/girl/120.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/girl/440.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/woman/130.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/woman/150.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/woman/230.eps}\\
\scriptsize (c) girl & \scriptsize (d) woman \\
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/cokecan/50.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/cokecan/190.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/cokecan/290.eps}&
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/cliffbar/150.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/cliffbar/200.eps}
\includegraphics[width=.16\linewidth]{figs/cliffbar/300.eps}\\
\scriptsize (e) cokecan & \scriptsize (f) cliffbar \\
\end{tabular}
\includegraphics[width=.43\linewidth]{figs/legend.eps}
\end{center}
\vspace{-2mm}
\caption{Screenshots of tracking results.}
\label{fig:screenshots}
\end{figure*}
{\flushleft\textbf{Illumination, scale and pose variation.}}
There are large illumination variations in the evaluated sequences.
The appearance of the target object in the~{\textit{car4}} sequence
changes significantly due to the cast shadows and ambient lights (See
$\#200, \#250$ in the~{\textit{car4}} sequence shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:screenshots}).
Only the models of the IVT, L1T, Struck and STC methods adapt to these
illumination variations well.
Likewise, only the VTD and our STC methods perform favorably
on the~{\textit{shaking}} sequence because the object appearance
changes drastically due to the stage lights and sudden pose variations.
The~{\textit{davidindoor}} sequence contain gradual pose and scale
variations as well as
illumination changes.
Note that most reported results using this sequence are only on
subsets of the available
frames, i.e., not from the very beginning of the~{\textit{davidindoor}}
video when the target face is in nearly complete darkness.
In this work, the full sequence is used to better evaluate the
performance of all algorithms.
Only the proposed algorithm is able to achieve favorable
tracking results on this sequence both in terms of accuracy and
success rate.
This can be attributed to the use of spatio-temporal
context information which facilitates filtering out noisy observations
(as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:stc}),
thereby enabling the proposed STC algorithm to relocate
the target when object appearance changes drastically due to
illumination, scale and pose variations.
{\flushleft\textbf{Occlusion, rotation, and pose variation.}}
The target
objects in the~{\textit{woman}}, {\textit{girl}} and {\textit{bird}} sequences are partially occluded at times.
The object in the {\textit{girl}} sequence
also undergoes in-plane rotation (See $\#100, \#120$ of
the {\textit{girl}} sequence in Figure~\ref{fig:screenshots}) which makes
the tracking tasks difficult.
Only the proposed algorithm
is able to track the objects successfully in most frames of this
sequence.
The~{\textit{woman}} sequence has non-rigid deformation and
heavy occlusion (See $\#130,\#150, \#230$ of the~{\textit{woman}} sequence
in Figure~\ref{fig:screenshots}) at the same time.
All the other
trackers fail to successfully track the object except the Struck
and the proposed STC algorithms.
As most of the local contexts surrounding the target objects are not
occluded in these sequences, such information facilitates the proposed algorithm
relocating the object even they are almost fully occluded (as discussed in Figure~\ref{fig:demoocc}).
{\flushleft\textbf{Background clutter and abrupt motion.}}
In the~{\textit{animal}}, {\textit{cokecan}} and {\textit{cliffbar}}
sequences, the target objects undergo fast movements in the cluttered
backgrounds.
The target object in the~{\textit{chasing}} sequence undergoes abrupt motion
with 360 degree out-of-plane rotation, and the proposed algorithm
achieves the best performance both in terms of success rate and center
location error.
The~{\textit{cokecan}} video contains a specular object with
in-plane rotation and heavy occlusion, which makes this tracking task
difficult.
Only the Struck and the proposed STC methods are able to
successfully track most of the frames.
In the {\textit{cliffbar}} sequence, the texture in the background is
very similar to that of the target object.
Most trackers drift to background except the CT, CST, LGT and
our methods (See $\#300$ of the {\textit{cliffbar}} sequence in
Figure~\ref{fig:screenshots}).
Although the target and its local background have very similar
texture, their spatial relationships and appearances of local contexts are different which are used by
the proposed algorithm when learning a confidence map (as discussed in Section~\ref{sec:distractor}).
Hence, the proposed STC algorithm is able to separate the target object
from the background based on the spatio-temporal context.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we present a simple yet fast and robust
algorithm which exploits spatio-temporal context information for
visual tracking.
Two local context models (i.e., spatial context
and spatio-temporal context models) are proposed which are
robust to appearance variations introduced by occlusion, illumination
changes, and pose variations.
The Fast Fourier Transform algorithm is
used in both online learning and detection, thereby resulting in
an efficient tracking method that runs at $350$ frames per
second with MATLAB implementation.
Numerous experiments with state-of-the-art algorithms on
challenging sequences demonstrate that the proposed algorithm achieves
favorable results in terms of accuracy, robustness, and speed.
\section*{\bf Appendex}
\label{appen}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{figs/scale.eps}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of scale change. From left to right, the scale ratio is $s$. $\Omega_{x,y}$ inside the solid rectangles denotes the context region at the $t$-th frame, and its corresponding context region at the ($t+1$)-th frame is denoted by $\Omega_{sx,sy}$ that is inside the dotted rectangles.}
\label{fig:scale}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{figs/scaleweight.eps}
\vspace{-2mm}
\end{center}
\caption{Illustration of 1-D cross section of the weight function $w_{s\sigma}(\textbf{x})$.}
\label{fig:scaleweight}
\end{figure}
Without loss of generality, we assume the target object is centered at $\textbf{x}^\star=(0,0)$. Then, the confidence map (i.e.,~(\ref{eq:confmapdeftt})) can be represented as
\begin{equation}
c(\textbf{x})=H(\textbf{x})\otimes (I(\textbf{x})w_{\sigma}(\textbf{x})).
\label{eq:confmap}
\end{equation}
Then, we have
\begin{equation}
c(0,0)=\int\int_{\Omega_{x,y}}H(x,y)I(-x,-y)w_{\sigma}(-x,-y)dxdy.
\label{eq:confmap}
\end{equation}
See Figure~\ref{fig:scale}, when size of the target changes from left to right with ratio $s$, performing a change of variables $(u,v)=(sx,sy)$, we can reformulate (\ref{eq:confmap})
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
c_t(0,0)&=\int\int_{\Omega_{x,y}}H_t(x,y)I_t(-x,-y)w_{\sigma_t}(-x,-y)dxdy\\
&=\int\int_{\Omega_{sx,sy}}H_t(u/s,v/s)I_t(-u/s,-v/s)w_{\sigma_t}(-u/s,-v/s)\frac{1}{s^2}dudv\\
&=\int\int_{\Omega_{sx,sy}}H_t(u/s,v/s)I_{t+1}(-u,-v)w_{\sigma_t}(-u/s,-v/s)\frac{1}{s^2}dudv\\
&=\int\int_{\Omega_{sx,sy}}H_t(u/s,v/s)w_{s\sigma_t}(-u,-v)I_{t+1}(-u,-v)\frac{1}{s^2}dudv\\
&\approx\int\int_{\Omega_{sx,sy}}H_{t+1}(u,v)w_{s\sigma_t}(-u,-v)I_{t+1}(-u,-v)\frac{1}{s^2}dudv\\
&=\int\int_{\Omega_{x,y}}H_{t+1}(u,v)w_{s\sigma_t}(-u,-v)I_{t+1}(-u,-v)\frac{1}{s^2}dudv-\underbrace{\int\int_{\Omega_{x,y}\backslash\Omega_{sx,sy}}H_{t+1}(u,v)w_{s\sigma_t}(u,v)I_{t+1}(-u,-v)\frac{1}{s^2}dudv}_{\approx 0\ \textrm{because}\ w_{s\sigma_t}(-u,-v)\approx 0\ \textrm{for}\ \textrm{all}\ (u,v)\in \Omega_{x,y}\backslash\Omega_{sx,sy} (\mathrm{See~Figure}~\ref{fig:scaleweight})}\\
&\approx\int\int_{\Omega_{x,y}}H_{t+1}(u,v)w_{s\sigma_t}(-u,-v)I_{t+1}(-u,-v)\frac{1}{s^2}dudv.\\ \label{eq:scale}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
In (\ref{eq:scale}), we have used the following relationships
\begin{equation}
H_t(u/s,v/s)\approx H_{t+1}(u,v),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
I_t(u/s,v/s)\approx I_{t+1}(u,v).\\
\end{equation}
Because of the proximity between two consecutive frames, as in~\cite{collins2003mean}, we can make the above reasonable assumptions which are spatially scaled versions of $I_t$ and $H_t$, respectively.
It is difficult to estimate $s$ from the (\ref{eq:scale}) because of the nonlinearity of the Gaussian weight function $w_{s\sigma_t}$. We adopt an iterative method to approximately obtain $s$. We utilize the estimated scale $s_t$ at frame $t$ to replace the scale term $s$ in the Gaussian window $w_{s\sigma_t}$, and the other scale term that needs to estimate is denoted as $s_{t+1}$. Thus, (\ref{eq:scale}) is reformulated as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
c_t(0,0) &\approx\int\int_{\Omega_{x,y}}H_{t+1}(u,v)w_{s_t\sigma_t}(-u,-v)I_{t+1}(-u,-v)\frac{1}{s_{t+1}^2}dudv\\
&=\int\int_{\Omega_{x,y}}H_{t+1}(u,v)w_{\sigma_{t+1}}(-u,-v)I_{t+1}(-u,-v)\frac{1}{s_{t+1}^2}dudv\\
&= \frac{1}{s_{t+1}^2}c_{t+1}(0,0),
\label{eq:approxscale}
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where we denote
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{t+1}=s_t\sigma_t.
\end{equation}
Thus, we have
\begin{equation}
s_{t+1}=\sqrt{\frac{c_{t+1}(0,0)}{c_t(0,0)}}.
\end{equation}
We average the scales estimated from the former $n$ consecutive frames to make the current estimation more stable
\begin{equation}
\overline{s}_t=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} s_{t-i}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sqrt{\frac{c_{t-i}(0,0)}{c_{t-i-1}(0,0)}}.
\label{eq:scale-s}
\end{equation}
To avoid oversenstive scale adaptation, we utilize the follow equation to incrementally update the estimated scale
\begin{equation}
s_{t+1}=(1-\lambda)s_t + \lambda\overline{s}_t.
\label{eq:scaleS}
\end{equation}
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
We consider the semiclassical Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:operator}
H := h^{2}\Delta + V - E
\end{equation}
for a potential function $V \colon \mathbb{R}^{d} \lra \mathbb{R}$
which is smooth and compactly supported, and the associated
family of scattering matrices $S_{h}$, defined in
\eqref{eq:scmatrixdef} below. The goal of this paper is to study the
asymptotic distribution of the eigenvalues $e^{i\beta_{h,n}}$ of
$S_{h}$, the so-called phase shifts, in the limit $h \to 0$. To this end, we define a measure $\mu_{h}$ on $\mathbb{S}^{1}$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:integralh}
\la \mu_{h}, f \ra :=
\frac{1}{c_{V}}(2\pi h)^{d-1}\sum_{\mbox{spec}(S_{h})} f(e^{i\beta_{h,n}})
\end{equation}
for a continuous function $f \colon \mathbb{S}^{1}
\lra \mathbb{C}$.
Here $c_{V}$ is a constant related to the classical Hamiltonian flow
of $H$. Specifically,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:constant}
c_{V} = E^{(d-1)/2} \Vol (\mathcal{I}),
\end{equation}
where $\Vol (\mathcal{I}) $ is the
volume with respect to Liouville measure of the subset $\mathcal{I}$ of
$T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$ of incoming bicharacteristic rays that
interact with the potential. See Section \ref{sec:trace}, in
particular \eqref{eq:liouville} and \eqref{eq:interaction} for precise definitions.
Our main theorem, which follows immediately from Theorem
\ref{thm:mainthm} below, is the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:prethm}
Let $f \colon \mathbb{S}^{1} \lra \mathbb{C} $ be a continuous function satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:compactsupport}
1 \not \in \supp f .
\end{equation} If $V$ is non-trapping at energy $E$ and the sojourn relation
associated to $H$ satisfies Assumption \ref{thm:dynass} below, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:equicompact}
\lim_{h \to 0} \la \mu_{h}, f \ra = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{2\phi}
f(e^{i\phi}) d\phi,
\end{equation}
where the pairing on the left is that in \eqref{eq:integralh}.
\end{theorem}
The \textbf{sojourn relation}, described in Section \ref{sec:trace},
is related to the incoming and outgoing data of integral curves
of the classical flow associated to $H$, and it generalizes the concept of scattering angle
\cite{RSIII}. Assumption \ref{thm:dynass} implies that, but it
stronger than, the statement that the set
of bicharacteristic rays that interact with the potential but pass
through it undeflected has
measure zero. The link between $S_{h}$ and the sojourn relation
comes from the fact, proven in \cite{HW2008} with earlier results in
\cite{A2005, Maj1976, RT1989, V,
G1976} and also \cite{GMB}, that the
quantum scattering map $S_{h}$ is a semiclassical FIO, i.e.\ that the integral
kernel of the scattering matrix is an oscillatory integral whose
canonical relation is the sojourn relation, as we describe in
Section \ref{sec:trace}.
In Section \ref{sec:weightedequi}
we deduce the following corollary to Theorem \ref{thm:prethm}, which
says asymptotically how many eigenvalues of $S_{h}$ lie in a closed sector of
$\mathbb{S}^{1}$ not containing $1$.
\begin{corollary}\label{thm:countingcor}
Given angles $0 < \phi_{0} < \phi_{1} < 2 \pi$, let $N_{h}(\phi_{0},
\phi_{1})$ denote the number of eigenvalues $e^{i\beta_{h,n}}$ of
$S_{h}$ with $\phi_{0} \le \beta_{h,n} \le \phi_{1}$ modulo $2\pi$.
Then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:number}
\lim_{h \to 0} (2\pi h)^{(d - 1)} N_{h}(\phi_{0},
\phi_{1}) = c_{V} \frac{\phi_{1} - \phi_{0}}{2\pi}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark} Notice the formal resemblance between \eqref{eq:number} and the standard asymptotic formula for the number of eigenvalues of a semiclassical operator. Namely, suppose $A_h$ is a self-adjoint semiclassical pseudodifferential operator of order $0$ on a compact manifold $M$ of dimension $d-1$, with $\sigma(A_h)(x, \xi) \to \infty$ as $|\xi| \to \infty$. Let $\wt{N}_h(E)$ denote the number of eigenvalues of $A_h$ that are $\leq E$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:numberpseudo}
\lim_{h \to 0} (2\pi h)^{(d - 1)} \wt{N}_{h}(E) = \operatorname{vol}\{ (x, \xi) \mid \sigma(A_h)(x, \xi) \leq E \}.
\end{equation}
See \cite{DS1999}, \cite{Zw2012}.
\end{remark}
In \cite{DGHH2013}, Datchev, Humphries, and the first two authors considered the case where the
potential $V$ in \eqref{eq:operator} is central, i.e.\ depends only
on $r = \absv{x}$. In the central case, the eigenfunctions
of $S_{h}$ are the spherical harmonics, and they showed \cite[Thm
1.1]{DGHH2013}, that under certain assumptions on the scattering angle
function associated to $H$, the eigenvalues of the spherical harmonics with
angular momentum less than $R\sqrt{E}/h$, where $R$ is the
radius of the convex hull of the support of $V$,
equidistribute around the unit circle $\mathbb{S}^{1}$ as $h \to 0$.
See Section \ref{sec:comp} for a comparison of that work's results
with the results established here. The idea for tackling the case
of non-central potentials using trace formulae comes from previous works of the third author \cite{Z1992},
\cite{Z1997}, where the distribution of eigenvalues of quantum maps was analyzed.
There is a wealth of work on the asymptotic properties of phase
shifts, including notably work from the 80's (e.g.\ papers by various
combinations of Birman, Sobolev, and Yafaev \cite{BY1980},
\cite{BY1982}, \cite{SY1985}), and also more recent work (e.g.\ that of Doron and
Smilansky \cite{Sm1992}.) The corresponding inverse problem
-- determining a potential or an obstacle from the scattering matrix
or other scattering data -- has also been pursued, \cite{G1976, Maj1976,
KK, MT}.
We refer the reader to \cite{DGHH2013} for
yet more literature review. See also \cite{Nov, N}.
\medskip
\noindent \textbf{Reduction to $E = 1$:} Recall that the scattering matrix $S_{h}$ can be defined in terms of
generalized eigenfunctions as follows. For $\phi_{in} \in
C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^{d-1})$, there is a unique solution to $H
u = 0$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:generalizedEfn}
u = r^{-(d-1)/2} \lp e^{-i \sqrt{E} r / h} \phi_{in}(\omega) + e^{i
\sqrt{E} r/ h} \phi_{out}(-\omega) \rp + O(r^{-(d + 1)/2}),
\end{equation}
see e.g.\ \cite{GST}. By definition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:scmatrixdef}
S_{h}(\phi_{in}) := e^{i\pi(d-1)/2}\phi_{out}.
\end{equation}
Below, we will refer to $\phi_{in}$ and $\phi_{out}$ as the
\textbf{incoming} and \textbf{outgoing data} of $u$.
One checks that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Eisone}
S_{h, V}(E) = S_{\wt{h}, \wt{V}}(1),
\end{equation}
where $\wt{h} = h / \sqrt{E}, \wt{V} = V / E$, and $S_{h', V'}(E')$
denotes the scattering matrix for $(h')^{2}\Delta + V' - E'$. Using
\eqref{eq:Eisone}, it is straightforward to conclude all the theorems
above and below from the same theorems in the case $E = 1$. Thus we
assume the $E = 1$ for the remainder of the paper.
\section{Dynamics}\label{sec:trace}
As we describe in Section \ref{sec:scatteringmatrix}, the integral kernel
of $S_{h}$ is a
Legendrian-Lagrangian distribution associated to the sojourn
relation of $H$, the sojourn relation being a Legendrian submanifold $L \subset T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \times
T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \times \mathbb{R}$ related to the classical
Hamilton flow of $H$. Here $T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \times
T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \times \mathbb{R}$
is endowed with the contact form $\pi_{L}^{*}\chi + \pi_{R}^{*}\chi -
d\tau$, $\chi$ being the canonical
one-form on $T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$ given by $\zeta \cdot dz$ in local
coordinates $z$ and dual coordinates $\zeta$, and $\pi_{L}$ and $\pi_{R}$
being projections from $T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \times
T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$ onto the left and right factors, respectively.
See \cite{GS1994} for a review of the relevant symplectic geometry. The manifold $T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$ admits a
natural measure $\mu$, the \textbf{Liouville measure}, equal to the top
exterior power of the canonical
symplectic form $d\chi$. Precisely,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:liouville}
\mu = \absv{dz d\zeta}.
\end{equation}
To complete the definition of the constant $c_{V}$ in
\eqref{eq:constant}, it remains to define the set $\mathcal{I}$, which
we proceed to do now.
\medskip
\noindent \textbf{Review of classical dynamics:}
First, from \cite{S}.
Consider Newton's equations of motion
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bichar}
\ddot{x}(t) = F(x(t)), \;\; F = - 2 \nabla V.
\end{equation}
Since it adds no complexity at the moment, we relax the assumption on
$V$, assuming as in \cite{S} only that $V(x) = O(\absv{x}^{-2 -
\epsilon}) = \mbox{Lip}(V)$, where $\mbox{Lip}$ is the Lipschitz
constant of $V$. Given a solution to \eqref{eq:bichar}, the quantity $E :=
\absv{\dot x(t)}^{2} + V(x(t))$ is a constant of the motion.
We seek solutions of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bicharform}
x(t) = a + t b + u(t), \;\;\ \lim_{t \to - \infty} |u(t)| + |\dot{u}(t)| \to 0.
\end{equation}
Write the equation for $u$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:u}
u(t) = \int_{- \infty}^t ds \int_{- \infty}^s F(a + b \tau + u(\tau)) d \tau ds.
\end{equation}
Lemma 1 of \cite{S} shows that for this $u$, $x(t)$ defined as in
\eqref{eq:u} satisfies Newton's law and \eqref{eq:bicharform}. We will assume that
$V$ is \textbf{non-trapping} at energy $1$,
meaning that every solution $x(t)$ to \eqref{eq:bichar} with $E = 1$ goes
to infinity both as $t \to - \infty$ and $t \to +\infty$. One
checks that $x(t)$ also has the
form in \eqref{eq:bicharform} as $t \to \infty$ with
$$u(t) = \int_t^{\infty} \int_{s}^{\infty} F(a + b tau + u(\tau)) d
\tau ds. $$ Thus we have the following.
\begin{theorem}
For all $a, b
\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ with $b \neq 0$, there exists a unique solution
$x_{a,b}(t)$ satisfying Newton's law such that
$$\lim_{t \to - \infty} |x(t) - a - b t| + |\dot{x}(t) - b| = 0. $$
If in addition $V$ is non-trapping at energy $E$ and $\absv{b} = \sqrt{E}$,
then there exist $c,d \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ with $\absv{d} = \sqrt{E}$ such
that
$$\lim_{t \to \infty} |x(t) - c - d t| + |\dot{x}(t) - d| = 0. $$
\end{theorem}
In \eqref{eq:sojourn} below, we give a concrete definition of the
sojourn map, but for the moment we discuss the dynamics in the general
setting of \cite{BP}.
The sojourn map ${\mathcal S}: T^* \mathbb{S}^{d-1} \to T^*
\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$ is a symplectic reduction of the classical
scattering map of \cite{H,S,BP, NT}. Simon \cite{S}
denotes the scattering map by $(\Omega^-)^{-1} \Omega^+$,
where $\Omega^{\pm}$ are classical wave operators, defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:2}
W^{\pm} = \lim_{t \to \pm \infty} \Phi_{-t} \circ \Phi^{0}_{t},
\end{equation}
where $\Phi$ is the solution operator at energy $E$ for Newton's
equations of motion \eqref{eq:bichar} and $\Phi^{0}$ is the solution
operator for Newton's law with $V \equiv 0$, i.e. it is standard
geodesic flow on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$.
In \cite{BP} the wave operators are denoted $W^{\pm}$ and
the fixed energy scattering map is denoted $S_E := W_{+}^{-1} \circ W_{-}$. It is defined
on the energy surface $\Sigma_E^0 = \{(x,\xi) \in
T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{d} : \absv{\xi} = \sqrt{E}\}$ for
the free Hamiltonian and then on its reduction $\tilde{\Sigma}_E^0$,
i.e.\ on the set of free orbits of $\Phi^{0}$ of energy $E$. This
quotient symplectic manifold can be identified with a transversal
$\Gamma \subset \Sigma^0_E$.
As is pointed out in \cite{BP}, the reduced symplectic form $\omega_E$
on $\tilde{\Sigma}_E^0$ is exact
i.e. $\omega_E = d \alpha_E$ for some $1-$form $\alpha_{E}$. Denote
the classical scattering map at
energy $E$ by $S_E$. Define a function $\tau_E$ (up to addition of a constant)
by
$$S_E^* \alpha_E - \alpha_E = d \tau_E. $$
In (6.4) of \cite{BP} the function $\tau_E$
is denoted $\Delta_0 = \Delta \circ W_-$ where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:almostsojourn}
\Delta(x) = - \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \iota_X \alpha_{E} \circ \Phi_t (x) dt, \;\; x \in \Sigma_E.
\end{equation}
Here, $X = \dot \Phi_{t}$ is the Hamilton vector field of the Hamiltonian, which in
our context is $\absv{\xi}^{2} + V(x)$, and the
action form $\alpha_{E}$ is chosen so that $\iota_{X_0} \alpha_{E} =
0$ on $\Sigma_E^0$.
\medskip
\noindent \textbf{Explicit sojourn relation and the interaction
region:}
We now resume our standing assumption that $E = 1$ and give a concrete
definition of the sojourn map $\mathcal{S} := \mathcal{S}_{1}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sojourn}
\mathcal{S} \colon T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \lra T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1}.
\end{equation}
Identify $\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \subset
\mathbb{R}^{d}$ with the unit sphere, and given $\omega \in
\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$, identify $T_{\omega}^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$ with
$\omega^{\perp}$, the space of vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ orthogonal to
$\omega$. Given $\eta \in \omega^{\perp}$, there is a unique
bicharacteristic ray, i.e.\ a unique solution $(x_{\omega,\eta},
\xi_{\omega,\eta})$ to \eqref{eq:bichar}, satisfying
\begin{equation}
x_{\omega, \eta}(t) = t \omega
+ \eta \mbox{ for } t << 0.
\end{equation}
By the non-trapping assumption, for $t >>
0$, $\ddot x_{\omega, \eta} = 0$, so the following definition makes sense,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sojourndef}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{S}(\omega,\eta) := (\omega', \eta') \mbox{ where }
x_{\omega,\eta} = t \omega' + \eta' \mbox{ for
} t >>0.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We now interpret the \textbf{sojourn time} $\tau(\omega, \eta) :=
\tau_{E = 1}(\omega, \eta) $ as in \eqref{eq:almostsojourn} in our context, using the notation from
the previous subsection.
For Hamiltonian systems of the form \eqref{eq:bichar} on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ the
action $\alpha := \alpha_{E = 1}$ restricted to $\Sigma_{E = 1}^{0} = \{ (x, \xi) \in
T^{*}\mathbb{R}^{d} : \absv{\xi}^{2} = 1\}$ is given by
$\chi_{0} + dF$ where $\chi_{0} = \sum_{i = 1}^{d}\xi^{i} dx^{i}$ is
the canonical $1-$form on $\mathbb{R}^{2d}$ and, writing
$\Sigma_{E = 1}^{0} = \set{ (\omega t + \eta, \omega) : (\omega, \eta)
\in T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1}}$, we have $F(\omega t + \eta, \omega) = - t$.
(See \cite[Sect.\ 5]{BP} for details.)
It follows that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:time}
\begin{split}
\tau(\omega, \eta) &= \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} \iota(X) \alpha_{E} \circ (x_{\omega,
\eta}(s), \dot x_{\omega, \eta}(s)) ds \\
&= \lim_{t \to \infty} \int_{-t}^{t} \absv{\xi}^{2}((x_{\omega,
\eta}(s), \dot x_{\omega, \eta}(s)) + (XF) \circ (x_{\omega,
\eta}(s), \dot x_{\omega, \eta}(s)) ) ds \\
&= \lim_{t \to \infty} \int_{-t}^{t} (1 - V)(x_{\omega,
\eta}(s), \dot x_{\omega, \eta}(s)) ds + F(t) - F(-t) \\
&= \lim_{t \to \infty} \int_{-t}^{t} (1 - V)(x_{\omega,
\eta}(s), \dot x_{\omega, \eta}(s)) ds + 2t. \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The total sojourn relation $L$, defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:5}
L := \set{(\omega, \eta, \omega', - \eta', \tau(\omega, \eta)) : (\omega, \eta) \in
T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \mbox{ and } \mathcal{S}(\omega, \eta) = (\omega', \eta')},
\end{equation}
is a Legendrian submanifold of $T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \times
T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \times \mathbb{R}$ with the contact form
described above. In particular, $\mathcal{S}$ is a symplectomorphism.
We define
the \textbf{interaction region}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:interaction}
\mathcal{I} := \set{ (\omega, \eta) : \mbox{Image}(x_{\omega,\eta}) \cap \supp V
\neq \varnothing}.
\end{equation}
Note that, if $(\omega, \eta) \in \mathcal{I}$, then $\mathcal{S}(\omega, \eta)
= (\omega', \eta') \in \mathcal{I}$, since $x_{\omega,
\eta} = t \omega' + \eta'$ for $t >> 0$, hence the straight
line $t \omega' + \eta'$ intersects $\supp V$, and thus $x_{\omega',
\eta'} \cap \supp V \neq \varnothing$. Similarly,
$\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{I}^{c}) \subset \mathcal{I}^{c}$, so since
$\mathcal{S}$ is invertible by uniqueness of solutions to ODEs,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{I}) = \mathcal{I} \quad \mbox{ and } \quad
\mathcal{S}(\mathcal{I}^{c}) = \mathcal{I}^{c}.
\end{equation*}
Finally, we define the $l^{th}$ interacting fixed point set for $l \in \mathbb{Z}$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:interactionfixed}
\mathcal{F}_{l} := \set{ (\omega, \eta) \in \mathcal{I} : \mathcal{S}^{l}(\omega,\eta)
= (\omega,\eta) }.
\end{equation}
We will make the following assumption.
\begin{dynass}\label{thm:dynass}
The sets $\mathcal{F}_{l}
\subset T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$ in \eqref{eq:interactionfixed} satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:zerofixed}
\Vol(\mathcal{F}_{l}) = 0 \mbox{ for all } l \in \mathbb{Z}.
\end{equation}
\end{dynass}
\begin{remark}
The existence of potentials satisfying Assumption \ref{thm:dynass}
was established in \cite{DGHH2013}. Indeed, Assumption
\ref{thm:dynass} is weaker than the dynamical assumption made in
\cite{DGHH2013}, and example of potentials satisfying the strong
assumption of that paper are established therein. See Section
\ref{sec:comp} for details.
The authors conjecture that Assumption \ref{thm:dynass} holds for
generic potentials $V$, though we do not pursue this question here.
There is a wealth of research on the topic of generic geodesic and
Hamiltonian flows, going back to Klingenberg-Takens \cite{KT} in the
case of Riemannian metrics. See also \cite{PS} and \cite{PS2} for
results in the setting of obstacle scattering.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}\label{thm:scalingremark}
The total sojourn relation defined here agrees with the definition in
\cite[Section 15]{HW2008}. To see this, write the
Hamiltonian system in \eqref{eq:bichar} in polar coordinates $(r, \omega)$. In
particular, the Lagrangian becomes $h = (\rho^{2} + \theta^{2}/r^{2} +
V)/2$ where $\rho$ is dual to $r$ and $\theta$ is dual to $\omega$. In
the notation of the paragraph preceding Lemma 15.3 in \cite{HW2008}, one checks that
for a bicharacteristic of the form $t \omega + \eta'$ where
$\eta' \perp \omega$, one has
$\mu = \eta' / t + O(1/t^{2})$ as $t \to \infty$. This yields $M = \eta'$ (NB: the definition
of $M$ in \cite{HW2008} has a typo; it should be $M := \lim_{t \to \infty}
\mu/x$). From this we see that \eqref{eq:5} agrees with the definition of the total sojourn relation on \cite[p680]{HW2008}.
\end{remark}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\input{scatteringrelation.pdf_tex}
\caption{The scattering relation. Here $(\omega, \eta)$ lies in the
interaction region $\mathcal{I}$. The long-dashed line depicts how
the outgoing data $(\omega', \eta')$ is also in $\mathcal{I}$.}
\label{fig:widetildeL}
\end{figure}
\section{Semiclassical scattering matrix}\label{sec:scatteringmatrix}
In this section we collect some information about the semiclassical scattering matrix needed in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:prethm}.
As described in \cite{DGHH2013} and proven in \cite{A2005} and
\cite{HW2008}, the integral kernel of $S_{h}$ can be decomposed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:decomposition}
S_{h}
= K_{1} + K_{2} + K_{3}
\end{equation}
with the $K_{i}$ as follows.
First, $K_{1}$ is a semiclassical Fourier Integral Operator with
compact microsupport. This means that
its kernel is a Lagrangian distribution equal to a finite sum of terms of
the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:scfiopart}
h^{-(d-1)/2 -N/2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}} e^{i \Phi(\omega, \omega',
v)/h} a(\omega,\omega', v, h) dv,
\end{equation}
where $a$ is a smooth, compactly supported function on
$\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \times\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \times \mathbb{R}^{N}_{v} \times
[0, h_{0})_{h}$, and $\Phi$ is a smooth phase function which parametrizes the
sojourn relation $L$ locally. We describe briefly what it means to
parametrize $L$ locally; on the critical locus
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:criticalset}
\mbox{Crit}(\Phi) = \set{ (\omega, \omega',
v) ; D_{v}\Phi(\omega, \omega',
v) = 0}
\end{equation}
the Hessian $D_{\omega, \omega', v}\Phi$ has full
rank and the map
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:parametrization}
\begin{split}
\mbox{Crit}(\Phi) &\lra T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \times
T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \times \mathbb{R} \\
(\omega, \omega', v) &\longmapsto (\omega, D_{\omega}(\Phi),
\omega', D_{\omega'}(\Phi), \Phi),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
restricted to the complement of the set $\set{ (\omega, \omega',
v, h) : a(\omega, \omega',
v, h) = O(h^{\infty})}$ is a diffeomorphism between $\Crit(\Phi)$
and an open subset of $L$. (Here and below $O(h^{\infty})$ denotes a quantity that is bounded by
$C_{N}h^{N}$ for each $N > 0$ and $h$ sufficiently small.)
The microsupport condition on $K_{1}$ means that the amplitudes $a$ in
\eqref{eq:scfiopart} satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:10}
a(\omega, \omega', v, h) = O(h^{\infty}) \mbox{ on those }
(\omega, \omega', v) \mbox{ mapped via \eqref{eq:parametrization}
into } \mathcal{I}_{2\epsilon}^{c}.
\end{equation}
In particular, the canonical
relation of $K_{1}$ is given by the projected sojourn relation
\begin{equation*}
C := \set{(\omega, \eta, \omega', -\eta') : \mathcal{S}((\omega,
\eta) = (\omega', \eta')},
\end{equation*}
This is just the projection of the sojourn relation $L$ off the $\mathbb{R}$
factor. (For more details about semiclassical FIOs see e.g.\ \cite{Zw2012}, \cite{D1974}.)
The $K_{2}$ term is a semiclassical pseudodifferential operator with
microsupport disjoint from $\mathcal{I}$, say outside
\begin{equation}
\{ |\eta| \leq R_* \} \mbox{ where } \supp V \subset B_{R^{*}},
\label{Rstar}\end{equation}
$B_{R^{*}}$ being the ball of radius $R^{*}$ centered at the origin.
(Though it will not be used directly, we mention that $K_{2}$ is
microlocally equal to the identity outside a compact set in phase space.
Specifically, it
is a sum of terms of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pseudopart}
(2\pi h)^{-(d-1)} \int e^{i(z - z')\cdot \zeta / h} b(z,
\zeta, h) d\zeta
\end{equation}
in local coordinates, where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:6}
b(z, \zeta, h) = 1 + O(h^{\infty}) \mbox{ for } \absv{\zeta} >
R^{*} + \delta_{0},
\end{equation}
for any $\delta_{0}$. Instead of using \eqref{eq:6} we will use the
exponential bounds in Lemma \ref{thm:veryclosetozero} below.)
Finally, the $K_{3}$ term is a smooth function on
$\mathbb{S}^{d-1} \times \mathbb{S}^{d-1} \times [0,
h_{0})_{h}$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:K3}
K_{3} = O(h^{\infty}).
\end{equation}
Moreover, by \cite[Lemma 3.1]{DGHH2013} the Maslov line
bundle of the canonical relation $C$ is canonically trivial, and with respect to this
trivialization, the principal symbol of $S_{h}$
is given in terms of the canonical half-density $\absv{d\omega
d\eta}^{1/2}$ on $\mathcal{M}$ by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:principalsymbol}
\sigma(S_{h}) = \absv{d\omega
d\eta}^{1/2}.
\end{equation}
In particular,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:principalsymbolisId}
\sigma(S_{h} - \Id) = 0 \mbox{ on } T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1} - \mathcal{I}.
\end{equation}
\section{Trace formula}
Theorem \ref{thm:mainthm} below (and thus Theorem \ref{thm:prethm})
will be proven using the following trace formula.
\begin{proposition}\label{thm:traceone}
Assume that $V$ is non-trapping at energy $1$ and that $H$ in
\eqref{eq:operator} satisfies Assumption \ref{thm:dynass}. For each polynomial
$p$ on $\mathbb{C}$
satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zero}
p(1) = 0,
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:traceformula}
\Tr p(S_{h}) = \frac{\Vol(\mathcal{I})}{(2 \pi h)^{d-1}} \frac{1}{2 \pi}
\oint_{\mathbb{S}^{1}} p(e^{i\phi}) d\phi + o(h^{-(d-1)}),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{I} \subset T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$ is the interaction
region \eqref{eq:interaction}.
\end{proposition}
In preparation for the proof of this proposition, we prove an estimate on the operator $S_h - \Id$.
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:veryclosetozero}
Let $R > 0$ be such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bigball}
\supp V \subset B_{R},
\end{equation}
where $B_{R}$ is the open ball $\set{ \absv{x} < R}$, and choose $R' > R$. There exist
constants $c, C > 0$ depending on $R'$ and $V$ so that for each spherical harmonic $\phi_{l}$
satisfying $(\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{d-1}} - l(l + n - 2))\phi_{l} = 0$
with $l h \geq R'$, and for $h$ small enough,
we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:almosteigenfunction}
\norm[L^{2}]{(S_{h} - 1)\phi_{l}} \le C e^{-cl} \norm[L^{2}]{\phi_{l}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider the function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:almostgeneralized}
u_{l, h} := J_{l + (d-2)/2}(r/h)\phi_{l}
\end{equation}
on
$\mathbb{R}^{d}$ where $\phi_{l}$ is a spherical harmonic with
angular momentum $l$ and $J_{\sigma}(\zeta)$ is the standard Bessel
function of order $\sigma$ defined in \cite[Chapter 9]{AS1964}.
Then $u_{l, h}$ is in the kernel of $h^{2}\Delta -
1$ and has incoming data equal to $\phi_{l}$ in the sense of
\eqref{eq:generalizedEfn}. Therefore, $f_{l,h}$ defined by $\lp h^{2}\Delta + V - 1\rp u_{l, h}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:approxgeneralized}
f_{l,h} = Vu_{l, h} = V J_{l + (d-2)/2}(r/h)\phi_{l}.
\end{equation}
Writing
\begin{equation}\label{eq:changeofvars}
\nu := l +
(d-2)/2 \quad \mbox{ and } \quad \gamma:= r/(h\nu),
\end{equation}
we can write
$$
f_{l,h} = V J_\nu(\nu \gamma) \phi_{l},
$$
where $f_{l,h} = 0$ unless $\gamma \leq R/R'$, since we must have $r \leq R$ due to the $V$ factor and $\nu \geq l \geq R'/h$ by assumption. By \cite[9.3.7]{AS1964}, we have
$$
J_\nu(\nu \gamma) \leq C e^{-\nu(\alpha - \tanh \alpha)}{\nu \tanh \alpha}, \quad \gamma = \operatorname{sech} \alpha.
$$
Therefore, since $\alpha - \tanh \alpha \geq c > 0$ when $\gamma \leq R/R'$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:greatbound}
\| f_{l,h} \|_{L^2} \leq C e^{-cl}.
\end{equation}
Now consider the outgoing resolvent $R_{h,V}(1 + i0) := (h^{2}\Delta + V - (1 +
i0))^{-1}$, which satisfies $H (h^{2}\Delta
+ V - (1 + i0))^{-1} v = v$ for $v \in
C^{\infty}_{comp}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$. The main properties of
$R_{h,V}(1 + i0)$ for fixed $h$ can be found in \cite{M1994}. In particular, for $v \in
C^{\infty}_{comp}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ and $h$ fixed,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:outgoingresolvent}
R_{h,V}(1 + i0) v = r^{-(d-1)/2} e^{ir/h} \psi + O(r^{-(d+1)/2})
\end{equation}
for some $\psi \in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^{d-1})$. We refer to $\psi$
as the \textbf{outgoing data} of $R_{h,V}(1 + i0) v$.
The function
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:generalizedforV}
u_{l, h} - R_{h,V}(1 + i0)(h^{2} \Delta + V - 1)u_{l, h}
\end{equation}
is the unique generalized eigenfunction of $h^{2}\Delta + V$ of energy $1$ with incoming data
$\phi_{l}$ in the sense of \eqref{eq:generalizedEfn}. Thus by the
definition of the scattering matrix in \eqref{eq:scmatrixdef}, $S_{h}(\phi_{l})$ is equal to $\phi_{l}$
minus the outgoing data of $R_{h,V}(1 + i0)(h^{2} \Delta + V - 1)u_{l,
h}$, up to composition with unitary maps. Precisely, if $\psi_{l,h}$ is the outgoing data of
$R_{h,V}(1 + i0)(h^{2} \Delta + V - 1)u_{l, h}$ in the sense of
\eqref{eq:outgoingresolvent}, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:scatteringonsphericalharm}
S_{h}\phi_{l}(\omega) = \phi_{l}(\omega) - e^{i\pi(d-1)/2}\psi_{l,h}(-\omega)
\end{equation}
The outgoing data $\psi_{l,h}$ is computed using the adjoint of the Poisson operator
$P_{h, V}$ for
$h^{2}\Delta + V - 1$. It is a straightforward exercise to show that
the adjoint operator $P^{*}_{h, V}$ satisfies
$P^{*}_{h,V}f_{l,h} = (-2ih) e^{-i\pi(d-1)/2} S_{h}^{*}
\mathcal{A}^{*}\psi_{l,h}$, where $\mathcal{A}^{*}$ is pullback by the
antipodal map of $\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$. Thus
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:poisson}
\| (S_h - \Id) \phi_l \|_{L^2} = \frac 1h \| P_{h, V}^* f_{l,h} \|_{L^2}.
\end{equation}
Given a cutoff function $\chi \colon \mathbb{R}^{d} \lra \mathbb{R}$
satisfying $\chi(x) \equiv 1$ for $\absv{x} \le R$ and $\chi(x) \equiv
0$ for $\absv{x} > 2R$, $P^{*}_{h,V}f_{l,h} = P^{*}_{h,V} \chi
f_{l,h}$, and we claim that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:finalestimate}
\norm[L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{d}) \to L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{d})]{\chi P_{h,V}
P^{*}_{h,V} \chi} = \norm[L^{2}(\mathbb{R}^{d}) \to
L^{2}(\mathbb{S}^{d-1})]{P^{*}_{h,V} \chi}^{2} \le C.
\end{equation}
To prove \eqref{eq:finalestimate}, we use the identity $R_{h, V}(1 +
i0) - R_{h, V}(1 -
i0) = (i/2h) P_{h,V} P^{*}_{h,V}$ (see e.g.\ \cite[Lemma
5.1]{HV1999}). The estimate in
\eqref{eq:finalestimate} follows from the estimate on
$\chi R_{h, V}(1 \pm
i0) \chi$ given in the main theorem of \cite{VZ2000}, where the estimates
are in terms of weighted Sobolev spaces, the weights of which are
irrelevant thanks to the cutoff $\chi$.
Thus by \eqref{eq:greatbound}, $\norm[L^{2}]{(S_{h} - \Id) \phi_{l}}
\le C e^{-cl} \norm[L^{2}]{\phi_{l}}$ for some $c > 0$ in the region
$l \geq R'/h$ and the lemma follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{thm:traceone}]
For the sake of clarity, we first prove the trace formula \eqref{eq:traceformula} for
\begin{equation}\label{eq:simplepoly}
p(z) = z - 1,
\end{equation}
i.e.\
we analyze $S_{h} - \Id,$ which is indeed a trace class operator \cite{Yafaev}.
We choose a pseudodifferential operator $A_h \in \Psi^{0,
\infty}(S^{n-1})$ that is microlocally equal to the identity on a
neighbourhood of $\mathcal{I}$, say the set $\{ |\eta| \leq R \}$, and
is microsupported inside $\{ |\eta| \leq R_* \}$, where $R_*$ is as in
\eqref{Rstar}. To be precise, we choose $A = \rho(h^2
\Delta_{S^{n-1}})$, where $\rho(t) = 1$ for $t \leq \sqrt R$ and $0$
for $t \geq \sqrt{R_*}$.
Then $\Tr (S_h - \Id) = \Tr A_h (S_h - \Id) + \Tr (\Id - A_h)(S_h - \Id)$. We analyze the two parts separately.
First consider $\Tr (\Id - A_h)(S_h - \Id)$. This can be calculated using the orthonormal basis of spherical harmonics on $S^{n-1}$. With $A_h = \rho(h^2 \Delta_{S^{n-1}})$ as above, we have
$$
\Tr (\Id - A_h)(S_h - \Id) = \sum_{lm} \langle \phi_{lm}, (\Id -
A_h)(S_h - \Id) \phi_{lm} \rangle = \sum_{lm} \langle (\Id - A_h)
\phi_{lm} , (S_h - \Id) \phi_{lm} \rangle.
$$
Here $\phi_{lm}$ satisfies $\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{d-1}} \phi_{lm} = l(l+d-2)
\phi_{lm}$ and for fixed $l$, the index $m$ ranges from $1$ to $d_l$,
where $d_{l}$ is the multiplicity
\begin{equation}\label{eq:multiplicity}
d_l = \dim \ker (\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{d-1}} - l(l+d-2)) = O(l^{d - 2}).
\end{equation}
The latter bound can be found for example in \cite{taylor:vol2}.
Then $(\Id - A_h) \phi_{lm} = 0$ unless $l \geq R/h$. Moreover, we see
from Lemma~\ref{thm:veryclosetozero} that $\| (S_h - \Id) \phi_{lm} \|
\leq C e^{-cl}$ when $l \ge R/h$. It follows that we get an estimate
\begin{equation}\label{eq:nearinfinity}
\begin{split}
\Big| \Tr (\Id - A_h)(S_h - \Id) \Big| &\leq C \sum_{l \geq R/h}
d_l e^{-cl} \le C' \sum_{l \geq R/h} e^{-c'l} \le C'' e^{Rc'/h} (= O(h^{\infty})).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We now turn to computing $\Tr A_h (S_h - \Id)$. We decompose $S_h =
K_1 + K_2 + K_3$ as in Section \ref{sec:scatteringmatrix}. Recall the
formula for the trace in terms given by integrating the kernel over
the diagonal \cite[Appendix C]{Zw2012}. Consider the operator $A_h K_3$. We have already noted that $K_3$ is a smooth
function that is $O(h^\infty)$; on the other hand, $A_h$ is a semiclassical pseudo of order $0$ and compact microsupport, so its kernel is $O(h^{-(d-1)})$. Composing, we see that the kernel of $A_h K_3$ is $O(h^\infty)$, so its trace is also $O(h^\infty)$.
Since $A_h$ and $K_2$ are microsupported on
disjoint sets, the product $A_h K_2$ has Schwartz kernel smooth and
$O(h^\infty)$, so as for $K_{3}$ we conclude that $\Tr(A_{h}K_{2}) = O(h^\infty)$.
It remains to compute $\Tr A_h(K_1 - \Id)$. For that we use Proposition~\ref{prop:tr}. Applying \eqref{T-tr-formula} twice, we get
\begin{equation}\begin{gathered}
\Tr A_h K_1 = (2\pi h)^{-(d-1)} \int_{\{ |\eta| \leq R_* \} \setminus
\mathcal{I}} \rho(|\eta|^2) \, d\omega \, d\eta + o(h^{-(d-1)})\\
\Tr A_h = (2\pi h)^{-(d-1)} \int_{ \{ |\eta| \leq R_* \}}
\rho(|\eta|^2) \, d\omega \, d\eta + o(h^{-(d-1)})
\end{gathered}\end{equation}
since the fixed point set of $K_1$ is given by $\mathcal{I}^c \cup \mathcal{F}_1$, and by hypothesis, $\mathcal{F}_1$ has measure zero. Subtracting, we find
\begin{equation}
\Tr A_h(K_1 - \Id) = - (2\pi h)^{-(d-1)} \int_{\mathcal{I}}
\rho(|\eta|^2) \, d\omega \, d\eta = (2\pi h)^{-(d-1)}
\Vol(\mathcal{I}) + o(h^{-(d-1)}),
\end{equation}
This proves the trace formula \eqref{eq:traceformula} for the
polynomial $z -1$.
Finally, consider an arbitrary polynomial $p(z)$ with $p(1) = 0$. On
the circle $\absv{z} = 1$, since $\overline{z} = z^{-1}$, $p$ can be
written $p(z) = \sum_{- d \le k \le d} a_{k} z^{k}$ for $a_{k} \in
\mathbb{C}$. If we define $p_{k}(z) = z^{k} - 1$, then $p(z) =
\sum_{0 < \absv{k} \le d} a_{k} p_{k}(z)$. (Proof: $p(z) -
\sum_{0 < \absv{k} \le d} a_{k} p_{k}(z)$ is constant and vanishes at
$1$.) By the linearity of the trace, it suffices to prove that
for all $k \in \mathbb{Z}$ with $k \neq 0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:generalpoly}
\Tr(S_{h}^{k} - 1) = - \frac{1}{(2\pi h)^{d-1}} \Vol(\mathcal{I}) +
o(h^{-(d - 1)}).
\end{equation}
This will follow exactly as the case for $k = 1$ if we can show that
$S_{h}^{k} = K_{1}' + K_{2}' + K_{3}'$ where the $K_{i}'$ have all of
the same properties as the $K_{i}$ from \eqref{eq:decomposition} with
the only modification being that $K_{1}'$, still a semiclassical FIO with
microsupport in $\mathcal{I}_{2\epsilon}$, now has canonical relation
\begin{equation*}
C_{k} := \set{ (\omega, \eta, \omega', -\eta') : \mathcal{S}^{k}(\omega,
\eta) = (\omega', \eta')}.
\end{equation*}
where $\mathcal{S}$ is the sojourn map \eqref{eq:sojourn}. All of the relevant properties follow by applying the standard
composition theorems for semiclassical FIOs and for semiclassical
pseudodifferential operators (see e.g.\ \cite{Zw2012}, \cite[Section
8.2.1]{GS2010}) to $S_{h}^{k} =
(K_{1} + K_{2} + K_{3})^{k}$. Now all the computations in the case of
$z - 1$ work in this case with the sole change that the trace of
$A_h K_{1}'$ is an integral over $\mathcal{F}_{k} \cup \{ |\eta| \leq R_* \} - \mathcal{I})$, but Assumption \ref{thm:dynass}
implies that only the integral over $T^{*}\mathbb{S}^{d-1} -
\mathcal{I}$ contributes, as in the $z - 1$ case.
\end{proof}
\section{Equidistribution}\label{sec:weightedequi}
We now state a strengthened version of Theorem \ref{thm:prethm}.
We define the norm
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:weightednorm}
\norm[w]{f} = \sup_{\absv{z} = 1, z \neq 1} \absv{\frac{f(z)}{z -
1}} \mbox{ for } f \colon \mathbb{S}^{1} \lra \mathbb{C}.
\end{equation}
and let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Cw}
C_{w}^{0}(\mathbb{S}^{1}) := \set{ f \in C^{0}(\mathbb{S}^{1}) : f /
(z - 1) \mbox{ is continuous} }.
\end{equation}
Then $C_{w}^{0}(\mathbb{S}^{1})$ with the norm $\norm[w]{\cdot}$
is a Banach space. (Here $C^{0}(\mathbb{S}^{1})$ is the space of
continuous, complex-valued functions on the unit circle.)
We will
prove the following.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:mainthm}
For any $f \in C^{0}_{w}(\mathbb{S}^{1})$, the integral $\la
\mu_{h}, f \ra$ defined in \eqref{eq:integralh} is finite for all $h$, and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:equicompactw}
\lim_{h \to 0} \la \mu_{h}, f \ra = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{0}^{2\pi}
f(e^{i\phi}) d\phi.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
This theorem follows in a straightforward way from the following two lemmas.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:uniform-bd} There exists $C > 0$ such that for all sufficiently small $h$, and all $f \in C_{w}^{0}(\mathbb{S}^{1})$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:estimate}
\Big| \la \mu_{h}, f \ra \Big| \le C \norm[w]{f}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:dense} The set
$\mbox{Poly}_{1}(\mathbb{S}^{1})$ of polynomials $p(z)$ with $p(1) = 0$ are dense in $C_{w}^{0}(\mathbb{S}^{1})$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:uniform-bd}]
Given $\delta > 0$, write
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sumemup}
\begin{split}
\la \mu_{h}, f \ra &= \frac{1}{c_{V}} h^{d-1}
\sum_{\mbox{spec}(S_{h})} f(e^{i\beta_{h,n}}) \\
&=\frac{1}{c_{V}} h^{d-1}\lp
\sum_{\absv{\beta_{h,n}} \ge \delta} f(e^{i\beta_{h,n}}) + \sum_{\absv{\beta_{h,n}} < \delta} f(e^{i\beta_{h,n}})\rp,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where here and below we choose the branch for which $\beta_{h,n} \in
(-\pi, \pi]$. To estimate these we will use the following: with $R'$, $c$, $C$ as in Lemma~\ref{thm:veryclosetozero},
there exists $a > 0$, such that for
every $L > R'/h$,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:howmanybadguys}
\mbox{ there are at most } a L^{d-1} \mbox{ eigenvalues of
$S_{h} - 1$ larger than } Ce^{-cL}.
\end{equation}
This follows from \eqref{eq:almosteigenfunction}. To see this, let
$Z(a, L)$ be the subspace of $L^2(\mathbb{S}^{d-1})$ spanned by the
eigenfunctions of $S_h - \Id$ with eigenvalues larger than $C
e^{-cL}$. Then
\begin{equation}
\text{$\| (S_h - \Id) u \| \geq C e^{-cL} \| u \|$ for all $u \in Z(a, L)$.}
\label{ppp}\end{equation}
If the dimension of $Z(a, L)$ were greater than $d_1 + \dots + d_L$, which is bounded by $a L^{d-1}$ for suitable $a$, then $Z(a, L)$ would contain a spherical harmonic $\phi_{lm}$ with $l > L$. But putting $u = \phi_{lm}$ in \eqref{ppp} contradicts \eqref{eq:almosteigenfunction}. This establishes \eqref{eq:howmanybadguys}.
To analyze \eqref{eq:sumemup}, first we show that the sum over the eigenvalues $\absv{\beta_{h,n}}
\ge \delta$ is bounded
by $c \norm[w]{f}$. Each term in the sum satisfies $\absv{f(z)} \le
\norm[w]{f} \absv{z - 1} \le 2 \norm[w]{f}$. Choosing $L = C/h$ for
large $C$, we have
$ce^{-L/c} \le \delta/2$ for $h$ small, and thus by \eqref{eq:howmanybadguys}
at most $c'/h^{d-1}$ eigenvalues $S_{h} - 1$ larger than $\delta$,
where $c'$ is independent of $\delta$.
Thus
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:1}
\frac{1}{c_{V}}h^{d-1} \sum_{\absv{\beta_{h,n}} \ge
\delta} f(e^{i\beta_{h,n}}) < c' \norm[w]{f}
\end{equation}
Now we estimate the sum over the eigenvalues $\absv{\beta_{h,n}}
< \delta$. Write
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{\absv{\beta_{h,n}} < \delta} f(e^{i\beta_{h,n}}) = \sum_{j
= 0}^{\infty} \sum_{A(\delta,j)} f(e^{i\beta_{h,n}}),
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\label{eq:3}
A(\delta,j) := \set{\beta_{h,n} : \absv{\beta_{h,n}} \in [ \delta 2^{-(j + 1)},
\delta 2^{-j})}.
\end{equation*}
Taking $L$ such that $c e^{-L / c} = \delta 2^{-(j + 1)}$, there are at
most $c' \lp j\log 2 - \log \delta \rp^{d - 1}$ eigenvalues in
$A(\delta,j)$ for some $c'$ independent of $\delta$. But in $A(\delta, j)$, $\absv{f(z)} < \norm[w]{f}
\delta 2^{-j}$. Thus, for some $c > 0$ whose value changes from line
to line,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\absv{\sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} \sum_{A(\delta,j)} f(e^{i\beta_{h,n}})
} &\le \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} \absv{A(\delta,j)} \norm[w]{f}
\delta 2^{-j} \\
&\le \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} c \lp j\log 2 - \log \delta \rp^{d - 1} \norm[w]{f}
\delta 2^{-j} \\
&\le c \delta^{1/2} \norm[w]{f}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Thus
\begin{equation*}
\la \mu_{h}, f \ra \le
c (1 + \delta^{1/2}) \norm[w]{f}.
\end{equation*}
This
proves \eqref{eq:estimate}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:dense}]
note that given $f \in C^{0}_{w}(\mathbb{S}^{1})$, by
definition $f/(z-1)$ is continuous, so by the Stone-Weirstrass theorem, for any
$\epsilon > 0$ there is a polynomial $\wt{p}$ so that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:density}
\begin{split}
\epsilon &> \sup_{z \in \mathbb{S}^{1}}\absv{ f/(z-1) - \wt{p}}
= \sup_{z \in \mathbb{S}^{1}}\absv{ \frac{1}{z - 1} \lp f - (z -
1)\wt{p}\rp} = \norm[w]{f - (z - 1)\wt{p}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Letting $p = (z-1)\wt{p}$ gives the desired density.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:mainthm}]
By Lemma~\ref{lem:uniform-bd}, $\mu_h$ is a bounded linear operator on
$C^{0}_{w}(\mathbb{S}^{1})$, uniformly as $h \to 0$. Therefore to
prove \eqref{eq:equicompactw}, it is only necessary to prove it on a dense subspace. By Lemma~\ref{lem:dense}, therefore, it suffices to prove \eqref{eq:equicompactw} for polynomials that vanish at $z=1$. But this was done in Proposition~\ref{thm:traceone}, so the proof is complete.
\end{proof}
Finally, we prove Corollary \ref{thm:countingcor}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{thm:countingcor}]
Let $1_{[\phi_{0}, \phi_{1}]}$ denote the characteristic function of
the sector on $\mathbb{S}^{1}$ between angles $\phi_{0}$ and
$\phi_{1}$ not passing through $1$, and let $f$ and $g$ be continuous,
positive functions on $\mathbb{S}^{1}$ satisfying $f \le 1_{[\phi_{0}, \phi_{1}]} \le g$.
Then $\Tr f(S_{h}) \le \Tr 1_{[\phi_{0}, \phi_{1}]}(S_{h}) \le \Tr
g(S_{h})$, so
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:squeeze}
\begin{split}
\frac{1}{2\pi}\oint f(e^{i\phi}) d\phi &= \lim_{h \to 0} \la \mu_{h}, f
\ra \\
&\le \frac{1}{c_{V}} (2\pi h)^{d-1} \Tr 1_{[\phi_{0}, \phi_{1}]}(S_{h}) \\
&\le \lim_{h \to 0} \la \mu_{h}, g \ra = \frac{1}{2\pi}\oint
g(e^{i\phi}) d\phi
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Letting the integrals of $f$ and $g$ tend to $(\phi_{1} - \phi_{0}) /
(2\pi)$ and using $\Tr 1_{[\phi_{0}, \phi_{1}]}(S_{h}) =
N_{h}(\phi_{0}, \phi_{1})$ proves the corollary.
\end{proof}
\section{Comparison of results with \cite{DGHH2013}}\label{sec:comp}
In \cite{DGHH2013}, Datchev, Humphries and the first two authors proved the following. For a
Hamiltonian $H$ as in \eqref{eq:operator}, assume that
the potential function $V$ is central ($V = V(\absv{x})$). The
radius of the convex hull of the support, which will be relevant
below, we denote by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:radiusconvexhull}
R := \inf\set{R' : \mbox{supp} (V) \subset B_{R'}(0) }.
\end{equation}
In this case, the scattering matrix $S_{h}$ is diagonalized by the spherical
harmonics. Denoting an arbitrary spherical harmonic by $\phi_{l}$
where $\Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{d-1}} \phi_{l} = l(l + n - 2)\phi_{l}$,
as discussed in \cite{DGHH2013}, the eigenvalue of $\phi_{l}$ for
$S_{h}$ depends only on the angular momentum $l$, so we may define
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:centraleigenval}
S_{h} \phi_{l} = e^{i \beta_{h,l}} \phi_{l},
\end{equation}
keeping in mind that the eigenvalue $e^{i \beta_{h,l}}$ has
multiplicity $d_{l}$ from \eqref{eq:multiplicity}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:centralequi}
For a Hamiltonian $H$ as in \eqref{eq:operator} with $V$
central and $R$ as in \eqref{eq:radiusconvexhull}. Let
$\Sigma(\alpha)$ denote the scattering angle function
(see \cite[Section 2]{DGHH2013}), and assume that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:scatteringangleassumption}
\Sigma'(\alpha) \mbox{ has finitely many zeros in } [0, R).
\end{equation}
Then the set of eigenvalues $e^{i \beta_{h,l}}$ with $l \le R/h$
equidistribute around the unit
circle, meaning that, if we let $\overline{N}_{h}(\phi_{0}, \phi_{1})$ denote the
number of $\beta_{h,l}$ with $l \le R/h$ satisfying $\phi_{0} \le
\beta_{h,l} \le \phi_{1}$ counted with multiplicity $m_{d}(l) = \dim
\ker \Delta_{\mathbb{S}^{d-1}} - l(l + n - 2)$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:equicentral}
\sup_{0 \le \phi_{0} < \phi_{1} \le 2 \pi} \absv{
\frac{\overline{N}_{h}(\phi_{0}, \phi_{1})}{\overline{N}_{h}(0, 2\pi)} - \frac{\phi_{1} -
\phi_{0}}{2\pi} } \to 0 \mbox{ as } h \to 0.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Note that the difference between $\overline{N}_{h}$ in the theorem and
$N_{h}$ in Theorem \ref{thm:countingcor} is that $\overline{N}_{h}$
deliberately excludes the eigenvalues corresponding to spherical
harmonic with angular momenta $\ge R/h$. The number
$\overline{N}_{h}(0, 2\pi)$ is by definition the total number of
spherical harmonics
with angular momentum $l \le R/h$. In particular, by \cite[Corollary
4.3]{taylor:vol2}, we
have the leading order expansion
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:weylasymptotics}
\overline{N}_{h}(0, 2\pi) = 2\frac{R^{d-1}}{(d - 1)!} h^{-(d - 1)} + O(h^{-(d-2)}).
\end{equation}
For a central potential with scattering angle $\Sigma$ satisfying
\eqref{eq:scatteringangleassumption}, the interaction region satisfies
$\mathcal{I} = \set{(\omega, \eta) : |\eta| \le R }$,
since a bicharacteristic $t\omega + \eta$ hits the potential
if and only if $\absv{\eta} \le R$. Thus the fixed point
set is actually finite in this case, and the hypotheses of Theorem
\ref{thm:mainthm} hold. Furthermore,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:interractionarea}
\begin{split}
\Vol(\mathcal{I}) &= \Vol B^{d-1}(R) \times
\Vol{\mathbb{S}^{d-1}}
= 2\frac{R^{d-1}}{(d - 1)!} (2\pi)^{d-1}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $B^{d-1}(R)$ is the ball of radius $R$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d-1}$,
$\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$ is the unit sphere, and both quantites on the right
are the Riemannian volumes. Thus the Theorem \ref{thm:centralequi}
implies Theorem \ref{thm:countingcor} above.
On the other hand, the $l^{th}$ fixed point set $\mathcal{F}_{l}$ (see
\eqref{eq:interactionfixed}) is equal to those $(\omega, \eta)$ with
$\absv{\eta} \le R$ satisfying $\Sigma(\absv{\eta})
\in \frac{1}{l} 2\pi \mathbb{Z}$. The assumption on $\Sigma$ in
\eqref{eq:scatteringangleassumption} is thus stronger than Assumption
\ref{thm:dynass}.
As for the other eigenvalues,
i.e.\ the $e^{i \beta_{h,l}}$ with $l > R/h$, in
\cite{DGHH2013} we showed that they
are very close to $1$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:centralseparation}
For $V$ central and $R$ as in \eqref{eq:radiusconvexhull}, let
$\kappa \in (0, 1)$. Then the $e^{i\beta_{h,l}}$ with $l \ge (R +
h^{\kappa})/h$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:close}
\absv{e^{i\beta_{h,l}} - 1} = O(h^{\infty}) \mbox{ as } h \to 0.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
This theorem is weaker than Lemma \ref{thm:veryclosetozero} in the
sense that it does not give exponential decay, and moreover gives no
decay with respect to $l$. On the other hand, Theorem
\ref{thm:centralseparation} is stronger in the sense that it holds on
a larger region than Lemma \ref{thm:veryclosetozero}. This is true not
only because Theorem \ref{thm:centralseparation} holds on a region
asymptotically approaching the interaction region, but because the
Lemma \ref{thm:veryclosetozero} is essentially control over $S_{h} -
\Id$ on a region of phase space outside of a \textit{ball bundle} containing
the interaction region. But in general there are portions of the
complement of the interaction region, $\mathcal{I}^{c}$, that do not lie in
the complement of a ball bundle containing $\mathcal{I}$. The work in
this paper indicates that, for given $h$, there are approximately $c_{V} (2\pi
h)^{-(d-1)}$ eigenvalues that are equidistributed around the unit
circle, and the rest are close to $1$. Theorem
\ref{thm:centralseparation} quantifies the latter statement by separating the
spectrum into two parts, one equidistributing and the other close to
$1$, while Lemma \ref{thm:veryclosetozero} does not. It would be
interesting to know if such a separation of the spectrum were possible
in the non-central setting.
\section{Appendix: Trace formula for semiclassical FIOs}
In this section we shall prove a trace formula for semiclassical FIOs on a compact manifold. In fact, we prefer here to think in terms of Legendre distributions, for reasons that we now explain.
Let $M$ be a compact manifold of dimension $d$. Then $T^* M \times
\RR$ is a contact manifold, with canonical contact form $\alpha :=
\zeta \cdot dz - d\tau$, where $z$ are local coordinates on $M$,
$\zeta$ dual coordinates on the fibres of $T^* M$, and $\tau$ is the
coordinate on $\RR$. A Legendre submanifold, $L$, of $T^* M \times \RR$ is a
submanifold of dimension $d$ on which $\alpha$ vanishes
identically. There is a very close relationship between Legendre
submanifolds on $T^* M \times \RR$ and Lagrangian submanifolds of $T^*
M$. To describe this, let $\pi : T^* M \times \RR \to T^* M$ denote
the canonical projection. Then the vector field $\partial_\tau$ is
never tangent to $L$ due to the vanishing of $\alpha$ on $L$, so $\pi$
is locally a diffeomorphism from $L$ to $\Lambda = \pi(L)$. Working
locally, i.e.~ restricting attention to a small open set of $L$, we
can assume $\Lambda$ is a submanifold. Moreover, since $d\alpha =
d\zeta \wedge dz$ vanishes on $L$, it also vanishes on $\Lambda$,
i.e. ~ $\Lambda$ is Lagrangian.
Conversely, suppose that $\Lambda \subset T^* M$ is a Lagrangian submanifold. Then since $d(\zeta \cdot dz) = 0$ on $\Lambda$, it is (at least locally) the differential of a smooth function, say $f$, on $\Lambda$. Then it is easy to check that
$$
L = \{ (z, \zeta, \tau) \mid (z, \zeta) \in \Lambda, \ \tau = f(z, \zeta) \} \subset T^* M \times \RR
$$
is a Legendre submanifold of $T^* M \times \RR$. Notice that $f$ is determined up to an additive constant, and hence $L$ is determined up to shifting $\tau$ by an additive constant.
Now consider a semiclassical Lagrangian distribution $A$ associated to $\Lambda$. This will have an oscillatory integral representation in terms of (one or several) phase function(s) $\Phi$, depending on $z$ and an auxiliary coordinate $v \in \RR^k$, locally parametrizing $\Lambda$, in the sense that locally, we have
$$
\Lambda = \{ (z, d_z\Phi(z, v)) \mid d_v\Phi(z, v) = 0 \}.
$$
Notice that $\Phi$ is undetermined up to an additive constant. Adding $c$ to $\Phi$ will have the effect of changing the Lagrangian distribution by $e^{ic/h}$. In some settings this is irrelevant: for example, if $A$ represents a family of eigenfunctions or quasimodes, multiplication by a complex unit is harmless. However, in other cases, as in the present paper where we consider the semiclassical scattering matrix, the Schwartz kernel is determined uniquely and multiplication by complex units is not harmless (especially when we study the spectrum of the scattering matrix!).
We can now explain why we consider it preferable to describe the semiclassical scattering matrix as a Legendre distribution. It is because the $\tau$ coordinate in $T^* M \times \RR$ is given precisely by the value of the phase function. Thus parametrizing $L$ means finding a function $\Phi(z, v)$ such that
$$
L = \{ (z, d_z\Phi(z, v), \tau = \Phi(z, v)) \mid d_v\Phi(z, v) = 0 \}.
$$
Thus the $\tau$ coordinate eliminates the indeterminacy of $\Phi$ up to an additive constant. Another way of putting this is that multiplication of $A$ by $e^{ic/h}$ would give a family of Lagrangian distributions associated to the same Lagrangian submanifold $\Lambda$, but they would all be associated to different Legendre submanifolds $L_c$.
The $\tau$ coordinate plays a role in the following trace formula for semiclassical FIOs. (Notice that this does not happen for the trace formula for homogeneous FIOs, since the value of the phase function on the Lagrangian is always zero in the homogeneous case.)
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:tr}
Let $T$ be a semiclassical FIO of (semiclassical) order zero and compact microsupport acting on half-densities on a compact manifold $M$ of dimension $n$, associated to a Legendre submanifold $L \subset T^* M^2 \times \RR$ that maps to the graph of a
canonical transformation $\sigma$ under the projection $T^* M^2 \times \RR \to T^* M^2$. Then $T$ is trace class and satisfies
\begin{equation}
\Tr T = (2\pi h)^{-n} \int_{\mathrm{Fix}(\sigma)} e^{i\tau(x, \xi)/h} \sigma(T)(x, \xi) |dx d\xi|^{1/2} + o(h^{-n}).
\label{T-tr-formula}\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $T$ has compact microsupport, it is trace class and the trace is given by the integral of the Schwartz kernel restricted to the diagonal. Also, due to the assumption of compact microsupport, $T$ can be written as a finite number of oscillatory integrals of the form
\begin{equation}
(2\pi h)^{-n} \int_{\RR^n} e^{i\Phi(x, y, v)/h} a(x, y, v, h) \, dv |dx dy|^{1/2},
\label{piece}\end{equation}
where $\Phi$ locally parametrizes $L$ nondegenerately in the neighbourhood of a point $q = (x, \xi, y, \eta, \tau) \in L$ and $a$ is smooth and compactly supported in $v$, in fact supported in an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of the point $(q', 0)$ such that $$q' = (x_0, y_0, v_0), \ d_v\Phi(q') = 0 \text{ and }(x, d_x\Phi(q'), y, d_y \Phi(q'), \Phi) = q.$$
\textbf{Case 1.} Suppose that $q$ is not in the set
$$
N^* \Delta \times \RR = \{ (x, \xi, x, -\xi, \tau) \}.
$$
Then, either (i) $d_x \Phi(q') + d_y \Phi(q') \neq 0$ or (ii) $x_0 \neq y_0$. In the latter case, (ii),
by restricting the support of $a$ close to $(q', 0)$ the restriction of the Schwartz kernel of $T$ to the diagonal vanishes identically for small $h$, trivially implying \eqref{T-tr-formula}. If $x_0 = y_0$ but (i) holds, then the trace is given by
\begin{equation}
(2\pi h)^{-n} \int_{\RR^n} e^{i\Phi(x, x, v)/h} a(x, x, v, h) \, dv \, dx
\label{Ttrace}\end{equation}
and (i) implies that $d_x (\Phi(x_0, x_0, v_0)) \neq 0$. Let us write $\tPhi(x, v) = \Phi(x,x,v)$. By taking the support of $a$ sufficiently close to $(q', 0)$, we have $d_x \tPhi(x, v) \neq 0$ whenever $(x, x, v, h)$ is in the support of $a$. Then using the identity
$$
e^{i\tPhi(x, v)/h} = \Big( \frac{h}{i d_x (\tPhi(x, v))} d_x \Big)^N e^{i\tPhi(x, v)/h}
$$
and integrating by parts, we see that \eqref{Ttrace} is $O(h^\infty)$ in this case.
\textbf{Case 2.} Suppose that $q \in N^* \Delta \times \RR$, but that
the tangent map $D\sigma$ at $\pi(q)$ is not the identity. In this
case, the measure of $\Fix(\sigma)$ is zero, and we will show that the trace is
$O(h^{1/2 - n})$, thereby obtaining Proposition~\ref{prop:tr} in this case. We
claim that the phase function $\tPhi(x,v)$ restricted to
$x=y$ is nondegenerate in at least one direction, i.e. there is at
least one nonzero component in $d^2 \tPhi(x_0, v_0)$ is
nonzero. Applying the stationary phase lemma in one non-degenerate direction, we gain
$h^{1/2}$, i.e. we find that the trace is $O(h^{1/2 - n})$.
To show this, recall that nondegeneracy of $\Phi$ means, by definition, that the differentials $d(d_{v_i} \Phi)$ are linearly independent whenever $d_v \Phi = 0$. This implies in particular that the submanifold $C$ in $(x, y, v)$-space given by $d_v \Phi = 0$ is a smooth submanifold of codimension $n = \dim v$, and that the map
\begin{equation}
C \ni (x, y, v) \mapsto (x, d_x \Phi, y, d_y \Phi) \in T^* M^2
\label{diffeo}\end{equation}
is a diffeomorphism from $C$ to the graph of $\sigma$. A tangent vector to the graph of $\sigma$ can be represented in $(x, y, v)$-space as a vector $X = a \cdot \partial_x + b \cdot \partial_y + c \cdot \partial_v$ such that $X(d_v \Phi) = 0$.
Let us assume that
\begin{equation}d^2_{vv} \tPhi = 0 \text{ and } d^2_{xv} \tPhi = 0 \text{ at }(x_0, v_0),
\label{assumetPhi}\end{equation}
otherwise there is nothing to prove using the remarks in the first paragraph of Case 2. This implies that
\begin{equation}
d^2_{vv} \Phi = 0 \text{ and } d^2_{xv} + d^2_{yv}\Phi = 0 \text{ at } (x_0, x_0, v_0).
\label{assumePhi}\end{equation}
Combining this with the linear independence of $d (d_{v_i} \Phi)$ implies that $d^2_{xv} \Phi$ is nonsingular at $(x_0, x_0, v_0)$, since otherwise the matrix $d_{x,y,v} d_v\Phi$ would have rank strictly less than $n$. Then \eqref{assumePhi}, the nondegeneracy of $d^2_{xv} \Phi$, and $X(d_v \Phi) = 0$ at $(x_0, x_0, v_0)$ imply that
$$
(a - b) d^2_{xv} \Phi = 0 \implies a = b.
$$
So vectors tangent to $C$ at $(x_0, x_0, v_0)$ are represented by vectors $X = (a, a, c)$ with $a$ and $c$ arbitrary.
Given $X$ tangent to $C$, let $Y$ be the vector in $T^* M^2$ that
corresponds to it under the diffeomorphism \eqref{diffeo}. By
assumption in Case 2, there exists $X$ such that, writing $Y = (Y_1,
Y_2)$ with $Y_{1}$ the left and $Y_{2}$ the right components in
$T^{*}M \times T^{*}M$, does \textit{not} satisfy $Y_1 = (\alpha, \beta)$ and $Y_2 = (\alpha,
-\beta)$. Here $Y_i$ are given by
\begin{equation}\begin{gathered}
Y_1 = a_i \partial_{x_i} + \Big( a_i d^2_{x_ix_j} \Phi + b_i d^2_{y_ix_j}\Phi + c_i d^2_{v_ix_j} \Phi \Big) \partial_{\xi_j} , \\
Y_2 = b_i \partial_{y_i} + \Big( a_i d^2_{x_iy_j} \Phi + b_i d^2_{y_iy_j}\Phi + c_i d^2_{v_iy_j} \Phi \Big) \partial_{\eta_j}
\end{gathered}\end{equation}
and we sum over repeated indices. Using $a=b$ we see that the $\partial_x$ components of $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ are equal. Therefore the $\partial_\xi$ components of $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ cannot sum to zero. Using \eqref{assumePhi}, this yields the condition
$$
a_i \Big( d^2_{x_ix_j} \Phi + d^2_{y_ix_j}\Phi + d^2_{x_iy_j} \Phi + d^2_{y_iy_j}\Phi \Big) \neq 0 \text{ at } (x_0, x_0, v_0),
$$
which implies that the matrix $d^2_{xx} \tPhi(x_0, v_0) \neq 0$. This proves the nonvanishing of the Hessian of $\tPhi$ and completes the proof in Case 2.
\textbf{Case 3.} The remaining case is that $q$ is in $N^* \Delta \times \RR$, and every neighbourhood of $q$ intersects $N^* \Delta \times \RR$ in a set of positive measure. This is only possible if $D\sigma$, the derivative of the map $\sigma$, is the identity at $q$. Now choose a set of local coordinates $x$ on the left factor of $M$ and denote by $x'$ the same coordinates on the right factor of $M$. Similarly denote the dual coordinates $\xi, \xi'$. Then $(x', \xi)$ form coordinates locally on $L$ near $q$. This follows from the fact that $(x, \xi)$ are coordinates on $L$ due to the fact that $\sigma$ is a canonical transformation, and the fact that $D \sigma$ is the identity, implying that $\partial x'/\partial x$ (keeping $\xi$ fixed) is the identity at $q$. It follows that we can choose the phase function $\Phi$ of the form $\Phi(x, x', \xi)$ where $d_x \Phi = \xi$.
With a phase function chosen as above, consider the integral \eqref{Ttrace}. We introduce a cutoff function $\chi(x, \xi)$ as follows. Given $\epsilon > 0$, we find an open set $U$ containing $L \cap N^* \Delta \times \RR$ with measure difference $| U \setminus (L \cap N^* \Delta \times \RR)|$ less than $\epsilon$. We can also find small enlargements $U_\delta$, $U_{2\delta}$ of $U$ such that the measure difference satisfies $|U_\delta \setminus U| < \epsilon$ and $|U_{2\delta} \setminus U_\delta| < \epsilon$. Let $\chi(x, \xi)$ (interpreted as a function on $L$) be equal to $1$ on $U_\delta$, and supported in $U_{2\delta}$. With $1 - \chi$ inserted in \eqref{Ttrace}, the integral is $O( C(\epsilon) h^{1-n})$ using the argument of case 1, since the differential of $\tPhi$ does not vanish on the support of $1 - \chi$. With $\chi$ inserted, we obtain the integral
$$
(2\pi h)^{-n} \int_{\RR^n} e^{i\tPhi(x, \xi)/h} a(x, x, \xi, h) \chi(x, \xi) \, dx \, d\xi
$$
As $\epsilon \to 0$, the function $\chi$ tends to the characteristic function of $\Fix(\sigma)$ almost everywhere. Therefore, using the dominated convergence theorem, we find that
$$
\Tr T_h = (2\pi h)^{-n} \Big( \int_{\Fix(\sigma)} e^{i\Phi(x, x, \xi)/h} a(x, x, \xi, h) \, dx \, d\xi + o(1) \Big) + O(C(\epsilon) h^{1-n}).
$$
Here the $o(1)$ is as $\epsilon \to 0$, coming from replacing $\chi$ with its limit, the characteristic function of $\Fix(\sigma)$. Choosing $h$ small enough, we have
$O(C(\epsilon) h^{1-n}) = o(h^{-n})$. Finally we note that in these coordinates, the symbol of $T$ is $a(x, \xi) |dx d\xi|^{1/2}$ (and the Maslov factors are trivial since $T$ is associated to a canonical transformation $\sigma$ with $D \sigma$ equal to the identity at $q$). This completes the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:tr}.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
Interfaces between different materials are subjects of great current interest due to the possibility of exploiting various (emerging) properties of these structures. One such promising hybrid system is characterized by an interface between an ordinary $s$-wave superconductor (SC) and a semiconductor (SM) with strong spin-orbit coupling.\cite{Reich,Brouwer_Science, Wilczek2012} It has been shown recently\cite{Sau2010, Alicea2010, Lutchyn2010, Oreg2010} that, by combining these two conventional materials, one can realize in the SM a topological $p$-wave superconducting state that hosts exotic Majorana zero-energy modes.\cite{ReadGreen, Kitaev:2001, SrRu,FuKane} The defects carrying these modes obey non-Abelian braiding statistics,\cite{Moore1991, Nayak1996, ReadGreen, Ivanov} and can be utilized for topological quantum computation.\cite{TQCreview} The promise of engineering exotic physics using well-known generic materials has excited the experimental community, and there are significant experimental efforts aimed at finding Majorana zero-energy states in SM-SC hybrid structures,\cite{Mourik2012, Rokhinson2012, Das2012, Deng2012, Fink2012, Churchill2013} following the nanowire proposal of Refs.~\onlinecite{Lutchyn2010, Oreg2010}. Most of these experiments\cite{Mourik2012, Das2012, Deng2012, Fink2012, Churchill2013} pursued the detection of a zero-bias conductance peak associated with the Majorana modes through tunneling transport measurements and found the appearance of the peak at a finite magnetic field, as predicted.\cite{ZeroBiasAnomaly0,ZeroBiasAnomaly1,ZeroBiasAnomaly2,ZeroBiasAnomaly3,ZeroBiasAnomaly31, ZeroBiasAnomaly4,ZeroBiasAnomaly5,ZeroBiasAnomaly6, 1DwiresLutchyn2, ZeroBiasAnomaly61, ZeroBiasAnomaly7} However, a serious and persistent problem has been that, in addition to the peak, these experiments reveal a substantial subgap conductance, the origin of which has been mysterious, controversial, and highly problematic from the perspective of a theoretical interpretation of the experimental data. Furthermore, this soft-gap feature is the main roadblock for Majorana-based quantum computing proposals,\cite{AliceaBraiding, SauWireNetwork, ClarkeBraiding, TopologicalQuantumBus, BraidingWithoutTransport} which require a hard gap (i.e. vanishing subgap conductance) in the low-energy spectrum.\cite{ChengPRB'12}
In this article we develop a theory of the proximity effect in superconductor--semiconductor--normal-metal (SC-SM-NM) nanostructures that provides an explanation for the origin of the observed ``soft-gap,'' a feature originally designating the substantial subgap conductance revealed by the transport measurements on nanowire-SC hybrid structures.\cite{Mourik2012, Das2012, Deng2012, Fink2012, Churchill2013} We demonstrate that the very presence of a metallic lead coupled to the nanowire (i.e., even in the absence of a tunneling current) modifies the low-energy local density of states (LDOS) in the SC region of the wire and might generate a smooth subgap background, i.e., a soft gap. In other words, the normal metal itself produces an undesirable proximity effect on the SM wire, partially filling the proximity gap induced by the SC. In addition to transport, this effect could be revealed by, e.g., a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) measurement on a SC-SM-NM structure.
Using an effective model, we calculate the LDOS and the tunneling conductance in realistic settings and show that the states responsible for the soft gap are associated with low-lying occupied bands in the nanowire, which hybridize with the NM states and generate the subgap background due to the vastly varying transmission probabilities for different transverse subbands. Indeed, different transverse subbands are characterized by different hybridization couplings across the barrier with the highest (lowest)-occupied modes being most weakly (strongly) coupled to the NM lead. Given that the Majorana peak is due to states from the highest-occupied band, its experimental observation requires lowering the confining potential barrier, which, in turn, increases the transmission probability for the lowest-occupied subbands. When this transmission probability becomes of order one (i.e. strong coupling limit for the given band), the hybridization with the metal generates the subgap background.
We note that previous studies\cite{AkhmerovPRL'11,PradaPRB'12,PientkaPRL'12,RainisPRB'13}
have concluded that one cannot exactly reproduce the substantial background subgap density of states seen in the experiments.\cite{Mourik2012, Das2012, Deng2012, Fink2012, Churchill2013} The origin of the soft-gap was attributed to some extrinsic mechanisms, i.e. interface disorder.\cite{TakeiPRL'13} In this article, we explicitly show the role of multiband occupancy and of band-selective SM-NM coupling in the emergence, even in a clean system, of the soft-gap and argue that this multiband intrinsic model provides a natural explanation of the experimental results.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{FFig1.pdf}
\vspace{-8mm}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Differential conductance versus voltage for different values of the barrier strength $Z$. The curves, illustrating the main result of the BTK theory, correspond to zero temperature and are normalized by multiplying $dI/dV$ with the normal-state resistance $R_N$ (see Ref. \onlinecite{BTK}). In the strong-barrier limit ($Z\rightarrow\infty$) $dI/dV$ is proportional to the density of states in the superconductor, but the two quantities become completely unrelated in the weak-barrier regime.}
\vspace{-4mm}
\label{FFig1}
\end{figure}
\section{The intrinsic soft-gap mechanism: A qualitative picture}
In this section we provide a qualitative picture of the soft-gap mechanism that summarizes our technical results. For clarity, we would like to emphasize from the very beginning two key points. 1) This is an ``intrinsic'' mechanism that links the emergence of a smooth in-gap background -- the soft-gap -- to the presence of a metallic lead strongly coupled to the semiconductor nanowire. In addition, in real structures, there may be
``extrinsic'' contributions generated, for example, by interface disorder and potential impurities.\cite{Stanescu2011,TakeiPRL'13} In an isolated SM-SC system these states generate sharp subgap spectral features that depend on the specific disorder realization. However, the coupling of the nanowire to a normal-metal lead will broaden these sharp features, leading to a smooth background. Thus, in general, both the intrinsic and the extrinsic mechanisms are expected to contribute to the soft-gap feature.
2) The soft gap occurs due to the coupling of the nanowire to a normal-metal lead used to probe the active SM-SC system in a transport measurement. However, this is not an exclusive transport feature (e.g., a property of the differential conductance $dI/dV$), but also characterizes the equilibrium properties of a NM-SM-SC system (e.g., the local density of states). In other words, if $dI/dV$ is characterized by a soft-gap, the LDOS (inside the barrier region) in the absence of any charge current will also be characterized by a soft-gap. The features associated with these different manifestations of the soft-gap are in one-to-one correspondence.
The soft-gap phenomenon, as manifested in transport measurements, can be understood within the Blonder-Tinkham-Klapwijk (BTK) theory,\cite{BTK} which describes the crossover from metallic to tunnel junction behavior. Let us consider a typical system currently used in Majorana experiments (see, for example, Ref.\onlinecite{Mourik2012}). A certain segment of a SM nanowire is proximity-coupled to an $s$-wave SC, while the remaining part of the wire is coupled to a NM lead through an Ohmic contact. The superconducting segment, which represents the ``active system,'' is separated from the normal part (which represents the probe) by a potential barrier $V(x)$. For simplicity, let us assume that $V(x)=w\delta(x)$. For a given SM nanowire band (say $n$), the transparency of the potential barrier depends on the strength of the potential, $w$, as well as the characteristic Fermi velocity, $v_F^{(n)}$. More specifically, in the normal state (i.e., above some critical temperature) the transmission coefficient is\cite{BTK} $T_n=1/(1+Z_n^2)$, where $Z_n=w/\hbar v_F^{(n)}$ is a band-dependent dimensionless barrier strength. As shown in Fig. \ref{FFig1}, the contribution of band $n$ to the differential conductance $dI/dV$ depends critically on the barrier strength $Z_n$. In the strong-barrier ($Z_n\rightarrow\infty$), i.e., low transparency ($T_n\ll 1$), limit the differential conductance is proportional with the SC density of states, i.e., the density of states characterizing the {\em decoupled} SC segment separated from the probe by an infinite barrier. If there are no in-gap states (as assumed in the calculation shown in Fig. \ref{FFig1}), $dI/dV$ will be characterized in this limit by a ``hard'' gap. By contrast, for low barriers ($Z_n<1$), i.e., high transparencies ($T_n \lesssim 1$), the differential conductance corresponding to values of the bias voltage inside the SC gap (i.e., $eV<\Delta$) becomes finite. As a result, upon lowering the barrier height, the $dI/dV$ hard gap becomes soft and, eventually, is completely filled in (see Fig. \ref{FFig1}).
Based on the above observations, one concludes that the soft-gap phenomenon has to be associated with a high transparency barrier. However, in order to obtain any sharp feature in the tunneling conductance (such as the expected Majorana zero-bias peak), the potential barrier should be in the low-transparency limit for the top occupied SM band, i.e., the band with the lowest $v_F^{(n)}$ value. This top occupied band is, in fact, responsible for the Majorana physics (hence it is sometimes called the Majorana band). Consequently, the soft-gap phenomenon observed in the recent Majorana experiments is based on a mechanism that has two critical ingredients: (i) multiband occupancy and (ii) band-selective coupling to the external probe. The height of the potential barrier is experimentally adjusted to ensure the visibility of the zero-bias peak (ZBP). This corresponds to the top (Majorana) band being in the weak-coupling (low-transparency) limit. However, the barrier potential cannot be too strong because this would lead to a ZBP with vanishingly small weight (i.e., it leads to the disappearance of the ZBP, as we will explicitly show below). Consequently, the potential barrier height has to be within a certain optimal window. These optimal potential values correspond to a highly transparent barrier for the low-energy occupied bands. This leads to a finite $dI/dV$ inside the SC gap, i.e., to the soft-gap phenomenon. Note that single-band models\cite{AkhmerovPRL'11,ScattMat2} do not contain the main ingredients identified above and, consequently, cannot reproduce the background subgap density of states associated with the soft-gap feature.
Next, we turn to the equilibrium manifestation of the soft-gap as revealed by the density of states.
As discussed above, transport measurements provide information on the density of states of the active system {\em only} in the weak tunneling limit ($Z_n \gg 1$, $T_n \ll 1$). However, in a multiband wire this condition might not be satisfied for all occupied bands, since the transparency of the barrier is band dependent. To gain a better understanding of the mixed regime that characterizes systems with both high and low transmission bands, we also calculate the local density of states, a thermodynamic quantity that can be measured using, for example, STM. Since some of the bands are highly transparent, it is critical to take into account the effect of the normal lead in a non perturbative way.
The coupling of a low density SM to an $s$-wave SC and a NM lead generates proximity effects that can be understood within the Green's function framework. Due to the SM-SC proximity effect, the SM wire acquires a spectral gap. This SC proximity effect can be taken into account through a boundary self-energy $\Sigma_{ij}^{\rm SC}(\omega)$ that is due to the exchange of particles between the two subsystems. In addition, the coupling to the normal metal leads to a SM-NM proximity effect that accounts for the hybridization of SM and NM states and can be described by an interface self-energy $\Sigma_{ij}^{\rm NM}(\omega)$ containing both real and imaginary contributions. Thus the density of states in the SM is determined by a combined effect of the SC and the NM. The effect of the normal lead is particularly important for the density of states below the induced SC gap, where nominally (i.e., in an active system {\em without} any lead) the quasiparticle density of states would be zero. In the presence of the SM-NM coupling, the in-gap density of states acquires a finite correction induced by the NM and, consequently, the quasiparticle gap becomes soft.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{FFig2.pdf}
\vspace{-7mm}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Contribution of a hybridized SM state with bare energy $E_0=0$ to the LDOS integrated over the semiconductor nanoribbon volume in a SC-SM-NM structure (lateral view shown in the inset). (a) SM-SC coupling ($\gamma_{SC}\neq 0$, $\gamma_{NM}=0$). The sharp peaks correspond to Bogoliubov quasiparticles with energies given by the induced SC gap $\Delta_{ind}\approx 0.5\Delta_0$. (b) SM-NM coupling ($\gamma_{SC} = 0$, $\gamma_{NM}\neq0$). Each peak corresponds to a SM-NM hybrid state having most of its weight inside the NM and a small tail inside the SM ribbon. (c) Proximity-coupled NM-SM-SC structure ($\gamma_{SC}\neq 0$, $\gamma_{NM}\neq 0$). The hybrid states with energies within the induced SC gap are responsible for the soft-gap phenomenon. The weight of the corresponding peaks depends on the SM-NM coupling strength $\gamma_{NM}$. (d) Same as in panel (c) but for a system with large SC and NM components (with quasi-continuum spectra). The green circles are given by an effective theory obtained by integrating out the SC and NM degrees of freedom (see Sec. \ref{theory}).}
\vspace{-0mm}
\label{FFig2}
\end{figure}
To gain further insight, let us consider a hybrid system consisting of a semiconductor nanoribbon sandwiched between a superconductor and a normal metal, as shown in the inset of Fig. \ref{FFig2}(a). We focus on the contribution to the local density of states (LDOS) integrated over the semiconductor volume of a single SM state (with energy $E_0=0$) that hybridizes with NM and SC states. The effective SM-SC and SM-NM couplings are $\gamma_{SC}$ and $\gamma_{NM}$, respectively (see Sec. \ref{theory} for the exact definition of these quantities), and the bulk SC has a gap $\Delta_0$. The results are shown in Fig. \ref{FFig2}.
Panel (a) corresponds to a SM ribbon proximity coupled to a mesoscopic SC only, i.e., $\gamma_{SC}\neq 0$ and $\gamma_{NM}=0$. The only contributions within the bulk SC gap ($\Delta_0$), i.e., the two sharp peaks, arise from two Bogoliubov quasiparticles with energies $\pm\Delta_{ind}$ corresponding to the proximity-induced SC gap. Note that hybridization with the (discrete) SC states pushes some of the spectral weight above $\Delta_0$.
Panel (b) corresponds to a SM nanoribbon coupled to a mesoscopic NM ($\gamma_{SC}= 0$, $\gamma_{NM}\neq 0$). Each peak corresponds to a hybrid state that has most of its spectral weight inside the NM and a small tail (of weight proportional to the peak height) inside the SM. Panel (c) represents a proximity-coupled NM-SM-SC structure ($\gamma_{SC}\neq 0$, $\gamma_{NM}\neq 0$). Individual peaks correspond to low-energy states characterized by nonzero spectral weight inside all three components of the system. The soft induced gap emerges as an energy-dependent modulation of the spectral weight in the SM tails with maxima near $\pm\Delta_{ind}$. The heterostructure corresponding to panel (d) is the same as in (c), but has large NM and SC components with quasi continuum spectra. The green circles are determined using an effective theory obtained by integrating out the SC and NM degrees of freedom (see Sec. \ref{theory} for details).
We conclude that the soft-gap is due to the emergence of hybrid states with energies within the induced SC gap and finite spectral weight inside the SM nanoribbon. The connection with the transport picture presented above is straightforward. Indeed, for strong-enough SM-NM coupling (which corresponds to Ohmic contact between the SM wire and the NM lead in an experimental hybrid structure), hybrid states with subgap energies extend throughout the whole system and participate to transport. This results in a finite subgap $dI/dV$, i.e., the soft-gap behavior.
We end this section with two important observations. First, we emphasize that in the experimentally relevant configuration the coupling between the SM states and the metallic lead is controlled by two different parameters: the coupling at the SM-NM interface ($\gamma_{NM}$) and the strength/transparency of the potential barrier (i.e., $Z_n$ or $T_n$). The SM-NM coupling has to be strong enough to ensure Ohmic contact between the SM nanowire and the metallic lead. Otherwise, the interface will correspond to a tunnel junction and the measured $dI/dV$ will be proportional to the LDOS on the SM side of the SM-NM junction, which is different from the LDOS at the end of the superconducting segment of the wire (the active system), i.e., the quantity that carries information about Majorana physics, including the ZBP. In other words, if the coupling across the SM-NM interface is weak, the Majorana band, consisting of states that are confined within the SC segment of the wire, will be completely decoupled from the lead and will not generate any measurable signature. The other parameter -- the strength of the potential barrier -- is responsible for the band-selective coupling between the SM states and the probe. In a multiband system, the optimal condition for the observation of the Majorana ZBP may correspond to a high-transparency barrier for the low-energy occupied bands, which leads to the soft-gap phenomenon. Note that the relative transparencies of these bands depend strongly on the profile of the barrier potential. In particular, for experimentally relevant wide barriers (with characteristic widths of the order of $100$ nm) the high- (low-) transparency condition for the low-energy (Majorana) bands is naturally satisfied, while for a narrow square potential barrier the high-transparency condition $T_n\lesssim1$ may not be satisfied in a system with a small number of occupied bands. Consequently, multiband calculations based on a narrow square potential (e.g., Ref. \onlinecite{PientkaPRL'12}) may not capture the soft-gap phenomenology.
Our second comment concerns the role of extrinsic effects, in particular that of interface disorder.\cite{TakeiPRL'13} The presence of disorder leads to the proliferation of low-energy subgap states. If the disorder is characterized by a short characteristic length scale, it strongly affects the low-energy bands with $1/k_F^{(n)}$ comparable with this characteristic length. Consequently, the (isolated) active system will have a nonvanishing subgap density of states characterized by discrete spectral features. Upon turning on the coupling to the probe, these features evolve into a smooth background. We note that, at finite temperature, thermal effects will contribute to an additional broadening of the spectral features (e.g., of the order $k_B T$ for the differential conductance).
In general, both the extrinsic effect and the intrinsic mechanism described in this work are expected to contribute to the soft-gap phenomenon with relative contributions that depend on the details of the system (e.g., quality of the wire and of the SM-SC interface, barrier potential profile, barrier height, etc.). As demonstrated by this study, eliminating the extrinsic contributions (i.e., engineering clean structures) does not guarantee the absence of the soft-gap feature. Also, while increasing the gate potential can result in a hard gap, this also suppresses the weight of the Majorana-induced ZBP, which may become unobservable. As we will discuss in more detail in Sec. \ref{results}, the practical solution for obtaining a hard gap {\em and} an observable ZBP involves engineering clean structures plus low occupancy and narrow potential barriers.
\section{Theoretical modeling} \label{theory}
\subsection{Effective tight-binding model}
The Hamiltonian describing the NM-SM-SC heterostructure has the generic form\cite{Stanescu2011}
\begin{equation}
H^{\rm tot} = H^{\rm SM} + H^{\rm V} + H^{\rm SC} + H^{\rm NM} + H^{\rm SM-SC} + H^{\rm SM-NM}, \label{Htot}
\end{equation}
where the terms on the right-hand side represent the contributions from the SM wire, gate potential, bulk SC, NM contact, SM-SC coupling, and SM-NM coupling, respectively. These contributions are incorporated using realistic tight-binding models that include on-site and nearest-neighbor terms defined on cubic lattices with a lattice constant $a$. The SM wire has a rectangular cross section and characteristic length scales $L_x \gg L_y \gg L_z$. The thin-wire assumption ($L_z\ll L_y$) is made to avoid complications arising from the thickness dependence of the SC proximity effect which has already been studied elsewhere.\cite{Stanescu2013a} The relevant parameters are the lattice constant $a = 6.48$ \AA, the lengths of the superconducting ($L_S$) and normal ($L_N$) segments of the wire ($L_S+L_N = L_x$), the height of the potential barrier $V_b^{max}$, the nearest-neighbor hopping
$t_{SM}=5.67$ eV, the Rashba spin-orbit coupling $\alpha_R=200.0$ meV$ $\AA, and the Zeeman splitting $\Gamma$.
The semiconductor wire is described by a tight-binding model with nearest-neighbor hopping on a cubic lattice and includes the effects of spin-orbit coupling. Explicitly,
\begin{align}
H^{\rm SM} = H_0 +H_{\rm SOI} = -t_{SM}\sum_{{\bm i}, {\bm \delta}, \sigma}c_{{\bm i}\!+\!{\bm \delta}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{{\bm i}\sigma} -\mu \sum_{{\bm i}, \sigma} c_{{\bm i}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{{\bm i}\sigma} \nonumber \\
+ \frac{i \alpha}{2}\sum_{{\bm i},{\bm \delta}}\left[ c_{{\bm i}+{\bm \delta}_x}^{\dagger}{\sigma}_y c_{{\bm i}} - c_{{\bm i}+{\bm \delta}_y}^{\dagger}{\sigma}_x c_{{\bm i}} + {\rm h.c.} \right], \label{Eq2}
\end{align}
where $H_0$ includes the first two terms and describes nearest--neighbor hopping on a simple cubic lattice with amplitude $t_{SM}$ for a system with chemical potential $\mu$ and the last term represents the Rashba spin-orbit interaction. Here, ${\bm i}=(i_x, i_y,i_z)$ labels the lattice sites and ${\bm \delta}\in\{{\bm \delta}_x, {\bm \delta}_y, {\bm \delta}_z\}$ are nearest--neighbor position vectors. In the calculations we consider a cubic lattice with a lattice constant $a = 6.48$ \AA and we use a value for the hopping matrix element $t_{SM}=5.67$ eV, which corresponds to an effective mass $m_{eff}=0.016m_0$ that characterizes the conduction band of InSb. The coefficient of the Rashba spin-orbit coupling is $\alpha_R=\alpha a=200.0$ meV \AA. The wires considered in the numerical calculations have a rectangular profile with $(L_x, L_y, L_z)$ lattice sites along the $x$, $y$, and $z$ direction, respectively. The wire of length $L_x = L_N+L_{S}=3859$ lattice sites has a normal segment of length 1.1 $\mu$m ($L_N=1700$) partly covered by the normal metal and a segment of length $a L_S=$ 1.4 $\mu$m coupled to the SC [see Fig. \ref{FFig3}(a)]. The width of the wire is 110 \AA ($L_y=170$) and the thickness is 25 \AA ($L_z=38$). In the presence of a magnetic field oriented parallel to the wire, the Hamiltonian (\ref{Eq2}) is supplemented by a Zeeman term $H_{\Gamma}= \Gamma \sum_{{\bm i}}[c_{{\bm i}\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{{\bm i}\downarrow} + h.c.]$, where $\Gamma$ is the Zeeman splitting.
The confining gate potential is described by a purely local contribution to the Hamiltonian,
\begin{equation}
H^{\rm V} = \sum_{{\bm i}, \sigma} V_b(i) c_{{\bm i}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{{\bm i}\sigma}, \label{Eq3}
\end{equation}
with $V_b(x) = V_b^{max}\exp[{-(x-x_b)^2/w_b^2}]$, where $V_b^{max}$ is the height of the gate-induced potential barrier, $x_b$ gives the location of barrier [e.g., $x_b=$0.97 $\mu$m in Fig. \ref{FFig3}(a)], and $w_b=52$ nm is the characteristic width of the barrier.
The superconductor is described at the mean-field level using a simple tight-binding Hamiltonian characterized by a constant pairing amplitude $\Delta_0=1.5$ meV.\cite{Stanescu2013b} Explicitly, we have
\begin{equation}
H^{SC} = \sum_{{\bm i}, {\bm j}, \sigma} \left(t_{ij}^{sc} - \mu_{SC}\delta_{\bm i \bm j}\right) a_{{\bm i}\sigma}^\dagger a_{{\bm j}\sigma} + \Delta_0\sum_{\bm i} (a_{{\bm i}\uparrow}^\dagger a_{{\bm i}\downarrow}^\dagger + a_{{\bm i}\downarrow}a_{{\bm i}\uparrow}), \label{Eq4}
\end{equation}
where $i$ and $j$ label SC lattice sites, $a_{i\sigma}^\dagger$ is the creation operator corresponding to a single-particle state with spin $\sigma$ localized near site $i$, the hopping matrix elements are nonzero, $t_{ij}^{sc}=t_{SC}$, only if $i$ and $j$ are nearest neighbors, and $\mu_{SC}$ represents the chemical potential of the SC. Similarly, the normal-metal lead is modeled using a tight-binding Hamiltonian with nearest-neighbor hopping on a cubic lattice with the same lattice constant $a = 6.48$ \AA. Explicitly,
\begin{equation}
H^{NM} = \sum_{{\bm i}, {\bm j}, \sigma} \left(t_{ij}^{nm} - \mu_{NM}\delta_{\bm i \bm j}\right) b_{{\bm i}\sigma}^\dagger b_{{\bm j}\sigma}, \ \label{Eq5}
\end{equation}
where $t_{ij}^{nm}=t_{NM}$ if $i$ and $j$ are nearest neighbors and zero otherwise.
The coupling terms in Eq.~(\ref{Htot}) include nearest-neighbor hopping across the SM-SC and SM-NM interfaces with amplitudes $\tilde{t}_{\rm SC}$ and $\tilde{t}_{\rm NM}$, respectively. Explicitly, the coupling terms can be written as
\begin{align}
H^{SM-SC}=\sum_{\bm i_1, \bm j_1, \sigma}\left[\tilde{t}_{SC} c_{\bm i_1 \sigma}^\dagger a_{\bm j_1\sigma} + h.c.\right], \ \label{Eq6} \\
H^{SM-NM}=\sum_{\bm i_2, \bm j_2, \sigma}\left[\tilde{t}_{NM} c_{\bm i_2 \sigma}^\dagger b_{\bm j_2\sigma} + h.c.\right], \label{Eq7}
\end{align}
where $\bm i_1=(i_x, i_y, i_{1z})$ and $\bm j_1=(j_x, j_y, j_{1z})$ label lattice sites near the SM-SC interface inside the SM and SC regions, respectively, $\bm i_2$ and $\bm j_2$ are neighboring sites across the SM-NM interface, while $\tilde{t}_{SC}$ and $\tilde{t}_{NM}$ are the hopping matrix elements that characterize the couplings across the two interfaces.
The effective low-energy theory for the proximity effects at the SM-SC and SM-NM interfaces can be obtained using a Green's function formalism by integrating out the SC and NM degrees of freedom. The effective Green's function has the form
\begin{equation}
G_{ij}(\omega) =\left[\omega \delta_{ij} - H_{ij}^{\rm SM} - H_{ij}^{\rm V} -\Sigma_{ij}^{\rm SC}(\omega)-\Sigma_{ij}^{\rm NM}(\omega)\right]^{-1}. \label{Geff}
\end{equation}
Here $i$ and $j$ are spatial indices and the proximity-induced SM self-energies are proportional to the surface Green's functions of the SC and NM, respectively.\cite{Stanescu2013b} For example, integrating out the SC degrees of freedom results in a local self-energy contribution to the SM Green's function,
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_{{\bm i}_1, {\bm i}_1^\prime}^{SC}(\omega) = |\tilde{t}_{SC}|^2 G_{SC} (\omega, {\bm j}_1, {\bm j}_1^\prime), \label{Eq8}
\end{equation}
where $G_{SC}$ is the Green's function of the superconductor, which contains both normal and anomalous contributions, and $\tilde{t}_{SC}$ is the hopping across the SM-SC interface between the pairs of sites $(i_1, j_1)$ and $(i_1^\prime, j_1^\prime)$. Next, we assume that the SC is described by the Hamiltonian from Eq. (\ref{Eq4}) and calculate the Green's function $G_{SC}$. A major simplification results from the observation that $G_{SC} (\omega, {\bm j}_1, {\bm j}_1^\prime)= G_{SC} (\omega, |{\bm j}_1- {\bm j}_1^\prime|)$ is a short-range function of $|{\bm j}_1- {\bm j}_1^\prime|$ that decays much faster than $1/k_{SM}$, where $k_{SM}$ is some characteristic wave vector of the SM (e.g., the largest Fermi $k$ vector in a multiband system). Consequently, we can use the local approximation $G_{SC} (\omega, |{\bm j}_1- {\bm j}_1^\prime|)\approx G_{SC} (\omega, 0)$. Within this approximation, the self-energy (\ref{Eq8}) induced by the superconductor will correspond to a local contribution acting at the SM-SC interface. Similar considerations hold for the self-energy that results by integrating out the normal-metal degrees of freedom.
In the relevant long-wavelength low-energy regime of interest, these self-energies generate local contributions at the SM-SC and SM-NM interfaces having the explicit forms
\begin{align}
\!\Sigma_{ij}^{\rm SC} (\omega)\!&\!=\! - \! \delta_{ij}\delta_{i_z, 0}\!\left(\!\gamma_{\rm SC}\frac{\omega \!+\!\sigma_y \tau_y \Delta_0}{\sqrt{\Delta_0^2\!-\!\omega^2}} \!+\! \gamma_{\rm SC}\frac{2|t_{\rm SC}|\!-\!\mu_{\rm SC}}{2t_{\rm SC}^2\nu(\mu_{\rm SC})}\!\right)\! \label{SigSC} \\
\!\Sigma_{ij}^{\rm NM} (\omega)\!&\!= -\delta_{ij}\delta_{i_z, 0}\left(i~\gamma_{\rm NM}+\gamma_{\rm NM}\frac{2|t_{\rm NM}|-\mu_{\rm NM}}{2t_{\rm NM}^2\nu(\mu_{\rm NM})}\right), \label{SigNM}
\end{align}
\noindent where $\mu_{\rm SC}$ and $\mu_{\rm NM}$ are the Fermi energies of SC and NM, respectively, and $\sigma_i$ and $\tau_i$ are Pauli matrices in the spin and particle-hole spaces, respectively. The effective couplings $\gamma_{\rm SC}$ and
$\gamma_{\rm NM}$ can be expressed as $\gamma_{\rm x}= \nu(\mu_{\rm x})\tilde{t}_{\rm x}^2/2$, where ${\rm x}$ represents the SC or the NM,
in terms of the surface density of states at the Fermi level, $\nu(\mu_{\rm x})= \sqrt{1 - (2t_{\rm x}-\mu_{\rm x})^2/4t_{\rm x}^2}/|t_{\rm x}|$, and
the tunneling amplitudes at the interfaces, $\tilde{t}_{\rm SC}$ and $\tilde{t}_{\rm NM}$.\cite{Stanescu2013b}
We note that Eq. (\ref{SigSC}) holds for energies within the bulk SC gap, i.e., for $-\Delta_0 <\omega <\Delta_0$. We also note that for an arbitrary strength of the SM-SC coupling, $\gamma_{SC}$, the induced gap does not have a simple analytic expression and, moreover, depends nontrivially on the thickness of the SM wire.\cite{Stanescu2013a} However, in the weak-coupling limit characterized by $\gamma_{SC} \ll \Delta_0$, where $\Delta_0$ is the bulk SC gap, and $\gamma_{SC}$ is much smaller than the interband spacing, we have
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{ind}= \frac{\gamma_{SC} \Delta_0}{\gamma_{SC} + \Delta_0}. \label{Eq9}
\end{equation}
We also note that, in the most general case, the effective SM-SC coupling can be different for different SM bands and that proximity-mediated interband couplings are possible. These refinements are not considered in the present work, which focuses on the effects of the SM-NM coupling rather than the proximity effect induced at the SM-SC interface, which has already been extensively studied in the literature.
To calculate the local density of states (LDOS) inside the SM wire, we determine the SM Green's function matrix in Eq. (2), $G_{ij}(\omega)=\left[\omega \delta_{ij} - H_{ij}^{\rm SM} - H_{ij}^{\rm V} -\Sigma_{ij}^{\rm SC}(\omega)-\Sigma_{ij}^{\rm NM}(\omega)\right]^{-1}$, by numerically performing the matrix inversion for $H_{ij}^{\rm SM}$ and $H_{ij}^{\rm V}$ corresponding to Eqs. (\ref{Eq2}) and (\ref{Eq3}), respectively, and the self-energies given by Eqs. (3) and (4). If ${\cal R}$ is a certain region of the wire (e.g., the barrier region, or the segment covered by the SC), the LDOS integrated over ${\cal R}$ (notation $DOS_{\cal R}$) is given by
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\cal R}(\omega) = -\frac{1}{\pi} \sum_{i \in {\cal R}} {\rm Im}[G_{ii}(\omega)]. \label{Eq10}
\end{equation}
To test the accuracy of the effective theory given by Eqs. (\ref{Geff}), (\ref{SigSC}), and (\ref{SigNM}), we have calculated the LDOS integrated over the SM volume for the SC-SM-NM layered structure shown schematically in the inset of Fig. \ref{FFig2}a and compared the results with the LDOS obtained by exactly diagonalizing the full Hamiltonian (which is straightforward in this geometry). The excellent agreement between the two calculations is shown in Fig. \ref{FFig2}(d).
\subsection{Differential conductance}
The differential conductance calculations are performed using a simplified model consisting of two coupled chains.
We note that implementing this technique using the more sophisticated model described by Eqs. (\ref{Htot}-\ref{Eq7}) is straightforward, but involves substantial numerical costs that are not justified by our main goal (i.e., to show that the manifestations of the soft-gap phenomenon in the LDOS and in $dI/dV$ are related and stem from the same source).
Specifically, the SM wire is modeled using a Hamiltonian similar to that from Eq. (\ref{Eq2}), but having the proximity-induced SC gap already included at the mean-field level:
\begin{align}
H^{\rm SM} = -\sum_{{\bm i}, {\bm \delta},\sigma} \left[ t_{SM}c_{{\bm i}\!+\!{\delta_x}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{{\bm i}\sigma}+ t_{SM}^{\perp}c_{{\bm i}\!+\!{\delta_y}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{{\bm i}\sigma}\right] \nonumber \\
-\mu \sum_{{\bm i}, \sigma} c_{{\bm i}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{{\bm i}\sigma} \nonumber
+\Gamma \sum_{{\bm i}}[c_{{\bm i}\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{{\bm i}\downarrow} + h.c.]~~~~~ \\
+ \frac{i}{2}\sum_{{\bm i},{\bm \delta}}\left[\alpha c_{{\bm i}+{\bm \delta}_x}^{\dagger}{\sigma}_y c_{{\bm i}} - \alpha^{\perp} c_{{\bm i}+{\bm \delta}_y}^{\dagger}{\sigma}_x c_{{\bm i}} + {\rm h.c.} \right], \label{Eq11} \\
+ \Delta_{ind}\sum_{\bm i}^{(i_x>L_N)} (c_{{\bm i}\uparrow}^\dagger c_{{\bm i}\downarrow}^\dagger + c_{{\bm i}\downarrow}c_{{\bm i}\uparrow}), ~~~~~~~~~ \nonumber
\end{align}
where ${\bm i} = (i_x, i_y)$ with $i_y=1, 2$ gives the position along the two chains, $(t_{SM}, t_{SM}^{\perp})$ and $(\alpha, \alpha^{\perp})$ are the intra-chain and and inter-chain hoppings and Rashba coefficients, respectively, $\mu$ is the chemical potential, and $\Gamma$ is the Zeeman field. The normal segment of the double chain corresponds to the first $L_N$ sites, while the rest of the double chain is coupled to the SC and, as a result, has an induced pairing potential $\Delta_{ind}$. Note that including the pair potential directly into the SM Hamiltonian corresponds to the static approximation $\sqrt{\Delta_0^2-\omega^2}\approx \Delta_0$ in Eq. (\ref{SigSC}) for the self-energy (see, for example, Ref. \onlinecite{Stanescu2013b} concerning the accuracy of this approximation).
A potential barrier given by Eq. (\ref{Eq3}) is applied in the region that separates the normal and superconducting segments [see Fig. \ref{FFig3}(a)]. The normal segment of the wire is in contact with a metallic lead also described by a double-chain model corresponding to Hamiltonian (\ref{Eq5}). The parameters used in the calculation correspond to an effective mass $m_{eff}^{SM} = 0.016m_0$ for the semiconductor wire and $m_{eff}^{NM} = 0.4 m_0$ for the metallic lead. The interchain coupling $t_{SM}^{\perp}=4$ meV corresponds to a splitting of $8$ meV between the two SM bands. The Rashba coefficients are $\alpha a=200.0$ meV \AA and $\alpha^{\perp}=0$.
Following the standard scattering matrix formalism, we solve the eigenvalue problem for the full tight-binding Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) Hamiltonian with open boundary conditions and determine the normal and anomalous reflection amplitudes. More specifically, let us assume that the transverse modes corresponding to the multichain problem are described by the wave functions $\Phi_n(i_y)$, where for two chains $n$ takes two values corresponding to the symmetric and antisymmetric modes, and consider an incoming electron with spin $\sigma$ in channel $n$. The wave function of energy $E$ is a four-component spinor with values on the first two sites of the lead given by
\begin{align}
\Psi_{i_x=0}^{(n,\sigma)} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\delta_{\sigma\uparrow} \\
\delta_{\sigma\downarrow} \\
0 \\
0
\end{array}\right)\Phi_n
+\sum_{n^\prime}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
r^N_{n n^\prime, \sigma\uparrow} \\
r^N_{n n^\prime, \sigma\downarrow} \\
r^A_{n n^\prime, \sigma\uparrow} \\
r^A_{n n^\prime, \sigma\downarrow}
\end{array}\right)\Phi_n^\prime \label{Eq12}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\Psi_{i_x=1}^{(n,\sigma)} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\delta_{\sigma\uparrow} \\
\delta_{\sigma\downarrow} \\
0 \\
0
\end{array}\right)\Phi_n e^{ik_e^n a}
+\sum_{n^\prime}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
r^N_{n n^\prime, \sigma\uparrow} \\
r^N_{n n^\prime, \sigma\downarrow} \\
0 \\
0
\end{array}\right)\Phi_n^\prime e^{-ik_e^{n^\prime} a} \nonumber \\
+\sum_{n^\prime}\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
r^A_{n n^\prime, \sigma\uparrow} \\
r^A_{n n^\prime, \sigma\downarrow}
\end{array}\right)\Phi_n^\prime e^{ik_h^{n^\prime} a}, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \label{Eq13}
\end{align}
where $r^N(E)$ and $r^A(E)$ represent normal and anomalous reflection coefficients corresponding to different incoming and outgoing channels. The electron and hole wave vectors corresponding to an eigenstate with energy $E$ satisfy the equations $E_{NM}^n(k_e^n)-\mu_{NM} = E$ and $E_{NM}^n(k_h^n)-\mu_{NM} = -E$, respectively. Here $E_{NM}^n(k)$ is the energy of the normal lead corresponding to the transverse mode $n$.
After solving the eigenvalue problem numerically and determining the reflection coefficients over the relevant energy range, we calculate the zero-temperature differential conductance, $G_0(V) = \frac{dI}{dV}$, using the anomalous reflection amplitudes,
\begin{equation}
\frac{dI}{dV} = \frac{2e^2}{h} \sum_{n, n^\prime}\sum_{\sigma\sigma^\prime} |r^A_{n n^\prime, \sigma\sigma^\prime}(V)|^2. \label{Eq14}
\end{equation}
The finite temperature conductance can be obtained by convolving $G_0$ with the derivative of the Fermi function,
\begin{equation}
G(V, T) = \int d\omega G_0(\omega) \frac{1}{4 T \cosh^2[(V-\omega)/2T]}. \label{Eq15}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{FFig3.pdf}
\vspace{-8mm}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Schematic representation of a SM Majorana wire proximity coupled to a NM and a SC (top view). A barrier potential $V_b(x)$ is applied in the region of the wire that is not covered by the NM or the SC. (b) Spectrum of the SM wire in the absence of coupling ($\gamma_{SC(NM)}=0$). The chemical potential is placed near the bottom of the third band. (c) Local density of states integrated over the barrier region (i.e., around $x=$1 $\mu$m) for a wire coupled to the NM (only). The smooth background is due to states from the low-energy bands that penetrate through the barrier and hybridize strongly with NM states. The peaks correspond to states from the top occupied band that are confined to the right side of the barrier and hybridize very weakly with the NM. }
\vspace{-4mm}
\label{FFig3}
\end{figure}
\section{Results}\label{results}
\subsection{Emergence of the soft-gap in clean semiconductor-superconductor hybrid structures}
Consider a SC-SM-NM hybrid structure consisting of a SM nanowire proximity coupled to an $s$-wave SC and a normal-metal lead, as shown schematically in Fig. \ref{FFig3}(a). The structure is modeled by the Hamiltonian given by Eq. (\ref{Htot}) and the partial density of states obtained by integrating the LDOS over the barrier region (i.e., the short nanowire segment that is not covered by the SC or the NM) is determined using the effective theory described in the previous section.
First, we focus on the proximity effect due to the coupling to the normal lead and set $\tilde{t}_{SC}=0$. We assume that the SM wire has several occupied subbands in the absence of the lead, as shown in Fig.~\ref{FFig3}(b). The dependence of the LDOS on the {bias potential} for a nonzero coupling to the lead, $\gamma_{NM}=0.2$ meV, is shown in Fig.~\ref{FFig3}(c). Note that the confining barrier potential $V_b$ affects very differently the states corresponding to different transverse subbands. The smooth background in Fig.~\ref{FFig3}(c) is due to states from the low-energy SM bands that penetrate through the barrier and hybridize strongly with the normal metal, whereas the peaks originate from the top occupied subband and correspond to states that are confined to the right side of the barrier and hybridize very weakly with the NM. We note that increasing the strength of the potential barrier has two effects. (i) The weight of the sharp peaks decreases as the states from the topmost occupied band are pushed out of the barrier region. Eventually, these peaks are no longer observable. (ii) The modulation of the smooth background increases and, eventually, this background develops into a discrete set of peaks corresponding to states from the low-energy occupied bands. The peaks associated with a particular band emerge when the corresponding states are confined by the barrier potential within the SC segment of the wire. The broadening induced by the imaginary part of $\Sigma^{\rm NM}$ from Eq. (\ref{SigNM}) becomes negligible, as these states have exponentially vanishing amplitudes outside the SC region, more specifically at the SM-NM interface.
Next, we discuss the quasiparticle DOS in the presence of both couplings, $\tilde{t}_{\rm SC}, \tilde{t}_{\rm NM} \neq 0$, at $\Gamma=0$. Note that the soft-gap is a qualitative feature of the multiband NM-SM-SC system that is independent of the applied magnetic field. The results for the (total) DOS in nanowire are shown in Fig.\ref{FFig4}(a). Notice the substantial background contribution. To identify its origin, it is instructive to calculate the local density of states integrated over the relevant segments of the wire. Specifically, we divide the nanowire into three regions: (1) the segment of the nanowire covered by the normal lead, (2) the portion covered by the superconductor, and (3) the uncovered portion of the nanowire where the confining gate potential is applied. The contributions to the DOS from regions (1)-(3) are shown in Figs. \ref{FFig4}(b)-\ref{FFig4}(d), respectively. Similar to the normal
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{FFig4.pdf}
\vspace{-8mm}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Density of states (inside the SM wire) at zero Zeeman field in the presence of both NM and SC couplings. (a) Total DOS inside the SM wire. (b) LDOS integrated over the region covered by the NM contact. (c) LDOS integrated over the SC region. (d) LDOS integrated over the barrier region. Note that the {sharp} peaks are due states that are confined to the SC region (and penetrate slightly inside the barrier region). Parameters: $\gamma_{SC}=0.5$ meV, $\gamma_{NM}=0.1$ meV, $\Gamma=0$, and $V_b^{max}=5$ meV.}
\vspace{-4mm}
\label{FFig4}
\end{figure}
case shown in Fig. \ref{FFig3}(c), the density of states in the wire consists of a superposition of smooth contributions given either by delocalized states that span the whole length of the nanowire or by states that are confined inside the normal region and sharp peaks emerging from the states confined inside the superconducting segment. Note that the states responsible for the sharp features correspond to the topmost occupied band (the Majorana band), which are confined inside the SC segment and, consequently, hybridize very weakly with the normal lead.
\subsection{Comparison between LDOS and transport soft-gap features}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{FFig5.pdf}
\vspace{-7mm}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Differential conductance and LDOS (integrated over the barrier region -- $DOS_V$) calculated using the double-chain model. The sharp features represent the conductance of a system with a single occupied band ($n_b=1$) at zero temperature, $T=0$ (filled black lines). Notice the quantization of the Majorana-induced zero-bias peak. At finite temperature ($T=65$ mK), the sharp features (including the Majorana peak) become suppressed (red line). No background that could be associated with the soft-gap phenomenon exists for $n_b=1$. $DOS_V$ (not shown) has a similar structure. When two SM bands are occupied ($n_b=2$), both $dI/dV$ (red line with yellow filling) and $DOS_V$ (blue line) show a zero-bias peak on top of a substantial smooth background. The Majorana peak is strongly suppressed at finite temperature (here $T=65$ mK), but the background is practically independent of $T$. In all these calculations the Zeeman field is $\Gamma=0.4$ meV.}
\vspace{-0mm}
\label{FFig5}
\end{figure}
As we have argued above, the soft-gap phenomenon is due to the band-selective coupling between the SM states and the metallic lead and can be understood as a band-dependent combination of metallic and tunnel junction behavior. The soft-gap behavior manifests itself in transport (as a substantial subgap contribution to the differential conductance), as well as in the local density of states. In other words, the critical ingredient is the presence of a metallic lead coupled to the nanowire and not the existence of an actual, nonzero charge current in the system. To firmly establish these points, we calculate both $dI/dV$ and the LDOS using the double-chain model for two different cases: (a) single-band occupancy (the chemical potential $\mu_{SM}$ is positioned near the bottom of the lowest energy band) and (b) two-band occupancy ($\mu_{SM}$ near the bottom of the second band). The results are shown in Fig. \ref{FFig5}. These results clearly support three main conclusions. (1) The soft-gap requires multiband occupancy. Since many of the previous model calculations were done in the one-dimensional limit (i.e., on a single chain), they were not able to capture this phenomenon. (2) The soft gap observed in the tunneling conductance, $dI/dV$, and in the LDOS integrated over the barrier region, $DOS_V$, are two manifestations of the same phenomenon, i.e., the result of the strong coupling to the normal lead. (3) The (intrinsic) soft-gap can be clearly eliminated by either realizing the single-band occupancy limit, or by completely eliminating the metallic lead (i.e., using a probe other than transport to observe the Majorana bound states). A third possibility involving reduced occupancy in combination with an optimized barrier potential will be discussed below.
\subsection{Controlling the soft-gap feature}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{FFig6.pdf}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) (a) Magnetic field dependence of the LDOS integrated over the barrier region for a system described by Eqs. (\ref{Geff}), (\ref{SigSC}), and (\ref{SigNM}) with $\gamma_{NM}=0.1$ meV, $\gamma_{SC}=0.5$ meV, and $L_S=$1.1 $\mu$m. (b) Differential conductance for a double-chain wire with
$\Delta_{ind}=0.25$ meV, $L_S=$1.1 $\mu$m, and $T=0.65$ mK. The curves (shifted for clarity) correspond to Zeeman fields from 0 (bottom) to 0.8 meV (top). A Majorana peak emerges above a certain critical field and splits at high Zeeman fields. Note the close correspondence between the two types of calculations which involve systems described by different models and having different parameters.}
\vspace{-4mm}
\label{FFig6}
\end{figure}
We now consider the dependence of the soft-gap feature on the applied magnetic field and the potential barrier.
To understand the experimental measurements involving tunneling spectroscopy, it is instructive to compare the magnetic field dependence of the LDOS in region (3) (the barrier region) and the field dependence of the differential conductance. The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{FFig6}. In both cases one can notice a substantial subgap background and the emergence of a zero-bias peak (ZBP) above a certain critical value of the magnetic field. This peak is due to a Majorana mode localized at the left end of region (2) and leaking out into the barrier region. The splitting of the ZBP at large values of the Zeeman field (see Fig.~\ref{FFig6}) is due to the overlap of the wave functions corresponding to the Majorana bound states localized at the opposite ends of the superconducting segment of the wire.\cite{Meng_splitting, DSarma2012}
One can notice the close similarity between the qualitative features characterizing the two quantities.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{FFig7.pdf}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) {Dependence of the LDOS integrated over the barrier region (left) and of $dI/dV$ (right) on the barrier height $V_b^{\rm max}$. Note that increasing the barrier height reduces the amplitude of the zero-bias peak as the Majorana bound state penetrates less inside the barrier region and decouples from the lead. In addition, varying the barrier potential changes the energy of the delocalized states that extend throughout the wire and, as a result, modifies the profile of the soft-gap. The finite-energy sharp features present near the induced SC gap edge ($\Delta_{\rm ind} \approx 0.25$ meV, left panel) are due to the states from the second highest occupied band that become confined inside the superconducting region. On the other hand, the smooth low-energy maximum corresponding to
$V_b^{\rm max}=30$ meV is generated by a state from the second highest occupied band that crosses the chemical potential and is confined inside the normal segment of the wire. The inter-band spacings are $35$ meV (left) and $8$ meV (right) and the Zeeman field is $\Gamma=0.4$ meV. }}
\vspace{-3mm}
\label{FFig7}
\end{figure}
The effective coupling between the normal-metal lead and the active system can, in principle, be controlled through the gate-tunable potential barrier.\cite{Mourik2012, Das2012, Deng2012, Fink2012, Churchill2013} The dependence of $DOS_V$ and $dI/dV$ on the height of the barrier potential for a Gaussian potential with $w_b=52$nm is shown in Fig.~\ref{FFig7}. One can notice that the barrier affects the subgap states and the Majorana zero-energy state differently. Indeed, let us consider the high barrier limit (i.e., barrier height larger than the chemical potential in the SM nanowire) and study the evolution of the subgap density of states. Upon a decrease of the barrier height, the soft-gap feature is emerging first, and then the zero-energy peak becomes visible. This fact confirms that the soft-gap originates from the low-lying subbands that can more easily penetrate through the barrier and thus become strongly hybridized with the metallic lead. By contrast, the Majorana zero-energy peak originates from the weakly coupled topmost band. We also find that the change of the potential barrier modifies the energies of the extended states that contribute to the soft-gap and, consequently, modifies its profile. We conclude that the structures used in current tunneling experiments\cite{Mourik2012, Das2012, Deng2012, Fink2012, Churchill2013} are not optimally designed for suppressing the soft-gap feature (e.g. by increasing the barrier potential height) while maintaining the visibility of the Majorana zero-bias peak. We identify the main problem as the broad barrier profile that characterizes these structures.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{FFig8.pdf}
\vspace{-3mm}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) Comparison between the differential conductance characterizing two hybrid systems with $\Delta_{ind}=0.25$ meV, $L_S=$2 $\mu$m, $\Gamma=$0.4 meV and different potential barriers (see inset). The two barriers have the same transparency for the Majorana band, but significantly different transparencies for the low-energy occupied band. This results in the two Majorana ZBPs having the same weight and the soft-gap being strongly suppressed in the system with a narrow barrier.}
\vspace{-0mm}
\label{FFig8}
\end{figure}
Finally, we address a question of significant practical importance: if merely increasing the height of the potential barrier is likely to generate the disappearance of the ZBP before producing a hard gap, what should be done to ensure the coexistence of both the ZBP and the hard gap? The solution involves two basic requirements: i) reducing the occupancy of the nanowire and ii) generating a very narrow barrier. Of course, this assumes that all extrinsic effects are already eliminated by carefully engineering clean hybrid structures. The first requirement is less restrictive than the single-band occupancy condition (if this can be realized, the soft-gap feature is automatically eliminated). The rationale behind both the first and the second requirement is to minimize the ratio between the transparencies corresponding to the lowest-energy band and the topmost band. These could still be significantly different, but this difference should not be more than about an order of magnitude. For example, a transparency for the Majorana band $T_M=0.01$ (which corresponds to $Z_M\approx 10$ for a $\delta$-function-type barrier) ensures the visibility of the Majorana ZBP. If the lowest-energy band has a transparency $T_1=10T_M$ (which corresponds to $Z_1=3$), it will still be in the weak-coupling limit and will generate an extremely weak in-gap background. Satisfying these conditions using a broad barrier may be extremely difficult (it requires very small inter-band gaps, i.e., a thick wire with just a couple of occupied bands). On the other hand, using a narrow barrier facilitates the realization of these conditions. In fact, we believe that the simplifying assumption of a barrier that can be modeled by a single-site/$\delta$-function-like potential has prevented the observation of soft-gap features in previous multiband model calculations.\cite{PradaPRB'12,PientkaPRL'12,RainisPRB'13}
To illustrate the major difference between the effect of broad and narrow
barriers, we calculate the differential conductance for two systems having the same parameters, except for the barrier potentials, which have different profiles, as shown in the insets of Fig. \ref{FFig8}. The heights of the two barriers were adjusted so that the two systems have the same transparency for the Majorana band. This translates into the two Majorana ZBPs having the same weight (note that the ZBP corresponding to the wide barrier sits on top of the smooth subgap background generated by states from the lowest-energy band). The strong suppression of the soft-gap feature in the system with a narrow barrier is due to the fact that the transparency of the low-energy band (with a Fermi energy of about $8$ meV) is much smaller than the transparency of the same band in the wide barrier system. This can be easily understood by comparing the Fermi energy with the heights of the two barriers.
\section{Conclusions}
We have developed a comprehensive theory for the NM-SM-SC hybrid heterostructures using realistic models for the semiconductor nanowire, the normal-metal lead, and the $s$-wave superconductor. We have identified a distinct physical mechanism, namely an ``inverse proximity'' effect by the normal metal on the semiconductor nanowire at the semiconductor-metal interface, which by itself generically leads to soft-gap features in the multiband wire system by virtue of producing substantial subgap conductance. This inverse proximity effect is, in principle, always present, and has a strength that depends on the details of the tunnel barrier at the semiconductor--normal-metal junction and on the number of conducting subbands active in the nanowire. Our model, without including any external effects such as interface disorder, captures the phenomenology observed in recent Majorana experiments\cite{Mourik2012, Das2012, Deng2012, Fink2012, Churchill2013} and allows one to explain the so-called soft-gap issue. We show that the substantial subgap conductance in these experiments originates from the multiple subbands in the nanowire having vastly different transmission probabilities through the barrier defined by the gate. We emphasize that this is an intrinsic contribution to the soft-gap issue; the extrinsic effects such as interface disorder will further exacerbate this problem. Thus our results have important implications for the ongoing Majorana experiments where the soft-gap issue is the main roadblock to braiding and performing quantum computation with Majorana modes. We show that, to interpret the experimental results,\cite{Mourik2012, Das2012, Deng2012, Fink2012, Churchill2013} one has to consider different coupling of the occupied subbands in the nanowire to the normal-metal lead. By calculating local density of states and differential tunneling conductance, we show that the ``Majorana band'' (i.e., highest subband) has generically the weakest coupling to the lead. Therefore, one has to lower the barrier in order to increase signal-to-noise ratio which, in turn, increases the normal-metal coupling for the lowest occupied subbands leading to a significant hybridization of these states with the lead (i.e., the soft-gap problem).
To reduce the subgap background, we suggest decreasing the NM-nanowire coupling and the length of the normal nanowire segment, realizing narrow barriers, or using alternative, less invasive detection schemes involving an STM\cite{ZeroBiasAnomaly31} or
quantum dots,\cite{LeijnsePRB'11, Kondo-Majorana} where the transmission between normal lead and nanowire can be controlled by the intradot Coulomb energy rather than the tunneling barrier.
\vspace{2mm}
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
This work is supported by Microsoft Q, LPS-CMTC, and JQI-NSF-PFC. We thank L. Kouwenhoven and C. M. Marcus for discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
The electronic structure of the beryllium atom is of great interest in various problems arising in different areas of
modern science, including stellar astrophysics and plasmas, high-temperature physics and applied nuclear
physics. Beryllium and some of its compounds (BeO, Be$_{2}$C) are extensively used in the nuclear industry mainly as
very effective (almost ideal) moderators of fast/slow neutrons. Nevertheless, currently there are many gaps in
our understanding of the Be-atom optical spectrum. Total energies of all rotationally excited
(bound) states with $L \ge 4$ in particular have not yet been evaluated, to our knowledge.
Another interesting problem is to describe the
transitions from the spectra of the low-lying bound states in the Be atom to the weakly-bound (or Rydberg) states.
Recently, we have studied the general structure of the triplet bound state spectrum in the four-electron Be-atom \cite{Our1}
and accurately calculated a large number of low-lying (bound) $S$-, $P$-,
$D$-, $F$-, $G$-, $H$-, $I$- and $K$-states, i.e. bound states with $L \le 7$. These computational results
allowed us to determine a spectral diagram of the triplet states of the Be atom. The theoretical/computational
spectral diagram of the Be-atom agrees well with the known experimental data (see, e.g., \cite{Kramida} and references therein).
N.B. high angular momentum states e.g. $G(L=4)$, $H(L=5)$, $I(L=6)$, and $K(L=7)$ are absent from atomic data bases \cite{Kramida}.
Since \cite{SH71} the bound states in the four-electron Be-atom and Be-like ions have been considered by many authors, using
various highly accurate methods specifically designed for the four-electron atomic systems. Such calculations were
restricted to the ground $2^1S$-state and a very few excited states only. For instance, the ground state energy
for the Be-atom was determined by applying the Configuration Interaction (CI) method with Slater type orbitals (STO) \cite{Bunge,Chung}, the
Hylleraas method (Hy) \cite{Luechow,King}, the Hylleraas-Configuration Interaction method (Hy-CI) \cite{SH71,SH2011}
and the Exponential Correlated Gaussian (ECG) method \cite{PKP13,AdamS} (also called variational expansion in multi-dimensional gaussoids \cite{KT}).
A few selected bound singlet $S$-, $P$- and $D$-states were calculated by Monte Carlo methods \cite{Galv}
and by the ECG method \cite{PKP13,AdamS,AdamP,AdamD}. In contrast to singlet states, the Be-atom triplet states were
investigated only in a very few earlier studies \cite{Bertini,Galv,Frolov2009} (see also \cite{Our1} and references therein).
To complete the analysis of the bound state spectrum of the Be-atom \cite{Our1} we need to consider the singlet series of bound
states in this system. In this study we determine the total energies of the bound singlet $S$-, $P$-, $D$-, $F$-, $G$-, $H$-, $I$-
and $K$-states.
The method of calculation allows the total energies of these states to be obtained to very high numerical accuracy,
$\approx$ few milli-Hartree ($1\cdot 10^{-3}$ a.u.), which is
significantly better (for highly excited states) than accuracy which Hartree-Fock based methods can provide. It is important to note,
that currently there is no reliable experimental information about rotationally excited states with $L \ge 4$ in the Be-atom. Therefore,
the main goal of this study is to determine the bound state spectrum of low-lying singlet states in the four-electron Be-atom, including
rotationally excited states with $L$ = 4, 5, 6 and 7. The results of this study have been represented as a spectral
diagram for the singlet and triplet bound states in the Be-atom. For readers benefit and to complete our analysis we also present an
analogous spectral diagram for the bound triplet states in the Be atom \cite{Our1}.
\section{Hamiltonian and bound state wave functions in CI-method}
The computational goal of this study is to determine the accurate numerical solutions of the five-body (or four-electron)
Schr\"{o}dinger equation $H \Psi = E \Psi$, where the Hamiltonian written in Hylleraas coordinates for a CI wave function is written in
the form (see, e.g., \cite{Ruiz})
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H} &=&-\frac 12\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial r_i^2}
- \sum_{i=1}^n\frac 1{r_i}\frac \partial {\partial r_i}-\sum_{i=1}^n\frac
Z{r_i}+\sum_{i<j}^n\frac 1{r_{ij}} \nonumber \\
&-&\frac 12\sum_{i=1}^n\frac 1{r_i^2}\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial \theta _i^2}
- \frac 12\sum_{i=1}^n\frac 1{r_i^2\sin ^2{\theta _i}}\frac{\partial ^2}
\partial \varphi _i^2}-\frac 12\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{\cot {\theta _i}}{r_i^2
\frac \partial {\partial \theta _i} \label{eq1}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that when the Hamiltonian in Hylleraas coordinates is applied to the CI wave function (the CI wave function does not explicitly include
$r_{ij}$ coordinates) some terms of \cite{Ruiz} vanish. In addition, the kinetic energy operator is represented as a sum of a few terms
each of which has its own radial and angular parts. The operator $\hat{H}$ is diagonal in the basis of the spherical harmonics which are used
below as angular parts of the orbital functions. Note also that the angular momentum operator can easily be extracted from Eq.(\ref{eq1}):
\begin{equation}
\sum_{i=1}^n\frac 1{r_i^2}\hat{L}_i^2=-\frac 12\sum_{i=1}^n\frac 1{r_i^2
\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial \theta _i^2}-\frac 12\sum_{i=1}^n\frac
1{r_i^2\sin ^2{\theta _i}}\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial \varphi _i^2}-\frac
12\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{\cot {\theta _i}}{r_i^2}\frac \partial {\partial \theta
_i},
\end{equation}
For the orbital basis functions $\phi _i$ (or orbitals, for short) we can write
\begin{equation}
L_i^2\phi _i=l_i(l_i+1)\phi _i,
\end{equation}
with $l_i$ the angular quantum number of the orbital $\phi _i$. The Hamiltonian is reduced to the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H} &=&-\frac 12\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{\partial ^2}{\partial r_i^2
-\sum_{i=1}^n\frac 1{r_i}\frac {\partial}{\partial r_i}-\sum_{i=1}^n\frac
{Z}{r_i}+\sum_{i<j}^n\frac 1{r_{ij}} + \sum_{i=1}^n\frac 1{r_i^2} l_i(l_i+1)
\end{eqnarray}
Now, from the variational principle one obtains the following eigenvalue problem:
\begin{equation}
(\mathbf{H}-E\mathbf{S})\mathbf{C}=\mathbf{0,}
\end{equation}
where the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian matrix $\mathbf{H}$ and overlap matrix $\mathbf{S}$ are:
\begin{equation}
H_{kl}=\int \Phi _kH\Phi _ld\tau ,\text{ \qquad }S_{kl}=\int \Phi _k\Phi
_ld\tau .
\end{equation}
The integrals occurring in the CI calculations of an $n$-electron atom are one- and two-electron integrals. The two-electron integrals are
of the type \cite{Ruiz2e}
\begin{equation}
\left\langle
\phi (\mathbf{r}_1) \phi (\mathbf{r}_2) \frac 1{r_{12}} \phi (\mathbf{r}_1) \phi
\mathbf{r}_2) \right\rangle
\end{equation}
and they are expressed as sums of the auxiliary two-electron integrals $V(m,n;\alpha ,\beta )$, defined as:
\begin{equation}
V(m,n;\alpha ,\beta )=\int_0^\infty r_1^me^{-\alpha r_1}dr_1\int_{r_1}^\infty r_2^ne^{-\beta r_2}dr_2\ ,
\end{equation}
The auxiliary integrals $V(m,n;\alpha ,\beta )$ for positive indices $m,n$
consist on a sum of $A(n,\alpha )$ auxiliary integrals \cite[Eq. (5)]{Frolov-A}:
\begin{equation}
V(m,n;\alpha ,\beta )=\sum_{n^{\prime }=0}^n{n \choose {n^{\prime }}
A(n^{\prime },\alpha )A(m+n-n^{\prime },\alpha +\beta ),\qquad m,n\geq 0
\end{equation}
This formula, developed by Frolov and Smith, is very useful because it is numerically stable and provides very fast convergence.
For negative $n$ and positive $m$ (but $m+n\geq -1$ always) the formula for the Sims and Hagstrom sum \cite[Eq. (33)]{Sims04} must be computed. In
quantum mechanical calculations of two-electron systems this formula is employed to calculate the V-auxiliary
integrals with the lowest index $n=-1$:
\begin{equation}
V(m,n;\alpha ,\beta )=\sum_{q=1}^\infty \frac{\alpha ^{q-1}m!}{(m+q)!
A(m+n+q;\alpha +\beta ),\qquad m+n\geq -1,\text{ \ }m>0,\text{ \ \ }n<0
\end{equation}
where the $A(n,\alpha )$ auxiliary integrals are:
\begin{equation}
A(n,\alpha )=\frac{n!}{\alpha ^{n+1}}
\end{equation}
Let us briefly discuss the explicit construction of the trial wave functions which are used to approximate the exact wave functions of bound
states in the four-electron Be-atom. In this work we shall use the CI wave functions constructed from STO and $LS$
eigenfunctions. These wave functions are represented in the form
\begin{equation}
\Psi = \sum_{p=1}^NC_p\Phi _p,\qquad \Phi _p = \hat{O}(\hat{L}^2) \hat{\mathcal{A}} \phi _p\chi
\end{equation}
i.e. it is a linear combination of $N$ symmetry adapted configurations $\Phi _p$, where the coefficients $C_p$ are determined variationally
by solving the eigenvalue problem which follows from the Schr\"{o}dinger equation.
In this work, the symmetry adapted configurations are
constructed 'a priori' so that they are eigenfunctions of the angular
momentum operator $\hat{L}^2$. Another possibility would be the posterior
projection of the configurations over the proper spatial space, as
indicated in Eq. (12) by the projection operator $\hat{O}(\hat{L}^2)$, where $\hat{\mathcal{A
}$ is the anti-symmetrization operator and $\chi$ is the spin eigenfunction for $S=0$ and $M_S=0$.
\begin{equation}
\chi =\left[ (\alpha \beta -\beta \alpha )(\alpha \beta -\beta \alpha
)\right] \
\end{equation}
As discussed in the case of the Li-atom in Ref. \cite{Li} and calculations of the Be-atom \cite{SH2011} it is sufficient to consider only one
spin-function. Strictly, a linear combination of all possible spin eigenfunctions should be employed but that it has proved not to be necessary.
Indeed, the Slater determinants produced by the anti-symmetrization of further spin
functions would be repeated when considering the spin eigenfunction Eq. (13).
The spatial part of the basis functions consists of Hartree products of STOs:
\begin{equation}
\phi _p=\prod_{k=1}^n\phi _k(r_k,\theta _k,\varphi _k).
\end{equation}
The basis functions $\phi _p$, are products of $s$-, $p$-, $d$-, $f$-, $g$-,
$h$-, $i$- and $k$-STOs, defined as
\begin{equation}
\phi (\mathbf{r})=r^{n-1}e^{-\alpha r}Y_l^m(\theta ,\varphi )
\end{equation}
where $Y_l^m(\theta ,\varphi )$ are the spherical harmonics \cite{Stevenson}.
We have written a four-electron CI computer program for four-electron atomic systems in Fortran 90. Numerical calculations have been conducted in double precision arithmetic. This program has been thoroughly checked by comparing results of our numerical calculations with the results by Sims
and Hagstrom for the Be atom \cite{SH71,SH2011}. In these calculations, we obtain complete agreement.
The ground state configuration of the Be-atom is $ssss$ (i.e.
s(1)s(2)s(3)s(4)$). The other configurations considered for S-symmetry
states (L=0) are, ordered by decreasing energy contribution, $sspp$, $spps
$, $ppss$, $pppp$, $ssdd$, $sdds$, $ddss$, $sppd$, $dpps$, $\ldots$, $ffdd$. The
energetically important configurations for $L=1,\cdots ,7$ are listed in
Table I. The quantum number $M_L=0$ was chosen, because for this case a smaller
number of Slater determinants is required.
We systematically selected the CI
configurations according to their energy contribution. This was done by
calculations on blocks constructed for all possible configurations.
The eigenvalue equation was diagonalized upon each addition of a configuration. In this manner, the contribution
of every single configuration and of each block of a given type to
the total energy was evaluated. Configurations with an overall energy contribution below $1\cdot 10^{-8}$ a.u.
were neglected.
The procedure of selection of the configurations is similar to that
described in our previous work, Refs. \cite{Our1,Li}. In this work we construct the full-CI (FCI) wave function
for every symmetry and basis set including the types of
configurations which contribute most to the total energy of the lowest state
of every symmetry. The larger the contribution of a configuration, the
smaller the sum of the $l$ quantum numbers of the employed orbitals
l_1+l_2+l_3+l_4$ is; i.e. the contribution of the configuration $sssp>sppp$
for a $P$-state. In cases such as the P states $sspd$ and $ppsp$, where the
sum of $l_i$ is equal, the two inner electrons in $ppsp$ form an
$S$-configuration. The resulting four-electron configuration is $(^1S)sp$ (a
$P$-configuration), and contributes more than the $sspd$ configuration.
This is especially important in the case of
$F$-, $G$-, $H$-, $I$- and $K$-states. Among the many possibilities to construct configurations of these symmetries,
the energetically most important configurations were proven to be those with an inner $S$-shell and a single occupied
orbital with the symmetry of the state under consideration, i.e. $(^1S)sf$, $(^1S)sg$, $(^1S)sh$, $(^1S)si$ and $(^1S)sk$. The inner shell is described with a
sum of configurations $(^1S)= ss+pp+dd+ff+gg+hh+ii+kk$. In the CI calculations of $S$-, $P$-, and $D$ states we used $s$-, $p$-, $d$-, and $f$-orbitals (see Table I).
In those of the $F$-, $G$-, $H$-, $I$- and $K$-states we have also used $g$-, $h$-, $i$- and $k$-orbitals (Table I).
More types of configurations than the ones discussed here can be constructed
for a given $L$ quantum number. For instance, configurations like $pssp$ could
be considered, if the exponents $\alpha _1\ne \alpha _2$. However, we have
kept the orbital exponents in the K-shell and L-shell equal.
Note that there are more possible 'degenerate L-eigenfunction' solutions with a larger number of
Slater determinants. Specifically, these are degenerate with respect to the quantum numbers L and M,
but with possible different energy contribution, i.e. non-degenerate with
respect to the energy \cite{Bunge}. Although the
inclusion of various degenerate configurations has been shown to improve
the energy of the state, such a contribution is very small. This is important
for very accurate CI calculations, as reported e.g. by Bunge
\cite{Bunge}. In our work, we have concentrated on the energetically most significant CI configurations.
Another important aspect in CI and Hy-CI calculations is the symmetry
adaptation of the configurations. As mentioned above, the configurations are constructed 'a
priori' to be eigenfunctions of the angular momentum operator
\hat{L}^2$. The configurations of Table I are constructed as sums of Slater
determinants. The determinants are pairwise symmetric (i.e. $ssp_1p_{-1}$ and
$ssp_{-1}p_1$ in the $sspp$ configuration) and lead to the same values of the
electronic integrals. Therefore, it is possible and desirable to consider
only one of the determinants and to deduce the second result.
In other words, the solution of the eigenvalue problem obtained when using
reduced $1\times 1$ matrix
elements (where the integrals are added, configuration
sp_1p_{-1}+sp_{-1}p_1$) or when using explicit $2\times 2$ matrix elements of the
Slater determinants is the same. The symmetry adaption is
computationally favorable, since the number of Slater determinants in the input is
smaller and the repeated computation of equal integrals is avoided.
The explicit sums of symmetry adapted configurations in the three-electron case are listed
in \cite{Li}.
In this work we start with the full-CI wave function (FCI) constructed with configurations of the type
of the ground configuration of a given state (see first configuration of every symmetry in Table I) and we use
the large basis set $n=8$. The notation $n=4$ stands for the basis set $[4s3p2d1f]$.
The first step consists in an optimization of the orbital exponents for this truncated wave function.
The optimization is carried out using a parabolic procedure, explained in Ref.
\cite{Li}. The orbital exponents are optimized for each atomic state of the
Be-atom. A set of two exponents is used (one for the $K$-shell and the other
for the electrons in the $L$-shell), and kept equal for all configurations.
This technique accelerates computations, while still producing
sufficiently accurate wave functions to determine the bound state properties. We use the virial theorem:
\begin{equation}
\chi =-\frac{\langle V\rangle }{\langle T\rangle }
\end{equation}
as a criterion to check the quality of the wave function and guide the numerical optimization of the exponents in the trial wave functions.
Using the appropriate exponents for every state we filtered the configurations of the first configuration block of the
FCI wave function calculating the total energy $E_i$ each time a single configuration was added,
and comparing it to the total energy without this configuration $E_{i-1}$.
If the difference of the energy was smaller than the
threshold $|E_{i-1}-E_i|<1\cdot 10^{-7}$a.u, the new configuration was discarded. In
this manner, all configurations were checked, leading to a relatively compact CI wave function.
The next step consists in adding a new block of configurations (FCI) of the following types given in Table I.
As the wave function may become very large, a new selection of the newly added configurations is carried out.
The resulting compact wave function is optimized again. The procedure is repeated when each new block of configurations is added.
In this work we employ the basis set $n=8$.
Using this method we obtain precise energy values and the addition of configurations with higher $l_i$ quantum numbers
contributes to the convergence to the non-relativistic energy.
The final wave function is a compact wave function containing one to two thousand
configurations which has milli-Hartree accuracy for the lowest states of every symmetry.
This technique is a compromise between selection and optimization.
By using the CI method we have calculated the bound $S$-, $P$-, $D$-, $F$-, $G$-, $H$-, $I$, and $K$-states in the Be-atom. In particular, we have
determined the energies of the four (lowest) S-states, three P-, three D-, two F-, two G-, one H-, on I-state and one K-state.
The total energies of the $F$-, $G$-, $H$-, $I$, and $K$-states in the Be atom are reported here for the first time.
To our knowledge, they have not been determined in earlier studies
neither computationally, nor experimentally. Our results are summarized in Table II. The overall accuracy of our calculations for the lowest states
of every symmetry can be evaluated as $\approx \pm 1-5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ $a.u.$ Higher excited states are not necessarily less accurate. The results have this limited accuracy due to the exponent restrictions of the method used here.
In Table III the CI calculations of the triplets bound states of the Be isoelectronic ions B$^+$, C$^{2+}$,
F$^{5+}$ amd Mg$^{8+}$ are summarized.
\section{General structure of the bound state spectra}
As mentioned above, the Be-atom bound state spectrum contains two series of bound states: singlet series and triplet series. To the lowest
order non-relativistic dipole approximation, these two series are independent of each other, i.e. any dipole transition between the two states
from different spectral series is strictly prohibited. In reality, transitions between singlet and triplet states of the Be-atom and other Be-like ions
are always possible due to non-elastic collisions of these atoms with electrons, ions and other atoms. It is clear that the probabilities of
such collisional transitions substantially depend upon the spatial densities of electrons, Be-atoms, etc. In very good vacuum ($\approx 10^{-12}$ $atm$)
and at relatively large temperatures one can easily see the two different optical series (singlet and triplet) in the gaseous mixture of the ${}^{9}$Be
atoms. Note also that very small relativistic components of the exact four-electron wave functions also make these singlet-triplet transitions possible.
Rates of such transitions are very low for the neutral Be-atom but they rapidly increase with the nuclear charge in the series: B$^+$, C$^{2+}$,
F$^{5+}$, Mg$^{8+}$. The electronic structure of the Be-atom ground singlet state is $1s^2 2s^2$, while all excited states have a similar structure
where the two electrons occupy the $1s^2$-electron shell (its excitation energy is extremely large), while the third electron is mostly located in the $2s$-shell.
The fourth (and sometimes the third) electron/s can occupy any free electron orbital in the atom. The occupation numbers of the
(third, fourth) electron/s
determine the actual state (or configuration) of the Be-atom. The pair of the third and fourth electron can be either in the singlet state,
or in the triplet state (as the whole Be-atom). It follows from here that the bound state spectrum of the Be-atom must be similar to the
bound state spectra of the two-electron He-atom. Indeed, such a similarity can be observed (the two series of bound states, the ground state is
the singlet $S$-state). However, the actual order of different bound states is different for the He- and Be-atoms. For instance, the lowest
state in the triplet series is $2^{3}S$-state in the helium atom and $2^{3}P$-state in the beryllium atom. For the excited bound states in the He-
and Be-atoms one finds more differences than similarities, while for singlet states close to the ground state similarities with between the spectra
of these two elements can easily be seen.
Since the three-electron core of the Be-atom has the $1s^2 2s$ electron configuration, then the dissociation threshold for neutral Be
corresponds to formation of the three-electron Be$^{+}$ ion in its ground $2^2S$-state (doublet). The non-relativistic energy of this state is
$E_{{}^{\infty}{\rm Be}^{+}}$ $\approx$ -14.324 763 176 790 43(22) $a.u.$ \cite{PKP}. This dissociation threshold corresponds to the following
ionization process of the Be atom
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Be} = {\rm Be}^{+}(2^2S) + e^{-} \label{Rydb0}
\end{eqnarray}
where the symbol Be$^{+}(2^2S)$ means that the final three-electron Be$^{+}$ ion is in its ground $2^2S$-state. Now we can write the following
expression for the total energies of the weakly-bound states, i.e. for the states close to the dissociation threshold of the Be-atom
(in atomic units):
\begin{eqnarray}
E({\rm Be}; n L) = E({\rm Be}^{+}; 2^2S) - \frac{m_e e^4}{2 \hbar^2} \frac{1}{(n + \Delta_{\ell})^2} =
-14.324 763 176 790 43 - \frac{1}{2 (n + \Delta_{\ell})^2} \label{Rydb}
\end{eqnarray}
where $L = \ell$ (in this case), $n$ is the principal quantum number of the $n L$ state ($L$ is the angular quantum number) of the Be-atom and
$\Delta_{\ell}$ is the Rydberg correction which explicitly depends upon $\ell$ (angular momentum of the outer most electron) and the total
electron spin of this atomic state. It can be shown that the Rydberg correction rapidly vanishes when $\ell$ increases (for given $n$ and $L$).
Moreover, the $\Delta_{\ell}$ correction also decreases when the principal quantum number $n$ grows. The formula, Eq.(\ref{Rydb}), can be used to
approximate the total energies of weakly bound, Rydberg states in the Be-atom. However, by following the original ideas of Heisenberg \cite{Heis}
and Bethe (see, e.g., \cite{BS} and references therein) we can write a significantly more accurate formula which can be used to approximate the
same Rydberg states to very high numerical accuracy. This formula is written in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
E({\rm Be}; n L) &=& E({\rm Be}^{+}; 2^2S) - \frac{m_e e^4}{2 \hbar^2} \frac{1 - \epsilon_{L}}{(n + \Delta_{\ell} + (-1)^{S} \Delta_{A})^2}
\nonumber \\
&\approx& -14.324 763 176 790 43 - \frac{1 - \epsilon_L}{2 (n + \Delta_{\ell} + (-1)^{S} \Delta_{A})^2} \label{Rydb2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $S$ is the total electron spin, while $\epsilon_L, \Delta_{\ell}$ and $\Delta_A$ are the three parameters which must be varied in each specific case
to obtain better numerical approximations. All these parameters rapidly decrease when $\ell$ (and $L$) grows. In reality, to apply the formula,
Eq.(\ref{Rydb2}), one needs to know the accurate values of the total energies of at least three bound states in each spectral series, i.e. the total
energies of three singlet and three triplet bound states with $n \ge 5$.
Based on Eq.(\ref{Rydb2}) one can predict that the total energies of the singlet and triplet highly excited states (with the same $n$) are equal to
each other to high accuracy (near degeneracy). In general, such near degeneracy of energy levels becomes almost exact when $n$ grows. It is a well
known property of the Rydberg states and it can be observed in any atomic system which has energy spectrum consisting of a few different spectral
series. Formally, based on the formula, Eq.(\ref{Rydb2}), we can classify all bound states in the Be atom as the Rydberg states, pre-Rydberg and
non-Rydberg states. Each group of these states has its unique electron density distribution.
\section{Spectral diagram of the four-electron Be-like atoms}
In this study we have determined the total energies of a large number of bound singlet states in the Be-atom. Our computational results can be used
to draw the energy levels of all computed singlet (bound) states of the ${}^{\infty}$Be atom as functions of angular momentum $L$ of these states.
In classic books on atomic spectroscopy such pictures (or diagrams) were called the `spectral diagrams'. In general, the spectral diagrams are very useful
tools to study various effects related to the electron density distribution in different bound $LS$-states of the atomic systems which contain the
same number of electrons.
For neutral atoms and ions with the same nuclear charge $Q$, measured spectral diagrams are often used to investigate effects related
with the role of electron-electron correlations in different atomic states. For instance, from our spectral diagram one finds that the $3^{1}D$-state in
the Be-atom is less bound than the analogous $3^{1}S$-state, while for the bound $4^{1}D$- and $4^{1}S$-states such an order of bound states is reversed.
The true theory of electron-electron correlation in atoms must explain the observed order of the bound states (or energy levels) in the spectrum and
approximately predict the energy differences between them.
In general, by performing numerical calculations of a large number of bound states in atomic systems one always needs to answer the following two questions:
(1) predict the correct order of low-lying bound states, and (2) describe transitions between the low-lying bound states and weakly-bound, or Rydberg states.
To solve the first problem we can compare our results with the known experimental data for Be-atom \cite{Kramida}. For the singlet states in the Be-atom the
agreement between our computational results, the picture Fig.1 and data for the beryllium atom presented in \cite{Kramida} can be considered as very
good. Combining the theoretical and experimental data we can predict the total order of states in the singlet and triplet series, as shown in Table IV.
It is also clear we have calculated only the non-relativistic (total) energies, i.e. all relativistic and lowest-order QED corrections were ignored.
Note also that the CI method using STOs is substantially more accurate (in the order of few milli-Hartree) than various procedures based on Hartree-Fock
approximation, but it still provides a restricted
description of the electron-electron correlation in specific atoms and ions. Nevertheless, the observed agreement with the measured bound state spectra of the
triplet states in the Be atom (or ${}^{9}$Be atom) is very good not only for low-lying bound states, but also for Rydberg states.
Now, consider the second problem. As follows from the results of our calculations all bound singlet states with $n \ge 6$ in the beryllium atom are the
weakly-bound, or Rydberg states. On the other hand, all bound triplet states in the Be-atom with $n \ge 4$ can be considered as the pre-Rydberg states. It
follows from comparison of the total energies of the triplet $4^{3}F$, $5^{3}G$ states and singlet $4^{1}F$, $5^{1}G$ states (for more details, see
\cite{Our1}). On the other hand, it is clear that the `boundary' principal quantum number $n_R$ from which the Rydberg states begin (for $n \ge n_R$) must
be exactly the same for both spectral series in the four-electron atoms and ions.
In this study our main focus was on the singlet bound states in the four-electron Be-atom. The triplet states in the Be-atom were considered in
our paper \cite{Our1} which also contains the spectral diagram of the bound triplet states in the Be-atom. For maximal convenience of the reader we also
included the updated spectral diagram of the triplet states in our present analysis (see, Fig.2). In many cases it is useful to observe spectral diagrams for
the both singlet and triplet series together and compare these diagrams with the analogous spectral diagrams for atoms which have bound state spectra
represented as a combination of the two separate spectral series (singlet and triplet). For instance it is very interesting and informative to make such a
comparison of the spectra of the beryllium and helium atoms (see, e.g., \cite{BS} and references therein).
We have also drawn spectral diagrams of the triplet states for various positively charged ions, e.g.,
for the Be atom and B$^{+}$, C$^{2+}$, F$^{5+}$, Mg$^{8+}$, see Figs. 3-6 using the computational
results of this work and the known experimental data from NIST Atomic Database and Refs. \cite{Nist-B,Nist-BCN,Nist-F,Nist-Mg}. The spectra of the negatively charged ions, e.g., the Li$^{-}$
ion) contains only a very few bound states (usually one bound state \cite{Fro99}) and its spectral diagram is very simple and not
informative. The corresponding spectral diagrams of the cations are very similar to each other, but there are few differences between them due to the
$Z$-dependence. These differences may well improve our understanding of the electron-electron correlation in the four-electron atomic systems.
\section{Conclusion}
We have considered the bound state spectrum of the singlet states in the four-electron Be-atom and the spectra of the triplet states the Be-like ions
B$^+$, C$^{2+}$, F$^{5+}$ and Mg$^{8+}$. The analogous spectrum of the bound triplet states in the
four-electron Be-atom has been presented and discussed in our earlier study \cite{Our1}. The results of both studies reproduce the complete `optical' spectrum
of the four-electron Be-atom. The agreement between our computational results and actual singlet/triplet spectrum of the Be-atom \cite{Kramida} can
be considered as very good. The quite complicated bound state spectrum of beryllium atom has been obtained and studied by using only computational methods.
This study is based on a computational approach which has three following advantages: (1) it can be applied for accurate computations of all bound states
in the spectrum, including rotationally excited states and weakly-bound, Rydberg atomic states, (2) it provides overall accuracy in the order of few milli-Hartree which is beyond the level provided
by various method based on the Hartree-Fock approximation, (3) such an accuracy does not decrease for the excited $LS$-states in the spectrum.
Disadvantages of this approach is the slow convergence of the CI method, which requires selection of predominant configurations and successive optimization
of the orbital exponents.
The results of this study allowed us to draw the spectral diagrams of the singlet and triplet spectra of the four-electron Be-atom and Be-like ions.
Such spectral diagrams for Be-atom can now be compared with analogous spectral diagrams of other light atoms and ions.
Theoretical comparison of the atomic spectra of the Be- and He-atoms seems to be very interesting, since each of these two spectra contains two independent
series of bound states (singlet and triplet).
\section{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank James Sims and Stanley Hagstrom for providing us with numerical results from Hylleraas-CI calculations on the Be atom which have
serve to check our Be computer program, and to Carlos Bunge for valuable advise about the construction of $LS$ and degenerate configurations. One of us
(F.L.) greatly acknowledges his PhD supervisor Leticia Gonz\'alez at the University of Vienna for her scientific support. Finally, we are very grateful to
Philip Hoggan and Telhat \"Ozdogan for the invitation to contribute to this Volume and for proofreading the manuscript.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
Let $A$ be a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$. For each $\epsilon>0$, define the $\epsilon$\emph{-boundary} of $A$ to be the set
\[
\partial_{\epsilon}(A) = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^2 \colon \text{dist}(x,A) = \epsilon \}.
\]
Brown showed in \cite{Brown} that for all but countably many $\epsilon$, every component of $\partial_{\epsilon}(A) $ is a point, a simple arc, or a simple closed curve. In \cite{Ferry}, Ferry showed, among other results, that $ \partial_{\epsilon}(A)$ is a $1$-manifold for almost all $\epsilon$. Fu \cite{Fu} generalized Ferry's results, and proved that for all $\epsilon$ outside a compact set of zero $1/2$-dimensional Hausdorff measure, $ \partial_{\epsilon}(A)$ is a Lipschitz $1$-manifold. Papers \cite{Ferry} and \cite{Fu} include theorems in higher dimensional Euclidean spaces; the work for dimensions $n\ge 3$ is more demanding.
Let $\Gamma$ be a Jordan curve in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $\Omega$ be the bounded component of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus \Gamma$. We define the \emph{signed distance function}
\[
\text{dist}^*(x,\Gamma)=
\begin{cases}
\text{dist}(x,\Gamma), & x\in \Omega,\\
-\text{dist}(x,\Gamma), & x\in \mathbb{R}^2\setminus \Omega;
\end{cases}
\]
and define for any $\epsilon\in (-\infty, \infty)$, the $\epsilon$\emph{-level set} of the signed distance function to be
\[
\gamma_{\epsilon} = \{ x\in \mathbb{R}^2 \colon \text{dist}^*(x,\Gamma) = \epsilon \}.
\]
What properties of $\Gamma$ ensure that the $\epsilon$-level sets
are Jordan curves, or uniform quasicircles, or uniform chord-arc curves for \emph{all} $\epsilon$ sufficiently close to $0$?
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{Levelset1.jpg}
\caption{A level set of a Jordan curve}
\label{fig:figure2}
\end{figure}
We say that a Jordan curve $\Gamma$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ has the \emph{level Jordan curve property} (or LJC \emph{property}), if there exists $\epsilon_0>0$ such that the level set $\gamma_{\epsilon}$ is a Jordan curve for every $0< |\epsilon| \leq \epsilon_0$. A Jordan curve $\Gamma$ is said to have
the \emph{level quasicircle property} (or LQC \emph{property}), if there exist $\epsilon_0>0$ and $K\geq 1$ such that the level set $\gamma_{\epsilon}$ is a $K$-quasicircle for every $0< |\epsilon| \leq \epsilon_0$. Finally, a Jordan curve $\Gamma$ is said to have the \emph{level chord-arc property} (or LCA \emph{property}), if there exist $\epsilon_0>0$ and $C\geq 1$ such that $\gamma_{\epsilon}$ is a $C$-chord-arc curve for every $0< |\epsilon| \leq \epsilon_0$.
It is not hard to see that if $\Gamma$ has the LQC property then it is a quasicircle and if $\Gamma$ satisfies the LCA property then it is a chord-arc curve; see Theorem \ref{LCAmain}.
Given two points $x,y $ on a Jordan curve $\gamma$, we take $\gamma(x,y)$ to be the subarc of $\gamma$ connecting $x$ and $y$ that has a smaller diameter,
or, to be either subarc when both have the same diameter.
Modeled on the \emph{linear approximation property} of Mattila and Vuorinen \cite{MaVu}, we define, for a Jordan curve $\Gamma$ in the plane, a scaled invariant parameter to measure the local deviation of the subarcs from their chords.
For points $x, y$ on a Jordan curve $\Gamma$ and the infinite line $l_{x,y}$ through $x$ and $y$, we set
\[ \zeta_{\Gamma} (x,y) = \frac{1}{|x-y|}\sup_{z \in \Gamma(x,y)} \text{dist} (z,l_{x,y}). \]
A Jordan curve $\Gamma$ is said to have the $(\zeta, r_0)$-\emph{chordal property} for a certain $\zeta >0$ and $r_0>0$, if
\[
\sup_{x,y \in\Gamma, |x-y|\leq r_0} \zeta_{\Gamma}(x,y) \leq \zeta.
\]
We set
\[ \zeta_{\Gamma} = \lim_{r_0\to 0}\sup_{x,y \in\Gamma,|x-y|\leq r_0} \zeta_{\Gamma}(x,y).\]
This notion of chord-likeness provides us a gauge for studying the geometry of level sets.
\begin{thm}\label{betathmLC}
Let $\Gamma$ be a Jordan curve in $\mathbb{R}^2$. If $\Gamma$ has the $(1/2, r_0)$-\emph{chordal property} for some $r_0>0$, then $\Gamma$ has the level Jordan curve property.
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}\label{betathmLQC}
Let $\Gamma$ be a Jordan curve in $\mathbb{R}^2$. If $\zeta_\Gamma <1/2$, then $\Gamma$ has the level quasicircle property. In particular,
if $\Gamma$ has the $(\zeta, r_0)$-\emph{chordal property} for some $0<\zeta<1/2$ and $r_0>0$, then there exist $\epsilon_0>0$ and $K\ge 1$ depending on $\zeta$, $r_0$ and the diameter of $\Gamma$ so that the level sets $\gamma_\epsilon$ are $K$-quasicircles for all $0<|\epsilon|<\epsilon_0$.
\end{thm}
Lemmas \ref{4points} and \ref{K-D} lead naturally to the $(1/2,r_0)$-chordal condition for LJC in Theorem \ref{betathmLC};
they show that the behavior of the level set near branch points in Figure \ref{fig:figure2} is, in some sense, typical.
Condition $\zeta_\Gamma<1/2$ in Theorem \ref{betathmLQC} is used to prove the Ahlfors $2$-point condition for level Jordan curves, thereby establishing the LQC property.
The chordal conditions in both theorems are sharp. The sharpness in Theorem \ref{betathmLC} is given in Remark \ref{sharpLJC}, and the sharpness in Theorem \ref{betathmLQC} will be illustrated in Remark \ref{sharpLQC}.
\medskip
Moreover, using a lemma of Brown \cite[Lemma 1]{Brown}, we are able to show the following.
\begin{thm}\label{LCAmain}
A Jordan curve $\Gamma$ in the plane satisfies the level chord-arc property if and only if it is a chord-arc curve and has the level quasicircle property.
\end{thm}
\medskip
The paper is organized as follows. We discuss the chordal property in Section \ref{flatness}, and study geometric properties of level sets in Section \ref{geometry}.
In Section \ref{mainresults}, we prove Theorems \ref{betathmLC} and \ref{betathmLQC}
and give examples to show the sharpness of these theorems. We give the proof of Theorem \ref{LCAmain} in Section \ref{LCAresults}. Finally in Section \ref{snowflakes}, we provide an additional example based on Rohde's $p$-snowflakes.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{prelim}
A homeomorphism $f\colon D\to D'$ between two domains in $ \mathbb{R}^2$ is called $K$-\emph{quasiconformal} if it is orientation preserving, belongs to $ W_{loc}^{1,2}(D)$, and satisfies the distortion inequality
\[
|Df(x)|^2 \le K J_f(x) \quad \text{a. e.} \,\,\, x \in D,
\]
where $Df$ is the formal differential matrix and $J_f$ is the Jacobian. The smallest $K=K(f)$ for which the above inequality holds almost everywhere is called the distortion of the mapping $f$.
A Jordan curve $\gamma$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ is called a $K$-\emph{quasicircle} if it is the image of the unit circle $\mathbb S^1$ under a $K$-quasiconformal homeomorphism of $\mathbb{R}^2$.
A geometric characterization due to Ahlfors \cite{Ah} states that a Jordan curve $\gamma$ is a $K$-quasicircle if and only if it satisfies the \emph{2-point condition}:
\begin{equation}\label{3pts}
\text{there exists } C>1 \text{ such that for all } x,y \in \gamma, \, \,\diam{\gamma(x,y)} \leq C|x-y|,
\end{equation}
where the distortion $K$ and the $2$-point constant $C$ are quantitatively related.
A long list of remarkably diverse characterizations of quasicircles has been found. See
the monograph of Gehring \cite{Gehring-characterization} for informative discussion.
A homeomorphism $f\colon D\to D'$ between two domains in $\mathbb{R}^2$ is said to be
$L$-\emph{bi-Lipschitz}, if there exists $L\geq 1$ such that for any $x,y \in D$
\[
\frac{1}{L}|x-y| \leq |f(x)-f(y))| \leq L |x-y|.
\]
A rectifiable Jordan curve $\gamma$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ is called a $C$-\emph{chord-arc curve} if there exists $C\geq 1$ such that for any $x, y \in \gamma$, the length of the shorter component, $\gamma'(x,y)$, of $\gamma \setminus \{x,y\}$ satisfies
\[
\ell(\gamma'(x,y)) \leq C |x-y|.
\]
Here, and in the future, $\ell (\gamma)$ denotes the length of a curve $\gamma$. Every $C$-chord-arc curve is, in fact, the image of $\mathbb S^1$ under an $L$-bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism of $\mathbb{R}^2$, where the constants $C$ and $L$ are quantitatively related; see\cite[p. 23]{Tukia-ext} and \cite[Proposition 1.13]{JeK}.
In the following, we denote by $B(x,r)$ the disk $\{ y \in \mathbb{R}^2 \colon |x-y| < r\}$ and by $S(x,r)$ its boundary $\partial B(x,r)$. In particular, $\mathbb{B}^2 = B(0,1)$ denotes the unit disk and $\mathbb S^{1} = \partial \mathbb{B}^2$ denotes the unit circle.
For $x,y \in \mathbb{R}^2$, denote by $[x,y]$ the line segment having end points $x$ and $y$, by $(x,y)$ the line segment excluding the end points, and by
$l_{x,y}$ the infinite line containing $x$ and $y$.
Finally, we write $u \lesssim v$ (resp. $u\simeq v$) when $u/v$ is bounded above (resp. above and below) by positive constants.
\section{Chordal Property of Jordan Curves}\label{flatness}
For planar Jordan curves, the connection between the chordal property and the $2$-point condition is easy to establish.
\begin{prop}\label{zetabounded}
A Jordan curve $\Gamma$ is a $K$-quasicircle if and only if
$\Gamma$ is $(\zeta, r_0)$-chordal for some $\zeta >0$ and $r_0 >0$. Constants $K$ and $\zeta_{\Gamma}$ are quantitatively related, with $\zeta_{\Gamma}\to 0$ as $K\to 1$.
\end{prop}
The converse of the second statement is not true. Indeed, $\zeta_{\Gamma}=0$ for every smooth Jordan curve $\Gamma$.
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\Gamma$ is a $K$-quasicircle and $C$ is the constant in the Ahlfors $2$-point condition (\ref{3pts}) associated to $K$. Then $\Gamma$ is $(C, \diam \Gamma)$-chordal.
Next suppose that $\Gamma$ is $(\zeta, r_0)$-chordal. We claim that $\Gamma$ satisfies property (\ref{3pts}).
Let $ x,y \in \Gamma$.
If $|x-y|\geq r_0$, then
\[ \diam{\Gamma(x,y)} \leq \frac{\diam{\Gamma}}{r_0}|x-y|. \]
So, we assume $|x-y| < r_0 $, and let $[z,w]$ be the orthogonal projection of $\Gamma(x,y)$ on $l_{x,y}$, with points $z,x,y$ and $w$ listed in their natural order on the line.
In the case that $z \neq x$, choose a point $z'\in \Gamma(x,y)$ whose projection on $l_{x,y}$ is $z$. Denote by $l$ the line through $x$ and orthogonal to $l_{x,y}$, and fix
a subarc $\sigma$ of $\Gamma(x,y)$ which contains $z'$ and has endpoints, called
$z_1,z_2$, on $\Gamma(x,y) \cap l$. Clearly $\sigma= \Gamma(z_1,z_2)$ and $l=l_{z_1,z_2}$; and by the $(\zeta, r_0)$-chordal property,
$ \text{dist}(z, l) =\text{dist}(z', l) \leq \zeta|z_1-z_2| \leq 2\zeta^2|x-y|.$
It follows that, in all cases, $|z-w| \leq (4\zeta^2+1)|x-y|$. Therefore,
\[ \diam{\Gamma(x,y)} \leq (4 \zeta^2+ 2\zeta+1) |x-y|. \]
So $\Gamma$ satisfies property (\ref{3pts}) with $C = \max\{4 \zeta^2+ 2\zeta+1,\frac{\diam{\Gamma}}{r_0} \}$ and is a $K$-quasicircle for some $K$ depending on $\zeta,r_0$ and $\diam{\Gamma}$.
The claim that $\zeta_{\Gamma}\to 0$ as $K\to 1$ follows from a lemma of Gehring \cite[Lemma 7]{Gehring-spirals}, which states that for each $\eta>0$, there exists $K_0=K_0(\eta)>1$ such that if $g$ is a $K$-quasiconformal mapping of $\mathbb{R}^2$ with $K\leq K_0$, and if $g$ fixes two points $z_1$ and $z_2$, then
\[
|g(z)-z|\leq \eta |z_1-z_2|, \quad \text{when}\,\, |z-z_1|<|z_1-z_2|.
\]
Quasiconformality in \cite{Gehring-spirals} is defined using the conformal modulus of curve families, which is quantitatively equivalent to the notion of quasiconformality given in Section \ref{prelim} (See \cite[Theorem 32.3]{Vais1}). This line of reasoning has been used by Mattila and Vuorinen in \cite[Theorem 5.2]{MaVu}.
\end{proof}
By Proposition \ref{zetabounded}, the following will be a corollary to Theorem \ref{betathmLQC}.
\begin{cor}
There exists a constant $K_0 > 1$ such that all $ K_0$-quasicircles have the \emph{LQC} property.
\end{cor}
\medskip
Mattila and Vuorinen \cite{MaVu} introduced the \emph{linear approximation property} to study geometric properties of $K$-quasispheres with $K$ close to $1$. Let $k \in \{1,2,\dots,n-1\}$, $0 \leq \delta < 1$, and $r_0>0$. A set $Z$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ satisfies a $(k, \delta,r_0)$-linear approximation property if for each $x \in Z$ and each $0<r<r_0$ there exists an affine $k$-plane $P$ through $x$ such that
\[\text{dist}(z,P) \le \delta r\quad \text{ for all}\,\, z\in Z \cap B(x,r).\]
In the same year, Jones \cite{Jo} introduced a parameter, now known as the \emph{Jones beta number}, to measure
the oscillation of a set at all points and in all scales,
for the investigation of the "traveling salesman problem". Later, beta number has been used by Bishop and Jones to study problems on harmonic measures and Kleinian groups.
As it turns out, the Jones beta number and the $\delta$-parameter of Mattila and Vuorinen are essentially equivalent.
For planar quasicircles, the chordal property and the linear approximation property are quantitatively related as follows.
\begin{lem}\label{flatequiv}
Let $\Gamma$ be a Jordan curve in $\mathbb{R}^2$.
If $\Gamma$ has the $(\zeta, r_0)$-chordal property for some $0<\zeta <1/4$, then it is
$(1, 4\zeta, r_1)$-linearly approximable, where $r_1= \min\{\frac{r_0}{2}, \frac{\diam \Gamma}{C}\}$ and $C=C(\zeta,r_0,\diam \Gamma)>1$ is a constant.
On the other hand, if $\Gamma$ is a $K$-quasicircle that has the $(1, \delta,r_0)$-linear approximation property, then it is $(C'^2\delta, r_0/C')$-chordal, for some constant $C'=C'(K)>1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\Gamma$ is $(\zeta, r_0)$-chordal. Then $\Gamma$ is a $K$-quasicircle by Proposition \ref{zetabounded}, hence satisfies
the $2$-point condition (\ref{3pts}) for some $C>1$; here $K$ and $C$ depend on $\zeta, r_0$ and $\diam \Gamma$.
Let $0< r < \min\{\frac{r_0}{2}, \frac{\diam \Gamma}{6 C}\}$; take $x \in \Gamma$, and $x' \in \Gamma\setminus B(x,r)$ such that $|x-x'| \geq \frac{\diam{\Gamma}}{2}$. Let $x_1,x_2$ be the points in $\Gamma \cap S(x,r)$ with the property that one of the subarcs $\Gamma\setminus \{x_1,x_2\}$ contains $x'$ and lies entirely outside $\overline{B}(x,r)$, and the other subarc, called $\tau$, contains $x$. Since $\diam(\Gamma\setminus \tau) \geq |x-x'| - r \geq \frac{\diam{\Gamma}}{2} - r > 2 C r \geq C |x_1-x_2|$, we have $\diam \tau \leq C|x_1-x_2|$ and
$\Gamma(x_1,x_2) = \tau$.
Trivially, $\text{dist}(x,l_{x_1,x_2}) \leq 2\zeta r$.
Then, for $y\in \Gamma(x_1,x_2)$ and the line $l$ through $x$ and parallel to $l_{x_1,x_2}$, we have
\[ \text{dist}(y,l) \leq \text{dist}(y, l_{x_1,x_2}) + \text{dist}( l_{x_1,x_2},l) \leq \zeta|x_1-x_2|+2\zeta r \leq 4 \zeta r;\]
and the first claim follows.
For the second claim, suppose that $\Gamma$ is a $K$-quasicircle that has the $(1, \delta,r_0)$-linear approximation property. So $\Gamma$ satisfies
the $2$-point condition (\ref{3pts}) for some $C=C(K)\ge 1$.
Take $x,y \in \Gamma$ with $0< |x-y | < \frac{r_0}{4C}$ and $r = (C+1)|x-y|$, then
$\Gamma(x,y) \subset B(x,r)$. Since $r <r_0$,
there exists a line $l$ containing $x$ such that
\[ \Gamma(x,y) \subset \{ z \in B(x,r) \colon \text{dist}(z,l) \leq \delta r \}. \]
In particular, $\text{dist}(y,l)\leq \delta r$.
Given $z\in \Gamma(x,y)$, take a point $z' \in l\cap B(x,r)$ with $|z-z'|\le \delta r$; then, from elementary geometry we get
\[
\text{dist}(z', l_{x,y}) \leq \frac{\text{dist}(y,l)}{|x-y|}r \leq (C+1)\delta r.
\]
It follows that
$\text{dist}(z, l_{x,y}) \leq |z-z'|+ \text{dist}(z', l_{x,y}) \leq (C+2)\delta r = (C+2)(C+1) \delta |x-y|$.
Hence, $\zeta(x,y) < 6 C^2 \delta$,
and the second claim is proved.
\end{proof}
\section{Geometry of Level Sets}\label{geometry}
Let $\Gamma$ be a Jordan curve in $\mathbb{R}^2$, $\Omega$ be the bounded component of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus \Gamma$.
For any $\epsilon\neq 0$, define the open set
\[
\Delta_{\epsilon} =
\begin{cases}
\, \{ x\in \mathbb{R}^2 \colon \text{dist}^*(x,\Gamma) > \epsilon \}, & \epsilon>0,\\
\, \{ x\in \mathbb{R}^2 \colon \text{dist}^*(x,\Gamma) < \epsilon \}, & \epsilon<0.
\end{cases}
\]
In general, $\Delta_{\epsilon}$ need not be connected, and $\overline{\Delta_\epsilon}$ and $\Delta_\epsilon \cup \gamma_\epsilon$ may not be equal (see Figure \ref{fig:figure2}).
\medskip
However, \emph{for any $\epsilon > 0$, the sets $\overline{\Omega} \setminus \Delta_{\epsilon}$, $(\mathbb{R}^2\setminus \Omega)\setminus \Delta_{-\epsilon}$, and $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus (\Delta_{\epsilon}\cup\Delta_{-\epsilon})$ are path-connected.} Indeed, given $x,y \in \overline{\Omega} \setminus \Delta_{\epsilon}$, take $x',y' \in \Gamma$ such that $|x-x'| = \text{dist}(x,\Gamma)$ and $|y-y'| = \text{dist}(y,\Gamma)$. Note that $[x,x']$ and $[y,y']$ are entirely in $\overline{\Omega} \setminus \Delta_{\epsilon}$. So $x,y$ can be joined in $\overline{\Omega} \setminus \Delta_{\epsilon}$ by the arc $[x,x'] \cup \Gamma(x',y') \cup [y,y']$. Path-connectedness of the other two sets can be proved analogously.
\medskip
Furthermore,
\emph{given $x, y \in \Omega$, let $x', y'$ be points in $\Gamma$ with the property that
$|x-x'|=\emph{\text{dist}}(x,\Gamma)$ and $|y-y'|= \emph{\text{dist}}(y,\Gamma)$. If $x,y,x',y'$ are not collinear
then the segments $[x,x']$, $[y,y']$ do not intersect except perhaps at their endpoints.}
Indeed, if there is a point $z \in [x,x']\cap[y,y']$ which is not $ x'$ or $ y'$, then $|z-x'|= |z-y'|$.
By the triangle inequality,
\[
|x-y'| < |x-z|+ |z-y'| = |x-z|+ |z-x'| = \text{dist}(x, \Gamma),
\]
which is a contradiction. The same claim is true when $x,y \in \mathbb{R}^2 \setminus \overline \Omega$. The non-crossing property of $[x,x'],[y,y']$ is a special case of Monge's observation on optimal transportation; see \cite[p. 163]{Villani}.
\bigskip
In the following, a point will be considered as a degenerate arc.
Given
a closed subset $\Lambda$ of $\Gamma$ and a number $\epsilon \neq 0$, we define
\[\gamma_{\epsilon}^{\Lambda}= \{ x \in \gamma_{\epsilon} \colon \text{dist}(x,\Lambda) = |\epsilon| \}.\]
In general, the set $\gamma_{\epsilon}^{\Lambda}$ may be empty even when $\Lambda$ is a non-trivial arc (see Figure \ref{fig:figure2}).
However, $\gamma_{\epsilon}^{\Lambda}$ is an arc when $\gamma_\epsilon$ is a Jordan curve and $\Lambda$ is connected, as we see from the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{orientation}
Let $\Gamma$ be a Jordan curve in $\mathbb{R}^2$, and assume that for some $\epsilon\neq 0$, the level set $\gamma_{\epsilon}$ is a Jordan curve. If $\Lambda$ is a closed subarc of $\Gamma$ and $\gamma_{\epsilon}^{\Lambda}$ is nonempty, then $\gamma_{\epsilon}^{\Lambda}$ is a subarc of $\gamma_{\epsilon}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It suffices to prove that if $x$ and $y$ are two distinct points in $\gamma_{\epsilon}^{\Lambda}$ then, one of the two subarcs $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$ of $\gamma_{\epsilon}$ connecting $x$ and $y$ is entirely in $\gamma_{\epsilon}^{\Lambda}$.
Assume first that $\epsilon>0$. We claim that if $\lambda_1 \setminus\gamma_{\epsilon}^{\Lambda} \neq \emptyset$ then $\lambda_2 \subset \gamma_{\epsilon}^{\Lambda}$.
Take $ z \in \lambda_1 \setminus\gamma_{\epsilon}^{\Lambda}$, $x',y' \in \Lambda$ and $z' \in \Gamma\setminus \Lambda$ such that
\[ |x-x'| = |y-y'| = |z-z'| = \epsilon, \]
and let $\Lambda_1$ be the subarc of $\Lambda$ that joins $x',y'$ ($\Lambda_1$ could be just a point). We know that the open line segments $(x,x'),(y,y'),(z,z')$ and the Jordan curve $\gamma_{\epsilon}$ do not intersect one another.
Let $U_1$ be the quadrilateral (possibly degenerated in the case $x'=y'$) enclosed by the Jordan curve $[x,x']\cup \lambda_1 \cup [y,y'] \cup \Lambda_1$. Then the open arc $\lambda_2\setminus \{x,y\}$ must be contained in $U_1$. For otherwise, $\lambda_2\setminus \{x,y\}$ would intersect either the arc $[x,x']\cup \lambda_1 \cup [y,y'] $ or the segment $ [z,z']$; this is impossible in view of properties of the distance function $\text{dist}(\cdot,\Gamma)$. Therefore, the quadrilateral $U_2$ enclosed by the Jordan curve $[x,x']\cup \lambda_2 \cup [y,y'] \cup \Lambda_1$ is contained in $U_1$.
Suppose now that $\lambda_2 \subset \gamma_{\epsilon}^{\Lambda}$ is false. Then, by the argument above with the roles of $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ reversed, we get $U_1 \subset U_2$. Hence $U_1=U_2$, which is impossible. This proves the claim.
When $\epsilon<0$, we choose $J_1 = [x,x']\cup \lambda_1\cup [y,y'] \cup \Lambda_1$ and $J_2 = [x,x']\cup \lambda_2 \cup [y,y'] \cup \Lambda_1$ as before, however define $U_1$ and $U_2$ to be the unbounded components of $\mathbb{R}^2 \setminus J_1$ and $\mathbb{R}^2 \setminus J_2$, respectively, then proceed as above.
\end{proof}
We show next that when two points $x,y$ on a level Jordan curve $\gamma_\epsilon$ have a common closest point on $\Gamma$, $\gamma_\epsilon(x,y)$ is a circular arc.
\begin{lem}\label{circgamma}Let $\Gamma$ be a Jordan curve in $\mathbb{R}^2$, and assume that the level set $\gamma_{\epsilon}$ is a Jordan curve for some $\epsilon \neq 0$. Suppose that there exist $x,y \in \gamma_{\epsilon}$ and $ z\in \Gamma$ such that $|x-z| = |y-z| = |\epsilon|$. Then $\gamma_{\epsilon}(x,y)$ is a circular arc on $S(z,|\epsilon|)$ of length at most $\pi |\epsilon|$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{orientation}, $ \gamma_{\epsilon}^{\{z\}}=\{w\in \gamma_\epsilon\colon |w-z|=\epsilon\}$ is a subarc of $\gamma_\epsilon \cap S(z,|\epsilon|)$.
Since $\{x,y\}\subset \gamma_{\epsilon}^{\{z\}}$,
$\gamma_{\epsilon}(x,y)$ is one of the two subarcs of $S(z,|\epsilon|)$ that connects $x$ and $y$.
Suppose that $\ell(\gamma_{\epsilon}(x,y))>\pi |\epsilon|$. Then
the domain $U$ enclosed by the Jordan curve $\gamma_{\epsilon}(x,y)\cup [x,y]$ contains precisely one point from $ \Gamma$, namely the point $z$; all other points on $\Gamma$ are in the exterior of $U$. So, $\Gamma$ intersects the segment $[x,y]$; consequently, $\text{dist}(x,\Gamma)<|\epsilon|$ and $ \text{dist}(y,\Gamma) < |\epsilon|$. This is a contradiction.
\end{proof}
The following lemma shows that components of $\Delta_\epsilon$ satisfy a weak form of one part of \emph{linearly local connectedness} introduced in \cite{Gehring-Vaisala}; see also \cite[p. 67]{Gehring-ICM}.
In particular, \emph{$\Delta_\epsilon$ has no inward cusps.}
\begin{lem}\label{curvesincomp}
Let $\Gamma$ be a Jordan curve, $\epsilon\neq 0$ and $D$ a connected component of $\Delta_{\epsilon}$. Then for any $x,y \in D$ with $|x-y|\leq 2|\epsilon|$, there exists a polygonal arc $\tau$ in $D$ that joins $x$ and $y$ and has $\diam{\tau} \leq 5|x-y|$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose first that $\epsilon>0$.
Let $x, y $ be two points in $ D$ with $|x-y|\leq2\epsilon$. So $[x,y]\cap \Gamma = \emptyset$ and the segment $[x,y]$ is contained in the bounded component $\Omega$ of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus \Gamma$.
Let $\tau'$ be any curve in $D$ that connects $x$ to $y$. After approximating $\tau'$ by a polygonal curve, erasing the loops and making small adjustments near the segment $[x,y]$, we may assume that $\tau'$ is a simple polygonal curve which intersects $[x,y]$ in a finite set. In other words, $\tau'$ is the union of finitely many simple polygonal subarcs $\sigma'$ in $D$, each of which meets $[x,y]$ precisely at its end points. The curve $\tau$ in the proposition will be obtained by replacing
each $\sigma'$ with a polygonal arc $\sigma$ in $D \cap B(x,\frac{5}{2}|x-y|) $ with the same end points.
Fix such a subarc $\sigma'$ having end points $a, b\in [x,y]$. Assume that $\sigma' \setminus \overline{B}(x,2|x-y|) \neq \emptyset $; otherwise, just let $\sigma=\sigma'$.
Let $U$ be the domain enclosed by the Jordan curve
$\sigma' \cup [a,b]$. Since $\partial U \cap \Gamma=\emptyset$ and $\Omega$ is simply connected, $\overline U \subset \Omega$.
We claim that
\[ U \setminus {B(x,2|x-y|)} \subset \Delta_{\epsilon}. \]
Otherwise, take a point $z\in U \setminus (B(x,2|x-y|) \cup \Delta_{\epsilon})$ and assume as we may, by the continuity of the distance function, that $z\in \gamma_\epsilon$. Let $z'$ be a point on $\Gamma$ for which $|z-z'|=\text{dist} (z,\Gamma)=\epsilon$. Since $\overline U \subset \Omega$, $z' \notin \overline{U}$ and the open segment $(z,z')$ intersects $\partial U$ at some point $z''$. If $z''$ is in $ [a,b]\subset [x,y]$ then
\[
\text{dist}(x,\Gamma)\leq |x-z'| \leq |x-z''|+|z''-z'|= |x-z''|+ \epsilon -|z-z''|<\epsilon,
\]
a contradiction.
If $z''$ is in $\sigma'$ then
$ \epsilon =|z-z'|> |z''-z'|\ge \text{dist}(z'',\Gamma)> \epsilon$, again a contradiction. This proves the claim.
Let $U'$ be the connected component of $U \cap B(x,2|x-y|)$ that contains the segment $[a,b]$ in its boundary. Since $U$ is a polygon, $U'$ is simply connected and $\partial U'$ is a Jordan curve.
In particular, $\partial U'\setminus (a,b)$ is composed of finitely many line segments in $D$ and finitely many subarcs of $S(x,2|x-y|)$. In view of the claim above,
$\partial U' \setminus (a,b)$ is an arc contained in $D$.
After replacing each maximal circular subarc of $\partial U' \setminus (a,b)$ by a polygonal arc nearby, we obtain a polygonal arc $\sigma$ in $ D\cap B(x,\frac{5}{2}|x-y|)$ connecting $a$ to $b$. The arc $\tau$ in the proposition is given by the union of these new $\sigma$'s.
Assume next that $\epsilon<0$. Given two points $x,y\in D$ with $|x-y|\leq 2|\epsilon|$, we define $\tau',\sigma', a, b, U$ as before, and need to replace each subarc $\sigma'$ of $\tau'$ by a new arc $\sigma$ in $ D\cap B(x,\frac{5}{2}|x-y|)$.
Since $\partial U =\sigma'\cup [a,b]\subset \Delta_\epsilon$ is contained in the unbounded component of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus \Gamma$ and $\partial U$ contains some points in $\Delta_\epsilon$,
we have either $\overline \Omega \cap \overline U =\emptyset$, or $\overline \Omega \subset U$.
Suppose $\overline \Omega \cap \overline U =\emptyset$. Then
$\overline U \subset \mathbb{R}^2 \setminus \overline {\Omega}$. We first check that $U \setminus B(x,2|x-y|) \subset \Delta_{\epsilon}$, then choose a replacement $\sigma$ for $\sigma'$ following the same
steps as in the case $\epsilon>0$.
Suppose $\overline{\Omega} \subset U$. We set $V = \mathbb{R}^2 \setminus \overline{U}$, then prove $V \setminus B(x,2|x-y|) \subset \Delta_{\epsilon}$ by replacing $U$ with $V$ in the argument for the case $\epsilon>0$.
Define $V'$ to be the component of $V \cap B(x,2|x-y|)$ that contains $[a,b]$ in its boundary, and choose $\sigma$ to be a polygonal curve close to $\partial V'\setminus (a,b)$ in $ D\cap B(x,\frac{5}{2}|x-y|)$ and having end points $a, b$.
\end{proof}
We next prove that the boundary of any connected component of $\Delta_{\epsilon}$ is a Jordan curve. We will need a theorem of Lennes in \cite{Len} which gives a sufficient condition for the frontier, of a bounded planar domain, to be a Jordan curve. Let $D$ be a bounded domain
and $p$ a closed polygonal curve which encloses $\overline{D}$ in its interior. Let $E'$ be the set of all points in the plane that can be joined to $p$ by a continuous curve in the complement of $D$. The \emph{frontier} $F$ of $D$ is the set of all common limit points of $E'$ and $D$, that is, $F=\overline E' \cap \overline D$. Define moreover the \emph{interior set of the frontier} $F$ to be
$I = \mathbb{R}^2 \setminus (E' \cup F)$ and the \emph{exterior set of the frontier} $F$ to be $E = E' \setminus F$. Observe that all the above definitions are independent of the choice of $p$.
Furthermore, a point $x \in F$ is said to be \emph{externally accessible} if there exists a finite or a continuous infinite polygonal path $\tau \colon [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}^2$ such that $\tau([0,1))\subset E$ and $\tau(1) = x$. And a point $x \in F$ is said to be \emph{internally accessible} if there exists a finite or a continuous infinite polygonal path $\tau \colon [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}^2$ such that $\tau([0,1))\subset I$ and $\tau(1) = x$. Lennes proved the following.
\begin{lem}[{\cite[Theorem 5.3]{Len}}]
If every point of a frontier $F$ possesses both the internal and the external accessibility, then $F$ is a Jordan curve.
\end{lem}
We now apply the theorem of Lennes to prove the following.
\begin{lem}\label{appr}
Let $\Gamma$ be a Jordan curve and $\epsilon \neq 0$. Then, the boundary of every connected component of $\Delta_{\epsilon}$ is a Jordan curve.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We prove the claim for $\epsilon>0$ only. The proof for the case $\epsilon<0$ is essentially the same. Recall that $\Omega$ is the bounded component of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus\Gamma$. Let $D$ be a connected component of $\Delta_\epsilon$, and $p$ be a closed polygonal curve that encloses $\overline{\Omega}$ in its interior. Every point $x\in \Omega \setminus D$ can be joined to one of its closest points on $\Gamma$ by a line segment entirely outside $D$, then to $p$ by a curve in $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus \Omega$. Therefore, $E'= \mathbb{R}^2 \setminus D$, $F= \overline E' \cap \overline D= \partial D$ and $I=D$, and any point in $\partial D$ is externally accessible.
To check the internal accessibility, we take $x \in \partial D$, and a sequence $\{x_n\} $ in $D$ with distance $|x_n - x|<2^{-n}\epsilon$ for every $n \ge 1$. By Lemma \ref{curvesincomp}, there exist a family of polygonal arcs $\{\tau_n\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ in $D$ such that $\tau_n$ joins $x_n$ to $x_{n+1}$ and has
$\diam{\tau_n} \leq 5|x_n - x_{n+1}| \leq 2^{1-n}\epsilon$.
Then, take $\tau$ to be the infinite polygonal path $\{x\} \cup \bigcup_{n\ge 1}\tau_n$. This proves that $x$ is internally accessible, and by Lennes' theorem, we conclude that $\partial D$ is a Jordan curve.
\end{proof}
Components of $\Delta_\epsilon$ satisfy one of the two conditions for the linearly local connectedness \cite{Gehring-ICM}, when $\Gamma$ is a quasicircle.
\begin{lem}\label{quasiconvex}
Suppose that $\Gamma$ is a $K$-quasicircle. Then, there exists a constant $M>0$ depending only on $K$ such that for any $\epsilon\neq 0$, for any connected component $D$ of $\Delta_{\epsilon}$, and for any two points $x,y \in D$, there exists a curve $\tau$ in $ D$ joining $x$ and $ y$ such that $\diam{\tau} \leq M|x-y|$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
In view of Lemma \ref{curvesincomp}, we consider points
$x$ and $y$ in $D$ with distance $|x-y|>2|\epsilon|$ only. The proof follows closely that of Lemma \ref{curvesincomp}; however, the segment $[x,y]$ here may intersect $\Gamma$.
Assume first that $\epsilon>0$. Since $\Gamma$ is a $K$-quasicircle, it satisfies condition (\ref{3pts}) for some $C=C(K)>1$.
Fix a simple polygonal curve $\tau'$ in $D$ joining $x$ and $y$ that intersects $[x,y]$ in a finite set. As in Lemma \ref{curvesincomp}, we will replace each
subarc $\sigma'$ of $\tau'$ that has end points in $[x,y]$ and does not intersect $[x,y]$ anywhere else, by a new
arc $\sigma$ in $ D \cap B(x,(C+2)|x-y|) $ having the same end points.
Fix such a subarc $\sigma'$ having end points $a, b \in [x,y]$. Assume that $\sigma' \setminus \overline{B}(x,(C+2)|x-y|)\neq \emptyset$; otherwise, just set $\sigma=\sigma'$.
The domain $U$ enclosed by the Jordan curve
$\sigma' \cup [a,b]$ may now contain points outside $\Omega$.
We claim nevertheless that
\begin{equation}\label{U}
U \setminus {B(x,(C+2)|x-y|)} \subset \Delta_{\epsilon}.
\end{equation}
Suppose $U \setminus {B(x,(C+2)|x-y|)} \nsubseteq \Delta_{\epsilon}$. As before, we may pick a point $z\in (U \setminus {B(x,(C+2)|x-y|)}) \cap \gamma_{\epsilon}$ and a point $z'\in \Gamma$ such that $|z-z'|=\text{dist} (z,\Gamma)=\epsilon$. Suppose $z'\notin U$; the segment $[z,z']$ must intersect $\partial U$ at some point $z''$. Because $|x-y|>2|\epsilon|$, the point $z''$ cannot be in $ [x,y]$, therefore $z'' \in \sigma'$. Hence
$ \epsilon =|z-z'|> |z''-z'|\ge \text{dist}(z'',\Gamma)> \epsilon$, a contradiction. So $z'$ must be in $U$, therefore $z'\in (U\cap \Gamma) \setminus B(x,(C+1)|x-y|)$.
Since $\epsilon>0$, $\Gamma$ cannot be entirely in $U$, so $\Gamma\cap \partial U \neq \emptyset$. Since $\partial U=\sigma' \cup [a,b]$ and $\sigma' \subset D$, $\Gamma \cap [a,b]\neq \emptyset$.
Let $z_1,z_2$ be the points in $[a,b]\cap \Gamma$ with the property that the open subarc $\Gamma'$ of $\Gamma$ connecting $z_1$ to $z_2$ and containing the point $z'$, is entirely in $U$. So $|z_1-z_2| < |a-b|\le |x-y|$ and
\[
\diam{\Gamma'} \geq \text{dist}(z',[z_1,z_2]) \geq |z'-x| -|x-y| \geq C|x-y| > C|z_1-z_2|.
\]
From the 2-point condition \eqref{3pts} it follows that the diameter of the subarc $\Gamma''= \Gamma \setminus \Gamma'$ is at most $ C|z_1-z_2|$. Therefore, $\Gamma'' \subset B(x, (C+1)|x-y|)$, and $\Gamma \subset U \cup B(x, (C+1)|x-y|)$.
Let $w$ be one of the points on $\sigma'$ that is furthest from $x$.
Since $\Gamma'\setminus \{z_1,z_2\}$ is contained in the open set $U$, $|x-w|> \max_{u \in\Gamma'} |x-u|;$
furthermore
$|x-w| \geq (C+2)|x-y|> \max_{u \in\Gamma''} |x-u|.$
As a consequence, $w$, also $\sigma'$, is contained in the unbounded component of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus \Gamma$. This is impossible because $\sigma'\subset D \subset \Delta_\epsilon \subset \Omega$. Claim (\ref{U}) is proved.
Let $U'$ be the component of $U \cap B(x,(C+2)|x-y|)$ whose boundary contains $[a,b]$. As in Lemma \ref{curvesincomp}, $\sigma'$ will be replaced by the subarc
$\sigma = \partial U' \setminus (a,b) \subset D\subset \Delta_{\epsilon}$.
The curve $\tau$ in the proposition is the union of these new $\sigma$'s.
\medskip
Now suppose $\epsilon<0$. Given $x, y\in D$ with $|x-y|>2|\epsilon|$, we define $\tau'$, $\sigma', a, b$, $U$ as before, and need to replace each subarc $\sigma'$ of $\tau'$ by a new arc $\sigma$ in $D\cap B(x,(C+2)|x-y|)$. When $\epsilon$ is negative, depending on the pair $x,y$, either possibility $U \setminus {B(x,(C+2)|x-y|)} \subset \Delta_{\epsilon}$ or $U \setminus {B(x,(C+2)|x-y|)} \nsubseteq \Delta_{\epsilon}$ may actually occur.
Suppose $U \setminus {B(x,(C+2)|x-y|)} \subset \Delta_{\epsilon}$. Choose $U'$ as in the case $\epsilon>0$ and replace $\sigma'$ by $\sigma=\partial U'\setminus (a,b)$.
Suppose $U \setminus {B(x,(C+2)|x-y|)} \nsubseteq \Delta_{\epsilon}$. We follow the argument for claim \eqref{U}, to conclude that $\Gamma\subset U\cup B(x,(C+1)|x-y|)$, therefore $\overline \Omega \subset U \cup B(x,(C+1)|x-y|)$.
Let $U''$ be the component of $B(x,(C+2)|x-y|) \setminus \overline{U}$ that contains $[a,b]$ in its boundary. Note that $\sigma = \partial U'' \setminus (a,b)$ is a Jordan arc
composed of a finite number of line segments belonging to $\sigma'$ and a finite number of subarcs of $S(x,(C+2)|x-y|)\setminus U$ and that
$\sigma \subset B(x,(C+2)|x-y|)$.
It remains to check that
\[S(x,(C+2)|x-y|)\setminus \overline U\subset \Delta_\epsilon.
\]
Take $z\in S(x,(C+2)|x-y|)\setminus \overline U$ and $z'\in \Gamma$ so that $|z-z'|=\text{dist}(z,\Gamma)$. Write $\Gamma=(\Gamma \cap U) \cup (\Gamma \setminus U) $.
If $z'\in \Gamma \cap U$, then the segment $(z,z')$ intersects $\partial U=[a,b]\cup \sigma'$ at some point, say $z''$. Since $\text{dist}(z,[a,b]) > |\epsilon|$, the point $z''$ is not in $[a,b]$, hence in $\sigma'\subset \Delta_\epsilon$. Therefore,
\[\text{dist}(z,\Gamma\cap U)\geq \text{dist}(z,\Gamma)=|z-z'|=|z-z''|+|z''-z'|\geq \text{dist}(z'',\Gamma)>|\epsilon|.\]
Since $\Gamma \setminus U\subset B(x, (C+1)|x-y|$, we also have $\text{dist}(z,\Gamma \setminus U)\geq |x-y|> |\epsilon|$.
So $\text{dist}(z,\Gamma)>|\epsilon|$.
This proves the claim and the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{remappr}
Both Lemmas \ref{curvesincomp} and \ref{quasiconvex} can be strengthened to include the case when $x$ and $y$ are in $\overline D$. In such case, curves $\tau$ satisfying the diameter estimates in the lemmas are contained in $D$ with the exception of their endpoints.
\end{rem}
We now state an elementary geometric fact needed in the following two lemmas.
Given $0<\delta <\epsilon$ and a point $a=\delta e^{i\alpha}$ in $B(0,\epsilon)$, then
\[S(a,\epsilon)\setminus B(0,\epsilon)= \{a+\epsilon e^{i\theta}\colon |\theta-\alpha|\leq \pi- \cos^{-1}(\frac{\delta}{2\epsilon}) \},
\]
and the circular arc is contained in the sectorial region $\{z\in \mathbb{R}^2 \colon |\arg z -\alpha| \leq
\cos^{-1}(\frac{\delta}{2\epsilon})\}$.
\medskip
Given any $x_0\in \gamma_\epsilon$, $\epsilon\neq 0$, set
\[\Gamma^{\{x_0\}} = \{ y \in \Gamma \colon |x_0 - y| = |\epsilon| \}.\]
\begin{lem}\label{X}
Suppose $\epsilon \neq 0$ and $x_0$ is a non-isolated point in $\gamma_\epsilon$. Then the set
$\Gamma^{\{x_0\}}$
lies entirely in a semi-circular subarc of $S(x_0,|\epsilon|)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\epsilon>0$. Choose a sequence of points $a_n$ on $\gamma_\epsilon$ that converges to $x_0$; set $\delta_n=|a_n-x_0|$ and assume as we may that $0<\delta_n <\epsilon$ . Since $\text{dist}(a_n,\Gamma)=\epsilon$, we have $\text{dist}(a_n, \Gamma^{\{x_0\}})\geq \epsilon$, for all $n\geq 1$. In particular $\Gamma^{\{x_0\}}$ is contained in the part of $S(x_0,\epsilon)$ that is outside $B(a_n,\epsilon)$, which is a circular arc of length $(2\pi- 2\cos^{-1}(\frac{\delta_n}{2\epsilon}))\,\epsilon$.
The claim follows by letting $n\to \infty$. The proof for the case $\epsilon<0$ is the same.
\end{proof}
Fix a non-isolated point $x_0$ on $\gamma_\epsilon$, we examine the geometry of the level set $\gamma_\epsilon$ near $x_0$.
Let $X = \Gamma^{\{x_0\}} $.
Since $X$ is compact, there exist $x_1,x_2 \in X$ (possibly $x_1=x_2$) such that $|x_1-x_2| = \diam{X}\leq 2 |\epsilon|$; and by Lemma \ref{X}, $X$ lies in a subarc $\Sigma$ (possibly degenerated) of $S(x_0,|\epsilon|)$ having endpoints $x_1$ and $x_2$ and of length at most $\pi |\epsilon|$.
Let $U = B(x_1,|\epsilon|) \cup B(x_2,|\epsilon|)$; clearly $\gamma_\epsilon \cap U =\emptyset $.
Set $\epsilon_0=(\epsilon^2-|x_1-x_2|^2/4)^{1/2}$. For $0< \delta<\epsilon_0$, the set $S(0,\delta) \setminus U$ is a connected arc when $|x_1-x_2|< 2| \epsilon|$, and it has two components when $|x_1-x_2| = 2| \epsilon|$. Let $S_\delta$ be a component of $S(0,\delta) \setminus U$.
\begin{lem}\label{4points}
Suppose $\epsilon \neq 0$ and $x_0$ is a non-isolated point in $\gamma_\epsilon$. There exists $\delta_0 \in (0,\epsilon_0)$ such that
if $0<\delta<\delta_0$ then the set $\gamma_\epsilon \cap S_\delta$ contains at most two points.
Specifically, if $0<\delta<\delta_0$, $a\in \gamma_\epsilon \cap S_\delta$, and $a'$ is a point in $\Gamma$ with $|a-a'|=\epsilon$, then at least one of the two components (maybe empty) $S_{\delta,a}^1,S_{\delta,a}^2$ of $S_\delta \setminus \{a\}$ is contained entirely in the disk $B(a',\epsilon)$; in other words,
there exists $j \in \{1,2\}$ such that every point in $S_{\delta,a}^j$ has distance strictly less than $\epsilon$ from $\Gamma$.
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
For every non-isolated point $x_0$ on $\gamma_\epsilon$ and every $\delta \in (0, \epsilon_0)$, the set $\gamma_{\epsilon}\cap S(x_0,\delta)$ contains
at most two points when $|x_1-x_2| < 2| \epsilon|$, and at most four points when $|x_1-x_2| = 2| \epsilon|$. See Figure \ref{fig:figure2} for some of the possibilities.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
We prove the lemma for $\epsilon>0$. The case $\epsilon<0$ is essentially the same.
Assume as we may that $x_0=0$, $x_1 = \epsilon e^{i\tau}, x_2 = \epsilon e^{i(2\pi-\tau)}$ with $\tau \in [\pi/2,\pi]$, and that $\Sigma \subset \{z \colon \text{Re}\, z \leq 0\}$. Consider from now on only those $\delta$ in $(0,\epsilon_0)$.
Consequently, $S_\delta \subset \{z \colon \text{Re}\, z > 0\}$ when $0<|x_1-x_2|< 2 \epsilon$ and $S(0,\delta)\cap \{z \colon \text{Re}\, z \geq 0\} \subset S_\delta $ when $x_1=x_2=-\epsilon$;
assume therefore without loss of generality that $S_\delta \subset \{z \colon \text{Re}\, z \geq 0\}$ when $|x_1-x_2|= 2 \epsilon$.
It is straightforward to check that
\begin{equation}\label{argument-S}
-(\tau -\cos^{-1}(\frac{\delta}{2\epsilon}))\leq \arg z \leq \tau -\cos^{-1}(\frac{\delta}{2\epsilon}) \quad \text{for all} \,\,\, z\in S_\delta.
\end{equation}
Fix a number $\xi \in (0,\frac{\pi}{24})$ depending on $\tau$ so that $\tau -\xi >\pi/2$ when $\tau >\pi/2$, and $\xi=\pi/48$ when $\tau=\pi/2$.
Fix also a number $\delta_0 \in (0,\epsilon_0)$, satisfying $\cos^{-1}(\frac{\delta_0}{2\epsilon})>\frac{5\pi}{12}$, and having the property that
for any $a\in \gamma_\epsilon \cap B(0,\delta_0)$ and any point $a'$ on $\Gamma$ nearest to $a$, i.e., $|a-a'|=\epsilon$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{argument-a'-1}
\tau -\xi \leq \arg a' \leq 2\pi-\tau +\xi.
\end{equation}
If there were no such $\delta_0$, $X$ would contain a point outside $\Sigma$.
\medskip
Suppose the assertion in the lemma is false. Then, there exist
$\delta\in(0,\delta_0)$, $a\in \gamma_\epsilon \cap S_\delta,a$, a point $a'\in\Gamma$ with $|a-a'|=\epsilon$, $b_1 \in S_{\delta,a}^1$ and $b_2 \in S_{\delta,a}^2$ such that $b_1,b_2 \notin B(a',\epsilon)$.
Assume as we may that
\[ - (\tau - \cos^{-1}(\frac{\delta}{2\epsilon})) \leq \arg{b_1} < \arg{a} < \arg{b_2} \leq \tau - \cos^{-1}(\frac{\delta}{2\epsilon}). \]
Let $l_1$ (resp. $l_2$) be the line that bisects the segment $[a,b_1]$ (resp. $[a,b_2]$). Since $|b_j- a'| \geq \epsilon = |a-a'|$ for $j=1$ and $2$, the point $a'$ lies in the closure of the component of $\mathbb{R}^2\setminus \{l_1,l_2\}$ that contains $a$. In particular by \eqref{argument-S},
\[
- (\tau - \cos^{-1}(\frac{\delta}{2\epsilon})) \leq \frac{\arg{b_1} + \arg{a}}{2} \leq \arg{a'} \leq \frac{\arg{b_2} + \arg{a}}{2}\leq \tau - \cos^{-1}(\frac{\delta}{2\epsilon}),
\]
which is impossible in view of (\ref{argument-a'-1}) and the fact that $\xi < \pi/24 < \cos^{-1}(\frac{\delta_0}{2\epsilon})$. This proves the second assertion and the lemma.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{K-D}
Suppose that for some $\epsilon\neq 0$, there exist a connected component $D$ of $\Delta_{\epsilon}$ and a connected component $G$ of $\gamma_{\epsilon}\cup\Delta_{\epsilon}$
such that $\overline{D} \subsetneq G$.
Then, there exists a point $x_0 \in \partial D$ and points $x_1,x_2 \in \Gamma$ such that $x_0,x_1,x_2$ are collinear and
\[ |x_0 - x_1| = |x_0 - x_2| = |\epsilon|. \]
Furthermore, $\Gamma^{\{x_0\}}=\{x_1,x_2\}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We treat the case $\epsilon>0$ only; the case $\epsilon<0$ is similar.
Let $E = G \setminus \overline{D}$. Since $G$ is connected, we have that $\overline{E} \cap \overline{D} \neq \emptyset$ and $\overline{E} \cap \partial D \neq \emptyset$. Fix a point $x_0 \in \overline{E} \cap \partial D$; clearly $x_0$ is a non-isolated point in $ \gamma_\epsilon$.
Define $X=\Gamma^{\{x_0\}}$, the shortest subarc $\Sigma$ of $S(x_0,\epsilon)$ containing $X$, its end points $x_1,x_2$, the open set $U$, and the number
$\delta_0 >0 $, relative to the point $x_0$ as in Lemma \ref{4points}.
Suppose that $|x_1- x_2|< 2 \epsilon$. Then for $\delta\in(0,\epsilon_0)$, $S(x_0,\delta)\setminus U$ is the arc $S_\delta$. Since $x_0 \in \partial D$, there exists a number $\delta_1=\delta_1(x_0,D,\epsilon)>0$ such that $ D \cap S_\delta$ contains a non-trivial arc for every $0<\delta<\delta_1$. Therefore
$\partial D \cap S_\delta$ contains at least two points in $ \gamma_\epsilon$. Hence,
by Lemma \ref{4points}, $E \cap S_\delta =\emptyset$ when $0<\delta<\min\{\delta_0,\delta_1\}$. This contradicts the assumption
$x_0 \in \overline{E}$. Therefore $|x_1- x_2|= 2 \epsilon$ and $x_0, x_1$ and $ x_2$ are collinear.
We now prove $\Gamma^{\{x_0\}}=\{x_1,x_2\}$.
Assume, as in Lemma \ref{4points}, that $x_0 = 0$, $\Sigma \subset \{\text{Re}\, z \leq 0\}$, $x_1 = \epsilon e^{i\pi/2}$ and $x_2 = \epsilon e^{i 3\pi/2}$.
Suppose there exists another point $x_3 \in \Gamma^{\{x_0\}}\setminus \{x_1,x_2\}$; so $\text{Re}\, x_3 < 0$. Observe, by elementary calculations, that there exists $\delta_2=\delta_2(x_3,\epsilon)\in (0,\epsilon_0)$ so that for any $y$ in the half disk $B(0,\delta_2) \cap \{\text{Re}\, z < 0\}$, one of the numbers $|y-x_1|$, $|y-x_2|$, $|y-x_3|$ is strictly less than $\epsilon$.
Therefore, $(\Delta_\epsilon \cup \gamma_\epsilon) \cap B(0,\delta_2 ) \subset \{\text{Re}\, z \geq 0\} \setminus U $.
Since $x_0\in \overline D$, $\partial D \cap S_\delta$ contains at least two points in $ \gamma_\epsilon$ for all sufficiently small $\delta$. As before, it follows from Lemma \ref{4points} that $E \cap S_\delta$ must be empty for all sufficiently small $\delta$, a contradiction. This proves that $\Gamma^{\{x_0\}}=\{x_1,x_2\}$, and the lemma.
\end{proof}
The next two propositions lead naturally to the $(1/2,r_0)$-chordal condition for the LJC property in
Theorem \ref{betathmLC}.
\begin{prop}\label{boundary}
Suppose that for some $\epsilon\neq 0$, $\Delta_\epsilon \neq \emptyset$, $\gamma_{\epsilon}\cup \Delta_{\epsilon}$ is connected, and $\overline\Delta_\epsilon \subsetneq \gamma_{\epsilon}\cup \Delta_{\epsilon} $. Then, there exist points $x_0\in \gamma_{\epsilon}$ and $x_1,x_2 \in \Gamma$ which are collinear such that
\[ |x_0-x_1| = |x_0-x_2| = |\epsilon|. \]
Moreover, $\Gamma^{\{x_0\}} = \{x_1,x_2\}$.
\end{prop}
From the assumptions, there exist a connected component $D$ of $\Delta_{\epsilon}$ and a connected component $G$ of $\gamma_{\epsilon}\cup\Delta_{\epsilon}$
such that $D \subset \overline{D} \subsetneq G$. The proposition follows from Lemma \ref{K-D}.
\begin{rem}
The point $x_0$ in Proposition \ref{boundary}, which is chosen according to Lemma \ref{K-D}, lies, in fact, on the boundary of a component of $\Delta_\epsilon$.
\end{rem}
\begin{prop}\label{gammadelta}
Suppose that $\Delta_{\epsilon}\neq \emptyset$ and $\gamma_{\epsilon}\cup \Delta_{\epsilon}$ is not connected for some $\epsilon\neq 0$. Then, there exist points $x_0\in \Omega$ and $x_1,x_2 \in \Gamma$ which are collinear such that
\[ |x_0-x_1| = |x_0-x_2| = \rm{dist} (x_0,\Gamma)<|\epsilon|. \]
Moreover, $\Gamma^{\{x_0\}} = \{x_1,x_2\}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We first prove the proposition for $\epsilon>0$. Choose a connected component $D$ of $\Delta_\epsilon$, a point $x\in D$, and a point $y$ in a connected component of $\Delta_{\epsilon}\cup\gamma_{\epsilon}$ that does not meet $\overline D$, and define
\[
d_0 = \sup\{\delta>0 \colon x, y \,\, \text{are in a common component of} \,\, \Delta_\delta\}.
\]
Since $\Omega$ is path connected, $d_0>0$; and since $x$ and $y$ are in two different components of the closed set $\gamma_{\epsilon}\cup \Delta_{\epsilon}$, $d_0 < \epsilon$.
For $\delta \in (0,d_0)$, let $G_\delta$ be the component of $\Delta_\delta$ that contains $x$ and $y$. Then, for $0 <\delta<\delta'<d_0$ we have $G_{\delta'} \subset \overline{G_{\delta'}} \subset G_\delta$. Since $\{\overline{G_\delta}\}_{\delta\in (0,d_0)}$ is a nested family of compact connected sets, the intersection $G = \bigcap_{0 <\delta<d_0} \overline G_\delta$ is a connected subset of $\gamma_{d_0}\cup\Delta_{d_0}$ that contains $\overline D \cup \{y\}$.
We claim that $G$ is the component of $\gamma_{d_0}\cup \Delta_{d_0}$ that contains $x,y$. Indeed, let $\tilde G$ be the component of $\gamma_{d_0}\cup \Delta_{d_0}$ that contains $x,y$. Clearly $G\subset \tilde G$. Since the set $\bigcup_{x\in \tilde G}B(x,\delta)$ is open and connected for every $\delta \in (0,d_0)$,
\[\tilde G \subset \bigcup_{x\in \tilde G}B(x,\delta) \subset G_{d_0-\delta} \qquad \text{for each }\,\,\delta \in (0,d_0).
\]
So $\tilde G \subset G$ and $G$ is the component of $\gamma_{d_0}\cup \Delta_{d_0}$ that contains $x,y$. Hence, $\overline{D} \subsetneq G$ and
the proposition now follows from Lemma \ref{K-D}.
Suppose now that $\epsilon<0$. Choose $D, x, y$ as before, and define
\[
d_0 = \inf\{\delta<0 \colon x, y \,\, \text{are in a common component of} \,\, \Delta_\delta\}.
\]
For $\delta \in (d_0,0), $ let $G'_{\delta}$ be the component of $\Delta_{\delta}$ that contains $x$ and $y$, and let $G' = \bigcap_{d_0<\delta<0 } \overline {G'}_\delta$. Since, for all $d_0<\delta<0$, sets $\mathbb{R}^2 \setminus \overline {G'}_\delta$ are contained in a fixed planar disk, the intersection $G'$ is connected. The rest of the proof is similar to that of the case $\epsilon>0$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
The point $x_0$ in Proposition \ref{gammadelta}, chosen according to Lemma \ref{K-D}, lies on the boundary of a component of $\Delta_{d_0}$ for some $0< |d_0|<|\epsilon|$.
\end{rem}
\section{Level Curves and Level Quasicircles}\label{mainresults}
In this section, we give the proofs of Theorem \ref{betathmLC} and Theorem \ref{betathmLQC} along with two examples that show the sharpness of the conditions.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{betathmLC}]
We give the proof for the case $\epsilon>0$; the case $\epsilon<0$ is practically the same. By the assumption of the theorem, there exists $r_0>0$ such that $\zeta_{\Gamma}(x,y)\leq 1/2$, for all $x,y \in \Gamma$ with $|x-y|\leq r_0$.
First we claim that $\Delta_\epsilon\cup\gamma_\epsilon$ is connected for all $\epsilon\in (0,r_0/2)$. Otherwise, by Proposition, \ref{gammadelta}, there exist $d_0 \in (0,r_0/2)$ and collinear points $x_0 \in \gamma_{d_0}$ and $x_1,x_2 \in \Gamma$ such that $\Gamma^{\{x_0\}} =\{y\in \Gamma \colon |x_0-y|=d_0\}= \{x_1,x_2\}$.
The line $l$ that contains $x_0$ and is perpendicular to $l_{x_1,x_2}$ intersects $\Gamma(x_1,x_2)$ at some point $z$. Note that $|x_1-x_2|=2 d_0< r_0$ and that
\[ \text{dist}(z, l_{x_1,x_2}) = |x_0-z| > \text{dist} (x_0,\Gamma)=d_0. \]
So $\zeta_{\Gamma}(x_1,x_2) > 1/2$, a contradiction.
Next we claim that $\Delta_\epsilon$ must be connected for all $\epsilon \in(0,r_0/2) $.
Otherwise, for some $\epsilon\in (0,r_0/2)$ the open set $\Delta_\epsilon$ would have at least two components, called $D_1, D_2$. By the continuity of the distance function, each $D_j, j=1, 2,$ would contain a point $z_j$ of distance $\epsilon' $ to $\Gamma$, for some $\epsilon' \in (\epsilon,r_0/2)$. This would imply that $\Delta_{\epsilon'}\cup \gamma_{\epsilon'}$ is not connected; this contradicts the previous claim.
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{appr}, $\partial \Delta_\epsilon$ is a Jordan curve for every $\epsilon \in(0,r_0/2)$.
It remains to check that $\gamma_\epsilon= \partial \Delta_\epsilon$ for all $\epsilon \in(0,r_0/2)$.
Suppose $\partial \Delta_\epsilon \varsubsetneq \gamma_\epsilon$ for some $\epsilon \in(0,r_0/2)$. Then $\overline \Delta_\epsilon \varsubsetneq \Delta_\epsilon \cup \gamma_\epsilon$. Therefore, by Proposition \ref{boundary}, we can find collinear points $x_0\in \gamma_\epsilon$ and $x_1,x_2 \in \Gamma$ such that $\Gamma^{\{x_0\}} = \{x_1,x_2\}$. As before, this will lead to
the inequality $\zeta_{\Gamma}(x_1,x_2) > 1/2$, a contradiction. So $\gamma_\epsilon= \partial \Delta_\epsilon$.
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{sharpLJC}
The $(1/2,r_0)$-chordal condition is sharp for the conclusion of Theorem \ref{betathmLC}.
\emph{We construct a chord-arc curve $\Gamma$ with $\zeta_{\Gamma} = \frac{1}{2}$ which satisfies
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] There exist two sequences of points $\{x_n\},\{y_n\}$ on $\Gamma$ such that $|x_n-y_n| \to 0$ and $\zeta_{\Gamma}(x_n,y_n) = \frac{1}{2} + 2^{-n}$.
\item[(ii)] There exists a decreasing sequence of positive numbers $\{\epsilon_n\}$ with $\epsilon_n \to 0$ such that $\gamma_{\epsilon_n}$ is not a Jordan curve.
\end{enumerate}
as follows. Let $\Gamma$ be the boundary of the domain
\[ D = [-1,2] \times [-3,0] \cup \bigcup_{n=0}^{\infty} [2^{-n}-2^{-n-2} , 2^{-n}] \times [0, 2^{-n-2}(1/2 + 2^{-n})] .\]
Observe that $\Gamma$ is a Jordan curve and it is not difficult to show that $\Gamma$ is also a chord-arc. Set, for any $n \in \mathbb{N}$,
\[ x_n = (2^{-n} - 2^{-n-2} , 0) \text{ and } y_n = (2^{-n}, 0). \]
Note that $\zeta_{\Gamma}(x_n,y_n) = \frac{1}{2} + 2^{-n}$ and that it is not hard to check that $\zeta_{\Gamma} = \frac{1}{2}$. Let $\Lambda_n = \Gamma(x_n,y_n)$ and $\epsilon_n = 2^{-n-3}$. Then, the set $\gamma_{\epsilon_n}^{\Lambda_n}=\{x\in \gamma_{\epsilon_n}\colon \text{dist}(x,\Lambda_n)=\epsilon_n \}$ is the union of the line segment $\{x_n + 2^{-n-3}\}\times [0,2^{-2n-2}]$
and two quarter-circles $\{x_n + \epsilon_n e^{i\theta} \colon \frac{3\pi}{2}\leq \theta \leq 2 \pi \} \bigcup \{y_n + \epsilon_n e^{i\theta} \colon \pi \leq \theta \leq \frac{3\pi}{2} \}$. It follows that $\gamma_{\epsilon_n}$ is not a Jordan curve.}
\end{rem}
\medskip
We now apply Lemma \ref{curvesincomp}, Lemma \ref{quasiconvex}, and Theorem \ref{betathmLC} to prove Theorem \ref{betathmLQC}. Recall from Lemma \ref{curvesincomp} that $\Delta_\epsilon$, if a Jordan domain, has no inward cusp. Condition $\zeta_\Gamma <1/2$, together with the estimates \eqref{zeta-half} below, shows that $\Delta_\epsilon$ \emph{has no outward cusps}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{betathmLQC}]
We prove the theorem for $\epsilon>0$ only. The proof for the case $\epsilon<0$ is practically the same.
By the assumption of the theorem, there exist $\zeta\in (0,1/2)$ and $r_0>0$ such that $\zeta_{\Gamma}(x,y)\leq \zeta $ for all $x,y \in \Gamma$ with $|x-y|\leq r_0$.
From Theorem \ref{betathmLC} and its proof, $\gamma_\epsilon$ is a Jordan curve for every $\epsilon\in (0,r_0/2)$; by Lemma \ref{zetabounded}, $\Gamma$ is a $K(\zeta)$-quasicircle, therefore satisfies the 2-point condition \eqref{3pts} for some constant $C(\zeta)>1$. Constants below will depend only on $\zeta$.
We now prove that there exists $K'>1$ depending only on $\zeta$ such that $\gamma_\epsilon$ is a $K'$-quasicircle for any
\[
0 <\epsilon< \min\{\frac{r_0}{10},\frac{\diam \Gamma}{20 C(\zeta)}\}.
\]
By the $2$-point condition, it suffices to prove that there exists $M>1$, depending only on $\zeta$, such that
\[ \diam{\gamma_\epsilon ( x,y)} \leq M|x-y|\quad \text{for all}\,\,x,y \in \gamma_\epsilon. \]
Given $x$ and $y$ in $ \gamma_\epsilon$, choose $x',y' \in \Gamma$ such that $|x-x'| = |y-y'| = \epsilon;$
segments $[x,x']$ and $[y,y']$ do not meet except possibly at $x'$ and $y'$.
By Remark \ref{remappr}, there exists a curve $\tau_{x,y}$, with $\tau_{x,y}\setminus \{x,y\}\subset \Delta_\epsilon$, that connects $x$ to $y$, and satisfies $|x-y|\leq \diam{\tau_{x,y}} \leq C_1(\zeta)|x-y|$ for some constant $C_1(\zeta)>1$. Consider the domain $D$ enclosed by the Jordan curve $[x,x'] \cup \Gamma(x',y') \cup [y,y'] \cup \tau_{x,y}$. Let $\gamma_\epsilon(x,y)^*$ be the component of $\gamma_\epsilon \setminus \{x,y\}$ that is contained in $D$; note that $\gamma_\epsilon(x,y)^*$ and $\gamma_\epsilon(x,y)$ are not necessarily the same arc. It suffices to show that
\[
\diam{\gamma_\epsilon ( x,y)^*} \simeq |x-y|.
\]
We consider four cases according to the ratios $|x'-y'|/\epsilon$ and $|x-y|/\epsilon$.
\emph{Case 1.} $|x'-y'| \geq 4(1-\zeta)\epsilon$. $\,$ In this case,
$ |x'-y'| -2\epsilon \leq |x-y| \leq |x'-y'| + 2\epsilon $,
which implies
\[ \frac{1-2\zeta}{2-2\zeta}|x'-y'| \leq |x-y| \leq \frac{3-2\zeta}{2-2\zeta}|x'-y'|.\]
Since $0<\zeta <1/2$, $\diam{\tau_{x,y}} \simeq |x-y|$ and $\Gamma$ is a $K(\zeta)$-quasicircle, we have $ \diam D\simeq |x-y|$. Hence, $\diam{\gamma_\epsilon ( x,y)^*} \simeq |x-y|$.
\emph{Case 2.} $x' = y'$. $\,$ In this case, $\gamma(x,y)^*=\gamma(x,y)$. By Lemma \ref{circgamma}, $\gamma_\epsilon(x,y)$ is a subarc of $S(x',\epsilon)$ of length at most $\pi \epsilon$, hence $\diam{\gamma_\epsilon(x,y)} = |x-y|$.
\emph{Case 3.} $0 < |x'-y'| < 4(1-\zeta)\epsilon$ and $ |x-y| \ge \epsilon (1-2\zeta)^2/10$. $\,$
Since $\diam D \simeq \epsilon$ and $\gamma_\epsilon(x,y)^* \subset D$, we have $\diam \gamma_\epsilon(x,y)^*\simeq |x-y| \simeq \epsilon$.
\emph{Case 4.} $0 < |x'-y'| < 4(1-\zeta)\epsilon$ and $0< |x-y| < \epsilon (1-2\zeta)^2/10$. $\,$
In view of Lemma \ref{quasiconvex} and Remark \ref{remappr}, we may assume that $\diam \tau_{x,y} \le 5|x-y| <\epsilon/2$. It is easy to check that in this case $\gamma(x,y)^*=\gamma(x,y)$. However, there is no relation between $|x-y|$ and $|x'-y'|$, and $\diam D$ may be much bigger than $|x-y|$. We will construct a new domain $D'$ whose closure contains $\gamma_\epsilon(x,y)$ and has $\diam D'\simeq |x-y|$.
First, let $R(x',y')$ be the rectangular domain whose boundary has two sides parallel to the line $l_{x',y'}$ of length $a=|x'-y'|$, and two other sides having mid-points $x'$ and $y'$ and of length $b=2(\epsilon-\zeta|x'-y'|)$. Then define a domain
\[
U(x',y')=B(x',\epsilon)\cup B(y',\epsilon) \cup R(x',y').
\]
It is possible that $R(x',y')$ is contained in $B(x',\epsilon)\cup B(y',\epsilon)$ for some pairs $x'$ and $y'$.
Nevertheless, $\partial U(x',y')$ are $K''$-quasicircles for some constant $K''>1$ depending only on $\zeta$, in particular not on $x'$ and $y'$. This observation follows from the inequalities: $0<\zeta <1/2$,
\begin{equation}\label{zeta-half}
0< a=|x'-y'| < 4(1-\zeta)\epsilon, \,\text{and} \,0< \epsilon (1-2\zeta)^{2} < \frac{b}{2} = \epsilon-\zeta|x'-y'| < \epsilon.
\end{equation}
Next, we claim that $U(x',y')\cap \overline \Delta_\epsilon =\emptyset$.
Indeed, for any $z\in R(x',y')$ the line containing $z$ and perpendicular to $l_{x',y'}$
must intersect the arc $\Gamma(x',y')$ at some point $z'$.
Note that $\text{dist}(z,\Gamma)\leq \text{dist}(z,\Gamma(x',y')) \leq |z-z'|\leq \text{dist}(z,l_{x',y'}) +\text{dist}(z',l_{x',y'}) < \frac{b}{2} +\zeta |x'-y'| =\epsilon$.
Clearly, $\text{dist}(z,\Gamma)<\epsilon$ for all $z\in B(x',\epsilon)\cup B(y',\epsilon)$.
Recall that $x \in \partial B(x',\epsilon)\cap \partial U(x',y')$ and $y \in \partial B(y',\epsilon)\cap \partial U(x',y')$.
Let $T_{x,y}$ be the subarc of $\partial U(x',y')$ connecting $x$ to $y$ that has the smaller diameter. Then, $T_{x,y} \subset \mathbb{R}^2\setminus \Delta_\epsilon$, and $\diam T_{x,y} \simeq |x-y|$ because $\partial U(x',y')$ is a $K''$-quasicircle.
To summarize, $\Delta_\epsilon$ is a Jordan domain, $x$ and $y$ are two points on $\partial \Delta_\epsilon$, and $\tau_{x,y}$, $\gamma_\epsilon(x,y)$, and $T_{x,y}$ are arcs connecting $x$ to $y$, with
$\tau_{x,y}\setminus \{x,y\}\subset \Delta_\epsilon$, $\gamma_\epsilon(x,y)\subset \partial \Delta_\epsilon$, and $T_{x,y} \subset \mathbb{R}^2\setminus \Delta_\epsilon$.
Let $D'$ be the domain enclosed by the Jordan curve $\tau_{x,y}\cup T_{x,y}$. We claim that $\gamma_\epsilon(x,y)$ is contained in $\overline {D'}$. Otherwise, $\tau_{x,y}$ would be contained in the closure of the domain $D''$ enclosed by the Jordan curve $\gamma_\epsilon(x,y) \cup T_{x,y}$. By the connectedness of $\Delta_\epsilon$, the entire $\Delta_\epsilon$ would be contained in $D''$. A preliminary estimate of $\diam \gamma_\epsilon(x,y)$ from the fact $ \gamma_\epsilon(x,y)\subset D$ shows that
\[
\diam \gamma_\epsilon(x,y) \le 5 |x-y| +2\epsilon + C(\zeta)|x'-y'| \leq 7 C(\zeta)\epsilon.
\]
Therefore,
\[
\diam \Delta_\epsilon \leq \diam D'' \le \diam \gamma_\epsilon(x,y) + \diam U(x',y') \]
\[
\leq
7 C(\zeta)\epsilon +4\epsilon+ |x'-y'| \leq 15 C(\zeta)\epsilon <\frac{3}{4} \diam \Gamma <\diam \Delta_{\epsilon},
\]
a contradiction. So $\gamma_\epsilon(x,y)\subset \overline {D'}$, and therefore
\[\diam \gamma_\epsilon(x,y) \leq \diam D' \leq \diam \tau_{x,y} +\diam T_{x,y} \simeq |x-y|.\]
This completes the proof of $\diam \gamma_\epsilon(x,y) \simeq |x-y|$ for Case 4, and the theorem.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}\label{sharpLQC}
The condition $\zeta_\Gamma< 1/2$ is sharp for the conclusion of Theorem \ref{betathmLQC}.
\emph{We first make an observation.
Given $\alpha \in [0,\pi/12]$,
let $\sigma$ be the circular arc $\{e^{i\theta}\colon \alpha \leq \theta \leq \pi-\alpha\}$, and
$\Gamma'$ be the infinite simple curve obtained by replacing the segment $[e^{i\alpha}, e^{i (\pi-\alpha)}]$ on $l_{e^{i\alpha}, e^{i (\pi-\alpha)}}$ by $\sigma$. The set of points below $\Gamma'$ that have unit distance to $\Gamma'$ is a simple arc $\gamma'$ consisting of two horizontal semi-infinite lines and two circular arcs $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$, where $\tau_1$ is a subarc of the circle $S(e^{i\alpha},1)$ connecting $0$ and $-i+e^{i\alpha}$ , and $\tau_2$ is a subarc of the circle $S( e^{i (\pi-\alpha)},1)$ connecting $0$ and $-i+e^{i (\pi-\alpha)}$. Since $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ meet at an angle $2\alpha$, the arc $\gamma'$ is a $K(\alpha)$-quasiline with $K(\alpha) \to \infty$ as $\alpha \to 0$.}
\emph{Fix now a decreasing sequence $\alpha_n$ converging to $0$ with $\alpha_1 = \pi/12$, and another sequence $\epsilon_n=4^{-n-2}$. Let $p_n$ be the point having coordinates $(2^{-n}, -\epsilon_n \sin \alpha_n)$ and $\sigma_n$ be the subarc of $S(p_n,\epsilon_n)$ above the real axis; and let $\omega$ be the simple curve that has end points $-1$ and $1$ and is the union of circular arcs $\bigcup_{n\ge 1} \sigma_n$ and a countable number of horizontal segments in $[0,1]$. Fix a large $N\in \mathbb{N}$, and let $P$ be the boundary of a regular $N$-polygon in the lower half-plane which has $[-1,1]$ as one of its edges. Let $\Gamma$ be the Jordan curve obtained from $P$ by replacing the edge $[-1,1]$ by
$\omega$.}
\emph{It is not hard to see that for sufficiently large $N$, $\Gamma$ is a $K$-quasicircle for some $K>1$ independent of $N$, that
$\zeta_{\Gamma}(x,y) < 1/2$ for all $x,y\in \Gamma$ with $|x-y|\le 1/2$, and that $\zeta_{\Gamma} = 1/2$.}
\emph{On the other hand, every level curve $\gamma_{\epsilon_n}$ is a $K_n$-quasicircle which contains two circular arcs, with the same curvature, meeting at an angle $2\alpha_n$. Since $\alpha_n\to 0$, $K_n$'s cannot have a uniform upper bound. So $\Gamma$ does not satisfy the LQC property.}
\end{rem}
\section{Level Chord-Arc Property}\label{LCAresults}
In this section we give the proof of Theorem \ref{LCAmain}. We start by recalling a known fact: \emph{if a bounded starlike domain in $\mathbb{R}^2$ satisfies a strong interior cone property then its boundary is a chord-arc curve.}
For $a \in (0,\pi), h>0$, $x\in \mathbb{R}^2$ and $v\in \mathbb S^1$, denote by
\[ \mathscr{C}_{a,h}(x,v) = \{z \in \mathbb{R}^2 \colon \cos(a/2)\, |z-x| \leq v\cdot (z-x) \leq h \}\]
the truncated cone with vertex $x$, direction $v$, height $h$ and aperture $a$.
Suppose that $U \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ is a bounded \emph{starlike domain} with respect to a point $x_0\in U$, i.e., for every $x \in \partial U$ the line segment $[x_0,x]$ intersects $\partial U$ only at the point $x$.
Suppose in addition
$(U, x_0)$ satisfies the \emph{strong interior cone property}, i.e.,
there exist $a \in (0,\pi), h>0$ so that the truncated cone $\mathscr{C}_{a,h}(x,v_x)\setminus \{x\}$, in the direction $v_x = (x_0-x)/|x_0-x|$, is contained in $U$ for every $x \in \partial U$.
Assume from now on $x_0=0$, and set
\[ \rho = \max\{|x|\colon x \in \partial U\}.
\]
We obtain, by elementary geometry, positive constants $c_1=c_1(a, \frac{h}{\rho}), c_2=c_2(a), c_3=c_3(a)$ such that
\[
c_2\, |x-y| \leq |x- |x|\frac{y}{|y|}|\leq \, c_3 |x-y|, \,\, \text{for all}\,\, x, y \in \partial U \,\, \text{with}\,\, |\frac{x}{|x|}-\frac{y}{|y|}| \le c_1.
\]
Let $\psi \colon \partial U \to \mathbb S^1$ be the map $ x\mapsto \frac{x}{|x|}$. Then $\rho \psi$ is $L$-bi-Lipschitz for some constant $L>1 $ depending only on $a$ and $h/\rho$. Therefore $\partial U$ is a $C$-chord-arc curve for some constant $C>1 $ depending only on $a$ and $h/\rho$.
\bigskip
Essential to our proof of Theorem \ref{LCAmain} is a lemma of Brown \cite{Brown} on sets of constant distance from a compact subset $A$ of $\mathbb{R}^2$. Recall from the Introduction that for a given $\epsilon>0$, the $\epsilon$\emph{-boundary} of $A$ is the set
\[ \partial_{\epsilon}(A) = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^2 \colon \text{dist}(x,A) = \epsilon \}. \]
In Lemma 1 of his paper, Brown proved that \emph{if $\epsilon > \diam{A}$, then $\partial_{\epsilon}(A)$ is the boundary of a starlike domain $U_\epsilon$ with respect to any point $x_0 \in A$}. In fact, whenever $\epsilon > 3 \diam{A}$, $(U_\epsilon,x_0)$ also possesses
the strong interior cone property, namely,
the cone $\mathscr{C}_{\frac{\pi}{3},\frac{\epsilon}{3}}(x,(x_0-x)/|x_0-x|)\setminus \{x\}$ with vertex $x\in \partial_{\epsilon}(A)$ is contained in $U_\epsilon$. Since $2\epsilon <\diam (\partial_{\epsilon}(A)) < 3\epsilon $, we have the following.
\begin{lem}\label{Brown-chord arc}
There is a universal constant $c_0>1$ for the following.
Suppose that $A$ is a compact subset of $\mathbb{R}^2$ and that $\epsilon > 3 \diam{A}$. Then the $\epsilon$\emph{-boundary} $\partial_{\epsilon}(A) $ of $A$ is a $c_0$-chord arc curve.
\end{lem}
\medskip
We now apply Lemma \ref{Brown-chord arc} locally and repeatedly to prove Theorem \ref{LCAmain}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{LCAmain}]
We prove the theorem for the case $\epsilon>0$ only. The case $\epsilon<0$ is essentially the same.
For the necessity, we only need to check that $\Gamma$ is a chord-arc curve. By the LCA property,
there exist $L>1$, $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$, and for each $n \geq n_0$, an $L$-bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism $f_n$ of $\mathbb{R}^2$
such that $f_n(\overline{\mathbb{B}^2}) = \overline{\Delta_{\frac{1}{n}}}$.
Since $f_n|\overline{\mathbb{B}^2}$ are equicontinuous, by Arzela-Ascoli, there is a subsequence $f_{k_n}|\overline{\mathbb{B}^2}$ which converges to a homeomorphism $f$.
It is not hard to see that $f$ is bi-Lipschitz and maps $\overline{\mathbb{B}^2}$ onto $\overline\Omega$. Therefore, $\Gamma=f(\partial {\mathbb{B}^2})$ is a chord-arc curve.
To show the sufficiency, we assume that $\Gamma$ is a $C_1$-chord-arc curve, and that there exist $\epsilon_0 >0$ and $K>1$ such that the Jordan curves $\gamma_{\epsilon}$ are $K$-quasicircles for all $\epsilon\in (0, \epsilon_0]$. In the rest of the proof, constants are understood to depend on $C_1$ and $K$ only, in particular independent of $\epsilon$.
For $\epsilon\in (0,\epsilon_0]$ and for a closed subset $\lambda \subset \gamma_{\epsilon}$, we set
\[\Gamma^{\lambda} = \{y \in \Gamma \colon |y-x| = \epsilon \,\,\text{for some}\,\, x \in \lambda \}=\{y \in \Gamma \colon \text{dist}(y,\lambda) = \epsilon \}. \]
In general, $\Gamma^{\lambda} $ need not be connected, and there is no relation between the diameter of $\lambda$ and the diameter of $\Gamma^{\lambda}$.
We prove now that $\gamma_{\epsilon}$ is a chord-arc curve. Since $\gamma_{\epsilon}$ is a $K$-quasicircle, it suffices to check
\[
\ell (\lambda) \lesssim \diam{\lambda}\quad \text{ for all subarcs}\,\, \lambda \subset \gamma_{\epsilon}.\]
We consider three cases according to the diameter of $\Gamma^{\lambda}$.
\emph{Case 1.} $\diam{\Gamma^{\lambda}} \leq \epsilon/10$.
Set
\[ \partial_{\epsilon}(\Gamma^{\lambda}) = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^2 \colon \text{dist}(x,\Gamma^{\lambda}) = \epsilon \}.\]
After a moment of reflection, we see that $\lambda \subset \partial_{\epsilon}(\Gamma^{\lambda})$.
By Lemma \ref{Brown-chord arc}, there exists a universal constant $c_0 > 1$ such that, for any $x,y \in \partial_{\epsilon}(\Gamma^{\lambda})$,\[ \ell (\partial_{\epsilon}(\Gamma^{\lambda})(x,y)) \leq c_0|x-y|; \]
recall that $\partial_{\epsilon}(\Gamma^{\lambda})(x,y)$ is the subarc of $\partial_{\epsilon}(\Gamma^{\lambda})$ connecting $x$ and $y$ that has the smaller diameter. We deduce from this the following
\[
\ell (\lambda) \leq c_0\diam{\lambda}.
\]
\medskip
To prepare for the next two cases, we take $\Lambda$ to be the subarc of $\Gamma$ that contains $\Gamma^{\lambda}$ having the smallest diameter.
Subdivide $\Lambda$ into subarcs $\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2,\dots,\Lambda_N$ which have mutually disjoint interiors and satisfy the condition
\[
\epsilon/100 \leq \diam{\Lambda_n} < \epsilon/10\,\, \text{ for all}\,\, n=1,\dots,N.
\]
Since $\Gamma$ is a quasicircle, $\diam \Lambda \simeq \diam{\Gamma^{\lambda}}$; since $\Gamma$ is a $C_1$-chord-arc curve $ N \epsilon \simeq \diam{\Lambda}$. So,
\[
N \simeq \epsilon^{-1}\diam{\Lambda} \simeq \epsilon^{-1}\diam{\Gamma^{\lambda}}.
\]
Set $\lambda_n = \gamma_\epsilon^{\Lambda_n}\cap \lambda$ for $n=1,\dots,N$. Again, after a moment of reflection, we see that $\lambda = \bigcup_{n=1}^N \lambda_n$. Recall, from Lemma \ref{orientation}, that $\gamma_\epsilon^{\Lambda_n}=\{x\in\gamma_\epsilon \colon \text{dist}(x,\Lambda_n)=\epsilon\}$ are arcs whenever they are nonempty, so $\lambda_n$ are subarcs of $\gamma_\epsilon$. Note however that some of $\{\lambda_n\}$ may overlap.
We now apply Lemma \ref{Brown-chord arc} to the $\epsilon$-boundary
$\partial_{\epsilon}(\Lambda_n)$ of $\Lambda_n$. Since $\lambda_n$ is also a subarc of $\partial_{\epsilon}(\Lambda_n)$,
it follows, as in Case 1, that
\[
\ell (\lambda_n) \leq c_0\diam{\lambda_n} \lesssim \epsilon.
\]
\emph{Case 2.} $\epsilon/10 < \diam{\Gamma^{\lambda}} \leq 10\epsilon$. From the estimates above, we obtain
\[
\ell (\lambda) \leq \sum_{n=1}^N\ell (\lambda_n) \leq
\sum_{n=1}^Nc_0\diam{\lambda_n} \leq Nc_0\diam{\lambda} \simeq \diam{\lambda}.
\]
Note that in this case, diameter of $\lambda$ might be much smaller than $\epsilon$.
\emph{Case 3.} $10\epsilon < \diam{\Gamma^{\lambda}}$. In this case, it is geometrically evident that
\[
\diam{\Gamma^{\lambda}} - 2\epsilon \leq \diam{\lambda} \leq \diam{\Gamma^{\lambda}} + 2\epsilon, \]
hence $\diam{\lambda}\simeq \diam{\Gamma^{\lambda}}$.
Therefore,
\[ \ell (\lambda) \leq \sum_{n=1}^N\ell (\lambda_n) \leq \sum_{n=1}^N c_0 \diam{\lambda_n}\lesssim
N \epsilon \simeq \diam{\Gamma^{\lambda}} \simeq \diam {\lambda}. \qedhere \]
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Suppose that $\Gamma$ is a Jordan curve. The proof of the previous theorem shows that each level set $\gamma_\epsilon$, with $\epsilon \neq 0$, is contained in a finite union of $c_0$-chord-arc curves, and that if $\gamma_\epsilon$ is a quasicircle with $\epsilon \neq 0$, then it is a $C(\Gamma, \epsilon)$-chord-arc curve.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\label{LCAcor}
Suppose that $\Gamma$ is a Jordan curve which satisfies a local $C$-chord-arc condition with $1< C < \sqrt{2}$. Then, $\Gamma$ has the \emph{LCA} property.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that for any $x,y \in \Gamma$ with $|x -y|<r_0$ and any $z\in \Gamma(x,y)$, we have
$|z-x| + |z-y| \leq \ell (\Gamma(x,y)) \leq C|x-y|$. Then $\Gamma(x,y)$ is contained in the closed region whose boundary is the ellipse having foci at the points $x, y$ and semi-minor $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{C^2-1}|x-y|$.
Since $C < \sqrt{2}$, we have $\zeta_{\Gamma} \leq \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{C^2-1} <1/2$. By Theorem \ref{betathmLQC}, $\Gamma$ has the LQC property; and by Theorem \ref{LCAmain}, $\Gamma$ has the LCA property.
\end{proof}
\section{Examples from Rohde's Snowflakes}\label{snowflakes}
In \cite{Roh}, Rohde gives an intrinsic characterization of planar quasicircles.
He defines explicitly a family $\mathcal F$ of snowflake-type curves, then proceeds to prove
that every quasicircle in the plane is bi-Lipschitz homeomorphic to a member of this family.
Each of Rohde's snowflakes $\mathcal S$ is constructed as follows. Fix a number $p \in [\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2})$, and let $\mathcal S_1$ be the unit square. The
polygon $\mathcal S_{n+1}$ is constructed by replacing each of the $4^n$ edges of $\mathcal S_{n}$ by a rescaled and rotated copy of one of the only two polygonal arcs allowed in Figure \ref{fig:figure2}, in such a way that the polygonal regions are expanding. The curve $\mathcal S$ is obtained by taking the limit of $\mathcal S_{n}$, just as in the construction of the usual von Koch snowflake. Clearly every Rohde's snowflake is a quasicircle. The entire collection of Rohde's snowflakes, with all possible $p\in [\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2})$, forms the family $\mathcal F$.
\begin{thmnn}[{\cite[Theorem 1.1]{Roh}}]
A bounded Jordan curve $\Gamma$ is a quasicircle if and only if there exist a curve $\mathcal{S}\in \mathcal F$ and a bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism $f$ of $\mathbb{R}^2$ so that $\Gamma = f(\mathcal{S})$.
\end{thmnn}
\noindent
\begin{figure}[ht]
\includegraphics[scale=1.9]{snowf.jpg}
\caption{}
\label{fig:figure1}
\end{figure}
Fix now a natural number $N\ge 4$. Suppose that a regular $N$-gon, of unit side length, is used in place of the unit square in the first step of Rohde's construction, while the remaining steps are unchanged. So each snowflake-type curve is the limit of a sequence of polygons, having $N 4^{n-1}$ edges at the $n$-th stage. Let $\mathcal F_N$ be the family of these snowflakes. Then Rohde's argument shows that every quasicircle in $\mathbb{R}^2$ is the image of a curve in $\mathcal F_N$ under a bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism of $\mathbb{R}^2$.
Let $\mathcal F_{N,p}$ be the subfamily of curves in $\mathcal F_N$ constructed using only the polygonal arcs indexed by $(1/4,1/4,1/4,1/4)$ and $(p,p,p,p)$.
It is not hard to see that there exist $N_0>4$ and $p_0 \in (\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2})$ for the following. Given $N\ge N_0$ and $1/4 \leq p\leq p_0$, there exists $0<\zeta_{N,p} <1/2$ and $r_{N,p}>0$ such that every curve $\mathcal S \in \mathcal F_{N,p} $ has the $(\zeta_{N,p},r_{N,p})$-chordal property, and therefore satisfies the LQC property.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
The Internet of Things (IoT) \cite{P003} rfirst received attention in the late 20th century. The term was firstly coined by Kevin Ashton \cite{P065} in 1999. \textit{``The Internet of Things allows people and things\footnote{We use both terms, `\textit{objects}' and `\textit{things}' interchangeably to give the same meaning as they are frequently used in IoT related documentation. Some other terms used by the research community are `smart objects', `devices', `nodes'. Each `thing' may have one or more sensors attached to it.} to be connected Anytime, Anyplace, with Anything and Anyone, ideally using Any path/ network and Any service''} \cite{P019}. As highlighted in the above definition, connectivity among devices is a critical functionality that is required to fulfil the vision of IoT. The following statistics highlight the magnitude of the challenge we need to address. Due to the increasing popularity of mobile devices over the past decade, it is estimated that there are about 1.5 billion Internet-enabled PCs and over 1 billion Internet-enabled mobile devices today. The number of \textit{'things' } connected to the Internet exceeded the number of people on earth in 2008 \cite{P574}. By 2020, there will be 50 to 100 billion devices connected to the Internet \cite{P029}. Similarly, according to BCC Research, the global market for sensors was around \$56.3 billion in 2010. In 2011, it was around \$62.8 billion, and it is expected to increase to \$91.5 billion by 2016, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.8\% \cite{P255}.
The above statistics allow us to conclude that the growth rate of sensors being deployed around us is increasing over time and will keep its pace over the coming decade. Over the last few years, we have witnessed many IoT solutions making their way into the market \cite{P596}. The IoT market has already been fragmented, with many parties competing with a variety of different solutions. Broadly, these IoT solutions can be divided into two segments: sensor hardware-based solutions \cite{P595} and cloud-based software solutions \cite{P579, P227, P377}. Some products specifically address one segment, while others address both. In this chapter, we propose a Context-Aware Dynamic Discovery of Things (CADDOT) model in order to support the integration of \textit{`things'} into cloud-based IoT solutions via dynamic discovery and configuration by also addressing the challenge of heterogeneity. We reduce the complexity of the \textit{`things' configuration process} and make it more user friendly and easier to use. One major objective is to support non-technical users by allowing them to configure smart environments without technical assistance.
This chapter makes the following contributions. We propose a model, CADDOT, that can be used to configure sensors autonomously without human intervention in highly dynamic smart environments in the Internet of things paradigm. To support this model, we developed a tool called \textit{SmartLink}. \textit{SmartLink} is enriched with context-aware capabilities so it can detect sensors using different protocols such as TCP, UDP, Bluetooth and ZigBee. CADDOT is designed to deal with highly dynamic smart environments where sensors are appearing and disappearing at a high frequency. This chapter also presents the results of experimental evaluations performed using 52 sensors measuring different types of phenomenon and using different communication sequences.
We explain how our model can be used to enrich the existing solutions proposed in the research field. The chapter is organized as follows. We present background information and motivation in Section \ref{sec:Background}. In Section \ref{sec:Functional_Requirements}, we discuss the functional requirements of an ideal IoT configuration process. We discuss related work in Section \ref{sec:Related_Work}. The proposed CADDOT model is introduced in Section \ref{sec:Architectural_Design}. The design decisions we made are justified and compared with alternative options in Section \ref{sec:Design_Decisions}. Implementation details and evaluations are presented in Section \ref{sec:Implementation} and Section \ref{sec:Evaluation_of the_Prototype} respectively. The lessons learnt are discussed in Section \ref{sec:Discussion}. Open challenges are presented in Section \ref{sec:Open_Challenges} and we conclude the chapter in Section \ref{sec:Conclusions} with indications for future work.
\section{Background and Motivation}
\label{sec:Background}
This section briefly highlights the background details of the challenge we address in this chapter. Firstly, we explain the challenges in the smart environment from the perspective of dynamic discovery and configuration of \textit{'things' }. Secondly, we discuss the concept of sensing as a service and its impact on the IoT. At the end, we present the importance of the configuration of \textit{'things' } in the big data domain.
\subsection{Smart Environment}
\label{sec:BM:Smart_Environment}
A smart environment can be defined as \textit{``a physical world that is richly and invisibly interwoven with sensors, actuators, displays, and computational elements, embedded seamlessly in the everyday objects of our lives, and connected through a continuous network"} \cite{P633}. Smart environments may be embedded with a variety of smart devices of different types including tags, sensors and controllers, and have different form factors ranging from nano to micro to macro sized. As also highlighted by Cook and Das \cite{P634}, device communication using middleware and wireless communication is a significant part of forming a connected environment. Forming smart environments needs several activities to be performed, such as discovery (i.e. exploring and finding devices at a given location), identification (i.e. retrieving information about devices and recognizing them), connection establishment (i.e. initiating communication using a protocol that the device can understand), and configuration. Further, users may combine sensors and services to configure smart environments where actuators are automatically triggered based on conditions \cite{E4}. In smart home environments, Radio Frequency for Consumer Electronics (RF4CE) has been used to perform atuomated configuration of consumer devices \cite{E6}. However, such techniques cannot be used to configure low-level smart \textit{`things'}.
\vspace{-8pt}
\subsection{Sensing as a service}
\label{sec:BM:Sensing_as_a_service}
The sensing-as-a-service model \cite{ZMP008} provides sensing capabilities as a service similar to other models such as infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS), platform-as-a-service (PaaS), and software-as-a-service (SaaS). Mobile devices are widely used to collect data from inbuilt or external sensors \cite{E2}.
It envisions that sensor descriptions and capabilities are posted on the Internet so the interested consumer can get access to the corresponding sensors by paying a fee \cite{ZMP008}. The sensing as a service model is expected to drive the IoT from the business point of view by creating a whole new set of opportunities and values. It has been predicted that individuals as well as, private and public organizations will deploy sensors to achieve their primary objectives \cite{HomeOS, ZMP008}. Additionally, they will share their sensors with others so a collectively value-added solution can be built around them. Such sensor deployments and data collection allows the creation of real-time solutions to address tough challenges in Smart Cities \cite{E5, ZMP008}. In order to support sensor deployments, easy-to-use \textit{'things' } discovery and configuration tools need to be developed. Such a set of tools will stimulate the growth of sensor deployments in the IoT. They will help the non-technical community to become involved in building smart environments efficiently and effectively.
\subsection{Big Data Challenge}
\label{sec:BM:Big_Data}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{./Images/51-Number_of_Sensor_nodes_and_Industries.pdf}
\caption{(a) Big Data comprises six categories of data (b) Data generated from the IoT will grow exponentially as the number of connected nodes increases. Estimated numbers of connected nodes based on different sectors are presented in millions \cite{P504}.}
\label{Figure:Statistics}
\end{figure}
Big Data \cite{P503} mainly comprises six categories of data, as illustrated in Figure\ref{Figure:Statistics}(a) transaction data, scientific data, sensor data, social media data, enterprise data, and public data. The sensor data category is expected to be generated by the growing number of sensors deployed in different domains, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Figure:Statistics}. The data streams coming from \textit{'things' } will challenge the traditional approaches to data management and contribute to the emerging paradigm of big data. Collecting sensor data on a massive scale, which creates big data, requires easy-to-use sensor discovery and configuration tools that help to integrate the \textit{'things' } into cloud-based IoT middleware platforms. Big data has been identified as a secondary phase of the IoT, where new sensors are cropping up and organizations are now starting to analyse data, that in some cases, they have been collecting for years.
This work is also motivated by our previous work which focused on utilising mobile phones and similar capacity devices to collect sensor data. In DAM4GSN \cite{ZMP001}, we proposed an application that can be used to collect data from sensors built into mobile phones. Later, we proposed MoSHub \cite{ZMP005} that allows a variety of different external sensors to be connected to a mobile phone using an extensible plugin architecture. MoSHub also configures the cloud middleware accordingly. Later in MOSDEN \cite{ZMP009}, we developed a complete middleware for resource-constrained mobile devices. MOSDEN is capable of collecting data from both internal and external sensors. It can also apply SQL-based fusing on data streams in real time. As we mentioned earlier, in order to collect data from sensors, first we need to discover and configure the sensors in such a way that the cloud can communicate with them. In our previous efforts, discovery and configuration steps were performed manually. In this chapter, we propose an approach that can be used to discover and configure sensors autonomously.
\vspace{-8pt}
\section{Functional Requirements}
\label{sec:Functional_Requirements}
The \textit{'things' } \textit{configuration process} detects, identifies, and configures sensor hardware and cloud-based IoT platforms in such a way that software platforms can retrieve data from sensors when required. In this section, we identify the importance, major challenges, and factors that need to be considered during a configuration process. The process of sensor configuration in IoT is important for two main reasons. Firstly, it establishes the connectivity between sensor hardware and software systems wich makes it possible to retrieve data from the deployed sensor. Secondly, it allows us to optimize the sensing and data communication by considering several factors as discussed below. Let us discuss the following research problem:\textit{ ‘Why is sensor configuration challenging in the IoT environment?’}. The major factors that make sensor configuration challenging are \textit{1) the number of sensors, 2) heterogeneity, 3) scheduling, sampling rate, communication frequency, 4) data acquisition, 5) dynamicity, and 6) context} \cite{ZMP007}.
\textbf{1) Number of Sensors:} When the number of sensors that need to be configured is limited, we can use manual or semi-autonomous techniques. However, when the numbers grow rapidly towards millions and billions, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Figure:Statistics}(b), such methods become extremely inefficient, expensive, labour-intensive, and in most situations impossible. Therefore, large numbers have made sensor configuration challenging. An ideal sensor configuration approach should be able to configure sensors autonomously as well as within a very short time period.
\textbf{2) Heterogeneity:} This factor can be interpreted in different perspectives. (1) Heterogeneity in terms of the communication technologies used by the sensors, as presented in Table \ref{Table:Wireless Technology Comparison}. (2) Heterogeneity in terms of measurement capabilities, as presented in Figure \ref{Figure:Heterogeneity} (e.g. temperature, humidity, motion, pressure). (3) The types of data (e.g. numerical (small in size), audio, video (large in size)) generated by the sensors are also heterogeneous. (4) The communication sequences and security mechanisms used by different sensors are also heterogeneous (e.g. exact messages/commands and the sequence that needs to be followed to successfully communicate with a given sensor). As illustrated in Figure \ref{Figure:Communication_Sequence}, some sensors may need only a few command passes and others may require more. Further, the messages/commands understood by each sensor may also vary. These differences make the sensor configuration process challenging. An ideal sensor configuration approach that is designed for the IoT paradigm should be able to handle such heterogeneity. It should also be scalable and should provide support for new sensors as they come to the market.
\begin{table}[t]
\footnotesize
\centering
\caption{Heterogeneity in term of Wireless Communication Technology}
\begin{tabular}{l p{2cm} p{1.8cm} p{1.8cm} p{1.8cm} p{1.8cm}}
\hline
& \textbf{ZigBee} & \textbf{GPRS-GSM} & \textbf{WiFi} & \textbf{Bluetooth} \\ \hline \hline
Standard & 802.15.4 & & 802.11b & 802.15.1 \\
System Resources & 4-32KB & 16MB+ & 1MB+ & 250KM+ \\
Batterylife (days) & 100-1000+ & 1-7 & 0.5-5 & 1-7 \\
Network Size (nodes) & $2^{64}$ & 1 & 32 & 7 \\
Bandwidth (KB/s) & 20-250 & 64-128+ & 11000 & 720 \\
Transmission \newline Range (meters) & 1-100+ & 1000 & 1-100 & 1-10+ \\
Success Metrics & Reliability, power, cost & Reach, quality & flexibility, Speed & Convenience, cost \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{Table:Wireless Technology Comparison}
\vspace{-6pt}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.45]{./Images/14-11-Heterogeneity.pdf}
\caption{Heterogeneity in term of sensing/measurement capabilities of sensor nodes}
\label{Figure:Heterogeneity}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{./Images/14-4-Communication_Sequence.pdf}
\caption{Heterogeneity in term of communication and message/command passing sequences. Some sensors may need only a few message/command passes and others may require more. The messages/commands understood by each sensor may also vary.}
\label{Figure:Communication_Sequence}
\end{figure}
\textbf{3) Scheduling, Sampling Rate, and Network Communication:} The sampling rate defines the frequency with which sensors need to generate data (i.e. sense the phenomenon) (e.g. sense temperature every 10 seconds). Deciding the ideal (e.g. balance between user requirement and energy consumption) sampling rate can be a very complex task and has a strong relationship with \textbf{\textit{6) Context}} (see below). The schedule defines the timetable for sensing and data transmission (e.g. sense the temperature only between 8am and 5pm on weekdays). Network communication defines the frequency of data transmission (e.g. send data to the cloud-based IoT platform every 60 seconds). Designing efficient sampling and scheduling strategies and configuring the sensors accordingly is challenging. Specifically, standards need to be developed in order to define schedules that can be used across different types of sensor devices.
\textbf{4) Data Acquisition:} Such methods can be divided into two categories: based on responsibility and based on frequency \cite{ZMP007}. There are two methods that can be used to acquire data from a sensor based on responsibility: push (e.g. the cloud requests data from a sensor and the sensor responds with data) and pull (e.g. the sensor pushes data to the cloud without continuous explicit cloud requests). Further, based on frequency, there are two data acquisition methods: instant (e.g. send data to the cloud when a predefined event occurs) and interval (e.g. send data to the cloud periodically). Pros, cons, and applicabilities of these different approaches are discussed in \cite{ZMP007}. Using the appropriate data acquisition method based on context information is essential to ensure efficiency.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.40]{./Images/14-5-Push_and_Pull.pdf}
\caption{Data can be retrieved from a sensor using both push (right side) and pull (left side) communication methods. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages which make them suitable for different situations.}
\label{Figure:Push_and_Pull}
\end{figure}
\textbf{5) Dynamicity:} This means the frequency of changing positions / appearing / disappearing of the sensors at a given location. IoT envisions that most of the objects we use in everyday lives will have sensors attached to them in the future. Ideally, we need to connect and configure these sensors to software platforms in order to analyse the data they generate and so understand the environment better. We have observed several domains and broadly identified different levels of dynamicity based on mobility\footnote{It is important to note that the same object can be classified at different levels depending on the context. Further, there is no clear definition to classify objects into different levels of dynamicity. However, our categorization allows us to understand the differences in dynamicity.}. Sensors that move/ appear/ disappear at a higher frequency (e.g. RFID and other low-level, low-quality, less reliable, cheap sensors that will be attached to consumables such as stationery, food packaging, etc.) can be classified as highly dynamic. Sensors embedded and fitted into permanent structures (such as buildings and air conditioning systems) can be classified as less dynamic. An ideal sensor configuration platform should be able to efficiently and continuously discover and re-configure sensors in order to cope with high dynamicity.
\textbf{6) Context:} Context information plays a critical role in sensor configuration in the IoT. The objective of collecting sensor data is to understand the environment better by fusing and reasoning them. In order to accomplish this task, sensor data needs to be collected in a timely and location-sensitive manner. Each sensor needs to be configured by considering context information. Let us consider a scenario related to smart agriculture to understand why context matters in sensor configuration. \textit{Severe frosts and heat events can have a devastating effect on crops. Flowering time is critical for cereal crops and a frost event could damage the flowering mechanism of the plant. However, the ideal sampling rate could vary depending on both the season of the year and the time of day. For example, a higher sampling rate is necessary during the winter and the night. In contrast, lower sampling would be sufficient during summer and daytime. On the other hand, some reasoning approaches may require multiple sensor data readings. For example, a frost event can be detected by fusing air temperature, soil temperature, and humidity data. However, if the air temperature sensor stops sensing due to a malfunction, there is no value in sensing humidity, because frost events cannot be detected without temperature. In such circumstances, configuring the humidity sensor to sleep is ideal until the temperature sensor is replaced and starts sensing again}. Such intelligent (re-)configuration can save energy by eliminating ineffectual sensing and network communication.
\vspace{-6pt}
\section{Related Work}
\label{sec:Related_Work}
In this section, we review some of the state-of-the-art solutions developed by the research community, as well as commercial business entities. Our review covers both mature and immature solutions proposed by start-up initiatives as well as large-scale projects. Our proposed CADDOT model as well as the \textit{SmartLink} tool help to overcome some of the weaknesses in the existing solutions.
There are commercial solutions available in the market that have been developed by start-up IoT companies \cite{P596} and the research divisions of leading corporations. These solutions are either still under development or have completed only limited deployments in specialized environments (e.g. demos). We discuss some of the selected solutions based on their popularity. \textit{Ninja Blocks} (ninjablocks.com), \textit{Smart-Things} (smartthings.com), and \textit{Twine} (supermechanical.com) are commercial products that aim at building smart environments \cite{P596}. They use their own standards and protocols (open or closed) to communicate between their own software systems and sensor hardware components. The hardware sensors they use in their solutions can only be discovered by their own software systems. In contrast, our pluggable architecture can accommodate virtually any sensor. Further, our proposed model can facilitate different domains (e.g. indoor, outdoor) using different communication protocols and sequences.
In addition, the CADDOT model can facilitate very high dynamicity and mobility. \textit{HomeOS} \cite{P597} is a home automation operating system that simplifies the process of connecting devices together. Similar to our plugin architecture, \textit{HomeOS} is based on applications and drivers which are expected to be distributed via an on-line store called \textit{HomeStore} in the future. However, \textit{HomeOS} does not perform additional configuration tasks (e.g. scheduling, sampling rate, communication frequency) depending on the user requirements and context information. Further, our objective is to develop a model that can accommodate a wider range of domains by providing multiple alternative mechanisms, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:Design_Decisions}. Hu et al. \cite{P339} have proposed a sensor configuration mechanism that uses the information store in TEDS \cite{P258} and SensorML \cite{P256} specifications. Due to the unavailability and unpopularity of TEDS among sensor manufacturers, we simulate TEDS using standard communication message formats, as explained in Section \ref{sec:Design_Decisions}.
Actinium \cite{P636} is a RESTful runtime container that provides Web-like scripting for low-end devices through a cloud. It encapsulates a given sensor device using a container that handles the communication between the sensor device and the software system by offering a set of standard interfaces for sensor configuration and life-cycle management. The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP),a software protocol intended to be used in very simple electronics devices that allows them to communicate interactively over the Internet, has been used for communication. Pereira et al. \cite{P641} have also used CoAP and it provides a request/response interaction model between application end-points. It also supports built-in discovery of services and resources. However, for discovery to work, both the client (e.g. a sensor) and the server (e.g. the IoT platform) should support CoAP. However, most of the sensor manufacturers do not provide native support for such protocols. \textit{Dynamix} \cite{P627} is a plug-and-play context framework for Android. \textit{Dynamix} automatically discovers, downloads, and installs the plugins needed for a given context sensing task. \textit{Dynamix} is a stand-alone application and it tries to understand new environments using pluggable context discovery and reasoning mechanisms. Context discovery is the main functionality in \textit{Dynamix}. In contrast, our solution is focused on dynamic discovery and configuration of \textit{'things' } in order to support a sensing as a service model in the IoT domain. We employ a pluggable architecture which is similar to the approach used in \textit{Dynamix}, in order to increase the scalability and rapid extension development by third party developers. The Electronic Product Code (EPC) \cite{P110} is designed as a universal identifier that provides a unique identity for every physical object anywhere in the world. EPC is supported by the CADDOT model as one way of identifying a given sensor. Sensor integration using IPv6 in building automation systems is discussed in \cite{P656}. Cubo et al. [12] have used a Device Profile for Web Services\footnote{http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-dd/ns/dpws/2009/01} (DPWS) to encapsulate both devices and services. DPWS defines a minimal set of implementation constraints to enable secure web service messaging, discovery, description, and eventing on resource-constrained devices. However, discovery is only possible if both ends (client and server) are DPWS-enabled.
\section{Overview of the CADDOT Model}
\label{sec:Architectural_Design}
Previously, we identified several major factors that need to be considered when developing an ideal sensor configuration model for the IoT. This section presents a detailed explanation of our proposed solution: Context-aware Dynamic Discovery of Things (CADDOT). Figure 5 illustrates the main phases of the proposed model.
\textbf{Phases in CADDOT model:} The proposed model consists of eight phases: \textit{detect, extract, identify, find, retrieve, register, reason,} and \textit{configure}. Some of the tasks mentioned in the model are performed by the \textit{SmartLink} tool and other tasks are performed by the cloud middleware. Some tasks are performed collectively by both \textit{SmartLink} and the cloud.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.98]{./Images/14-6-Model.pdf}
\caption{Context-aware Dynamic Discovery of Things (CADDOT) model for configuration of things in the IoT paradigm consists of eight phases.}
\label{Figure:Model}
\end{figure}
\textit{\textbf{1) Detect:}} Sensors are configured to actively seek open wireless access points (WiFi or Bluetooth) to which they can be connected without any authorization, because in this phase sensors do not have any authentication details. Sensors will receive the authentication details in phase \textbf{phase 8)}. As a result, in this phase sensors are unable to connect to an available secured network. The mobile device that \textit{SmartLink} is installed in becomes an open wireless access point (hotspot) so the sensors can connect to it. However, it is important to note that there are different application strategies that \textit{SmartLink} can use to execute the CADDOT model, as discussed in Section \ref{sec:Design_Decisions}.
\textit{\textbf{2) Extract:}} In this phase, \textit{SmartLink} extracts information from the sensor detected in the previous phase. Each sensor may be designed to respond to different message-passing sequences, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Figure:Communication_Sequence}, depending on the sensor manufacturer and the sensor program developer. Even though the sensors and the \textit{SmartLink} may use the same communication technology/ protocol (e.g. TCP, UDP, Bluetooth), the exact communication sequence can vary from one sensor to another. Therefore, it is hard to find the specific message-passing sequence that each sensor follows. To address this challenge, we propose that every sensor will respond to a common message during the communication initiation process. Alternatively, CADDOT can support multiple initiation messages (extraction mechanisms). However, such alternative approaches will increase the time taken to extract a minimum set of information from a given sensor due to multiple communication attempts that need to be carried out until a sensor successfully responds. For example, \textit{SmartLink} broadcasts a message [WHO], as illustrated in (\textit{C1}) in Figure \ref{Figure:Message_Formats}, where the sensors are expected to respond by providing a minimum amount of information about themselves, such as a sensor's unique identification number, model number / name, and manufacturer. This is similar to the TEDS mechanism discussed in \cite{P339}. It is important to note that we propose this [WHO] constraint only for minimum information extraction. Once the sensor is identified, subsequent communications and heterogeneity of message-passing sequences are handled by matching plugins.
\textit{\textbf{3) Identify:}} \textit{SmartLink} sends all the information extracted from the newly detected sensor to the cloud. Cloud-based IoT middleware queries its data stores using the extracted information and identifies the complete profile of the sensor. The descriptions of the sensors are modelled in an ontology\footnote{This is an extended version of an SSN ontology (www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/ssnx/ssn). The detailed description of our extended ontology is out of the scope of this chapter.}.
\textit{\textbf{4) Find:}} Once the cloud identifies the sensor uniquely, this information is used to find a matching plugin (also called drivers) which knows how to communicate with a compatible sensor at full capacity. The IoT middleware pushes the plugin to \textit{SmartLink} where it is installed\footnote{In practice, the IoT middleware sends a request to the application store (e.g. Google Play). The application store pushes the plugin to the \textit{SmartLink} autonomously via the Internet.}.
\textit{\textbf{5) Retrieve:}} Now, \textit{SmartLink} knows how to communicate with the detected sensor at full capacity with the help of the newly downloaded plugin. Next, \textit{SmartLink} retrieves the complete set of information that the sensor can provide (e.g. configuration details such as schedules, sampling rates, data structures /types generated by the sensor, etc.). Further, \textit{SmartLink} may communicate with other available sources (e.g. databases, web services) to retrieve additional information related to the sensor.
\textit{\textbf{6) Register:}} Once all the information about a given sensor has been collected, registration takes place in the cloud. The sensor descriptions are modelled according to the semantic sensor network ontology (SSNO) \cite{P626}. This allows semantic querying and reasoning at a later stage to perform operations such as sensor search \cite{ZMP006}. Some of the performance evaluation related to the SSN ontology and semantic querying is presented in \cite{ZMP011}.
\textit{\textbf{7) Reason:}} This phase plays a significant role in the sensor configuration process. It designs an efficient sensing strategy. Reasoning takes place in a distributed manner. The cloud IoT middleware retrieves data from a large number of sensors and identifies their availabilities and capabilities. Further, it considers context information in order to design an optimized strategy. Context-aware reasoning is performed by IoT middleware on the cloud. However, the technical details related to this reasoning process are out of the scope of this chapter. At the end of this phase, a comprehensive plan (i.e. sensing schedule) for each individual sensor is designed.
\textit{\textbf{8) Configure:}} Sensors as well as cloud-based IoT software systems are configured based on the strategy designed in the previous phase. Schedules, communication frequency, and sampling rates that are custom-designed for each sensor are pushed into the individual sensors. The connections between sensors and the cloud-based IoT software system are established through direct wireless communication or through intermediate devices such as MOSDEN \cite{ZMP009} so the cloud can retrieve data from sensors. The configuration details (e.g. IP address, port, authentication) required to accomplish the above task are also provided to the sensor.
\section{Design Decisions and Applications}
\label{sec:Design_Decisions}
We made a number of design decisions during the development of the CADDOT model. These decisions address the challenges we highlighted in earlier sections.
\textbf{Security Concerns and Application Strategies:} There are different ways to employ our proposed model CADDOT as well as the tool \textit{SmartLink} in real world deployments. Figure \ref{Figure:Usage_Pattern} illustrates two different application strategies. It is important to note that neither our model nor the software tool is limited to a specific device or platform. In this paper, we conduct the experimentations on an Android-based mobile phone, as detailed in Section \ref{sec:Implementation}. In strategy (a), a Raspberry Pi (raspberrypi.org) is acting as the \textit{SmartLink} tool. This strategy is mostly suitable for smart home and office environments where WiFi is available. Raspberry Pi continuously performs the discovery and configuration process, as explained in Section \ref{sec:Architectural_Design}. Finally, Raspberry Pi provides the authentication details to the sensor which is connected to the secure home/office WiFi network. The sensor is expected to send data to the processing server (local or on cloud) directly over the secured WiFi network. In this strategy, \textit{SmartLink} is in static mode. Therefore, several \textit{SmartLink} installed Raspberry Pi devices may be required to cover a building. However, this strategy can handle a high level of dynamicity.
The \textit{{strategy (b)} }is more suitable for situations where WiFi is not available or less dynamic. Smart agriculture can be considered as an example. In this scenario, sensors are deployed over a large geographical area (e.g. Phenonet \cite{P412}). Mobile robots\footnote{In small agricultural fields, farmers themselves can carry the \textit{SmartLink} over the field.} (tractors or similar vehicles) with a \textit{SmartLink} tool attached to them can be used to discover and configure sensors. \textit{SmartLink} can then help to establish the communication between sensors and sinks. The permanent sinks used in the agricultural fields are usually low-level sinks (such as Messhablium \cite{P595}). Such sinks cannot perform sensor discovery or configuration in comparison to SmartLink. Such sinks are designed to collect data from sensors and upload to the cloud via 3G.
Many more different strategies can be built by incorporating the different characteristics pointed out in the above two strategies. This shows the extensibility of our solution. For example, Raspberry Pi, which we suggested for use as a \textit{SmartLink} in strategy a), can be replaced by corporate mobile phones. So, without bothering the owner, corporate mobile phones can silently perform the work of a \textit{SmartLink}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{./Images/14-9-Usage_Pattern.pdf}
\caption{Application strategies of CADDOT model and \textit{SmartLink} tool. (a) usage of static \textit{SmartLink} (b) usage of mobile \textit{SmartLink}.}
\label{Figure:Usage_Pattern}
\end{figure}
\textbf{System Architecture:} The CADDOT model consists of three main components: sensors, a mobile device (i.e. \textit{SmartLink}), and the cloud middleware. All three components need to work collectively in order to perform sensor discovery and configuration successfully. Figure \ref{Figure:System} illustrates the interactions between the three components. The phases we explained earlier relating to the CADDOT model in Figure \ref{Figure:Model} can be seen in Figure \ref{Figure:System} as well. As we mentioned before, \textit{SmartLink} is based on a plugin architecture. The core \textit{SmartLink} application cannot directly communicate with a given sensor. A plugin needs to act as a mediator between the sensor and the \textit{SmartLink} core application, as illustrated in Figure \ref{Figure:System}. The task of the mediator is to translate the commands back and forth. This means that in order to configure a specific sensor, the \textit{SmartLink} core application needs to employ a plugin that is compatible with both the \textit{SmartLink} application itself and the given sensor. We discuss this matter in the programming perspective later in this section.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{./Images/14-7-Client_Component.pdf}
\caption{System architecture of the CADDOT model which consists of three main components: sensors, \textit{SmartLink} tool, and the cloud middleware. Interactions are numbered in order.}
\label{Figure:System}
\vspace{-0.33cm}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Sensor-level Program Design:}
One of the most important components in the CADDOT model is the sensor. Sensors can be programmed in different ways. In this chapter, we propose a program design that supports all the functional requirements identified in Section \ref{sec:Functional_Requirements}. The program we propose may not be the only way to support these requirements. Further, we do not intend to restrict developers to one single sensor-level program design. Instead, our objective is to demonstrate one successful way to program a sensor in such a way that it allows sensors to be re-configured at runtime (i.e. after deployment) depending on the requirements that arise later. Developers are encouraged to explore more efficient program designs. However, in order to allow \textit{SmartLink} to communicate with a sensor which runs different program designs, developers need to develop a plugin that performs the command translations. We explain the translation process using both sensor-level program code as well as plugin code later in this section. First, we illustrate the simplest sensor-level program that can be designed to perform the task of sensing and transmitting data to the cloud in Figure 8. We refer to this program design as \textit{SPD} (Simple Program Design) hereafter. The basic structure of a sensor-level program is explained in \cite{P595}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{./Images/14-12-Sensor_Program_Simple.pdf}
\caption{A simple sensor-level program design (SPD) that sends and transmits data to the cloud. It does not support dynamic discovery and configuration.}
\label{Figure:Simple_Sensor_Program}
\end{figure}
The main problem in this program design is that there is no way to configure (i.e. sampling rate, communication frequency, data acquisition method) the sensor after deployment other than by re-programming (e.g. Over the Air Programming). However, such re-programming approaches are complex, labour-intensive and time consuming. In Figure \ref{Figure:Configurable_Sensor_Program}, we designed a sensor-level program that supports a comprehensive set of configuration functionalities. We refer to this design as \textit{CPD} (Configurable Program Design) hereafter. In order to standardize the communication, we also defined a number of command formats. However, these messaging formats do not need to be followed by the developers as long as they share common standardised command formats between their own sensor-level program and the corresponding plugin. Different command formats used to accomplish different tasks in our approach are illustrated in Figure \ref{Figure:Message_Formats}. In comparison to \textit{SPD}, \textit{CPD} provides more configuration functionalities. With the help of the command formats illustrated in Figure \ref{Figure:Message_Formats}, \textit{SmartLink} can configure a given sensor at any time.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.90]{./Images/14-12-Sensor_Program.pdf}
\caption{A configurable sensor-level program design (CPD) that supports dynamic discovery and configuration after deployment at runtime.}
\label{Figure:Configurable_Sensor_Program}
\vspace{-18pt}
\end{figure}
Each command comprises several different segments, as depicted in Figure \ref{Figure:Message_Formats}. The first segment denotes whether the command is related to configuration or a data request. In our approach, [CON] denotes configuration and [DAR] denotes a data request. The CPD is designed to forward the command appropriately through IF-ELSE branches. The CPD accepts five different types of commands under the [CON] branch. Commands are classified based on the second segment. The following list summarises these commands. The first segment of every command contains only three letters which makes it easy to process. The commands can be sent using frames\footnote{http://www.libelium.com/uploads/2013/02/data\_frame\_guide.pdf} or plain strings.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{C1:} This command has only one segment. This segment always contains three letters [WHO]. This command is sent by \textit{SmartLink} to a sensor. To support CADDOT, every sensor should be able to handle command C1. Then the sensor needs to respond with message \textbf{M1}. This is the only constraint that the sensor-level program developers are required to adhere to.
\item \textbf{M1:} This message is sent by the sensor to \textit{SmartLink} in response to C1. M1 contains information that helps to identify the sensor in \textit{key-value pair} format. The information contained in this message is sent to the cloud IoT platform, as explained in phase (4) in the CADDOT model illustrated in Figure \ref{Figure:Model}. Detailed explanation of this message is out of the scope of this chapter.
\item \textbf{C2:} This command consists of two segments. The first segment [DAR] denotes that this is a data request. The second segment [PL] denotes that the command is a pull request which the sensor is expected to respond to with sensors data once.
\item \textbf{C3:} This command consists of five segments. The first segment [DAR] denotes that this is a data request. The second segment [PS] denotes that the sensor is expected to push data according to the information provided in the rest of the segments. The third segment specifies the sample rate and the fourth segment specifies the data communication frequency rate. The final segment specifies the duration for which the sensor needs to push data to the cloud.
\item \textbf{C4:} This command consists of two segments. The first segment [DAR] denotes that this is a data request. The second segment [PS] denotes that the sensor is expected to perform sensing and data transmitting tasks according to a sensing schedule specified in the sensing schedule file. It is expected to push data to the cloud.
\item \textbf{C5:} This command consists of three segments. The first segment [CON] denotes that this is a configuration command. The second segment [SMP] denotes that this command configures the sampling rate. The third segment holds the actual sampling rate value that the sensor needs to sense in the future.
\item \textbf{C6:} This command consists of three segments. The first segment [CON] denotes that this is a configuration command. The second segment [DCF] denotes that this command configures the data communication frequency. The third segment holds the actual data communication frequency rate value that the sensor needs to transmit data to the cloud in the future.
\item \textbf{C7:} This command consists of five segments. The first segment [CON] denotes that this is a configuration command. The second segment [SCH] denotes that this command configures the sensing schedule. The rest of the segments contain information that is essential (i.e. FTP server path, user name, password) to download a sensing schedule file from an FTP server, as depicted in Figure \ref{Figure:Message_Formats}.
\item \textbf{C8:} This command consists of seven segments. The first segment [CON] denotes that this is a configuration command. The second segment [NET] denotes that this command configures the network settings. The rest of the segments contain the information that is essential to connect to a secure network (i.e. access point name, authentication key, IP address, remote port) so the sensor can directly communicate with the cloud IoT platform.
\item \textbf{C9:} This command stops the sensor completely and pushes it back to a state where the sensor listens for the next command.
\item \textbf{C10:} This command consists of two segments. The first segment [CON] denotes that this is a configuration command. The second segment [CPR] denotes that the sensor is expected to reply with the complete sensor profile.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.76]{./Images/17-8-Code_Snippets.pdf}
\caption{Command formats used to perform sensor configuration.}
\label{Figure:Message_Formats}
\vspace{-8pt}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Scalable and Extensible Architecture:} As we mentioned earlier, the reason for employing a plugin architecture is to support scalability and extensibility. Plugins that are compatible with \textit{SmartLink} can be developed by anyone as long as they follow the basic design principles and techniques explained below. Such a plugin architecture allows us to engage with developer communities and support a variety of different sensors through community-based development. We expect to release our software as free and open source software in the future. We provide the main \textit{SmartLink} application as well as the standard interfaces which developers can use to start to develop their own plugins to support different sensors. We provide sample plugin source code where developers only need to add their code according to the guidelines provided. The plugin architecture will enable more number of sensors to be supported by \textit{SmartLink} over time. Applications stores (e.g. \textit{ Google Play}) built around the Android ecosystem provide an easy way to share and distribute plugins for \textit{SmartLink}. The pluggable architecture dramatically reduces the sensor configuration time.
Let us explain how third party developers can develop plugins in such a way that their plugins are compatible with \textit{SmartLink} so that \textit{SmartLink} can use the plugins to configure sensors at runtime when necessary. In plugin development, there are three main components that need to be considered: (1) the plugin interface written in the Android Interface Definition Language (AIDL), (2) the plugin class written in Java, and (3) the plugin definition in the AndroidManifest file. Figure \ref{Figure:AIDL_Code} shows the plugin interface written in AIDL. \textit{IPlugin} is an interface defined in AIDL. Plugin developers should not make any changes in this file. Instead they can use this file to understand how the \textit{SmartLink} plugin architecture works. \textit{IPlugin} is similar to a Java interface. It defines all the methods that need to be implemented by all the plugin classes.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.0]{./Images/9-3-AIDL_Code.pdf}
\caption{IPlugin written in AIDL (Android Interface Definition Language) that governs the plugin structure. It defines the essential methods that need to be implemented in the plugin class.}
\label{Figure:AIDL_Code}
\vspace{-0.33cm}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{Figure:Plugin_Code} presents the basic structure of a \textit{SmartLink} plugin. Each plugin is defined as an Android service. \textit{SmartLink} plugin developers need to implement five methods: \textit{setSamplingRate(int rate)}, \textit{setCommunicationFrequency(int frequency)}, \textit{setSchedule(in Map ftpSettings)}, \textit{setNetworkSettings(in Map netSettings)} and \textit{getSensorProfile()}. The methods are briefly explained below.
\begin{itemize}
\item \textit{setSamplingRate(int rate)}: This method needs to send a command specifying the required sampling rate. For example, in our approach, we defined such a command, \textit{C5}, in Figure \ref{Figure:Message_Formats}.
\item \textit{setCommunicationFrequency(int frequency)}: This method needs to send a command specifying the required communication frequency. For example, in our approach, we defined such a command as \textit{C6} in Figure \ref{Figure:Message_Formats}.
\item \textit{setSchedule(in Map ftpSettings)}: This method needs to send a command specifying details (e.g. user-name, password, FTP path) that are required to connect to an FTP server and download the schedule. For example, in our approach, we defined such a command as, \textit{C7}, in Figure \ref{Figure:Message_Formats}.
\item \textit{setNetworkSettings(in Map netSettings)}:This method sends a command specifying the details that are required to connect to a secure network so that direct communication between the sensor and the cloud IoT platform can be established. For example, in our approach, we defined such a command, \textit{C8}, in Figure \ref{Figure:Message_Formats}.
\item \textit{getSensorProfile()}: This method sends a command to the sensor by asking for profile information. The sensor is expected to reply by providing information such as the data structure it produces, measurement units, and so on. Details of the sensor profiling are out of the scope of this chapter.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.85]{./Images/9-4-Plugin_Code.pdf}
\caption{\textit{SmartLink} plugin is an Android service. This is the basic structure of a \textit{SmartLink} plugin. The body of each method needs to be added by the developer based on the sensor-level program design.}
\label{Figure:Plugin_Code}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{Figure:AndroidManifest} shows how the plugins need to be defined in the AndroidManifest so that the \textit{SmartLink} application can automatically query and identify them. The Android plugin must have an intent filter which has action name \textit{\seqsplit{au.csiro.smartlink.intent.action.PICK PLUGIN}}. Developers can provide any category name.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.15]{./Images/9-5-AndroidManifest.pdf}
\caption{Code snippet of the plugin's \textit{AndroidManifest} file.}
\label{Figure:AndroidManifest}
\vspace{-0.23cm}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Support and Utilize Existing Solutions:} Our model utilizes a few existing solutions. We employed Global Sensor Network \cite{P022} as the cloud IoT middleware. In CADDOT, GSN performs phases 3, 4, and 7. GSN is a widely used platform in the sensor data processing domain and is used in several European projects, including OpenIoT \cite{P377}. MOSDEN \cite{ZMP009} is middleware that collects sensor data. MOSDEN is ideal for the application strategies we discussed in Section \ref{sec:Design_Decisions} (Figure \ref{Figure:Usage_Pattern}) for use in conjunction with \textit{SmartLink}. \textit{SmartLink} only performs the configuration. Sensor data collection needs to be performed by either cloud IoT middleware or solutions like MOSDEN. The proposed CADDOT model as well as the \textit{SmartLink} tool complement the other solutions proposed by us as well as other researchers. Together, these solutions enable smooth data flow from sensors to the cloud autonomously.
\section{Implementation and Experiment Testbed}
\label{sec:Implementation}
We deployed the \textit{SmartLink} application in a Google Nexus 4 mobile phone (Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro CPU and 2 GB RAM), which runs the Android platform 4.2.2 (Jelly Bean). We deployed 52 sensors on the third floor of the CSIT building (\#108) at the Australian National University. All sensors we employed in our experiment are manufactured by Libelium \cite{P595}. The sensors we used sense a wide variety of environmental phenomena, such as temperature, proximity \& presence, stretch, humidity and so on \cite{P595}. \textit{SmartLink} supports sensor discovery and configuration using both WiFi and Bluetooth. Other communication technologies such as ZigBee and RFID are supported through Libelium \textit{Expansion Radio Boards} \cite{P595}. In order to simulate the heterogeneity of the sensors (in terms of communication sequence), we programmed each sensor to behave and respond differently. As a result, each sensor can only communicate with a plugin that supports the same communication sequence.
\section{Evaluation of the Prototype}
\label{sec:Evaluation_of the_Prototype}
In this section, we explain how we evaluate the proposed CADDOT model and \textit{SmartLink} tool using prototype implementations. We identified ten steps performed in the dynamic discovery and sensor configuration process. We measured the average amount of time taken by each of these steps (average of 30 sensor configurations). Figure \ref{Figure:Results1} illustrates the results and the following steps are considered:
Time taken to (1) set up the sensor, (2) initiate connection between the sensor and \textit{SmartLink}, (3) initiate communication between sensor and \textit{SmartLink}, (4) extract sensor identification information, (5) retrieve the complete profile of the sensor, (6) configure the sampling rate, (7) configure the communication frequency, (8) configure the sensing schedule, (9) configure the network and authentication details (so the sensor can directly connect to the cloud), and (10) connect to the secure network using the provided authentication details.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{./Images/13_1_Results1.pdf}
\caption{Time taken (y-axis) to discover and configure a sensor step-by-step (x-axis). The experiments were conducted using three protocols: TCP, UDP, and Bluetooth. }
\label{Figure:Results1}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Results:} According to the results, the actual configuration tasks take less that one second. There is a slight variation in completion time in configuration step (4) - (9). This is due to storage access and differences in processing of configuration commands. Sensors takes comparatively longer time to connect to a network as well as to discover and connect to \textit{SmartLink}. Especially, Bluetooth takes much longer to scan for devices in a given environment before it discovers and connects to \textit{SmartLink}. Configuration is slightly faster when using TCP in comparison to UDP and Bluetooth. This is mainly due to reliability. However, the time differences are negligible. FTP is used to retrieve a scheduling file from a file server. This can take 15-25 seconds depending on the network availability, traffic, and file size. If a sensor cannot access a server via the Internet, a file can be transferred from \textit{SmartLink} to the sensor as typical commands. Sensors generate the scheduling file using the data it receives from \textit{SmartLink}. When using WiFi, a sensor may takes up to 4.5 seconds to connect to a secure network (e.g. WPA2). In contrast, sensors can connect to \textit{SmartLink}'s open access point in less than four seconds. Despite the protocol we use, sensors take 5 to 15 seconds to boot and setup themselves. The setup stage consists of activities such as reading default configuration from files, and switching necessary modules and components (communication modules, real-time clock, SD card, sensor broads and so on).
\section{Discussion and Lessons Learned}
\label{sec:Discussion}
In what follows, we discuss major lessons we learned along with limitations. According to our results, it is evident that a single sensor can be configured in less than 12 seconds (i.e. assuming sensors are already booted, which takes an additional 5 to 15 seconds depending on the communication protocol). This is a significant improvement over a manual labour intensive sensor configuration approach. Additionally, \textit{SmartLink} can engage with number of sensor configuration processes at a given time in parallel. The proposed CPD has not made any negative impact towards the sensing functionality though it supports advance configuration capabilities. The IF-ELSE structure used in CPD makes sure that each request gets to the destination with minimum execution of lines (e.g. `PL' request passes through only two IF conditions). Such execution reduced the impact on sensing tasks while configuration tasks are also supported efficiently. Even though a detailed discussion on data acquisition methods is out of scope, it is important to note that pull, temporary push, and schedule based push add a significant amount of flexibility where each of the techniques is suitable to be used in different circumstances \cite{ZMP007}. The cloud server has the authority to decide which method to be used based on the context information. This increases the efficiency and application scenario where the sensors can be used in sustainable (i.e. in term of energy) manner. Once the initial discovery and configuration of smart things are done, further configuration can be done in more user friendly manner by using techniques such as augmented reality \cite{E1}.
\section{Open Challenges}
\label{sec:Open_Challenges}
In this section, we briefly introduce some of the major open research challenges in the domain that are closely related to this work. We identify four main challenges that provide different research directions.
\textbf{Sensing strategy optimization:} We briefly highlighted the importance of optimizing sensing schedules based on context information in Section \ref{sec:Functional_Requirements}. Sensing strategy development encapsulates a broad set of actions such as deciding the sensing schedule, sampling rate, and network communication frequency for each sensor. Such a development process needs to consider two main factors: user requirements and availability of sensors. In IoT, there is no single point of control or authority. As a result, different parties are involved in sensor deployments. Such disorganized and uncoordinated deployments can lead to redundant sensor deployment. In order to use the sensor hardware in an optimized manner, sensing strategies need to be developed by considering factors such as sensor capabilities, sensor redundancies (e.g. availability of multiple sensors that are capable of providing similar data), and energy availability. Energy conservation is a key in sustainable IoT infrastructure because the resources constrained nature of the sensors. We provided such an example in Section 3 related to the agricultural domain. We believe that sensing as a service is a major business model that could drive IoT in the future. In such circumstances, collecting data from all the available sensors has no value. Instead, sensor data should be collected and processed only in response to consumer demand \cite{ZMP008}.
\textbf{Context discovery:} This is an important task where discovered information will be used during a reasoning process (e.g.sensing strategy development). \textit{``Context is any information that can be used to characterise the situation of an entity. An entity is a person, place, or object that is considered relevant to the interaction between a user and an application, including the user and applications themselves''} \cite{P104}. Further discussion on context information and its importance for the IoT is surveyed in \cite{ZMP007}. Context-based reasoning can be used to improve the efficiency of the CADDOT model where a matching plugin can be discovered faster, especially in situations where a perfect match cannot be found. For example, the location of a given sensor\footnote{Location can be represented in many ways: GPS coordinate (e.g. -35.280325, 149.113166), name of a building (e.g. CSIT building at ANU), name of a city (e.g. Canberra), part of a building (e.g. living room), floor of a building (e.g. 2nd floor), specific part of a room (e.g. kitchen-top).}, sensors nearby, details of the sensors configured recently, historic data related to sensor availability in a given location, etc. can be fused and reasoned using probabilistic techniques in order to find a matching plugin in an efficient manner. After integrating sensors into cloud-based IoT, the next phase is collecting data from the sensors. Annotating context information to retrieve sensor data plays a significant role in querying and reasoning them in later stages. Especially, in the sensing as a service model, sensor data consumers may demand such annotation so that they can feed data easily into their own data processing applications for further reasoning and visualization tasks. Some context information can be easily discovered at sensor-level (e.g. battery level, location) and others can be discovered at the cloud-level by fusing multiple raw data items (e.g. activity detection). Such context annotated data help to perform more accurate fusing and reasoning at the cloud level \cite{E7}.
\textbf{Utilization of heterogeneous computational devices:} Even though the IoT envisions billions of \textit{'things' } to be connected to the Internet, it is not possible and practical to connect all of them to the Internet directly. This is mainly due to resource constraints (e.g. network communication capabilities and energy limitations). Connecting directly to the Internet is expensive in terms of computation, bandwidth use, and hardware costs. Enabling persistent Internet access is challenging and also has a negative impact on miniaturization and energy consumption of the sensors. Due to such difficulties, IoT solutions need to utilize different types of devices with different resource limitations and capabilities. In Figure \ref{Figure:Layered_Architecture}, we broadly categorise these devices into six categories (also called levels or layers). Devices on the right side may use low-energy short distance wireless communication protocols to transmit the collected sensor data to the devices on the left. Devices on the left can use long distance communication protocols to transmit the data to the cloud for further processing. However, the more devices we use in smart environments, the more difficult it becomes to detect faults where an entire system could fail \cite{E3}. Providing a unified middleware support across heterogeneity of devices with wider rage of capabilities is an open challenge \cite{E9, E10}.
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=.58]{./Images/14-5-Layered_Architecture_of_IoT.pdf}
\caption{Categorization of IoT devices based on their computational capabilities. The devices belonging to each category have different capabilities in terms of processing, memory, and communication. They are also different in price, with devices becoming more expensive towards the left. The computational capabilities also increase towards the left.}
\label{Figure:Layered_Architecture}
\vspace{-0.20cm}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Security and privacy:} In this work, we considered some degree of security as briefly discussed in Section \ref{sec:Design_Decisions}. However, research on security in the IoT is largely unexplored. Security and privacy need to be provided at both sensor-level and cloud-level. It is critical to develop a security model to protect the sensor configuration process, considering questions such as (1) \textit{when to allow reconfiguration of a sensor}, (2) \textit{who has the authority to configure a sensor at a given time}, (3) \textit{how to change ownership of a sensor}, (4) \textit{how to detect sensors with harmful programs installed on them that may cause security threats to a network}. Security and privacy concerns related to the IoT are presented in \cite{P632}. Additionally, security challenges unique to the sensing as a service model are discussed in \cite{ZMP008}.
\section{Conclusions and Outlook}
\label{sec:Conclusions}
In this chapter, we addressed the challenge of integrating sensors into cloud-based IoT platforms through context-aware dynamic discovery and configuration. Traditionally, integration of \textit{'things' } to software solutions is considered a labour-intensive, expensive and time-consuming task that needs to be carried out by technical experts. Such challenges hinders the non-technical users from adopting IoT to build smart environments. To address this problem, we presented the CADDOT model, an approach that automates the sensor discovery and configuration process in smart environments efficiently and effortlessly by handling key challenges such as a higher number of sensors available, heterogeneity, on-demand sensing schedules, sampling rate, data acquisition methods, and dynamicity. It also encourages non-technical users to adopt IoT solutions with ease by promoting automatic discovery and configuration IoT devices.
In this work, we supported and evaluated different types of communication technologies (i.e. WiFi and Bluetooth), application strategies, and sensor-level program designs, each of which has their own strengths and weaknesses. We validate the CADDOT model by deploying it in an office environment. As CADDOT required minimum user involvement and technical expertise, it significantly reduces the time and cost involved in sensor discovery and configuration. In the future, we expect to address the open challenges discussed in Section \ref{sec:Open_Challenges}. In addition, we expect to integrate our solution with other existing solutions such as MOSDEN \cite{ZMP009} and OpenIoT \cite{P377}. The functionality provided by CADDOT can improve these solutions in a major way.
\begin{acknowledgement}
Authors acknowledge support from SSN TCP, CSIRO, Australia and ICT Project, which is co-funded by the European Commission under seventh framework program, contract number FP7-ICT-2011-7-287305-OpenIoT. The Author(s) also acknowledge help and contributions from The Australian National University.
\end{acknowledgement}
\input{referenc}
\end{document}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Exploring the relationship between structure and function of real
systems has been improved markedly in recent years, as it has become
clear that the impressive function of real systems is closely related
to their particular structures \cite{Boccaletti:2006,Albert:2002,Newman1:2003,Popovych:2011,Liu1:2012}.
Examples include the high risk of epidemic outbreak in social entities
shared with small-world friendship \cite{Newman2:2003}, the low
threshold of particle condensation in transportation network with
heterogeneous structure \cite{Tang:2008}, and the pathological
brain states accompanied by abnormal anatomical connectivity \cite{Bullmore:2009}.
Signal transmission over long distances is one of the most essential
function in nature, ranging from cell signaling in the nervous system
up to human telecommunication in the engineering \cite{Kumar:2010,McCullen:2007},
but which architecture supports an efficient and robust transmission
is still not fully understood.
Early attempts at exploring the structure-function relationship of signal transmission
were focused on one-way chains \cite{Zhang:1998,Zaikin:2001,Yao:2010,Liu2:2012,Wang:2013}.
In these classical chain models, a node at one side called source node
is responsible for receiving input signals, and then the source node
propagates the signals to its nearest node in single direction, and
so on. It has been reported that a weak signal can be transmitted
along the one-way chain without amplitude damping if the chain is
embedded in noisy environments \cite{Zhang:1998}.
Such noise-improved signal transmission is further observed in complex
networks \cite{Wang:2007,Perc:2007,Perc:2008,Perc:2008b,Perc:2009,Perc:2010,Liu:2008}.
However, the noise-improved signal transmission relies heavily on the proper
intensity of noise which it is hard to be tuned in practice. It is
therefore quite important to seek a specific structure by which the
transmission can be efficiently improved, instead of by the well-tuned
noise.
In this paper, we propose a modified one-way chain model with a Y-shaped
structure and study how such structure affects signal transmission
in the chain. Unlike the classical one-way chain with a single
source node, the Y-shaped one-way chain has two disconnected source
nodes that receive the same input signal. We find that the Y-shaped
one-way chain can maintain long-distance signal transmissions without
amplitude attenuation, no matter
the input signal is periodic or aperiodic. We also
find that the enhanced signal transmission in the Y-shaped one-way
chain is much effective than the noise-improved signal transmission
in the classical one-way chain. These findings imply that even a small
change in the structure might permit a hugely different performance
in signal transmission, offering a good illustration of the relationship
between structure and function.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig1} \caption{Architectures of a Y-shaped one-way chain with two disconnected source nodes ($j=0,1$)
to receive an input signal $I(t)$ in (a) and a classical one-way
chain with one source node ($j=1$) to receive the same input signal
$I(t)$ in (b). $\varepsilon$ represents the coupling strength. }
\label{Fig:1}
\end{figure}
\section{MODEL AND METHOD DESCRIPTIONS}
A Y-shaped one-way chain of $N+1$ coupled bistable systems is shown
in Fig. \ref{Fig:1}(a), whose dynamics is described as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:model}
\dot{x}_{j} & = & x_{j}-x_{j}^{3}+I(t),\; j=0,1\nonumber \\
\dot{x}_{2} & = & x_{2}-x_{2}^{3}+\varepsilon\big(\frac{x_{0}+x_{1}}{2}-x_{2}\big),\\
\dot{x}_{j} & = & x_{j}-x_{j}^{3}+\varepsilon(x_{j-1}-x_{j}),\; j=3,\cdots,N\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\dot{x}_{j}=x_{j}-x_{j}^{3}$ governs the local
dynamics of node $j$, which has two stable fixed points $x_{s}=\pm1$ and one
unstable fixed point $x_{u}=0$, $\varepsilon$ denotes the coupling strength,
and $I(t)$ represents
the input signal receiving by the source nodes ($j=0,1$).
To model weak signal transmissions, $I(t)$ is set as a subthreshold
signal, namely, under such signal, each source node cannot jump between
the two stable fixed points but oscillate around one of them. When
$x_{0}(t)=x_{1}(t)$, the Y-shaped one-way chain of Eq. (\ref{eq:model})
can be viewed as a classical one-way chain with one source
node, see Fig. \ref{Fig:1}(b).
To characterize signal transmission along the chain, we calculate the output of node
$j$ at the frequency $\omega$ of the input signal by \cite{Zaikin:2001,Perc:2008,Liang:2009,Liang:2013}
\begin{equation}
Q_{j}=\left|\frac{\omega}{n\pi}\int_{0}^{\frac{2n\pi}{\omega}}x_{j}(t)e^{i\omega t}dt\right|,\label{eq:indicator}
\end{equation}
where parameter $n$ determines the length of the integration
interval. To achieve a stable result of $Q_j$, a large value of $n=100$ is considered.
Besides, when the input signal is aperiodic or in a noisy environment, $Q_{j}$ is averaged with $100$ realizations.
From Eq. (\ref{eq:indicator}), the signal transmission along the chain is damped if
$Q_{j}>Q_{j+1}$ for $j\geq1$; otherwise, the transmission is enhanced if $Q_{j}\leq Q_{j+1}$
for $j\geq1$. In our discussions, the chain size $N=30$ is used, and the initial
condition $x_{j}(0)$ of each node is randomly selected from the two stable fixed points
$x_{s}=\pm1$. Obviously, the two source nodes display the same dynamical behavior
$x_{0}(t)=x_{1}(t)$ if their initial conditions are identical $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$, while showing
different dynamical behaves $x_{0}(t)\neq x_{1}(t)$
if their initial conditions are nonidentical $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$. In this regard, Eq. (\ref{eq:model}) with $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$ and with $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$ represents the classical one-way chain and
Y-shaped one-way chain, respectively.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig2} \caption{(Color online) Signal transmissions of Eq. (\ref{eq:model}) with
$x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$ (black and red squares) and with $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$
(green and blue circles) at $\varepsilon=1.4$ and $\varepsilon=4$,
respectively. Dashed lines denote the analytical predictions of Eqs.
(\ref{eq:output-j-1}) and (\ref{eq:output-j-2}). }
\label{Fig:2}
\end{figure}
\section{NUMERICAL RESULTS}
\subsection{Y-shaped structure effect}
A subthreshold periodic signal $I(t)=A\sin(\omega t)$ with $\omega=\pi/5$
and $A=0.1$ is firstly considered. Figure \ref{Fig:2} shows the
transmissions of such signal for two coupling strengths, obtaining
from randomly setting the initial conditions of all the nodes.
It can be observed that $Q_{j}$ always takes only two
distinct responses at each coupling strength: damped transmission
and enhanced transmission. Our numerical results reveal that the former
is achieved at $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$ while the latter is obtained at
$x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$, irrespective of the initial conditions of
the other nodes. Meanwhile, Fig. \ref{Fig:2} shows that the enhanced
signal transmission obtained at $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$ is very sensitive
to the value of coupling strength. When $\varepsilon=1.4$, $Q_{j}$
increases fast and saturates from $j=14$. In contrast, when $\varepsilon=4$,
$Q_{j}$ increases slowly but attains a
higher saturated output after $j\geq25$. Hence, the Y-shaped one-way
chain (at $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$) has a function of enhancing signal
transmission and such function is purely generated by the simple Y-shaped
structure.
The above observations raise two questions: (i) How does the coupling strength impact on the enhanced output
$Q_{j}$ and (ii) which node has the best efficiency of enhancing signal transmission in the Y-shaped one-way
chain? To answer these questions, we compare the dependencies of $Q_{j}$
on $\varepsilon$ between three nodes, see Fig. \ref{Fig:3}(a).
A common feature in this figure is the same critical
coupling strength $\varepsilon_{c}\approx1$ below ($\varepsilon<\varepsilon_{c}$)
or far beyond ($\varepsilon\gg\varepsilon_{c}$) which the output
$Q_{j}\approx0$. In between, the enhanced output $Q_{j}$ emergences
and a maximum output $Q_{j}^{M}$ appears at an optimal coupling
strength $\varepsilon_{j}^{M}$. Moreover,
the intermediate region of $\varepsilon$ with enhanced $Q_j$ is expanded as $j$ increases. During this process,
the values of $Q_{j}^{M}$ and $\varepsilon_{j}^{M}$ are changed accordingly.
As shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:3}(b), $Q_{j}^{M}$ is an increasing function
of $j$ which satisfies $Q_{j}^{M}\approx1.2j^{3}/(120+j^{3})$.
In Fig. \ref{Fig:3}(c), $\varepsilon_{j}^{M}$
seems to be a constant ($\varepsilon_{j}^{M}\approx0.14$) before $j=9$, and then grows with $j$
obeying a linear relationship $\varepsilon_{j}^{M}\approx0.14(1+j)$. Based
on these quantities, we define $\rho_{j}$ to measure the signal transmission
efficiency of node $j$ as
\begin{equation}
\rho_{j}\equiv\frac{Q_{j}-Q_{j-1}}{j-(j-1)}=Q_{j}-Q_{j-1},\; j\geq2\label{eq:rou}
\end{equation}
The results of $\rho_{j}$ for three coupling strengths are given in Fig.~\ref{Fig:3}(d).
It can be observed that $\rho_{j}$ displays a bell-shaped curve at each coupling strength.
In particular, when $\varepsilon=1.1$, the curve of $\rho_{j}$ has a peak at
$j=6$, suggesting that node $j=6$ has the best efficiency of signal
transmission. Interestingly, when $\varepsilon=1.4$, the best transmission
efficiency is gained by node $j=5$ since the peak height at $j=5$ is
higher than at $j=6$. However, when $\varepsilon=4$, the peak of $\rho_{j}$ is shifted to
$j=12$, accompanied by a decline in the peak height. The variations of $\rho_{j}$
indicate that the coupling strength regulates the efficiency of signal
transmission and an intermediate coupling strength enables some node to have a higher
transmission efficiency.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig3} \caption{(Color online) Signal transmission of Eq. (\ref{eq:model}) with $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$.
(a) $Q_{j}$ versus $\varepsilon$ for node $j=5$ (square), $10$
(circle) and $25$ (triangle). Dashed lines denote the analytical
results of Eqs. (\ref{eq:output-j-1}) and (\ref{eq:output-j-2}). (b) The maximum
output $Q_{j}^{M}$ versus $j$ with a fit line $Q_{j}^{M}=1.2j^{3}/(120+j^{3})$.
(c) Optimal $\varepsilon_{j}^{M}$ versus $j$ with a fit line $\varepsilon_{j}^{M}=0.14(1+j)$.
(d) Transmission efficiency $\rho_{j}$ versus $j$ for $\varepsilon=1.1$
(square), $1.4$ (circle), and $4$ (triangle). }
\label{Fig:3}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig4} \caption{Spectra of $Q_{j}$. Left panels with
$\varepsilon=1.4$: (a) $j=5$, (b) $j=10$, and (c) $j=25$; Right panels with $\varepsilon=4$: (d) $j=5$,
(e) $j=10$, and (f) $j=25$. Initial condition $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$ is used.}
\label{Fig:4}
\end{figure}
To give a deep insight of the enhanced signal transmission, Fig.~\ref{Fig:4} shows the spectra
of $Q_{j}$ for nodes $j=5$, $10$, and $25$.
When $\varepsilon=1.4$, $Q_{5}$ can be seen as a delta function of $\omega$ which is zero everywhere except at the input frequency $\omega=\pi/5$, where it is a sharp peak, see Fig.~\ref{Fig:4}(a).
Except for the peak at $\omega=\pi/5$, $Q_{10}$ also shows a lower peak
at the harmonic frequency $\omega=3\pi/5$, see Fig.~\ref{Fig:4}(b). Such multiple
peaks can be found for $Q_{25}$, see Fig.~\ref{Fig:4}(c). In addition,
when $\varepsilon=4$, the spectra of $Q_{j}$ are similar to that of $\varepsilon=1.4$, see
Figs.~\ref{Fig:4}(d)-(f). The main difference is that, there are more peaks at other harmonic
frequencies emerge for $Q_{25}$. The emergence of lower peaks at harmonic frequencies means that
the output signal $x_{j}(t)$ is not a pure sine (cosine) wave but a sum of a set of
sine (cosine) waves. However, as the peaks at harmonic frequencies are relatively lower than the peaks at $\omega=\pi/5$, the output $Q_{j}$ at the input frequency
gives a reliable measurement of signal transmission.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig5} \caption{(Color online) Signal transmission of Eq. (\ref{eq:model}) with
$x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$ (black and red square) and with $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$
(green and blue circles) for $D=0.01$ and $D=0.1$,
respectively. Parameter $\varepsilon=4$ is considered. }
\label{Fig:5}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Robustness to noise}
Since noise is ubiquitous in nature, we examine the robustness of
the enhanced signal transmission in the Y-shaped one-way chain to
external noise perturbation. Hence, each bistable system in Eq. (\ref{eq:model})
becomes noisy, i.e., $\dot{x}_{j}=x_{j}-x_{j}^{3}+\Gamma_{j}(t)$, where
$\Gamma_{j}(t)$ denotes the noise perturbation. We here consider
$\Gamma_{j}(t)$ as the white and spatially uncorrelated noise with
$\langle\Gamma_{j}(t)\rangle=0$ and $\langle\Gamma_{j}(t)\Gamma_{k}(t')\rangle=2D\delta_{jk}\delta(t-t')$,
where parameter $D$ controls the intensity of noise. For a given
coupling strength $\varepsilon=4$, Fig. \ref{Fig:5} shows the transmissions of
the input signal $I(t)=A\sin(\omega t)$ in two noisy environments. In the case of $D=0.01$,
$Q_j$ also displays two distinct responses: damped transmission
at $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$ and enhanced transmission at $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$.
In the case of $D=0.1$, the
transmission at $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$ is not damped but slightly enhanced now, which is consistent with the noise-improved signal transmission as observed in \cite{Zhang:1998}. Moreover, such noise-improved transmission at $D=0.1$ displays
the same behavior to the transmission of $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$,
implying that the enhanced signal transmission by the Y-shaped structure is reduced for large
$D$. The phenomenon shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:5} can be understood
as follows. For small $D$, the two source nodes approximate $x_{0}\text{(t)}\approx x_{1}(t)$
if their initial conditions are identical $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$. Accordingly, Eq. (\ref{eq:model}) consisted of noisy bistable systems can be treated as the classical
one-way chain so that it displays a similar transmission to the case of $D=0$. For large $D$, the noise perturbation is sufficient that it can trigger the source nodes jump between their two stable fixed points. Therefore,
the signal transmission is independent of the initial conditions of
the source nodes, which results in the same transmission between $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$
and $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig6} \caption{
Spectra of $Q_{j}$. Left panels with
$D=0.01$: (a) $j=5$, (b) $j=10$, and (c) $j=25$; Right panels with $D=0.1$: (d) $j=5$,
(e) $j=10$, and (f) $j=25$. Parameter $\varepsilon=4$ and initial condition $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$ are used.}
\label{Fig:6}
\end{figure}
Fixed $\varepsilon=4$, we explore the dependency of $Q_{j}$ on $\omega$ for three nodes chosen from Fig.~\ref{Fig:5}.
The results are displayed in Fig.~\ref{Fig:6}. For $D=0.01$, the curve of $Q_{j}$ can be viewed as a delta function
with a sharp peak at the input frequency $\omega=\pi/5$, see Figs.~\ref{Fig:6}(a)-(c).
For $D=0.1$, $Q_{j}$ also resembles a delta function except
small $\omega\approx0$ at which $Q_{j}>0$, see Figs.~\ref{Fig:6}(d)-(f). The common peak at $\omega=\pi/5$ shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:6} suggests that the input frequency is the main frequency of the output signals and
thus the output $Q_j$ at $\omega=\pi/5$ is the dominant output.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig7} \caption{(Color online) Signal transmission of
Eq. (\ref{eq:model}) at $\varepsilon=1.4$ (square), $2$ (circle), and $4$ (triangle), respectively.
Upper panels for $j=5$: (a) $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$,
(b) $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$, (c) $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$ and $\Gamma_{0}(t)=\Gamma_{1}(t)$;
Middle panels for $j=10$: (d) $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$,
(e) $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$, (f) $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$ and $\Gamma_{0}(t)=\Gamma_{1}(t)$;
Lower panels for $j=25$: (d) $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$,
(e) $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$, (f) $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$ and $\Gamma_{0}(t)=\Gamma_{1}(t)$.
Insets are the enlarged views of signal transmissions.}
\label{Fig:7}
\end{figure}
In addition, the same transmission at large $D$ shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:5} motivates us to
figure out the critical noise intensity at which the signal transmission is irrelevant
to the initial conditions of the source nodes. To this end, we compare
the evolutions of $Q_{j}$ with $D$ between $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$ and $x_{0}(0)= x_{1}(0)$ for several values of $j$ and $\varepsilon$, see Fig. \ref{Fig:7}.
When $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$, $Q_{j}$ decays with $D$ except a slight rise
around $D\approx0.3$, see Figs. \ref{Fig:7}(a)-(c).
When $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$, $Q_{j}$ suddenly increases from $D\approx0.02$ until attaining a local maximum at $D\approx0.03$,
exhibiting the same performance to the case of $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$ for large $D$, see Figs. \ref{Fig:7}(d)-(f).
When $j$ or $\varepsilon$ varies, the value of $D\approx0.03$ remains constant,
which indicates that $D\approx0.03$ is the critical noise intensity at which the signal transmission in the
Y-shaped one-way chain is not sensitive to the initial conditions of the source nodes.
Besides, Figs. \ref{Fig:7}(d)-(f) (insets) also show that $Q_{j}$ may exhibit two resonant peaks for suitable $\varepsilon$, forming double resonant-like phenomena. Further, Figs. \ref{Fig:7}(g)-(i) (insets) depict the evolutions of $Q_{j}$ for the
classical one-way chain, by setting $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$ and $\Gamma_{0}(t)=\Gamma_{1}(t)$ in Eq. (\ref{eq:model}). In these figures, $Q_{j}$ shows a resonant-like dependency on $D$ for each pair of $j$ and $\varepsilon$, where the resonant peak is at $D\approx0.3$.
When $D>0.3$,
$Q_{j}$ exhibits a similar evolution to the cases of $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$ and $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$. This implies that $D\approx0.3$ is another critical noise intensity, above which the difference in signal transmission between the Y-shaped one-way chain and classical one-way chain is small.
Making use of these two critical intensities,
we may divide the signal transmission in the Y-shaped one-way chain
into three regions: region I ($D\leq D_{1}=0.03$), region II ($D_{1}<D<D_{2}=0.3$),
and region III ($D\geq D_{2}$) [see Figs. \ref{Fig:7}(a)-(c)]. Specifically, region I corresponds to
the Y-shaped structure-improved transmission, region II corresponds
the structure-noise-improved transmission, and region III corresponds
the noise-improved transmission, respectively. Among them,
the Y-shaped structure-improved transmission (region
I) is robust to noise perturbation, especially at large $\varepsilon$ since the decay rate is slow.
In addition, the Y-shaped structure-improved transmission is much more
effective than the noise-improved transmission.
\subsection{Robustness to signal irregularity}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig8} \caption{Spectra of $Q_{j}$.
Left panels with $T=0.01$: (a) $Q_{\text{input}}$, (b) $j=5$, (c) $j=10$, and
(d) $j=25$; Right panels with $T=0.1$: (e) $Q_{\text{input}}$, (f) $j=5$,
(g) $j=10$, and (h) $j=25$. Parameter $\varepsilon=2$ and $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$ are set.}
\label{Fig:8}
\end{figure}
The actual signals are usually irregular ones, it is necessary to check the robustness of the Y-shaped structure-improved transmission to input signal irregularity. Here the irregular input
signal is generated by setting the periodic signal with a
time-varying initial phase $\varphi(t)$, i.e., $I(t)=A\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi(t)\right)$
\cite{Liang:2011}. For simplicity, the initial phase $\varphi(t)$
is set to be varied as a Wiener process. Thus, $\dot{\varphi}(t)=\zeta(t)$
is a Gaussian white noise with $\langle\zeta_{i}(t)\rangle=0$ and
$\langle\zeta(t)\zeta(t')\rangle=2T\delta(t-t')$. When $T>0$, the
periodic signal $I(t)=A\sin(\omega t)$ becomes an aperiodic
signal and its regularity decreases with $T$. To illustrate
it, we show the output spectrum of the aperiodic signal at $T=0.01$
{[}see Fig. \ref{Fig:8}(a){]} and at $T=0.1$ {[}see Fig. \ref{Fig:8}(e){]},
respectively. In both spectra, there is a highest peak at $\omega\approx\pi/5$,
where the peak height is lower and peak width
is wider at $T=0.1$, demonstrating that the regularity of the
aperiodic signal is decreased with $T$. We next investigate whether these two aperiodic
signals can be effectively transmitted in the Y-shaped one-way chain.
Fixing $\varepsilon=2$, Figs. \ref{Fig:8}(b)-(d) depict the output
spectra for three nodes $j=5$, $10$, and $25$ at $T=0.01$.
It is obvious that each output spectrum can be
considered as an enlarged version of Fig. \ref{Fig:8}(a),
where the output spectra of $Q_{10}$ and $Q_{25}$ show larger enlarged
ratios than that of $Q_{5}$. Similarly, such enlarged versions can also
be observed in Figs. \ref{Fig:8}(e)-(h) for the case of $T=0.1$. Comparing with that of $T=0.01$, the enlarged ratio
and fidelity are reduced at $T=0.1$. From these observations, it can be concluded that
the Y-shaped structure-improved transmission works well for irregular
signals.
\section{ANALYTICAL RESULTS}
We now analyze the underlying mechanism of the Y-shaped structure-improved
signal transmission. To avoid the effect of noise, we only discuss
Eq. (\ref{eq:model}) subjected to a periodic input signal ($T=0$) in absence
of noise ($D=0$). Because the input signal $I(t)=A\sin(\omega t)$ is
subthreshold, the source nodes oscillate with small amplitudes around the stable
fixed points, their solutions can be approximately obtained as \cite{Liang:2009,Acebron:2007,Liang:2012}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:input nodes}
x_{j}(t)\approx x_j(0)+A_1\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi_{1}\right),\: j=0,1
\end{equation}
where $x_j(0)=\pm1$ depending on the initial condition, $A_1={A}/{\sqrt{\omega^{2}+4}}$,
and $\varphi_{1}$ denotes some phase shift.
\subsection{Case 1: Two source nodes with the same initial condition}
When $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$, the dynamical equation of node $j=2$ becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eq:second layer-1}
\dot{x}_{2}=(1-\varepsilon)x_{2}-x_{2}^{3}+\varepsilon x_1(0)+\varepsilon A_1\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi_{1}\right).
\end{equation}
Without the periodic signal $\varepsilon A_1\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi_{1}\right)$, $x_2$
has three fixed points for $\varepsilon\leq1/4$: $x_1(0)$ and $-1/2\pm\sqrt{1-4\varepsilon}/2$ in which $x_1(0)$ and $-1/2-\sqrt{1-4\varepsilon}/2$ are stable fixed points while $-1/2+\sqrt{1-4\varepsilon}/2$ is unstable; for $\varepsilon>{1}/{4}$, $x_2$ has one stable fixed point $x_1(0)$. When $\varepsilon$ is not great, the signal $\varepsilon A_1\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi_{1}\right)$ is subthreshold, the solutions of the node $j=2$ approximate
\begin{equation}\label{eq:s-1 of n=2-1}
{x}_{2}(t)\approx x_1(0)+\frac{\varepsilon A_1}{\sqrt{\omega^{2}+(2+\varepsilon)^{2}}}\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi_{2}\right)\nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:s-2 of n=2-1}
{x}_{2}(t)\approx \frac{-1-\sqrt{1-4\varepsilon}}{2}+\frac{\varepsilon A_1}{\sqrt{\omega^{2}+(\frac{1}{4}-\varepsilon)^{2}}}\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi_{2}\right),\nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\varphi_{2}$ is some phase shift. When $\varepsilon\approx1/4$, the latter solution indicates a larger oscillation around $-1/2-\sqrt{1-4\varepsilon}/2$ than the former around $x_1(0)$. However, the stability of the fixed point $-1/2-\sqrt{1-4\varepsilon}/2$ decreases as $\varepsilon$ approaches $1/4$, the large oscillation is thus unsustainable and it will move to the vicinity of $x_1(0)$, leading to a small oscillation governed by the former solution.
Inserting $x_2(t)$ into the equation of node $j=3$, we can obtain the stable fixed points of the node $j=3$ as well as the
subsequent nodes by repeatedly using the same method.
We find that these nodes possess the same stable fixed point $1$ or $-1$, depending on $x_1(0)=1$ or $x_1(0)=-1$. In this way, the dynamical equation of node $j\geq3$ can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq-j-1}
\dot{{x}}_{j}\approx (1-\varepsilon)x_j-{x_j}^{3}+\varepsilon x_1(0)+\varepsilon A_{j-1}\sin(\omega t+\varphi_{j-1}),
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon A_{j-1}\sin(\omega t+\varphi_{j-1})$ denotes the signal from node $j-1$ and $\varphi_{j-1}$ represents some phase shift. When the signal $\varepsilon A_{j-1}\sin(\omega t+\varphi_{j-1})$ is subthreshold, the solution of Eq. (\ref{eq:eq-j-1}) approximately satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:solution-j-1}
{x}_{j}(t)&\approx& x_1(0)+\frac{\varepsilon A_{j-1}}{\sqrt{\omega^{2}+(2+\varepsilon)^{2}}}\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi_{j}\right)\approx x_1(0)\nonumber\\
& &+\left(\frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{\omega^{2}+(2+\varepsilon)^{2}}}\right)^{j-1}A_{j-1}\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi_{j}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
with some phase shift $\varphi_{j}$. Inserting this solution into Eq. (\ref{eq:indicator}),
the output $Q_{j}$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:output-j-1}
Q_{j}\approx A_1\left(\frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{\omega^{2}+(2+\varepsilon)^{2}}}\right)^{j-1}.
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{eq:output-j-1}) satisfies the condition $Q_{j}>Q_{j+1}$ for $j\geq1$,
thereby supporting the damped transmission of Eq. (\ref{eq:model}) at $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$.
On the other hand, the damped transmission at $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$ can be explained by the overdamped motion
of a particle in a potential and periodic forcing \cite{Gammaitoni:1998}.
For this reason, the potential in Eq. (\ref{eq:eq-j-1}) is $V(x)=-(1-\varepsilon)x^2/2+x^4/4+\varepsilon x_1(0)x$
and the periodic forcing is $\varepsilon A_{j-1}\sin(\omega t+\varphi_{j-1})$.
When $\varepsilon>0$, $V(x)$ is an asymmetrical potential and its asymmetry is determined
by the value of $\varepsilon$. For illustration, Figs. \ref{Fig:9}(a)-(c) display the potential $V(x)$ for
$\varepsilon=0.2$, $0.9$ and $1.4$. When $\varepsilon=0.2$, $V(x)$ has two wells, where the well located at $x=1$ (or $x=-1$) is deeper than the other one at $x\approx0.7$ (or $x\approx-0.7$), see Fig. \ref{Fig:9}(a). This indicates that the large oscillations around $x=1$ (or $x=-1$) are more stable. When $\varepsilon$ is increased to $0.9$, $V(x)$ turns into an V-shaped potential with a single well at $x=1$ (or $x=-1$), see Fig. \ref{Fig:9}(b). As shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:9}(c), further increasing $\varepsilon$ to $1.4$ will result in a more steep V-shaped potential.
Clearly, under the same forcing of $\varepsilon A_{j-1}\sin(\omega t+\varphi_{j-1}$), the asymmetrical potential $V(x)$ of $\varepsilon=0.2$ allows the particle to generate a relatively large oscillation inside it in contrast to the potentials of $\varepsilon=0.9$ and $\varepsilon=1.4$. However, as $\varepsilon A_{j-1}\sin(\omega t+\varphi_{j-1}$) is weak and the motion is overdamped, the oscillation around $x=1$ (or $x=-1$) gets even smaller ($A_{j}<A_{j-1}$). Altogether, the transmission of Eq. (\ref{eq:model}) decreases with $j$ and $\varepsilon$ when $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig9} \caption{(Color online) Potential $V(x)$ for diffent $\varepsilon$.
Upper panels for $V(x)=-(1-\varepsilon)\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{x^4}{4}-\varepsilon x_1(0) x$: (a) $\varepsilon=0.2$, (b) $\varepsilon=0.9$, and (c) $\varepsilon=1.4$. Solid lines correspond to $x_1(0)=1$ and the dashed
lines correspond to $x_1(0)=-1$. Lower panels for $V(x)=-(1-\varepsilon)\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{x^4}{4}$: (d) $\varepsilon=1.4$, (e) $\varepsilon=2$, and (f) $\varepsilon=4$. }
\label{Fig:9}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Case 2: Two source nodes with different initial conditions}
When $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$, Eq. (\ref{eq:second layer-1}) can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:second layer-2}
\dot{x}_{2}=(1-\varepsilon)x_{2}-x_{2}^{3}+\varepsilon A_1\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi_{1}\right).
\end{equation}
Without the periodic signal $\varepsilon A_1\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi_{1}\right)$,
$x_{2}$ has two stable fixed points $\pm\sqrt{1-\varepsilon}$ for
$\varepsilon<1$ and has one stable fixed
point $0$ for $\varepsilon\geq1$. For a subthreshold signal $\varepsilon A_1\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi_{1}\right)$, the solutions of $x_2(t)$ approximate
\begin{equation}\label{eq:s-1 of n=2-2}
{x}_{2}(t)\approx\pm\sqrt{1-\varepsilon}+\frac{\varepsilon A_1}{\sqrt{\omega^{2}+4(1-\varepsilon)^{2}}}\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi'_{2}\right)\nonumber
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:s-1 of n=2-2}
{x}_{2}(t)\approx \frac{\varepsilon A_1}{\sqrt{\omega^{2}+(1-\varepsilon)^{2}}}\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi'_{2}\right),\nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\varphi'_{2}$ is some phase shift. Based on the solutions of ${x}_{2}(t)$,
we can acquire the stable fixed points of the subsequent nodes $j\geq3$. We find that the stable fixed points of these nodes are $\pm1$ for $\varepsilon<1$ and $0$ for $\varepsilon\geq1$. In the former case, the dynamical equation of node $j\geq3$ can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq-j-2-a}
\dot{{x}}_{j}\approx (1-\varepsilon)x_j-{x_j}^{3}+\varepsilon x_1(0)+\varepsilon A_{j-1}\sin(\omega t+\varphi'_{j-1}),
\end{equation}
where $\varphi'_{j-1}$ is some phase shift. Eq. (\ref{eq:eq-j-2-a}) has the same form as Eq. (\ref{eq:eq-j-1}), so their solutions and the corresponding outputs are similar. This means the signal transmission is damped for $\varepsilon<1$ no matter the initial condition is $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$ or $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$. In the latter case, i.e., $\varepsilon\geq1$,
the dynamics equation of node $j\geq3$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq-j-2-b}
\dot{{x}}_{j}\approx (1-\varepsilon)x_j-{x_j}^{3}+\varepsilon A_{j-1}\sin(\omega t+\varphi'_{j-1}).
\end{equation}
Its solution is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:solution-j-2}
{x}_{j}(t)\approx\left(\frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{\omega^{2}+(1-\varepsilon)^{2}}}\right)^{j-1}A_{1}\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi'_{j}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\varphi'_{j}$ is some phase shift. Inserting Eq. (\ref{eq:solution-j-2}) into Eq. (\ref{eq:indicator}), the output is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:output-j-2}
Q_{j}\approx A_1\left(\frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt{\omega^{2}+(1-\varepsilon)^{2}}}\right)^{j-1}.
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{eq:output-j-2}) satisfies the condition $Q_{j}\leq Q_{j+1}$
for $j\geq1$, which coincides with the enhanced signal transmissions at $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$. In Fig. \ref{Fig:2}
and Fig. \ref{Fig:3}(a), we compare the analytical results of Eqs.
(\ref{eq:output-j-1}) and (\ref{eq:output-j-2}) with the numerical
results and find a good agreement between them for small
$j$. The reason is that, the above analyses are based on the perturbation
theory, i.e., assuming $x_{j}$ oscillates around the stable fixed point with a small amplitude. Because the oscillation of $x_{j}$ is weak for small $j$, the theory gives a better approximation to $x_{j}$
as well as $Q_{j}$. In addition, from Eq. (\ref{eq:output-j-2}), the optimal $\varepsilon_{j}^{M}$
can be derived as $\varepsilon_{j}^{M}=1+\omega^{2}\approx1.4$, which
fits well with the numerical results ($j\leq9$) shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:3}(b).
Analogously, the enhanced signal transmission at $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$ and $\varepsilon\geq1$ can also be understood by the overdamped motion of a
particle in a potential and periodic forcing. As shown in Eq. (\ref{eq:eq-j-2-b}), the periodic forcing is $\varepsilon A_{j-1}\sin\left(\omega t+\varphi_{j-1}\right)$, and the
potential is $V(x)=-(1-\varepsilon){x^2}/{2}+{x^4}/{4}$ which is a symmetrical function
with a minimum at $x=0$. In Fig. \ref{Fig:9}(d), the potential $V(x)$ for $\varepsilon=1.4$ is plotted. It is a U-shaped curve with a flat bottom, which is quite different from the V-shaped well shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:9}(c). In addition, Fig. \ref{Fig:9}(e) plots the potential $V(x)$ for $\varepsilon=2$. It can be seen that the bottom of the U-shaped $V(x)$ becomes narrow and such narrow U-shaped potential transforms into a V-shaped curve as $\varepsilon=4$, see Fig. \ref{Fig:9}(f). In contrast, the U-shaped potential $V(x)$ can permit the particle to gain a wider oscillation inside it than the V-shaped potentials. This explains why the signal transmission is largely enhanced at $x_{0}(0)\neq x_{1}(0)$ and $\varepsilon=1.4$.
\subsection{Mechanisms of resonant-like phenomena}
We finally analyze the mechanism of the resonant-like phenomena shown in Fig. \ref{Fig:7}.
Firstly, we explain the single resonant-like dependency for the classical one-way
chain with one source node, i.e., $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$ and $\Gamma_{0}(t)=\Gamma_{1}(t)$ are set in
Eq. (\ref{eq:model}).
When $D=0$, the oscillation of the source node is small, restricting in one of the two stable fixed points.
When $D$ is increased to $D=0.03$, the oscillation of the source node can jump to the other stable fixed point by noise perturbation, see Fig. \ref{Fig:10}(a). Because the perturbations are not sufficient, the jumping rate is small and the oscillation may stay there for a long time until the next jumping. Thus the oscillation of the source node is still small at $D=0.03$. Continue increasing $D$ to $D=0.05$,
the jumping rate between the two stable fixed points is obviously improved,
which increases the oscillation amplitude, see Fig. \ref{Fig:10}(b). When $D=0.3$, the jumping rate is sharply improved, so the oscillation is no longer centered on the stable fixed points $x_s=\pm1$ but on $x_u=0$, see Fig. \ref{Fig:10}(c). However, further increase in $D$ will increase the randomness of the oscillation (not shown here).
Considering all of these factors, the source node can only generate a large output at $D=0.3$, showing a resonant peak over there. Through one-way coupling, the output of the source node will propagate to the subsequent nodes ($j\geq2$), which results in the stochastic resonance phenomena as observed in Figs. \ref{Fig:7}(g)-(i).
Secondly, we explain the double resonant-like dependency for the Y-shaped one-way chain with $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$. As mentioned above, when $D=0.03$, there is a small probability that a single source node may jump to the other stable fixed point, remaining there for a long time until it jumps back to the initial fixed point. In this way, the two source nodes in the Y-shaped one-way chain may occasionally oscillate in different stable fixed points for long time intervals, although given the same initial condition $x_{0}(0)=x_{1}(0)$, see Fig. \ref{Fig:10}(d).
Considering that the signal transmission is largely enhanced if
the two source nodes oscillate in different stable fixed points [see Sec. IV B],
the transmission in the Y-shaped one-way chain will be sometimes largely enhanced at $D=0.03$.
By increasing $D$ to $D=0.05$, the time intervals for the two source nodes simultaneously oscillating at different fixed points reduce dramatically [see Fig. \ref{Fig:10}(e)], indicating a decrease in signal transmission.
These are the reasons why $Q_j$ shows the first local peak at $D=0.03$. When $D$ is increased to $D=0.3$,
there is no obvious interval between two continuous jumps, see Fig. \ref{Fig:10}(f).
During this process, the collective behavior of the two source nodes $(x_0(t)+x_1(t))/2$ is analogous to the individual $x_0(t)$ or $x_1(t)$, i.e., the two source nodes can be seen as a single one. This analogy in dynamics implies that the Y-shaped one-way chain shows a similar signal transmission to that of the classical one-way chain for large $D$. As a result, the signal transmission in the Y-shaped one-way chain is also largely enhanced at $D=0.3$, resulting in the second peak over there. Obviously, both the single and double resonant-like dependencies are the
stochastic resonance phenomena, since the signal transmissions are improved by noise. However, as the specific Y-shaped structure allows the two source nodes oscillate in distinct fixed points for small noise, we thus refer the enhanced signal transmission in the region $0.03<D<0.3$ as structure-noise-improved transmission [see Figs. \ref{Fig:7}(d)-(f)].
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{fig10} \caption{(Color online) Time series $x_j(t)$ of the source node(s).
Left panels for one source node: (a) $D=0.03$, (b) $D=0.05$, and (c) $D=0.3$;
Right panels for two source nodes with given the same initial condition $x_0(0)=x_1(1)$: (d) $D=0.03$, (e) $D=0.05$, and (f) $D=0.3$. Red and green lines denote $x_j(t)$ of the two source nodes,
blue lines denote the their collective dynamics $(x_0(t)+x_1(t))/2$.}
\label{Fig:10}
\end{figure}
\section{SUMMARY}
In conclusions, we have studied the signal transmission in a Y-shaped
one-way chain and found an extraordinarily of such specific structure
to improve signal transmission. We have also studied the robustness
of the Y-shaped structure-improved transmission to the noise perturbation
and input signal regularity. We hope our findings may contribute to
understand the structure-function relationship of real systems and
be useful to design highly efficient artificial devices, such as switchers
and amplifiers.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
X.L. was supported by the NNSF of China
under Grant No. 11305078, the Research Fund of Jiangsu Normal University
under Grant No. 12XLR028, and the Priority
Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education
Institutions (PAPD). M.T. was supported by the NNSF of China
under Grant No. 11105025. H.L. was supported by the NNSF of China
under Grant No. 11175150.
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:introduction}
Hat games are a popular topic in combinatorics. Typically, a hat game involves $n$ players, each wearing a hat that can take a colour from a given set of $q$ colours. No player can see their own hat, but each player can see some subset of the other hats. All players are asked to guess the colour of their own hat at the same time. For an extensive review of different hat games, see \cite{Krz12}. Different variations have been proposed: for instance, the players can be allowed to pass \cite{Ebe98}, or the players can guess their respective hat's colour sequentially \cite{Krz10}. The variation in \cite{Ebe98} mentioned above has been investigated further (see \cite{Krz12}) for it is strongly connected to coding theory via the concept of covering codes \cite{CHLL97}; in particular, some optimal solutions for that variation involve the well-known Hamming codes \cite{EMV03}. In the variation called the ``guessing game,'' players are not allowed to pass, and must guess simultaneously \cite{Rii07}. The team wins if everyone has guessed their colour correctly; the aim is to maximise the number of hat assignments which are correctly guessed by all players. This version of the hat game has been further studied in \cite{Rii07a, GR11} due to its relations to graph entropy, to circuit complexity, and to network coding, which is a means to transmit data through a network which allows the intermediate nodes to combine the packets they receive \cite{ACLY00}.
In this paper, we are interested in the following hat problem, a small variation to Winkler's hat game presented in \cite{Win01}. We are given a directed graph $D$ (without loops and repeated arcs, but possibly with bidirectional edges) on $n$ vertices and a finite alphabet $[q] = \{0,\ldots,q-1\}$ ($q \ge 2$). We say that $f = (f_1,\ldots,f_n) : [q]^n \to [q]^n$ is a $D$-function if every local function $f_v: [q]^n \to [q]$ only depends on the values in the in-neighbourhood of $v$ in $D$: $f_v(x) = f_v(x_{N^-(x)})$. We ask whether there is a $D$-function over $[q]$ such that for any $x = (x_1,\ldots,x_n) \in [q]^n$, $f_v(x) = x_v$ for some vertex $v$. In that case, we say that $D$ is $q$-{\em solvable} and that $f$ \emph{solves} $D$.
In terms of the hat game, each vertex in the graph represents a player, an arc from player $u$ to $v$ means that $v$ can see $u$. The set $[q]$ then represents the possible colours of their hats and $x = (x_1,\ldots,x_n) \in [q]^n$ represents a possible hat assignment. Each player $v$ must guess the colour of their hat according to some pre-determined rule which can only depend on the hats that they see: $f_v(x_{N^-(x)})$. If one player guesses correctly, i.e., $x_v = f_v(x)$, then the team wins; if all guess incorrectly, the team loses. The question is then to come up with a winning strategy regardless of the hat assignment.
Clearly, if $D$ is $q$-solvable, then it is also $(q-1)$-solvable. The clique $K_q$ is $q$-solvable \cite{Win01}: if we denote the players as elements in $[q]$, then $v$ guesses that the sum of all hat assignments is equal to $v$ modulo $q$: $f_v(x) = -\sum_{u \ne v} x_u + v$. More generally, if the players play on $K_n$, then there is a strategy which guarantees that at least $\lfloor n/q \rfloor$ players guess correctly (simply split $K_n$ into $\lfloor n/q \rfloor$ cliques $K_q$). The case for $K_n$ and $q=2$ colours with unequal probabilities was further studied in \cite{Fei04, Doe05}; its relation to auctions has been revealed in \cite{AFGHIS11} and developed in \cite{BNW13}.
Results for other classes of graphs have been found in the literature. Butler et al.\@ proved in \cite{BHKL08} that for any $q$, there exists a $q$-solvable undirected bipartite graph. Unfortunately, that graph has a doubly exponential number of vertices. In the same paper, they also proved that undirected trees are not $3$-solvable.
The main contributions of this paper are as follows. In \cite{BHKL08}, it is asked whether there exist $K_q$-free $q$-solvable undirected graphs with a polynomial number (in $q$) of vertices. We give an emphatic affirmative answer: for any $\epsilon$, there exist $K_{\epsilon q}$-free $q$-solvable graphs with a linear number of vertices; moreover, we present a class of $K_\omega$-free graphs with $\omega = o(q)$ which are $q$-solvable and have a polynomial number of vertices. We also refine the multiplicative constant for some values of $\epsilon$ by considering small undirected graphs or directed graphs. We also prove some non-solvability results for bipartite graphs and for graphs with a large independent set. Another question asked in \cite{BHKL08} concerns so-called \emph{edge-critical} graphs, i.e., undirected graphs which are $q$-solvable but which have no $q$-solvable proper spanning subgraph. Clearly, the only edge-critical graph for $q=2$ colours is $K_2$; \cite{BHKL08} asks whether there exists an infinite family of edge-critical graphs for any other $q \ge 3$. By studying the solvability of cycles, we are able to show that the cycles whose length are a multiple of six form an infinite family of edge-critical graphs for 3 colours.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:undirected}, we prove the existence of bipartite or $K_\omega$-free $q$-solvable undirected graphs with a relatively small number of vertices. In Section~\ref{sec:directed}, we refine some constructions by extending our consideration to directed graphs. We then derive some non-solvability results in Section~\ref{sec:non-solvability}. Finally, we prove the existence of a class of edge-critical $3$-solvable graphs in Section~\ref{sec:even_cycles}.
\section{Undirected constructions} \label{sec:undirected}
In \cite{BHKL08}, it is proved that for any $q \ge 2$ there exists a $q$-solvable bipartite graph with a doubly exponential number of vertices ($q^{q^{q-1}} + q-1$ vertices to be exact). We refine their argument to construct a $q$-solvable bipartite graph with only an exponential number of vertices.
We say that a set of words $S$ in $[q]^m$ is {\em distinguishable} if there exists a word $x \in [q]^m$ such that $d_H(x,s) \le m-1$ for all $s \in S$, where $d_H$ is the Hamming distance. Alternatively, using the terminology of \cite{CG12}, this is equivalent to $S$ having remoteness at most $m-1$. The main reason we are interested in distinguishable sets is as follows. If in a graph there is an independent set $M$ of cardinality $m$, and the vertices in $M$ know that their hat assignment $x \in [q]^m$ is any possible element of a set $S \subseteq [q]^m$, then there exist guessing functions for the vertices of $M$ achieving at least one correct guess if and only if $S$ is distinguishable.
\begin{theorem}[See \cite{BHKL08}] \label{th:bipartite}
The complete bipartite graph $K_{q-1,(q-1)^{q-1}}$ is $q$-solvable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Set $m=q-1$, and label the left vertices of $K_{q-1,(q-1)^{q-1}}$ by $v_1,\dotsc,v_m$. Write $[q]_+$ for the set $\{1,\dots,q-1\}$ (so $[q]_+ \subseteq [q]$) and label the right vertices of $K_{q-1,(q-1)^{q-1}}$ by $w_z$ for $z \in [q]_+^m$. For each $z \in [q]_+^m$ define the guessing function $f_z : [q]^m \to [q]$ by
\[
f_z(x) = \begin{cases}
0 & \text{if $d_H(x,z) = m$}\\
\min\{ i : x_i = z_i \} & \text{if $d_H(x,z) < m$}\\
\end{cases}
\]
It is enough to show that for any hat configuration $(x,y) = (x_1,\dots,x_m,y_{(1,\dots,1)},\dots,y_{(q-1,\dots,q-1)})$ if all the vertices $w_z$ guess incorrectly, then the vertices $v_i$ know that the vector $x$ lies in some distinguishable set.
That is, it is enough to show that for all $y$ there exists $a \in [q]^m$ such that
\[
\bigcap_{z \in [q]_+^m} f_z^{-1}(y_z)^{\rm c} \subseteq B_{m-1}(a).
\]
(The $m$ components of the vector $a$, which depends on $y$, are exactly the guessing functions for the vertices $v_1,\dots,v_m$.)
We prove by (reverse) induction on $i$ the following:
\begin{claim*}
Suppose $(x,y) \in [q]^m \times [q]^{[q]_+^m}$ is a configuration of hats guessed incorrectly by every vertex. Then, for every $i = 1,\dots,m$, and every $(z_1,\dots,z_{i-1}) \in [q]_+^{i-1}$ there exists $(z_i,\dots,z_m) \in [q]_+^{m-i+1}$ with $y_{(z_1,\dots,z_m)} \not\in \{i,\dotsc,m\}$.
\end{claim*}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Claim]
Let $i=m$, and fix $z_1,\dots,z_{m-1}$. Consider the variables $y_{(z_1,\dots,z_{m-1},z)}$ for $z \in [q]_+$; if all are equal to $m$, then
\[
X_m(z) := f_{(z_1,\dots,z_{m-1},z)}^{-1}(y_{(z_1,\dots,z_{m-1},z)}) = \{ x \in [q]^m : x_i \neq z_i \text{ for all $i < m$ and } x_m = z\}.
\]
Hence
\[
\bigcup_{z \in [q]_+} X_m(z) = \{ x \in [q]^m : x_i \neq z_i \text{ for all $i<m$ and } x_m \neq 0 \}
\]
implying that $\displaystyle\bigcap_{z \in [q]_+} X_m(z)^{\rm c} = B_{m-1}(z_1,\dotsc,z_{m-1},0)$, contradicting the fact that the vertices $v_1,\dotsc,v_m$ guess incorrectly. Therefore there exists some $z \in [q]_+$ with $y_{(z_1,\dots,z_{m-1},z)} \neq m$.
Now, suppose the statement is true for $i >1$; we show it holds for $i-1$. Fix $z_1,\dots,z_{i-2}$; for each $a \in [q]_+$, by our inductive hypothesis there exist $z_i(a),\dots,z_m(a) \in [q]_+$ with
\[
y_{(z_1,\dotsc,z_{i-2},a,z_i(a),\dots,z_m(a))} \not \in \{i,\dots,m\}.
\]
So, it is enough to show that for at least one $a \in [q]_+$ the variable $y_{(z_1,\dotsc,z_{i-2},a,z_i(a),\dots,z_m(a))}$ is not equal to $i-1$. For a contradiction, suppose not, so that all such variables equal $i-1$. Then,
\[
\begin{split}
X_{i-1}(a) &:= f_{(z_1,\dots,z_{i-2},a,z_i(a),\dots,z_m(a))}^{-1}(y_{(z_1,\dots,z_{i-2},a,z_i(a),\dots,z_m(a))})\\
&= \{ x \in [q]^m : x_j \neq z_j \text{ for all $j < i-1$ and } x_{i-1} = a\}.
\end{split}
\]
Therefore,
\[
\bigcup_{a \in [q]_+} X_{i-1}(a) = \{ x \in [q]^m : x_j \neq z_j \text{ for all $j<i-1$ and } x_{i-1} \neq 0 \}
\]
implying that $\displaystyle\bigcap_{a \in [q]_+} X_{i-1}(a)^{\rm c} \subseteq B_{m-1}(z_1,\dotsc,z_{i-2},0,\dots,0)$ contradicting the fact that $v_1,\dots,v_m$ guess incorrectly.
\end{proof}
Finally, applying the claim for $i=1$, we find a $z \in [q]_+^m$ where $y_z$ cannot take any value in $\{1,\dots,m\}$. This implies that $y_z = 0$ and $f_z^{-1}(y_z)^{\rm c} = B_{m-1}(z)$, so that at least one of $v_1,\dots,v_m$ guesses correctly.
\end{proof}
The {\em lexicographic product} of a directed graph $D = (V,E)$ and a clique $K_r$, denoted as $(D,r)$, is defined as the graph with vertex set $V \times [r]$, where $((u,a), (v,b))$ is an arc if and only if either $(u,v) \in E$ or $u=v$ and $a\neq b$. If $D$ has $n$ vertices and clique number $\omega$, then the graph $(D,r)$ has $rn$ vertices and clique number $r \omega$.
\begin{lemma}[The blow-up lemma] \label{lem:blow-up}
If $G$ is a $p$-solvable directed graph, then $(G, r)$ is a $q$-solvable graph, where $q = pr$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let $f$ be the corresponding guessing function that solves $G$ over $p$ colours. For any vertex $(v,a)$ in $(G,r)$, we denote the configuration as $(x_{(v,a)}, y_{(v,a)}) \in [p] \times [r]$ and we also denote $X_v = \sum_{a \in [r]} x_{(v,a)}$, $Y_v = \sum_{a \in [r]} y_{(v,a)}$ and write $X$ for the vector $(X_v,v \in G)$. We claim that the $(G,r)$-function $g$, defined as follows for each $(v,a)$, never fails:
\[
g_{(v,a)}(x,y) = \left(f_v(X) - X_v + x_{(v,a)}, -Y_v + y_{(v,a)} - a \right).
\]
Suppose $(x,y)$ is guessed wrong by all vertices. In particular, it is guessed incorrectly by $(v,a)$, hence either $f_v(X) \ne X_v$ or $Y_v \ne a$. Since this holds for all $a$, in particular this holds for $a = Y_v$; we conclude that $f_v(X) \ne X_v$. Since this holds for all $v$, this violates the fact that $f$ is a solution for $G$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{th:epsilon}
For any $\epsilon > 0$, there exists $n_\epsilon$ such that the following holds. For any $q$, there exists a $q$-solvable undirected graph with at most $n_\epsilon q$ vertices and clique number $\epsilon q$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Firstly, let $p = \lfloor 1/\epsilon \rfloor + 1$ and let $q$ be divisible by $p$. Let $G_p$ be the $p$-solvable bipartite graph in Theorem \ref{th:bipartite} and let $g_p$ denote its size. Then by the blow-up lemma, $(G_p,q/p)$ is a $q$-solvable graph with $g_p q/p$ vertices and clique number $2q/p$. If $q$ is not divisible by $p$, consider $q' = p \lceil q/p \rceil \le q(1 + 1/p)$ and $n_\epsilon = (1 + 1/p)g_p/p$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{th:K-free}
For any $\omega$ such that $\omega \ge \frac{q}{m} \frac{\log \log q}{\log q}$ holds for large enough $q$ and some $m > 0$, there exists a $q$-solvable $K_\omega$-free undirected graph with at most $q^{2m+1}$ vertices for $q$ large enough.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $p = \lfloor \frac{2q}{\omega} \rfloor + 1$. According to Theorem \ref{th:bipartite}, the graph $K_{p-1,(p-1)^{p-1}}$ is $p$-solvable. Then by the blow-up lemma, there exists a $q$-solvable graph with $n := \frac{q}{p} \left( (p-1)^{p-1} + p-1 \right)$ vertices and clique number $2\frac{q}{p} < \omega$. We have $n \le q (p-1)^{p-1}$, and hence for $q$ large enough
\begin{align*}
p - 1 &\le \frac{2q}{\omega} \le 2m \frac{\log q}{\log \log q}\quad\text{and}\\
\log n &\le \log q + 2m \frac{\log q}{\log \log q}\left\{ \log(2m) + \log \log q - \log \log \log q \right\} \le \left( 2m + 1\right) \log q,
\end{align*}
and hence $n \le q^{2m+1}$.
\end{proof}
In general, the constant $n_\epsilon$ obtained from Theorem \ref{th:bipartite} decreases rapidly with $\epsilon$. We refine it below for $\epsilon = 2/3$.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:K22}
The complete bipartite graph $K_{2,2}$ is $3$-solvable.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Denote the bipartition as $\{v_1,v_2\} \cup \{v_3,v_4\}$. With
$$
A = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 1\\
1 & -1
\end{pmatrix},
$$
the guessing function is given by
$$
(f_1,f_2) = (x_3,x_4) A, \qquad (f_3,f_4) = (x_1,x_2)A^{-1}.
$$
Suppose $x$ is guessed wrong by all vertices. The vertices $v_3$ and $v_4$ guess wrong, hence we have
$$
(x_3,x_4) = (x_1,x_2)A^{-1} + w
$$
for some $w = (w_1,w_2) \in S:= \{(1,1),(1,2),(2,1),(2,2)\}$. Similarly, we have
$$
(x_1,x_2) = (x_3,x_4)A + u = (x_1,x_2) + wA + u
$$
for some $u \in S$. However, it can be shown that for any $(w_1,w_2) \in S$, $wA \notin S$ and hence $wA+u \ne (0,0)$. We thus obtain the contradiction $(x_1,x_2) \ne (x_1,x_2)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:4q/3}
For any $q$ divisible by $3$, there exists a $q$-solvable graph on $4q/3$ vertices with clique number $2q/3$.
\end{corollary}
\section{Directed constructions} \label{sec:directed}
If we allow directed graphs, then we can further refine the constants obtained in Section \ref{sec:undirected}.
\begin{theorem} \label{th:directed}
If $q$ is even, there exists a $q$-solvable directed graph with $3q/2$ vertices and clique number $q/2$. For any $q$ divisible by 3, there exists a $q$-solvable directed graph on $4q$ vertices of clique number $q/3$. For any $q$ a multiple of four, there exists a $q$-solvable directed graph on $10q$ vertices and with clique number $q/4$.
\end{theorem}
The main strategy to produce a $p$-solvable oriented graph is by using a gadget, defined below.
\begin{definition} \label{def:gadget}
An oriented graph $D$ on $n$ vertices is called a $q$-{\em gadget} if it is not $q$-solvable, but if there exists a $D$-function $f$ over $[q]$ such that any configuration $x$ guessed incorrectly by $f$ satisfies an equality of the form $x_1 = \phi(x_2, \ldots, x_n)$ for some $\phi: [q]^{n-1} \to [q]$.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}[The gadget lemma] \label{lem:gadget}
If there exists a $p$-gadget on $n$ vertices, then there exists a $p$-solvable oriented graph on $n \binom{p}{2} + p$ vertices.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Start with a transitive tournament on $p$ vertices with arcs $(i,j)$ for all $i<j$. For any ordered pair $(i,j)$ with $i > j$, add a gadget $D_{i,j}$ and arcs from $i$ to all vertices in $D_{i,j}$ and whence to $j$. This yields an oriented graph $G$ on $n \binom{p}{2} + p$ vertices; we claim that $G$ is $p$-solvable.
We denote the vertices of the original tournament as $0,1,\ldots,p-1$ and for each $i > j$, the vertices of the gadget $D_{i,j}$ are $1_{i,j}, \ldots, n_{i,j}$.
Let $f$ be the function on the gadget $D$ with corresponding $\phi$. The corresponding function $g$ for $G$ is as follows:
\begin{align*}
g_j(x) &= -\sum_{k < j} x_k - \sum_{k > j} \left[\phi(x_{2_{k,j}}, \ldots, x_{n_{k,j}}) - x_{1_{k,j}} \right] + j,\\
g_{1_{i,j}}(x) &= f_1(x_{2_{i,j}}, \ldots, x_{n_{i,j}}) - x_i,\\
g_{v_{i,j}}(x) &= f_v(x_{1_{i,j}} + x_i, x_{2_{i,j}}, \ldots, x_{n_{i,j}}) \qquad v=2,\ldots,n.
\end{align*}
Suppose that $x$ is guessed incorrectly by all vertices. First, all vertices in $D_{i,j}$ guess wrong; we then have
\begin{align*}
f_1(x_{2_{i,j}}, \ldots, x_{n_{i,j}}) &\ne x_{1_{i,j}} + x_i,\\
f_v(x_{1_{i,j}} + x_i, x_{2_{i,j}}, \ldots, x_{n_{i,j}}) &\ne x_{v_{i,j}}, \qquad v=2,\ldots,n,
\end{align*}
hence
$$
x_i = \phi(x_{2_{i,j}}, \ldots, x_{n_{i,j}}) - x_{1_{i,j}}.
$$
for all $i>j$.
Now, $j$ guesses wrong, therefore
$$
\sum_{k < j} x_k + \sum_{k > j} \left[\phi(x_{2_{k,j}}, \ldots, x_{n_{k,j}}) - x_{1_{k,j}} \right] + x_j \ne j,
$$
which combined with the above, yields
$$
\sum_{k \in [p]} x_k \ne j.
$$
Since this holds for all $j \in [p]$, this leads to a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:gadget}
The following graphs are gadgets.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The graph with a single vertex and no arc is a $2$-gadget.
\item The directed cycle on three vertices is a $3$-gadget.
\item The graph $D$ on six vertices in Figure \ref{fig:gadget} is a $4$-gadget.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The first graph is trivial. For the directed cycle on vertices $1,2,3$ and arcs $(1,2),(2,3),(3,1)$, the function $f$ is
\begin{align*}
f_1(x) &= x_3\\
f_2(x) &= x_1\\
f_3(x) &= x_2.
\end{align*}
Therefore, $x$ is not guessed correctly by any vertex if and only if $x_1$, $x_2$, and $x_3$ are all distinct. Thus we have $\{x_1,x_2,x_3\} = [3]$ and hence $x_1 + x_2 + x_3 = 0$.
For $D$, first remark that the transpose of its adjacency matrix (i.e., the matrix $A_D$ where $A_{i,j} = 1$ if and only if $(j,i)$ is an arc in $D$) is given by
$$
A_D = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
$$
For ease of presentation we shall write the hat configuration $x$ as a column vector; we let $f(x) = Mx$, where
$$
M = \begin{pmatrix}
0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
1 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{pmatrix}.
$$
Then $x$ is guessed wrong by all vertices if and only if $Lx$ is nowhere zero, where
$$
L = \begin{pmatrix}
-1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 1 & -1 & 0 & 1\\
1 & -1 & 0 & 1 & -1 & 0\\
0 & 1 & -1 & 0 & 1 & -1
\end{pmatrix}.
$$
Denoting the rows of $L$ as $L_0,\ldots,L_5$, we see that $L_3 = L_0-L_1$, $L_4 = L_1 - L_2$, $L_5 = L_2-L_0$. Therefore, $x$ is not guessed right if and only if $L_0x$, $L_1x$, and $L_2x$ are all distinct and nonzero. Therefore, $\{L_0x, L_1x, L_2x\} = \{1,2,3\}$ and $x$ must satisfy
$$
2x_0 + 2x_1 + 2x_2 + x_3 + x_4 + x_5 = 2
$$
Renaming the vertices such that the fifth vertex becomes first, we obtain the desired equality.
\end{proof}
However, it is still unknown whether there exist gadgets for more than four colours.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle{every node}=[draw, shape = circle];
\node (0) at (0,3) {0};
\node (1) at (0,0) {1};
\node (2) at (1.5,1.5) {2};
\node (3) at (6,0) {3};
\node (4) at (4.5,1.5) {4};
\node (5) at (6,3) {5};
\draw[-latex] (1) -- (0);
\draw[-latex] (0) -- (2);
\draw[-latex] (2) -- (1);
\draw[-latex] (4) -- (5);
\draw[-latex] (5) -- (3);
\draw[-latex] (3) -- (4);
\draw[-latex] (5) -- (0);
\draw[-latex] (3) -- (1);
\draw[-latex] (4) -- (2);
\draw[-latex] (0) -- (3);
\draw[-latex] (1) -- (4);
\draw[-latex] (2) -- (5);
\draw[-latex] (0) -- (4);
\draw[-latex] (1) -- (5);
\draw[-latex] (2) -- (3);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The $4$-gadget $D$ in Proposition \ref{prop:gadget}} \label{fig:gadget}
\end{figure}
\section{Non-solvability results} \label{sec:non-solvability}
In Section~\ref{sec:undirected} we showed that a complete bipartite graph with one part of size $q-1$ was $q$-solvable. In contrast, in this section we show that any bipartite graph that has a partition with one part of size at most $q-2$ is not $q$-solvable. To do this we consider the following non-distinguishable set in $[q]^m$ (in other words, a subset of $[q]^m$ with remoteness $m$). Set $m = q-2$, and denote the words $w_a = (a,\ldots,a) \in [q]^m$ for all $a \in [q] \backslash \{0\}$, then $W = \{w_a: a \in [q]\backslash \{0\}\}$ is non-distinguishable. Indeed, for any $x \in [q]^m$, let $X = \{b \in [q]: x_i = b \, \mbox{for some} \, i\}$ denote the set of values taken by the coordinates of $x$, then $|X| \le m < |W|$ and hence there exists $a \in ([q] \backslash \{0\}) \backslash X$ and thus $d_H(x,w_a) = m$.
In fact, our proof applies to a larger class of graphs than bipartite graphs, defined as follows.
\begin{definition} \label{def:semibipartite}
We say a directed graph $D$ is $(m,s)$-{\em semibipartite} if its vertex set can be partitioned into $V = L \cup R$, where $|L|=m$, $|R| = s$ and $D[L]$ is an independent set and $D[R]$ is acyclic.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem} \label{th:semibipartite}
Any $(m,s)$-semibipartite graph is not $(m+2)$-solvable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $q = m+2$ and denote the vertices of $R$ as $r_1,\ldots,r_s$. Let $y \in [q]^s$ such that
\begin{align*}
y_1 &\notin \{f_{r_1}(w_a) : a \in [q]\}\\
y_2 &\notin \{f_{r_2}(w_a,y_1) : a \in [q]\}\\
&\vdots\\
y_s &\notin \{f_{r_s}(w_a,y_1,\ldots,y_{s-1}) : a \in [q]\};
\end{align*}
such $y$ exists for each set on the right hand side has cardinality at most $|W| = q-1$. Furthermore, let $b \in [q] \backslash \{f_{l_1}(y), \ldots, f_{l_m}(y)\}$ (where $l_1,\ldots,l_m$ are the vertices of $L$), then all vertices guess $(w_b,y)$ incorrectly.
\end{proof}
This theorem is best possible, for Theorem \ref{th:bipartite} indicates that there are $q$-solvable bipartite graphs with left part of size $q-1$.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:bipartite}
The complete bipartite graph $K_{m,n}$ is not $(m+2)$-solvable.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:k=1}
Any graph with a minimum vertex feedback set of cardinality one is $q$-solvable if and only if $q=2$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Theorem \ref{th:semibipartite}, such a graph is not $3$-solvable. Conversely, it is not acyclic, hence it contains a directed cycle as a subgraph: let us prove that the directed cycle $C_n$ on $n$ vertices is $2$-solvable. Let the function be $f_1(x) = x_n$ and $f_i(x) = x_{i-1} + 1$ for $2 \le i \le n$, then $x$ is guessed incorrectly by all vertices if and only if $x_1 = x_2 = \ldots = x_n = x_1 +1$, which is clearly impossible.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem} \label{th:bound2}
Let $D$ be a directed graph on $n$ vertices with an acyclic induced subgraph of size $I$. If
$$
(n-I) \left(\frac{q}{q-1}\right)^I < q,
$$
then $D$ is not $q$-solvable.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We denote the set of vertices inducing an acyclic subgraph of cardinality $I$ as $A$; we also denote a guessing function as $f$. Let $x \in [q]^I$ be the hat assignment on $A$ and $y \in [q]^{n-I}$ be the assignment on the rest of the vertices. For each choice of $y$, denote by $S_d(y)$ the set of choices for $x$ such that exactly $d$ vertices in $A$ guess correctly for all $0 \le d \le I$. It is easy to prove by induction on $I$ that $N_d := |S_d(y)| = \binom{I}{d}(q-1)^{I-d}$. We shall consider the situation when $x \in S_0(y)$, i.e., when no vertex in $A$ guesses correctly; given $y$, there are $N_0 = (q-1)^I$ such assignments.
For any $y$, let $G$ denote the number of times the vertices in $A$ guess their colours correctly when $x \notin S_0(y)$:
$$
G := \sum_{x \in [q]^I} \sum_{i = 1}^I {\bf 1}\{f_{a_i}(x,y) = x_i \} = \sum_{d=1}^I d N_d = Iq^{I-1}.
$$
The total number of correct guesses, over all assignments $(x,y)$, is of course equal to $nq^{n-1}$. Therefore, there are at most
$$
H := nq^{n-1} - q^{n-I}G = (n-I)q^{n-1}
$$
correct guesses over the whole graph for any $(x,y)$ where $x \in S_0(y)$. On average, such an assignment is guessed correctly
$$
\frac{H}{q^{n-I}N_0} = \frac{(n-I)q^{I-1}}{(q-1)^I} < 1
$$
times, and hence one hat assignment is never guessed correctly.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:bound2}
A graph with an acyclic induced subgraph of size $I$ is $q$-solvable only if it has at least $I + q \left(1 - \frac{1}{q} \right)^I$ vertices in total.
\end{corollary}
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:alpha}
If a graph on $n$ vertices has an acyclic induced subgraph of cardinality at least $n/2$, then it is $q$-solvable only if $n \ge 2\alpha (q-1)$, where $\alpha \sim 0.5675$ satisfies $\alpha + \log \alpha = 0$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $n < 2\alpha(q-1)$, and let $i = n/(2q) < \alpha(q-1)/q$, then $\log i + i\frac{q}{q-1} < \log \frac{q-1}{q}$ and hence
\begin{align*}
0 &> \log i + i\frac{q}{q-1}\\
&> \log i + iq \log \left(1 + \frac{1}{q-1} \right)\\
1 &> i \left(1 + \frac{1}{q-1} \right)^{iq}\\
q &> \frac{n}{2} \left( \frac{q}{q-1}\right)^{\frac{n}{2}},
\end{align*}
which, by Theorem \ref{th:bound2}, shows that the graph is not $q$-solvable.
\end{proof}
\section{Even cycles} \label{sec:even_cycles}
In this section we show that a cycle whose length is a multiple of 6 is 3-solvable. In fact, we can define guessing functions for any even cycle which have the property that at most 3 hat configurations are not guessed correctly by any vertex.
For $n>1$, let $C_{2n}$ be the cycle of length $2n$ and let $V = \{v_1,v_2,\dots,v_n\}$ and $W = \{w_1,w_2,\dots,w_n\}$ be a partition of the vertices of $C_{2n}$ into independent sets, with $v_i$ adjacent to $w_i$ and $w_{i-1}$ for all $i=1,\dots,n$ (index arithmetic taken modulo $n$). Denote the hat colour of $v_i$ by $x_i$ and its guessing function by $f_i$. Similarly, for $w_i$, denote its hat colour by $y_i$ and its guessing function by $g_i$. We define the guessing functions to be
\begin{align}
f_i(y_{i-1},y_i) &=
\begin{cases}
y_i-1 & \text{if $y_i \neq y_{i-1}+1$,}\\
y_i+1 & \text{if $y_i = y_{i-1}+1$,}\\
\end{cases}\quad \text{ for $i \neq 1$};
\\
f_1(y_n,y_1) &=
\begin{cases}
y_1-1 & \text{if $y_1 \neq y_n-1$,}\\
y_1+1 & \text{if $y_1 = y_n-1$,}\\
\end{cases}
\\
g_i(x_i,x_{i+1}) &=
\begin{cases}
x_i & \text{if $x_i \neq x_{i+1}+1$,}\\
x_i-1 & \text{if $x_i = x_{i+1}+1$,}\\
\end{cases}\quad \text{ for $i \neq n$};
\\
g_n(x_n,x_1) &=
\begin{cases}
x_n & \text{if $x_n \neq x_1$,}\\
x_n-1 & \text{if $x_n = x_1$.}\\
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Graphically, we have
\begin{align*}
f_i:\: y_i\;
&\begin{tabular}{|ccc|}
\hline
1&0&1\\
2&0&0\\
2&2&1\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
&
f_1:\: y_1\;
&
\begin{tabular}{|ccc|}
\hline
0&1&1\\
0&0&2\\
2&1&2\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\\
&\;\quad y_{i-1} & &\qquad y_n
\\
\\
g_i:\: x_{i+1}\;
&
\begin{tabular}{|ccc|}
\hline
2&1&2\\
0&1&1\\
0&0&2\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
&
g_n:\: x_1\;
&
\begin{tabular}{|ccc|}
\hline
0&1&1\\
0&0&2\\
2&1&2\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\\
&\qquad x_i & &\qquad x_n
\end{align*}
the sets $f_i^{-1}(x_i)$ and $g_i^{-1}(y_i)$ forming L-shaped regions of $[3]^n$.
\begin{theorem}
The cycle $C_{2n}$ is 3-solvable for $n \equiv 0 \pmod 3$.
Using the guessing functions as defined above, when $n \equiv 1 \pmod 3$, the only configurations $(x,y)$ that all vertices guess incorrectly are
\[
x = (a,a+2,a+1,a,\dots,a), y = (a,a+2,a+1,a,\dots,a) \text{ for some $a \in [3]$},
\]
and when $n \equiv 2 \pmod 3$, the only configurations $(x,y)$ that all vertices guess incorrectly are
\[
x = (a+2,a,a+1,a+2,\dots,a), y = (a,a+1,a+2,a,\dots,a+1) \text{ for some $a \in [3]$}.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $y = (y_1,\dots,y_n) \in [3]^n$ is the configuration of hat colours for the vertices in $W$ and that each vertex in $W$ guesses incorrectly. Then $x \in \bigcap_{i=1}^n g_i^{-1}(y_i)^{\rm c}$, where
\[
\begin{split}
\bigcap_{i=1}^n g_i^{-1}(y_i)^{\rm c} = \bigcap_{i<n} &\{ x: x_i = y_i-1 \text{ or } x_{i+1} = y_i-1 \text{ or } (x_i,x_{i+1}) = (y_i+1,y_i+1) \}\\
&\cap \{x : x_n = y_n-1 \text{ or } x_1 = y_n \text{ or } (x_n,x_1) = (y_n+1,y_n-1) \}
\end{split}
\]
Suppose further that each vertex in $V$ guesses incorrectly. We claim the following implications are true.
\begin{claim*} If $(x,y)$ is guessed incorrectly by all vertices then the following hold. For all $i \neq 1$,
\begin{itemize}
\item $A_i$: if $x_i = y_i-1$ then $y_i = y_{i-1}+1$ and $x_{i-1} = y_{i-1}-1$;
\item $B_i$: if $x_i = y_i+1$ then either
\begin{enumerate}
\item $y_i = y_{i-1}$ and $x_{i-1} = y_{i-1}+1$, or
\item $y_i \neq y_{i-1}+1$ and $x_{i-1} = y_{i-1}-1$;
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
and for all $i \neq n$,
\begin{itemize}
\item $C_i$: if $x_i = y_i$ then $y_{i+1} = y_i - 1$ and $x_{i+1} = y_{i+1}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{claim*}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Claim]
Take $i \neq 1$, and suppose $x_i = y_i-1$. Since $v_i$ guesses incorrectly, we must have $y_i = y_{i-1}+1$, so that $x_i = y_{i-1}$. But $x \in g_{i-1}^{-1}(y_{i-1})^{\rm c}$ which implies that $x_{i-1} = y_{i-1}-1$, establishing $A_i$.
Now suppose $x_i = y_i+1$. Since $v_i$ guesses incorrectly, we must have $y_i \neq y_{i-1}+1$, so that $x_i \neq y_{i-1}-1$. But $x \in g_{i-1}^{-1}(y_{i-1})^{\rm c}$ which implies that either $x_{i-1} = y_{i-1}-1$ or $(x_{i-1},x_i) = (y_{i-1}+1,y_{i-1}+1)$, the latter implying that $y_i = y_{i-1}$, which establishes $B_i$.
Finally, take $i \neq n$ and suppose $x_i = y_i$. Since $x \in g_i^{-1}(y_i)^{\rm c}$, we must have $x_{i+1} = y_i-1$. But $v_{i+1}$ guesses incorrectly which implies that $y_{i+1} = y_i - 1$. To see this, use the fact that the function $f_i$, for $i \neq 1$, can also be written as
\[
f_i(y_{i-1},y_i) =
\begin{cases}
y_{i-1}-1 & \text{if $y_i \neq y_{i-1} - 1$},\\
y_{i-1}+1 & \text{if $y_i = y_{i-1} - 1$}.
\end{cases}
\]
Therefore $x_{i+1} = y_{i+1}$, establishing $C_i$.
\end{proof}
We use the implications $A_i,B_i$ and $C_i$ as follows. First, suppose $x_n = y_n-1$. Then using the chain of implications $A_n,A_{n-1},\dots,A_2$ we find that $x_i = y_i-1$ for all $i$ and $y_i = y_{i-1} + 1$ for $i\neq 1$, so $y_n = y_1 + (n-1) \pmod 3$. Since $x_1 = y_1-1$ and $v_1$ also guesses incorrectly, we must have $y_1 = y_n - 1$, a contradiction unless $n \equiv 2 \pmod 3$. When $n \equiv 2 \pmod 3$, we discover that the configurations $x = (a+2,a,a+1,a+2,\dots,a), y = (a,a+1,a+2,a,\dots,a+1)$ for $a \in [3]$ are guessed incorrectly by all vertices.
Now suppose $x_n = y_n+1$. Since $x \in g_n^{-1}(y_n)^{\rm c}$ we have that $x_1 \neq y_n+1$. We consider the chain of implications $B_n,B_{n-1},\dots$ for as far as possible and note that case 1 of $B_i$ cannot occur for all $i \neq 1$, for then $x_i = y_i + 1$ for all $i$ and $y_i = y_{i-1}$ for $i \neq 1$, contradicting the fact that $x_1 \neq y_n+1$. This means that for some $k > 1$ case 2 of $B_k$ occurs, so that $x_{k-1} = y_{k-1} - 1$. We then apply the chain of implications $A_{k-1},A_{k-2},\dots,A_2$ to find that $x_i = y_i -1 $ for all $i < k$, so in particular $x_1 = y_1 - 1$. Since $v_1$ guesses incorrectly, we have that $y_1 = y_n - 1$ which contradicts the fact that $x_1 \neq y_n+1$. Hence for any configuration with $x_n = y_n+1$ there must be some vertex that guesses correctly.
Finally, suppose $x_n = y_n$. Since $x \in g_n^{-1}(y_n)^{\rm c}$ we have that $x_1 = y_n$. Since $v_1$ guesses incorrectly, we must have that $y_1 = y_n$. To see this use the fact that $f_1$ can be also written as
\[
f_1(y_n,y_1) =
\begin{cases}
y_n & \text{if $y_1 \neq y_n$},\\
y_n-1 & \text{if $y_1 = y_n$}.
\end{cases}
\]
Therefore $x_1 = y_1$. We now apply the chain of implications $C_1,C_2,\dots,C_{n-1}$ to find that $x_i = y_i$ for all $i$, and $y_{i+1} = y_i - 1$ for $i \neq n$. Therefore $y_n = y_1 - (n-1) \pmod 3$, which is a contradiction unless $n \equiv 1 \pmod 3$. When $n \equiv 1 \pmod 3$, we discover that the configurations $x=(a,a+2,a+1,a,\dotsc,a), y=(a,a+2,a+1,a,\dots,a)$ for $a \in [3]$ are guessed incorrectly by all vertices.
\end{proof}
Unfortunately, this `L-shaped' construction falls just short of proving 3-solvability when $n \not\equiv 0 \pmod 3$; indeed, out of the $3^{2n}$ possible hat configurations, there are only 3 where all vertices guess incorrectly!
In any case, the family of cycles of length a multiple of 6 gives an answer to a question of Butler et al.\@ about edge-critical graphs. A graph $G$ is called \emph{edge-critical for $q$ colours} if $G$ is $q$-solvable, but $G - e$ is not $q$-solvable for any edge $e \in G$. For $q=2$ the only edge-critial graph is the graph of a single edge, and for $q>2$ there are at least two distinct edge-critical graphs, namely $K_q$ and some subgraph of the bipartite graph $K_{q-1,(q-1)^{q-1}}$ presented earlier. Butler et al.\@ ask whether there are infinitely many graphs which are edge-critical for $q$ colours, for $q>2$. Since trees are known not to be 3-solvable, the cycles of length a multiple of 6 form such an infinite family for $q=3$.
\begin{theorem}
The family $\{ C_{6k} : k \in \mathbb{N} \}$ is an infinite family of edge-critical graphs for 3~colours.
\end{theorem}
\section{Acknowledgment}
This work was produced while the second author was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [grant number EP/J021784/1].
|
\section{Introduction}
The neutron star identified with the historical supernova SN 1680 in
Cassiopea A (Cas A) is the youngest one to be discovered in the Milky Way.
Its estimated age of 330 yrs is in agreement with its kinematic age
\citep{fesen06} and its thermal X-ray spectrum is consistent with
a nonmagnetized carbon atmosphere with a surface temperature of
$2 \times 10^6$K \citep{ho09}. The estimated values of radius and
mass vary from $R=8.3$ km and $M= 2.01 M_{\odot}$ to $R=10.3$ km and
$M=1.65 M_{\odot}$ depending on the reduction procedure of {\it Chandra
X-ray Observatory} archival data \citep{heinke10}. In particular,
the authors argued that the surface temperature has rapidly decreased
from $2.12 \times 10^6$ to $2.04 \times 10^6$ in almost one decade,
from 2000 to 2009. This cooling rate is significantly
stronger than expected when compared to the standard cooling model
\citep{page06,yakovlev04} or to the medium modified Urca model
\citep{grigorian05}. It is also unlikely that the observed cooling
can be attributed to fast cooling models alone, such as direct Urca (DU)
processes or neutrino emission from Bose condensates, for instance.
In a recent work \cite{page11} interpreted the Cas A data within the
frame of the minimal cooling paradigm \citep{page04} and explained
that the onset of enhanced neutrino emission resulting from the
neutron $^3P_2$ pairing in the core is enough to explain the cooling
data. In particular, a critical temperature $T_c = 5 \times 10^8$ K for
the triplet neutron superfluidity is implied in this process. A similar
scenario has also been put forward by \cite{shternin11}. While in these
works the basic idea is that neutrons have recently become superfluid
in the core, in \cite{bla12} it has been argued that this cooling is
produced by a reduction of thermal conductivity caused by a nuclear
medium effect.
In this paper we argue that the data can instead be explained by dissipation
of the magnetic field and subsequent Joule heating in the surface layers
of the crust, even in the framework of fast emission processes.
There is no evidence for the presence of a significant magnetic field
in this neutron star. A strong field should lead to hot spots at the
surface and spin-induced variations in the X-ray flux, which are not observed.
However, if the magnetic field is distributed mostly on small-scales, the
global field can be rather weak and the corresponding variations in the
X-ray flux might not be observable. The existence a class of neutron stars
with a predominant small-scale field at the surface has been theoretically
predicted by \cite{bonanno05,bonanno06} and subsequently observed by
\cite{gott07} who introduced the term antimagnetars for this class of
objects.
Rapid motions caused by hydrodynamic instabilities in protoneutron
stars \citep{epstein79,burrows86} can lead to the onset of a turbulent
dynamo action that amplifies the magnetic field during the first
$30-40$ s of a neutron star life \citep{thompson93,bonanno03}.
However, if the initial rotational period is too slow this mechanism might
not be sufficient to produce a large-scale field. On the contrary,
turbulence in a highly conducting plasma is always accompanied by
the generation of small-scale fields that are approximately in equipartition
with the turbulent motions \citep{urpin04}. These fields will then be
frozen into the crust which starts forming soon after the end of the
unstable stage. Therefore, the magnetic field of neutron stars can have
a very complex geometry. In the crust, their subsequent evolution is
determined essentially by ohmic dissipation, a relatively slow process
because of the high conductivity of the crust. Small-scale fields can generally
be stronger than large-scale fields and for this reason can produce more
efficient heating in certain conditions. Estimates of a small-scale field
are uncertain and range from $\sim 10^{15} - 10^{16}$ G to
$\sim (1-3) \times 10^{13}$ G \citep{bonanno06,urpin04}.
\section{Joule heating in the crust}
The effect of Joule heating on the thermal evolution of neutron star was
considered for the first time by \cite{miralles98} who argued that
this heating can have a significantly impact on the thermal evolution of old
neutron stars with age $t > 10^6 - 10^7$ yrs. The general relativistic
treatment proposed by \cite{page00} led to similar conclusions. More
recent works \citep{urpin08,pons09} have further clarified that Joule
heating can also be important in very young neutron stars (with age
$\lesssim 10^4$), thus it is important to include this effect when discussing
the thermal evolution of Cas A. The induction equation in the crust reads
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t} = - \frac{c^2}{4 \pi} \nabla
\times \left( \frac{1}{\sigma} \nabla \times \vec{B} \right),
\label{uno}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ is the conductivity; we have neglected the Hall
currents because these are important only for very strong magnetic
fields $\gtrsim 10^{14}$ G.
The Joule heating term is an additional source of heat in the thermal
balance equation which depends on the strength and configuration of the
magnetic field. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that the radial
length-scale of a small-scale field $L_r$ is smaller than those in the
azimuthal and polar directions $L_{\parallel}$.
This is reasonable because the thickness of the crust ($1-1.5$ km)
is much smaller than the radius ($10-15$ km). This assumption does
not qualitatively influence our results, but it simplifies calculations
because we can neglect terms on the order of $1/r$ compared to
$\partial / \partial r$, being $r$ the radial spherical coordinate.
It is convenient to introduce the vector potential $\vec{B} = \nabla
\times \vec{A}$. The potential $\vec{A}$ and electric current $\vec{j}$
can be expanded in terms of the vector spherical harmonics
$\vec{Y}^{(\lambda)}_{lm}$ where $\lambda = 0, \pm 1$, and $l$ and $m$
are the polar and azimuthal wavenumbers \citep{ak65}:
$\vec{A} = \sum_{\lambda, l. m}
S^{(\lambda)}_{l, m}(r, t) \vec{Y}^{(\lambda)}_{l,m}$ and $\vec{j} =
\sum_{\lambda, l. m} J^{(\lambda)}_{l, m}(r, t) \vec{Y}^{(\lambda)}_{l,m}$.
Then, Eq.\ref{uno} yields
${\partial S^{(\lambda)}_{jm}}/{\partial t} = \frac{c^2}{4 \pi \sigma}
{\partial^2 S^{(\lambda)}_{jm}}/{\partial r^2}$ \citep{urpin94}.
Continuity of the field at the stellar surface $r=R$ leads
to the
boundary condition $\partial S^{(\lambda)}_{jm} / \partial r \approx 0$
with the
accuracy in terms of the lowest order in $L_r / L_{\parallel}$.
The spherical components of $\vec{j}$ can be expressed in terms of
$S^{(\lambda)}_{l, m}$.
Then, the rate of Joule heating is $\dot{q} = j^2/\sigma$ and in general
it will depend on $\theta$ and $\varphi$, the polar and azimuthal
spherical coordinates. The cooling codes for neutron stars usually do
not take into account departure from spherical symmetry and we will thus
use the angle-averaged expression for $\dot{q}$. Using orthogonality of
the vector spherical harmonics, we finally obtain
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\begin{equation}
\dot{q} = \frac{c^2}{16 \pi^2 r^2 \sigma} \sum_{\lambda, l. m} \left(\frac{
\partial^2 S^{(\lambda)}_{l, m}}{\partial r^2} \right)^2 .
\label{due}
\end{equation}
{In our model, $\dot{q}$ depends on the radial distribution of the
small-scale field. At the beginning of the evolution, the instabilities
occur almost in the whole volume of a neutron star. Hence, motions
caused by instabilities generate small-scale fields almost everywhere
within the neutron star. The characteristic length-scales of these
fields range from the main turbulent scale ($\sim 1$ km) up the
dissipative length scale. During the cooling these fields will be frozen
into the crustal matter and their evolution is determined mainly by
ohmic dissipation. Dissipation in the core is very slow because of
large $\sigma$, and we neglect it. In the crust, fields with different
length-scales $\lambda$ located at different depths decay on different
time scales, $\tau_{\lambda}\sim 4 \pi \sigma \lambda^2 / c^2$.
Depending on the age, the main contribution to $\dot{q}$ is given by
fields with different characteristic length scales. Using the expression
for $\tau_{\lambda}$, it is easy to estimate that the main contribution
to $\dot{q}$ at the age $\sim 300$ yrs is determined by magnetic fields
with a characteristic length scale $300-600$ m. Fields with smaller
characteristic length scales have already disappeared, but those with
greater length scales do not contribute yet to the Joule heating. Therefore,
in the sum in Eq.(\ref{due}) we can consider only a dominant term with
the characteristic radial length scale $300-600$ m and the
corresponding field strength.}
\section{Equation of state}
In this paper, we concentrate on the thermal evolution of a neutron star
with the fast neutrino emission processes.
We consider two models based on different equation of state (EOS) to be
representative of these stars.
The first is derived within the Brueckner-Bethe-Goldstone many-body
theory \citep{baldo99}, the BHF EOS. In this many-body approach one
introduces the Brueckner reaction matrix G, which can be interpreted as
the effective in-medium nucleon-nucleon (NN) interaction, and the single
particle potential $U(k;\rho) = \sum _{k'\leq k_F} \langle k k'|G(\rho)|k k'
\rangle_a $ . The subscript ``{\it a}'' indicates antisymmetrization and
$\rho$ is the baryon density. From the potential $U$ the EOS can be
obtained, and the in-medium nucleon effective mass $m^*$ at the Fermi
surface can be derived according to the relation
${m^*}/{m} =1/( 1 \,+\, \frac{m}{\hbar^2 k_F} \frac{d U}{d k} )$
where the derivative of $U$ is taken at $k = k_F$.
The accuracy and convergence of the expansion have been extensively
studied \citep{song98,baldo00} and it turns out that in order to
reproduce the correct saturation point of symmetric nuclear matter one
needs to introduce three-body force, which are reduced to density
dependent two-body force by averaging over the position of the third
particle \citep{baldo97}. We took the Argonne $v_{18}$ as NN potential
\cite{wiringa95}, supplemented by the so-called Urbana model
\citep{carlson83} as the three-body force. The saturation point
($\rho_0 \approx 0.16~\mathrm{fm}^{-3}$, $E/A \approx -16$ MeV) is then
well reproduced, and incompressibility and symmetry energy are compatible
with those extracted from phenomenology \citep{taranto13}. The second
EOS is the so-called APR EOS by \cite{apr} obtained from the Argonne
$v_{18}$ NN interaction and a variational procedure as well as Urbana
three-nucleon interactions. Although the BHF and variational methods
are connected \citep{baldo12}, they give different EOS at high density.
We assume that the matter is composed of neutrons, protons, and leptons
in beta-equilibrium where electrons and muons are treated as relativistic
Fermi gas.
The two EOS start to deviate at nucleon densities $> 2 \rho_0$ and the
symmetry energy for APR EOS becomes smaller than for the BHF EOS. The
symmetry energy determines the proton fraction, hence the onset of the
DU process. In the BHF approach it already takes place at 3$\rho_0$,
whereas in the APR case it is allowed at larger density, close to
1$\rm \; fm^{-3}$ \citep{zhou04}. Therefore, in the BHF case NS with mass
around 1.2$M_\odot$ can cool rapidly through DU, whereas in the APR
case DU is allowed only for heavy NS, close to the maximum mass. We note
that the values of the maximum allowed mass is different in the two
approaches, being slightly above 2$M_\odot$ in the
BHF case and close to 2.2 $M_\odot$ in the APR case \citep{taranto13}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=7cm,height=5.5cm]{fig1.ps}
\caption{Critical temperatures of the neutron $^3P_2$ gap (solid line) as
a function of the density and of the proton $^1S_0$ gap (dashed line)
used in the computation for the $1.4 \;M_{\odot}$ neutron star.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=17cm,height=6.5cm]{fig2.ps}
\caption{Left panel: Redshifted effective temperature $T_e^{\infty}$ vs time
for the neutron star models with different EOS and masses. The solid,
dashed, and dot-dashed curves correspond to the neutron stars of 1.4,
1.6, and 2.0 $M_{\odot}$, respectively,
with the BHF EOS. The dot-dot-dashed line represents
2$M_{\odot}$ neutron star with the EOS of APR.
Central panel: fit of the Cas A data with the BHF EOS
for a neutron star of $1.4 \;M_{\odot}$ and a turbulent magnetic
field of initial strength $2.2 \times 10^{13} $G.
Right panel: fit of the Cas A data with the APR EOS
for a neutron star of $2.0 \; M_{\odot}$
and a turbulent magnetic
field of initial strength $9.5 \times10^{12} $G.
}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}
\section{Numerical results}
Our numerical simulations use the public code {\em NSCool}\footnote{\url{http://www.astroscu.unam.mx/neutrones/NSCool/}}
in which the magnetothermal evolution has been taken into account by coupling
the induction equation with the thermal equation via the Joule heating
source. In particular, the induction equation was
solved via an implicit scheme and the electron conductivity was
calculated with the approach described in \cite{potekhin99}. We assumed
that the composition of the crust corresponds to the so-called accreted
matter with an envelope mass of $\Delta M=3.6 \times 10^{-15} M_\odot$
and an impurity parameter $Q=0.01$.
The critical temperature of $^3 P_2$ pairing of neutrons is $10^9$ K
in all our models. In particular, we followed the estimate of \cite{baldo98}
for the proton and neutron superfluidity where the gap extends up to
the center of the neutron star. For actual computations we have thus
modeled the density dependence of this gap with a sharp increase after
$\rho \sim 4 \times 10^{14}$ gm/cm$^3$ which extends up to the center of
the star in all the models (see Fig.1 for the $1.4 \;M_{\odot}$ example).
{The small-scale magnetic field is assumed to be anchored in the crust and
its characteristic length scale should vary around
$\lambda_r \sim 300-600$ m as estimated in the previous section. We expect
that the initial field strength lies in the range $ (1-3) 10^{13}$ G,
according to the estimate of \cite{bonanno06} for a dynamo generated
small-scale field. The crucial feature, from the observational point of
view, is the occurrence of a sharp transition, a transit time
\citep{page11} of a few decades, during which the cooling can be characterized
by an almost constant slope $s = - d \log T^\infty_e/d \log t$, as shown
in the center and right panels in Fig.~2.
In determining the observed slope and effective temperature, the strength
of the magnetic field and its length scale play antagonistic roles. By
increasing the strength, it is possible to slow down the cooling, and the
slope $s$ decreases. On the contrary, by increasing the length scale it
is possible to decrease the efficiency of the Joule heating. This is
expected since $\dot{q}\propto (\partial S/\partial r)^2$,
and therefore the greater the gradients of $S$ are, the more efficient
the Joule heating will be. In our numerical simulations we tried to find
the best compromise between the field strength and its length scale
in order to explain both the slope and the observed effective temperature
of Cas A.
Our results are summarized in the three panels in Fig.~2, where our best
models with different EOS are displayed. We found that the length scale
of the initial magnetic field should be $\sim 600$ m in the models
with the BHF EOS and $\sim 300$ m in the model with the APR EOS. It is
reassuring to notice that these values are comparable to the main length scale
of turbulence in protoneutron stars, $\sim 1$ km ( see, e.g.,
\cite{burrows86}).
On the other hand, the obtained values of the field are 2.2, 1.3, and
$1.5 \times 10^{13}$ G for models with the BHF EOS and with 1.4, 1.6, and
2.0 $M_{\odot}$, respectively, while for the model with the APR EOS, we
obtain $9.5 \times 10^{12}$ G, in agreement with the estimate discussed
in \cite{bonanno06}.}
\section{Discussion}
Most probably all neutron stars have small-scale magnetic fields amplified
in the course of a short unstable stage soon after collapse. Turbulent motions
generate small-scale fields on a very short time scale $1-10$ ms.
The strength of these fields is $ (1-3) \times 10^{13}$ G at the end of a
convective stage. Generation of a global magnetic field is determined by
rotation and can be suppressed if the neutron star rotates slowly at birth.
Therefore, there should exist a particular class of neutron stars that
has relatively strong small-scale fields and has no (or a very weak) global
field. Perhaps, Cas A is representative of this class.
{Dissipation of small-scale fields $\sim 10^{13}$ G can lead to
departures from the standard cooling scenario of non-magnetic neutron stars.
Our calculations show that Joule heating can provide a sufficient amount of
heat to account for the temperature and cooling rate of Cas A even for the
neutron star models with fast cooling. Since the presence of small-scale
fields is a general feature of neutron stars, our model predicts that
departures from the standard cooling should be detected in all young
stars. According to our calculations, the cooling rate of Cas A will
remain approximately unchanged during at least a few hundred years.
It is important to stress that in our calculation the presence of
a gap extending up to the center was needed only to suppress the fast
cooling due to the DU, otherwise it did not play an essential role in
explaining the rapid cooling during the transit phase.
In this model it is impossible to put severe constraints on $T_c$ from the observed slope during this phase. In particular, although in actual calculations the
critical temperature $T_c = 10^9$ K for the triplet neutron superfluidity
has been used, we found that a successful fit can also be obtained with
$T_c = 5 \times 10^8$K. Generally, a good fit for the temperature and
cooling rate can be obtained for other values of $T_c$ by varying
the magnetic field and its length scale.
}
While this work was in progress a new analysis of the Cas A appeared
\citep{els13} where the cooling of Cas A is less extreme than previously
reported. Clearly, all our conclusions would remain valid even in this case,
provided the strength of the initial magnetic field is slightly reduced.
{\it Acknowledgments.
VU thanks INFN-Sezione di Catania and INAF-Osservatorio Astrofisico di
Catania for hospitality and financial support. AB would like to thank Dany Page for his help in using
the public code {\it NSCool}}
|
\section{Introduction}
Network coding (NC) \cite{Yeung_flow,katti1;etal:2008,fragouli:widmer:boudec:2008} refers to mixing different information flows at the sender or intermediate nodes in a data communication network. It has been shown that NC can substantially improve the throughput of many wireless communication systems \cite{katti1;etal:2008,fragouli:widmer:boudec:2008}. As a result, it has become a promising candidate for delivering high data rate content in future wireless communication networks. For example, NC has been considered for delivering high data rate multimedia broadcast or multicast services (MBMS) \cite{nguyen:nguyen:yang:2007,Li:Wang:JSAC:11,sorour:valaee:2011,sorour:valaee:arxiv:2012}. In addition to being high data rate in nature, such applications also often have strict delay requirements. However, the higher throughput offered by NC does not necessarily translate into faster delivery of information to the application \cite{fragouli:lun:medard:pakzad:2007,keller:drinea:fragouli:2008}. In general, the mixed information needs to be disentangled or network decoded first. Understanding the interplay between throughput and delay
and devising NC schemes that strike a balance between the two are particularly important, which has proven to be challenging \cite{fragouli:lun:medard:pakzad:2007,eryilmaz:ozdaglar:medard:2006,keller:drinea:fragouli:2008,costa:munaretto:widmer:baros:2008,drinea:fragouli:keller:2009,barros:costa:munaretto:widmer:2009,yeow:hoang:tham:2009,sundararajan:sadeghi:medard:2009,yazdi:sorour:valaee:kim:2009,sadeghi:shams:traskov:2010,sameh:valaee:globecom:2010,sorour:valaee:2010,swapna:eryilmaz:shroff:2010,sorour:valaee:2011,nistor:lucani:vinhoza:costa:barros:2011,Parastoo:Fisher:2012}.
An important example that illustrates the tension between throughput and delay is random linear network coding (RLNC) \cite{swapna:eryilmaz:shroff:2010,nistor:lucani:vinhoza:costa:barros:2011,ho:medard:koetter:karger:effros:2006} in broadcast erasure channels. In RLNC, the sender combines a frame or block of $N$ packets using random coefficients from a finite field and broadcasts different combinations until all receivers have received $N$ linearly independent coded packets. In this case, RLNC achieves the best throughput (block completion time) among block-based NC schemes \cite{fragouli:lun:medard:pakzad:2007,eryilmaz:ozdaglar:medard:2006,swapna:eryilmaz:shroff:2010}. However, the delay performance may not be desirable, as decoding at the receivers is generally only possible after $N$ independent coded packets are successfully received.
In order to reduce the decoding delay in NC systems, an attractive strategy is to employ instantly decodable NC (IDNC). As the name suggests, IDNC aims to provide instant packet decoding at the receivers upon successful packet reception, a property that RLNC does not guarantee. A decoding delay occurs at a receiver when it is not targeted in an IDNC transmission. That is, it receives a packet that contains either no or more than one desired packets of that receiver. Compared to RLNC, IDNC in broadcast erasure channels can have a lower throughput. In other words, IDNC incurs a generally higher completion time for the broadcast of the same number of $N$ packets. However, it can provide a faster delivery of uncoded packets to the application layer, as required for MBMS. Therefore, similar tension between throughput and delay can also be observed in IDNC.
Inspired by the low-complexity XOR-based encoding and decoding process of IDNC and its potential application in MBMS and unicast settings \cite{Li:Wang:JSAC:11,keller:drinea:fragouli:2008,sadeghi:shams:traskov:2010,sameh:valaee:globecom:2010,sorour:valaee:2010,sadeghi:traskov:koetter:2009,comm_letter_2013,Le:Tehrani:Dimakis:Markopoulou:2013}, in this paper we are interested in understanding the interplay between its throughput and delay over broadcast erasure channels and proposing novel IDNC schemes that offer a better
control of these performance metrics.
The problem of maximizing the throughput for a deadline-constrained video-streaming scenario is considered in \cite{Li:Wang:JSAC:11}, where each packet has a delivery deadline and has to be decoded before the deadline, otherwise it is expired. In this paper, however, we consider a block-based transmission, where all the packets in the block have to be received by all the receivers and there is no explicit packet deadline. Furthermore, in this paper, no new packet arrival is considered in the system while the transmission of a block is in progress.
In addition, this study is applicable where partial decoding is beneficial and can result in lower delays irrespective of the order in which packets are being decoded.
Examples of such applications can be found in sensor or emergency networks and multiple-description source coded systems \cite{Multiple_Description_Coding_2005}, in which every decoded packet brings new information to the destination, irrespective of its order.
In this context, the closest works to ours are \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010,sorour:valaee:arxiv:2012} and \cite{sorour:valaee:2010}. In particular, the authors in \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010} aimed to improve the decoding delay of a generalized IDNC scheme. They showed that for a lower decoding delay, maximum number of receivers with the lowest packet erasure probabilities should be targeted in each IDNC transmission. In separate works \cite{sorour:valaee:2010,sorour:valaee:arxiv:2012}, the same authors aimed to improve the completion time of IDNC. They showed that for this purpose, the receivers with the maximum number of missing packets with the highest erasure probabilities should be targeted in each IDNC transmission.
A close study of \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010,sorour:valaee:2010,sorour:valaee:arxiv:2012} reveals that trying to improve either IDNC's decoding delay or completion time on its own can result in undermining the other performance metric. In other words, while trying to improve the decoding delay, the receiver(s) with the maximum number of missing packets may remain untargeted, which can increase the completion time. Also trying to improve the completion time may limit the total number of receivers that can be targeted in each IDNC transmission, which can increase the decoding delay. To the best of our knowledge, there is no joint control of completion time and decoding delay for IDNC schemes in the literature. Thus, in this paper, our objective is to take a holistic approach, in which the completion time and decoding delay of IDNC are taken into account at the same time. In addition, we have observed that the decoding delay across various receivers in IDNC schemes of \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010,sorour:valaee:arxiv:2012} and \cite{sorour:valaee:2010} can vary significantly. This may not be desirable in MBMS or other applications which should guarantee a certain quality of service across all receivers. These observations lead us to the following open problems:
\emph{Is there an IDNC scheme that can offer a balanced performance in terms of the completion time and decoding delay and can also provide a more uniform or fair decoding delay across all receivers for the broadcast of $N$ packets in erasure channels?}
To address these questions in this paper, we propose a new IDNC transmission scheme which builds upon the contributions in \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010,sorour:valaee:arxiv:2012} and \cite{sorour:valaee:2010}. At its core, our proposed scheme recognizes that 1) the completion time of each individual receiver is determined not only by the number of packets it is missing, but also by the number of IDNC transmissions in which it is not targeted (while still needing a packet(s)) and 2) the overall IDNC completion time is the maximum of individual completion times. Therefore, our IDNC transmission scheme gives priority to the receivers that have the highest expected completion time so far. More precisely, the priority of each receiver is the sum of two terms: The first term is its number of missing packets divided by its average packet reception probability. This is the expected number of transmissions to serve this receiver if it is targeted in all following transmissions. The second term is the decoding delay the receiver has experienced so far. Under this scheme, a receiver with a small number of missing packets which has remained untargeted in a number of previous transmissions may take precedence over other receivers. Hence, our scheme tends to equalize the decoding delay experience across the receivers. Furthermore, we will extend our proposed scheme to the case of broadcast erasure channels with memory \cite{sadeghi:Kennedy:Rapajic:Shams:08}, where the packet erasures occur in bursts, due to deep fading and shadowing. By following the proposed channel models in \cite{sadeghi:shams:traskov:2010,sadeghi:Kennedy:Rapajic:Shams:08,MohammadKarim:Parastoo:PIMRC:2012,sameh:Neda:Parastoo:VTC:2013}, we model the bursts of erasures (i.e. the memory of the channel) by a simple two-state Gilbert-Elliott channel (GEC) model and propose two algorithms that can offer an improved balance between the completion time and decoding delay of IDNC for different ranges of the channel memory.
With this introduction, we summarize the contributions and findings of our paper as follows: First, we present a holistic viewpoint of IDNC. We formulate the IDNC optimal packet selection that provides an improved balance between the completion time and decoding delay for broadcast transmission over memoryless channels as an SSP problem. However, since finding the optimal packet selection in the proposed SSP scheme is computationally complex, we use the SSP formulation and its geometric structure to find some guidelines that can be used to propose a new heuristic packet selection algorithm that efficiently improves the balance between the completion time and decoding delay in IDNC systems. Second, we extend the proposed packet selection algorithm to erasure channels with memory and propose two different variations of the algorithm that take into account the channel memory conditions and improve the balance between the completion time and decoding delay by selecting the packet combinations more effectively based on the channel memory conditions compared to the algorithms that are ignorant to the channel memory. Finally, by taking into account both the number of missing packets and the decoding delay of the receivers, the proposed algorithm provides a more uniform decoding delay experience across all receivers.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The system model is presented in Section II. The IDNC graph representation and packet generation is introduced in Section III. Section IV, presents the SSP problem formulation. In Section V, we present a geometric structure for the SSP problem that helps us to find the properties of the optimal packet selection policy. A heuristic algorithm for IDNC packet selection is proposed in Section VI. The proposed heuristic algorithm is then extended to erasure channels with memory in Section VII, where also a new layered algorithm is introduced. Section VIII presents the simulation results. Finally, Section IX concludes the paper.
\section{System Model}\label{SM}
The system model consists of a wireless sender that is required to deliver a block (denoted by $\mathcal N$) of
$N$ source packets to a set (denoted by $\mathcal M$) of $M$ receivers. Each receiver is interested in receiving all the packets of $\mathcal N$. The sender initially transmits the $N$ packets of the block uncoded in an \emph{initial transmission phase}. Each sent packet is subject to erasure at receiver $i$ with the probability $p_i,\; i\in \mathcal{M}$, which is assumed to be fixed during a block transmission period. Each receiver listens to all transmitted packets and feeds back a positive or negative acknowledgment (ACK or NAK) for each received or lost packet. At the end of the initial transmission phase, two ``feedback sets'' can be attributed to each receiver $i$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The Has set (denoted by $\mathcal H_i$) is defined as the set of packets correctly received by receiver $i$.
\item The Wants set (denoted by $\mathcal W_i$) is defined as the set of packets that are missed at receiver $i$ in the initial transmission phase of the current block. In other words $\mathcal W_i=\mathcal N\setminus \mathcal H_i$.
\end{enumerate}
The senders then stores this information in the \emph{state feedback matrix} (SFM) $\mathbf F=[f_{ij}], \forall i \in \mathcal M, j\in \mathcal N$ as:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:SFM}
f_{ij}= \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
0 & \quad j\in \mathcal H_i\\
1 & \quad j\in \mathcal W_i\\
\end{array} \right.
\end{eqnarray}
\Example{\emph{An example of SFM with $M=4$ receivers and $N=6$ packets is given as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:SFM_Example}
\mathbf F= \left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
\end{array}
\right)
\end{eqnarray}
In this example, $f_{11}=1$ denotes that packet 1 is missed at receiver 1, and $f_{21}=0$ denotes that packet 1 is correctly received at receiver 2.}}
After the initial transmission phase, a \emph{recovery transmission phase} starts, in which the sender exploits the
diversity of received and lost packets to transmit network coded combinations of the source packets. Note that we denote the Wants and Has sets of receiver $i$ at the start of the recovery transmission phase by $\mathcal W_i^s$ and $\mathcal H_i^s$, respectively. After each transmission, for each received/lost packet, the receivers send ACK/NAK to the sender. This information is then used by the sender to update the SFM. This process is repeated until all receivers obtain all packets. Similar two-phase transmission schemes have been widely considered in the literature for IDNC schemes \cite{sadeghi:shams:traskov:2010,sameh:valaee:globecom:2010,sorour:valaee:2010,sorour:valaee:arxiv:2012,comm_letter_2013, Le:Tehrani:Dimakis:Markopoulou:2013}.
Based on the Wants and Has sets information, in the recovery transmission phase, the transmitted coded packets can be one of the following options for each receiver $i$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Non-innovative packet: A packet is non-innovative for receiver $i$ if it contains no source packets from $\mathcal W_i$.
\item Instantly decodable packet: A packet is instantly decodable for receiver $i$ if it contains only one source packet from $\mathcal W_i$. The set of receivers for which the transmitted packet is instantly decodable packet are referred to as the \emph{targeted receivers}.
\item Non-instantly decodable packet: A packet is non-instantly decodable for receiver $i$ if it contains two or more source packets from $\mathcal W_i$.
\end{enumerate}
\Example{\emph{For the SFM in \eqref{eq:SFM_Example}, coded packet $1\oplus2$ is instantly decodable for all receivers as it consists of only one source packet from the Wants sets of all receivers. Thus, all receivers are targeted by this packet. However, packet $3\oplus4$ is only instantly decodable at receivers 1 and 4 (i.e. its targeted receivers are receivers 1 and 4). At receiver 2, packet $3\oplus4$ is non-instantly decodable, as it contains two source packets from receiver 2's Wants set. Furthermore, packet $3\oplus4$ is non-innovative at receiver 3 as it includes no source packet form receiver 3's Wants set.}}
We define the completion time and decoding delay similar to \cite{keller:drinea:fragouli:2008,sameh:valaee:globecom:2010,sadeghi:shams:traskov:2010,sorour:valaee:2010,sorour:valaee:arxiv:2012,Le:Tehrani:Dimakis:Markopoulou:2013} as follows:
\Definition {\emph{Individual completion time (ICT) of receiver $i$, denoted by $T_i^f$, is the total number of transmissions required so that receiver $i$ receives all its missing packets.} }
It should be noted that if receiver $i$ is targeted by one of its missing packets in all transmissions, in the absence of packet erasures, $T_i^f$ will be equal to the size of its Wants set at the start of the recovery transmission phase, i.e. $T_i^f=|\mathcal W_i^s|$.
\Definition {\emph{Overall completion time (OCT), denoted by $T^f$, is the number of transmissions required so that all the receivers receive all their missing packets. In other words, the OCT is equal to the maximum ICT across all the receivers.}}
\Definition {\emph{In time slot $t$, receiver $i$ with non-empty Wants set experiences one unit of decoding delay, i.e. $d_i^t=1$ , if it successfully receives a packet that is either non-innovative or non-instantly decodable. If receiver $i$ receives an instantly decodable packet it will not experience any decoding delay in this time-slot, i.e. $d_i^t=0$.}}
\Remark {Note that in this definition, we do not count channel inflicted delays due to erasures. The delay only counts ``algorithmic'' delays when we are not able to provide innovative and instantaneously decodable packets to a receiver.}
\Definition {\emph{In each time slot $t$, we define the accumulative decoding delay $D_i^t$ to represent the summation of the decoding delays experienced by receiver $i$ until time slot $t$. In other words, $D_i^t=\sum_{l=1}^{t} d_i^l$.}}
\section{IDNC Packet Generation}\label{PG}
In this paper, we adopt IDNC \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010,sorour:valaee:2010} as our NC transmission scheme. IDNC allows the sender to transmit a coded packet that includes at most one source packet from the Wants sets of the targeted receivers (either an appropriately selected subset or if possible all receivers). Thus, at the targeted receivers, the packet is instantly decodable. However, at the rest of the receivers (referred to as \emph{untargeted receivers}), the packet is either non-innovative or non-instantly decodable, if successfully received. Thus, the untargeted receivers will experience one unit increase of their accumulative decoding delay.
We start this section by first exploring all possible packet combinations that are instantly decodable by any subset or if possible all receivers. All the feasible packet combinations can be represented in the form of a graph model, which was first used in the context of IDNC in \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010,sorour:valaee:2010}. Then, we will briefly review the packet selection schemes in \cite{sorour:valaee:2010} and \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010} that were used to separately minimize IDNC's OCT and decoding delay, respectively.
As presented in \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010,sorour:valaee:2010}, the IDNC graph $\mathcal G(\mathcal V, \mathcal E)$ is constructed by first inducing a vertex $v_{ij}\in \mathcal V$ for each packet $j\in \mathcal W_i, \forall i\in \mathcal M$. In other words, any vertex $v_{ij}$ represents a wanted packet $j$ for receiver $i$. Two vertices $v_{ij}$ and $v_{kl}$ in $\mathcal V$ are connected by an edge $\mathcal E$ if any one of the following conditions is true:
\textbf{C1:} $j = l \Rightarrow$ The two vertices are induced by the loss of the same packet $j$ by two different receivers $i$ and $k$. An edge generated by this condition does not involve any combination, but expresses the interest of the two receivers in the same packet.
\textbf{C2:} $j \in \mathcal H_k \mbox{ and } l \in \mathcal H_i \Rightarrow$ The wanted packet corresponding to each vertex is in the Has set of the receiver of the other vertex. An edge generated by C2 represents a possible combination of packets $j$ and $l$ of the form $j\oplus L$ that will be instantly decodable for receivers $i$ and $k$.
Given the graph formulation, the set of all feasible packet combinations in IDNC can be expressed as the set of
packet combinations defined by all maximal cliques in $\mathcal G$ (a \emph{maximal clique} is a clique that is not a subset of any larger clique). Consequently, the sender can generate an IDNC packet for a given transmission by XORing all the packets identified by the vertices of a selected maximal clique in $\mathcal G$. Assuming that $\kappa$ is the selected maximal clique in $\mathcal G$, the targeted receivers of this clique are represented by $\mathcal T(\kappa)$.
The problem of minimizing the OCT of the IDNC scheme for broadcast erasure channels has been studied in \cite{sorour:valaee:2010} where it is shown that the expected ICT for receiver $i$, denoted by $\tau_i$, if addressed in all future transmissions, can be expressed as $\tau_i = \tfrac {|\mathcal{W}_i|} {(1-p_i)}$. Having the expected ICT of all receivers calculated, it is shown in \cite{sorour:valaee:2010} that an efficient policy for reducing the OCT should select maximal cliques that include the maximum number of vertices belonging to receivers having the largest $\tau_i$. In order to simplify such maximal cliques selection in the IDNC graph $\mathcal G$, the authors in \cite{sorour:valaee:2010} proposed a maximum weight vertex search algorithm, where the weights of vertices in $\mathcal{G}$ reflect the properties of their inducing receivers as follows. Let us define $a_{ij,kl}$ to be the adjacency indicator of vertices $v_{ij}$ and $v_{kl}$ in IDNC graph $\mathcal{G}$ such that:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:adjacency}
a_{ij,kl} =
\begin{cases}
1 \; \; \; & v_{ij} \; \; \text{is connected to}\; v_{kl} \; \text{in}\; \mathcal{G}, \\
0 \; \; \; & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Given the adjacency indicator, the weighted degree $\Delta_{ij}$ of vertex $v_{ij}$ in \cite{sorour:valaee:2010} is defined as $\Delta_{ij} = \sum_{\forall v_{kl} \in \mathcal{G}} a_{ij,kl} \tau_k$. Thus, the weight of vertex $ v_{ij}$ can be defined as $w_{ij} = \tau_i \; \Delta_{ij}$. This expression means that a vertex has a large weight when it both belongs to a receiver with large $\tau_i$ value and is connected to a large number of vertices having large $\tau_k$ values.
The problem of minimizing the decoding delay of IDNC scheme for broadcast erasure channels has been studied in \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010} where it is shown that an efficient policy for reducing decoding delay is selecting maximal cliques that include the maximum number of vertices belonging to receivers having high reception probabilities that are also connected to vertices with large reception probabilities (i.e. low erasure probabilities). Thus, the weight of vertex $v_{ij}$, $w_{ij}$, in \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010} is defined as $w_{ij}=\Delta_{ij}(1-p_i)$, where $\Delta_{ij}$ reflects the connection of vertex $v_{ij}$ to vertices having large reception probabilities and is defined in \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010} as $\Delta_{ij}=\sum_{\forall v_{kl}\in \mathcal G}a_{ij,kl}(1-p_k)$.
\Example{\emph{Let us again consider the SFM in \eqref{eq:SFM_Example}. By using the technique in \cite{sorour:valaee:2010} and assuming no packet erasure occurs during the recovery transmission phase, the completion time is minimized if the packets are coded as: $1\oplus 2$; 3; 6; 5 and 4. Here, the packets are coded in such a way that the receiver(s) with the largest Wants set (i.e. receiver 2 in this example) is addressed by one of its missing packets in each transmission. However, this requirement may limit the number of receivers that can be targeted and as a result may increase the decoding delay. Under this scheme, the OCT of the block transmission is equal to 5 and the average decoding delay experienced by the receivers is equal to 1.25. However, if the scheme in \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010} is adopted to minimize the decoding delay, the packets will be coded as: $1\oplus 2$; $3\oplus 4\oplus 5$; 6; 3; 4 and 5. In this scheme, in order to reduce the decoding delay, the maximum number of receivers should be targeted in each transmission. However, this may result in the receiver(s) with the largest Wants set to remain untargeted. Therefore, for this scheme, the OCT is equal to 6 and the average decoding delay experienced by the receivers is equal to 0.25. In this example, it can be easily seen that minimizing the OCT on its own may result in an increased decoding delay and also minimizing the decoding delay alone may result in an increased OCT of the transmission.}}
Unlike \cite{sorour:valaee:2010} and \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010}, in this study, our goal is to propose a new packet selection policy that can provide joint control of the OCT and decoding delay for IDNC schemes.
\section{Problem Formulation}
In this section, we present a holistic viewpoint of IDNC schemes in which the completion time and decoding delay are taken into account at the same time. By taking this viewpoint, we introduce a new IDNC scheme that offers an improved balance between the OCT and decoding delay performances, and at the same time provides a more uniform decoding delay experience across all receivers for the broadcast of $N$ packets. The key idea here is that the ICT of each receiver is not only determined by the number of its missing packets, but also the decoding delay that the respective receiver experiences. Furthermore, we note that the OCT of the IDNC transmission is equal to the maximum of ICTs. We will use this relationship between the OCT and decoding delay to design an IDNC scheme that provides a balance between these two performance metrics. The proposed scheme is then solved as an SSP problem.
Here, we first define $\mathbf W^s = [W_1^s, . . . , W_M^s]$ and $\mathbf H^s = [H_1^s, . . . , H_M^s]$ as the Wants and Has vectors, such that $W_i^s$ and $H_i^s$ are the cardinalities of Wants and Has sets at the start of recovery phase, $\mathcal W_i^s$ and $\mathcal H_i^s$, respectively. Furthermore, $\mathbf D^f=[D_1^f,...,D_M^f]$ is defined as the final accumulative decoding delay vector, where $D_i^f$ is the final accumulative decoding delay experienced by receiver $i$ (i.e. the accumulative decoding delay experienced by receiver $i$ until it receives all its missing packets).
The best possible performance of IDNC in terms of the OCT and decoding delay can be achieved if in every single transmission all the receivers with non-empty Wants sets are targeted. In this case, after each transmission, assuming that no erasure occurs, the remaining number of transmissions is reduced by one and the accumulative decoding delays experienced by the receivers are zero. Under this scenario, the ICT of each receiver is equal to the size of its initial Wants set, $W_i^s$, and the OCT of the system is equal to the maximum ICT of the receivers (the size of the largest initial Wants set, i.e. $\max_{i\in \mathcal M}\{W_i^s\}$). Furthermore $D_i^f=0, \forall i\in \mathcal M$.
However, since it is not always possible to target all the receivers with non-empty wants sets in every single transmission, due to instant decodability constraint, the receivers that are not targeted will experience a decoding delay, and thus, their ICTs will be increased by the value of their final accumulative decoding delay (i.e. the total number of the time-slots that they were not targeted). Therefore, we can write the ICT of receiver $i$, denoted by $T_i^f$, as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:indCT}
T_i^f=W_i^s+D_i^f, \quad i\in \mathcal M
\end{eqnarray}
As shown in \eqref{eq:indCT}, the ICT of each receiver depends on the size of its initial Wants set, $W_i^s$, and the final accumulative decoding delay it experiences, $D_i^f$. Having defined the receivers' ICTs, it can be easily inferred that OCT of the system is equal to the maximum ICT of the receivers, and can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:overallCD}
T^f=\max_{i\in \mathcal M} T_i^f=\max_{i\in \mathcal M}\{W_i^s+D_i^f\}
\end{eqnarray}
It is worth noting that based on \eqref{eq:indCT}, minimizing the decoding delay of receiver $i$ is equivalent to minimizing its ICT. Furthermore, based on \eqref{eq:overallCD}, minimizing the OCT is equivalent to minimizing the largest ICTs. Therefore, the problem of providing a balance between the decoding delay and OCT can be translated into balancing between $\min_{i\in \mathcal M}{T_i^f}$ and $\min \max_{i\in \mathcal M} {T_i^f}$ of the receivers.
In the next section, we will show that the packet selection problem that offers such balance between the OCT and decoding delay of the receivers for the IDNC can be formulated in the form of an SSP problem.
\subsection{Stochastic Shortest Path (SSP) Problem}\label{SSP_problem}
The SSP problem is a special case of an infinite horizon Markov decision process, which can model decision based stochastic dynamic systems with a terminating state. SSP problem was first used in the context of IDNC in \cite{sorour:valaee:arxiv:2012} in order to select the packet combinations that result in minimum completion time. In SSP problem, different possible situations that the system could encounter are modeled as states $s\in \mathcal S$ (where $\mathcal S$ denotes the state space of the SSP problem). In each state $s\in \mathcal S$, the system must select an action $a$ from an action space $\mathcal A(s)\subseteq \mathcal A$ that will charge it an immediate cost $c(s,a,s')$ ($\mathcal A$ denotes the action space of the SSP problem). In the general form, the cost of a transition from state $s$ to state $s'$ is modelled as a scalar that depends on $s$, the taken action $a$, and $s'$. Under this scenario, in the SSP formulation, the expected cost $\bar{c}(s,a)$ is calculated as $\bar{c}(s,a)=\sum_{s'\in \mathcal S}^{}{P_a(s,s')c(s,a,s')}$, where $P_a(s,s')$ represents the probability of system moving from state $s$ to state $s'$ once action $a$ is taken. The terminating condition of the system can be thus represented as a zero-cost \emph{absorbing goal state}.
An SSP policy $\pi = [\pi(s)]$ is a mapping from $\mathcal S\rightarrow \mathcal A$ that associates a given action to each of the states. The optimal policy $\pi^*$ of an SSP problem is the one that minimizes the cumulative mean cost until the goal state is reached.
The algorithms solving SSP problems define a value function $V_{\pi}(s)$ as the expected cumulative cost until absorption, when the system starts at state $s$ and follows policy $\pi$. It can be recursively expressed for all $s\in \mathcal S$ as:
\begin{equation}
V_{\pi}(s)=\bar{c}(s,\pi(s))+\sum_{s'\in \mathcal S(s,a)}P_{\pi(s)}(s,s')V_{\pi}(s'),
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal S(s,a)$ is the set of successor states to $s$ when action $a$ is taken (i.e. $\mathcal S(s,a)=\{s'|P_a(s,s')>0\}$) Consequently, the optimal policy at state $s$ can be defined for all $s\in \mathcal S$ as:
\begin{equation}
{\pi}^*(s)=\arg\min_{a\in \mathcal A(s)}{\{\bar{c}(s,a)+\sum_{s'\in \mathcal S(s,a)}P_a(s,s')V_{\pi^*}(s')\}}
\end{equation}
\ifCLASSOPTIONtwocolumn
\vspace{-1cm}
\fi
\subsection{Problem Formulation using SSP Technique}
In order to express the packet selection problem that improves the balance between the OCT and decoding delay of the system for IDNC in the form of an SSP problem, we need to define the following:
\subsubsection{State Space $\mathcal S$}
Each state $s$ can be characterized by its Has, Wants and the accumulative decoding delay vectors, $\mathbf H(s) = [H_1(s), . . . , H_M(s)]$, $\mathbf W(s) = [W_1(s), . . . , W_M(s)]$ and $\mathbf D(s)=[D_1(s),...,D_M(s)]$, respectively.
The values of $\mathbf W(s)$, $\mathbf H(s)$ and $\mathbf D(s)$ at the starting state of the recovery transmission phase, $s_s$, are represented by $\mathbf W(s_s) = [W_1(s_s), . . . ,W_M(s_s)]$, $\mathbf H(s_s) = [H_1(s_s), . . . , H_M(s_s)]$ and $\mathbf D(s_s)=[0,...,0]$, respectively, where $W_i(s_s)=W_i^s$ and $H_i(s_s)=H_i^s$, $\forall i\in \mathcal M$. Furthermore, we define the absorbing state, $s_a$, as the state in which all the receivers receive all their missing packets. In other words, the absorbing state is the final state of the recovery transmission phase in which $\mathbf W(s_a) = [0, . . . , 0]$. In addition, for each state $s$, we define $\mathcal M_w(s)$ to be the set of receivers who still need one or more packets. It is worth noting that the value of the accumulative decoding delay vector at the absorbing state; i.e. $\mathbf D(s_a)=[D_1(s_a),...,D_M(s_a)]$ where $D_i(s_a)=D_i^f$, $\forall i\in \mathcal M$; depends on the taken actions in all states prior to reaching the absorbing state.
\subsubsection{Action Spaces $\mathcal A(s)$}
For each state $s$, the action space $\mathcal A(s)$ consists of all possible maximal cliques in graph $\mathcal G(s)$ constructed from the SFM $\mathbf F(s)$ in state $s$. Defining $\mathcal C(s)$ as the set of maximal cliques in $\mathcal G(s)$, the cardinality of state $s$ action space, i.e. $|\mathcal A(s)|$, is equal to $|\mathcal C(s)|$.
\subsubsection{State-Action Transitions Probabilities}
Considering the fact that each state $s$ can be efficiently represented by the Wants sets and accumulative decoding delays of all receivers, here, we further define the \emph{state value} $U_i(s)$ for receiver $i$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:general_equal}
U_i(s)=W_i(s)+D_i(s)
\end{equation}
In a more general framework, this equation can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:general_lambda}
U_i(s)=\lambda W_i(s)+(1-\lambda)D_i(s),
\end{equation}
where the weight $\lambda$ can be designed for more control over OCT or decoding delay according to the system requirements.
In the rest of this paper, we assign equal weights to $W_i(s)$ and $D_i(s)$, and consider the state value of receiver $i$ to be of the form $U_i(s)=W_i(s)+D_i(s)$, except stated otherwise.
Furthermore, the \emph{state vector} for all receivers is defined as $\mathbf U(s)=[U_1(s),...,U_M(s)]$. Now, the state-action transition probability $P_a(s,s')$ for an action $a = \kappa(s)\in \mathcal C(s)$, can be defined based on the possibilities of the variations in $U_i(s)$ from state $s$ to state $s'$.
To define $P_a(s,s')$, here, we first introduce the following three sets:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal X=\{i\in \mathcal T(\kappa(s)) \mid U_i(s')<U_i(s)\}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal Y=\{i\in \mathcal M_w(s)\setminus T(\kappa(s)) \mid U_i(s')>U_i(s)\}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal Z=\{i\in \mathcal M_w(s)\mid U_i(s')=U_i(s)\}
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal M_w(s)$ denotes all the receivers with non-empty Wants sets at state $s$ and $\mathcal T(\kappa(s))$ represents the set of all the targeted receivers in the maximal clique $\kappa(s)$. Here, the first set consists of the receivers who have been targeted by the clique $\kappa(s)$ and their $U_i(s)$ have been decreased from state $s$ to state $s'$. This means that these receivers have successfully received an IDNC packet, which addressed them by one of their missing packets. Thus, the size of their Wants sets is reduced and their accumulative decoding delays are remained unchanged. The second set includes the receivers who have not been targeted but have successfully received the transmitted packet. In this case $U_i(s)$ is increased from state $s$ to state $s'$, since the Wants sets of these receivers have remained unchanged and their accumulative decoding delays have increased due to successfully receiving either a non-innovative or a non-instantly decodable packet. The third set includes the receivers who have not received any packet due to packet erasure and as a result, their Wants sets and accumulative decoding delays have remained unchanged, thus $U_i(s')=U_i(s)$. Based on the definitions of these three sets, $P_a(s,s')$ can be expressed as follows:
\begin{equation}
P_a(s,s')=\prod_{i\in \mathcal X}(1-p_i).\prod_{i\in \mathcal Y} (1-p_i).\prod_{i\in \mathcal Z} p_i
\end{equation}
\Example{\emph{Let us consider the following SFM with $M=2$ receivers and $N=4$ packets:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:SFM_example}
\mathbf F=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\end{eqnarray}
The state representation and action space for this SFM are depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:Possible_Transitions}. In this figure, the actions are represented by $a_i$, and action $a_i=j$ refers to the transmission of IDNC packet $j$. Furthermore, Figure~\ref{fig:Possible_Transitions} also shows the state-action transitions probabilities and their corresponding resulting states given that action $a_1$ is performed.}}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 4cm 0cm 2cm,scale=0.39]{Possible_Transitions.pdf}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\fi
\ifCLASSOPTIONtwocolumn
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 4cm 0cm 3cm,scale=0.29]{Possible_Transitions.pdf}
\fi
\caption{State representation, action space and the possible transitions for action $a_1$ of the example SFM in \eqref{eq:SFM_example}}
\label{fig:Possible_Transitions}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{State-Action Costs}
The best possible action is the action that addresses all the receivers with non-empty Wants sets at state $s$, denoted by $\mathcal M_w(s)$, by one of their missing packets. Under this scenario, assuming no erasure occurs, the Wants sets of all the receivers are reduced from state $s$ to state $s'$ and their accumulative decoding delays remain unchanged (i.e. $W_i(s')=W_i(s)-1$ and $D_i(s')=D_i(s), \forall i \in \mathcal M_w(s)$). In this case, for each receiver $i$ we will have $U_i(s')-U_i(s)=-1,\forall i\in \mathcal M_w(s)$. This is the best performance that can be achieved for an IDNC scheme.
Knowing that any transition (due to any action) takes one packet transmission, the cost of action $a$ on each receiver $i$ can be defined as $c_i(s,a,s')=1+(U_i(s')-U_i(s))$. This results in three possible cost values, i.e. $\{0,1,2\}$, associated with action $a$ on receiver $i$ that can be expressed as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item $C_i(s,a,s')=0$ means that action $a$ does not incur any cost on receiver $i$ in terms of its Wants set and accumulative decoding delay, if it successfully receives one of its missing packets. In this case, $U_i(s')-U_i(s)=-1$ and $c_i(s,a,s')=1+(U_i(s')-U_i(s))=1+(-1)=0$.
\item $c_i(s,a,s')=1$ means that receiver $i$ (targeted/untargeted) did not receive the coded packet due to packet erasure. In this case, there is no cost on the accumulative decoding delay, however, the Wants set of receiver $i$ remains unchanged, as no missing packet was decoded. Here, at least one more time-slot (one transmission) is required to be able to reduce the size of receiver $i$'s Wants set. Under this scenario, $U_i(s')-U_i(s)=0$ and $c_i(s,a,s')=1+(U_i(s')-U_i(s))=1+0=1$.
\item $c_i(s,a,s')=2$ means that receiver $i$ was not targeted by action $a$ and has successfully received either a non-instantly decodable or a non-innovative packet. In this case, there are costs on both the accumulative decoding delay and Wants set of receiver $i$, as it experiences an increase in its accumulative decoding delay and the size of its Wants set remains unchanged.
As a result $U_i(s')-U_i(s)=1$ and $c_i(s,a,s')=1+(U_i(s')-U_i(s))=1+1=2$.
\end{itemize}
Based on the above discussion, if receiver $i$ is targeted by action $a$, i.e. $i\in \mathcal T(a)$, the cost will be
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\begin{eqnarray}
c_i(s,a,s'|i\in\mathcal T(a))= \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
0 & \quad \text{with probability of $(1-p_i)$}\\
1 & \quad \text{with probability of $p_i$}\\
\end{array} \right.
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
\ifCLASSOPTIONtwocolumn
\begin{eqnarray}
c_i(s,a,s'|_{i\in\mathcal T(a)})= \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
0 & \quad \text{with prob. $(1-p_i)$}\\
1 & \quad \text{with prob. $p_i$}\\
\end{array} \right.
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
Thus, the expected cost given receiver $i$ is targeted by action $a$ can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
\bar{c}_i(s,a|i\in\mathcal T(a))=0\times(1-p_i)+1\times p_i=p_i
\end{equation}
However, if receiver $i$ is not targeted by action $a$, i.e. $i\notin \mathcal T(a)$, the cost will be
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\begin{eqnarray}
c_i(s,a,s'|i\notin\mathcal T(a))= \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
1 & \quad \text{with probability of $p_i$}\\
2 & \quad \text{with probability of $(1-p_i)$}\\
\end{array} \right.
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
\ifCLASSOPTIONtwocolumn
\begin{eqnarray}
c_i(s,a,s'|_{i\notin\mathcal T(a)})= \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
1 & \quad \text{with prob. $p_i$}\\
2 & \quad \text{with prob. $(1-p_i)$}\\
\end{array} \right.
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
Thus, the expected cost given receiver $i$ is not targeted by action $a$ can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
\bar{c}_i(s,a|i\notin\mathcal T(a))=1\times p_i+2\times (1-p_i)=2-p_i
\end{equation}
The total expected cost of action $a$ over all the receivers in $\mathcal M_w(s)$ can thus be defined as
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:cost}
\bar{c}(s,a)&=&{\sum_{i\in\mathcal M_w(s)}{\bar{c}_i(s,a|i\in\mathcal T(a))}+\sum_{i\in \mathcal M_w(s)}{\bar{c}_i(s,a|i\notin\mathcal T(a))}}\nonumber\\
&=&{\sum_{i\in\mathcal T(a)}{p_i}+\sum_{i\in \{\mathcal M_w(s)\setminus\mathcal T(a)\}}{(2-p_i)}}
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
\ifCLASSOPTIONtwocolumn
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:cost}
\bar{c}(s,a)&=&{\sum_{i\in\mathcal M_w(s)}{\bar{c}_i(s,a|_{i\in\mathcal T(a)})}+\sum_{i\in \mathcal M_w(s)}{\bar{c}_i(s,a|_{i\notin\mathcal T(a)})}}\nonumber\\
&=&{\sum_{i\in\mathcal T(a)}{p_i}+\sum_{i\in \{\mathcal M_w(s)\setminus\mathcal T(a)\}}{(2-p_i)}}
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
\subsubsection{Optimal Policy}
The optimal policy as presented in Section~\ref{SSP_problem} can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Optimalpolicy}
{\pi}^*(s)&=&\arg\min_{a\in \mathcal A(s)}{\{\bar{c}(s,a)+\sum_{s'\in \mathcal S(s,a)}P_a(s,s')V_{\pi^*}(s')\}}\nonumber\\
&=&\arg\min_{a\in \mathcal A(s)}{\{\bar{c}(s,a)+\mathbb E_a[V_{\pi^*}(s')]\}}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mathbb{E}_a$ is the expectation operator over different transmission probabilities when action $a$ is taken. Thus, the optimal action at state $s$ is the action that minimizes the cost as well as the expectation of the optimal value functions of the successor states.
However, solving this SSP problem is computationally complex and requires exhaustive iterative techniques \cite{nguyen:nguyen:2009}. Furthermore, there is no closed-form solution to this problem. Thus, instead of solving the SSP problem formulated in \eqref{eq:Optimalpolicy}, we can study its properties and structure to draw the characteristics of the optimal policy. To this end, we will study the geometric structure of the SSP solution in the context of the proposed IDNC scheme. In other words, our aim of the SSP formulation is not to use it as a solution, but to study its properties by the help of its geometric structure and find some guidelines for policies that can improve the balance between the OCT and decoding delay in IDNC systems. We then use these policies to design simple yet efficient heuristic algorithms in Section~\ref{sec:HeuristicAlg}.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 17.5cm 5cm 4.5cm, clip=true,scale=0.92]{Geometric_Structure.pdf}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\fi
\ifCLASSOPTIONtwocolumn
\includegraphics[trim=3cm 17.5cm 5cm 4.5cm, clip=true,scale=0.92]{Geometric_Structure.pdf}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\fi
\caption{Geometric Structure of SFM in \eqref{eq:SFM_example}}
\label{fig:Geometric_Structure}
\end{figure}
\section{Geometric Structure of the Problem}
In order to find some guidelines for the policies that can efficiently improve the balance between the OCT and decoding delay in IDNC systems, in this section, we study the geometric structure of the SSP problem. Given the representation of the SSP problem in each state $s$ by the state vector of the receivers $\mathbf U(s)=[U_1(s),...,U_M(s)]$, we can now explain the geometric structure of the problem as follows. First, we consider an $M$-dimensional Cartesian space, and assign to each point $\Delta=[\delta_1,...,\delta_M]$ in this space all the states that have the state vectors $\mathbf U(s)=[U_1(s),...,U_M(s)]$ equal to the coordination of this point. Although many states can have the same state vector, these states differ from one another by their SFMs. The absorbing state is the state for which all $W_i(s)=0, \forall i \in \mathcal M$. Under the special scenario where the accumulative decoding delays are zero, i.e. $D_i(s)=0, \forall i \in \mathcal M$, the absorbing state is located in the origin of the considered $M$-dimensional Cartesian space. However, in general, the decoding delays experienced by the receivers until arriving at the absorbing state can be non-zero positive integers, and consequently the absorbing point will not necessarily be located in the origin of the space.
After each transmission, if the packet is successfully received at a receiver, there are two possibilities, 1) it is instantly decodable, and thus $U_i(s')=U_i(s)-1$, 2) it is either non-instantly decodable or non-innovative, and thus $U_i(s')=U_i(s)+1$. However, if the packet is not received at the receiver, then $U_i(s')=U_i(s)$. Therefore, it can be easily concluded that the system can at most move from point $\Delta=\mathbf U(s)$ to another point $\Delta'=\mathbf U(s')$ which is a vertex in the hypercube $\Gamma(s)$ defined as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Hypercube}
\Gamma(s)=\{\Delta' | U_i(s')-U_i(s)\in \{-1,0,1\}, \forall i \in \mathcal M_w\}
\end{equation}
In other words, $\Gamma(s)$ is the hypercube of side length 1, in which $\mathbf U(s)$ and $\mathbf U(s')$ are two of the corners.
Here, we start with the geometric structure of the SSP problem in the erasure-free case and then extend it to the case with erasures.
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\fi
\subsection*{Case1: Erasure-free Case}
In the erasure-free case, since transmitted packets are always successfully received by the receivers, depending on the received packet being instantly decodable or not, we will have $U_i(s')=U_i(s)-1$ or $U_i(s')=U_i(s)+1$. Under this scenario, $\mathbf U(s)$ and $\mathbf U(s')$ are always two diagonal corners in the hypercube $\Gamma(s)$, i.e. $\Gamma(s)=\{\Delta' | U_i(s')-U_i(s)\in \{-1,1\}, \forall i \in \mathcal M_w\}$.
\subsubsection*{Subcase 1. There exists an action with zero total cost}
Under the erasure-free scenario, it can be shown that at any state $s$ choosing the action that transitions the system to the opposite diagonal point in the $M_w$-dimensional hypercube, for which $U_i(s')-U_i(s)=-1$ and thus $c_i(s,a)=0, \forall i \in \mathcal M_w$, would not adversely affect the optimality of future decisions. This is due to the fact that all packets in this action will be received by all receivers and therefore, they would not contribute to any future cost.
\Example{\emph{ Figure~\ref{fig:Geometric_Structure} illustrates the geometric structure of SFM in \eqref{eq:SFM_example}.
In this example, there exist three actions, actions $a_4,a_5$ and $a_6$, that target both receivers (i.e. for these actions $U_1(s')-U_1(s)=U_2(s')-U_2(s)=-1$), and thus their total costs are zero. Furthermore, these actions give the chance to the system to reach absorption with two more transmissions, which makes them optimal actions.}} \label{exm:subcase1}
However, such zero-cost actions do not always exist in most states, due to the instant decodability constraint. Consequently, we need a method to find efficient actions that provide an improved balance between the OCT and decoding delay.
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\vspace{-0cm}
\fi
\subsubsection*{Subcase 2. There does not exist an action with zero total cost}\label{sec:Subcase2}
In the absence of an action with zero total cost, in order to find efficient actions that provide an improved balance between the OCT and decoding delay, we consider the geometric structure in the following example.
\Example{\emph{Referring to the geometric structure of SFM in \eqref{eq:SFM_example}, as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:Geometric_Structure}, let us assume that the only available actions are actions $a_1, a_2$ and $a_3$. All these actions only target one receiver and thus, the untargeted receiver will experience a unit increase in its accumulative decoding delay. For these actions we have $c(a_1,s)=c(a_2,s)=c(a_3,s)=2$. Although these actions have equal costs and perform equally in terms of the decoding delay, but actions $a_1$ and $a_3$ are preferred over action $a_2$ in terms of OCT, as they target the receiver with the largest Wants set (i.e. receiver 1) and thus, bring the IDNC one step closer to block completion.
The superiority of actions $a_1$ and $a_3$ over action $a_2$ and their closeness to the absorption is shown through smaller geometric distance of point $[2, 3]$ from the origin (point $[0,0]$), compared to point $[4,1]$.}} \label{exm:subcase2}
It is worth noting that in the above example, the $L_2$ norm (Euclidian distance) is used to represent a state's closeness to the origin.
The above discussion can be summarized as the following remark.
\Remark {\textbf{{[Design Guidelines]}}{ Based on the studied geometric structure of the SSP problem, at any state $s$, the geometric distances of the actions' resulting points from the origin reflect the efficiency of those actions. In other words, the actions that bring the system closest to the origin result in reaching the completion faster with lower decoding delays. Furthermore, we can conclude that targeting the receiver with the maximum state value, i.e. minimizing the maximum entry of the state vector, brings the system closest to the origin faster. This is also reflected in the geometric distance of the destination points from the origin.}}\label{remark:guidelines}
Furthermore, it can also be easily inferred that having higher priorities for receivers with larger values of $U_i(s)=W_i(s)+D_i(s)$ can potentially result in a lower variance of the decoding delay experienced by the receivers in the system. It means that when the decoding delay of a receiver increases, the value of $U_i(s)$ also increases, and as a result of that the respective receiver will be given a higher priority. This can also be translated into improving the decoding delay fairness among the receivers while minimizing the OCT of the system. The simulation results on the variance of the decoding delay across all receivers are represented in Section~\ref{sec:results}.
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\fi
\subsection*{Case 2: Erasure Case}
Due to the nature of wireless broadcast systems and the fact that the SFM changes probabilistically after each transmission as a result of packet erasures, in this paper, we design the IDNC packet dynamically according to the received feedback in each time slot. Under this scenario, since the packet erasures are not known ahead of time, our approach is a greedy-based algorithm in which at each transmission based on the updated SFM, a single coded packet is designed (guided by Remark 2 above). It is worth noting that this greedy scheme does not necessarily result in a globally optimal policy stated in \eqref{eq:Optimalpolicy}.
For erasure channels, the effect of packet erasures should be reflected on the geometric structure of the problem. Let $i$ and $k$ be two receivers having the same Wants set size, but $p_i>p_k$. Consequently, receiver $i$ will require on average more targeting attempts compared to receiver $k$ in order to deplete its Wants set. Since we assume that erasure probabilities do not change during the transmission of a block, targeting receiver $k$ and ignoring receiver $i$ is expected to result in a higher OCT, especially when ${U}_i(s)$ is among the largest values in $\mathbf {U}(s)$. According to these facts and the above discussion in Subcase 2, receiver $i$ should be given a higher priority of service than receiver $k$.
In order to implement the above prioritization, we define a channel weighted Wants value as $\tilde W_i(s)=\frac {W_i(s)}{1-p_i}$, and consequently $\mathbf {\tilde U}(s)=[{\tilde U}_1(s),...,{\tilde U}_M(s)]$, where
\begin{equation}\label{eq:newV}
{\tilde U}_i(s)=\tilde W_i(s)+D_i(s)=\frac {W_i(s)}{1-p_i}+D_i(s)
\end{equation}
Based on this new vector definition, we can re-define our space such that the points $\Delta$ are identified by the coordinates of the vectors $\mathbf {\tilde U}(s)$ instead of $\mathbf {U}(s), \forall s \in \mathcal S$. In this case, the actions move the system within hyper-rectangles $\Gamma'(s)$ with sides either equal to 1 or $\frac{1}{1-p_i}$ in the $i$-th dimension. It means if an action results in an increase in the accumulative decoding delay, then $\tilde U_i(s')-\tilde U_i(s)=1$, however, if it addresses one of the receiver $i$'s missing packets, it leads to $\tilde U_i(s')-\tilde U_i(s)=-\frac{1}{1-p_i}$. Moreover, if receiver $i$ does not receive the packet due to erasure, then $\tilde U_i(s')-\tilde U_i(s)=0$. In other words:
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:Hypercubeerror}
\Gamma'(s)=\{\Delta' | \tilde U_i(s')-\tilde U_i(s)\in \{-\frac{1}{1-p_i},0,1\}, \forall i \in \mathcal M\}
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
\ifCLASSOPTIONtwocolumn
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Hypercubeerror}
\Gamma'(s)=\{\Delta' | \tilde U_i(s')-\tilde U_i(s)\in \{-\tfrac{1}{1-p_i},0,1\}, \forall i \in \mathcal M\}
\end{equation}
\fi
In the next section, by the help of the above-mentioned design guidelines, we will propose a heuristic packet selection algorithm.
\section{Heuristic Algorithm for Packet Selection}\label{sec:HeuristicAlg}
In this section, we propose a greedy algorithm to select the clique according to the findings in the previous section. We use $L_2$ norm here, but other norms are also possible. The proposed algorithm performs clique selection, using a maximum weight vertex search approach. For this search to be efficient in finding maximal cliques, the vertices' weights must not only reflect the $(\tilde U_i(s))^2$ values of their inducing receivers, but also their adjacency to the vertices with high $(\tilde U_k(s))^2$.
We then define the weighted degree of vertex $v_{ij}$, denoted by $\Theta_{ij}(s)$, as:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:weighted_degree}
\Theta_{ij}(s)=\sum_{\forall v_{ij}\in \mathcal G(s)}{a_{ij,kl}(\tilde U_k(s))^2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a_{ij,kl}$ was defined in \eqref{eq:adjacency}. Thus, a large weighted degree reflects its adjacency to a large number of vertices belonging to receivers with large values of $(\tilde U_k(s))^2$. We finally design the vertex weight $w_{ij}(s)$ for vertex $v_{ij}$ as:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:vertex_weight}
w_{ij}(s)= (\tilde U_i(s))^2\Theta_{ij}(s)
\end{eqnarray}
Consequently, a vertex has a high weight if it both belongs to a receiver with large $(\tilde U_i(s))^2$, and is connected to the receivers with large $(\tilde U_k(s))^2$ values.
Based on the above weight definition, we introduce our proposed packet selection algorithm as follows. In each state $s$, the algorithm starts by selecting the vertex with the maximum weight, denoted by $v^*$, and adds it to the clique $\kappa^*$. Note that at first, $\kappa^*$ is an empty set. Then at each following iteration, the algorithm first recomputes the new vertices' weights within the subgraph connected to all previously selected vertices in $\kappa^*$, denoted by $\mathcal G_{\kappa^*}(s)$, then adds the new vertex with the maximum weight to it. The algorithm stops when there is no further vertex connected to all vertices in $\kappa^*$. We refer to this algorithm as \emph{maximum weight vertex search algorithm} (MWVS). The proposed algorithm is summarized in Algorithm~\ref{alg:MWVS}.
\begin{algorithm}[th!]
\caption{Proposed MWVS Algorithm}
\label{alg:MWVS}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Initialize} $\kappa^*(s)=\varnothing$ \\
Construct $\mathcal G(s)$ based on $\mathbf F(s)$.
\item \textbf{While} $\mathcal G(\kappa^*(s))\neq \varnothing$ do\\
Compute $w_{ij}(s), \forall v_{ij} \in \mathcal G(\kappa^*(s))$ using \eqref{eq:adjacency}, \eqref{eq:weighted_degree} and \eqref{eq:vertex_weight}.\\
Select $v^*=\arg \max_{v_{kl}\in \mathcal G(\kappa^*(s))}{\{w_{kl}(s)\}}$.\\
Set $\kappa^*(s) \leftarrow \kappa^*(s) \cup v^*$.\\
Update subgraph $\mathcal G(\kappa^*(s)).$
\end{enumerate}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Heuristic Packet Selection Algorithm for Erasure Channels with Memory}
In this section, our goal is to extend our proposed MWVS scheme to the coded transmissions in erasure channels with memory. To model erasure channels with memory, we employ the well-known Gilbert-Elliott channel (GEC) \cite{sadeghi:Kennedy:Rapajic:Shams:08} which is a Markov model with a \emph{good} and a \emph{bad} state. When the channel is in the good state packets can be successfully received, and when the channel is in the bad state packets are lost (e.g., due to deep fades in the channel). The probability of moving from the good state $G$ to the bad state $B$ is $b\triangleq Pr(G \rightarrow B)$ and the probability of moving from the bad state $B$ to the good state $G$ is $g\triangleq Pr(B \rightarrow G)$. Steady-state probabilities are derived as $P_G\triangleq Pr(C_i = G) = \frac{g}{b + g}$ and $P_B \triangleq Pr(C_i = B) = \frac{b}{b + g}$, where $C_i$ is the channel state of receiver $i$ in the previous transmission. Here, without loss of generality, we assume that $0 < b = g \leq 0.5$, which results in equiprobable states in the steady-state regime. Other scenarios can be considered in a similar manner. Following \cite{sadeghi:Kennedy:Rapajic:Shams:08}, we define the memory content of the GEC as $0 \leq\mu = 1 - b - g < 1$, which signifies the persistence of the channel in remaining in the same state. A small $\mu$ means a channel with little memory and a large $\mu$ means a channel with large memory. We assume that different receivers' links are independent of each other with the same state transition probabilities.
\subsection{Maximum Weight Vertex Search Algorithm (MWVS) for Channels with Memory}\label{subsec:MWVSmemory}
Here, the proposed MWVS algorithm in Section~\ref{sec:HeuristicAlg} is modified so that it takes into account the channel memory conditions. In the modified framework, the positive or negative acknowledgment (ACK or NAK) that each receiver feeds back for each received or lost packet can be utilized to infer the channel state of that receiver in the previous transmission. The proposed MWVS algorithm in Section~\ref{sec:HeuristicAlg} can then be generalized for erasure channels with memory by defining the probability of successful reception by the receiver $i$ as the probability of moving to the good state $G$ in the current time-slot from its previous state $C_i$, i.e. $Pr(C_i\rightarrow G)$. So the proposed MWVS algorithm can be easily implemented in erasure channels with memory by replacing $1-p_i$ with $Pr(C_i\rightarrow G)$ in \eqref{eq:newV} as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:newVmemory}
{\tilde U}_i(s)=\frac {W_i(s)}{Pr(C_i\rightarrow G)}+D_i(s)
\end{equation}
In other words, the weight of each vertex in \eqref{eq:vertex_weight} can now be recalculated based on the conditional reception probability of its inducing receiver, given its previous state, as
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:vertex_weight_memory}
w_{ij}(s)= (\tilde U_i(s))^2\Theta_{i,j}(s)=(\frac {W_i(s)}{Pr(C_i\rightarrow G)}+D_i(s))^2\Theta_{i,j}(s)
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
\ifCLASSOPTIONtwocolumn
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:vertex_weight_memory}
w_{ij}(s)&=& (\tilde U_i(s))^2\Theta_{i,j}(s)\nonumber\\
&=&[\frac {W_i(s)}{Pr(C_i\rightarrow G)}+D_i(s)]^2\Theta_{i,j}(s)
\end{eqnarray}
\fi
However, for erasure channels with strong memory, the receivers have a strong tendency to stay in their previous states. It means if they have been in state $G$ in the previous time-slot, they are most likely to stay in state $G$ in the current time-slot, and vice versa, if they have been in state $B$, they are most likely to stay in state $B$. Under this case, for the receivers in state B, $Pr(B\rightarrow G)$ will be very small and as a result the term $\frac {W_i(s)}{Pr(C_i\rightarrow G)}$ in \eqref{eq:vertex_weight_memory} will be large. Consequently, high weights will be given to the receivers that have been in state $B$ in the previous transmission (also referred to as \emph{bad-channel receivers} (BCR)). But it should be noted that targeting the BCRs most likely would not result in any decoding for them, as with a very high probability their channels will remain in state $B$ in the current transmission. However, addressing the receivers that were in sate $G$ in the previous transmission (also referred to as \emph{good-channel receivers} (GCR)) can potentially result in the decoding of their missing packets. Inspired by these scenarios, in the next sub-section, we will introduce a \emph{layered maximum weight vertex search algorithm} (referred to as MWVS-Layered), which is specifically designed for erasure channels with persistent memory.
\subsection{Layered Maximum Weight Vertex Search Algorithm (MWVS-Layered)}
Here, our goal is to extend the proposed MWVS algorithm in Section~\ref{subsec:MWVSmemory} for erasure channels with persistent memory. In order to do so, we follow the same approach as in \cite{sameh:Neda:Parastoo:VTC:2013}. The proposed algorithm comprises two different layers of subgraphs. The first layer of subgraph, $\mathcal G_g(s)\subseteq \mathcal G(s)$, consists of vertices of GCRs. In the first step, the MWVS algorithm is applied on the subgraph $\mathcal G_g(s)$, and $\kappa^*_g(s)$ is obtained. Then, in the second step, the algorithm finds $\kappa^*_b(s)$ by applying the MWVS algorithm another time on the second layer of subgraph, $\mathcal G_b(s)$, consisting of BCRs that are adjacent to all the vertices of the chosen clique $\kappa^*_g(s)$. Thus, the final clique can be obtained by the union of the cliques from the two layers as $\kappa^*(s)=\kappa^*_g(s)\cup \kappa^*_b(s)$. The steps of MWVS-Layered algorithm are summarized in Algorithm~\ref{alg:LMWVS}.
\begin{algorithm}[th!]
\caption{Proposed MWVS-Layered Algorithm}
\label{alg:LMWVS}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \textbf{Initialize} $\kappa^*_g(s)=\varnothing$ and $\kappa^*_b(s)=\varnothing$\\
Construct $\mathcal G(s)$ based on $\mathbf F(s)$.\\
Form $\mathcal G_g(s)$ and $\mathcal G_b(s)$ according to the channels' previous states $C_i,\forall i\in \mathcal M$.
\item \textbf{While} $\mathcal G_g(\kappa^*_g(s))\neq \varnothing$ do\\
Compute $w_{ij}(s), \forall v_{ij} \in \mathcal G_g(\kappa^*_g(s))$ using \eqref{eq:adjacency}, \eqref{eq:weighted_degree} and \eqref{eq:vertex_weight_memory}.\\
Select $v^*=\arg \max_{v_{kl}\in \mathcal G_g(\kappa^*_g(s))}{\{w_{kl}(s)\}}$.\\
Set $\kappa^*_g(s) \leftarrow \kappa^*_g(s) \cup v^*$.\\
Update subgraphs $\mathcal G_g(\kappa^*_g(s))$ and $\mathcal G_b(\kappa^*_b(s))$.
\item \textbf{While} $\mathcal G_b(\kappa^*_b(s))\neq \varnothing$ do\\
Compute $w_{ij}(s), \forall v_{ij} \in \mathcal G_b(\kappa^*_b(s))$ using \eqref{eq:vertex_weight_memory}.\\
Select $v^*=\arg \max_{v_{kl}\in \mathcal G_b(\kappa^*_b(s))}{\{w_{kl}(s)\}}$.\\
Set $\kappa^*_b(s) \leftarrow \kappa^*_b(s) \cup v^*$.\\
Update subgraph $\mathcal G_b(\kappa^*_b(s))$.
\item $\kappa^*(s)=\kappa^*_g(s)\cup \kappa^*_b(s)$
\end{enumerate}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Simulation Results}\label{sec:results}
In this section, we present the simulation results comparing the performance of our proposed MWVS and MWVS-Layered algorithms and the schemes in \cite{sorour:valaee:2010,sameh:valaee:globecom:2010,sameh:Neda:Parastoo:VTC:2013} over a wide range of channel memory conditions. Furthermore, as our benchmark for the minimum OCT performance, we will compare the OCT of our proposed MWVS and MWVS-Layered algorithms with the RLNC scheme.
We start with our simulation results for memoryless erasure channels and compare the performance of our proposed MWVS algorithm with the schemes in \cite{sorour:valaee:2010} and \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010}, denoted by ``Min-OCT'' and ``Min-DD'', respectively.
Furthermore, we have simulated the proposed scheme for $\lambda=0$ and $1$, denoted by ``MWVS ($\lambda=0$)" and ``MWVS ($\lambda=1$)", respectively. $\lambda=0$ corresponds to the case that the objective of the proposed scheme is to reduce the accumulative decoding delay and $\lambda=1$ corresponds to the case where the objective of the proposed scheme is to reduce the OCT of the system in each time slot. The simulation results of the proposed MWVS algorithm when equal weights are assigned to $W_i(s)$ and $D_i(s)$, as in \eqref{eq:general_equal}, are denoted by ``MWVS".
In our simulations for the broadcast memoryless erasure channels, we assume that packet erasures of different receivers change from block to block in the range $[0.05, 0.3]$ with an average equal to 0.15. The simulations are performed for different number of packets and receivers in the system. It should be noted that the presented simulation results in this section are the mean values, i.e. the OCT results show the average OCT of the transmission of $N$ packets over 500 instances of SFM. In terms of the decoding delay, the mean decoding delay of different receivers are computed per block, and then these mean decoding delays are averaged over 500 instances of SFM. Hence, the decoding delay results are actually the mean of mean decoding delays.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[trim=0cm 7cm 0cm 7cm, clip=true, width=0.48\linewidth]{OCT_DD_Tradeoff_Packets.pdf}}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[trim=0cm 7cm 0cm 7cm, clip=true, width=0.48\linewidth]{OCT_DD_Tradeoff_Receivers.pdf}}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\fi
\ifCLASSOPTIONtwocolumn
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[trim=0cm 6cm 0cm 6.5cm, clip=true, width=1\linewidth]{OCT_DD_Tradeoff_Packets.pdf}}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[trim=0cm 6cm 0cm 6.5cm, clip=true, width=1\linewidth]{OCT_DD_Tradeoff_Receivers.pdf}}
\fi
\caption{OCT versus Decoding delay (a) for different number of packets $N$ and $M=30$ receivers, and (b) for different number of receivers $M$ and $N=30$ packets}
\label{fig:OCTvsDD}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbhp]
\centering
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 5.5cm 0cm 7cm, clip=true,width=0.48\linewidth]{VarDDvsK.pdf}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\fi
\ifCLASSOPTIONtwocolumn
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 5.5cm 0cm 6.5cm, clip=true,width=1\linewidth]{VarDDvsK.pdf}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\fi
\caption{Variance of the decoding delay versus number of packets $N$ for $M=30$ receivers}
\label{fig:VarDDvsK}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:OCTvsDD}(a) depicts the OCT and decoding delay tradeoff curves of different algorithms for various number of packets $N$ for $M=30$ receivers. Moreover, the OCT and decoding delay tradeoff curves of these algorithms for various number of receivers $M$ for $N=30$ packets is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:OCTvsDD}(b).
From these figures, we first observe that the Min-OCT algorithm in \cite{sorour:valaee:2010} that achieves the minimum OCT among the IDNC schemes in Figures~\ref{fig:OCTvsDD}(a) and \ref{fig:OCTvsDD}(b), results in the worst decoding delay performance, and the Min-DD algorithm in \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010} that achieves the minimum decoding delay performance, results in the worst OCT performance. However, in these figures it is shown that our proposed MWVS algorithm provides an improved balance between the OCT and decoding delay for the whole range of number of packets and receivers. Furthermore, as it was expected, we observe that the performance of the proposed MWVS algorithm with $\lambda=1$ is the same as the performance of Min-OCT algorithm proposed in \cite{sorour:valaee:2010}. Also, it can be seen that the performance of the proposed algorithm with $\lambda=0$ is very close to the performance of the Min-DD algorithm proposed in \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010}. However, it is worth noting that the proposed MWVS algorithm when $\lambda=0$ aims to reduce the accumulative decoding delay (defined in Definition 4), while the Min-DD algorithm in \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010} aims to reduce the decoding delay in each time-slot (defined in Definition 3).
Figure~\ref{fig:VarDDvsK} illustrates the variance of the decoding delay versus the number of packets $N$ for $M=30$ receivers. From this figure, it can be seen that our proposed MWVS algorithm significantly outperforms the other algorithms in terms of the variance of the decoding delay. This can be translated into a better fairness in the decoding delay experienced by different receivers.
For erasure channels with memory, the full graph search and the layered graph search algorithms proposed in \cite{sameh:Neda:Parastoo:VTC:2013} are used as our reference for the minimum decoding delay performance. These algorithms are denoted by ``Min-DD'' and ``Min-DD-Layered'' in the figures, respectively.
As our reference for the minimum OCT performance for erasure channels with memory, we have modified the algorithm in \cite{sorour:valaee:2010} to become channel memory aware by replacing the probability of successful reception at receiver $i$ with $Pr(C_i\rightarrow G)$. We refer to this scheme as ``Min-OCT''. Furthermore, we have extended this scheme to a two-layered algorithm, where the first layer consists of GCRs and the second layer consists of BCRs. In the first step, the algorithm is applied on the first layer and a clique of GCRs is obtained. Then, in the second step, the algorithm is applied to the second layer and a clique of BCRs that are adjacent to all the vertices of the chosen clique of GCRs is found. Then, the final clique is obtained by the union of the cliques from the two layers. In our simulation results, this scheme is referred to as ``Min-OCT-Layered''.
For the broadcast erasure channels with memory, we assume $b_i=g_i=b$ for all the receivers, and the channel memory, $\mu=1-b-g=1-2b$, ranges from 0 (memoryless) to 0.98 (very persistent memory). The simulation results are provided for a wide range of channel memory contents as well as different number of packets and receivers.
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[trim=0cm 7cm 0cm 7cm, clip=true, width=0.48\linewidth]{CDvsMemory_zero_to_zeropointeight.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[trim=0cm 7cm 0cm 7cm, clip=true, width=0.48\linewidth]{CDvsMemory_zeropointeight_to_one.pdf}}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\fi
\ifCLASSOPTIONtwocolumn
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[trim=0cm 6cm 0cm 6.5cm, clip=true, width=1\linewidth]{CDvsMemory_zero_to_zeropointeight.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[trim=0cm 6cm 0cm 6.5cm, clip=true, width=1\linewidth]{CDvsMemory_zeropointeight_to_one.pdf}}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\fi
\caption{OCT versus channel memory for $N=M=30$ packets and receivers, (a) $0\leq\mu\leq 0.8$, (b) $0.8\leq\mu\leq 0.98$}
\label{fig:CDvsMemory}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[tbp]
\centering
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 5.5cm 0cm 7cm, clip=true, width=0.48\linewidth]{DDvsMemory.pdf}
\fi
\ifCLASSOPTIONtwocolumn
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 5.5cm 0cm 7cm, clip=true, width=1\linewidth]{DDvsMemory.pdf}
\fi
\caption{Decoding delay versus channel memory for $N=M=30$ packets and receivers}
\label{fig:DDvsMemory}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\ifCLASSOPTIONonecolumn
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[trim=0cm 7cm 0cm 7cm, clip=true, width=0.48\linewidth]{OCT_DD_memoryzeropointsix_packets.pdf}}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[trim=0cm 7cm 0cm 7cm, clip=true, width=0.48\linewidth]{VarDDvsKMemoryzeropointsix}}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\fi
\ifCLASSOPTIONtwocolumn
\includegraphics[trim=0cm 6cm 0cm 6.5cm, clip=true, width=0.95\linewidth]{OCT_DD_memoryzeropointsix_packets.pdf}
\fi
\caption{OCT versus Decoding delay for different number of packets $N$ for channel memory $\mu =0.6$ and $M=30$ receivers}
\label{fig:Memoryzeropointsix}
\end{figure}
Figures~\ref{fig:CDvsMemory}(a) and \ref{fig:CDvsMemory}(b) illustrate the OCT of the receivers versus channel memory for $N=M=30$ packets and receivers, respectively. As can be seen from these figures, for low channel memory content (roughly ranging from 0 to 0.45), the full graph algorithms outperform their layered graph counterparts in terms of OCT. However, when the memory content of the channel is high (roughly ranging from 0.45-0.98), the layered graph techniques significantly outperform their full graph counterparts. The mean decoding delay performance versus channel memory is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:DDvsMemory}. From this figure we can see that in terms of the decoding delay, the Min-DD algorithm outperforms the Min-DD-Layered for memory content ranging from 0 to 0.5, while the Min-DD-Layered outperforms Min-DD for higher channel memory contents (ranging from 0.5 to 0.98). For all the other investigated schemes, the layered graph techniques always result in lower decoding delays compared to their full graph counterparts. This is due to the fact that in the layered graph techniques, the priority is always given to the GCRs to be addressed by one of their missing packets, and as shown in \cite{sameh:valaee:globecom:2010} giving higher priorities to the receivers with higher probabilities of successful reception improves the decoding delay experienced by the receivers. Furthermore, as shown in these figures, the proposed MWVS-Layered scheme provides a better balance between the OCT and decoding delay for the whole range of channel memory content.
Figure~\ref{fig:Memoryzeropointsix} shows the OCT and decoding delay tradeoff curves of the system for different number of packets $N$ for channel memory $\mu=0.6$ and $M=30$. The results show that for $\mu=0.6$ the layered graph techniques outperform their full graph counterparts. Again it can be seen that the Min-OCT-Layered algorithm that achieves the lowest OCT among the IDNC schemes results in the worst mean decoding delay among the layered graph algorithms, and the Min-DD-Layered algorithm that achieves the lowest decoding delay results in the worst OCT. However, for $\mu=0.6$ as we expected, the proposed MWVS-Layered algorithm results in an improved balance between the OCT and decoding delay.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, we proposed a new holistic viewpoint of instantly decodable network coding (IDNC) schemes that simultaneously takes into account both the overall completion time (OCT) and decoding delay and improves the balance between these two performance metrics for broadcast transmission over erasure channels with a wide range of memory conditions. We formulated the optimal packet selection for such systems using an SSP technique. However, since solving the SSP problem in the proposed scheme is computationally complex, we further proposed two different heuristic algorithms that each improves this balance between the OCT and decoding delay for a specific range of channel memory conditions. Furthermore, it was shown that the proposed scheme offers a more uniform decoding delay experience across all receivers. Extensive simulations were conducted to assess the performance of the proposed algorithms compared to the best known existing algorithms in the literature. The simulation results show that our proposed algorithms achieve an improved balance between the OCT and decoding delay.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.